"JC" wrote in message
...

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 1:33 pm, "TomCat" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

...





Harry K wrote in
news:8969eafc-3fa4-4a92-bb75-
:

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which
follows.
To view this item online, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59503

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Shopper pulls gun, stops robbery cold
Held suspect at grocery store until police officers arrived

A grocery store customer in Indianapolis is being credited with
halting
an armed robbery by pulling his own weapon and pointing it at the
assailant until police arrived.

According to a report in the Indianapolis Star, Charlie Merrell, 51,
was
in a checkout line at a grocery store called Bucks IGA on the city's
south side when a "masked man jumped a nearby counter and held a gun
on
a store employee."

The police report cited by the newspaper said the incident happened
at
5:17 in the afternoon Monday as Merrell was doing some year-end
shopping.

"While the suspect was demanding cash from the workers," according to
the police report, "Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the
robber and ordered him to put down his weapon."

The newspaper noted that Officer Jason Bockting, in his documentation
of
the incident, said when the suspect seemed to hesitate, "Merrell
racked
the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber."

YIKES!

At that point, the report said, "the suspect placed his gun and a bag
of
cash on the counter, dropping some of the money . the suspect removed
his mask and lay on the floor."

Merrill, meanwhile, held the suspect at gunpoint until officers
arrived
and took him away in handcuffs.

Police reported Merrell had a valid permit to carry the handgun, and
they recovered an unloaded .380-caliber handgun and $779 cash from
the
suspect.

Police records show Dwain Smith, 19, was being held in the Marion
County
Jail on a bond of $30,000 on initial charges of robbery, criminal
confinement, pointing a firearm, battery and carrying a handgun
without
a license.

-------------------------------------------------
Outstanding that the robbery was stopped by a CCW person.

That person needs a bit of instructions on using a weapon for such
things.

What was he doing pointing an unloaded weapon at the robber?

Insanity.He probably realized it after he drew....

Lesson#1 - never point a gun at someone unless you plan to use it.

My first thought when reading this was that everyone there was lucky.
Had the robber's gun been loaded I can see an entirely different
ending.

Harry K

Harry K

I recall reading about a customer in a similar situation who drew his
concealed handgun and yelled "halt" to stop a robber,and the robber
spun
and shot him dead.

Darwin Award.

A gun alone doesn't guarantee tactical superiority of a situation.

To quote Kenny Rogers

"You gotta know when to hold em,
know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away,
and know when to run

Now evry gambler knows that the secret to survivin
Is knowin what to throw away and knowin what to keep.
cause evry hands a winner and evry hands a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep"

a civilian CCW holder pulling a gun on a robbery,
that doesn't involve them directly - is rolling the
dice - (tactically speaking).

may turn out fine, may not.

and what the hell does all this have to do with
home repair ???????- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what the hell does all this have to do with home repair?

I put it right up there with all the "Cheap Brand Jewelry" crap on here.

Is it tough being a genius?

I mean, with a subject line like "CCW stops robbery ... lucky!", I can see
how a person of your IQ would confuse it with a thread about home repair and
continue to read on and be confused.

Steve

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JC wrote:

I don't see anything in the article that indicates that his weapon was
unloaded. Many times I will rack just to make sure. So, perhaps he
ejected one while injecting another. Maybe he racked for effect. Lots
of ifs and maybes here. Anyhow, all's well that ends well.

I never carry with a live round in the chamber. It's a safety thing. If I
have to deploy, I would be racking and removing the safety.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

All my CCW weapons are carried with a live round in the chamber. Why on
earth would one NOT have a live round in the chamber? Modern weapons have
new designs where they will not discharge if dropped on the hammer. On
older weapons, that was why it was carried on a dry hole. With some
semiautos, it takes quite a bit of effort to load the first shell. And a
bit of time, too, which could make all the difference. I carry my semi-auto
with one in the chamber, hammer down, with 17 behind it. It takes a full
trigger squeeze to fire the first round, and then it will shoot as fast as
you can pull the trigger.

Carrying on empty? What do you do, say wait a minute while I load?

Steve

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...
Dave Bugg wrote:
I never carry with a live round in the chamber. It's a safety thing. If I
have to deploy, I would be racking and removing the safety.


It depends on what you carry. I have a Kel-Tec P11 in 9mm that has no
safety at all and I carry it with one round up the snout. The P11 has
about a 10 pound trigger and there's no way you'll ever accidentally pop
off a round, even with adrenalin coursing through your system. It will
take an active decision to shoot. And even if the pistol were to jam (it
doesn't) I know I'd get at least the first round off without incident.
And then I have 10 more rounds if I need them....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

I've got the KelTec 3AT, and consider it very safe for the same reasons.

Steve

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

SteveB wrote:
Carrying on empty? What do you do, say wait a minute while I load?

A minute? I'm racking as I'm clearing my holster. If it takes you a
minute to make a simple movement then it makes sense for you to carry
with a round in the chamber. Personal choice in the way anyone chooses
to carry is just that....personal choice. I'd appreciate it if those
who choose to do it differently than I do to knock off the criticism
and be happy with their own choices.

racking as you clear the holster sounds like a good way to have an
accidental discharge. ever hear the term "slam-fire"?

it also requires you have both hands free.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

SteveB wrote:
Carrying on empty? What do you do, say wait a minute while I load?

A minute? I'm racking as I'm clearing my holster. If it takes you a
minute to make a simple movement then it makes sense for you to carry
with a round in the chamber. Personal choice in the way anyone chooses
to carry is just that....personal choice. I'd appreciate it if those
who choose to do it differently than I do to knock off the criticism
and be happy with their own choices.

racking as you clear the holster sounds like a good way to have an
accidental discharge. ever hear the term "slam-fire"?

it also requires you have both hands free.

Jim Yanik


Chuck Taylor and Massad Ayoob both disagree with your theory. You should
learn how to do it right. Until then, you should contain your defective
theory.

I have my own opinions about things, but rarely participate in OT stuff
here, partly because I don't want to encourage OT threads, and partly
because I'm not all that interested in arguing with people who are too
stupid to see things my way. (you can imagine a smily emoticon here if
it makes you feel better.)

That said, here I am. When I think about the things that could have gone
wrong in that scenario, I think, I would not have pulled a gun. It seems
it was a simple robbery, and that no lives were directly in jeopardy.

A responsibility of gun owners is to decide *in advance* how they will
respond to various hypothetical situations. I wonder whether the
so-called hero of the story did that. If not, why not? If so, why did he
think it was a good idea, in a store full of innocent people, to play
the hero role to save a few hundred dollars of the store's money?

If the robber had done anything other than comply with the directive to
put the weapon down, things could have gotten very ugly very quickly,
with no real assurance that the bad guy is the one, or the only one, who
would have gotten perforated.

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

SteveB wrote:
Carrying on empty? What do you do, say wait a minute while I load?

A minute? I'm racking as I'm clearing my holster. If it takes you a
minute to make a simple movement then it makes sense for you to carry
with a round in the chamber. Personal choice in the way anyone
chooses to carry is just that....personal choice. I'd appreciate it
if those who choose to do it differently than I do to knock off the
criticism and be happy with their own choices.

racking as you clear the holster sounds like a good way to have an
accidental discharge. ever hear the term "slam-fire"?

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it mine.
Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike nanny
government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Did you ever carry a revolver? If yes, did you leave one hole in the
cylinder empty?

What purpose would that serve?..........

To increase you odds at Russian roulette?


Read the 2-3 messages before this one. Things will either make sense, or
they won't.

Do you even know how a revolver works?. Please explain any advantage
to having one chamber empty.


You never saw me suggest there was an advantage to doing that. If you
disagree, please point out the text which you believe represents the idea
you're suggesting.

And yes, I own two revolvers.

Your mere comment suggests that there may be a reason to leave a
chamber empty. There must be a reason. You mentioned it. Were you
being satirical?

In article , jJim McLaughlin wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP


I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.


You might want to think about that. Incident was in Indiana, IIRC, not
Texas.

Not a problem. Indiana law allows the use of deadly force not only in
self-defense, but in the defense of others also.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JC" wrote:


I don't see anything in the article that indicates that his weapon
was unloaded. Many times I will rack just to make sure. So, perhaps
he ejected one while injecting another. Maybe he racked for effect.
Lots of ifs and maybes here. Anyhow, all's well that ends well.

The robber's weapon was unloaded.

Quote;
The newspaper noted that Officer Jason Bockting, in his documentation
of
the incident, said when the suspect seemed to hesitate, "Merrell
racked
the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber."

endquote

"to load a round in the chamber";not "load another round".
Sounds empty to me.

When I was doing my quals training as a reserve deputy in the late
70s, unloaded was generally nothing at all in the firearm. Not having a
round in the chamber was scoffed at in this context, probably less so in
a civilian, but was still considered loaded. Don't know if usage has
changed any in the meantime.



Merrell could easily have been shot while racking the slide.
that is an "effect"....not a good one,though.

I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.

Two in the torso, one in the head. You are now safe and the bad guy
is now dead.

In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:


The robber was trying to steal money so he could hire a contractor to
fix his house. D*mn, those guys charge a lot these days!

Yep. Robbers still, just not armed (g)

In article ,
jJim McLaughlin wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP


I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.


You might want to think about that. Incident was in Indiana, IIRC, not
Texas.

Indiana is similar, as far as I know. What part do you think would
have been different in IN?

wrote:
Do you even know how a revolver works?. Please explain any advantage
to having one chamber empty.



On older revolvers it is possible for the gun to go off if you drop it on the
floor just right. If you carry the hammer down on an empty chamber, it can't
happen. When you pull the trigger or cock the hammer, the cylinder turns and
parks a loaded chamber in front of the hammer, ready to go.

That's the reason. Some people do it; most probably don't bother. Personally,
I've never dropped a firearm. And back when I carried a Colt Govt. model .45, I
carried it cocked and locked. As for revolvers, I've never carried one for
personal defense.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

wrote in message
...

Did you ever carry a revolver? If yes, did you leave one hole in the
cylinder empty?

What purpose would that serve?..........

To increase you odds at Russian roulette?


Read the 2-3 messages before this one. Things will either make sense, or
they won't.

Do you even know how a revolver works?. Please explain any advantage
to having one chamber empty.


You never saw me suggest there was an advantage to doing that. If you
disagree, please point out the text which you believe represents the idea
you're suggesting.

And yes, I own two revolvers.


Your mere comment suggests that there may be a reason to leave a
chamber empty. There must be a reason. You mentioned it. Were you
being satirical?

Yep.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JC" wrote:


I don't see anything in the article that indicates that his weapon
was unloaded. Many times I will rack just to make sure. So, perhaps
he ejected one while injecting another. Maybe he racked for effect.
Lots of ifs and maybes here. Anyhow, all's well that ends well.

The robber's weapon was unloaded.

Quote;
The newspaper noted that Officer Jason Bockting, in his documentation
of
the incident, said when the suspect seemed to hesitate, "Merrell
racked
the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber."

endquote

"to load a round in the chamber";not "load another round".
Sounds empty to me.

When I was doing my quals training as a reserve deputy in the late
70s, unloaded was generally nothing at all in the firearm. Not having a
round in the chamber was scoffed at in this context, probably less so in
a civilian, but was still considered loaded. Don't know if usage has
changed any in the meantime.



Merrell could easily have been shot while racking the slide.
that is an "effect"....not a good one,though.

I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.

Two in the torso, one in the head. You are now safe and the bad guy
is now dead.


You know what's funny, though? I've noticed in the news that a lot of
people who get shot in the face are described as having non life threatening
injuries. Of course, that's all the info we get, so we don't know what
caliber they were shot with.

Still, it's strange.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



You know what's funny, though? I've noticed in the news that a lot of
people who get shot in the face are described as having non life threatening
injuries. Of course, that's all the info we get, so we don't know what
caliber they were shot with.

Still, it's strange.

That is the cop's mantra, although that is new from my time. Two in
body mass, hopefully the heart, one in the head (not face) in case body
armor is involved, as it is more and more. In that order.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

SteveB wrote:
Carrying on empty? What do you do, say wait a minute while I load?

A minute? I'm racking as I'm clearing my holster. If it takes you a
minute to make a simple movement then it makes sense for you to carry
with a round in the chamber. Personal choice in the way anyone
chooses to carry is just that....personal choice. I'd appreciate it
if those who choose to do it differently than I do to knock off the
criticism and be happy with their own choices.

racking as you clear the holster sounds like a good way to have an
accidental discharge. ever hear the term "slam-fire"?

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

I know its BEretta("Baretta" is an old Robert Blake TV show),and it
probably has a spring-loaded firing pin,not free-floating.
IIRC,it's DA/SA,so you -could- carry it with a round chambered,hammer
down,and eliminate the extra step at a critical moment.
That's my major beef;it's one more thing you gotta do in a CRITICAL moment.
Plus,you get to carry one extra round!

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it mine.

Stubborn,aren't ya? ;-)

Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike nanny
government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.


Hey,we're just discussing the pros and cons here,not mandating anything.
chill out.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. net:

In article , jJim
McLaughlin wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP


I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.


You might want to think about that. Incident was in Indiana, IIRC,
not Texas.

Not a problem. Indiana law allows the use of deadly force not only in
self-defense, but in the defense of others also.


these days,robbers often shoot people *after they have complied*,for no
reason,and witnesses or bystanders too.

I'm NOT REQUIRED to act as a police officer and demand they surrender,and
it's too big a risk (and STUPID!!) to let THEM have the first shot.

Their drawing and threatening with a gun puts me at risk just as much as
the one they are pointing the gun at.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JC" wrote:


I don't see anything in the article that indicates that his weapon
was unloaded. Many times I will rack just to make sure. So, perhaps
he ejected one while injecting another. Maybe he racked for effect.
Lots of ifs and maybes here. Anyhow, all's well that ends well.

The robber's weapon was unloaded.

Quote;
The newspaper noted that Officer Jason Bockting, in his documentation
of
the incident, said when the suspect seemed to hesitate, "Merrell
racked
the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber."

endquote

"to load a round in the chamber";not "load another round".
Sounds empty to me.

When I was doing my quals training as a reserve deputy in the late
70s, unloaded was generally nothing at all in the firearm. Not having a
round in the chamber was scoffed at in this context, probably less so in
a civilian, but was still considered loaded. Don't know if usage has
changed any in the meantime.



Merrell could easily have been shot while racking the slide.
that is an "effect"....not a good one,though.

I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.

Two in the torso, one in the head. You are now safe and the bad guy
is now dead.


no,double tap,then EVALUATE.
doing a head shot after a double tap with the threat already neutralized is
murder.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



You know what's funny, though? I've noticed in the news that a lot
of people who get shot in the face are described as having non life
threatening injuries. Of course, that's all the info we get, so we
don't know what caliber they were shot with.

What matters is where the shot entered,it's angle of entry and exit.

people may get a face shot that just rips up their jaw or teeth and
cheek,passes thru.That may be disfiguring and HURT like hell,but not "life-
threatening".Even losing an eye is not always "life-threatening'.


Still, it's strange.

That is the cop's mantra, although that is new from my time. Two
in
body mass, hopefully the heart, one in the head (not face) in case
body armor is involved, as it is more and more. In that order.


A cop could probably get away with a head shot after a disabling double
tap,but it's a risk for a civvie.

Encountering robbers with body armor is thankfully,still uncommon.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
| Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
| :
|
| In article ,
| Jim Yanik wrote:
|
| Kurt Ullman wrote in
| :
|
| In article ,
| "JC" wrote:
|
|
| I don't see anything in the article that indicates that his weapon
| was unloaded. Many times I will rack just to make sure. So, perhaps
| he ejected one while injecting another. Maybe he racked for effect.
| Lots of ifs and maybes here. Anyhow, all's well that ends well.
|
| The robber's weapon was unloaded.
|
| Quote;
| The newspaper noted that Officer Jason Bockting, in his documentation
| of
| the incident, said when the suspect seemed to hesitate, "Merrell
| racked
| the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber."
|
| endquote
|
| "to load a round in the chamber";not "load another round".
| Sounds empty to me.
|
| When I was doing my quals training as a reserve deputy in the late
| 70s, unloaded was generally nothing at all in the firearm. Not having a
| round in the chamber was scoffed at in this context, probably less so in
| a civilian, but was still considered loaded. Don't know if usage has
| changed any in the meantime.
|
|
|
| Merrell could easily have been shot while racking the slide.
| that is an "effect"....not a good one,though.
|
| I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.
|
| Two in the torso, one in the head. You are now safe and the bad guy
| is now dead.
|
|
| no,double tap,then EVALUATE.
| doing a head shot after a double tap with the threat already neutralized
is
| murder.
|
| --
| Jim Yanik
| jyanik
| at
| kua.net

I disagree. One, two or even three shots right to the head. I've two bullet
scars in the chest to prove that someone can still get off a kill shot AFTER
being shot in the torso. If you wait to "assess" the threat, your chances of
survival are very slim. I was very, very lucky over 40 years ago, that my
encounter was with a drunk gone crazy in a beer joint. I have since made it
a promise to myself that if I ever have such an encounter again, I'll shoot
first, ask questions later and take my chances.

Jim Yanik wrote:

these days,robbers often shoot people *after they have complied*,for
no reason,and witnesses or bystanders too.

I'm NOT REQUIRED to act as a police officer and demand they
surrender,and it's too big a risk (and STUPID!!) to let THEM have the
first shot.


Psst! A Police Officer is not required to act as a police officer.

Jim Yanik wrote:

no,double tap,then EVALUATE.
doing a head shot after a double tap with the threat already
neutralized is murder.

The only thing to evaluate is whether you firearm is still capable of
firing. If it is, keep shooting. If not, reload.

Here are the General Orders for a gunfight. Pay particular attention to #10.

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your
friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life
is expensive
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast
enough nor using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and
diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a
friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or
tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and
running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more
dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have
to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. In God we trust. Everyone else, keep
your hands where I can see them.
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong
commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does
not start with a "4."
--

Dave Bugg wrote:

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it
mine. Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike
nanny government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

No, sometimes it's an effort to correct a misunderstanding or misaprehension
of how a firearm works. At least two or three times a year we hear of some
cop who puts a Glock in his POCKET and is amazed that if blows off his nuts
when he sits down.

I saw a video of an army MP sergeant who could draw a 1911 from a fastened
flap holster, chamber a round, and fire in 0.17 seconds! With enough
practice (and God knows, a sergeant of MPs hasn't much else to do), just
about anything is possible.

Smitty Two wrote:
I have my own opinions about things, but rarely participate in OT
stuff here, partly because I don't want to encourage OT threads, and
partly because I'm not all that interested in arguing with people who
are too stupid to see things my way. (you can imagine a smily
emoticon here if it makes you feel better.)

I'm with you. Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.


That said, here I am. When I think about the things that could have
gone wrong in that scenario, I think, I would not have pulled a gun.
It seems it was a simple robbery, and that no lives were directly in
jeopardy.

A responsibility of gun owners is to decide *in advance* how they will
respond to various hypothetical situations. I wonder whether the
so-called hero of the story did that. If not, why not? If so, why did
he think it was a good idea, in a store full of innocent people, to
play the hero role to save a few hundred dollars of the store's money?

If the robber had done anything other than comply with the directive
to put the weapon down, things could have gotten very ugly very
quickly, with no real assurance that the bad guy is the one, or the
only one, who would have gotten perforated.

Again, I'm with you. Of the three choices: Do nothing, confront the squint,
or smoke the goblin, the guy picked the worst of the three.

"Dave Bugg" wrote

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it mine.
Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike nanny
government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Any person who carries should know their weapon intimately. I have three
that I favor, and know the intricacies of all three. If a person is not
intimately knowledgeable of their weapon, they should NOT be carrying one
concealed. If you're just banging, that's something else entirely.

Steve

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
I have my own opinions about things, but rarely participate in OT
stuff here, partly because I don't want to encourage OT threads, and
partly because I'm not all that interested in arguing with people who
are too stupid to see things my way. (you can imagine a smily
emoticon here if it makes you feel better.)

I'm with you. Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

I would disagree. Emoticons are those who are tired of dealing with
inarticulate ****ers who can't discern true meaning of a statement w/o
beating them over their little inarticulate heads with it. Repeatedly.

my suggestion to Merrill:

1. get a revolver

2. similar scenario - shoot first, talk later




"Harry K" wrote in message
...
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which
follows.
To view this item online, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59503

Wednesday, January 2, 2008


WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Shopper pulls gun, stops robbery cold
Held suspect at grocery store until police officers arrived

A grocery store customer in Indianapolis is being credited with
halting
an armed robbery by pulling his own weapon and pointing it at the
assailant until police arrived.

According to a report in the Indianapolis Star, Charlie Merrell, 51,
was
in a checkout line at a grocery store called Bucks IGA on the city's
south side when a "masked man jumped a nearby counter and held a gun
on
a store employee."

The police report cited by the newspaper said the incident happened
at
5:17 in the afternoon Monday as Merrell was doing some year-end
shopping.

"While the suspect was demanding cash from the workers," according to
the police report, "Merrell pulled his own handgun, pointed it at the
robber and ordered him to put down his weapon."

The newspaper noted that Officer Jason Bockting, in his documentation
of
the incident, said when the suspect seemed to hesitate, "Merrell
racked
the slide on his gun to load a round in the chamber."


At that point, the report said, "the suspect placed his gun and a bag
of
cash on the counter, dropping some of the money . the suspect removed
his mask and lay on the floor."


Merrill, meanwhile, held the suspect at gunpoint until officers
arrived
and took him away in handcuffs.

Police reported Merrell had a valid permit to carry the handgun, and
they recovered an unloaded .380-caliber handgun and $779 cash from
the
suspect.

Police records show Dwain Smith, 19, was being held in the Marion
County
Jail on a bond of $30,000 on initial charges of robbery, criminal
confinement, pointing a firearm, battery and carrying a handgun
without
a license.

-------------------------------------------------
Outstanding that the robbery was stopped by a CCW person.

That person needs a bit of instructions on using a weapon for such
things.

What was he doing pointing an unloaded weapon at the robber?

Lesson#1 - never point a gun at someone unless you plan to use it.

My first thought when reading this was that everyone there was lucky.
Had the robber's gun been loaded I can see an entirely different
ending.

Harry K

Harry K

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

SteveB wrote:
Carrying on empty? What do you do, say wait a minute while I
load?

A minute? I'm racking as I'm clearing my holster. If it takes you a
minute to make a simple movement then it makes sense for you to
carry with a round in the chamber. Personal choice in the way
anyone chooses to carry is just that....personal choice. I'd
appreciate it if those who choose to do it differently than I do
to knock off the criticism and be happy with their own choices.

racking as you clear the holster sounds like a good way to have an
accidental discharge. ever hear the term "slam-fire"?

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

I know its BEretta("Baretta" is an old Robert Blake TV show),and it

Sorry; I'm more concerned about its function than it's spelling ;-)

probably has a spring-loaded firing pin,not free-floating.
IIRC,it's DA/SA,so you -could- carry it with a round chambered,hammer
down,and eliminate the extra step at a critical moment.

Right. With it's safety engaged, there's no chance of a round accidentally
from any cause. Which is why there is no risk of a slam-fire.

That's my major beef;it's one more thing you gotta do in a CRITICAL
moment. Plus,you get to carry one extra round!

Fair enough. My point is, that I don't have that same beef.

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it
mine.

Stubborn,aren't ya? ;-)

Not in everything :-)

Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike nanny
government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

Hey,we're just discussing the pros and cons here,not mandating
anything. chill out.

I'm chilled. But I won't be bullied about my preferences. Go back and look
at the thread, Jim. All the criticism about chamber-empty carry, centered
around direct responses to my answer to a question. If y'all had simply
answered the same question with your own responses, *THAT* would have been a
discussion. But to pile up on my response, addressing me about why *MY*
carry method is wrong ain't close to a discussion.

I respect you, Jim, and we're on the same side of the RKBA issue, but I
don't have to justify my style of carry to anyone :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

HeyBub wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it
mine. Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike
nanny government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

No, sometimes it's an effort to correct a misunderstanding or
misaprehension of how a firearm works. At least two or three times a
year we hear of some cop who puts a Glock in his POCKET and is amazed
that if blows off his nuts when he sits down.

So you're worried I'll blow my nuts off, or that I'm carrying in a dangerous
manner? Sorry, but I have to call partial B.S. on that :-) Go back and look
at the thread and you'll see that I never stated that carrying with one in
the pipe is dangerous, or harped on anyone for doing so.

I saw a video of an army MP sergeant who could draw a 1911 from a
fastened flap holster, chamber a round, and fire in 0.17 seconds!
With enough practice (and God knows, a sergeant of MPs hasn't much
else to do), just about anything is possible.

I don't use a holster with a flap, and I practice drawing and racking.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

SteveB wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it
mine. Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike
nanny government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Any person who carries should know their weapon intimately. ....snip

I can't tell by that statement if you think I have a problem of not knowing
my weapon.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news
HeyBub wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it
mine. Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike
nanny government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

No, sometimes it's an effort to correct a misunderstanding or
misaprehension of how a firearm works. At least two or three times a
year we hear of some cop who puts a Glock in his POCKET and is amazed
that if blows off his nuts when he sits down.

So you're worried I'll blow my nuts off, or that I'm carrying in a
dangerous manner? Sorry, but I have to call partial B.S. on that :-) Go
back and look at the thread and you'll see that I never stated that
carrying with one in the pipe is dangerous, or harped on anyone for doing
so.

I saw a video of an army MP sergeant who could draw a 1911 from a
fastened flap holster, chamber a round, and fire in 0.17 seconds!
With enough practice (and God knows, a sergeant of MPs hasn't much
else to do), just about anything is possible.

I don't use a holster with a flap, and I practice drawing and racking.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


DETOUR TIME: Speaking of bad guys, why wasn't this guy apprehended before
he left the eyeglass store, just for having horrible fashion taste? What is
with those friggin glasses???
http://www.nysmostwanted.com/289.htm

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

DETOUR TIME: Speaking of bad guys, why wasn't this guy apprehended
before he left the eyeglass store, just for having horrible fashion
taste? What is with those friggin glasses???
http://www.nysmostwanted.com/289.htm

ROTFLOL!!! There's never a fashion cop around when you really need one!!

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

http://www.nysmostwanted.com/289.htm

I have long wondered what happened to Marty Ingels (g).
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/...ngel_Grani_981
409_400.jpg.html?hint=nm0408733

http://preview.tinyurl.com/33sxv2

On Jan 4, 6:15*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote y.net:





In article , jJim
McLaughlin wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP

I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.

You might want to think about that. *Incident was in Indiana, IIRC,
not Texas.

Not a problem. Indiana law allows the use of deadly force not only in
self-defense, but in the defense of others also.

these days,robbers often shoot people *after they have complied*,for no
reason,and witnesses or bystanders too.

I'm NOT REQUIRED to act as a police officer and demand they surrender,and
it's too big a risk (and STUPID!!) to let THEM have the first shot.

Their drawing and threatening with a gun puts me at risk just as much as
the one they are pointing the gun at.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Case of idiot civilians bitchign about cops use of force.

Spokane, WA last Friday (IIRC) vehicl chase, ends in foot pursuit,
perp cornered, pulls gun, gun battle, perp wounded.

No problem? Guess again.

News last night. Big uproar about the 'shoot'. People bitching about
whether the deputy fired first. Note that there is NO denial that
perp pointed his weapon at the deputy before the fun started.

Guess they think the perp should get a free first shot and return fire
is only to be directed at shooting the gun out of his hand.

I shouldn't be by now but I am constantly amazed at how stupid people
can be.

Harry K

Dave Bugg wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

You don't know much about the Baretta 92F I take it.

it also requires you have both hands free.

So do many other handgun manuevers. You do it your way, I'll do it
mine. Gawd, for supposed gun rights and ccw supporters who dislike
nanny government, you folks sure seem to like individual nannyism.

No, sometimes it's an effort to correct a misunderstanding or
misaprehension of how a firearm works. At least two or three times a
year we hear of some cop who puts a Glock in his POCKET and is amazed
that if blows off his nuts when he sits down.

So you're worried I'll blow my nuts off, or that I'm carrying in a
dangerous manner? Sorry, but I have to call partial B.S. on that :-)
Go back and look at the thread and you'll see that I never stated
that carrying with one in the pipe is dangerous, or harped on anyone
for doing so.

I was countering your argument that there was a "nanny-state" mentality
going on. That many of the posts recommended considering alternatives and
that some of the espoused concepts were wrong, at least in some contexts,
was my thrust.

I'm sure you don't have to worry about blowing off your nuts. One reason is
you don't have a Glock. There are other reasons into which we need not
delve.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
I have my own opinions about things, but rarely participate in OT
stuff here, partly because I don't want to encourage OT threads, and
partly because I'm not all that interested in arguing with people
who are too stupid to see things my way. (you can imagine a smily
emoticon here if it makes you feel better.)

I'm with you. Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

I would disagree. Emoticons are those who are tired of dealing with
inarticulate ****ers who can't discern true meaning of a statement w/o
beating them over their little inarticulate heads with it. Repeatedly.

Hah! All the more reason to use the language properly, be clear, cogent, and
conving, and wonder why France is so far away.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:05:13 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Jan 4, 6:15*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote y.net:
In article , jJim
McLaughlin wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
SNIP
I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.

You might want to think about that. *Incident was in Indiana, IIRC,
not Texas.

Not a problem. Indiana law allows the use of deadly force not only in
self-defense, but in the defense of others also.

these days,robbers often shoot people *after they have complied*,for no
reason,and witnesses or bystanders too.

I'm NOT REQUIRED to act as a police officer and demand they surrender,and
it's too big a risk (and STUPID!!) to let THEM have the first shot.

Their drawing and threatening with a gun puts me at risk just as much as
the one they are pointing the gun at.
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -


Case of idiot civilians bitchign about cops use of force.

Spokane, WA last Friday (IIRC) vehicl chase, ends in foot pursuit,
perp cornered, pulls gun, gun battle, perp wounded.

No problem? Guess again.

News last night. Big uproar about the 'shoot'. People bitching about
whether the deputy fired first. Note that there is NO denial that
perp pointed his weapon at the deputy before the fun started.

Guess they think the perp should get a free first shot and return fire
is only to be directed at shooting the gun out of his hand.

I shouldn't be by now but I am constantly amazed at how stupid people
can be.

Harry K

Sounds like a Civilian Review Board (CRB) wanting to meddle in police
business. In Las Vegas we have a Coroner's Inquest to review
shootings by Police. Under Oath.

Note to self:

1) Dead perps don't testify

2) Don't let the facts interfere with a good report

Oren
--

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

.. Repeatedly.

Hah! All the more reason to use the language properly, be clear, cogent, and
conving, and wonder why France is so far away.

But even that doesn't protect you from the inarticulate ****ers... by
definition......

Harry K wrote in
:

On Jan 4, 6:15*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote
innews:NYpfj.33685$lD6.18622@newss
vr27.news.prodigy.net:





In article , jJim
McLaughlin wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP

I would have just shot the robber;2 rounds to the center of body.

You might want to think about that. *Incident was in Indiana, IIRC,
not Texas.

Not a problem. Indiana law allows the use of deadly force not only
in self-defense, but in the defense of others also.

these days,robbers often shoot people *after they have complied*,for
no reason,and witnesses or bystanders too.

I'm NOT REQUIRED to act as a police officer and demand they
surrender,and it's too big a risk (and STUPID!!) to let THEM have the
first shot.

Their drawing and threatening with a gun puts me at risk just as much
as the one they are pointing the gun at.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Case of idiot civilians bitchign about cops use of force.

Spokane, WA last Friday (IIRC) vehicl chase, ends in foot pursuit,
perp cornered, pulls gun, gun battle, perp wounded.

He's lucky he's only wounded and not dead.

No problem? Guess again.

News last night. Big uproar about the 'shoot'. People bitching about
whether the deputy fired first. Note that there is NO denial that
perp pointed his weapon at the deputy before the fun started.

Guess they think the perp should get a free first shot and return fire
is only to be directed at shooting the gun out of his hand.

I don't think that way.

I shouldn't be by now but I am constantly amazed at how stupid people
can be.

Harry K

It's because of MOVIES and TV,crap like the Lethal Weapon series.


there have been a few incidents such as Amadou Diallo in NYC,where the
person didn't do anything,yet the police opened up with a hail of
gunfire.And to top it off,most of their shots MISSED.

I favor that police have digital cams on their persons to record when their
gun is drawn.With a secure memory that they cannot easily alter.
The cam could xmit to a HD in the patrol car,or to WiFi link,to save
weight.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net