Customer shoots would-be robber (Walgreens Omaha)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

BY Susan Szalewski and Mike Holmes

Police today said a customer fatally shot a would-be robber Monday evening at a busy Walgreens Pharmacy at 6101 Northwest Radial Highway.

Investigators believe that two masked men entered the Walgreen's about 8:50 p.m., one armed with a short shotgun, said Officer Jacob Bettin, a police spokesman.

Police were not releasing the dead man's name until relatives could be notified.

The armed suspect leveled the gun at customers, police said. One of the customers at the register, who has a permit to carry a gun, drew a handgun from the waistband of his pants and fired at the gunman, hitting him several times, Bettin said.

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100426/NEWS97/100429632#customer-shoots-would-be-robber

---

FULL story and video at link.

[ecstatic]

1. alrighty then...

Open carry works? Is that the moral to this story? :shrug:

[jgraz]

4. Either that, or we should allow private citizens to execute criminals

One or the other...

:shrug:

[shadowrider]

17. Yup, it's better the criminal execute potential witnesses, right?

And it DOES happen, more often than you or I would like. Go to YouTube and scan the robbery videos.

[madinmaryland]

2. This should be good...

:popcorn:

[snooper2]

3. This should be greatness!!!!!!!!

:P

[madinmaryland]

6. Actually, it has been dumped into the "Nebraska Forum" never to be seen again.

Even the Maryland forum is a dead forum. I still have a thread in there from 2004, that is still alive.

:wtf:

[Oregone]

5. Is that a good or a bad thing?

[christx30]

7. My best friend's mom works at Wal-mart...

And as much as I was over at his place growing up, she's like a second mom to me.
If she's at work helping people and some asshole comes in to rob the place and points a shotgun at her, I would hope that someone else stops him from pulling the trigger.
The robber brought it on himself.
So I consider it a good thing.

[bvar22]

8. Woo-Hoo!

Dodge City....Here We Come!
I'm going right out and buying a "Peacemaker"!!!!
Hot Damn!!! All my childhood Cowboy/Sheriff Fantasies coming true!

Time to start practicing your Quick Draw, Pilgrim!
There is a NEW Citizen/Sheriff in town!
We doan need no stinkin badtches, courts, police, OR Jails!
Just shoot the bad guys DEAD on the spot!

ANOTHER "Uniquely American Solution"!!!
WooHoo..USA..USA!..USA!..Grunt...Grunt!
:patriot:

[dflprincess]

61. Actually, Wyatt Earp banned guns within the boundaries of Dodge City

both concealed and open carry.

[Euromutt]

68. Only on the south side of town

The part of town to the south of railroad tracks was where the saloons, dance halls and brothels were (hence the phrase "the wrong side of the tracks"), and where, predictably, almost all the violence occurred. There were no restrictions on carrying firearms north of the railroad tracks, and yet, during Dodge City's heyday as a cattle railhead, not a single murder occurred on the north side of town.

[Omaha Steve]

9. Follow up: Charge filed in robbery shooting

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100427/NEWS97/704279843#charge-filed-in-robbery-shooting

By Leia Mendoza
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

The Walgreens customer who shot and killed a would-be-robber Monday night has been cited for carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor.

Harry J. McCullough III, 32, had a permit to carry a loaded handgun in plain view — typically in a holster — but did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Omaha Police Officer Jacob Bettin.

McCullough pulled his handgun from the waistband of his pants when he shot and killed a would-be-robber with a shotgun at the Walgreens in Benson Monday night, Bettin said.

McCullough has not been arrested in connection with the death of the robbery suspect. Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine is reviewing reports on the shooting and will determine whether charges are warranted.

Police have not released information about the robbery suspect who died.

Bettin said two masked men had entered the Walgreens at 6101 Northwest Radial shortly before 9 p.m.

FULL story at link.

[brendan120678]

10. You are freaking kidding me....

Absolutely ridiculous.

[shadowrider]

12. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

Good for the customer. The only one to blame for the bad guys death is the bad guy.

[Hoopla Phil]

52. He'd be free if I was on the jury!!!

[Taverner]

11. Um, the guy is DEAD

How is that a happy ending?

Yeah, he robbed a liquor store, but did he deserve to DIE???

[shadowrider]

13. Would customers have deserved to die if the idiot had pulled the

trigger on his shotgun?

Why the sympathy for an obvious bad guy?

[Taverner]

15. No - but why do we have to KILL him when we could just WOUND him?

Shoot a guy in the knees, and he's done for as a moving target

[shadowrider]

16. Have you ever fired a gun?

Shoot him in the knee. Unless you're an absolute EXCELLENT shot, under those circumstances, it's difficult as hell. Even wounding him in the knee, he STILL has a shotgun.

[Taverner]

18. Well yes I have fired a gun

And yes, they are fun to shoot at cans, clay pigeons and what not

Let me be the first to say I would have a problem KILLING somebody

People shouldn't have to die for shit like this - they just shouldn't

[shadowrider]

20. And if he were unarmed, I'd agree with you

The shotgun changed everything.

[Taverner]

22. Was it loaded?

If so - or even if not (there is no way the guy at the register, or anyone else would have known) - is it best to go for the "kill shot" rather than the "disable shot"?

I have no problem with the availability of guns, and I have no problem with folks USING their guns to stop crime. No legal penalties should come to the shooter.

But - do we really want to promote the "kill shot"?

[shadowrider]

23. Again, if someone had a shotgun, yes. If unarmed, no.

[Taverner]

25. But even with a shotgun, is the "kill shot" the best choice?

When have folks ever recovered from a "disable shot"?

[shadowrider]

29. You fire to neutralize the threat. If he's wounded, drops and also

drops the shotgun, the threat is neutralized and any further firing is not warranted. If, however, he dies from his wounds, there is no one to blame but him.

Besides, you can go for a disable shot, but you can't control the bullet once it leaves the barrel. It CAN move about and kill even though that wasn't the intent.

[Taverner]

32. Yes, but most targets are trained towards the "kill shot"`

I realize bullets do what they do - part of the reason I think the best home weapon is a Louisville Slugger, not a Colt 45 is the best home defense weapon.

But should we shoot to kill, or just stop?

[shadowrider]

34. Shoot to kill or shoot to stop isn't the point. You shoot to neutralize the threat.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. You watch too much TV.

Shooting to wound leaves the bad guy with a shotgun in his hand that he can use to kill with. The reason that you are shooting him is not to stop the robbery, you are shooting him because he is actively threatening to kill. Your reason for shooting is to save the innocent lives that he is threatening. The only way you can stop him is to take the decision away from him. That means rendering him incapable of any further action. Shooting him in the knee (Hard to do) still leaves him able to kill. To stop him you have to inflict such severe bodily trauma that he is unable to function. If he dies from it, that is his problem. He should not have threatened innocents with his shotgun.

To specualte whether his shotgun is really loaded is not a good idea. If you are ever robbed like that, you are invited to ask the felon if his gun is actually loaded.

[proteus_lives]

64. Baseball bat.

He stands eight feet away from you and kills you with a .38.

A bat is a weapon but certainly not the best one.

[Euromutt]

69. There is no difference between a "kill" shot and "disable" shot

The most reliable way to incapacitate the target is by shooting for the "center of mass," the upper torso, which is where the highest concentration of vital organs are, and which presents the largest target, making it easiest to hit (and, equally importantly in an urban environment, easiest not to miss). A hit anywhere else, except the head, cannot be relied on to disable the target quickly enough. Unfortunately, when you inflict major trauma to an area filled with vital organs, you run a comparatively high risk of killing the target as a result (not that a bullet wound to the limbs can't be lethal, between possible damage to major arteries and shock).

The use of lethal force carries with it the risk that the target will be killed. That's why there are strict limitations on when its use is permissible.

As for whether the robber's shotgun was loaded, that really makes no difference. By definition, the robber wanted everyone to believe it was loaded, and one cannot reasonably demand that any victims or witnesses put that to the test before reacting.

[shedevil69taz]

75. Disabling shots

are the product of hollywood fantasies. In real world scenarios trying to hit a limb of a target is a very very bad idea. When shooting to defend your life or the life of an innocent one should always aim toward the center of the targets body as close to the spine as possible. Being that the objective is to reliably immobilize the target that is the way to make sure the armed target has the least ammount of chance of returning fire.

[one-eyed fat man]

36. EASY!

You don't rob people; you don't get shot by people who don't like being robbed.

Now, go to you tube and watch all the surveillance video where the clerks did what the robber wanted, and the scumbag shot them anyway.

Now, again tell me, which do you think is better, the robber being shot by people who don't like getting robbed, or witnesses being shot by a robber who doesn't want them to testify.

Think real hard!

[X_Digger]

56. Now, dump adrenaline in your system, get tunnel vision..

.. your heartbeat triples, your hearing closes down, your hands begin to shake, your peripheral arteries shut off to protect your body core, your temperature spikes, you begin to sweat, your gut and pancreas clench, dumping glucose into your bloodstream. This is your body's reaction to a life-threatening situation. You're in fear of your life.

Now.. try shooting him in the knees, hope that you don't miss, and hope that he doesn't keep the shotgun in his hands when he goes down.

[proteus_lives]

63. He made the choice when he decided to rob and threaten people.

He rolled the dice and lost.

[Taverner]

80. Honestly - I just don't like the idea of killing people

I guess I should never have a gun

[Katya Mullethov]

30. If I were a thieving son of a bitch , and you shot me in the leg

I would turn around and pop your gourd .


Commence with the hyperbolic hypotheticals .

[Taverner]

33. But what if you were incapacitated?

Say, not shot in the leg, but instead the lower stomach?

You may FEEL that way, but you may not be able to act on it...

[Katya Mullethov]

40. You are not choosing incapacitating shots

Hope isnt a plan , and you are hoping they wimp out .

Being a hypothetical teenage brigand , I understand that I can kill you now , and still get outta jail as an 18th birfday present .

We could just stand there and shoot each other in the stomach until we run outta ammo .

[Taverner]

42. OK - say you have a Glock 9mm, one of the more accurate handguns

You shoot at the assailant in each knee. Two shots. Assailant is down, cannot get up.

Pain is so much they cannot hold shotgun.

[shadowrider]

44. Have you ever seen someone under the influence of PCP?

they don't realize they've been shot and just keep on coming.

[Taverner]

45. Yeah but that's rare

More likely they would be drunk or on meth

And even Meth doesn't give you that kind of pain aversion

[shadowrider]

46. Are you willing to take the chance, the one time, no matter how rare?

[Taverner]

47. Yes I am, especially since I also take other chances based on the fact they are rare...

[Katya Mullethov]

71. Pissing off someone with a shotgun

Is never a good idea .


But I fully support your right to choose to do so and to have that choice .

[pipoman]

72. All of these scenarios

get played out in every firearms class I have attended. The idea is to neutralize the threat. The surest way to do that is to shoot for center of mass. As the defensive shooter, you are going to get one, maybe 2 shots before the armed threat has time to react to you. Every cop, security guard, defensive, offensive, class you will ever take will discourage the type of shooting you are talking about. The training will always enforce and reinforce shooting 'center of mass'..the chest is the largest target. Shooting at knees is Hopalong Cassidy, knees are small and certainly will not neutralize the threat. Shooting at knees requires the shooter to shoot at the floor...usually concrete...where will that shot be going after it hits the concrete? Yeah, I don't know either. The least risk for innocent bystanders is a center of mass shot on the target.

[proteus_lives]

62. Stupid and it only works in movies or by expert.

Any firearms intructor will teach you to shoot center-mass in self-defense.

Shooting to wound (if it even works) just give someone the chance to fire back at you.

[Lagomorph]

67. Not even police...

...would try something like that.

Show me that you can fast draw and put a bullet in a three inch circle from 12'.

Just taking the time to aim that close would get you a load of buckshot in your face.

Center of mass is the learned technique and an acceptable standard.

[onethatcares]

14. this is an "IF" but a big one

"IF" the robber to be were cracked out, or just damn jittery, there could have been more than himself that may have died.

again, it's just an "IF".

[Taverner]

19. Yes - but does one have to KILL him?

Killing involves a lot of things. It's easy to clean up, because there is NOTHING LEFT. You get to throw it all away. Whooppee!

Call me a stupid pacifist, but I have a problem with that

Maybe that's why I have such a problem with war

[shadowrider]

21. You are entitled to your opinion

And I don't hold it against you. No harm, no foul. That said, he got what he deserved.

[Taverner]

24. Understood - hey, remind me never to own a gun

I don't want said responsibility

That being said, if others want to enter that moral ambiguity - more power to them

BTW I feel sorry for the shooter too...he has to live with this. He may have had the best intentions, but 20 years from now he has to remember that he has taken a life...

[shadowrider]

27. I completely agree. He does have to live with it

but he can take some solace in the number of lives he MAY have saved.

[Taverner]

28. That should not be solace

Most armed robbers take cash, and MAYBE cause physical violence, but rarely kill

If they have the gun, they ASSUME (a false assumption btw) they have the uppper hand

The reality is that this is America, and many folks here have guns

But what the gun owner does is of prime importance here

Should they kill, or just wound the assailant?

[onethatcares]

49. pretty hard to aim for the legs, in a situation like that

the shooter wasn't in the prone position waiting for a holdup to occur.

I guess I'm of the mind the robber had mayhem on his mind, the guy that killed him was ready for things like that.

btw, I don't support the wars either

[cowman]

59. That's pure unadulterated bullshit

Killing the witnessess happens more and more. Case in point, about 2 years ago a POS illegal alien, and I don't give a shit if someone doesn't like that term, walked into one of our local mini marts and robbed the place, even though the clerk handed over the money, he shot and killed her anyway so quite frankly if someone accosts me with a weapon with the intent to rob me, whether they have a gun, knife, bat, I will pull my legally concealed .45 cal. and shoot them and if they die, tough shit, they shouldn't have tried to rob me in the first place. I may feel some regret but I certainly will live with it and I sure as hell wont need therapy to deal with it.

[Taverner]

26. Let me add that I know where you are coming from

I just don't like the idea of someone who hasn't harmed someone to meet their death. It's not anyone's fault, but if we trained folks to go for the disable shot (which could be anywhere from the crotch to the knees) there would be less deaths. Yeah, they might drag on the healthcare system, but they are people. I can never forget that.

[shadowrider]

31. ok, the leg has arteries

go for a disable shot and hit one. The guy bleeds out and dies in 60 seconds. End result is the same.

[Taverner]

35. Not if we can get EMTs on the site soon

I may shoot them, but I would do everything I could to keep them alive

Although, given the situation, I may not feel like that at the time

The rest is on my conscience

[shadowrider]

37. A bleedout from the femoral artery takes seconds, not 10 minutes

to allow EMT's to get there

[Taverner]

38. Look I know we're on the same side here

Tell me where to shoot to:

1 - Disable the victim (victim = the person I'm shooting)
2 - Not KILL the victim

Louisville Slugger is seeming mighty appealing to me right now...

[shadowrider]

39. Impossible to simply wound.

You can't control the bullet. You may have every intention of simply wounding and wind up killing anyway due to movement of the bullet once inside the target.

I understand what you're saying and I truly appreciate the civility of the discussion.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. The shotgun trumps the Louisville slugger.

You have to get within hitting range, he doesn't. Also, you have to carry the slugger around everywhere. This happened in a store, not at a home.

[Euromutt]

70. A Louisville Slugger also constitutes lethal force

If you take a baseball bat to someone, you are also taking a risk that you will inflict permanent injury or death. As a result, if you whack someone with a bat, or use a knife, you will face the same legal requirement to justify your actions as if you had used a firearm.

And there's simply no place on the human body where you can strike someone and reliably incapacitate them without taking the risk of killing them in the process.

[pipoman]

73. The closest I ever came to shooting a person

happened when the aggressor was coming toward my partner with a baseball bat. If the aggressor had not backed down and had taken a couple of more steps toward her, I would have shot him, not in the legs but in the chest. A baseball bat is absolutely a lethal weapon. How many baseball bat hits in the head can a person survive? I have replayed this scenario in my mind over and over, I can't think of an alternate reaction by me which would have removed the threat with a higher probable positive outcome for me and my partner, before the bat wielder could have killed or seriously injured my partner.

[one-eyed fat man]

41. A little anatomy lesson.

The problem with shooting something living with a gun is that most people have totally unrealistic expectations of what is supposed to happen. This is even a problem for the military when soldiers in combat use their weapons and they do not get the results that years of watching Hollywood special effects have conditioned them to expect.

First, there are many places you can shoot someone where the wounds will eventually prove fatal and they can still kill you before they die. This depends in large part as to how motivated they are to fight. The only shot that will instantly stop something is one destroying the central nervous system.

Even a head shot does not guarantee and instant stop because there is a lot of head you can hit all you get for your trouble is an ugly crook. Similalrly, the shoulder shot in the movies where the 'good guy' has his arm in a sling and is up and about in day is crapola too. There are really big arteries there and nick one of those and you will pass out in about 30 seconds to a minute and be dead within 2 mintes. Granted you could do a lot of mischief in that time. Even the classic knee-capping runs the risk of severing the femoral artery, which without a tourniquet, will likely have you dead in under a minute. Unless the bullet hits bone, you may not even be aware immediately of being shot. It's no lead pipe cinch. No matter which side of the gun you are on.

Hunters can tell you a deer, a not so robustly built creature, shot through the heart with a high-powered rifle may run a hundred yards before it 'realizes' it's dead. It might drop on the spot, but even with seemingly identical hits no two react the same. Humans are no less variable. Outside of putting you in an infantry company in combat, I know of no way to disabuse you of years of conditioning by the entertainment industry.

And even there, soldiers when faced with a fanatical enemy who seemingly absorbs a number of hits blame their weapons as ineffective or the enemy as being 'drugged' or crazy. The physics don't matter, they want to see the guy fly through the air like they do on TV and that doesn't happen with anything you can fire off your shoulder short of of 90mm recoilless rifle and HE.

[Taverner]

43. You know you are making me favor gun control here...

Just sayin'

[GreenStormCloud]

55. In the real world, gun control leave the bad guy still armed.

Gun control only disarms the good guy. It is totally ineffective against criminals.

[one-eyed fat man]

58. If your going to judge me

understand that I did 26 years on active duty with multiple combat tours in two wars. I have a perspective that is very likely far different from yours. My observations on being shot at and shooting back are based on first-hand experience.

Unless YOU have been in combat, you are a lot like a little kid who has found the old man's stash of dirty magazines and thinks he knows about sex.

“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” --George Orwell

[Taverner]

77. Dude - not judging you at all

But all this indeed makes me want to support gun control in some way or another

In all truth, I don't own a gun. I never have, and have only shot friends' guns.

The instability of a gun, and how much damage it can do, and overall how inaccurate it is makes me thing that guns are no safer than grenades or rocket launchers.

Sorry, just my impressions at this point.

[one-eyed fat man]

78. and Cain said to Abel..............

Like it or not, murder, rape, robbery, and the rotten bastards who get off on committing those crimes have been around for eons. For most of those centuries, you were totally on your own, the police being a relatively recent development, only going back about 150 years.

Despite all the trappings of civilization, there still walk among us those who would kill you "just to watch you die." They are not driven by need or desperation. It's not the bad economy, the lack of opportunity, it is simply a 'career choice.' You have something, they want it and they will take it. If you object, they will kill you. If you acquiesce, they might still kill you and while you agonize over their 'humanity' they see you as prey.

Since man first learned to sharpen a stick, free men have carried weapons for self-defense. Swords; quarter staves; walking sticks; daggers, dirks, and all manner of knives; as well as revolvers and pistols. Dedication, training and practice are required to master any of them.

If, in truth, all that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing, then disarming all the good men will surely hasten that. After all, evil men will not be induced by moral imperative to disarm, or treat their fellow man with dignity or compassion. If laws meant anything to them they wouldn't already be criminals.

We can try to deny those who by their past behavior have demonstrated a capacity for crime and violence. However the mechanism by which this is done cannot unfairly penalize those who are not criminal by nature. After all, there no point in trying to stop drunk drivers by taking the keys away from sober people.

Guns cannot be uninvented. All of modern manufacturing, all precision machine work is the result of the earliest gun-makers desire to drill long, deep straight holes. As young men, Pratt and Whitney were building revolver parts for Colt before the Civil War. Their legacy is in the generations of aircraft engines that have powered US aircraft for 80 years.

If you choose to forgo arms, that is your choice, and you are free to make it. I will not try to force arms on you. My choice is otherwise. I pose no threat, nor do I mean you any harm. As for your ineptitude, or lack of ability being of any consequence, isn't that like wanting to ban pianos just because you can't play one?

[Taverner]

79. I have always felt as if the reason of man is his greatest strength

It is what led us to the Social Contract, away from our natural state and into civilization.

However, both of these have meant suffering for our species.

Being a person of reason, I can't possibly seek to ban a simple tool - one that has no danger unless used.

But I know right now I could never own one - I could never take another's life - it is my greatest fear. Call me a wimpy pacafist, I just can't live with that on my conscience. Life is all we have: as the Eastwood quote goes "Funny thing taking a man's life - you take away everything he has, and everything he will ever have."

I think there is always another way, besides killing.

I don't judge those who have killed in self-defense - they did what they had to do.

But personally, if I ever took another's life - then life just wouldn't be worth living. No matter how much he "had it coming."

[cowman]

60. And your dead wrong

I am a Firefighter/Paramedic and if someone is shot in the femoral artery they are most likely going to die before medical help arrives.

[chrisa]

48. Nobody deserves to die.

And it is a tragedy when one (the robber) falls on their own sword, but it was no fault other than his own.

[Hoopla Phil]

51. He pointed a gun at innocents. The happy part is that no innocents got shot by the thug.

And the world is a better place.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. Outstanding!!!

[Omaha Steve]

57. UPDATE: No charge in shooting!!!

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100427/NEWS97/704279843#no-charge-in-shooting

Published Tuesday April 27, 2010

By Leia Mendoza
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

The Walgreens customer who killed a would-be-robber Monday night has been cited for carrying a concealed weapon but won't face a charge in the shooting.

Harry J. McCullough III, 32, had a permit to carry a loaded handgun in plain view — typically in a holster — but did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Omaha Police Officer Jacob Bettin.

McCullough pulled his handgun from the waistband of his pants when he shot and killed Marquail Thomas, a shotgun-wielding 18-year-old and would-be-robber at the Walgreens in Benson Monday night, Bettin said.

McCullough was not arrested in connection with Thomas' death, and Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine said Tuesday afternoon that he would not file charges in connection with the shooting.

Bettin said two masked men had entered the Walgreens at 6101 Northwest Radial shortly before 9 p.m.

He said one of the men pointed the shotgun in the direction of the cash register, where several customers were standing in line.

FULL story at link.

[proteus_lives]

65. Good news!

:thumbsup:

[Hoopla Phil]

74. Great news!!!

[proteus_lives]

66. He was willing to rob and kill. He got what he deserved.

[Omaha Steve]

76. The shotgun wasn't loaded btw

Not that that changes what he was doing.