Yesterday, there was an attempted robbery at a northwest side Kroger Store; the perpetrator stuck “something” (evidently not a weapon, although reports weren’t clear on the point) in the back of a clerk and made her walk to the office where the money was kept. At that point, another Kroger employee pulled out a gun and killed the would-be robber.
Wuss that I am, I think I’d just have let him have the money.
The media was all over the story. My husband looked at me during one of the TV reports and said “Here we go again. It won’t be two days until the gun lovers start insisting that everyone should be armed.”
He was wrong; it only took a day. One Mike Speedy, a member of the General Assembly, was quoted in this morning’s Star decrying Kroger’s policy against gun-toting employees, saying “This could have turned out a different way if that employee was not carrying. Kroger could have two dead employees. What value is their policy then?”
How do we elect these people?
I can see it now: Shoot-out in canned goods! Gunfire in the cereal aisle (those granola-eating liberals had it coming…they weren’t even packing heat!) So what if Kroger has to pay zillions of dollars to innocent shoppers who might inadvertently step into the line of fire? So what if a trigger-happy employee misconstrues a “situation” and starts shooting? So what if…well, let’s just say there are innumerable scenarios that would not end well.
I don’t know about Mr. (or Mrs.) Speedy, but knowing that the guy restocking the dairy case is carrying would certainly get me to shop–elsewhere.
How can we be sure this wasn’t a trigger-happy employee? You know if that happened and they killed an innocent person by accident, they would make it look like a robber just to get themselves off the hook. Presumably there’s security video to back them up in this case.
There are so many ways to spin this story, but the bottom line is the robber is the only one with physical injuries; the other two people have mental issues now to deal with.
People are allowed to carry guns, with permits, and we all pray they are capable of using discretion when using them.
The “what if’errs” can “what if” till doomsday but the facts and events here don’t warrant it.
I lived in Texas several years ago when a gunman walked through a large restaurant (Luby’s in Killeen) and took his time killing many people throughout the facility because no-one had the ability to stop him. A patron watched her parents being murdered because at the time she was not able to carry the gun with her that was 40 feet away in the glove compartment of her car.
Too bad for the robber, wasn’t his day … I hope the employee that had “something” stuck in her back can recover from the mental trauma of thinking she’ll never see her loved ones after the robber was going to be done with her; and thank you to the employee/shooter that took quick & correct action defending his life and his co-worker
I feel safer when I know law abiding citizens are licensed and carry guns. I am not a gun owner myself. I particularly feel vulnerable when I ride my bike on the stretch of the Monon Trail between Fairgrounds and downtown. I only hope that if I get jumped by a thug, there is a law abiding citizen with a gun and who knows how to properly use it to defend me.
If we outlaw guns, then the only people who will have them will be criminals.
Guns reduce murder rates:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
“I don’t know about Mr. (or Mrs.) Speedy, but knowing that the guy restocking the dairy case is carrying would certainly get me to shop–elsewhere”
And when he gets shot by an armed robber because he’s unarmed and unable to defend himself, who’s going to be there for him? You?
Robbers can and do hurt their victims. Cooperating with a robber is does not ensure you won’t be harmed. When you submit to a robber, you are putting your life in the hands of someone who clearly does not have your best interest in mind. Does that sound like a good idea?
Regardless of whether or not the employee violated company policy, his actions were fully justified. He may be fired for what he did, but he and his fellow workers will still be alive and unharmed. That’s a worthy trade off. I’d rather be alive, unharmed, and unemployed then wounded or dead.
Also, if Krogers fires the employee for defending himself and his fellow workers, I think they will find a lot of potential customers will be shopping elsewhere in protest. I know I would.
Dissenting response at my blog; the gist: Indiana has have extremely liberal carry-permit laws since 1980: where’s the innocent blood in the canned-goods aisle? Hasn’t happened, not at the hands of legal gun-owners.
And you do realize you’re stereotyping gunnies, don’t you? Heck, perhaps we are just simple, happy people who like bright colors and wear pointed shoes, but it seems unusually simplistic, especially coming from you.
(Grrr, oops: should read “Indiana has had…”)
Ms. Kennedy, you write: >>… I think I’d just have let him have the money.<<<
Is that not a permission slip for any intimidating thug to take anything you own with no need to consider immediate consequences?
He already knows, of course, that he risks eventual capture and judicial punishment, but his decision to rob, or rape, or kill illustrates that he doesn't mind taking his chances with police and the courts.
Criminals are not well-known for reflecting on long-term results of their actions. They are more likely to be deterred by immediate fear that their intended prey may — immediately — be willing and equipped to decline victimhood.
Well, those licensed CCW holders shoot someone “in error” in four percent of their self defense shootings. The “highly trained” police shoot someone in error at least 22 percent of the time. And if the a major city PD is involved, the error rate can be 50% or more.
If I were given a choice between an armed stockboy and an armed undercover officer, give me the stockboy. Please. He or she is much less likely to be trigger happy.
And, may I observe that those who resist criminal predation are up to eleven times less likely to be injured?
Personally, I want “no muss, no fuss, no bother.” Whether they know it or not, anti-gun activists have sent violent crime rates sky high every place they have prevailed. And I do not want to live in fear.
Stranger
I’m with Stranger and a few others here. I support the second amendment. I carry my pistol with me when I feel the need, and often when I don’t. I stay out of dangerous places.
All that said, I feel safest when I’m surrounded by other civilian gun owners who are packing. Now, you and your husband don’t, and that’s fine for you – just keep your freedom grabbing hands and laws away from me and mine.
Sound reasonable?
I recognize “shoot-out in canned goods! Gunfire in the cereal aisle” is used to humorously make a point, but that point has turned out not to be the case after so many states have adopted “shall issue” carry laws over the past 10 years. Dire “blood in the streets” predictions have just not come to pass. Why? Because states only issue permits to non-criminal, law abiding applicants; the kind of citizens who are statistically MUCH less likely NOT shoot other people for non-life threatening reasons. The internet is full of media documented cases where firearms wielded by honest citizens saved lives. In our Kroger case, a felon with an arrest warrant for a prison work release violation, commits armed robbery (again) and is prevented from harming anyone because an armed citizen stopped him. Why didn’t the police (The State) find this man and put him back in prison? Why weren’t the police there on the spot to protect the employee? I’ll never understand why so many people put so much faith in The State to protect them personally from Evil, especially, given past court decisions that say the State/police have no obligation to protect individual citizens, only the public at large. I am the nicest guy in the world, and would give you the shirt off my back, but if anyone threatened my life or my family, I would put them down, very possibly killing them. The regret I will feel for taking another’s life I can live with…regret for failing to protect my family I cannot live with. Melodramatic? Possibly, but I would rather go through life trained and prepared for the unexpected, as opposed to hoping everything will be OK. So I count myself as a member of the “well regulated militia” of state licensed weapons carriers and continue to be amazed when folks debate what the Founding Fathers really meant by “shall not be infringed”.
As a Canadian, I envy Hoosiers their freedom to defend themselves with a gun from criminal attack. Hell, I’m envious of the freedom in California. (gunnies will get that)