T-Mobile store employee shoots 2 armed robbery suspects


#1

ABC 7 (Chicago):

T-Mobile store employee shoots 2 armed robbery suspects

CHICAGO (WLS) --Two robbery suspects were shot by an employee at a cell phone store in the Jeffrey Manor neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side.

The T-Mobile store in the 2000-block of East 95th St. was left riddled with bullet holes. If not for the employee carrying a weapon with a concealed carry license, the manager of the store says he might be telling a different story.

“I think concealed carry is a great opportunity for managers, workers, employees to protect themselves in these cases. And our employee did a great job to protect themselves and the other employee,” said Neil Tadros, store manager.

He says two men entered the store and acted like they were shopping for phones for a few minutes, then pulled out guns.

One employee ran to the back to call for help while the other pulled out his own gun and fired at the two suspects. He hit one of them in the groin and the arm, and the other in the abdomen and the arm.

The men ran from the store with the employee chasing them, on the phone giving a description to police.

The suspects then drove to a nearby hospital where police took them into custody.

:thumbsup:


#2

As opposed to a gun free zone. One has to wonder if the outcomes of some school shootings would have been more like this if administrators and teachers had the option to exercise their rights under concealed carry.

Jon


#3

Just a quick FYI for readers of this thread . . .

Another related Chicago story (linked to me by the OP’s article) of defensive weapon use as well.

The employees life (and potentially others) were saved by this employees defensive use of a firearm.

Yet this will be logged as “gun violence”.

And those same “statistics” will be used by some AGAINST this employee in the future.

Those same statistics will be attempted to be used by some people, to try to disarm this employee and others who utilize defensive firearm usage in the future!

Remember that the next time you see “Gun Violence Statistics”.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Employee fatally shoots robbery suspects at Auburn Gresham store

CHICAGO (WLS) –

Two teenagers, allegedly trying to rob a liquor store in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood, were fatally shot by a store employee Saturday night, police said… . .

Police said the two men allegedly walked into the store, announced a robbery and one of the suspects pulled out a gun. The employee then allegedly took out his own gun and fatally shot the two suspects, police said. . . .

(I feel terrible for these young alleged robbers, but I am also relieved that no employees, customers, or bystanders were hurt.)


#4

Actions have consequences…


#5

I think it’s a proven fact. The school shootings that end quickly are the ones where a school representative or cop is already on campus and armed.


#6

No one hast to wonder. Many mass shootings at schools took place at schools with at least one armed employee or student.


#7

The vast majority of mass shootings take place in “gun-free” zones. That’s a fact. It is an open invitation, as we saw in Paris. Most school mass shootings are no different. The school I teach at has no guns. We have no protection - none - if a shooter enters campus, because laws are past that keep the good guys from having weapons other than meter sticks.

Jon


#8

:thumbsup:

Jon


#9

It isn’t an open invitation. Its a neutral fact in the deranged minds of people who never had any intention of leaving alive. They target schools whether there is an armed presence or not because they don’t care.


#10

It is an open invitation, which is why most mass shootings happen in “gin-free” zones. Gun free zones assure those deranged minds (and Islamic radicals) that they will see no initial armed resistance. There is nothing neutral about it. There is nothing neutral in the odds against a teacher such as me.

Jon


#11

Like Columbine?


#12

You’re making assertions without any objective evidence to back them up. Nothing neutral in the odds? The fact that someone shows up to shoot the school up despite the fact that other armed people are there (which has happened many times) demonstrates that it is neutral and how do you know that you won’t be the just the first person that gets popped? The only thing you’ve ensured is that teachers will be targets.


#13

=EmperorNapoleon;13589077]You’re making assertions without any objective evidence to back them up. Nothing neutral in the odds?

Correct. Laws that intentionally disarm only the law abiding put me at a disadvantage against a potential shooter who does not follow laws, by definition. I don’t carry a gun on campus. I don’t because I obey the law. The shooter doesn’t obery the law. Hence, the law is not neutral. It favors the bad guy.

The fact that someone shows up to shoot the school up despite the fact that other armed people are there (which has happened many times) demonstrates that it is neutral and how do you know that you won’t be the just the first person that gets popped? The only thing you’ve ensured is that teachers will be targets.

It just isn’t the case, at schools, at movie theaters, at entertainment venues, college campuses, even military recruitment stations and bases. Most schools do not have SRO’s, at least at the elementary level. Law enforcement even has a term for it - soft target. Why is it soft? Because the targets are not armed.
Teachers already are the targets. More importantly, because of gun-free laws, I’m also a sitting duck.

Jon


#14

Two robbery suspects were shot by an employee at a cell phone store in the Jeffrey Manor neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side.

This article is a little misleading….

First, it’s the South Side of Chicago - everyone has a gun because they feel unsafe!

Those of you less sheltered have seen what it is like to walk into a store in a rough part of town. There are gates to get into the parking lot, there is a metal detector and a guard (yes, he most likely is armed) as you enter the store. Yet, you still hurry with your purchased items clinched tightly back to your car. Convince me that a gun is making anyone feel better?

Now there are some nice areas of Chicago were I am certain people feel that guns are a non-issue. Hence, I don’t remember seeing an arm guard at the Apple store the last time I was in town.

My point is that you have an environment that is already saturated with violence and the only solution we have is to allow more weapons? You are not solving any problems…


#15

The current solution is to allow the thugs to continue to have guns, but restrict in any way we can (find the loopholes in MacDonald, and Heller) access to firearms for the law abiding.

Jon


#16

So we shouldn’t have laws because some people break them?


#17

No. We shouldn’t have laws that punish the innocent, and restrict the rights of the law abiding. What we should do is enforce the laws on the books. and if laws can be passed that specifically target the law breakers and not the law abiding, then by all means we should do that. Common sense gun laws are laws that do just that: specifically target the law breakers without limiting the rights of the law abiding.

Jon


#18

The laws on the books are insufficient. New laws providing better methods of discerning “law-abiding” people from non “law-abiding” people are perfectly reasonable. That is common sense. It is not common sense to merely assume that everyone is law-abiding or assume someone is law abiding and sell guns to them anyway because you haven’t had a response for 3 days. Those are the gaping holes that need to be closed by new regulation among other things.


#19

There is this right called presumption of innocence. Laws that are meant to “discern” if I am law abiding violates at least the spirit of that basic principle. The way one discerns the law breaker is to arrest and prosecute, providing due process. I am under no obligation to prove I am law abiding. The NICS system is in place. That’s a non-invasive system that does not violate my presumption of innocence. But it stands for
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If it takes more than three days, then it wasn’t instant, was it? It should be instant. Okay, maybe 30 minutes, an hour or so. That’s instant enough. But three days? People want me to trust my healthcare to a government that can’t do a background check in less than a day?
Yes, more than three days (more than a day) becomes an imposition on my rights, IMO.

Jon


#20

I will never be in favor of a system that mandates we have to wait until someone shoots 50 people before deciding whether or not he should be sold a gun. No one should ever just assume that person won’t use it to commit murder.

There is no right that defines the time-frame in which you can procure a gun.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.