Marauder used as getaway car in Jewelry Store theft.

[White Knuckles]

Has anybody heard this story? Hopefully not a member of this board.




OWNER SHOOTS AT THIEF AFTER GRAB AND RUN

Grand Rapids, MI – September 8, 2004

A suspect entered a retail jewelry store and asked to see a high-end watch. After being shown the watch, the suspect ran out of the store and escaped in a black Mercury Marauder. However, the owner came out of the store and fired three shots at the car of the escaping thief, on a busy city street at 11:30 a.m. The jeweler did not hit the thief’s car, but did hit two other vehicles that were almost two blocks away. One bullet blew out the rear window of a passing Toyota SUV and the other hit a passing Chrysler minivan. Grand Rapids Police said they were investigating the shooting, and would turn over reports to the county prosecutor about whether to file charges. The suspect is described as a black male, 19-20 years old, 5’ 4.”

[Mike Poore]

[QUOTE=White Knuckles]Has anybody heard this story? Hopefully not a member of this board.
QUOTE]

Hey Gordon, any chance it was your new significant other from the Kauffman's shootout last Saturday?:rofl::rofl::rofl::ro fl:

[mmmmmmarauder]

THANK GOD...

the bullets never touched the Marauderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr



:party:


W :flag: '04

[rayjay]

I am amazed the store owner wasn't pinched on the spot. What he did was flat out criminal.

[hdwrench]

I am amazed the store owner wasn't pinched on the spot. What he did was flat out criminal.
the only crime was he couldnt shoot well enough to put one in the robbers skull.

[hitchhiker]

Steal a Marauder and die!


:nocomm:

[FordNut]

the only crime was he couldnt shoot well enough to put one in the robbers skull.

I agree that it would have been the robber's just dessert, but


I am amazed the store owner wasn't pinched on the spot. What he did was flat out criminal.

This is absolutely true. Anybody who has been thru a CCW course knows better (or at least should know better) than to do this.

[hdwrench]

I agree that it would have been the robber's just dessert, but



This is absolutely true. Anybody who has been thru a CCW course knows better (or at least should know better) than to do this.
that being said i have taken the course. and it is a pity he had poor aim and had innocents downrange.

[MERCMAN]

19-20 years old, 5’ 4.”

Good thing he was in the MM, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to reach the pedals :lol:

[bigslim]

THANK GOD...

the bullets never touched the Marauderrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr



:party:


W :flag: '04
I was thinking the same thing!! Plus, everyone knows a Marauder will outrun a bullet.

[Patrick]

19-20 years old, 5? 4.?

Good thing he was in the MM, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to reach the pedals :lol:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[BillyGman]

on a more cerebral note, it IS true that there were actually two crimes commited in that situation. The thief commited the first one, while the second crime was commited by the store owner. Since the thief was already out of the store, and he wasn't pointing a firearm nor any other weapon at the store owner, nor at anyone at all, then the store owner had no business pulling his gun out and firing it. Guys like that give the rest of us gun owners a bad name, and their actions simply work to justify the errosion of our Second Ammendment rights. The political gun grabbers will have a field day w/this incident I'm sure.

His life wasn't in danger, nor was he nor anyone else present threatened w/bodily harm, so he was legally in the wrong for firing his gun. I am in no way siding w/the thief, but I'm sure the store owner has business insurance that will cover his loss anyway. He could've easily killed an innocent bystander who was hundreds of yards away. How irresponsible!!! People like that shouldn't own guns.

[FordNut]

on a more cerebral note, it IS true that there were actually two crimes commited in that situation. The thief commited the first one, while the second crime was commited by the store owner. Since the thief was already out of the store, and he wasn't pointing a firearm nor any other weapon at the store owner, nor at anyone at all, then the store owner had no business pulling his gun out and firing it. Guys like that give the rest of us gun owners a bad name, and their actions simply work to justify the errosion of our Second Ammendment rights. The political gun grabbers will have a field day w/this incident I'm sure.

His life wasn't in danger, nor was he nor anyone else present threatened w/bodily harm, so he was legally in the wrong for firing his gun. I am in no way siding w/the thief, but I'm sure the store owner has business insurance that will cover his loss anyway. He could've easily killed an innocent bystander who was hundreds of yards away. How irresponsible!!! People like that shouldn't own guns.

My point exactly.

[Mike Poore]

[QUOTE=BillyGman]
His life wasn't in danger, nor was he nor anyone else present threatened w/bodily harm, so he was legally in the wrong for firing his gun.QUOTE]

Hey Billy: Right on the mark. Escalation is a BAD word when it comes to protection of property, and something all gun owners should think about.
Lucky he didn't have a 50BMG :soapbox:

[BillyGman]

[QUOTE=BillyGman]
His life wasn't in danger, nor was he nor anyone else present threatened w/bodily harm, so he was legally in the wrong for firing his gun.QUOTE]

Hey Billy: Right on the mark. Escalation is a BAD word when it comes to protection of property, and something all gun owners should think about.
Lucky he didn't have a 50BMG :soapbox:
LOL....ya don't need a 50 BMG to kill someone. ;)

[rayjay]

Thanks BillyGman, I didn't have time to elaborate as I had to get ready for my tour. One of the few property crimes in NYS where DPF "may" be authorized for a civilian by law is in defense of one's own home. The other off the top of my head would be arson of a occupied building. Both of these are in the prevent/terminate stage, not the flight from stage. Even then you better be able to articulate why it was used. Shooting at a fleeing felon, outside the residence, for a property crime = YOU will be charged. A good rule of thumb is unless your life or someone elses life is in danger, do not use DPF. I can feel for the store owner in this situation, but he was way out of bounds with how he responded. You also hit the nail square on the anti gun lobby.

[jgc61sr2002]

I agree the store owners act was reckless. I NYC he would probably be charged with reckless endangerment, criminial mischief and possession of a weapon. Even if he was licensed ( the license would be void) if he used the weapon to commit a crime. Just think about the innocent people he endangered. He was lucky he didn't injure any one.

[BillyGman]

To my knowledge, the use of deadly force is legally justifiable as long as you, or the person you intend to protect is threatened w/bodily harm, whether such harm is life threatening or not. But atleast in most situations, that would have to mean that the perpetrator garnishes a weapon of some sort. And it doesn't appear that this was the case in that robbery situation. And as it's alreay been pointed out, the suspect was fleeing anyway. So no self-defense claim would be valid.

[CRUZTAKER]

LOL....ya don't need a 50 BMG to kill someone. ;)
But you do to kill a Marauder....:banned:

[BillyGman]

But you do to kill a Marauder....:banned:
LOL...maybe you can bring a 50 BMG rifle w/you the next time you're up against an Impala SS. :baaa:

[Ross]

Yeah, I'm as big a believer as anyone else in a person's right to carry a gun and use it if necessary. In this case, however, it looks like this guy was just asking for trouble. Shooting at a fleeing vehicle isn't the smartest thing to do. Thank God he didn't kill anyone in the two other cars that he hit. Talk about giving the liberals more ammo to use against us law abiding gun owners!

[mmmmmmarauder]

Gun control is being able to hit your target!


Ok...don't shoot fleeing vehicles or people in the back
but you get the point...



W :flag: '04

[tomd]

They need to take his gun away! :loco: :dunno: :neener:
What the hell was he thinking??? :gunfire: :hide:

[mmmmmmarauder]

letting people use these "anecdotals" to justify taking away
your SECOND AMENDMENT rights...

The first thing that Hitler did was to take guns away from the citizens...

Gun ownership rights are not "granted" they are part of being a free citizen.
Terrorists and dictators prefer unarmed and submissive subjects.

One who owns a gun is a citizen
One who doesn't is a subject

Gun ownership is an inalienable right
(capable of being taken away only with due process and just cause)

unalienable...is a GOD given right (i.e., life, liberty, etc.) that can be taken away or restricted by NO MAN...

yes I am becoming a Constitutional scholar mostly due to listening to speeches by Founding Father incarnate Alan Keyes...he is running an uphill battle against Obama Bin Lying in Illinois (keyes2004.com)



W :flag: '04

[BillyGman]

All too often amongst our politicians as well as our media, gun control is associated w/crime control, and that's a grave error. It's been proven over and over again that gun control does not equate to crime control. Stricter gun laws only effect the gun owners who own their guns legally and abide by the laws. Criminals care nothing about gun laws since they don't obey them no matter how many there are. What we need is CRIME CONTROL, NOT gun control.

[tomd]

What we need is to take guns away from a bozo such as this guy. Don't think you'd be too happy if you got hit by one of those wild bullets from this guy’s gun? Worst yet a wild shot hits one of your kids! AM NOT saying take away my guns or yours, I am saying use common sense! I don’t think anyone has a problem with that?

[BillyGman]

What we need is to take guns away from a bozo such as this guy. Don't think you'd be too happy if you got hit by one of those wild bullets from this guy’s gun? Worst yet a wild shot hits one of your kids! AM NOT saying take away my guns or yours, I am saying use common sense! I don’t think anyone has a problem with that?Good point. I'm with you on that. I know a guy who sells guns in his store, and walked out of his store one day to find two men running away from his car w/a case of beer that he had in the trunk. They had pried open the trunk to get it. perhaps they were looking for something else in there. So this guy takes out his handgun and starts shooting at the two theives simply because they damaged his car and got his beer!!! note only is that insane, and illegal what he did, but it's injustice that he didn't even get arrested. Although I must say that while he reported the theft to the police department, I'm sure that he laft out the part that he shot at them. This is another person who shouldn't own a gun IMO.

There's also guy who I work with who used to have a pistol permit, who also left the house to go shopping, and didn't also left the house w/his loaded 40 caliber pistol on a shelf that is 4 feet high while his 5 yr old, and 7 yr old sons were home. The gun was also loaded, and he didn't even tell his wife that he left it there!!!! needless to say that when the guy got home, his wife was ready to divorce him because the 5 yr old came running up to her to let her know that his seven yr old brother had daddy's gun, and that he was pointing it at him. I was glad to hear that this same guy allowed his pistol permit to expire and hasn't renewed it. The world is better off w/out him owning a gun. yes, it's our Second Ammendment right, but what some people fail to understand that with rights comes responsibility also. But I also must add that the majority of people that I know who own guns, are very responsible with them, and do not take that responsibility lightly as those two people that I've mentioned here.

[Ross]

I agree with Billy that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who take the idea of gun ownership and use very seriously. Unfortunately, all we hear about on the news is the tiny percentage of those who misuse guns.