Legally-armed citizen shoots armed robber dead

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/2...y-shot-during-coney-island-robbery-in-detroit

Suspect fatally shot during Coney Island robbery in Detroit
By Taryn Asher
Fox 2 News Reporter

DETROIT (WJBK) -- A customer turns vigilante during an armed robbery at a Coney Island in Detroit. One suspect is dead. The other is on the run.

"He just (came) and put the gun in my face and he (shot) me. He never asked me anything. He never asked me for money," said Adi Avdolli. "He just pulled the trigger."

It happened in an instant. The owner of Adi's Coney Island on Michigan Avenue on the city's southwest side says Wednesday night two masked men ran into his restaurant demanding money. The suspect standing at the register shot him in the shoulder. That's when a customer, who happened to be a CPL holder, pulled out his weapon and fired back. At the same time, another suspect standing guard by the door fired off his shotgun grazing the armed customer in the shoulder.

"I wanted to save his life and my life and those other people that (were) in here, as well. There (were) about six people in here and we all could've been dead," said the 51-year-old regular customer, who fired off a total of eight rounds killing one suspect.

So, two men come into a Coney Island (that's a local Detroit term, means Greek-style Diner) brandishing guns and immediately shoot the store owner. No demand for money, nothing, just BANG. A customer, who is legally armed, shoots the bad guy dead, and is in turn shot by the bad guy's shotgun-wielding accomplice.

So. For those who fear legally-armed citizens, what would have happened if the armed citizen had NOT been armed? It seems clear that the intent of the gunmen was to kill; for what reason would you believe they would not have simply continued shooting everyone in the store, one by one?

I don't really expect a reply from the anti-gunners. They always go silent when they read these kinds of stories, because it blows up their myths about law-abiding gun owners.

 

[MJS]

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/2...y-shot-during-coney-island-robbery-in-detroit



So, two men come into a Coney Island (that's a local Detroit term, means Greek-style Diner) brandishing guns and immediately shoot the store owner. No demand for money, nothing, just BANG. A customer, who is legally armed, shoots the bad guy dead, and is in turn shot by the bad guy's shotgun-wielding accomplice.

So. For those who fear legally-armed citizens, what would have happened if the armed citizen had NOT been armed? It seems clear that the intent of the gunmen was to kill; for what reason would you believe they would not have simply continued shooting everyone in the store, one by one?

I don't really expect a reply from the anti-gunners. They always go silent when they read these kinds of stories, because it blows up their myths about law-abiding gun owners.

Well, I'm not anti gun, so I'll chime in. First, good for the good guy! What would have happened in the guy wasn't armed? Well, given the fact that there were 2 badguys with guns, the odds are pretty much stacked in their favor. For anyone in the store...well, if you don't believe in praying, I'd say that would be a damn good time to start. Hope for the best (that you dont get shot) but expect the worst (that if you do get shot, you survive). If you can, be a good witness. Anything you can provide the cops, just may help in capturing them.

 

[Aiki Lee]

He probably saved everyone else's life in that diner. A pity he had to give his own to do so.

 

[Dirty Dog]

He probably saved everyone else's life in that diner. A pity he had to give his own to do so.

What? Both the store owner and the bystander are quoted in the article. The owner was shot in the shoulder. The bystander was "grazed" in the shoulder. I don't think either is speaking from Beyond the Grave.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He probably saved everyone else's life in that diner. A pity he had to give his own to do so.

It was a confusingly-written article. I had to look at it twice as well.

 

[Aiki Lee]

whoops! I misread. I thought it said he was killed in the process. Disregard the last comment. Move along folks, there's nothing to see there...

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think the confusion comes from what passes for journalism today.

Cliff Notes Version:
Bad guy #1 shoots good guy #1 in the shoulder. Good guy #2 blows away bad guy #1. Bad guy #2 shoots good guy #2 in the shoulder. Bad guy #2 runs away.

 

[chinto]

good he got the one, and I wish his shooting was better and he had gotten both. not to him, shot gun boy is the larger threat, shoot him first next time, if its not a .45 or larger caliber pistol, always! always! shoot twice, then do it again until the target is down! please remember if it is not serious enough to kill you should never have pulled that pistol let alone shot it!

 

[StudentCarl]

Nice to see the citizen acted. Even though the first rule of gunfighting is "have a gun", will/mindset are decisive. You can talk about it in training, but that has to come from inside.

I would be interested to know if the armed citizen moved during the firefight. Standing still and returning fire gets a shooter hit more than shooting and moving.