Posted on 02/26/2024 6:33:21 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
A Chicago jewelry store employee with a concealed carry permit opened fire on an alleged robber just before 11 a.m. Saturday morning, striking him with at least two bullets.
CWChicago reported the alleged 27-year-old robber walked to a jewelry case near the store’s front door and allegedly swung at it, in order to smash the glass. As this was happening, “a man behind the counter draws a pistol, racks the slide, and fires as the [alleged] thief appears to be turning toward the door.”
The alleged robber then falls out of the door, but quickly reaches back inside to pick up something that he dropped. He then ran to the “L” platform, suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen and one to the buttocks
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Frontier piercings are in
“Common sense says how would the employee know that?.”
He needs to wait until he (the employee) is shot to be certain. /sarc
“He needs to wait until he (the employee) is shot to be certain”
Well, that’s pretty much what the university presidents told congress about antisemitism.
“It’s conditional”
Nope, no media bias here, folks.
I note that everything attributed to the thief is "alleged," but the shooter's actions are reported as fact.
And, this is Breitbart.
You wrote “Well, he should have armed himself.”
— Clint Eastwood
Lone Watti: "Hell is coming for breakfast brunch."
I’m familiar with this neighborhood. It’s commonly known as Jewlers Row on South Wabash Ave. The owners of the shops on this strip are very tough hombres. Also politically respected by City Hall. I think the shops and their employees get “special” protection.
So the robber was “unarmed”. He was also robbing a store, but I guess that means little to nothing nowadays. The important thing seems to be that a gun was involved. What if the robber was a martial arts master? Then, theoretically, he WAS armed. What if the robber got away unharmed, but then was apprehended later for the same crime? Still “not guilty”? Through every conceivable circumstance, I fail to see why the store employee should be charged with anything,but I guess a simple robbery nowadays is considered a “no fault” situation by the courts. If that is so, then the judge had better be looking forward to the time when he & others involved will be judged by the Judge of all mankind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.