Customer Shoots, Kills Would-Be Armed Robber

KETV ^ | April 27, 2010 | Unkown

[throwback]

OMAHA, Neb. -- An armed robber was shot and killed in an Omaha business Monday night, police said. Investigators said a customer intervened and fired on the gunman.

The robbery took place at the Walgreen’s store at 61st Street and Northwest Radial Highway at 8:50 p.m.

Police said two masked individuals walked into the store. One of them was armed with a short shotgun. The gunman pointed the weapon at customers and at the clerk behind the counter.

A man who had a permit to carry a gun saw the robber point the weapon at the clerk and pulled out his handgun and shot the suspect multiple times, police said. The robber stumbled out of the store and collapsed.

The wounded robber was taken to Creighton University Medical Center, where he later died.

[Utilizer]

The localities cannot keep a law-abiding citizen from owning a weapon but they can place rules (as in well regulated militia) on individually held weapons.

Disagree. The 2nd Amendment "...shall not be infringed" means just that. If some business site is not happy about Me entering their establishment armed, I will be entirely willing to take My business to somewhere that will. Other than that is not an option anywhere.

[Manly Warrior]

It is quite thrilling to live through an armed encounter, whether it may be a military engagement or a civil one.

Survival is a sweet emotion. The regret is for those (good guys and innocents) who do not make it home, (and that we did).

The dirt bags get little afterthought from professionals. It is necessary, it is the way it should be.

God bless.

[Dan Nunn]

Am I missing something? The article says “Harry J. McCullough Cited For Possessing Weapon Withour [sic] Proper Permit.”

However, this is a perfect example of being judged by 12 instead of carried by 6.

[Publius6961]

How would he have felt if he did nothing and the perp killed a clerk or customer? He WAS in a position to do something about the situation...and he did. Yeah, it will be a real memory bitch to carry around but, bottom line, the criminal really killed himself.

Stories like this one always raise questions in my mind. What percentage of robberies, where the criminal is armed with a firearm, results in the death of a robbee?

If it less than 50%, the good samaritan may still be in deep doodoo...

[TigersEye]

Give the customer a discount card.

[Red in Blue PA]

The hero is being charged! The 2A was his permit.

[EGPWS]

The 2nd amendment, a God given right and for a God given reason.

[Doe Eyes]

The 2nd amendment, a God given right and for a God given reason.

So few people even know that the right to keep and bear arms is in the Bible.

[EGPWS]

So few people even know that the right to keep and bear arms is in the Bible.

So few people know how to spell Constitution anymore...

[petercooper]

Excellent!

[Billthedrill]

“If it’s worth shooting, it’s worth shooting twice.”

[Doe Eyes]

So few people know how to spell Constitution anymore...

The Constitution is not in the Bible.

[Red in Blue PA]

Medals should be given out to citizens like this.

[Newbomb Turk]

How long before the perps hoodlum buddies and family members seek out the good samaritan for ventilating their hommie.

Poor guys going to need to leave Omaha which has become a shooting gallery anyway.

[Oceander]

Awesome!

[calex59]

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms but leaves it to the states and localities to set up regulations for ownership or not. The localitie

Sorry, but the constitution does not give us any rights, it merely enumerates the rights we are born with. The second amendment is clear "...shall not be infringed" means just that. The state, city or whatever do NOT have the right to regulate the owning or carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens, to do so infringes on those rights which the constitution clearly says they can't do.

Anyone who believes the government, at any level, has the right to regulate firearms and keep citizens from carrying them doesn't know what they are talking about.

[RJS1950]

If it gives us no rights then we do NOT have the right to free speech, to bear arms and the state or the fed can control speech or firearms in any way they want. We are not born with the right to anything other than the right to live life although the Nazi democrat party has convinced a lot of idiots that we are all born with the right to an education, a job, health care etc. These articles and amendments were specifically written to lay out what little the federal government was responsible for and leave to the people as an organized state or locality responsibility for the rest.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

This, like other procriptions of the Constitution lays out what the FEDERAL government cannot do. The whole concept was to limit what the federal government can do and to leave the details and bulk of the power to the states. The idea of the first clause of the second is that the states can form and regulate a militia; that it must be well regulated and is under state control. This is where we are running into trouble today.

What is not given to the federal government, in this case, is the statutory ability to keep citizens from owning firearms so the regulatory capacity, not the ability to prohibit ownership of weapons, goes to the states. The states can lay out rules and regulations as long as they do not prohibit or do away with the above stated right of the people to keep and bear those arms.

You might not know what you are talking about.

[calex59]

The constitution does not give us rights. what I said, but you failed to understand, is that the constitution tells us the rights we are born with and tells the feds, and the states, what they can't do to us. The rights in the bill of rights merely spell out the rights we already have as free born humans and does not confer any rights on us.

If you believe the constitution gives us rights then you must believe the government has the right to take them away. It doesn't because the government didn't give them to us, God did (or nature if you are not religious)by right of our being born.

We the people told the government what powers they had, the constitution does give the government powers but the ones they don't specifically have are ours by right of birth. Powers and freedoms.

Read the constitution, starting with the preamble, and you will see that it clearly states we have rights that no government can take away.

The reason our constitution is unique in the world is that it tells the government what it can and cannot do and spells out the rights we are born with. It does not allow government to confer rights upon us.