WSVN-TV – 7NEWS Miam Ft. Lauderdale News, Weather, Deco
“The robbery happened, Monday, when a man attempted to rob the F.M. Food Market corner store, near Northwest 76th Street and 17th Avenue, in Northwest Miami-Dade.
According to police, the suspect entered the store, pulled the gun and demanded cash from the clerk. The suspect, however, did not know the clerk had a weapon of his own.
The video shows an exchange of gunfire between a clerk and the robber. The suspect is then seen taking off.”
The clerk had two guns available as seen in the video which indicates at least a decent level of smart. But the way he was holding the gun indicates that he might be in need of additional training.
And just when we thought we have gotten rid of old clichés, Miami-Dade Police lieutenant John Jenkins resurrects an old verbal zombie:
“We don’t ever advise anyone to confront an armed subject and take action in their own hands,”
If that is the best way to deal with armed people, how come it is not the way Police Officers do it? God knows that if they even suspect a gun might be on a criminal, theirs go out and sing the bang-bang song.
The clerk responded at a deadly force situation with determination and got to go home unharmed. That is the best outcome in anybody’s book.
Hey, Miguel, police officers are trained and paid to deal with situations like these…that’s their function so I guess that’s the main reason why they do what they do. You were probably just making a joke so I apologize for taking it seriously.
I imagine the cop’s advise might ring true had a couple customers been caught in the crossfire but in this case the store owner definitely took the right action and defended himself and his property.
police officers are trained and paid to deal with situations like these
Unfortunately they are not trained for situations like that unless they are some sort of team like Jim Cirillo’s Steakout Squad; as far as I know, police forces do not do that kind of thing anymore. Police as usual would have arrived after the fact to collect evidence and notify the next of kin that is why the rank & File officer will tell you that you are better off defending yourself than waiting for them to save the moment.
But when the White Shirts are politicians owing favors to other politician, you get stupid and decadent statements like the one we got.
If police are trained so well, why do they do so poor of a job showing it? They are allowed to use force under they same circumstances we are, yet routinely use the threat of violence to compel obedience. Overkill and hitting innocent bystanders is also common.
IIRC wasn’t there a case in Philly last year where 10 or so, oh so well trained occifers shot the shit out of a suspects car and the suspects? Firing around 120 shots and only managing to hit the suspects[let alone the car] with about 30 shots? At point blank range while having the car trapped?
Or was that Cleveland? Or both?
Sure they’re trained for confrontation.
How many cops are around when a thief attempts an armed robbery and are able to stop it? 0.00001%?
The police say ‘Don’t engage an armed attacker’ because they don’t want the paper and investigative work that comes afterward…
@SunwolfNC:
A more cynical man than myself would say the police don’t want private citizens engaging armed attackers because THEY want to do it later, at Oh-dark-thirty, in full SWAT/riot gear, possibly at the wrong house – they gotta justify the expense of their mil-surp APC somehow.
But that’s a cynical man’s opinion. As for myself, the high-brass can – and will – do the politically-correct two-step between “Don’t engage an armed attacker” and “Police have no duty to protect you” all they want. The two statements are opposite and incompatible. In the gray area in between – which we call “reality” – you gotta do what you gotta do (within legal limits), the rank-and-file will inwardly cheer for the successful defender, and the high-brass can PC-dance their happy asses straight to Hell.
Just my $0.02.
@Archer- preferably while wearing gasoline soaked over coats?
Miguel, I think you (and Walt) could use a refresher course in legalese. This is a language often spoken by cops, more frequently the higher you go in the ranks:
“We don’t ever advise anyone to confront an armed subject and take action in their own hands,”
This is a lot like “I didn’t tell you to jump off a bridge.” It’s not saying much, at least, not much that doesn’t involve deliberate or accidental misinterpretation.
He didn’t advise against confronting an armed subject and taking action. He just said he doesn’t advise it. That’s because he’s speaking legalese, wherein an official police spokesman can be liable in court for advising people to confront an armed subject or take action in their own hands. His first duty here is to refrain from saying anything that can be used against him in a court of law. Giving generally sound advice that might cost the department money is nowhere in his list of duties.
The cops have their job. Our personal safety really isn’t one of them.
His word choice was a lot like a recently-famous bit of legalese that pretty much every leftist in America misinterpreted, for one reason or another: “we don’t need you to do that” (911 dispatcher to George Zimmerman).
Then they are already screwed themselves as they have previously stated that citizens have done right defending themselves and even call one individual a Good Samaritan for stopping an armed robbery in a Burger King full with people.