Via Tom Givens.
Deranged subject uses barista as punching bag.
MILLCREEK — Shelby Hamilton’s first thought as she lay bruised and bleeding on the ground of a Millcreek Starbucks was that she didn’t want to die this way. It would be a painful way to go.
It all began while Hamilton was working an early morning shift at the coffee shop near 3900 South and 900 East Thursday morning. Hamilton was standing behind the counter when a “haggard-looking” man entered, she said.
Instead of coming to the register to order, the man came behind the counter and asked Hamilton if she knew who he was. When she replied that she didn’t, he became angry and began beating her with his fists, she said.
“It was all just kind of random. I didn’t really know him. … He just came in the door and hit me in the back of the head from behind,” Hamilton told KSL.com.
see what Corporate Bending Over for the Criminal does to the Starbucks Worker? But fear not: The Starbuck spirit intervened and she surely was helped by her coworkers.
She backed up and tried to put distance between herself and the man, but once she reached the end of the counter, she was trapped — and he continued hitting her. Hamilton’s co-workers, however, remained frozen, unsure what to do, she said.
“I started to think why no one was helping me, ‘cause he was only hitting me, and I felt kind of angry for a moment,” she said.
Ooops! My bad, never mind. So what happens next?
Before Hamilton had much time to ponder the question, however, the man picked up a metal supply basket and hit her on the side of the head. Hamilton crumpled, and the man continued kicking her in the back. The only thought left in her mind was: “I don’t want to die this way.”
OK, she is toast. Surely now her coworkers spring into action:
As soon as she fell to the ground, however, her co-workers ran out the door and began screaming for help.
We never saw that one coming, right guys and gal?
The next thing Hamilton knew, the man had stopped beating her and gone back around the counter.
Soon after, she heard a gunshot.
The police must have arrived and saved the day!
Unified Police Lt. Ken Hansen confirmed later that the attacker was shot by a man in his late 60s who saw what was happening while visiting the shop for his morning coffee. The customer drew the man’s attention, and the attacker began to approach him.
As he came closer, the customer pulled out a gun and shot the attacker once in the chest, Hansen said. The man then stumbled out of the store.
Wait one frigging minute. A client with a concealed weapon who was in full violation of Corporate policy by being armed inside Starbucks, shot and stopped the one guy that is allowed to be in Starbucks without buying anything (as per the same Corporate policy) beating the shit out of a female employee. #WarOnWomen kinda fits here.
Good Guy with a Gun saves another life.
A feel-good story for today!
People need to stop carrying mouseguns or work on getting more than one shot off.
I hear too many of these: “shot in the chest/torso” and the crim either isn’t down and out on the floor, or on the way to the morgue.
I’m not saying ‘shoot to kill’ but it looks like these good samaritans really don’t want to engage and that’s going to get some good people killed.
If it’s time to pull out the gun and go to work, it’s time to take care of business.
Was the threat stopped? If the answer is YES, then the caliber did its job and legally the defense part of the situation is over.
Read the comments. Here are a few of the ‘best’ ones:
“Yeah because him and other people in the store probably could not take this guy down with out the protection.”
“Because we cant figure out a better way to solve problems? Was this guy armed? Thanks to the police for showing a little restraint and not just hiding behind the second amendment…which really has nothing to do with this sort of situation.”
“The fact is the ability to freely carry firearms increases overall incidence of violence by as much as 15% than if the guns weren’t there at all. Even though anecdotal stories like this one support the “good guy with a gun” narrative, the numbers actually show that armed citizens increase gun-related injury and death overall. I’m glad this clerk was successfully protected, but the cost of her defense very likely means others elsewhere are at higher risk of injury and death. Sobering to think about.”
Liberals would rather see a woman beaten to death with a display rack than admit that guns save lives. So much for supporting the survivors.
Liberals would rather see a woman beaten to death with a display rack than admit that guns save lives. So much for supporting the survivors.
Unfortunately, you are right
Revisiting this quote: “The fact is the ability to freely carry firearms increases overall incidence of violence by as much as 15% than if the guns weren’t there at all.”
That is total bullshit. How can they possibly know about all the times there was a firearm present and there was no violence? I carry everywhere I go. There is no violence. How do they factor that into their calculation? The answer is that they can’t, which means that this little factoid is completely false, because it cannot be proven one way or the other.
I have seen that stat bounced around lately but no source, which is a good way to avoid review.
I could just as easily say that the absence of pubic hair increases the chance of a woman being raped by 22% over a woman who does not groom her bikini area. How can you prove or disprove that?
I have some weird readers…. LOL
Love it
What it boils down to is, if a criminal is attacking someone that’s an “incident of violence”. If the victim or a bystander is a CCW and centerpunches the criminal, that’s TWO incidents of violence. Et Voila, CCW’s cause an increase in incidents of violence.
But what about the times where a person is carrying a weapon and there is no violence? How do you account for that?
They don’t have to. They’re just doubling up on the violent crime stats and blaming us.
When my state got CCW, the local Big City Newspaper published an editorial stating pointblank that even if CCW’s reduced the number of rapes and murders by X percent, it still should not be legal… because THAT’S NOT HOW CIVILIZED PEOPLE BEHAVE.
Direct quote.
Evidently, ‘civilized people’ tolerate higher numbers of robberies, rapes, and murders and just feel bad about it.