# BG killed while attempting to rob pharmacy



## KenpoTex (Feb 11, 2009)

guy tries to rob pharmacy, plainclothes security guy (retired LEO) picks his moment and puts 4 rounds into BG's chest...BG "dead right there"

article with video:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01EAST021009.htm


----------



## myusername (Feb 11, 2009)

Sad story all round. So many hurt by this robbers actions. His Mother (Dealing with losing her son), The security guard/retired LEO (who has to live with shooting someone), The pharmacist (Who has to cope with the trauma of having a gun pointed at his head and then seeing someone shot dead in front of him) and the robber himself who lost his life. The only good thing about this story is that no one innocent got killed. The robber may be dead but everyone is still hurting. Not much to feel good about here.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 11, 2009)

myusername said:


> Sad story all round. So many hurt by this robbers actions. His Mother (Dealing with losing her son), The security guard/retired LEO (who has to live with shooting someone), The pharmacist (Who has to cope with the trauma of having a gun pointed at his head and then seeing someone shot dead in front of him) and the robber himself who lost his life. The only good thing about this story is that no one innocent got killed. The robber may be dead but everyone is still hurting. *Not much to feel good about here*.



guess it depends on your point of view, one less bad guy and no loss of innocent life...sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 11, 2009)

When you decide to feed your habit by means of force with a firearm, it is a recipe for disaster. If the pharmacist would have been killed, it would have been a tragedy indeed, with the robber still at large to kill again. If the security guard/retired LEO, after serving society for 37 years, and making it to retirement, had been killed, this would have been a very sad ending to a long and dangerous career. All society can do is offer help, like it did, to this person that lost his life. In the end it is up to each one of us to find his or her own way in life, sadly enough this person had no one to blame but himself.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 11, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> guess it depends on your point of view, one less bad guy and no loss of innocent life...sounds pretty good to me.


 
Not to sound heartless here, but I agree.  It's only going to get worse with the economy like it is.


----------



## myusername (Feb 11, 2009)

seasoned said:


> When you decide to feed your habit by means of force with a firearm, it is a recipe for disaster. If the pharmacist would have been killed, it would have been a tragedy indeed, with the robber still at large to kill again. If the security guard/retired LEO, after serving society for 37 years, and making it to retirement, had been killed, this would have been a very sad ending to a long and dangerous career. All society can do is offer help, like it did, to this person that lost his life. In the end it is up to each one of us to find his or her own way in life, sadly enough this person had no one to blame but himself.



Couldn't agree more. I was not sympathising with the robber in my post but everyone effected by his actions. Depressing reading.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 11, 2009)

myusername said:


> Sad story all round. So many hurt by this robbers actions. His Mother (Dealing with losing her son), The security guard/retired LEO (who has to live with shooting someone), The pharmacist (Who has to cope with the trauma of having a gun pointed at his head and then seeing someone shot dead in front of him) and the robber himself who lost his life. The only good thing about this story is that no one innocent got killed. The robber may be dead but everyone is still hurting. Not much to feel good about here.


 
Yes there is.

Someone who tried to impose his will by threatening innocent life was stopped because someone cared and was willing. That is what we ( not just Americans, EVERYONE) need MORE of,  ASAFP.

That doesn't negate the grief the criminal's family must feel, nonetheless while I'll grudge the family no tears , I'll shed none myself.


----------



## myusername (Feb 11, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> guess it depends on your point of view, one less bad guy and no loss of innocent life...sounds pretty good to me.





Guardian said:


> Not to sound heartless here, but I agree.  It's only going to get worse with the economy like it is.



I agree up until a point. If any one needed to lose their life in this situation then the right one definately died. However in my humble opinion I think it a little easy but questionable to celebrate the loss of human life and consider this a "_pretty good_" story. The people involved have to deal with the psychological impact of this situation for a good time after this event. Life isn't a simple movie script with badly written good guys and bad guys. 

In addition, (_and I am anticipating a little bit of flaming from this comment but here goes..._) none of us here knows the life story of the robber. Please,please understand that I am in no way sympathising with him, what he did was disgusting,aggressive and wrong and he brought his own demise on himself. However, we judging on such little information have no idea of his background and what may have led him to this point. Could be a history of mental illness? Could be a long history of child abuse? Obviously this may not be the case and even if it were would in no way excuse his actions but it would certainly prevent me personally from taking pleasure in reading of his death. He brought it on himself but it doesn't make it nice.

My thoughts are for his mother, the pharmacist and the security guard who are living in the aftermath of this event.


----------



## Ahriman (Feb 11, 2009)

Background story is good to know, but it doesn't have anything to do with assaults and murders. In a civilian setting, initiating a conflict forces the would-be victim to defend themselves - no matter WHO or WHAT is the attacker. At least here, only police officers may point a gun at you in some given situations- in ANY other case, it's an attempted murder thus you can answer with lethal force using anything, even illegally carried objects, even against a uniformed person.
Even if the attacker is mentally ill, or a kid, murder attempts must be stopped. Background stories can clarify things, can make us understand the motives of the attackers, and so on, but no background story will ever justify murder.
...
Relatives suffer after these events, that's sure. Would-be victims as well. The good guys negating a serious threat using lethal force... some suffer, some don't. I'm glad that a murderer _(I know, I know, he never killed anybody, but the difference between a would-be and an actual murderer is only a slight change of mood) _is dead and the rest of the mentioned people are alive even is some of them suffer.


----------



## MJS (Feb 11, 2009)

Things could've turned out much worse than they did.  Of course, I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before the family of this fine upstanding citizen and the ACLU files some crazy lawsuit.  After all, I'm sure this guy was a wonderful dad, a great son and was the all star B-Ball player in highschool.  

Seriously though....props for the security guard.  This was a deadly force situation and he acted accordingly IMO.  Does this sound mean and cold hearted?  Probably, but instead of this guy trying to better his life and get help for his addiction, he chose a life of crime.  For those people, I have no sympathy


----------



## myusername (Feb 11, 2009)

Ahriman said:


> Background story is good to know, but it doesn't have anything to do with assaults and murders. In a civilian setting, initiating a conflict forces the would-be victim to defend themselves - no matter WHO or WHAT is the attacker. At least here, only police officers may point a gun at you in some given situations- in ANY other case, it's an attempted murder thus you can answer with lethal force using anything, even illegally carried objects, even against a uniformed person.
> Even if the attacker is mentally ill, or a kid, murder attempts must be stopped. Background stories can clarify things, can make us understand the motives of the attackers, and so on, but no background story will ever justify murder.
> ...
> Relatives suffer after these events, that's sure. Would-be victims as well. The good guys negating a serious threat using lethal force... some suffer, some don't. I'm glad that a murderer _(I know, I know, he never killed anybody, but the difference between a would-be and an actual murderer is only a slight change of mood) _is dead and the rest of the mentioned people are alive even is some of them suffer.



I agree with your sentiments entirely. If you read my posts you will see that I am not justifying the would be murderers actions and I am 100% behind the actions of the security guard. There is no excuse for picking up a gun and threatening another human beings life just to feed an addiction. If the robber was desperate and violent enough to do just that he is desperate and violent enough to pull the trigger! The people have an absolute right to defend themselves from such a person. I suppose the point I am making is we can be thankful that the right people survived but is it really right to celebrate someones death?

When bringing potential background in to this I am trying highlight that this is possibly nothing but a tragic story. Whether the robber got what he deserved is not an issue for me it is the idea that I should be happy about it because it is one less "BG" in the world that concerns me. In my humble opinion I think you are very, very right when you say no background can justify murder and the guy needed to be stopped. But for me this does not negate the fact that if this guy had such a hypothetical background that it is a depressing end to a depressing story. So I can be thankful that no one innocent got hurt, I can be thankful that this guy is now unable to hurt anybody else but I personally will not take any joy in it.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 11, 2009)

It's good to hear this ended well but indeed here are always victims--including the man who shot who may feel guilty (regardless of whether we feel he should) or be otherwise affected by the incident.



Guardian said:


> It's only going to get worse with the economy like it is.



Yup.


----------



## hocuspocus (Feb 11, 2009)

One real question we all must answer, is how will we react in the same situation. 

Would we hesitate, or would we pull the trigger?
Can we depend on ourselves to do the right thing - meaning, snuff the bad guy - at the right time?
Or, better yet, can our loved ones depend on us to do the right thing at the right time?
It's important to know this about ourselves. It's important to do this inner work on yourself, so that you will know what to expect. And, perhaps so that you can ready yourself for any guilty feelings you may have afterwards.

Would I feel guilty? A dead bad guy is less troublesome than a live bad guy. Less drain on the system. Yes, I'm that "cold" about it. To hell with his family. 

If I just saved an innocent person's life, it's good enough for me.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 11, 2009)

A pathetic end to a pathetic human being.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 11, 2009)

myusername said:


> Could be a history of mental illness? Could be a long history of child abuse? Obviously this may not be the case and even if it were would in no way excuse his actions but it would certainly prevent me personally from taking pleasure in reading of his death. He brought it on himself but it doesn't make it nice.


 
While these questions have merit from an academic standpoint, they have no bearing on the incident. There is some usefulness in asking these questions because they can help us predict and prevent future violence, but they don't mean anything to a minimum wage employee at a pharmacy who has a gun shoved in his face. 

Too often, people want to ask what could have caused this person to act in such a despicable manner, as though the causes of his actions could in some way mitigate them. There is no mitigating factor which excuses violent assault on innocent people.

I understand what you mean. I understand that you aren't trying to excuse his behavior. I'm not attacking you on this. However, too many will ask these questions as though he is the real victim. He is not.

He is a monster. He is beneath pity. He is an indefensable animal, with no regard for human life. There is much suffering in this world today, however, some people choose to try harder, and some people choose to prey on those around them. His actions determined his worth, and in my mind, he died without any at all.

You are right when you say none of us here know the life story of this man. But that is only because he chose to throw his life away before he had a chance to tell us. He didn't have to. He chose to. He chose to throw that life away when he chose to threaten the life of an innocent person. Whether that night, or some other, his actions could only result in the loss of his own life, either through death or imprisonment.

And that is no one's fault but his own. Not his abusive father's. Not the priest who touched him in church. Not the school system that failed him, or the state welfare check he didn't recieve, or the institutional racism he was a victim of, or the health care provider that denied his claim. It was his decision. It was his fault. 

And yes, as sad a story as this is, at least it has a happy ending.


-Rob


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 11, 2009)

The robber is in the prison of no parole. He won't get out to do this again.

When you bring a weapon to harm people, when you tell them you will kill them if they don't submit, then your life is forfeit. You started the ball rolling once you came in the shop and threatend everyone. As far as I'm consearned the robber has all the blame. No matter how it turns out, he started the ball rolling.

Yes the ex-cop might have nightmares. The mother of the robber lost a child (we are all children to our mothers.) And any bystander may have trumatic memories. BUT, it was the robber who came in with the weapon and started it. No one else. 

The ex-cop, or any civilian, that tries to stop them are doing their DUTY. Doing their civic responsibility. They have no fault. Now legally they might be sued, and if they are real idiots and shoot up everyone else they can be charged, but... they are not the one's that started it and if the robber expires, then all is well.

The ex-cop did the right thing. He is welcome at my table anytime.

Deaf


----------



## grydth (Feb 11, 2009)

While I'm not going to celebrate the man's death, he brought it all on himself.... and he had some help.

This thread brings back memories of the recent thread on parents who criticized the police for shooting their son... the one who was running around campus dressed as a Nazi soldier and pointing a real k98 mauser at the cops... the same rifle Dad had gotten back for him after a prior incident.

No, parents, the "system" most certainly did not fail your kids. *You did. *

The system *did* work. It protected the rest of us from the violent nuts you spawned and set loose upon us.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 11, 2009)

grydth said:


> No, parents, the "system" most certainly did not fail your kids. *You did. *



Often enough nature did. Some children have issues that no parent could cure--the large number of teenage suicides in good homes is one example. In other cases the local environment is tough to counteract. And am I the only one who ever took a philosophy course where they asked if you'd rob a pharmacy to get medicine for your dying spouse that you couldn't afford (which at today's prices of tens of thousands of dollars per dose for some medicines is quite plausible)? Jean Valjean, anyone?

So, this situation was resolved well but that doesn't mean there's a "bad guy" in every case. That's comic book thinking. There doesn't always have to be a pure evil individual involved to make it a case of self-defense. You could defend yourself against a drunken uncle--in the wrong but not necessarily Damien himself.


----------



## grydth (Feb 11, 2009)

I grow weary of parents blaming other humans for their childrens' depravity and demise. Once upon a time there was shame in rearing a child who went on to prey upon others; now it is blame the others.

The example I cited of the university gunman included in its facts that the rifle had been confiscated once already. The father retrieved it - where was the lesson in responsibility, the lesson in safe firearms handling that every parent owes every child before putting a lethal weapon in the child's hands?

These facts are distinguishable from Les Miserables, by the way. No noble criminal here, not victimized by a Javert, either.

Are you correct that problems exist that a parent cannot handle. Unquestionably,yes......... but _if_ this is one of those cases, the mom should say *that, *and support it*. *" Sorry. We were overwhelmed. People tried, but nobody could have saved junior."

Instead, we see from her obvious defensive if not delusional thinking..... he wasn't crazy.... he wouldn't have shot anyone..... "the system" failed.

How many times do we read such claptrap in stories of killings? No, its *never *their child and its *never* their parenting. One wonders how often that failure to face reality aids and abets the violence that follows.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 12, 2009)

grydth said:


> I grow weary of parents blaming other humans for their childrens' depravity and demise. Once upon a time there was shame in rearing a child who went on to prey upon others; now it is blame the others.
> 
> The example I cited of the university gunman included in its facts that the rifle had been confiscated once already. The father retrieved it - where was the lesson in responsibility, the lesson in safe firearms handling that every parent owes every child before putting a lethal weapon in the child's hands?
> 
> ...


 
How about "100% of the time".


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 12, 2009)

Long time ago, when I was about 14, my mother told me this...

"If you are big enough to get into jail Deaf, then you are big enough to get yourself out".

If a teacher called my mom, she didn't say, "You so-and-so, my boy is an angle, I brought him up right" and then condem the teacher. No my mother, my good and honest mother, would have looked and me and said, "Boy what did you get yourself into????"

And by golly, I must have grown up simi-right. I've never been in jail, never been even threatned with jail, never been searched by a cop, never even threated with that! I'm well known by the LEOs (in a good sense) and never had problems with other people (even though I trip over the guns here, I have so many!)

No, it's same with our children. I can say they have grown up right, but then I told them many years ago, "If you are big enough to get into jail, then you are big enough to get yourself out"!

Deaf


----------



## arnisador (Feb 12, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> If a teacher called my mom, she didn't say, "You so-and-so, my boy is an angle



Not even if it was a geometry teacher?


----------



## Carol (Feb 12, 2009)

I was always a bit square myself.


----------



## myusername (Feb 13, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> While these questions have merit from an academic standpoint, they have no bearing on the incident. There is some usefulness in asking these questions because they can help us predict and prevent future violence, but they don't mean anything to a minimum wage employee at a pharmacy who has a gun shoved in his face.
> 
> Too often, people want to ask what could have caused this person to act in such a despicable manner, as though the causes of his actions could in some way mitigate them. There is no mitigating factor which excuses violent assault on innocent people.
> 
> ...



Yes totally agree with your assessment of this situation and I am 100% behind your sentiments.

Though I would say I believe it has more than academic merit to ask questions of the robbers history and background when we as individual members of the public are personally digesting these news reports. I also think it is important on an individual and emotional level to prevent us from taking the easy route of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring very important social issues. If we allow this as individuals then as a society we will ignore these issues also. It can lead to further alienation and fracturing of society and a continuation of this repetitive cycle of behaviour.

The press is very good at vilifying certain groups in our society (in the UK we have Chavs, Hoodies, Junkies, Immigrants - I'm guessing that in the US you have equivilent groups that pop up all of the time in your papers as the root cause of all societies ills.) Why does the press do this? Because on the whole we as a society love it! It simplifies things for us. We have Good Guys and we have Bad Guys! On the whole the press wont ask the questions because we don't ask them either. If we don't ask the questions and the press wont ask the questions who will? Not our governments because they are effectively ruled by public opinion and the media. So what changes?

I am not suggesting we excuse the actions of this man who chose to point a gun at the innocent at all. But I am suggesting it is very unhealthy to just view this as "_good guy kills bad guy_" without a thought to what influenced this mans decision's to commit this act of violence. I think it right that we are all relieved at the outcome that no innocent life was taken but I personally think it wrong that we should feel joy and take pleasure in this story. 

I personally believe that the only people who should see things in the terms of "_good guy vs bad guy_" are the police. They need to think straight down the line to be effective in their role. Either you are a good guy abiding the law or a bad guy breaking it. I wouldn't want the law having a crisis of conscience I just want them to protect society from law breakers! 

However, I think it important for us to ask where he came from. I think we as individuals need to consider the impact of parenting, family dynamics, child abuse, mental illness, media representation of classes, the distribution of wealth, education, welfare, health care, criminal justice every time something like this happens. Not to mitigate a criminals actions but rather to ask the right questions in an attempt to find solutions and to prevent the further alienation of whole sections of our society. Unless we as individuals want the answers to these questions, the media and our governments aren't going to attempt to answer them for us.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 13, 2009)

myusername said:


> I am not suggesting we excuse the actions of this man who chose to point a gun at the innocent at all. But I am suggesting it is very unhealthy to just view this as "_good guy kills bad guy_" without a thought to what influenced this mans decision's to commit this act of violence. I think it right that we are all relieved at the outcome that no innocent life was taken but I personally think it wrong that we should feel joy and take pleasure in this story.
> 
> I personally believe that the only people who should see things in the terms of "_good guy vs bad guy_" are the police. They need to think straight down the line to be effective in their role. Either you are a good guy abiding the law or a bad guy breaking it. I wouldn't want the law having a crisis of conscience I just want them to protect society from law breakers!
> 
> However, I think it important for us to ask where he came from. I think we as individuals need to consider the impact of parenting, family dynamics, child abuse, mental illness, media representation of classes, the distribution of wealth, education, welfare, health care, criminal justice every time something like this happens. Not to mitigate a criminals actions but rather to ask the right questions in an attempt to find solutions and to prevent the further alienation of whole sections of our society. Unless we as individuals want the answers to these questions, the media and our governments aren't going to attempt to answer them for us.


 

I guess I see it as two different things.

On the one hand, I'm perfectly comfortable with seeing this as a good vs. evil situation, and I am very happy that good won.

At the same time, I'm more than willing to discuss what could have motivated the man to do evil behavior. I think it's important that we understand what factors lead to violence and what we can do to mitigate them. However, I don't think this discussion should have any bearing on the "good vs. evil" perspective.

Fine, the guy had problems. Let's look at what they were and how we can address them in others before their problems lead them to the same actions. But the guy still did an evil thing, and he paid the ultimate price. Happy ending.

I don't really think you and I are disagreeing. We both think the story ended better than it could have. We both think it's important to understand why the "bad guy" chose this course of action. The only distinction I'm making is that I think it's important not to let the second consideration, his motivation, cloud our perception of the first, his actions. 

Too many people want to lose themselves in the mitigating factors because they are afraid to admit to themselves that bad people do bad things. They end up creating a sick moral equivalency between the bad guy and the good guy because after all, "the bad guy was touched by his uncle once as a child." That's sad. It's even horrific. It doesn't excuse his actions, and it certainly doesn't make the hero the villian of the tale

Like I said, I see what you're saying, and I think we agree. I just think it's an important distinction to make.

I also disagree with your statement that, 'the only people who should see things in the terms of "_good guy vs bad guy_" are the police." Sorry. There's a lot of bad cops out there. I'm not saying most, or casting aspersions on law enforcement in general, but giving them the sole responsibility of determing good and evil is a mistake.

As an anarchist, I have my own opinions of law and law enforcement, but all that aside, I think it is every person's responsibility to make firm judgements about right and wrong. Abdicating that authority to the government gives them the power to call truth a lie and reality fiction. It is the responsibility of all free people, first and foremost, to make decisions about right and wrong, good and evil, and not to surrender that responsibility to those in power at the moment. That's just believing that might makes right.

Falling into that trap leaves you at the mercy of the morals of whoever has a gun pointed at you at the time.


-Rob


----------



## Carol (Feb 13, 2009)

We can also take a look at the robber.  But if the robber is fair game, then so is everyone else in the picture.  

Lets take a look at the forgotten victims of pharmacy robberies:  the patients.

Who goes to pharmacies?  People that need medication.     Who needs the types of drugs that are them most popular with robbers?  Often times it is people in pain...whether it is disease, recovery from surgery, chronic pain.  There are BGs that have figured out that these people not only  posess valuable drugs (in a handy prescription bottle that appears legal to carry), they may also make for an easy target due to their health issues.

Lets take a look further at the patients.  The drugs that are often stolen by robbers are often the stronger pain medicines.  A patient that needs that level of medication is a patient that has some issues. Yet, many of these patients in pain are finding it to be harder to get the meds their doctor has them take on a regular basis, because some pharmacies have decided to stop stocking them.  There is only *one reason *why a drug stores have made the decision to not stock medication their patients need: *a pharmacist or pharmacy tech's life was threatened at least once before.*

Now lets take a look at who the patients depend upon for their treatment.

Pharmacists. Requires an undergrad in Chemistry or the Life Sciences.  Another Bachelor's degree is appropriate as long as the student takes two semesters each of biology, microbiology, chemistry, advanced chemistry, physics, anatomy and physiology.  With Lab.  Oh and Calculus of two variables.  Then the PCAT exam, then the attempt is made to get in to a 3 to 4 years of rigirous science just so you can go $65,000 further in debt..on top of whatever debt may have been incurred from the undergrad classes.  Then you graduate with the degree....there may or may not be an extra year's residency invloved here or there....oh, but you're still not a pharmacist yet, because you haven't sat before the state licensing board to pass your exam and earn your license for that state.     Then you finally earn your license, and get hired but......does the bg care?  Nah. You're just the person in the way of what he wants to use and/or sell.

Of course it may not be you thats threatened, your technician, who works their butt off for you trying to keep up with patient demands and insurance regulations, all for pay that would maybe buy a pizza with one hour's salary, before taxes.  Heck she might even prove to be an easier target.  Maybe its her that gets covered with the muzzle instead of you.

Retailers don't randomly toss around security guards, let alone armed security guards for the heck of it.  There is only *one reason *why a drug store would have made the financial sacrifice to hire an *armed guard*:   * a pharmacist or pharmacy tech's life was threatened at least once before.*

America may sometimes have a wild wild west image, but an armed guard discharging a weapon in a line of duty doesn't mean he gets a backslap and a drink bought for him after work.  He gets an investigation.  Perhaps some of the LEOs here can concur about the gargantuan pile of paperwork that gets generated from discharging one's weapon in the line of duty...whether one is a LEO or an armed guard.  If the guard happens to be in a larger city, the paperwork gets even larger too.  The cops may not have been there at the exact moment that the life/lives were threatened, but they certainly will be after the event...interviewing the victims and reconstructing the events.  

Then we can discuss the robber's life.


----------



## Wishbone (Feb 14, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Often enough nature did. Some children have issues that no parent could cure--the large number of teenage suicides in good homes is one example. In other cases the local environment is tough to counteract. And am I the only one who ever took a philosophy course where they asked if you'd rob a pharmacy to get medicine for your dying spouse that you couldn't afford (which at today's prices of tens of thousands of dollars per dose for some medicines is quite plausible)? Jean Valjean, anyone?
> 
> So, this situation was resolved well but that doesn't mean there's a "bad guy" in every case. That's comic book thinking. There doesn't always have to be a pure evil individual involved to make it a case of self-defense. You could defend yourself against a drunken uncle--in the wrong but not necessarily Damien himself.



When I read your post at first I thought you were going to say some children have issues meaning mental disabilities that parents can not afford to handle.  Which you might.  But be careful when you talk about kids committing suicide who come from 'good homes'.  Just because a child comes from an affluent family doesn't mean his parents care about him and spend actual quality time with him to help nurture him into a responsible adult.  What appears to be good homes can be very deceiving.

Sorry for the derail.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> guy tries to rob pharmacy, plainclothes security guy (retired LEO) picks his moment and puts 4 rounds into BG's chest...BG "dead right there"
> 
> article with video:
> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01EAST021009.htm



Good shooting!

All's well that ends well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2009)

myusername said:


> Sad story all round. So many hurt by this robbers actions. His Mother (Dealing with losing her son), The security guard/retired LEO (who has to live with shooting someone), The pharmacist (Who has to cope with the trauma of having a gun pointed at his head and then seeing someone shot dead in front of him) and the robber himself who lost his life. The only good thing about this story is that no one innocent got killed. The robber may be dead but everyone is still hurting. Not much to feel good about here.



Best possible outcome for the situation that he created.  

You are right, however, it is sad that he chose this path that ultimately resulted in him getting himself killed.....and others must suffer for his selfishness.


----------

