Survailence camera footage of a store customer fighting back. badly

And we wonder why the Anti's hate us

I need more to the story, was he missing him? or did all his shots land and just not happen to take him down? What was behind the bad guy if the bullets were missing? an empty field? a school? a brick wall? a house? Sure you can see a car drive by in the back ground but that doesn't mean that road doesn't curve, so it would be an assumption to say he was shooting over a road for sure. Even if he was missing, but the shots were going into no where then how is this fighting bad? Sure it would be better if he had hit the guy, but until you are actually shooting at a live moving target instead of paper targets you won't know how well you will perform.

 

I'd have to double check Missouri's CCW laws, but there are plenty of states that would side with the CCW holder in shooting an armed robber.

shooting an armed robber that was walking away? outside? when he's really not posing a danger to anyone's "life and limb"? Just playing Devil's Advocate here...

I dont think the robber was a threat anymore... so in any case, the shoots a no-go.

Exactly..... no immediate threat at the point the shots were taken...... BAD BAD idea..... too much to go wrong.

If anyone got killed or hurt in that shooting, I hope they blame it on the guy who robbed the place. That shooting never would have happened in the first place if the guy didn't rob the place.

Im wondering why it looks like the customer looks like he is wearing a black ski mask.....

 

If anyone got killed or hurt in that shooting, I hope they blame it on the guy who robbed the place. That shooting never would have happened in the first place if the guy didn't rob the place.

In some cases they would. It really depends on how the person gets hurt, and what state they live in. I remember a story on here not too long ago where two gang members went to a party to steal beer. They started bullying a guy who was carrying legally, pulled a gun on him, and he shot and killed both gang members. The state pinned murder on the other two gang members who were waiting in the car. There is more to WHY the murder was pinned on them as far as the law works, but I dont want to drag this post on

Im wondering why it looks like the customer looks like he is wearing a black ski mask.....

 

 

In some cases they would. It really depends on how the person gets hurt, and what state they live in. I remember a story on here not too long ago where two gang members went to a party to steal beer. They started bullying a guy who was carrying legally, pulled a gun on him, and he shot and killed both gang members. The state pinned murder on the other two gang members who were waiting in the car. There is more to WHY the murder was pinned on them as far as the law works, but I dont want to drag this post on

In NJ they gang members would be disadvantaged youth (even if they are 25 years old) who only stole beer because society has not helped them sufficently prepare for life's challenges.

 

The victim would be a reckless gun toting child murderer and menace to society that should be locked up for 40 years for not giving up his property to these kids who meant no real harm.

I sense some sarcasm, but I cant be for sure.....

In NJ they gang members would be disadvantaged youth (even if they are 25 years old) who only stole beer because society has not helped them sufficently prepare for life's challenges.

 

The victim would be a reckless gun toting child murderer and menace to society that should be locked up for 40 years for not giving up his property to these kids who meant no real harm.

 

Wow - you've stolen my pessimism and have multiplied it! I am impressed.

It doeslook like he has a ski mask and gloves on. I didn't see the slide rack at all or a muzzle flash after each shot. And who shoots one handed?

He was an armed robber, not just a robber IMHO. So, he was a threat still. If you commit a crime with a weapon then I have no sympathy for you and no one else should either. Since I still haven't found any more details about this, I am going to fantasize that every shot hit the armed robber. If we are going to speculate and make up details as we often do online (we being the entire internet population not just us) I rather make up happy details

Video could be anything.

All it shows is a armed robber came into a store an took the cash box and a second guy went outside and shot a gun.

 

Was the second guy a security guard for the store who went outside to see where the crook went? Did the crook turn around and start firing at the security guard and he returned fire until the threat was stopped?

 

Or the second guy could have been a schmo trying to be a "Hero" and just went outside and shot at the crook.

 

Without the details the video means nothing.

He was an armed robber, not just a robber IMHO. So, he was a threat still. If you commit a crime with a weapon then I have no sympathy for you and no one else should either.

It doesnt matter if he is armed or not. What matters is if he is in a position that he could USE that weapon in order to harm you....that is what constitutes a threat. If he is running away, the only viable way that he could pose a threat would be reaching around while running and firing his weapon. In this scenario, your best bet is to take cover, because he cannot see you or properly aim his weapon at you. If you shoot someone in the back, especially in NJ, you will be facing some serious criminal charges unless you have SOLID proof, such as a clear video clip of him firing his weapon behind his back. Since this is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, your best bet is to take cover and ready yourself in the instance that he DOES turn around and come after you. Having sympathy for someone also does not justify shooting them in the back when they are not a threat.

He lost any kind of sympathy from me the minute he robbed the place, no matter how valuable or cheap the item is that he took.

It doesnt matter if he is armed or not. What matters is if he is in a position that he could USE that weapon in order to harm you....that is what constitutes a threat. If he is running away, the only viable way that he could pose a threat would be reaching around while running and firing his weapon. In this scenario, your best bet is to take cover, because he cannot see you or properly aim his weapon at you. If you shoot someone in the back, especially in NJ, you will be facing some serious criminal charges unless you have SOLID proof, such as a clear video clip of him firing his weapon behind his back. Since this is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, your best bet is to take cover and ready yourself in the instance that he DOES turn around and come after you. Having sympathy for someone also does not justify shooting them in the back when they are not a threat.

 

1) This didn't take place in NJ, so using NJ logic and laws to think about the situation won't work.

 

2) I never said he was a threat to the shooter. I said he was a threat, meaning that he was armed and a criminal that just demonstrated that he was willing to use a gun to take property from others. That is enough of a threat for someone to get shot in a lot of states.

 

3) If this happened in NJ I agree with you 100%

2) I never said he was a threat to the shooter. I said he was a threat, meaning that he was armed and a criminal that just demonstrated that he was willing to use a gun to take property from others. That is enough of a threat for someone to get shot in a lot of states.

 

Citizens are able to carry in order to protect THEMSELVES, not society. Police officers can legally shoot someone in the back in order to take down a general threat.

Citizens are able to carry in order to protect THEMSELVES, not society. Police officers can legally shoot someone in the back in order to take down a general threat.

Not in jersey. Crazy protocols for " use of deadly force", specially in law enforcement.

Citizens are able to carry in order to protect THEMSELVES, not society. Police officers can legally shoot someone in the back in order to take down a general threat.

 

Where did you learn this? NJ perhaps? In Colorado I was allowed to use my firearm to protect myself and others from harm. That was of course was learned in Colorado, not NJ though.

As noted by the A.P. regarding the video, he missed with all shots.

 

I believe it looks like the shooter is wearing a black mask, as does the clerk that comes up behind him, because it is a crappy surveilence camera and the man is actually black.

 

I can tell you why I think it is done badly.

• the man is leaving the store with what looks like a VCR and his weapon out of sight.
  
• He originally brandished the pistol in his left hand and then walked out with the "VCR" in his left hand.
  
• Seconds pass before the shooter appears. I do not think the robber walked out and lit a cigarrette.
  
• He takes his time to aim. That indicates to me that the robber was doing nothing to cause the shooter any alarm, at least to himself.
  
• Given the above, the robber was fleeing. This means the shooter was one handing all of his shots as he was leaving. I can't tell you the last time I one handed my pistol. You fight as you train. Meaning, if the robber was a threat to anyone else, would you one hand it?
  

Yes the robber was a douchebag... but I am highly dissapointed of the "hero." Most of all, if the cops were coming at that point, he could of gotten himself killed for pulling a gun, and shooting a guy in the back.

 

there is a difference between being "right" and being "effective"

 

Not knowing anything else about the story.... the hero tried to do the right thing, but unfortunately, he was just stupid. Shooting in public, I highly doubt the rules of safe shooting were on his mind. More than likely he just wanted to use his gun.

I wonder who was operating the security camera ? It seemed to follow the action. If this was a small convenience store it would be a fixed position camera. I wonder if it's real.

It seems like it's multiple fixed cameras. The video just cycles through the different camera clips.

The movement of the camera is most likely done by the video editors at AP. It looks to me like it is a simple zoom and pan done to the video after the fact. Plus most multicam security set ups do not cut to camera angles to follow action. They record everything from each camera.

 

The video takes the relevant camera shots and presents those only. Would you want to look at 5 minutes of the first camera after everyone left the shot?

 

Check out this forumand look down to drbgaijin's post from Thu, Apr 23 2009 10:04 AM. This video explains how that is done.

The movement of the camera is most likely done by the video editors at AP. It looks to me like it is a simple zoom and pan done to the video after the fact. Plus most multicam security set ups do not cut to camera angles to follow action. They record everything from each camera.

 

The video takes the relevant camera shots and presents those only. Would you want to look at 5 minutes of the first camera after everyone left the shot?

 

Check out this forumand look down to drbgaijin's post from Thu, Apr 23 2009 10:04 AM. This video explains how that is done.

 

I watched the vid not sure he is actualy shooting, the actions do not seem to look real of the gun being fired..

 

No smoke.

no shell casings coming out

no tha action does not seem to open and close..

I watched the vid not sure he is actualy shooting, the actions do not seem to look real of the gun being fired..

 

No smoke.

no shell casings coming out

no tha action does not seem to open and close..

 

 

First, I just want to say, I did not give you that -1.

 

ANyway, the frame rate of the video is not going to show what you were looking for.

 

here is a frame rate demo.

 

As you can see from the videos, the footage of the shooting is probably less than 5 frames per second - more like 1 or 2 frame per second. I that case you would be luckly to catch any flash, slide rack or shell ejection.

 

Here is video shot at a normal frame rate

the first shot gives you what you are talking about. The rest of them, no.

So if 30 frames per second cant pick it up, 2 per second certainly won't.

 

 

Additionally, with the resolution so bad you wouldn't be able to even see the case at all.

 

The reason security cameras are set up like this is because of storage if they recorded 30 fps all day long the would need a huge amount of either tape or hard drive space. Usually that has to be kept for a period of time before it is deleted. so the frame rate and resolution takes up less space on a hard drive, making it cheaper to record and keep.

I can see it in all the frames on the vid you posted..

 

and i also notice his hand and arm come to the same hieght each shot fired and in the survallance vid he barley moves on the first one and by the last round the gun almost goes over his head, i am having issues with the survallence vid showing an actual gun being fired i dont care how fast the frame is moving i still think he enacted what he would like to have done.

I can see it in all the frames on the vid you posted..

 

and i also notice his hand and arm come to the same hieght each shot fired and in the survallance vid he barley moves on the first one and by the last round the gun almost goes over his head, i am having issues with the survallence vid showing an actual gun being fired i dont care how fast the frame is moving i still think he enacted what he would like to have done.

 

 

He was an armed robber, not just a robber IMHO. So, he was a threat still. If you commit a crime with a weapon then I have no sympathy for you and no one else should either. Since I still haven't found any more details about this, I am going to fantasize that every shot hit the armed robber. If we are going to speculate and make up details as we often do online (we being the entire internet population not just us) I rather make up happy details

 

 

Unfortunatly, being a CCW isnt always about "doing the right thing" and shooting people because you dont have sympathy for them. It is about shooting somebody because you absolutely have to. I would have not shot, because that would put me in jail for a long time. While I do believe that they "deserved" it because they were armed robbers, you deserve more than to sit in jail for an unjustified shoot.