Customer Shoots Suspect In Liquor Store Robbery

Status
Not open for further replies.

NotPbFree

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
34
Location
Corner of No and Where - Cheatham County, TN
Customer Shoots Suspect In Liquor Store Robbery

Posted: April 27, 2008 05:45 PM CDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn.- There was a deadly gunfight at a liquor store in Inglewood Saturday night. An armed robbery suspect was gunned down, after trying to rob the place. But it wasn't a police officer who took action.

None of the clerks in Sinkers Wine and Spirits had a gun to protect themselves, but they said they're thankful one of their customers did.

Sinkers Wine and Spirits lost some of their merchandise on Saturday night, but Clifford Baxter is hardly upset. He's just happy to have survived the gunfight that took place in his store over the weekend when two armed men tried to rob Sinkers late Saturday.

"I was in the back room, and came out and a man walked in with a pistol in his hand, and I went back to call 911," said Baxter.

Meanwhile, police said the suspects pointed a gun at store clerks and forced two customers to the ground. The would-be robbers probably didn't suspect that one of the customers would be carrying a gun nor that he would end up using it.

Baxter believes the customer and the suspects exchanged about ten gunshots. The would-be robbers tried to flee, but one of the men collapsed at the scene and died shortly after. Police said the citizen had a valid carry permit, and a right to protect himself.

"A citizen just like a police officer has the right to defend themselves or others, if they're in fear of death or serious bodily injury and that right extends to using deadly force," said Capt. David Imhof with Metro Police.

Even though the store was closed Sunday, Clifford Baxter had to come to work to clean up,

and while the workers at Sinkers are armed only with broken glass and a mop they're thankful one of their customer protected them with something more.

Metro police are still out looking for the other robbery suspect. They are also interviewing witnesses in the case to make sure the citizen's actions were justified. As for the workers at Sinkers who were unarmed at the time they said they have plans to protect themselves in the future.
 
"A citizen just like a police officer has the right to defend themselves or others, if they're in fear of death or serious bodily injury and that right extends to using deadly force," said Capt. David Imhof with Metro Police.

Cool beans! We don't often hear of public officials talking that way.
 
Good news.
We need more reporting of these incidents.
NRA's American Rifleman prints several every month.
Don't look for these in the MSM.
 
" Stands up and applauds the CCW'er ".

This is a great example of just what carrying a weapon can do for a situation such as this when a responsible and clear thinking armed citizen decides to get involved.

Congrats and thank you for your service Mr. Citizen.

Chris
 
I wish the officers arriving on scene to this incident could sit down with their D.C. brothers and tell stories of good civilians (they do exist) making the boys' in blue jobs easier.
 
I can't believe people wrote comments defending the scumbag criminals .

Comments like "they were some ones children" "they didn't deserve to die JUST for this"

All I can say is yep , they were some ones child and whoever that some one is should have raised them correctly with morals and a sense of decency .

And I love the Old "they didn't deserve to die" line matter of fact they did or at the very least perhaps would have had the citizen not stopped them . How many times have armed robbers executed witnesses to try to prevent from being caught ? Did the workers there deserve to die because these animals are too lazy to get a real job ? Did the customers deserve to perhaps die because they wanted a some beer ?

If the they had been making their living in an honest manner rather than a dishonest criminal one they would still be alive .

I always have to shake my head at these morons who if a person were abusing say a dog by severely beating it gets bitten/attacked even to the point of death they would say deserve it yet make it a man on man encounter and the victim isn't suppose to have the same right of self preservation as a dog .
 
They were someone's children....

I absolutely hate that line from bleeding hearts...

Hitler was someone's child. Mugabe was someone's child, Jeffery Dahmer was someone's kid. I can feel bad for the parents having given birth to pure evil, but that in no way would stop me from putting a bullet into one of them.
 
:)

"[Comments like "they were some ones children" "they didn't deserve to die JUST for this"]"---BOO1

The robber uses a DEADLY WEAPON, threatening DEADLY force, death and so on against other citizens to obtain cash.

What the robber views as appropriate for the victim, somehow is construed by some to be not an appropriate scenario for the robber.

Therefore, by some magical logic, those who defend the criminal believe that CRIMINALS do not deserve to be placed in the very circumstance that the CRIMINALS justify for others.

Or, another way of looking at it:

Criminals are justified in using deadly force to obtain cash; but law abiding property owners and customers are NEVER allowed to use deadly force to protect cash. CRIMINALS have an ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION that no other person has?:what:

I dunno, but am I missing something here?

I know WHAT THE PROBLEM is. It is because LAW makes things clear, but when someone argues as though their personal ETHIC is binding upon all citizens, instead of recognizing that only LAW is binding upon citizens, it creates a justification which robs the citizen of his rights at law. It makes it appear that we are all ruled by some sympathetic nut-case's ETHICS. Well, we ain't!

Seriously now, I think the issue is that humanity's hard-won Boundaries at Law, concerning our Person, and our Property, have become very muddled and confused.

I do like to think life is always sacred, but when someone threatens the life of others, it seems logical that either the ETHIC or the LAW must yield to the sensibility of self-defense. Since the law already recognizes SELF-DEFENSE, and does not acknowledge a vague ETHIC, it's a mute point.

Besides, ........the argument that the CRIMINAL was some Mother's Son, can be countered with the argument that the liquor store owner was also some Mother's Son. Why can't the CRIMINALS get THAT through their highly Ethical head?

Oh I get it! LOGIC can only be used to support a CRIMINAL ETHIC. Well DUH!
 
"A citizen just like a police officer has the right to defend themselves or others, if they're in fear of death or serious bodily injury and that right extends to using deadly force," said Capt. David Imhof with Metro Police.

If I was local, I'd treat Capt. Imhof to a nice steak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top