This happened in Spring Valley, California. Scroll down to the second item:
The owner of a market pulled out a pistol and scared off five gunmen apparently intent on robbery last night, a sheriff’s official said.
No shots were fired, and no one was injured in the holdup attempt at G and M Market on Jamacha Road near Sweetwater Lane shortly before 9 p.m., sheriff’s Lt. Mike McClain said.
Deputies were told five black men, wearing red hats and shirts and carrying guns, came to the small grocery store, but left without any money after the owner brandished a gun.
Here’s the thing. Gun control advocates love to say that actual “defensive shootings” are rare. True. The statistic they always leave out is how many violent crimes are prevented without a shot being fired as was the case here.
Clearly these were gang members — a group known for violence — who decided not to continue their thuggery when the store owner showed he was capable of fighting back. So, the punks moved on — no doubt to find an unarmed victim.
Note to the journalist who wrote the article: “Brandishing” a gun is a crime. It’s not a crime to show that you can defend yourself. Splitting hairs, I know, but the writer implies, by choice of verb, a disdain for the store owner’s actions.
25 Responses to “Store Owner Foils Robbery”
on 11 Dec 2007 at 7:29 am # Lazarus Long
The reporter likes to show that he knows big words.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:25 am # PN NJ
“Brandishing” is such BS. Basically, it’s a vague, all purpose charge (that’s hard to refute) for situations where no crime has actually been committed.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 9:38 am # jack
I’ve decided to be a ” volunteer security guard ” at the malls and stores that I frequent. Like the gal who blew away the church shooter. Jack.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 9:48 am # Daniel
Accurate assessment, Jeff.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 11:07 am # Sebastian
Strictly speaking, it’s a correct use of the term. Brandishing a weapon is typically a crime, but not in this case. Any time someone displays a weapon in a threatening manner, it’s brandishing, it just may not be a crime depending on circumstances.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 11:46 am # Guav
I disagree that the journalist was showing an inherent disdain for the store owner’s actions—I frequently use the word brandish to describe lawful self-defensive uses of firearms that don’t include discharging the weapon.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 12:30 pm # Lazarus Long
From the dictionary:
To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
To display ostentatiously.
Is the act of drawing a firearm from its holster or concealment without a “wave or flourish” brandishing?
on 11 Dec 2007 at 2:36 pm # Rick C
I’m pretty sure that you don’t even have to display a weapon “in a threatening manner.” In my CWP class in South Carolina, the instructor said that brandishing includes showing it.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 3:24 pm # Nimrod45
There are many fine, niggly points in the law on this subject, but as Sebastian says, it is the correct *legal* term. The real point is that he had “lawful excuse” to brandish his gun, which exempts him from being guilty under such a charge.
At least, for now.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 3:46 pm # Fuloydo
Agree with Rick C
My CCW instructor told us of something he called “Verbal Brandishing” which he was quite emphatic we could be arrested for. (This is in Missouri)
His example:
Fellow Citizen (who may not like guns) gets a glimpse of your weapon either directly or simply sees the ‘print’ of it through your clothes.
Fellow Citizen says “Are you carrying a gun?”
Answer A : Yeah! You got a problem with that! (said in a confrontational tone) equals Verbal Brandishing equals nasty encounter with police and possible loss of permit.
Answer B : Yes Sir/Ma-am, I do. I am a Concealed Carry permit holder. (said in a nice, normal, non-confrontational tone) equals stay out of jail and keep your permit.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 3:55 pm # _Jon
I am told that in Michigan, even answering “yes” to the above theoretical question is not allowed.
I have to look it up, but am short on time.
The core - as this gentlemen told me over lunch yesterday, is that a CPL holder cannot reveal that he is armed. Except, of course, to a LEO.
But I have to check that.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 4:02 pm # karrde
I am only aware of Michigan’s requirement that a CPL holder must answer truthfully to any LEO who asks. I am aware of no state-specific requirement that a CPL holder lie about his status to anyone. However, there is the definition of the worde “concealed” to consider…
I’ve been told that “brandishing” enforcement varies with the person who sees the firearm, the LEO responding to reports, and the prosecutor in the jurisdiction.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 4:58 pm # Fuloydo
True. Fortunately Missouri also allows Open Carry so, unlike states which absolutely require your gun to be concealed, its not a huge deal if someone gets a glimpse of it.
Open Carry is, however, the one point of MO gun law that is NOT preemptive. Local jurisdictions can, and some do, make it illegal.
And very much agree with the enforcement depending on who’s involved, mostly the responding LEO.
Another “fortunately”. I live in a small town and seldom ever go to the big cities so the people I interact with on a daily basis are usually a little less uptight about the whole gun thing.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 5:08 pm # straightarrow
Well, I guess i could have been guilty of mimic brandishing a lot of years ago in Pueblo, Co. I was accosted by a group of about 9 armed thugs. I put my hand inside my jacket and said “I won’t be the only one to die here.” They left without further problems. The next day, out of pure bad luck, I ran across them again. This time though they were very nice and polite. Hell, all of a sudden, we were all buddies.
Ironically, I had no weapon of any kind on me at the first meeting. Who knew some disconnected asshat in a legislature may have decided I had brandished an imaginary firearm in mime fashion and that I could be prosecuted for ….. uh, oh, er, uh ….. something? Damn, what was wrong with me, why didn’t I just agree to get killed without scaring anyone by verbal brandishing of imaginary gun? I just didn’t know that would place me at odds with the law, or I would have just kept my mouth shut. NOT!
on 11 Dec 2007 at 6:04 pm # mariner
“Brandishing” may be a technically correct description, but it’s also inflammatory. In the same way, someone who kills another in self-defense has committed homicide. It’s probably not a crime. In fact, it’s probably praiseworthy.
But referring to it that way causes readers to have a negative reaction, and that’s exactly what reporters intend.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 6:56 pm # Alan
One thing’s for sure. You won’t see this story in the MSM.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 7:24 pm # Stephen
Fellow Citizen (who may not like guns) gets a glimpse of your weapon either directly or simply sees the ‘print’ of it through your clothes.
etc.
Concealed (best) means no one knows, at no time, under any circumstances. This must be completely thought through beforehand, for all seasons, weathers, and circumstances.
LEOs excepted, of course.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:08 pm # Fuloydo
oncealed (best) means no one knows, at no time, under any circumstances. This must be completely thought through beforehand, for all seasons, weathers, and circumstances.
I wish that were possible. I do my best, certainly, but I have yet to find a carry system that completely hides my weapon while still allowing me access to it.
There’s a gradient that runs from low-slung hip holster which is completely open and allows a fast, unencumbered draw to solutions which do a very good job of hiding your gun at the expense of making you waste valuable seconds digging for it in an emergency. I go with a system which does allow a certain amount of ‘print’ (how much depends on what I’m wearing over it) while still giving me immediate access.
If you’ve got a recommendation for a system that does both, I’m all ears. I’ve bought several holsters over the years, always in search of that one perfect solution. Needless to say, I haven’t found it yet.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:12 pm # Brian
I am appalled that this store owner violated the civil rights of those poor minority youth by intimidating them with an illegal firearm while you applaud him. He should be arrested immediately for a hate crime because it is clear that if it were white youths who entered the store in the same manner they did, he would not have automatically assumed they were trying to rob him and would not have reached for his gun. You don’t have the right to threaten murder over property. He should have just allowed them to take a few candy bars and be on their way, instead of making them fear for their lives. If we banned guns, this wouldn’t have happened anyway because no one would have them.
The above is a recreation and summary of all the anti-gun arguments I heard in law school. Usually, the criminals were poor innocent victims of society and Bush while the storeowners were the criminals for escalating the situation needlessly and killing minorities simply for being minorities, when they would have let the white crook take the contents of the register.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 8:19 pm # Lazlo
Out here in Arizona we have open carry. I like open carry because this puts it out there that one is not to be trifled with.
However with the influx of those from states where this is a novel concept, it causes some tourists and newcomers to react in a ‘liberal’ manner.
One day after a morning out in the brush I went into a coffee shop. I had a revolver on that had two rounds of snake shot (one needs snake shot in AZ) I had some guy whine to me that he had his children in the coffee shop. I assured him that they were safer in here with me than they were in his own home (he liked this not at all).
I carry concealed because of my job (building inspector) and my approach to all this is that the only thing ‘Mr. Rob and Kill Me’ is going to see are the welcoming arms of Jesus.
Having said that, I think that the store clerk did the right thing. If he waited until the threat became a reality, there could have been loss of life, including his own.
Sometimes you have to put up a show of force to keep from using it.
on 11 Dec 2007 at 10:00 pm # Daniel W
In Oregon open carry is legal and doesn’t require a concealed carry permit. So I have a hard time believing that allowing someone a glimpse of your legal carry gun, intentionally or unintentionally, could be considered illegal.
on 12 Dec 2007 at 11:52 am # Nimrod45
Of *course* using a loaded term like “brandishing” is inflammatory! We’re talking about the liberal anti-gun media here!
I call it “assassination by adjective”…
on 12 Dec 2007 at 12:55 pm # Rich
Fellow Citizen says “Are you carrying a gun?”
Me: (giving a look like he has six heads) “No! Are you nuts?”
Never EVER tell anyone (except LEOs when they ask).
on 12 Dec 2007 at 3:26 pm # Daniel in Brookline
Rich says:
Never EVER tell anyone…
Reminds me of Col. Colin Campbell, aka Dr. Richard Ames, in Robert Heinlein’s The Cat Who Walked Through Walls: “…and besides, never admit a holdout”.
I would suggest that a concealed weapon is a holdout by definition… and other people will find out about it soon enough when/if you ever need to use it.
On the other hand, if your friends are seriously disturbed at the thought of you carrying, then perhaps it’s better that they know… and if they run, let them run.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
on 13 Dec 2007 at 2:41 pm # Dustin
You hit the nail right on the head. Multiple studies have shown that shots are fired in only 2% of self defense uses of a gun. 98% of the time simply seeing a loaded gun aimed at them will make him or her either stop in their tracks or run away. Why would they want to risk loosing their life in a gun battle when they can live to victimize someone else another day?