Armed Employee Saves Store Clerk from Serial Robber with Gun

Bob Irwin highlights the latest self defense and other shootings of the week. Read them and see what went wrong, what went right and what we can learn from self defense with a gun.

Robber at Gun Point Home Invasion
Armed Employee Saves Store Clerk from Serial Robber with Gun
Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- News Now and The Review Journal report 11-12-2016 in North Las Vegas, Nevada an attempted armed robbery ended in gunfire at a 7-Eleven Thursday morning. It happened around 3:30 a.m. at a store on Cheyenne Avenue and Civic Center Drive in North Las Vegas when an armed citizen inside the store shot the suspect.

Preliminary information indicates that a vendor's employee, not a 7-11 employee, working in the store saw a clerk being held at gunpoint and shot the suspect.

“That armed citizen took action, fired at that suspect, striking the suspect,” said Ann Cavaricci, of the North Las Vegas Police.

The injured suspect ran out towards a back parking lot where he collapsed and died. Investigators are reviewing the incident and the security cameras to decide whether the shooter will be prosecuted. Police hope the investigation will give them a better idea as to what happened during the deadly confrontation.

“Obviously we would like people to call police and allow us to handle that and not put themselves in danger,” she said. North Las Vegas Police say justifying a self-defense shooting is “tricky” and must be investigated on a case by case basis.

Speaking in general terms, police say deadly force is justified when there's an imminent threat and there's a need to defend one's life or someone else's. “In this case, there was an armed robbery going on and he felt that he needed to take action,” Cavaricci said. The shooter is said to be cooperating with investigators.

The robber has been identified by the Clark County coroner as 24-year-old from North Las Vegas. According to police, he was responsible for other robberies in the area. Police say there were several people inside the 7-Eleven at the time of the shooting but no one else was injured.

Comments:

Clearly the vendors’ employee likely saved a few lives. Watching the police tip toe around the issues here makes me think perhaps there is more involved.

There is a gang retaliation danger in this case, which may cause Officers to withhold names and identifying details.

It’s a common position for police to tell citizens “observe, record information and wait for the Officers to arrive.” What else can they advocate?

Reality is of course, you are responsible for your own safety! Full disclosure: I have lots of friends and former academy students on NLVPD

Bob Irwin, The Gun Store, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

The writer is the owner of The Gun Store in Las Vegas and has a gun talk radio show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” Firedup is now on KSHP 1400 am radio from 5 to 6 pm on Thursdays and at the same time also on YouTube “Fired Up with Bob Irwin.

  • 21 thoughts on “Armed Employee Saves Store Clerk from Serial Robber with Gun

    1. My opinion is unchanged, a dead perp is a good perp. With one less repeat offender out there, the streets are just a little safer now.

      1. Unfortunately he will probably loose his job. I don’t know the person’s employer, but in this country most employers prohibit their employees from being armed while on the job.

        1. That is because if an employee injures a third-party the business can be sued for millions, in some states the robber can also sue. If an employee is killed by a robber the company is only on the hook for workman’s comp and maybe a funeral.
          The laws should be changed so that a company is liable only if being armed is a condition of the job, such as a guard or if the employer requires or issues the gun.
          Then companies would have no grounds to deny employees their right to self-defense.

    2. I have said this time and time again, (SLUGS FOR THUGS, and the game goes on) well this time it a 7-11, out come one dead bad guy, well that is how the game is played good guy walks away the bad guy gets carried away in a bag. So once again SLUGS FOR THUGS , and the will go on until the bad guys get the idea that they are going to get hurt if they do a robbery, or a break in.

    3. The vendor did the right thing because if for some reason the robber shot and killed the clerk, just knowing he did not do anything to stop it when he had the means is very hard to live with. So the shooting was justified in my mind. Once the robber takes out a gun he accepts the fact he may get shot and loose his life.

      1. then there is always that niggly little question….. what happens IF the perp decides he wants the power of the known fact that dead men tell no tales? So he gets the money, puts it in a bag, then, once he’s got what he wants, he begins systematically making certain neither the clerk nor anyone else in the building can evert identify him. This DOES happen. Far too often it happens.

        In all cases of armed robbery a safe assumption is that the perp is likely to systematically execute everyone close enough by to make a possible witness to later identify the perp.

        This third party vendor absolutely did the right thing. LVPD feel the twisted need to cover their own backsides, so they say charges have not yet been laid against the armed citizen, but we are looking into it. They could more accuratley declare that IF we find the situation is as presently known, and described by the witnesses, there will be no charges.

    4. cops shoot unarmed suspects all the time and it’s called a justified shooting because the officer felt threatened.
      If a civilian shoots and armed robber the shooting is questionable, does anyone here see a problem.

    5. Protecting someone is a crucial right.
      Armed with a gun? A knife? A club?
      Most people miss, at least with some bullets.In that situation, just curious, what is the law if the shooter missed the robber and killed the clerk?
      Jay

      1. Shooting the bad guy can be justified. Shooting a good guy, clerk or customer or somebody on the street is an accident and accidents cannot be justified. They may not be criminally prosecuted, that is up to the DA. But they could be reckless or negligent.
        Certainly you would be sued for injuries in civil court.

      1. the store’s insurance company, of course. Which results in (most likely) raised premiums and either tighter margins for the franchisee or lower profits or increased prices.

    6. Police are shooting people because they “feel” threatened. From what I have seen in the news (videos) many killings by the police are unnecessary. No more stopping the threat by wounding the person. Just kill them must be what the police are being taught in their training. No need to see a weapon just shoot them. Others are shooting people over material things such as money. In the case of the store shooting it is other peoples money. It would appear the value of human life has been diminished over time in our society by many people. The “Black lives matter” folks don’t quite get it. It is not a race problem it is a society problem. When the value of human life is lowered in society there are more killings by both the good guys and the bad guys. It is the way it is and it isn’t going to change anytime soon.

      1. When an armed robber enters a store with a knife or a gun they are making the threat “I’ll kill you if…” If all they want is the money, it is insured in most stores. But in many small shops money stolen is just gone, no insurance.
        Some robbers are insane and or high and killing the clerks and any customers might be their plan. Some gangs have initiations in order to join.
        The victim doesn’t know what the robber wants or will do. Shooting the robber to stop them is why private citizens or cops shoot. Killing isn’t what they want, it is a possible outcome. That is why cops handcuff people after they shoot them.
        Cops often function with only a 911 call and information. Here in Wichita a year ago a family caled 911 and reported that a member of the family, a young male, was armed with a knife.
        When the cops arrived the drug and threatening young man would not surrender to arrest. A female officer shot him with an 5.56×45 rifle.
        The family then claimed he wasn’t armed or threatening.
        If and when you call 911, don’t lie to get the cops to come more quickly. Tell the truth, as Jack Webb would say, “Just the facts.”

      2. Since the rise of feminism and women’s equality in the United States back in the late sixties and early seventies is where you will find the beginning to the problem(s). Women leaving the homes for a, “career” in art or colleges courses in, “women’s studies”? Then the end result of a divorce custody matter the children were usually given to the mother for custody and in the majority of cases the mother would use the father’s visitation of those children is a power tool, United customer access of the children to the father thereby the child growing up without the fathers’ nurturing and discipline. The children live a lopsided life raised by, “mom” and she got pissed off at the road and she would hold the kids back or hide them. The end result is we end up with the society we have today. A bunch of spoiled (ITN) brats running around demanding that the world owes them a living and even more dangerously, not even knowing their position in life as a father! Passing this psycho-social destruction on to the next generation or has the politicians love to say, ” kicking the can down the road”!

        1. I beg to differ, it isn’t feminism. The PROBLEM began with the New Frontier followed by The Great Society.
          Government welfare rules, mothers did not qualify if they had a husband or boyfriend in the house. they didn’t get a rent check or child support.
          ERGO, the government broke up the black family. No father in the house, kids on the street joined gangs to replace the nuclear family.
          Gangs dealt drugs, did robberies and turned their GF out as whores.
          Black families that owned an a single family home that was “old” had their home condemned and bought at bottom dollar, not enough to buy new property. Often the family had businesses out of their property. A garage on teh alley did tune-ups and even custom work restoring cars. Mom might teach dance, piano or other skills, even doing custom sewing and tailoring.
          But in the hi-rise urban slum of public housing non of the jobs could be done.

          Government, I’ve seen it done. The joke is “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.”

        2. IMO these young thugs that are out preying on innocent human beings are the product of moms being paid to have babies. Some women will have five to ten babies from different sperm donors for a check. Some really don’t give a shit about their kids so they grow up on the streets or mom can’t handle them and pass them off to grandma. Which was the case of Michael Brown. Leslie McSpadden only claimed MB after he was justly killed. Further. IMO a lot of these kids are the grand kids of crack heads from the eighties. These young thugs are not products from divorced homes but products from a paycheck. The fathers could give a shit less about their kids. It has nothing to do with feminism, women being in the work force or kids from divorced families.

      3. Shooting to wound requires hitting a very small target- an arm or leg. A difficult shot even for an expert. Center of mass is the target to stop a threat. As for the rest of your comment, go to You Tube and look for a video “why do police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens”. If you are open to other views than the ones mainstream media has been feeding you might just learn something.

        1. If the laws are read and understood, shooting to wound is a crime. The laws on “use of force” [self-defense] are clear you are justified in shooting someone only in a last dispirit hope of saving your life or the life of another. You shoot to stop an immediate threat. Shooting someone in the hand or arm may not STOP them from continuing their attack.
          If you have time to think about it, time to aim for a small target, you are not justified, the DA can prosecute. You’ll be asked why you shot the person or even just shot in their direction with a warning shot? A warning shot is assault with a deadly weapon. Shooting in the hand or foot assault and battery with a deadly weapon.
          Shooting to center mass has less chance to miss and has a greater chance of an immediate stop. The death of the perp is not desired but it is justified as a last resort to save innocent lives.
          This is not legal advice, just my opinion.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *