U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- At about 4:10 p.m., 26 August 2019, a suspect wearing a hoodie enters a MetroPCS cell phone store in Philadelphia, PA. The store and employees have been the victim of several robberies. On the alert, the employee watches the suspect intently as he enters the store, carrying a handgun in his left hand. The suspect throws a bag to the employee and tells him to fill it with cell phones. The employee sees his chance.
The employee makes the decision to draw and engage the robber. He brought his sights on target, and the robber realized his peril. The video is stopped by CBS3 at that point.
As seen in the video, it only takes a second of inattention from the robber for a defender to take decisive action. The robber telegraphed his intentions by wearing a hoodie on a 75-degree day in late August. He came in with a handgun in his left hand, and a bag in his right hand. The employee was watching him intently, with his left hand near his holstered handgun.
The employee immediately understood what was happening and the deadly threat he faced. He did not spend time in denial of what was happening. He processed and accepted what was going on very quickly and formulated a plan of action. Given the circumstances, it is highly likely the employee had considered various scenarios, had decided on various “what if” courses of action long before this robbery attempt occurred. Presented with reality, he only needed to pick a response and implement it.
The draw and presentation take less than two seconds in the video.
Armed robbers have many factors working against them in the United States.
They have to be worried about video capture. It is becoming harder and harder to commit crimes without being identified. That is why the hoodie was up, in spite of the weather and the potential tip-off.
They want compliance, not murder, because murder is very likely to be vigorously investigated, while a common store robbery receives much less scrutiny.
They have to present a credible threat to gain compliance, but a credible threat justifies using deadly force against them. If they are wounded, they leave a trail of DNA evidence behind.
In the past year, this particular store had been robbed two other times. The store employees knew they were at risk.
From the store employee’s gun handling, it appears he had training. A witness reported about ten shots were fired. We do not know how many shots each participant fired.
This is a reasonable example of action beating reaction. The employee decided to take action against the deadly threat. He was likely taking up the slack on the trigger by the time the robber started to react. It was too late for the robber to avoid being shot.
The employee was not wounded. The robber was killed.
Was the robber under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or some combination? We do not know. A 1994 study showed 65% of robbery suspects tested positive for drug use in 24 selected cities.
Being under the influence could explain the nonchalant attitude that lead to the robbery suspect’s fatal inattention.
People who want the population disarmed claim that defense of self with a firearm never happens. They construct fictional scenarios to explain why the wisdom of 400 years of human history is wrong.
In the real world, preying upon potentially armed humans is extremely dangerous, as illustrated in this video. In a society where the rule of law is generally followed, the rules and the reality are strongly biased toward the defender, against the aggressor.
It is one of the major reasons crime rates fall so rapidly where the rule of law is respected. In those areas, violent crime does not pay.
It is always possible to create fictional scenarios where self-defense does not work. Those who have chosen to be unarmed want to create reasons to justify their decision. They would be better served by realizing legally armed citizens add to their safety by making society dangerous for human predators.
Being human, they desperately want to deny that reality. They want to cloak themselves in the glow of false moral superiority.
Niccolo Machiavelli may have been wrong about some things. He is considered the founder of modern political statecraft, because of his book “The Prince,” written about 1537. He is correct about the disparity between armed and unarmed men. From The Prince:
There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe while his servants are armed.
Our armed servants (the police) respect armed citizens. They are their natural allies.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.