3 Armed Robbers Attempt To Rob 2 Veterans At Gunpoint, Suspects Shot

This is what happens when would be robbers engage armed citizens. Surprise.

Two of the would be robbers are in the hospital.

Armed robbery does not pay when citizens are armed.

News video at link:

www.khou.com...

Adam Bennett, KHOU 11 News

HOUSTON – Police are investigating a shooting that at least one robbery suspect wounded in west Houston overnight.

It was the end to a night out that a group of people and then men who tried to rob them never expected.

“He plugged him, boom, boom, in the chest,” said one of the four victims, who did not want to give his name.

The man said he, his brother and two women were about to leave a parking lot near the bars along Washington Avenue and Jackson Hill just after 2 a.m. when two men with handguns walked up to their car.

“He said ‘Hey, give me your money,’” recalled the victim. “Well, I don’t carry cash, I just have a card. So I put up my card and my ID, and I was like, ‘Hey man this is all I have.’”

When the suspect slapped the items out of his hand, the victim says his brother got out of the car and shot the would-be robber twice in the chest.

“As soon as he shot him, I ran over there and kicked him in his face twice because I don’t know if he was dead or not,” said the man. “Kicked him twice in his face, tried to clear his gun, but it turned out to be a fake. It wasn’t even real.”

“It was found to be an Airsoft gun,” said Jeremy Spurlock, an investigator with the Houston Police Department. “There was no orange tip or anything. If you’d have seen it, you would have believed it was a real gun.”

The victim said his brother then shot at the second armed suspect.

“Emptied the rest of the clip, we have a 12-round clip, so emptied the rest of the clip into the guy,” he said. “Well it turns out the cop said that he turned up at the hospital, he got hit like seven times.”

Police say that second suspect had gotten away in a car with a third suspect and had stolen a handgun from one of the women’s purses. The suspect still at the scene was taken to Ben Taub Hospital in critical condition and underwent surgery.

“It wasn’t scary,” said the victim. “We’re prior service military, so this was just like a regular reaction to us.”

Investigators witt the Houston Police Department said police believe this robbery was random and that there were no other robberies in the area that night.

Lt. Larry Crowsen with HPD said it will be up to the District Attorney to decide whether or not the shooting was justifiable.

For the gun control crowd: Criminals For Gun Control

I'm all for the 2nd amendment but this is a pretty misleading title and so is your commentary:

"Armed robbery does not pay when citizens are armed."

“As soon as he shot him, I ran over there and kicked him in his face twice because I don’t know if he was dead or not,” said the man. “Kicked him twice in his face, tried to clear his gun, but it turned out to be a fake. It wasn’t even real.”

“It was found to be an Airsoft gun,” said Jeremy Spurlock, an investigator with the Houston Police Department. “There was no orange tip or anything. If you’d have seen it, you would have believed it was a real gun.”

The victim said his brother then shot at the second armed suspect.

“Emptied the rest of the clip, we have a 12-round clip, so emptied the rest of the clip into the guy,” he said. “Well it turns out the cop said that he turned up at the hospital, he got hit like seven times.”

Great, some dumbasses tried to rob somebody with an airsoft gun and predictably, the people with the real gun came out on top. What does this prove? Don't bring an airsoft gun to a robbery? Well duh.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well they were armed with stupidity.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It is in fact an armed robbery. Hindsight cant be applied as you have to view the situation from that of as it happened and not afterwards.

I also believe Texas has a law about the use of fake weapons and how the law views it as real if used in the commission of a crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is in fact an armed robbery. Hindsight cant be applied as you have to view the situation from that of as it happened and not afterwards.

Yes. From the victims perspective they ARE armed. It makes for a dangerous situation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I realize that it was an armed robbery. If you stick up somebody with your finger in your pocket, pretending it's a gun, that's armed robbery too. In fact, passing a note to a bank teller is being prosecuted around the country as armed robbery.

My point is that the title was misleading:

"3 Armed Robbers Attempt To Rob 2 Veterans At Gunpoint, Suspects Shot"

At "airsoft gunpoint?"

The clear implication in the title and in the OP's comments was that three armed men attempted to rob two veterans who defended themselves (against three men armed with guns) with a gun. As I said, I'm all for gun ownership. I'm also not saying the idiots with the airsoft didn't deserve getting shot. I wouldn't have done anything differently than the brother with the gun.

My point is that this isn't an example of a person with a gun successfully protecting himself against an equal or greater threat.

I'm not sure I know of anyone (personally) that views "gun control" as "take the guns away from everyone". From my perspective, gun control should be applied, but simply in the form of regulation. I don't want to see guns taken away from anyone (and I'm not even from the US), but in many areas, it's simply too easy for just about anyone to go out and get a gun.

If regulation means a more cautious selling point, then I'm all for that. If a person has a serious criminal record, or a history of serious mental illness, I don't see why they should be allowed to purchase a gun. Sure, some will slip through the regulations by falsifying their information, but when does that not happen anywhere else there's a regulated substance/product? No, it doesn't prevent illegal gun purchases from occurring, but that's not the point. If some troubled people have a more difficult time getting a gun, why not make that happen? Honest, healthy citizens will still be able to purchase them, and regulation seems to do well in many other countries. So I don't see the issue; unless, of course, i'm simply ignorant to some points (I don't follow the subject very closely).

I would say that if gun control is simply meant to take away all guns to prevent crime, then that is a ridiculous point of view. A criminal is going to get an illegal gun with or without gun control, after all. It's a stupid argument to bring up. But, to make it more difficult for those who aren't mentally sound? I can understand that.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra

I realize that it was an armed robbery. If you stick up somebody with your finger in your pocket, pretending it's a gun, that's armed robbery too. In fact, passing a note to a bank teller is being prosecuted around the country as armed robbery.

My point is that the title was misleading:

"3 Armed Robbers Attempt To Rob 2 Veterans At Gunpoint, Suspects Shot"

At "airsoft gunpoint?"

The clear implication in the title and in the OP's comments was that three armed men attempted to rob two veterans who defended themselves (against three men armed with guns) with a gun. As I said, I'm all for gun ownership. I'm also not saying the idiots with the airsoft didn't deserve getting shot. I wouldn't have done anything differently than the brother with the gun.

My point is that this isn't an example of a person with a gun successfully protecting himself against an equal or greater threat.

Your point, yezz,....tis a silly one....

Anyway, I am wondering...

a reply to: infolurker

Yep, too bad for every time there is one of the above stories, there is one of these, if not more:

VETERAN SHOT BY POLICE - SAY HE AIMED GUN AT THEM - HE SAYS THEY DIDNT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES

AUSTIN (KXAN) — A veteran is suing the city of Austin and the Austin Police Department for damages two years after an incident with police that left him with permanent injuries.

Gene Vela was shot twice by Austin police officer in November of 2013 in a disturbance at his home where police say he pointed a gun at them. Police were originally called to Vela’s house that night for a welfare check at the request of a concerned friend. According to Vela, the officers banging on his door didn’t announce who they were, leading him to grab his gun. Police say Vela pointed his gun at them before they shot at him.

kxan.com...

Or just all the other robberies, break ins, assaults, mass shootings, etc. For all of them that happen, (US must have more than most places in the world right?-besides war zones at least, right?) the number that are actually stopped by armed citizens? Uh....

Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the United States.

Source

Seems like 12 Times they were stopped by "Good Guys with Guns"


That's a little less than 5%. But who knows, maybe there are more Batmans armed vigilantes than we realize.

Odd though, countries like Canada, just North of the border, I can only find about 10 Mass Shootings.


OF course, it's only a 1/10th the size as well. Still, that's about half the rate. Is it better to find out what's causing the mass shootings and stop it, prevent it even, or at least reduce the frequency or severity, rather than to strap absolutely everyone in with firearms, since mistakes with firearms, whether its the owner, or the police not realizing who the owner is, their intentions, etc, seem to happen.

---

The story from the OP is another case of someone not knowing whats really going on. A couple of guys get robbed by a fake gun, and airsoft gun and unload 12 shots at them, 7 rounds hit the suspect. Do you want every yahoo and his brother unloading their clips whenever they feel threatened?

Not that I wouldnt mind seeing those Youtube "It's just a prank bro" guys get a good scare... Nevermind actually, getting shot 7 times is more than a scare, it could easily kill someone. And the 5 shots that missed their target could easily kill someone as well.

Consider this, police, even with all their training (oh boy, never thought Id say that...) still have a horrible track record with discharging their firearms. There are some journalists currently tracking stats, and Im sure we will have stories on it soon, but the data isn't even collected very well among the agencies. Even the people supposedly trained to handle firearms in this manner (combat, reducing threats and increasing public safety by the use of firearms) even they have a *lot* of mishaps. Whether it's innocent people being hit by stray bullets, shooting early, shooting for no reason, shooting because -itchy trigger finger... the point being, the cops are criticized heavily for their use of firearms, you really want every man and woman in the country carrying a firearm for the same reason? I prefer to have my Engineers focused on engineering, pilots focused on piloting, bus drivers focused on driving. It's not to say any of these people shouldn't own guns, or have CCWs, maybe some very well should, but we don't need every man, woman and child over 18(?) carrying firearms to 'prevent' crime, since it rarely happens anyway. And the people mandated to carry firearms have enough mishaps for everyone.

a reply to: boncho

Mass shootings?

Oh, you mean the 90% gang shootings.

If they can get drugs, they can get guns. Disarming the people is just stupid.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: boncho

Mass shootings?

Oh, you mean the 90% gang shootings.

If they can get drugs, they can get guns. Disarming the people is just stupid.

Nope, look at the map yourself. I imagine if they added in gang shootings or gang related stuff it would be higher. Its not to say none of them in there are tied to gangs, some might be, but for the most part it's disturbed people, public shootings/killings, a lot of family related violence, etc

But you are also pointing out a logical fallacy. In the UK and in Japan where guns are quite sparse, gangs are more prone to knife violence. And in the 50s before guns crept into counter culture, gangs were often armed by knives and chains, etc

Just because a gang *can* access something, doesnt mean it *will*. While Canadian gangs are well armed, it's actually because of easy American arms being sent over the border. They don't source locally. And in a sense you are right, they get drugs, and with it guns, but mainly because of the ease of access from the US.

If you take a step back and look at Africa, the reason there are so many guns in play? Because the Russians are constantly dumping in kalashnikovs. Would you say they wouldn't have the same gun problems without that supply? Because, well... they likely wouldn't.

wtf are these thugs super villains or something?? First one took two or three in the chest, and the other guy got hit seven times. Why the hell are neither one of them dead?? Great, now the state of Texas gets to pay for their stay at hotel "learn more crime" prison.

I would have preferred that these two assholes would have just died. Even if we all know beforehand they were using air-soft.

a reply to: boncho

Well,

Not chancing it and not going to find out.

I will keep my arms thank you.

a reply to: boncho

You talk about AK's being dumped in Africa, but we have over a dozen individual manufacturers of AK's right here in the US. Not to mention nearly 3 dozen countries who also make their own.

Kalashnikov Concern (formerly Izhmash) has repeatedly claimed that the majority of foreign manufacturers are producing AK type rifles without proper licensing.[84][85]

Not really fair to blame Russia exclusively.

For a citizen in today's world to say "I refuse to ever own a gun" is like a small family out in their own little cottage or hamlet in the pre-gunpowder days to say "I refuse to own a sword, dagger, knife, or bow" . Guns are this eras weapons of choice. I the 22nd century, it will be energy weapons. Utopia will never happen on Earth as long as free will exists, so lets stop pretending it will suddenly show up if we strictly regulate or remove guns. Somebody always wants what someone else has and many will refuse to ever have a rational discussion about it and just take it by force. Way of the world.

Just accept the era you live in and the weapons technology has provided for us to defend our property, life and liberty.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Did ya miss this part, or just being ignorant?

Police say that second suspect had gotten away in a car with a third suspect and had stolen a handgun from one of the women’s purses. The suspect still at the scene was taken to Ben Taub Hospital in critical condition and underwent surgery.

a reply to: theantediluvian

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra

I realize that it was an armed robbery. If you stick up somebody with your finger in your pocket, pretending it's a gun, that's armed robbery too. In fact, passing a note to a bank teller is being prosecuted around the country as armed robbery.

My point is that the title was misleading:

"3 Armed Robbers Attempt To Rob 2 Veterans At Gunpoint, Suspects Shot"

At "airsoft gunpoint?"

The clear implication in the title and in the OP's comments was that three armed men attempted to rob two veterans who defended themselves (against three men armed with guns) with a gun. As I said, I'm all for gun ownership. I'm also not saying the idiots with the airsoft didn't deserve getting shot. I wouldn't have done anything differently than the brother with the gun.

My point is that this isn't an example of a person with a gun successfully protecting himself against an equal or greater threat.

Give it a rest man, kind of missing the point aren't we, who cares about the flippin title?... it's still accurate.

What does it matter if the gun wasn't real? or that the title of the thread doesn't mention 'airsoft' ?

The point is these guys where robbed at gun point in a parking lot at 2am. You point a replica airsoft gun at me at 2am and try to rob me, I'm not going to get all Adam West...



"Uh, pardon me criminal nuisance, is that an authentic firearm or one that discharges plastic spheres designed for adolescent recreational entertainment?"

Sorry, but I'm not going to take the time to get that curious, I'm going to react and match that nerf gun with a .357mag.

Because again, in a parking lot at 2am, a replica airsoft gun stuck in your face and demanding money is a very real threat, it doesn't matter how 'equal' your reaction is, and you'd better hope your reaction's 'greater'.

Prior service military calling it "a clip" always makes me raise an eyebrow.

a reply to: rexsblues

This is why they call it a pocket rocket. Im 150% in agreement! !! 0200hrs... anything you stick in my face that resembles a weapon, please expect that you will be late, very late for breakfast. ........

My only problem with this.

People think it's acceptable to put 7 rounds into somebody as they are running away from you.

Mind you that could just be adrenaline rushing in the modem and you just press that trigger till you hear click. I'm not not sure, not a huge gun guy myself.

Not saying they were justified, you try and rob me in a parking lot at 2am and see what happens if I were armed, I'm sure I'd have reacted the same way.

It just makes me nervous that any idiot can just unload that much ammunition in such a short time frame.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well they were armed with stupidity.

That is the most dangerous wepon of all.