California Jewelry Store Owner Fires Back at Armed Robbers: Would You Do the Same?

by mrosen814 Posted 2012/08/03 21:03:15

Related Topics: Car, Guns, Crime, Business, 2012, Fire, Video, Law, Gray, Strip, Robbery, California, Match, Mall, Parking, Store

Read More

592 votes
Read all 590 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	531 votes	90%
	No	61 votes	10%

A jewelry shop owner in Garden Grove, CA, open fired on five masked men attempting to rob her; at least one of the five thieves was armed.

“Our official recommendation is that business owners should not take the law upon themselves,” said Garden Grove Police Lt. Jeff Nightengale. “It is difficult because when you start shooting guns those rounds can end up anywhere. We would rather have the crime happen and have good witnesses rather than putting someone’s safety in jeopardy.”

ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
On Wednesday, five masked men poured into a jewelry store in a strip mall in Garden Grove, Calif., expecting to carry out a simple smash and grab robbery. But within less than a minute, they discovered they were no match for the store’s owner, a gray-haired woman whose finger seems quite comfortable on the trigger.

+31

Add a comment above

JingerJewels 2012/08/04 08:02:10

Yes

+11
I am a business owner and i would have no problem putting a hot piece of lead into someone who is trying to rob me my best friend
>> See Replies

More polls by mrosen814

☆astac☆ to Prime T... 2012/08/05 04:56:32

+1
It is not the job of the police, and the law will not take care of these criminals. We do not have enough police to prevent crime, they can only investigate after the fact.

reply
Lady D.J to Prime T... 2012/08/05 20:12:19

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away"

reply
T A to Prime T... 2012/08/06 10:30:25

Think of how many times you see people driving recklessly without being caught. And that's for a crime that police profit from directly and take an active interest in seeking out. They aren't out looking for dangerous criminals, because they're, well, dangerous and not the least profitable.

Police are historians. They are not and cannot be at the scene of crimes in progress unless they are lucky(?). They simply write reports of what took place, whether that be theft or murder.

reply
Pixie·MzAwesome♠ƤĦĂĔŢ♠ 2012/08/04 21:33:31

Yes

Good on her

reply
SW 2012/08/04 21:08:53

Yes

Maybe... I don't know. I'd never want to kill someone even if it meant I lost some jewelry. Insurance could pay for the jewelry and police could catch up with him when he tries to sell it. I could never get over killing someone for any reason. I think the police's official recommendation isn't because they're stupid and don't know what they're doing. They see in real life what we see in movies and it's a lot different.

reply
krystal.altman.9 2012/08/04 21:01:00

Yes

If someone has the nerve to pull a gun on me, and I happen to have a gun on hand, you bet your boots I'm pullin that sucker out and retaliating.

reply
gstrahan 2012/08/04 20:55:25

Yes

+3
This is not "taking the law upon ones self". This is clearly self defense. It's a pity she didn't take a couple of those bastards out. A little time spent at the range would be well spent.

reply
Steveth... to gstrahan 2012/08/05 09:17:35

+2
Not eye said the blind cow. Kind of sexy, don't you think?

reply
FUS RO DAH! 2012/08/04 20:36:33

No

+1
I can't say what I would do because I wasn't there.

reply
exsecrare 2012/08/04 20:18:09

Yes

+1
Damn right

reply
james.bowman.146 2012/08/04 19:11:25

No

+2
For a personal reason. I think she was in the right. I would just never want to kill someone. If the choice was to shoot someone to save my own life, I'd rather die. Now if I were protecting someone, I would be able to take a life. Not just for myself though.

reply
wilsonmja to james.b... 2012/08/05 09:04:30

+2
You would rather die than kill somebody? Consider that if you had the opportunity to kill a person who's intentions were to murder you in cold blood, by not taking that opportunity you would be indirectly responsible for the future victims of this man.

reply
Marvelo... to wilsonmja 2012/08/05 13:25:52

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
Well stated!

reply
wilsonmja to Marvelo... 2012/08/05 15:10:11

+1
Thank you!

reply
james.b... to wilsonmja 2012/08/05 22:24:09

I would rather die than kill. If there were future victims, then it would be for protection. If the killer were to just kill me and then live on their life without killing, I'd choose to die more than kill. I don't fear death. I fear my conscious if I took a human life though.

reply
wilsonmja to james.b... 2012/08/06 06:28:34

Well, in most cases...actually I'm going to go out I a limb and say probably in all cases...a person does not sign a contract with his victim agreeing to never kill again. You fear your conscious? If the killing was justified and done purely out of self defense than your conscious should be free and clear. I'm sort of speaking out of experience. I didn't kill the guy, but that's because he was lucky. I certainly wasn't being considerate of HIS life when I shot him. I was only thinking of my daughters and him. Anyway, I never felt bad about having to shoot him. The only thing that keeps me awake at night to this day is the "what if" as in "what if my friend hadn't talked me into buying a piece 6 months prior." I'll tell you "what if:" my family would be dead...ALL of us.

reply
james.b... to wilsonmja 2012/08/06 06:34:44

It's just that I don't fear death. I'd ask myself everyday questions like, "What if I just didn't open the store." As far as the contract remark, this is a hypothetical situation.

reply
wilsonmja to james.b... 2012/08/06 06:54:10
james.b... to wilsonmja 2012/08/06 07:26:39

I'd certainly hesitate and fear getting shot, but I'd be equally fearful of shooting someone.

reply
none 2012/08/04 19:07:21

Yes

+2
You have a right to protect your life and property. I would suggest in this woman's case that she spend some time at the range.

reply
elvira 2012/08/04 18:55:30

No

+4
Absolutely not! It is not the wild west or maybe it is. What if one of her rounds killed an innocent bystander. I don't know about anyone else, but I would have a hard time living knowing I needlessly took someone's life.

If they broke into her home and her life was in jeopardy that would be a different story. She would be defending her own life. The culprits would deserve whatever they got.

reply
Marvelo... to elvira 2012/08/05 13:37:16

You ask: "What if one of her rounds killed an innocent bystander."

What if dogs pooped chocolate Ben & Jerry's premium ice cream?
What if Thomas Glenn Terry, hadn't been armed at Shoney's Family Restaurant, just 2 months after the Luby's Massacre? (They had murdered a compliant manager the week before in another such robbery.)

But here's what could have happened as well, if she hadn't accepted personal responsibility for her safety and the safety of her clients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

reply
elvira to Marvelo... 2012/08/05 13:56:46

+1
Thanks for the information. This is just one crazy world we live in and each one of us has to decide for ourselves what to do. Your information does not change my mind. I still would not want to be responsible for taking an innocent's life.

Stay focused and stay safe :)

reply
♡Short Sparkley Ginger♡ 2012/08/04 18:14:57

Yes

+3
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that old ladys my hero!!!

reply
Larry 2012/08/04 18:05:11

Yes

+2
Damn right I would, he won't be stealing anymore from hard working people.

reply
ghostrider 2012/08/04 17:21:02

Yes

+1
.... BUT!!! ... BUT!!! ... BUT!!! .... it would depend on the circumstances ... to all those with a "Hell, yes, I would do the same" mentality, I'm willing to bet you would not, and even would not consider it, if you had a shotgun in your face ... obviously, these were 'amateurs' ... 'professionals' would know enough to neutralize any potential threat.

reply
gvc to ghostrider 2012/08/05 08:08:39

+1
Oh pray do tell us how she should have neutralized this potential threat, since apparently you are a "professional" criminal.

reply
ghostrider to gvc 2012/08/05 21:14:21

Obviously you didn't understand the gist of my comment ... I was talking about the would be robbers being amateurs.

reply
gvc to ghostrider 2012/08/05 21:36:17

Ah yes I did....that is why I asked for a professional opinion.

reply
ghostrider to gvc 2012/08/05 22:00:43

No, I don't believe you did, really, because I said, "Professionals would know enough to neutralize any potential threat." ... but for this exchange -- professionals would not have been surprised by anyone coming from some 'back room' -- they would have 'cased the joint' prior to the robbery to try to preclude such an eventuality by having one or two of them 'clear' the back room of any persons or have someone posted close to the door leading therefrom and holding anyone entering at gunpoint or simply shooting them as they entered the main store.

reply
gvc to ghostrider 2012/08/05 23:31:07

well thank you for your expert opinion.

reply
Wahvlvke 2012/08/04 17:08:03

Yes

+4
Self defense. OK. Better than having the police investigate the robbers kiling you.

reply
Commander Pyle 2012/08/04 17:08:01

Yes

+1
If there's an opportunity for me to safely use my firearm, I am taking it.

I love the officers statement:
“Our official recommendation is that business owners should not take the law upon themselves, It is difficult because when you start shooting guns those rounds can end up anywhere. We would rather have the crime happen and have good witnesses rather than putting someone’s safety in jeopardy.”

In other words: If anyone is going to kill someone, rightly or wrongly, it is going to be us!

reply
JERSEYDUDE 2012/08/04 17:02:07

No

+2
that old woman is more crazy than the robbers

reply
ZB to JERSEYDUDE 2012/08/04 17:39:37

+4
And still alive to talk about it.

reply
JERSEYDUDE to ZB 2012/08/04 21:09:47 (edited)

there was never a threat to her in the first place which is more than obvious from the video and another thing that was more than obvious is that they had no intention of killing or hurting anyone.....just plain old thieves nothing more

reply
Wyveryx to JERSEYDUDE 2012/08/05 00:19:54

A loaded gun in an upright position aimed at a person means that there is a threat, intentions at that point don't matter. Criminals need to know this so that they might think before they commit a crime with a firearm.

reply
JERSEYDUDE to Wyveryx 2012/08/05 04:04:56

that lady was more willing to shoot and kill someone than the thieves were

reply
Wyveryx to JERSEYDUDE 2012/08/05 06:53:20

Of course she was, they charged into her store, threatened her customers and her domain. I didn't seen them gently assisting that person to the ground, or asking if they wanted to lay on the floor.
However, she didn't invade someone else's domain or begin brandishing a loaded weapon. She sure finished it though.
I mean seeing those men flee in terror with the fear of death in them was spot on. Now they know not to mess with that store again. It's not an easy target and she's no mark.

reply
JERSEYDUDE to Wyveryx 2012/08/05 07:40:02

okay barbarian .... later

reply