By Arleigh Rodgers and Rick Callahan, AP
Authorities on Monday identified the gunman who shot five people at a suburban Indianapolis shopping mall, killing three of them, before a shopper shot and killed him as a 20-year-old local man.
Jonathan Sapirman, of Greenwood, began firing after leaving a bathroom at the Greenwood Park Mall shortly before it closed Sunday evening, Greenwood police Chief James Ison said at a news conference.
Sapirman continued shooting people until he was shot and killed by 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, of nearby Seymour, who was shopping with his girlfriend, said Ison.
“Many more people would have died last night if not for a responsible armed citizen,” said the chief, noting that authorities were still trying to determine a motive for the attack.
The Johnson County and Marion County coroners’ offices identified the slain victims as a married Indianapolis couple — Pedro Pineda, 56, and Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37 — and Victor Gomez, 30, also of Indianapolis.
Ison said that after Sapirman entered the mall, he walked into a bathroom where he spent about an hour before he emerged and opened fire. He said investigators believe Sapirman spent that time preparing and possibly assembling a disassembled rifle that he had brought in his backpack. He ended up firing 24 rounds within two minutes.
Although police don’t know a motive for the attack, Sapirman’s relatives told investigators that he recently received an eviction notice from the apartment where he lived.
My very first thought…the Good Samaritan allowed himself to be publicly identified?
He’s probably not afraid of ‘mostly peaceful protesters’. He knows how to deal with them.
He’s a hero. Here he is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI-F82ly-f8
He lives in Seymour. He has nothing to worry about, except for copious offers of free rounds of beer (and ammunition).
You can bet on the gun control crowd combing his entire history of every comment he made on social media looking for anything to shame him with.
Hell, I don’t live anywhere near there and I’d buy him a beer and a box of ammo.
He’s going to need a cooler full of ice and a couple hours to kill before he can enjoy those beers in Indiana.
the shitengit has a fridge.
I’m pro gun control asf this dudes a hero.
So you would prefer this individual be rendered defenseless by the proper authorities arbitrarily deciding to make it so for their own benefit/agenda and that many more innocent people had died? Because that’s where gun control leads, every last bit of it. How could you possibly not understand that in this day and age? Baaa. Baaa. Mooo. Mooo.
he exercised excellent gun control.
i’m all for that as well.
He can’t exactly stop the police from naming him.
Elisjsha Dicken? Is that name spelled right? Is it an ethnic spelling? Elisha, or Elija I would recognize in a heartbeat.
Whatever, good job Mr. Dicken.
Follow the Facebook link under his photo. Spelling is correct.
His name is spelled correctly. He uses that spelling on his Facebook posts.
From his Facebook entries I’m inclined to say that he would fit right in with all the fellas here on TTAG. 😉👍
Speaking of Facebook posts. Is it just me, or is there a significant difference between the way this young man looks in his posts and the appearance of our most recent asswipes in theirs?
You mean the blatant lack of face and neck tattoos? Yeah it’s noticeable alright. Thank you Elisjhsa and God Bless you!
Another kid whose parents decided his name wasn’t “unique” enough.
LOL.. only a GOPer would wonder about ethnicity.
Bad people end badly
Not often enough.
Handgun vs riffle? I would like to have more detail.
Bad guy rifle skills sucked. Good guy pistol skills superior. Bad guy dead.
Captain Obvious,
Well played sir or ma’am–well played!
That’s what happens when you bring a riffle to a gun fight.
What happened to “When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, the man with the pistol is a dead man” wisdom from Clint Eastwood?
Movies are different than real life, dumbass.
Captain Obvious. Your internet courage is profound. Call dumbass to his face and you would be a$$whipped.
N1111Z
Now I’m scared. 007 is a dumbass and you’re a pu$$y making threats that you can’t back up.
Talk about internet courage.
👍
It was “When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, the man with the pistol is a dead man” wisdom from Clint Eastwood? Gian Maria Volente said that to Clint Eastwood in “A Fistful of Dollars” but Clint Eastwood replied “let’s see if that’s true” and he and Volente loaded up and Eastwood shot Volente.
As CO said, but I don’t think there’s much of an advantage to a rifle inside of 10 or 15 yards. Especially if you’ve got your back to the pistolero.
Excellent point. My thing is this: had the good Samaritan been a Black man he would most likely have been shot dead by the police. You can afford not to think about that; I cannot afford not to. Stop me from purchasing, training and using if I must⁉️ No, but I also know the risks I take as a Black woman defending any lives under any circumstances, especially my own. Carry on.
Wait…how did you insert colored text? Unless they’re from an emoji keyboard?
You Progressives hide your racism of low expectations poorly.
“My thing is this: had the good Samaritan been a Black man he would most likely have been shot dead by the police.”
A valid point, and that’s why after the shooting, you should put the gun on the ground, then you sit down out of reach of the gun and keep your hands visible.
If possible…
It’s my understanding the range was about 40 yards, the citizen braced himself against an architectural pillar.
This experiment has been done a million times… Man with cover and pistol can hit rifleman in open before rifleman can hit covered pistolero… obviously done with targets, not real people… at 100 yards, pistol usually wins.
word on the street is this kid popped off his rounds at 40 yards; where the rifle definitely has the advantage.
Side (but important) note: according to today’s press conference, the hero didn’t have an LTCH. He was able to carry lawfully because of Indiana’s constitutional carry law that took effect July 1st. Constitutional carry saved dozens of lives yesterday.
Those lives don’t count according to anti-gun dogma.
👍
That should be a second amendment advertising slogan.
But if it weren’t for that law, the shooter wouldn’t have been able to take his rifle to the mall in the first place. Because we all know someone intent on murdering people would obey gun laws.
( sarcasm in case anyone couldn’t tell )
Sarcasm noted; but for the dense:
Constitutional carry in Indiana has zero impact on the carry of long guns. The LTCH requirement – LTCH standing for License to Carry Handgun – applied only to the carry of handguns. Carry of long guns in Indiana did not require a license prior to passage of constitutional carry. So, its passage had zero bearing on the actions, or the legality of those actions, of the shooter.
Authorities applaud armed citizen who killed 20-year-old Indiana mall shooter
https://abcnews.go.com/US/authorities-applaud-armed-citizen-killed-20-year-indiana/story?id=87019202
“Authorities applaud armed citizen who killed 20-year-old Indiana mall shooter“
Yes, and main stream media including the ABC link you posted are reporting on this fairly and accurately.
And so you make another useless comment.
No, my observation goes to the fact that many here claim the ‘mainstream media’ would not cover this story, or would portray the citizen in a negative light.
The fact is, mainstream media has portrayed the citizen’s actions in a positive way, and include a direct quote from the chief of police naming the citizen as a “hero”.
Good job young man…👍🇺🇸
👍
Are you in dire need of a career change? Isn’t it frustrating to have to create budgets for everything in life? What if I told that up to $500 can be earned daily without stepping outside of your home, would you be interested? In fact, soft skills supposedly suffice to make… http://Www.BizPay1.com
I’d say you wouldn’t be having to advertise on this site if it were true.
Carry on, both literally and figuratively.
Dicken, the defender, moved to contact. He we towards the threat.
The mass shooter fired 24 rounds. Dicken fired 10.
The mass shooter attempted to retreat to a mall bathroom but collapsed having been hit by rounds fired by Dicken.
.40 cal Booger,
What is your source for those details?
Assuming that your details are correct, they highlight a simple and often extremely effective combat tactic:
When your enemy has a devastating long-range weapon, you have a modest short range weapon, and you are at short range–close the distance as much as possible as quickly as possible on your enemy. That maximizes the effectiveness of your weapon and minimizes the effectiveness of your enemy’s weapon.
This tactic becomes easily understandable if you consider an enemy who has a scoped bolt-action rifle and you have a handgun. If your enemy is 200 yards away, your enemy obviously has a huge advantage with that scoped bolt-action rifle. On the other hand, if your enemy is only 40 feet away, that scoped bolt-action rifle is actually a bit of a liability and you may actually have an advantage with that handgun–especially as you close the distance even further on your enemy. That is potentially what happened in this case.
ABC News
ABC News and other news resources. Those details are public.
Curious how many of his ten rounds missed and where they went? Was there also a ten round mag limit where this happened?
While, perhaps, might be accurate in this instance, “ABC News” (or ANY other MSM) can not be regarded as an accurate source when firearms are involved. Or any other subject.
The police chief press conference.
B.S. the cop in Kenosha ,Wi. pumped 7 rounds into his victim at close range and didn’t kill him the cop had a hand gun, mean while Kyle Rittenhouse killed 2 antifa and
injured 1 all at very close range with an AR , its all about skill
No, Indiana does not have magazine capacity limits.
Interesting that all the victims were Hispanic. Could that be the shooter’s motive?
Or it could have been a Hispanic family with hispanic friends they were the closest targets when he started shooting.
Unless the shooter left a note or a history of posts, we’ll need a seance to answer that question. The Census says Greenwood’s about 85% white and 6% Hispanic, so it’d be a target-poor environment if he was planning to mainly attack minorities.
A Fox reporter had the nerve to complain that the good guy broke the law by bringing in a gun to save more shoppers from injury. It is not a law. It was not presented to the state house/senate and signed by the governor. Someone could be trespassed after being warned. The reporter should get the ultra Karen award.
A trait of most Fox reporters is ‘knee jerk stupidity’. A lot of them ignore very important nuisances like for example, this hero did not violate any laws instead choosing to believe what tby think rather than know. Its not just Fox reporters though, its most liberals also, for example, Shannon Watts.
I find you a not so important nuisance. But your prjudices are not very nuanced.
Fox pretends to be conservative.
Just another rag.
Once upon a time, Fox pretended to be conservative. – those days have long passed.
Incredible…. ABC only describes the perp’s gun as a Sig Sauer M400, without the usual string of adjectives preceding or following.
It’s not such a sensational thing any more when its the good guy with a gun stopping it.
Language update uploaded successfully?
You know the Shrewish Harridans in Red T-Shirts will target this young man for his wanton disregard for the Agenda they are pushing courtesy of Bloomberg Bucks. We’ve already heard from his shrill shill dimWatts herself on the issue. Bloomie’s highly-paid media prostitute is mortified that a Good Guy stopped her Bad Guy from doing more evil.
Well done Mr. E. Dicken and kudos to your parents for raising a fine, responsible and brave son.
Wish they would have kept his identity secret. No good deed goes unpunished.
Def a concern, but at least responding LE didnt shoot him!
Whatever happened to names like Smith, Jones, Brown, Johnson, Williams? Anyway, good job dude, yeah, I’d buy him a beer.
And a vowel. 🙂
Perhaps just a coincidence of fate but one could say he used his firearm to take a stand against racism going by the names of the victims.
Between the political noise and the mental/emotional stress of it all I wish this man the best of support.
Good going young man! They could have used you in Uvalde🙄
Yes they could have. More bravery in one set of balls than in 30.
They would have handcuffed him.
The USAF t-shirt is warming the cockles of this old vet’s black little heart! Nice shooting son, though I’d be feeling better if it had taken fewer rounds – ammo doesn’t grow on trees you know, heh heh…
The defender took the mass shooter down in under 1 minute.
Not 77???
According to some sources, the defender took the mass shooter down in “seconds” but it was under a minute.
Without back-up, without bullet proof vest, without ballistic shield, without Kevlar helmet, with a handgun.
More shockingly: NO HAND SANITIZER EITHER!!!!
One of the local news stations ( wthr) followed this story with BS about how theres been 349+ mass shootings this year (a false statistic) . I guess it was just too much for their anti-gun sentiments to run a story where police were applauding the actions of an armed citizen without pissing on guns in some form.
Very happy the shooting was stopped early and proud that an armed citizen from my state is getting recognition
Under the definition of “mass shooting” and anti-gun rethoric they use, good guys with guns prevented or thwarted, thus stopped, three times that number of mass shootings last week alone.
This is the first time I have heard of such a good citizen with bravery; thanks for your braveness, Elisha Dicken!
It happens. A lot actually if you consider preventing or thwarting from beginning which is also stopping mass shooting.
Kyle Rittenhouse has a long lost brother??? Good job young man.
This is much different than the Kyle Rittenhouse situation.
Kyle illegally armed himself at 17 through a straw man purchase and intentionally went to an area where there was civil unrest.
The young man in this situation was going about his normal, lawful business. There’s no indication he acquired his weapon illegally, rather than being 17 he was a full adult at 22.
This young man was in a mall, peacefully shopping with his companion when a nut job gunman opened fire and forced him to defend himself and his girlfriend.
He didn’t cross state lines looking for trouble, but he ended it with it found him.
Liar…
No, just “fact challenged”.
“Liar… “
“fact challenged”
Would either of you be kind enough to point out exactly what part of my post was incorrect, thanks!
No problem.
Kyle illegally armed himself at 17: No Kyle gave another individual money which he then used to purchase a firearm which he later “gifted” to Rittenhouse. Black (the purchaser) pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, straw purchase charge was dropped.
Rittenhouse did not cross state lines LOOKING for trouble, but he too ended it when it found him. Rittenhouse has family on both sides of that state line and was found by a jury of his peers to have committed no crime.
There’s no indication he acquired his weapon illegally, . Rittenhouse was also not found to have acquired his weapon illegally, and yes, he was 17 at the time of the incident which means ALL of his attackers were at least guilty of assault/attempted assault on a minor.
Rittenhouse did NOT just start shooting at random individuals, he very precisely shot only those who were assaulting him in defense of his own life.
To minor,
Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.
To Kenosha-based defense attorney Michael Cicchini, the statute clearly requires a weapon to be short-barreled to apply, and the judge made the right call.
“There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity here,” he said. “(The charge) should have been dismissed earlier.”
The current wording of the overarching law seems clear: “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” A lead-in paragraph defines dangerous weapon as several things, including “any firearm, loaded or unloaded.”
The subsection that defense attorneys relied upon to seek dismissal reads: “This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 …” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.
“We knew from the beginning, that if you read that statute correctly, he was legal in having that firearm,” Richards said Friday after Rittenhouse was cleared of the remaining charges.
From the AP
I’m still waiting for Miner to cite the statute for “prohibited person” under which Rittenhouse would have fallen at the time he possessed the rifle. He hasn’t, because he can’t.
No straw purchase charge has ever been brought against Black, because that charge is federal, and Black only ever faced state charges.
Because Rittenhouse wasn’t a prohibited person, the purchase was not and could not have been a straw purchase. The supposedly dastardly plan hatched by the two was that Rittenhouse would pay for the rifle, and Black would hold/possess the rifle in trust until Rittenhouse turned 18, at which age he could lawfully possess the rifle in Illinois.
Nothing in WI statute made it unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess the rifle at 17, so his possession of the rifle in WI was not unlawful – as proved at trial.
At most, Black could face a charge for lying on his 4473. But that is not the same thing as a straw purchase, and it didn’t somehow render Rittenhouse unlawful to possess the rifle in WI.
So, until Miner can cite the statute that made Rittenhouse a “prohibited person” in WI, his assertions remain specious.
Sorry, your attempts to obscure the issue fall flat.
“Kyle gave another individual money which he then used to purchase a firearm which he later “gifted” to Rittenhouse“
The very definition of a straw purchase, a felony under both federal and Wisconsin law. Kyle was prohibited from purchasing a weapon because he was still 17, therefore he was a ‘prohibited person’.
“Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older.”
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee
“Rittenhouse would pay for the rifle, and Black would hold/possess the rifle in trust until Rittenhouse turned 18“
That would have required black to lie on the form 4473, a crime. And the evidence showed that black transferred the weapon to Kyle Rittenhouse while he was still 17.
“Nothing in WI statute made it unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess the rifle at 17“
That is correct. But that’s not the issue, he used his Covid stimulus money to purchase the weapon, by providing the money to his sister’s boyfriend to make the purchase.
“The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.“
https://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/man-who-straw-purchased-rifle-for-kyle-rittenhouse-takes-a-plea-deal-avoids-jail/amp/
And yes, Kyle did intentionally go to Wisconsin, accept the illegal transfer of the weapon and hit the streets late at night, looking for trouble.
This is completely different from the hero citizen who broke no laws and was able to terminate the mentally ill gunman.
, Kyle did intentionally go to Wisconsin, accept the illegal transfer of the weapon and hit the streets late at night, looking for trouble.
IF that is true and YOUR expertise prevails above ALL of those who dare disagree with YOU including two Judges, trial attorneys, PROSECUTORS!! AND the fucking State of Wisconsin and FED DOJ, then WHY are Rittenhouse AND Black NOT awaiting trial on FEDERAL charges of Straw Purchase. The whole point just blew right over your head, the kid had a right to be in Wisconsin, the state cannot bring a straw purchase charge as it’s a Fed law, Rittenhouse did not illegally possess the weapon but what the Hell Miner, why let facts get in the way of YOUR narrative? At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter Rittenhouse was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and Black took a plea deal on a MISDEMEANER charge. Time to move on guy, I’m sure there is something out there that you’ve not tried to twist into your warped mindset.
“Kyle was prohibited from purchasing a weapon because he was still 17, therefore he was a ‘prohibited person’.”
[Citation Needed]
Here’s the citation: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/29
Being 17 is not a disqualifying criterion for possession of a firearm under 941.29.
You continue to conflate *purchase* with *possess*, while the law – both federal and state – clearly differentiate between the two. Being unable to purchase is not the same, legally, as being unable to possess.
Therefore, since Rittenhouse was *not* a prohibited possessor as defined in 941.29, Black’s purchase of the rifle was not a straw purchase under WI statute 941.2905.
The same is true of federal prohibited possessor statutes. Again, here’s the citation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
Nothing in that statute indicates that age is a criterion for being a prohibited possessor. Rittenhouse was not a prohibited possessor under federal statute, and therefore the purchase was not a straw purchase under federal statute, either.
You’re simply wrong, and I’ve pointed it out to you, repeatedly.
You’re welcome to cite an actual statute that disputes any of the above. If you do, please evince some understanding of the difference between *purchase* and *possess*.
Chippy, you are conflating possession and purchase.
Both Rittenhouse and black knew their strawman purchase conspiracy was illegal and admitted that on the stand:
“Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black’s family’s hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn’t lawfully buy or possess one.
Black said he used Rittenhouse’s money to make the purchase.
Dominick Black, who bought Kyle Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style rifle for him because Rittenhouse was underage, is shown the rifle during his friend’s trial on Tuesday at the Kenosha County Courthouse. Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn’t get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020.“
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/02/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-dominick-black-first-witness/6258860001/
Kyle didn’t violate Wisconsin laws regarding possession, he violated the laws regarding purchase.
“ Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn’t get the gun himself until he turned 18”
They were both conscious that they were breaking the law by Dominic using Kyle’s money and making false statements on the 4473.
And Dominic black pleaded out of the strawman charge, pleading guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Kyle was also a prohibited person because he was not a resident of Wisconsin, where the rifle was purchased with his money as testified under oath by Dominic Black.
It is sadly hilarious to watch so many members of the ‘law and order’ party tap dancing around the truth.
Even if Kyle had not been 17 and therefore underage by federal law to purchase the weapon, he and Dominick black were engaging in a criminal conspiracy to transfer a firearm to a resident of another state:
“2. May I lawfully transfer a firearm to a friend who resides in a different State?
Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.”
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/0501-firearms-top-10-qaspdf/download#page3
I understand you folks are shitting and getting trying to justify the sad incel’s crimes, it just makes you folks look dishonest.
“Chippy, you are conflating possession and purchase.”
Explain, and cite a statutory reference. Otherwise, you’re just talking out of the southbound end of a northbound horse.
Per both state and federal statutes I cited, a purchase is only a straw purchase if the intended possessor is a prohibited possessor. Per both state and federal statutes I cited, age does not cause one to be a prohibited possessor. Since Rittenhouse was not a prohibited possessor as defined by either state or federal “prohibited possessor” statutes, Black purchasing a rifle intended for Rittenhouse to possess did not, statutorily, constitute a straw purchase.
The purchase may have constituted lying on the Form 4473, but it was not a straw purchase.
Even if it either constituted lying on Form 4473 or constituted a straw purchase, it still didn’t cause it to be unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess the rifle, in WI, at 17 years of age.
“Kyle didn’t violate Wisconsin laws regarding possession, he violated the laws regarding purchase.”
Rittenhouse didn’t purchase a firearm; therefore, he could not have violated the laws regarding purchase. Only Black purchased a firearm. Only black was subject to laws regarding purchase of a firearm.
“Kyle was also a prohibited person because he was not a resident of Wisconsin, where the rifle was purchased…”
Also not in the referenced statutes regarding prohibited posessors. Being a non-resident does not cause someone to be a prohibited possessor under either state or federal statute. Again, you conflate “purchase” with “possess”.
Cite statutes to support your opinions, or admit that you are wrong.
“Even if Kyle had not been 17 and therefore underage by federal law to purchase the weapon, he and Dominick black were engaging in a criminal conspiracy to transfer a firearm to a resident of another state…”
So, you have some evidence that Rittenhouse and Black planned not to effect the transfer through an IL FFL once Rittenhouse turned 18? Do tell!
Liar49er
Ok minor,
If you are not lying then surely you are mistaken as you often are when it comes to Rittenhouse.
“Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.”
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/0501-firearms-top-10-qaspdf/download#page3
Of course, prosecutors have broad discretion and in this case, probably because of public opinion, the prosecutors have declined to press federal charges.
Minor,
So now you are convicting Rittenhouse of a thought crime? Rittenhouse and Black never transferred possession of the rifle because he hadn’t turned 18 yet. So you are assuming they wouldn’t have used an FFL for the transfer once Rittenhouse turned 18. Rittenhouse was not illegally in possession of that firearm when he went to Wisconsin.
“Rittenhouse and Black never transferred possession of the rifle because he hadn’t turned 18 yet“
Are you serious?
Just what do you think Rittenhouse used to shoot those people in Kenosha, Wisconsin? Kyle Rittenhouse went to Dominic blacks home in WI while he was still 17 years of age and a Illinois resident.
“Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn’t get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020.
Normally, Black testified, Rittenhouse’s rifle and his own were locked in gun safes at Black’s house. The safes could be opened only by Black’s stepfather. The stepfather, concerned the unrest might reach their home, had taken all the guns to the basement.
Black said he was in the kitchen when Rittenhouse came up the steps with his rifle. Before returning downtown, they bought tactical slings for the rifles.“
Kyle Rittenhouse did not steal the weapon from Dominick, Dominick permitted Kyle to take possession of the weapon, and later Kyle Rittenhouse used that weapon to shoot three people.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/02/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-dominick-black-first-witness/6258860001/
“The stepfather, concerned the unrest might reach their home, had taken all the guns to the basement“
And I will submit that claim was a lie, why would you remove the rifles from the gun safe and put them in the basement if you feared a break in? I think the stepfather was trying to cover the fact that he had removed the rifle from the safe and given it to Kyle Rittenhouse to avoid being named as an accessory.
“Just what do you think Rittenhouse used to shoot those people in Kenosha, Wisconsin? Kyle Rittenhouse went to Dominic blacks home in WI while he was still 17 years of age and a Illinois resident.”
So? Rittenhouse possessing the rifle in WI was not unlawful, and did not require use of an FFL. His status as an IL resident is entirely irrelevant in terms of the lawfulness of his possession of the rifle in WI.
So? Rittenhouse possessing the rifle in WI was not unlawful,
You can tattoo that on his miserable forehead and then have a Justice from the Wisconsin Supreme Court READ the statutes and explain in small word spoken slowly exactly WHY he is wrong and all you will get is a stupid glazed-over look as he mutters Nuh-Uhhhh. I give up, continue if you must at your sanity’s peril… it doesn’t make sense to keep fighting a battle that you’ve already won. I do not understand WHY he can’t get a grip on “NOT GUILTY” by a sworn jury that was being intimidated to find him guilty of something/anything. He’s like the WWII Japanese holdout hiding in a cave on some island in the Pacific still fighting a war that was over some 77 years ago.
Ok Mr. Bennett,
I’m done. Minor wants to keep playing word games pretending he doesn’t know the difference between transferring permanent possession and temporary possession of this firearm. The difference between permanent physical possession of the firearm as in returning to Illinois with it (which would have required an FFL at which time Rittenhouse would have had to be 18) and temporary possession of it while in Wisconsin.
Of course there is also this,
Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-on-all-charges/
From a jury of his peers.
back in my day the government would give you a gun and send you to another country to kill people that didn’t have the same point of view as L.B.J. Demo had
I’ve been waiting for an event like this. I hope we see more situations where one or more law-abiding citizens use firearms to stop the actions of the criminal and/or depraved.
Outstanding, Mr. Dicken. Thank you for your sharp instincts, training, and forceful response. You are an example for us all.
“I’ve been waiting for event like this …” YAY! A mass shooting!
This is probably the most disgusting post I’ve ever seen from a gun freak. And don’t bother with the “You know what I meant …” excuse. You’re thrilled there was a mass shooting just because (for once, in a nation flooded with guns) a “good guy with a gun” took out a “bad guy with a gun.” All you gun freaks are sick.
Shut up Karen. It wasn’t for once. It happens all of the time.
According to Greenwood Police Chief James Ison…
“I will say his actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun,” Ison said. “(He) was very tactically sound as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him. He has no police training and no military background.”
https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/crime/what-we-know-about-the-armed-civilian-who-killed-greenwood-gunman?_amp=true
This guy was not only moving to take down the mass shooter, he was covering the retreat of others as well.
“Ison explained to WRTV, Dicken’s first shot at the gunman was from 40-50 yards away and it appeared the very first shot hit the gunman.
Dicken was able to hit the gunman with additional rounds.
Dicken was carrying a 9-MM Glock, according to Ison. After confirming the shooter was no longer a threat, Dicken approached mall security and cooperated with officers, according to Ison. He was handcuffed and questioned by officers, but released upon verification of his actions via surveillance video.”
40 – 50 yards is pretty darn good with a hand gun.
A 40-50yd shot on an active gunman in a chaotic environment, with a handgun, is a little more than “pretty darn good”. That’s a HELL of a good shot!
Yes it is
Take it a step further, for M9 qualification we had to shoot from 5 to 40 meters in various positions. 40 for original qualification was done from the prone and later standing. Most of us are able to hit the target (bigger than a average person) with a full size M9 (Beretta 92). As you mentioned target was moving but what are the chances he was using an equivalent sight radius Glock 17 as his carry gun. Beyond impressed he put lead on target with a likely compact to subcompact at 40 yards on a moving shooting opponent and continued to get closer to engage.
I look forward to viewing the surveillance video with admiration and pleasure.
A future mall shooter shooting a mall shooter. You can’t make this shit up.
Apparently you made it up.
excellent reply! Thanks!
You just did.
What makes you believe the young man is a future mall shooter?
So, you’re admitting you have a 70% chance of being a POS mall shooter? 🙁
Right guy, right place, right time…
Gungrabbers panic, lash out.
My sympathies to Mr Dicken, and the victims.
Carry on.
Constitutional Carry went into effect on July 1. 2022!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Although authorities said Dicken was legally armed, the mall prohibits people from carrying weapons on its property. The mall issued a statement Monday saying it grieves for the victims and praising Dicken’s “heroic actions.” It didn’t mention its no-weapons policy and its operator, the Simon Property Group, didn’t respond to a request for comment.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/police-3-people-and-gunman-dead-in-indiana-mall-shooting/?amp=1
Its a mall policy of no firearms, in that state such a policy has no legal weight for public places thus its not illegal to carry a firearm in the mall, its only illegal tresspass to remain if they ask you to leave.
“Ison said officers recovered a cellphone from a toilet in the mall bathroom that they believe Sapirman placed there. At Sapirman’s apartment, they found a laptop and can of butane inside the oven, which was on and set to a high temperature, the chief said without elaborating.
The cellphone and the laptop, which was damaged by the oven’s heat, will be analyzed by the FBI, and that “we are very curious to have those analyzed,” he said.”
Yeah….. the mass shooter was a few sandwiches shy of a picnic.
Sounds like he took a page out of the Aurora theater shooter’s playbook and tried to destroy his residence in an attempt to split/delay first responders.
Relatives said he was pending eviction. Possibly just revenge against landlord on top of destroying incriminating evidence?
He will soon find out that no good deed goes unpunished. My guess is he will be slapped with a lawsuit from the shooters family.
Not in Indiana, he won’t – unless the shooter’s family wants to incur a huge legal bill. Indiana has a self-defense civil immunity statute.
That’s *if* we has acting in self defense. If he decided to hunt down the shooter well.. then that could be a problem.
You should probably reread Indiana self-defense statutes. Defense of third parties is covered, and the timeline here is undisputed.
Its not a problem.
He was acting in both self defense and defense of others at the same time.
He wasn’t hunting the shooter, he knew where he was. He was moving to contact to defend others. He started defending others in the immediate area of the shooter when he was about 40 – 50 yards from the shooter and scored hits on the shooter from that distance. He advanced and along the way he provided cover and direction for those escaping.
He did what was necessary and needed to be done to save lives. And that was, overall, he helped people escape and he denied the mass shooter complete kill zone dominance and took the mass shooter down.
we have a self-defense civil immunity here too, it also covers acting in defense of others as well.
Liar49er says no one was shooting directly at Dicken so couldn’t be selfdefense.
“Liar49er says no one was shooting directly at Dicken so couldn’t be selfdefense“
You are clearly mistaken (or intentionally lying), I’ve never posted any statement as you suggest.
All the facts seem to indicate that the good Samaritan was acting completely within the law, and he was already in the mall conducting himself in a lawful manner when he and his companion’s lives were threatened by an active shooter in their immediate vicinity.
As king Herod said, “I find no fault in this man”.
Besides, no one was shooting directly at Dicken so couldn’t be self-defense.
As a fellow Hoosier I’ll happily buy this man all the beer or drinks he wants and drive him home afterward if need be. 👍
He acted more courageously and saved more lives than the entire Uvalde police department and for no other reason than to protect the innocent (it sounds as though he could have gotten himself out safely without ever engaging the shooter, he ran TOWARDS gunfire)
BRAVO good sir, bravo!
God bless Elisjsha Dicken!
constitutional carry in half the states today…. its been a life saver for millions of people.
WHEW THA COMMENTS , YES GOD BLESS E. DICKEN , PRAYERS NEEDED ALL AROUND
N DICKEN KICKED ( SHOT ) THE DICKENS OUT OF THA THUG .
GEEZ NTEXASS, DATS A GOOD TING DIS GUY WASNT ONLY 21 OR DEY ALL WOULDA DYED! RIGHT NTEXASS?!
That turbo chad young fellow is gonna spend future days shopping with his girlfriend(s) after that stellar sheep dog performance. Chad on turbo chad, chad on.
It isn’t common for mass shootings to be stopped in such fashion. From 2000 to 2021, fewer than 3% of 433 active attacks in the U.S. ended with a civilian firing back, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. The researchers define the attacks as one or more people targeting multiple people.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rare-in-us-for-an-active-shooter-to-be-stopped-by-bystander/ar-AAZHRfd?ocid=U143DHP&pc=U143&cvid=1d409e14d5424dd49457adeabbac883b
I might add that most of the time the mass shooter is wearing body armor which makes it very difficult for a citizen to stop him with a handgun.
Whether it is common or not is going to change what happened. He succeeded. Had he attempted and died as an result, he would be remembered honorably for doing the right thing.
Aren’t you glad he had the ability to intervene on behalf of others? That he did not shoot bystanders or cower in a corner?
Would you have placed others above yourself in the same circumstance?
Storm Trooper you are the type of person who could not see the forest for the trees. When we let deranged maniacs have guns this is the problem, not telling the entire U.S. population we should turn the country into an armed camp of Klingon savage drunken warriors.
Paranoids like yourself think that being armed to the teeth every second is normal because you have never lived in a civilized country.
You didn’t answer the questions. Two very simple questions I thought I dumbed down enough for you to understand.
No, dacian isn’t glad people were saved.
He’s all about the death of innocents, he relishes it. Without it he would not have anything to blabber on about with his nonsense. Its people like dacian and the anti-gun who cause most of this criminal insanity in the world today – their liberal desires for, somehow a, ‘right’ to inflict what they think on others, their loosening of moral and social and legal boundaries on violent criminal elements, their social engineering to achieve agendas, all creating the confusion which nurtures the very violent criminal elements we are faced with today.
Its ok to them that innocents would die, as long as they can blabber on about it. But let one law abiding person save some of those lives they claim to want to save with a smirk of contempt for those lives and they persecute that law abiding person and every law abiding person that owns a gun and indirectly and directly mourn the loss of one of the animals seeking to kill others with a criminal act of violence and indirectly praise that animal for their efforts to kill as many as possible by that persecution of the law abiding.
Yes, dacian, and Shannon Watts, and Joe Biden, and all of the anti-gun liberals, relish the death of innocents so they will have something to blabber on about to further their agenda and desire for a defenseless prey they can control through fear and tyranny.
What was the first thing from Shannon Watts for this incident who claims to be all about ‘life saving’ – why of course, instead of being glad that lives were saved it was immediate attack of persecution against the defender by trying to paint him as having committed an illegal act that he did not commit. And now dacian and even that other idiot Albert Hall persona, and some in the media, and other ‘self proclaimed’ ‘priests’ of the anti-gun religion, and the followers of that religion, want to sacrifice that law abiding gun owner defender and all other law abiding gun owners on their alter of ‘because we say so’ while they indirectly praise and glorify that animal criminal act of violence and ensure its growth by their persecution of the law abiding.
to Storm Trooper
“Would you have placed others above yourself in the same circumstance?”
You have proven with your response that you cannot see the forest for the trees because your question overlooks the reason the shooting happened in the first place and putting this on the 5th grade level we as a nation do not have tough gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of pscho’s and criminals.
Trying to be a pseudo intellectual Mr Dacian? You’re not.
We several laws that govern who can possess firearms. We have even established penalties for illegal possession. We have the laws, you know this and yet you claim the opposite of reality.
I could be swayed to believe maybe we should have more laws because of psycho’s, I mean you claim to own guns and you are definitely a little off and maybe shouldn’t own any.
And your lack of direct answers to direct questions speak volumes. You are a self absorbed coward that would do nothing for others as you view it as an inconvenience.
quote———–And your lack of direct answers to direct questions speak volumes. You are a self absorbed coward that would do nothing for others as you view it as an inconvenience.———quote
Wrong Storm Trooper the opposite is true as you are the coward who will not advocate Universal Background Checks, Safe Storage Laws or mental test and NFA in depth checks for assault rifles.
You accuse me of being off rather it is you who should not be allowed to own any deadly weapons as you proved it with your paranoia about opposing sane gun laws that in other countries do indeed keep guns out of the hands of kooks and criminals. Their lower crime and homicide rates with firearms proves it and this you cannot lie your way out of no matter how many times you try with your usual paranoid excuses.
From 2000, there was almost a 0% chance of having an armed civilian in Dem strongholds, like NJ, CA, NY, IL, etc. Only after McDonald did Chicago loosen up a little. Add that many of the shooting take place in gun free zones where licensed carriers aren’t allowed (schools, military bases, businesses with gun-free policies). 3% is pretty big given those restrictions. How many people are alive because of them? You’re own article mentions the WV party planner in May, Elisjsha yesterday, and the Surherland Springs church. It ignored the White Settlement shooter. Both the WV and White Settlement incidents don’t count as mass shootings because the civilians stopped the bad guys before the body count was high enough.
“Both the WV and White Settlement incidents don’t count as mass shootings because the civilians stopped the bad guys before the body count was high enough.”
It is not really that uncommon that a good guy with a gun stops a mass shooting. Sure, they may not shoot many to stop them after the mass shooter starts firing but its not that uncommon for a good guy with a gun to have stopped a mass shooting by preventing it from beginning or thwarting it before it began. Its only a mass shooting to anti-gun if its a body count they are happy with.
Never mind that a good guy with a gun prevented a mass shooting by, for example, stopping a convenience store robbery bad guy that was threatening to kill several in the store, never mind the bad guy did not get the chance to do that because the good guy with a gun prevented it. Its (the example) not counted as stopping a mass shooting ’cause anti-gun says so, not enough of a body count to please them for without that body count they can’t crow about mass shootings to further their agenda.
Less than 2% of good guys with guns stopping mass shootings by preventing or thwarting them before they begin are reported in the media, anti-gun doesn’t acknowledge the good-guy-with-a-gun exists, and when one of them does make the news like this one did anti-gun goes on the attack to disparage and degrade and discredit their acts of stopping a mass shooting as somehow ‘illegal’ and ‘sinful’ and the followers of the anti-gun religion get in lock step with what their anti-gun ‘priests’ say. Then they turn it around to focus on the mass shooter and thus glorifying the mass shooter by making sure the mass shooter is kept fresh in the public mind via the media and what they say and the defender that stopped it is persecuted by them.
Because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones where law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to carry. Therefore they aren’t able to intervene and stop mass shootings.
The only reason, herr dacian, that more good guys don’t stop these attacks is that creatures like you work hard to keep good guys from being armed.
You are an enabler of mass murder. It serves your twisted purpose.
He aims to “do more for the cause” than Vasily Blokhin, Stalin’s personal executioner who personally murdered over 20,000 people.
Thank you Jethro for using the German word “Herr” when addressing me. If you were not so hillbilly ignorant you would know that the German word Herr means “Mr.”. LMAO you fool.
It goes to your fascists leanings, herr dacian. Just like when you use ‘herr drumph’. Or are you the only one entitled to that term?
And you completely skip over the fact that you are a murder enabler.
Funny where your priorities lie, innit?
Of course you would chime in with your garbage stats which ignore the fact that in States that do not have shall issue carry laws, with a combined population of more people, people cannot defend themselves.
Cope and dilate if it applies.
Side note: the hero has retained representation from the best and most prominent 2A attorney in Indiana, Guy Relford. He couldn’t be in better hands.
Would love to contribute to any expenses that he may incur. If any info becomes available.
Sadly, Biden, Newsome, et al, would take his gun too if he could.
They would have taken it before he saved lives if they could have.
This is the man we needed in Highland Park , Illinois on July 4th
uvalde was a daniel defense
this was a sig sauer
is somebody making sure
that all these mass shooters
are using rifles
from as many different manufacturers as possible
so they all get sued in court
after covid
i dont put anything past anybody
You have inarguably one-upped me in conspiracy nonsense conspiracies. Respect.
Hold my beer, the weapons used in the incidents above are rather extensively used by various positions in the military. Focus pressure on them to produce only for military/police and sue everyone else into nonexistence. Guns are legal but nobody makes them for mere citizens.
Wow, to God be the Glory, kudos to this man’s parents for guiding, teaching him the right way in this life! His quick fearless unselfish concern for others coupled with his bravery to do the right thing in such a perilous situation with only seconds to make such a decision will forever deserve praise, indeed Elisjah Dickman is a true hero in every sense of the word! Thank you, Elijah!!!!!
So what are the Pro-Gunners going to suggest now? That every bugger served with an eviction notice is put under Security Surveillence ‘just in case’ or has to report for as lengthy psychological assessment?
America’s Pro-gunners already got Armed Teachers, locked classroom doors and psychological assessment from kindergarten for anybody who is in the least bit ‘different’, has ‘social adjustment’ problems, has once kicked the bloody cat or is seen as a ‘bit of a loner’ down on their licensing list’. That cover’s pretty much every bugger I know! And, I’d have though every bloody gun owner in the US of A.
Here in the UK we don’t have the same problems with guns of course but those definitions would probably cover every single bugger who feels it nessessar to carry, as we put it, a ‘Pointed Instrument of over three inches’ including Machetes and Samurain Swords.
Strangely enough, and I hate to say it, there actually ARE some truths here.
One of my ex–fiances was a the Head Mistress of a Junior School and she once told me that from the first Parents Meeting for a new intake she could map out the future of most kids irrespective of their intelligence level with a better than 75% degree of accuracy after meeting the parents, or indeed the lack of parents indicating lack of parental interest and involvement. In fact it was the most intelligent kids with the least parental involvement that cause the most strife and it mostly carried forward through their post-school lives.
what ??????
Yes, it is clearly American “pro-gunners” pushing mental evaluations on everyone… /sarc
Imagine our collective surprise to find you have had multiple people decide that getting hitched to you was such a terrible idea that you couldn’t even sell yourself as worthy long enough to tie the knot. If only it were so easy to get rid of you here…
everybody knew she was a ~head mistress~ during their courtship but him.
bullet dodged.
You just admitted to running with loners who kick cats. Birds of a feather… No wonder you’re anti-gun. You project your own sickness onto everyone else.
“One of my ex–fiances was a the Head Mistress of a Junior School and she once told me that from the first Parents Meeting for a new intake she could map out the future of most kids irrespective of their intelligence level with a better than 75% degree of accuracy after meeting the parents, or indeed the lack of parents indicating lack of parental interest and involvement.”
So your ‘head mistress’ met with parents that did not exist?
The only ‘head mistress’ you have had a relationship with is that person you pay to be ‘mistress’.
So lets get this straight.
According to your postings over time you are a 50’ish person, no wait, that recently changed to ‘mid 80’s’ in another of your posts, and you were in the UK Army Cadet corp thing training on a rifle at age 14 that the UK Army Cadet corp didn’t even use when you were age 14, and don’t know the difference between ‘deadly force’ and ‘proportional force’ while claiming to have also been a small arms instructor and armorer in the UK Army after serving in the UK Air Force but don’t know, according to a recent posts of yours) the difference between a single shot rifle and a semi-auto rifle along with other details of firearms and use that are basic common knowledge, and according to your claimed ‘mid 80’ age in a recent post of yours you were born after some of the events you claim to have participated in happened, and on top of that according to yet another of your posts you beat up a woman by punching her hard enough to ‘knock her out’ thus applied deadly force by use of your hands and it placed her in the hospital.
Now you want us to think a woman would have ever been interested in being your fiance to begin with?
Oh, and to add to that. From one of your postings yesterday for another article about red dots, you now claim to have also been in the “UK Army infantry reserves”.
And also projects his own lack of self-control on to everyone else.
At Ulvade, would Prince among kings Albert charged in to give the shooter “a damned good thrashing” with his swagger stick or riding crop?
narwhal tusk.
To you sir I say bollocks! Certainly is the dog’s breakfast old boy. You bloody well know what you’re saying is nothing but codswollop. Stupid git.
We all know when he says “every bugger” he knows, he means his other personalities. And since he isn’t British, “bloody cats” takes on an entirely different meaning. What did you do to the cats Albert??
Albert, you have posted enough information to believe you should be red flagged. You attack women, you have a string of failed relationships, you argue like a child and you know very little about firearms.
Your comment is awaiting moderation
First of all, PRO-gun people do NOT suggest “surveillance” of anyone, perhaps you missed the class on “PERSONNAL RESPONSIBILITY”, in fact NO ONE (not even the gun-grabbers) would suggest anything so stupid. The majority of “pro-gunners” want LESS government interference in day-to-day life unlike the “Nanny-State” soshulists in Europe who are constantly giving their governments more and more power over their daily lives. I accepted the fact long ago that there are mentally challenged individuals in the world who want to place blame for their miserable lives on everyone but themselves and I understand that somewhere, sometime I might cross paths with one of them and I might find myself in a position where I will be required to defend my life and/or the lives of others which I am prepared to do AND am quite capable of doing and if some Jihadi jumps out of a car and runs toward ME with a machete I’ll drop his ass before he can get close to me, hmmmmm what would YOU do? Oh right, old man, can’t run, guess YOU’LL just get hacked to death. So, SOSHULIST is somehow a word that triggers the “moderation” switch? How about Capitalism?, Democracy?, Communism?, No? JUST Soshullism? funny I changed the spelling and “awaiting moderation” goes away, how fucked up is that?
Nah but you can bugger off ya tosser
July 18 it is channeling Dacian. Today it’s Hall…..
“One of my ex–fiances” Suuuure Dacian/Hall talked to a girl! Highly unlikely on actually went down into his basement lair.
Albert seems to be rather obsessed with buggery.
I want to know where Joe Biden is to praise this hero and thank him for saving lives from a mass shooter.
I mean after all, isn’t that the excuse that Joe and his anti-gunners give for their persecution of law abiding gun owning citizens? To save lives?
I guess its not enough of a body count to please the anti-gun. That darn good guy with a gun spoiled this for them, that thing they claim never happens happened yet again with a good guy with a gun stopping a criminal act of violence – you know, that happens ~7,000 times daily in the U.S. not specifically mass shootings but criminal acts of violence none the less.
Can’t risk acknowledging that the good guy with a gun does exist, someone might start looking and discover the good guy with a gun has been here all along while they were falsely claiming there was no such thing.
I want to know where Joe Biden is to praise this hero and thank him for saving lives from a mass shooter.
Braindead is busy bumping knuckles with terrorists and sniffing old ladies hair in Israel while trying to figure out how to give the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the NCAA “woman of the year” (yeah, the guy with all his junk) without pissing off the last two Democrats that still think he should run for a second term.
This is NOT a situation where kinfolk of the deceased goblin are likely to come after him…I assume he goes by Eli? Anyways…I don’t see the harm in spreading his name IN THIS CASE. But in others, a lower profile might be well advised.
Another “Good Samaritan” with a gun saved the day again, this time, shooting and killing a man who was holding a gas station attendant at knife point. Last Saturday, the concealed carrier pulled up to a QuikTrip service station in St. Charles, Missouri, about a half-hour outside St. Louis, and used the restroom. After he walked out of the store and returned to his car, however, some suspicious activity from another driver prompted him to remain at the gas station rather than pull away. The customer with the gun, who has asked to remain anonymous, told reporters that he saw the driver of a black SUV enter the store and immediately grab the clerk and hold a knife to her throat.
“I saw him grab her and drag her to the front to the counter, something wasn’t right when I saw that, “I walked up to the door and I saw him with a knife to her throat,” he continued. “She was emptying out the cash register and I took a step in and peeked my head in to ask if everything was okay. The man said that the suspect then charged straight at him, still wielding the knife, so the man pulled out his gun and shot the suspect four times. Once the suspect fell, he and the clerk both called police.
Comments are closed.