The Crime Scene - To Serve and Inform

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Armored car guard shoots robber

Washington Post editors

A would-be robber was shot and wounded by an armored car guard on Monday after the suspect tried to grab a money bag out of the guard's hand, a D.C. police spokeswoman said.

Officer Tisha Gant said the incident occurred about 1:15 p.m. in the 1000 block of Rhode Island Avenue NE. She said the suspect was taken to a hospital with a gunshot wound to one of his legs.

-- Paul Duggan

By Washington Post editors  | October 4, 2010; 1:53 PM ET
Categories:  Paul Duggan, The District  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Woman, 77, killed after Md. crash
Next: 1 dead in Laurel house fire

Comments

Hopefully the next time the guard's aim is better and we save the taxpayers the costs of prosecution and incarceration.
All thieves should die.

Posted by: BigDaddy651 | October 4, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

You go Ms Tisha Gant I'm proud of you not killing somebodies child. Robber or not you don't have to shoot to kill.

Posted by: MsSexy4Life | October 4, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Next time center mass, double tap. I am sure if the shoe were on the other foot the stupid robber would have gotten the drop on you if he could. Human life has no value with these street hood cowards. He is lucky indeed. It only takes a split second, and I am trying to go home at the end of my shift.

Posted by: msdooby1 | October 4, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Bummer that the guard didn't line his sights up a little higher. The femoral artery would have been a good hit. The guard is just trying to do his job & earn an honest living. DC thugs and miscreants just don't learn. They think everything is theirs for the taking.

Posted by: ms1234 | October 4, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: MsSexy4Life sez:

"Robber or not you don't have to shoot to kill."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, Ms. Sexy, you might as well stay in the sexy business, because you don't have much future in the business of policing or crime story analysis: all firearms training advises that, if one must shoot at all, shoot for the center of the torso. Always.

The guard's failure to shoot there could easily have cost her own life, if the attacker had been armed, merely wounded, and fired back.

Next question: under DC law, does strong arm robbery (no gun, no weapon, no grabbing for *her* gun) warrant the use of lethal force? If someone without a weapon grabs your purse or your money bag, can you shoot them lawfully? Legally doubtful.

Effective answer: yes, but only if you're an armed, uniformed guard and your name is something like...Tisha. For a pallid John Q. Hillstaffer from the heartland, it would be very ill-advised in DC. More double-standards.

Posted by: confounded | October 4, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

A lot of folks seem to think the whole world is a crime drama, with everybody shooting, so you have to root for the good guys to shoot the bad guys. But it's against the law to use deadly force against someone who's just taking property and not threatening grievous bodily harm.

So what's going to happen in the real world? The guard will be charged with, and convicted of, assault with a deadly weapon. He'll be fired, and the would-be robber will sue the armored car company that employed the guard. The robber will collect more from the armored car company in the civil suit than he would have gotten from the money bag he tried to grab. The robber's lawyers will take their cut, and the rest of the money will be waiting for him after he does his time for attempted robbery.

So maybe the guard should have just played by the rules and called 911.

Posted by: pundito | October 4, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Next time Ofc.Gant:
Two to the body and
one to the head cuz
that punk would have
done the same to you!

Posted by: merrimac238 | October 4, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

For all those astute readers advising Officer Grant what to do the next time, uh, she is the police spokeswoman - not the one who did the shooting.

The armored car guard is the one who shot the bad guy.

Now, class, for our next subject . . .

Posted by: adjjones | October 4, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Next time, empty the clip.

Posted by: veerle1 | October 4, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

To all the apologists, the shooting was justifiable. When it comes to split second decisions, the guard doesn't have the luxury of trying to figure if the perp has a gun. 9 out of 10 reasonable adults would surmise that a robber who tries to take a bag of money from an armed guard is carrying a weapon.

Posted by: jab00 | October 4, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

better aim next time.officer goes on admin leave,thug goes to hospital where aclu bottom feeder shows and prepares his case for a lawsuit. nothing changes in da city with the thugs running it. statehood?

Posted by: pofinpa | October 4, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

What adjjones said.

It is disturbing that so many don't even read well enough to understand the story, yet feel prompted to comment. I guess that is why Martin O'Malley can overcome fours years of mismanagement with a few weeks of attack ads (that, amazingly, have drawn no criticism -- guess you have to be GOP to be dirty).

Posted by: gbooksdc | October 4, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

MsSexy4Life wrote:
"Robber or not you don't have to shoot to kill."

If the robber was not armed than the guard did an outstanding job of shooting. If the robber was armed then the guard could have put their life in danger by not disabling the robber.

People who have never been shot at have this notion that one is cool and calm in a gun fight. That's not the case. Ask any police officer who ever been in a shootout. You get tunnel vision. All you can see is the other person shooting at you. In a gun fight you don't have the luxuary of calmly aiming at a non vital spot on the person. You point your gun at the largest part of the person and pull the trigger and keep pulling the trigger until the other person stops shooting at you. This is the reason you hear about a person shot be police having multiple wounds.

Posted by: Jimof1913 | October 4, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"that punk would have done the same to you"

Well, no, he would not have -- and I can prove it because he did not bring a gun along and obviously did not shoot. Right?

"Human life has no value with these street hood cowards"

Again, this article is not supporting that; the swiper did not threaten the guard's life. It sounds like an opportunity crime by a pathetic kid who can't think straight. I don't blame the guard for shooting but I don't think all the pathetic dopey kids in the city need to die, either.

Posted by: fallschurch1 | October 4, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I shoot a 45 cal ACP. One JHP 230 gr. shot in the leg would have taken the leg clean off.

Posted by: lloydbooth | October 4, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Through the heart next time.

Posted by: eaglehawkaroundsince1937 | October 5, 2010 3:33 AM | Report abuse

There are some amazingly STUPID comments on here.

First, armoured couriers have a VERY dangerous job. Their job is to carry around large amounts of currency/valuables makes them instant targets for violent thiefs; unlike LEOs who are not automatic targets for violent robbery.

Second, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with deadly force when being subjected to strong-arm robbery (a violent felony which leads to thousands of homicides).

Third, armoured couriers are NOT law-enforcement officers (except for cops moonlighting as them, I guess), so they are told to do whatever is necessary to make sure they are not hurt/killed. Trust me, NONE are willing to die over cash that doesn't even belong to them

I'm all for cops using non-lethal weapons (eg: wooden/rubber bullets, pepperspray, beanbags, tasers, etc) whenever incapacitation is sufficient to remove a threat, as many gov't agencies are using in increasing numbers. But like I said, this wasn't a cop, and I'd be very surprised if he actually had the presence of mind in that type of situation to intentionally 'shoot to wound' his assailant.

Most likely, it's just blind luck and the panicky nature of the moment that the robber has to thank for the fact he was spared a mortal wound.

Lastly, all you idiots complaining because he wasn't killed are either irresponsible couch potatoes who think real life events occur just like the way they do in movies, and/or are simply just hateful nutjobs blinded by your own irrational bloodlust.

All yous who are too selfish to appreciate what really happens to all parties involved in an event of lethal violence need to stop watching Rambo films and Bush speeches.

Your words suggest you're itching to see that troubled/desperate kid making the worst mistake of his life to either die or become a vegetable. You'd rather witness him/his family suffer and grieve instead of him being given a second chance to correct the wrong turns he may have made.

Bigots like you sicken me more than sone poor black kid acting out of desperation/ignorance/duress/etc. (the decks are already stacked against them well enough, don't ya think)

Posted by: ShakeAppeal | October 5, 2010 3:54 AM | Report abuse

Officer Grant was the spokesperson, not the guard.Hopefully the young man will learn a valuable lesson and go on to live a productive life. To the Guard God Bless you and your family. I know you have a dangerous job but hey bills got to be paid. I am glad that you are safe and that you did what you had to do.

Posted by: brothastimulus | October 5, 2010 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully the young man will learn a valuable lesson and go on to live a productive life.
Posted by: brothastimulus

=======================================

Oh, I'm sure he'll go on to become Time magazine's Man of the Year.

Here's the valuable lesson: there would be less crime if there were fewer criminals.

Next time, paint the sidewalk with the perp's grey matter.

Posted by: Hk45 | October 5, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

If that CRIMINAL had shot the innocent GUARD, this would be a very tragic story that the news media would have run ad nauseam. As it stands, it won't be news worthy until/unless they can somehow make the CRIMINAL the victim. That CRIMINAL got exactly what he deserved, almost; even if life hasn't been "fair" to him. Now, the traumatized GUARD must live with the terror of this incident; which, may be the real tragedy.

Posted by: fwheelerjr | October 5, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"So what's going to happen in the real world? The guard will be charged with, and convicted of, assault with a deadly weapon. He'll be fired, and the would-be robber will sue the armored car company that employed the guard. The robber will collect more from the armored car company in the civil suit than he would have gotten from the money bag he tried to grab. The robber's lawyers will take their cut, and the rest of the money will be waiting for him after he does his time for attempted robbery."

-----------------------------------------

All of this would probably happen if the guard unloaded his clip into the robber. Instead, the guard did just enough damage to stop the robber. If he had unloaded his clip, the robber's family would claim he used excessive force.

That guard was smart. He understands his job. He's there to guard the money. Playing a wannabe Dirty Harry is not a part of his job description. He understands that he is not the judge, jury and executioner. He left the robber's fate to the proper authorities. He dealt with a threat with reasonable force. In the end, he stopped a robber and if the robber tries to sue, he will most likely lose.

Posted by: GP04 | October 5, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

ShakeAppeal,

I'm a realist. And in far too many cases criminals like this one simply shoot first without regard for life.
So in the event the same thing happened to them, to me, that's fine. If you don't want to be shot just don't commit crimes.
And I do speak from some experience on the matter.
While still living in the metro area in the late '80s 2 fine upstanding young guys attempted to rob me at gunpoint while I was using an ATM.
The one holding the gun ended up with a fractured radius in his arm, a concussion and numerous facial fractures.
His partner in crime who attempted to jump in ended up with a fractured jaw, broken ribs and torn knee ligaments.
The both accepted a plea bargain and I have no idea what happened to them.
I'm pretty sure had they not picked a guy 6'5" and 240 lbs who knew how to handle himself they'd still be robbing people(they may still be, I don't know).
Both were crying like little babies when the officers arrived. I'm guessing they learned a lesson though.
Had any one of us gained control of that weapon who knows how it could have ended. But I was just trying to get money I earned from my bank account when they felt entitled to attempt to steal it.
So had this clown been blown away I seriously doubt the world would be worse off.

Posted by: BigDaddy651 | October 5, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Actually, ms sexy4life, he IS supposed to shoot at the largest body mass..the torso and NOT shoot at a leg or arm. Doing the latter means more chance to miss and have the bullet kill an innocent person. Doing the former means more of a chance in stopping a crazed person with his own gun who might pull it and miss and also kill an innocent bystander.

Posted by: DickHertz | October 5, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

You go Ms Tisha Gant I'm proud of you not killing somebodies child. Robber or not you don't have to shoot to kill.

Posted by: MsSexy4Life
----------------------------------------

Did you read the item?

Ms. Grant was not involved in the shoooting; she is a police spokesperson.

Posted by: ceefer66 | October 5, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

How little some value human life. To call for deadly force over grabbing a bag of money. Shall we all shoot to kill over property? The wild west was just that. You same posters will decry a shooting over tennis shoes being stepped on or disrespect. Why do businesses get to act like gunfighters? I hope the wounded men sues their butts off.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | October 5, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to the guard... He should've made that waste of life eat a little more lead.

That punk should be forced to pay back every dime of healthcare-related expenses on his pointless behalf.

Posted by: Josh_C | October 5, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that's what usually happens when someone is stupid enough to try to rob an armed armored car guard. Darwin's theory at work!

Ms. Sexy Whatsis, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

Posted by: fluxgirl | October 5, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

It's really troubling to see how many people comment "next time double tap", "2 to the body & 1 to the head", Officers involved in shootings (justifiable or not)suffer immeasureably afterwards; e.g. admin leave (no OT), grief, mental anguish, lack of sleep, isolation from family, friends, etc. So I doubt any, if so very few, law enforcement officers go to work with that attitude. I'm sure none are trained that way. It's usually you take a action to stop an action in an attempt to protect yourself, the community (people)or in some circumstances property. W/O knowing the whole story a reasonable person can safely assume that the Officer was attempting to protect himself or property as is his sworn duty, especially since I don't know of 1 instance where someone tried to rob an armored car w/o a weapon. At any rate, I am VERY comfortable knowing that there is 1 less bad guy on the street whether it's a temporary or permanent basis.

Posted by: mitch_rapp | October 5, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Officer, next time, go Marine Corps style: one shot, one kill.

I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six any day.

Posted by: meldupree | October 5, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company