Gun Zone Deals

Academy store in Sunset Valley robbed

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • phatcyclist

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    882
    21
    Austin, TX
    http://www.statesman.com/news/conte.../1129academy.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

    Academy store in Sunset Valley robbed

    Police: Two armed men wearing ski masks left with an undisclosed amount of money.
    By Miguel Liscano
    AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

    Saturday, November 29, 2008

    An Academy Sports & Outdoors in Sunset Valley was robbed at gunpoint Friday night, police said.

    Just before 8:50 p.m. , two armed men wearing ski masks entered the store at 5400 Brodie Lane and demanded money while customers were still inside, officials said.

    The men left with an undisclosed amount of cash, officials said, at the end of one of the busiest shopping days of the year.

    Austin police Lt. Gary Rosch said at least one round was fired inside the store.

    No one was injured, Rosch said.

    Rosch said the men left in a black four-door vehicle with a covered license plate.

    No detailed description of the men was available.

    A representative for the Sunset Valley Police Department, the main agency investigating the incident, was not available for comment Friday night.

    The small City of Sunset Valley is surrounded by the City of Austin and has become a hub for dozens of large retailers. The 102,000-square-foot Academy opened in May 2006.

    mliscano@statesman.com; 445-3629
    -----------------------------

    I used to go to that Academy to pick up ammo all the time, in fact if I still lived in central Austin I would have probably been there last night.
    Guns International
     

    SIG_Fiend

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 21, 2008
    7,218
    66
    Austin, TX
    Holy crap! That's strange. I was going to that Academy on Friday night, and close to that time. I ended up going to the I35/William Cannon Academy instead since it was closer. Freaky! :eek:
     

    djspump2003

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 19, 2008
    267
    11
    Austin
    Saw that story on the news last night.

    Interesting that no one in an Academy had a CHL and was armed.

    I'm also interested to learn the rest of the details - how they were armed and all of that jazz. I bet they made off with a bunch of cash after a sales day like yesterday.
     

    JKTex

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 11, 2008
    2,011
    31
    DFW, North Texas
    Interesting that no one in an Academy had a CHL and was armed.

    I doubt there are too many businesses, especially that employee young kids, that would support employees carrying a firearm at work. Even adult managers. You can bet they have policies in place for what to do, with keeping people safe as the primary concern. Insurance takes care of lost "things" or cash, not people.

    But this topic has been beaten to death already.

    What surprises me is how big of balls these people have to walk into such a big store to rob them. A space that big can't be controlled easily. You know they had a plan or help inside.
     

    sv6er

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 26, 2008
    54
    1
    I doubt there are too many businesses, especially that employee young kids, that would support employees carrying a firearm at work. Even adult managers. You can bet they have policies in place for what to do, with keeping people safe as the primary concern. Insurance takes care of lost "things" or cash, not people.

    But this topic has been beaten to death already.

    What surprises me is how big of balls these people have to walk into such a big store to rob them. A space that big can't be controlled easily. You know they had a plan or help inside.

    I think he meant anyone, including customers.

    It's possible that there was a CHL holder inside and packing heat who chose not to escalate the situation. In some circumstances, it really is smarter to let the bad guys get away than to get into a gunfight with them.
     

    mac79912

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2008
    1,666
    21
    Yep,just give the bad guy's what they want.If they start shooting people for no reason then it's time to step up and defend them.
     

    JKTex

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 11, 2008
    2,011
    31
    DFW, North Texas
    I think he meant anyone, including customers.

    It's possible that there was a CHL holder inside and packing heat who chose not to escalate the situation. In some circumstances, it really is smarter to let the bad guys get away than to get into a gunfight with them.

    Good point. I was thinking employee's.
     

    djspump2003

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 19, 2008
    267
    11
    Austin
    I think he meant anyone, including customers.

    It's possible that there was a CHL holder inside and packing heat who chose not to escalate the situation. In some circumstances, it really is smarter to let the bad guys get away than to get into a gunfight with them.

    Yeah, for sure, I was only talking about customers. With all of the experiences I have had at Academy, I am not confident one of their employees would point the muzzle in the right direction.

    That is the tough choice you have to make as a CHL holder. If my family was with me, we are finding cover and my weapon has been unholstered.

    I hate to say that I might be more reckless if my family was not with me. It really does depend if shots have been fired at that point. You do then know that they will pull the trigger and then I do believe deadly force is authorized. Intent and ability have been established. Or if they are somehow inadvertently covering me with the weapon.
     

    Texan2

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    7,932
    21
    South of San Antonio
    The location being robbed was a no-brainer. Four different directions
    to escape with Mopac running north & south and 290/71 running east
    & west. Stupid would be robbing the William Cannon & IH35 Location
    with only 2 ways to escape. I'm surprised that the Sunset Valley Police
    weren't more on the ball. It's not like they have anything else to do there.
    I'd be curious to know if that Academy had a panic alarm that someone hit and how long the robbers wee in the store from entry to exit. The cops may not have even known until they had left.
     

    Double Naught Spy

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 4, 2008
    1,043
    96
    North Texas
    It's possible that there was a CHL holder inside and packing heat who chose not to escalate the situation. In some circumstances, it really is smarter to let the bad guys get away than to get into a gunfight with them.

    First, if there was a CHL holder in the store who chose not to act, then who cares? If they choose not to act, then they are doing no more good for their fellow customers than those who don't carry. It would not be like the CHL holder could produce a gun and fire in time to stop a gunman who is already shooting people in time to preclude the gunman's rounds from killing people. Unless the CHL holder has his gun drawn and pointing at the gunmen and with his finger on the trigger such that he could loose a round in about 0.25 seconds, then you are looking at about a half to 3/4 of a second response time from a ready position, or 2-5 seconds response time to fully draw, aim, and fire.

    Second, what are you talking about in regard to 'escalating' the situation? When armed gunmen are threatening the lives of people, isn't the situation already escalated to a life or death situation? Yes it is.

    Technically, anytime somebody fights back, there is an escalation of violence. There is also a balancing that occurs in the power disparity. People talk like fighting back is bad because it "escalates the situation." What a crock. Self defense is about de-escalating a threat.

    Yeah, sure, the threat may de-escalate itself by leaving in something like 87% of the cases where folks comply (FBI stats from around 2001 from a crime program on Discover), but do intentionally harm or kill compliant people in about 13% of the cases. Had that CHL holder, if present, been able to stop the violence had that been a situation that occurs 13% of the time? - not if he is just standing around like a non-armed person, choosing to not escalate.

    If you wait LONG ENOUGH, all situations de-escalate. The bad guys are going to leave at some point, either physically or spiritually. It is just a matter of whether or not there are a lot of dead or injured good people.

    It is like a fireman buddy told me about fires. Firemen always win because the fire will go out. Most fires will go out by themselves...eventually.
     

    Texan2

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    7,932
    21
    South of San Antonio
    First, if there was a CHL holder in the store who chose not to act, then who cares? If they choose not to act, then they are doing no more good for their fellow customers than those who don't carry. It would not be like the CHL holder could produce a gun and fire in time to stop a gunman who is already shooting people in time to preclude the gunman's rounds from killing people. Unless the CHL holder has his gun drawn and pointing at the gunmen and with his finger on the trigger such that he could loose a round in about 0.25 seconds, then you are looking at about a half to 3/4 of a second response time from a ready position, or 2-5 seconds response time to fully draw, aim, and fire.

    Second, what are you talking about in regard to 'escalating' the situation? When armed gunmen are threatening the lives of people, isn't the situation already escalated to a life or death situation? Yes it is.

    Technically, anytime somebody fights back, there is an escalation of violence. There is also a balancing that occurs in the power disparity. People talk like fighting back is bad because it "escalates the situation." What a crock. Self defense is about de-escalating a threat.

    Yeah, sure, the threat may de-escalate itself by leaving in something like 87% of the cases where folks comply (FBI stats from around 2001 from a crime program on Discover), but do intentionally harm or kill compliant people in about 13% of the cases. Had that CHL holder, if present, been able to stop the violence had that been a situation that occurs 13% of the time? - not if he is just standing around like a non-armed person, choosing to not escalate.

    If you wait LONG ENOUGH, all situations de-escalate. The bad guys are going to leave at some point, either physically or spiritually. It is just a matter of whether or not there are a lot of dead or injured good people.

    It is like a fireman buddy told me about fires. Firemen always win because the fire will go out. Most fires will go out by themselves...eventually.
    I concur with all of the above
     

    sv6er

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 26, 2008
    54
    1
    First, if there was a CHL holder in the store who chose not to act, then who cares? If they choose not to act, then they are doing no more good for their fellow customers than those who don't carry. It would not be like the CHL holder could produce a gun and fire in time to stop a gunman who is already shooting people in time to preclude the gunman's rounds from killing people. Unless the CHL holder has his gun drawn and pointing at the gunmen and with his finger on the trigger such that he could loose a round in about 0.25 seconds, then you are looking at about a half to 3/4 of a second response time from a ready position, or 2-5 seconds response time to fully draw, aim, and fire.

    Second, what are you talking about in regard to 'escalating' the situation? When armed gunmen are threatening the lives of people, isn't the situation already escalated to a life or death situation? Yes it is.

    Technically, anytime somebody fights back, there is an escalation of violence. There is also a balancing that occurs in the power disparity. People talk like fighting back is bad because it "escalates the situation." What a crock. Self defense is about de-escalating a threat.

    Yeah, sure, the threat may de-escalate itself by leaving in something like 87% of the cases where folks comply (FBI stats from around 2001 from a crime program on Discover), but do intentionally harm or kill compliant people in about 13% of the cases. Had that CHL holder, if present, been able to stop the violence had that been a situation that occurs 13% of the time? - not if he is just standing around like a non-armed person, choosing to not escalate.

    If you wait LONG ENOUGH, all situations de-escalate. The bad guys are going to leave at some point, either physically or spiritually. It is just a matter of whether or not there are a lot of dead or injured good people.

    It is like a fireman buddy told me about fires. Firemen always win because the fire will go out. Most fires will go out by themselves...eventually.

    There is a big difference between the threat of violence and actual violence. Therefore, I think it's a fair statement to consider it an 'escalation' when a person acts on their threats.

    I completely agree that self-defense is justifiable, however, the ultimate goal is to limit the loss of life to yourself and other innocent people. In a situation where death is imminent (Omaha mall shooting, for example), there's not much to think about, you attempt to neutralize the threat, but in a situation such as the Academy robbery, death and bodily harm were NOT imminent. The guys wanted to rob the place, and as you've said, there's a really good chance the complying will result in no harm to innocent people. You have to weigh those odds against the odds of someone innocent being killed if you start a gun battle in Academy.

    It depends a lot on the circumstances of the situation, but one guy with a likely-compact handgun and a limited amount of ammo is going to putting a lot on the line trying to take out TWO armed guys and however many of their buddies might be outside ready to come in and help. Again, if you or some other person is backed into a corner where death is imminent, then there's no decision to be made. But in this case, where murder wasn't their motivation and probably something they wanted to avoid altogether, letting them have the cash sounds like a pretty good decision to me.

    In a civilian capacity, I'm not willing to put innocent lives, including my family's and my life, on the line for the cash that's in Academy's till. If it appears as though letting the cash go has the lowest probability that someone innocent will die (like you said, 13%), then I'll let it happen. But I'll wager that turning an armed robbery into a 3+ person gun battle in a retail store will result in much higher odds that someone innocent will die.

    Again, a lot of factors come into play (what you're packing, the amount of ammo you have, how close you are, what cover is nearby, how many people are around, etc), but in this particular example, if there was a CHL packing in that store, he/she made THE RIGHT DECISION. No good guys are dead.
     

    phatcyclist

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    882
    21
    Austin, TX
    If I had ventured down there, I would have been carrying a .32, so I don't think I would even entertained the idea of an offensive maneuver unless the guys were going to shoot people. At that point it would make sense to me, I'm not going to be a bullet magnet on the behalf of Academy for the few hundred or maybe even thousand dollars in the registers.
     

    Texan2

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    7,932
    21
    South of San Antonio
    your points are well taken, but let me play devils advocate for a moment....
    at what point do you engage? when they point a gun at you? at someone else? when they shoot at you? when they shoot at someone else? does someone actually have to get shot before you feel engagement is warranted? i have always had an bit of a problem with the "comply and give them what they want" theory. Your statement said the goal is to "limit the loss of life to yourself and innocent people". I agree, but the guy who is using deadly force to rob a store is not an innocent person and therefore does not deserve any benefit of doubt.
    Let me throw a big "what if" out there...what if someone had seen the Omaha shooter going into the mall with his gun in hand? Should he have taken action or wait till the guy actually killed someone?
    there is no easy answer, nor is there only one right answer, but I cant sit back and say that as long as the robber isnt actually SHOOTING his gun, we should just sit back and wait.
    Every firearms instructor will tell you ACTION BEATS REACTION... :cool:


    There is a big difference between the threat of violence and actual violence. Therefore, I think it's a fair statement to consider it an 'escalation' when a person acts on their threats.

    I completely agree that self-defense is justifiable, however, the ultimate goal is to limit the loss of life to yourself and other innocent people. In a situation where death is imminent (Omaha mall shooting, for example), there's not much to think about, you attempt to neutralize the threat, but in a situation such as the Academy robbery, death and bodily harm were NOT imminent. The guys wanted to rob the place, and as you've said, there's a really good chance the complying will result in no harm to innocent people. You have to weigh those odds against the odds of someone innocent being killed if you start a gun battle in Academy.

    It depends a lot on the circumstances of the situation, but one guy with a likely-compact handgun and a limited amount of ammo is going to putting a lot on the line trying to take out TWO armed guys and however many of their buddies might be outside ready to come in and help. Again, if you or some other person is backed into a corner where death is imminent, then there's no decision to be made. But in this case, where murder wasn't their motivation and probably something they wanted to avoid altogether, letting them have the cash sounds like a pretty good decision to me.

    In a civilian capacity, I'm not willing to put innocent lives, including my family's and my life, on the line for the cash that's in Academy's till. If it appears as though letting the cash go has the lowest probability that someone innocent will die (like you said, 13%), then I'll let it happen. But I'll wager that turning an armed robbery into a 3+ person gun battle in a retail store will result in much higher odds that someone innocent will die.

    Again, a lot of factors come into play (what you're packing, the amount of ammo you have, how close you are, what cover is nearby, how many people are around, etc), but in this particular example, if there was a CHL packing in that store, he/she made THE RIGHT DECISION. No good guys are dead.
     

    sv6er

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 26, 2008
    54
    1
    your points are well taken, but let me play devils advocate for a moment....
    at what point do you engage? when they point a gun at you? at someone else? when they shoot at you? when they shoot at someone else? does someone actually have to get shot before you feel engagement is warranted? i have always had an bit of a problem with the "comply and give them what they want" theory. Your statement said the goal is to "limit the loss of life to yourself and innocent people". I agree, but the guy who is using deadly force to rob a store is not an innocent person and therefore does not deserve any benefit of doubt.
    Let me throw a big "what if" out there...what if someone had seen the Omaha shooter going into the mall with his gun in hand? Should he have taken action or wait till the guy actually killed someone?
    there is no easy answer, nor is there only one right answer, but I cant sit back and say that as long as the robber isnt actually SHOOTING his gun, we should just sit back and wait.
    Every firearms instructor will tell you ACTION BEATS REACTION... :cool:

    I'm not trying to claim that doing nothing is always the best thing. It's not. I'm just trying to explain that under certain circumstances, drawing your weapon might not be the route that results in the least amount of innocent lives lost. This isn't about protecting the bad guys, it's about protecting the good guys, and I believe that in some cases the best way to protect the good guys, unfortunately, is to give the bad guys what they want.

    I hate to see the bad guys get away, I really do, but like you said, there isn't one morally correct answer that works for every situation. The consequences should be considered before pulling out your piece, as it IS possible to that you'll only be making the situation worse.

    I guess what it really comes do to, for me, is that I would have an easier time living with myself if I were in Academy that day and didn't draw my weapon than I would if I HAD fired on the guys and in the ensuing exchange of fire, an innocent person was killed. Then again, if I didn't draw and fire, and people were killed anyways, I'd have a lot of regrets as well.

    It's just a decision making process each of us will have to make if the time comes. I just hope we can keep our cool long enough to make a rational decision about whether or not to use our weapons. Neither using or not using our weapons is always the right answer.
     

    Texan2

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    7,932
    21
    South of San Antonio
    well said...

    I'm not trying to claim that doing nothing is always the best thing. It's not. I'm just trying to explain that under certain circumstances, drawing your weapon might not be the route that results in the least amount of innocent lives lost. This isn't about protecting the bad guys, it's about protecting the good guys, and I believe that in some cases the best way to protect the good guys, unfortunately, is to give the bad guys what they want.

    I hate to see the bad guys get away, I really do, but like you said, there isn't one morally correct answer that works for every situation. The consequences should be considered before pulling out your piece, as it IS possible to that you'll only be making the situation worse.

    I guess what it really comes do to, for me, is that I would have an easier time living with myself if I were in Academy that day and didn't draw my weapon than I would if I HAD fired on the guys and in the ensuing exchange of fire, an innocent person was killed. Then again, if I didn't draw and fire, and people were killed anyways, I'd have a lot of regrets as well.

    It's just a decision making process each of us will have to make if the time comes. I just hope we can keep our cool long enough to make a rational decision about whether or not to use our weapons. Neither using or not using our weapons is always the right answer.
     

    Major Woody

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 12, 2008
    568
    21
    A friend lives near there. He didn't hear about it. The pressure is on Sunset Valley PD. You think they would have personell there already. People that bold are deadly, with all those clothes bushes, and kids every where. Let them get outside and leave, and bust them.
    Signs of the times are now written on the walls of our stalls.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,108
    Messages
    2,952,936
    Members
    34,935
    Latest member
    LandenR
    Top Bottom