Indy Kroger Employee Shoots Would-be Robber in the Face!

[bobzilla]

In this city... I'm suprised it's so few.

So how long before we get the grieving mother on the telly talking about how her "precious baby would never hurt no one?"

 

[GlockZ]

I wonder if the 290 people that voted "yes" would have voted differently if the ex-con had the gun to their head and the employee saved their life? The way I look at it he saved the life of an upstanding tax paying hard working individual and killed the ex con that costs tax dollars to imprison and who wasn't good for society anyway!

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

In this city... I'm suprised it's so few.

So how long before we get the grieving mother on the telly talking about how her "precious baby would never hurt no one?"

She probably can't because he had her held hostage waiting for her monthly check to come so he could score some dope now she'll never get free.

 

[coltaceguy]

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^ I agree 100% .....

Well the only thing they can do is ask us to leave, its not ILLEGAL TO CARRY A HANDGUN WITH A PERMIT INSPITE OF THEIR ANTI-GUN "POLICY"

 

[Bill of Rights]

i'll not only take my kroger plus card....but my indiana ltch plus 1 card and my glock oc...just to see what response i'll get...seeing they are anti-gun according to the handbook quoted below





While Kroger has not commented on their policies, Fox59 has obtained information from an employee handbook:

Weapons:

• At no time are Team members of the Kroger Company to bring firearms, illegal knives, blades or weapons onto the company premises. the presence of a weapon sharply increases the chances of injury to Team Members and Customers.

1. No team member is to bring a weapon on company premises.
   It is a violation of Kroger policy, as well as state and federal laws.
2. Only licensed and authorized security personnel , as well as law enforcement agencies, may enter a Kroger store with a firearm.

LICENSE to carry a handgun.... check.
Authorized by an unalienable right granted by my Creator and protected by our nation's Constitution.... check.
Providing security for myself and those dear to me.... check.

Thanks, Kroger. I appreciate you not restricting my rights. Not too crazy about you infringing on those of your employees, but they do have the choice to work for you or your competitors.

Oh, and no, there is no law, state OR federal, that prevents the lawful carry of a firearm at a grocery store... at least not in THIS state. I'm not sure about the law at your base in Cincinnati, Ohio.

This man needs to retain his job.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

Wonder what Marsh policy is?

I would put even money on the Marsh employee policy being the same as Kroger's. It's pretty much the same policy that most companies have in place.

 

[bassplayrguy]

Kroger is about to send a very strong message either way. I hope they realize that this kid saved the lives of their employees and their customers. If they let him go there will be no more Krogering for this household. BTW, what laws are broken by carrying a gun into Kroger????? I think NONE. I pray this kid can come to terms with the fact that he was forced to take a life. I pray that he has a strong support group and family in place to talk to about what happened as I am sure it will be on his mind for the rest of his days. I also would like to thank him for having what it takes to stand up and be there when people needed him to be. May the Lord bring you peace sir.

 

[wrigleycub]

employee stops robber by shooting in face Person shot in the face at grocery store on city's northwest side - fox59.com

This some entertaining reading that upsets me.

 

[bassplayrguy]

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^ I agree 100% .....

I am in!!!!

 

[halfmileharry]

I went to Kroger about an hour ago for a case of water and OJ.
I made mention of this to the desk manager and was met with a "deafening silence" on the matter and a weak smile.
I took it as muffled support.
I'll bet word is out to keep mum on this

 

[finity]

While I won't crassly celebrate that a person is dead like many of the other members here (or support the racial stereotyping that some have offered), I will say that I'm glad that the quick thinking & actions of the employee potentially saved other innocent lives. It's unfortunate but he did what had to be done. I hope the employee can find peace in that.

There is no way he should lose his job over this.

 

[actaeon277]

While I won't crassly celebrate that a person is dead like many of the other members here (or support the racial stereotyping that some have offered), I will say that I'm glad that the quick thinking & actions of the employee potentially saved other innocent lives. It's unfortunate but he did what had to be done. I hope the employee can find peace in that.

There is no way he should lose his job over this.

I agree. What mattered was he put another in danger for a quick way out. Race wouldn't have mattered to me faced with that situation.

And congrats are in order for the Hero, possibly rebuking the company for punishing a hero. But it isn't necessary to dance on the grave.

 

[SBG40]

THE KROGER KILLING

Monday night ( 12-26-2011 ) a man walks into a local kroger store , and trys to rob a young lady and possible the store, and a employee steps up with his gun ( shoots fired ) on kroger property, shoots him in the head which resulted in the killing of the robber.

Need i say more, the employee of the kroger store is not facing any charges for the shooting , but based on KROGERS policy on their employees carrying handguns on the property , he will most likely loose his job, Good job on stoping the robbery but sorry for your job lost.


IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony"
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.12.





IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

__________________
"A Well Regulated Milita, Being Nessary To The Security Of A Free State, The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."


GSSF RANGE OFFICER AND MEMBER
GLOCK OWNER: 23 X2, 30,22
NRA CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR.

 

[billybob44]

All of INGO should respond..

i emailed Kroger with my support.

The Kroger Co. - Contact Us

I also just sent a support note. All on this Forum should do the same..Bill.

 

[Fargo]

I also just sent a support note. All on this Forum should do the same..Bill.

Below is what I sent, slightly redacted:

To Whom it may Concern,

As a long time Kroger customer and a redacted, I am writing to voice my personal support for your employee Elijah Elliott who was recently involved in a defense of others shooting at your store in northwest Indianapolis.

In my career as a redacted, I see far too many people victimized by criminals such as Mr. Atkinson in ways that the criminal justice system can never hope to truly remedy. In this case, I sincerely hope that Mr. Elliott is not victimized for his actions in resisting a criminal by any adverse employment action.

As I'm sure your company is aware, it appears that Mr. Elliott complied with all applicable laws, specifically IC 35-41-3-2 as well as the requirement to lawfully carry a handgun in Indiana. Additionally, I would say that Mr. Elliott acted with remarkable courage and responsibility.

Should Mr. Elliott lose his job over this, I unfortunately will be forced to take my business to your competitors. I simply will not financially support a corporation which places financial liability concerns above the safety and welfare of its employees.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

redacted

The above are my personal views alone and should not be taken to represent the views of my employer or anyone else

 

[halfmileharry]

Fox 59 just came across with a commercial about this.
Self defense vs unauthorized use of a firearm in the work place. "The debate"
I just sent them my $.02 cents worth.

Fox 59 Indianapolis Indiana: About Fox 59 News, Angela Ganote, Eva Pilgrim, Sherman Burdette, Russ McQuaid, Kimberly King, Lauren Jones, Fanchon Stinger, Kent Erdahl and the rest of the Fox 59 News Staff - fox59.com

 

[Bunnykid68]

Comments sent

 

[billybob44]

2.Only licensed and authorized security personnel , as well as law enforcement a

Sorry but I do all the time, as well as any other store that I shop. Bill..

 

[Concerned Citizen]

I can't believe the crap I heard on channel 8 news tonight. The talking head mentioned the story, then said "The question tonight is, why was the Kroger employee carrying a gun to begin with?"

My wife & I were both standing there, and looked at each other with our mouths wide open. Are you kidding me?? Isn't it freakin' obvious why??? Then of course the on site reporter told the story, and there was no mention of the police asking why he was carrying, just the fact that no charges were expected to be filed, so obviously it was just the talking heads (or the writers, because we all know the talking heads don't have their own minds anyways), stupid commie opinions against 2A.

Even my wife said she would refuse to shop there any more if they fired him. Here's my letter I sent to them:

I have been a frequent (2-3 times a week) shopper for many years at your store. The reason for my contact is to support the employee who was forced to use his firearm to save the other employees life. I understand that your policy forbids your employees carrying firearms while working. And I understand that it is your insurance company that pushes you to have that policy. Is it because it is cheaper for you if an employee dies while working, than a customer while robbing the place? If you forbid firearms in your store, you are making a safe-haven for felons to rob, rape, & kill your employees and your customers.
I just want you to know that if this employee is fired, not only will I forever refuse to shop at your stores, but I will actively participate in a boycott in front of your stores, and organize a grass roots movement both in person and online to get many people to do the same thing.
If that employee had not broken your rules and shot that felon, their might have been multiple lives lost that night.
Please do the right thing, and do not fire that man.
Thank you,

PLEASE, everybody do the same.

Oh yeah, I heard Guy Relford talking on WIBC about it tonight, & Greg Garrison talked about it on his show this morning. Garrison is obviously on our side!

 

[churchmouse]

Put a bit more than my 2 cents into both Kroger and Fox. I have had the misfortune of walking in on 2 robbery's in process in my lifetime. Did not have to shoot either of them but my .45 pointed at their heads had a very calming effect on the situation and both were apprehended minutes later. If I would have shot either of them my life would have been forever changed. The racial aspect of these confrontations had no merit in my decision not to fire. The willingness of the robbers to back down and walk away (run) did. No hostages were in danger and it was a clear issue between them and myself. I still shudder when this crosses my mind. I would do it again.