‘A loud message to the criminal element’

Pizza Hut has a "no guns" policy for its deliver drivers. Fortunately, some of them risk their job and ignore it.
Pizza Hut has a 'no guns' policy for its deliver drivers. Fortunately, some of them risk their job and ignore it.

An ambushed pizza guy shot and killed one of four attackers in Columbia, South Carolina:

[Christopher Steven] Miller had a concealed weapons permit and was trying to retreat from his attackers while being beaten by one of them, Metts said. Such a permit allows a person to carry a hidden gun.

Miller carried a .45-caliber Taurus handgun in a fanny pack and took it out and fired while being beaten backward, Metts said. Such large-caliber pistols are known for their “stopping power” — the ability to bring down an attacker instantly.

No weapons were recovered from Sturgill, Metts said.

Metts said Sunday afternoon it appears Miller acted within the law and will not face charges. However, police have made no final decisions and will discuss the incident with prosecutors, he said.

Obviously the article is written as if people reading have little or no understanding about guns or firearms laws, which might be irritating to us but isn’t so bad as long as it’s not unbalanced.

At least one of the attackers apparently has, surprise surprise, gang connections.

Since Miller works for Pizza Hut, which has a company policy against employees carrying weapons for self-defense, he’s probably going to be looking for a job once his broken nose heals.

A lot of folks, including some at Pizza Hut, are going to argue that it’s not worth shooting someone over a few dollars in cash. Except that the pizza guy was retreating and was pursued and beaten. Apparently, the attack was launched pretty quickly. It doesn’t sound like a case where the pizza guy was going to avoid it.

It’s not worth shooting someone over a few bucks
?

How about it’s not worth getting yourself shot over a few bucks? That’s the right way to ask it. You don’t want to risk getting yourself shot? Don’t ambush pizza guys.

I’ve got to credit Sheriff Metts, at least as portrayed in the write-up:

“At this point in time, his (Miller’s) actions look very appropriate,” Metts said, describing them as apparent “self-defense” because Miller was retreating and his assailants continued to attack.

and especially

Metts said that although an investigation will continue, one thing about Miller’s using his weapon is clear:

“This sends a loud message to the criminal element — you don’t know who’s going to be armed and who’s not going to be armed when you go to rob someone.”

3 thoughts on “‘A loud message to the criminal element’”

  1. That last quote is the whole thing whereby my CCW also protects my neighbors because if I’m armed and fight back then the thugs become paranoid about my neighbors packing too.

  2. As a retired Police Officer, after 31 years of service, I applaud the Sheriff as well as Miller. Sheriff Miller takes a politically unpopular stand based on the facts only. I salute you both.

  3. Thanks for posting this article. I’m decidedly frustrated with struggling to search out germane and intelligent commentary on this issue. Everybody nowadays goes to the very far extremes to either drive home their viewpoint that either: everyone else in the planet is wrong, or two that everyone but them does not really understand the situation. Many thanks for your concise, applicable insight.

Comments are closed.