Assault gas station ccw

Armed Robber At Gas Station Pump Shot At By Armed Citizen


CORNELIUS, NORTH CAROLINA — An unnamed gun owner stepped in to stop the brutal beating and robbery of a man at a gas station.  Late at night, Fernando Torres was filling up his tank when a man reportedly came behind him and demanded his money.  When he told the robber he didn’t have any, the man started brutally hitting him and threatened to kill him.  According to WSOC, an armed customer stepped in and fired a single shot at the robber.  The robber quickly left, leaving Torres in recovery for that heavy beating.

Surveillance footage from the gas station failed to reveal any identifying features about the robber and police are continuing to search for any clues as to his identity.

To the gun owner who stepped in — bold move.  Obviously, something needed to be done and unfortunately, armed thugs don’t seem to care if a fight breaks out next to a gas pump.  If that single shot was judiciously placed, hopefully that thug will have something to remember this incident by.


This incident reveals a reality that concealed carriers may face: battle conditions are never ideal.  As we see here, a man is getting beaten next to a gas station pump.  If aiming is not judicious, we could jeopardize more than just the victim.  Yes, there are emergency shut-off valves equipped in almost every gas station in America — who wants to find out if they’re up to code or not?

Obviously, the battle is dictated first on your own safety and secondly on environmental conditions.  Stepping in to defend the life of a third party is a wonderful thing so long as you’re equipped to handle it.  Putting your own life in danger is a hazard in any self-defense situation — make sure those hazards are minimized by being aware of your environment.

To the gun owner who stepped in to save this man’s life?  Awesome job.

About G. Halek | View all posts by G. Halek

GH is a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and has served as a defense contractor in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. His daily concealed carry handgun…

GH is a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and has served as a defense contractor in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. His daily concealed carry handgun is a Glock 36 in a Lenwood Holsters Specter IWB or his CZ-75D PCR in an Alien Gear MOD holster.

Posts – Below Author – Small Square 1 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 2 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 3 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 4 (150×150)Advertisement
  • Mike Vee

    Why was the criminal able to leave – don’t you train to hit a target? You missed a man-sized target? More training is needed!

    • podgida

      His man size target was obscured by the victim as well. And you can train all day long shooting at paper. But nothing prepares you for a real life shooting.

      • Monty Saylor

        I will agree with the concept of Mike V,but when innocent bystanders could be shot trying to kill or hurt the criminal,a warning shot is usually the best option.The roaches scatter in the lit up room and no one else gets hurt.

        • Memphomaniac

          a “WARNING SHOT???” Forget the advice above! EVERY Police Officer, and EVERY Conceal Carry person is warned of the idiocy of warning shots! That round goes up…it must come DOWN…somewhere! Simply aim for center of mass…and empty the magazine. Next…

          • Sixstringer

            Center Mass, Center Mass, CENTER MASS.

          • podgida

            forget the what goes up nonsense. It’s the felony conviction for the warning shot that scares the hell out of me. FYI mythbusters already debunked the whole what goes up mentality. physics trumps that logic all day long. Terminal velocity doesn’t come close to muzzle velocity.

    • Flyingguns

      Says the armchair general

      • Nope I speak from experience. Shot robbers and seen them flee with gunshots. They may collapse a block later but one shot or even several will not stop them from running away.

        • Rooster Cogburn

          It will if you hit them in the right spot.

          • Speak to a pathologist. Even fatal shots to the heart or the brain a person can move up to a minute.

          • Rooster Cogburn

            That can be said about almost ANY small arms caliber.

          • petedub

            That’s ridiculous. Unless you deliver either a direct hit to the CNS or about 600 ft-lbf or more of kinetic energy to the CNS through hydrostatic shock, you can’t count on stopping a shootee on the spot. And except for particularly powerful handgun rounds (minimum of 10mm and some .357 Mag and .357 Sig, loads) you pretty much need a long arm to deliver that kinetic energy. Methinks you watch too much TV — as your handle suggests.

          • Rooster Cogburn

            Yeah, that’s why the FBI is switching back to 9mm. That’s why Special Operation Forces all over the world use that round…because it’s ineffective. Uh huh. Right.

            I don’t deny that other rounds have more “knock down” power, but shot placement is the key PERIOD. And you’re really trying to use .357 Mag in your argument? That round is known for going THROUGH people, which is why it’s not used in ANY law enforcement agencies in the country.

          • petedub

            Wrong again, Rooster.

            Your original statement “It will [stop a creep with a single shot] if you hit them in the right spot” is complete BS. Exactly WHERE can you hit a human being with a single 9mm shot and they immediately just lay down, dead, on a RELIABLE basis? Your “death laser in my hand” mentality is sheer insanity.

            My EDC is 9mm, for example, and I have no doubts as to the efficacy of the round — but that strictly depends on the ability to take follow-up shots quickly, reliably and accurately. I harbor no crazy thought that self-defense is a 1-stop shot proposition with my 9mm, ever, no matter where I am able to place the round.

            Of course shot placement is key, but there is no round below that threshold of about 600 ft-lbf kinetic energy that will RELIABLY impose a physiological stop on a human being with a single shot — no matter how good shot placement may be.

            Heck, a .22LR can and will stop many people much of the time, because most stops are of the UNRELIABLE “psychological” variety. For a RELIABLE physiological stop, however, any shot that does not directly hit the CNS must deliver about 600 ft-lbf of kinetic energy, the energy level that has been shown sufficient to disable the CNS without a direct hit to the CNS. I listed the rounds where that level of kinetic energy STARTS.

            As a former combat officer, and the father of a special operator, I can assure you that rounds are not chosen for military uses in the same way aware people choose rounds for self-defense. There is no real connection between whatever rounds the FBI and military do or do not use, with what makes sense for self-defense. It is apples and oranges.

            You clearly do not understand why the FBI going back to 9mm. It is a result of the fact that typical FBI agents shoot so rarely that they do not maintain sufficient proficiency to be effective with more powerful rounds. So, the FBI has wisely distanced itself from the terrible “reasoning” from the 1986 Miami shootout that made the 11″ of penetration from Agent Dove’s 9mm, through Platt’s right arm and into his chest to within an inch of his heart, supposedly “inadequate” penetration. That “reasoning” was particulalry foolish, given that the 9mm round actually did kill Platt, and even though Mattix (the other bank robber) actually was immediately immobilized and then later killed by a .38 Spl, an even less powerful round with even less penetration compared to the 9mm that killed Platt. The “FBI standard” of 12″ penetration in ballistics gel never made any actual sense, it was simply an emotional reaction to the very sad fact that Platt, a former Green Beret, was able to kill Agents Dove and Grogan (and do a lot of other damage to the survivors) AFTER being hit with Agent Dove’s 9mm shot that eventually killed him. Thank goodness the FBI is finally able to look at the matter rationally again.

            The .357 Mag is NOT a through-and-through round as you claim — that’s internet myth unsupported by facts. Well-made HPs from .357 Mags actually expand extremely reliably compared to less powerful rounds, given the tremendous amount of kinetic energy available to drive expansion. The .357 Mag is simply out of favor in modern law enforcement, as a rimmed cartridge limited to revolvers with inherently limited capacity, compared to the rimless rounds in modern semi-autos like the Glock 17. The .357 Mag being out of favor in law enforcement has nothing to do with through-and-through as you claim (based on internet BS, presumably), it has to do with magazine capacity.

            Don’t believe me on any of this, look it up. The truth is readily available, if you just do your homework.

          • Rooster Cogburn

            No, what’s bullshit is you trying to say, that I said, it only takes a “single shot”. What, did you get your talking points from a Democrat? That’s the kind of crap they pull. Take a perfectly legitimate statement and put your own spin on it, change or add some words so that it looks like something else entirely was said. I know you didn’t learn that tactic in the military, because I served as well. 11B, graduated RASP Class 8, 4 June 1985. I also never said there aren’t more effective rounds. I simply said a 9mm will work if they’re hit in the right spot. Otherwise NOBODY would EVER be stopped with a 9mm, but that’s far from the “truth” ain’t it.

            I don’t mind sitting here and having a debate with you, but I’ll not sit here and let you put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. So if you’re going to sit there and try to use “truth” to back your statements…than try being honorable about it, instead of putting a typical dishonest liberal Democrat twist on things, Mr. Combat Officer.

          • petedub

            BS, Rooster.

            Yours is not a “legitimate statement.” You said that you can stop someone if you “hit them in the right spot.” Not “spots” as in multiple shots, but “spot” as in single shot.

            If you are now saying you chose your words carelessly and did not mean to suggest a 1-shot stop, then fine we are on the same page. But at least live with what you actually wrote, rather than trying to suggest that I somehow misstated what you wrote when I clearly did not.

            Yes, you are correct that what I am saying is not what either of us learned in the military. This is because self-defense has practically nothing to do with the military, which involves a very different kind of combat. I invoked my military experience as giving me a basis to say that you are incorrect to suggest that the 9mm is good for self-defense because that is what the military and LEOs use.

            The 9mm is not a good self-defense round because the military and LEOs use it. The 9mm is a good self-defense round because it is a sufficiently effective round capable of achieving multiple hits, accurately and reliably.

            The military decision to replace the .45 ACP with the 9mm was basically a “more lead downrange” and supply-chain issue, similar to the decision to go from the 7.63 NATO to the 5.56 NATO. Those military decisions have nothing to do with what is good for self-defense, and by no means suggest that the 9mm is somehow a “better” round than the .45 ACP or that the 5.56 NATO is a “better’ round than the 7.62 NATO.

            The 9mm would STILL be a good self-defense round if the military decided to go back to the .45 ACP (as a lot of special operators have been doing for years, for example). And the 9mm was STILL a good self-defense round when the FBI had its emotional reaction when a former Green Beret killed 2 FBI agents after having taken a 9mm round to within an inch of his heart.

            It is a mistake to confuse what is good for military and law enforcement with what is good for self-defense. People can readily understand that fatigues and boots work great in the field, but not so much for church or business meetings. So it is frustrating that some people seem to be unable to understand that the same rationale applies to rounds and the weapons that shoot them — what is good for law enforcement and the military is not necessarily good for self-defense.

            People choosing rounds and weapons for self-defense should focus on choosing the right tool for the job — not because someone else is using the same tool for a different job.

          • Rooster Cogburn

            You’re assuming by “stopping” them, I mean “killing” them. Ever seen anyone get up and run away after being shot in the hip? I’ve seen it several times, and they have NEVER gotten up without help. That’s just one of the “right spots” that you can hit someone and stop them cold. And they may very well die from it after bleeding out…but if they live, they’ll remember it every day for the rest of their lives. And if someone warrants me going so far as to pull a weapon and shoot them, although it may be more natural for you or I to go for the death shot, I personally would rather they live through it and suffer for their crime way past their prison term.
            You have to think outside the box sometimes brother. In the military we were bound by ROE. Out in the world, it is ALL unconventional. We aren’t bound by the same BS ROE that we were bound to while serving.

          • petedub

            I assumed nothing, I just read what you wrote.

            Now you are saying that shooting an attacker in the hip is a good self-defense strategy. That’s even more ridiculous than your previous crap.

            Shooting someone in the hip could very easily be construed in court as an admission that you did not really feel like you were in sufficient danger to justify a “real” self-defense shot. It certainly is not a RELIABLE way to stop a threat.

            I am aware of many examples of people with even fatal wounds being able to kill their victims before dying — including a former Green Beret with a 9mm round within an inch of his heart who fought off 7 FBI agents and killed 2 of them — so I’m not inclined to assume that I am going to save my life by shooting an attacker in the hip as you apparently assume.

            You are not thinking outside the “box” you are not really “thinking” at all.

            You are completely wrong to claim that there are no ROEs in self-defense. The ROE in self-defense is called the LAW. The LAW says that you only have the right to use force in self-defense if you reasonably believe that you (or another) will be subjected to serious bodily harm if you don’t use that force.

          • Rooster Cogburn

            Look, this is going to be my last comment, because i can see it’s not going anywhere with you. If you wish to continue, you’ll be talking to yourself.

            The argument was, that a 9mm is ineffective. I said it works just fine if you hit them in the right spot. You can twist that, turn it, spin it, add morals, ethics and all the law you want. I wasn’t arguing any of that. My point has been made. If you hit them in the right spot, it will stop them.

            Have a nice day. I have things to do.

          • podgida

            I know you don’t want to continue this conversation, as I’m late to the party. But I feel like you’re backtracking your original comment.

            Here is the comment you replied to:

            “Nope I speak from experience. Shot robbers and seen them flee with gunshots. They may collapse a block later but one shot or even several will not stop them from running away.”

            Here is your comment:

            “It will if you hit them in the right spot.

            So this whole comment thread you have been defending that one sentence which was referring to a person shooting a robber who ran away after being shot. And he stated that after being shot it will not stop them from running away. And you said it will if you hit them in the right spot.

            That implies that if you hit them in the right spot they won’t be able to run away. Well the person you’ve been arguing with is 100% correct in everything he has said except for his last sentence in his last post.

          • podgida

            “You are completely wrong to claim that there are no ROEs in self-defense. The ROE in self-defense is called the LAW. The LAW says that you only have the right to use force in self-defense if you reasonably believe that you (or another) will be subjected to serious bodily harm if you don’t use that force.”

            This is the only thing you’ve said that I disagree with. Here in Indiana (I don’t know where you live) we have castle doctrine. We have the right to use deadly force to protect our life, our families lives, and our property)

    • Even when hit people can run a lot quicker then you think. Even when someone is shot 20 times in the chest they can still run.

      • soldierpj

        yeah – let me see you run after being hit 20 times big man. i have not witnessed one man keep running after being tapped twice and unlike you i have seen a few men hit and rarely was it center mass…

        • You may want to look medal of honor recipients.

          People have had their arms or legs blown off and still advanced on enemy positions killing the soldiers in their way.

        • I recall a story of the man who invaded a woman’s home, she had a 6-shot .357 magnum revolver between the robber and her kids, shot him with all 6-shots, and the man was still able to not only run out of the house, but get in his car and drive away (only to expire some time later).

          Then there is always those stories of people on drugs that are so high, that even with a bullet hole in their heart, they are still able to rage and stay alive doing damage until they bleed out (reportedly they don’t even feel the pain of being hurt/shot).

        • podgida

          I’ve seen it happen first hand. Especially if they are hopped up on drugs. They will keep coming until their injuries kill them.

    • Bob McMahan

      Mike, this crap often does not go as you might hope. Nailing the bad guy would have been ideal, of course, but even highly trained police officers often miss a lot. You are entirely correct that more training never hurts.

      • petedub

        As to your valid point about even good shooters missing a lot, remember the 1986 FBI Miami shootout where only about 6% of the shots fired by both sides were “hits.” Those shooters included the FBI agents on the “good guy” side, and a former Green Beret and a former Marine on the “bad guy” side.

        In any situation where shooting is warranted, hits are doubtful for almost ANY shooter (special operators, Rangers, some Marine and Army Infantry folks, and some SWAT-type LEOs excepted). The challenge is not necessarily being able to shoot accurately, but being able to maintain mental and physical composure in the extreme kind of situation where shooting is warranted.

        I SMH at the out-of-shape guys who take 5 seconds to squeeze off each round at the range and think they are “training” for self-defense. They would be better off spending that time in the gym and pushing away from the table, and focusing on rapid fire at the range after having done a set of push-ups and running in place. The some actual tactical exercises at a tactical facility.

        • podgida

          “I SMH at the out-of-shape guys who take 5 seconds to squeeze off each round at the range and think they are “training” for self-defense.”

          While I agree with your statement, every range I have ever been to has signs posted stating rapid fire is prohibited. And they aren’t talking about automatic weapons. Most of the ranges around here won’t even let you draw and fire. If it’s loaded it has to be pointing down range and your holster is not pointed down range.

          I got kicked off a range for doing a double tap on a target. So maybe people are taking 5 seconds between shots to prevent from being removed from the range.

    • Sheena K

      no one said he missed… it said the robber ran away. We don’t know if he was hit from the story but many people are shot and don’t even realize it at first, some people can be shot multiple times and still be able to walk and talk and even run! Depends on ammo used, shot placement as well as bad guy’s health, strength, body mass, and type of drugs in his system.

  • Deborah8050

    Based on FBI stats. This is what you call a “direct correlation.”

  • Stanley B. Manley

    So the victim of the robbery didn’t have enough sense to arm himself? And when he’s attacked some guy pulls a “White Knight” routine and fires a shot that ends up gawdonlyknowswhere? What’s wrong with this story? This is one of those cases where the White Knight could’ve ended up in prison for a very long stretch. What would’ve been the result if that wayward shot had struck the victim? Friends, think long and hard before coming to the aid of a stranger. If other people don’t have the good sense to provide their own defense perhaps the wisest thing is to just let natural selection take its course.

    • donthinkso1

      With your kind of thinking you better hope you never need anyone elses help.

    • Eric Carter

      You could be NEXT!

    • soldierpj

      well – if he was driving a prius or subaru i agree, he’s on his own…

  • shay

    Maybe he was just trying to scare the scumbag away by firing into the air.

    • Eric Houser

      You don’t fire warning shots…ever. Firearms are to kill, nothing more nothing less. I carry but it’s to end it. To those who say things such as, “should have…”, you obviously have no clue what happens in these scenarios. Many a police officer have been only feet from the target and missed over and over. If the target is fleeing, you do not shoot–period. To those who say “better hope you never need help”..well, it’s better to not assume the situation and let it go that to be wrong and in prison. God I hate side line coaches and armchair generals.

      • Warning shots are illegal for a variety of good reasons. It diminishes your claims of self defense of yourself or defense of another. After all if life was in danger you would take the life of another.

        Fleeing targets you can fire upon under certain conditions and if you make the right statements. A fleeing target can still fire back on you. You hold fire if innocent bystanders are in the way or you would hit other vehicles or houses, You are allowed to fire if you see a weapon in the perps hands for example even if innocent bystanders are in the line of the fire. You take a risk by shooting the perp but if you don’t shoot you take the risk the perp can fire on the innocent bystanders or on you.

        I have shot fleeing robbers and faced no charges because I said the right things.

        • petedub


          Warning shots are not “illegal” they are just a bad idea. It says “I really did not need to shoot.”

          There is nothing you could say to justify shooting a robber who actually was fleeing.

          You are in need of some substantial education and attitude readjustment before inflicting yourself on a respectful, civilized society.

          • Warning shots are illegal in many states.

            Wrong you can shoot a fleeing felon. If you say you were firing to prevent the criminal from either coming back or using a gun on you by either hitting him or having a near miss get him out of your line of sight then it is perfectly legal to do so provided there are no innocent bystanders in the line of fire. If the fleeing criminal is visibly armed or you state you think they are then you can take the risk of firing when innocent bystanders are in the line of fire but you be pretty damned convincing you saw what you thought was a gun, if there was no gun found on the criminal.

            i have shot robbers and fired on them while they were fleeing.

          • Memphomaniac

            …you better do some reading up on the law. “Fleeing,” is a subjective term. There are indeed, some situations that allow for shots fired at “fleeing” suspects. It depends upon your legal authority, the State laws, etc. Every Police Officer understands from day one, that EVERY round fired, means Court time, and the consequences that follow. As a civilian, I would never fire at a subject who has broken engagement. Better to be overly cautious, than to lose your home and finances, due to some thug with a high dollar lawyer, and a local Mayor concerned with re-election.

          • podgida

            “Warning shots are not “illegal” they are just a bad idea”

            Tell that to my neighbor who shot a warning shot into the ground of a robbers feet. He was found guilty of felony discharge of a firearm inside the city limits.

            If you fire a warning shot your statement to the police better be that you missed. Don’t be stupid like my neighbor and say you fired a warning shot.

    • Sheena K

      besides, what goes up… must come down. We don’t want that!

      • petedub

        In general, the acceleration due to gravity acting on a bullet coming down does not give the bullet lethal energy. The problem is a bullet fired into the air at less than about a 60 degree angle, which allows the bullet to retain more than about half of the horizontal component of kinetic energy far greater than the acceleration of gravity. At an angle greater than about 60 degrees, a bullet goes up a LOT faster due to gunpowder than it comes down due to gravity. It is still not a good idea to fire a warning shot into the air, but lethal energy of the bullet coming down is not the reason.

        • podgida

          Correct, it will do more damage to property than to a person.

  • R E Calcitrant

    Hopefully the thug was wounded. Not all gunshots are immediately fatal.

    • podgida

      That’s a huge understatement. Something like 20% of all GSW’s are fatal. It’s been several years since I’ve read the stat, but it’s close. And that number is a lot smaller for instant death. I bet that number is less than 1%