Police: Soldier Being Robbed Pulls Gun On Assailants

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Victim Fired One Shot At Robbers, Police Say
Deb Stanley, 7NEWS Producer


COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- A soldier and his wife stopped a robbery on Tuesday night when the soldier pulled a gun on the assailants and fired, police said.

The husband and wife had just been transferred from Fort Hood to Colorado Springs. They were taking a walk in their new neighborhood at 10 p.m. when they were approached by two masked assailants, police said.

When the assailants ordered the soldier and his wife to the ground, the soldier told police he pulled out his handgun.

The soldier told police the men started to run off, but when one of them turned around and appeared to pull out a gun, the soldier said he fired one shot in their direction.

It appears no one was hit, and the assailants got away.

Police said the soldier had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[Acid Trip]

A concealed handgun prevents yet another crime. I thought more people carrying firearms was supposed to increase gun crime :roll:

[KevinD]

Ah, but you won't see this on the national news

[Teh One Who Knocks]

A few more details from the local paper in the Springs:


Soldier pulls gun on would-be robbers
JAKOB RODGERS - THE GAZETTE


A soldier sent two would-be robbers running late Tuesday night by pulling out his own handgun and firing it.

Neither of the robbers appeared to have been hit. The soldier fired his gun toward the ground, said Colorado Springs police Sgt. Dave Gilman.

“This was kind of his warning shot to them,” Gilman said.

The soldier - who recently transferred from Fort Hood in Texas - and his wife were walking in a neighborhood southeast of Chelton Road and Pikes Peak Avenue just before 10:30 p.m. when two masked men approached them and ordered the couple to the ground.

One of the men appeared to be armed with a machete, Gilman said.

The soldier “turned the tables” on the robbers when he pulled out his gun, sending the men fleeing, Gilman said.

The soldier told police he held off firing his gun until one of the men appeared to turn around and reach for his waistband, Gilman said.

Though it worked for the soldier Tuesday evening, police do not encourage people to fight would-be robbers.

“Your best bet is just to comply, because it’s not worth getting hurt or killed over a wallet or something like that,” Gilman said.

[Godfather]

Good for him :thumbsup:

Do any of you guys carry concealed weapons?

[KevinD]

Nope, mine is not concealed. You can plainly see it through the front of my jeans, lol

Honestly though, I have many friends who do have CCL and they are always trying to get me to come get one. So far in my life, I've had no need for one.

[Hal-9000]

This is one of the only stories I've heard where the potential victims used a firearm to save themselves with no one getting hurt.Good for him :thumbsup:

[Acid Trip]

Good for him :thumbsup:

Do any of you guys carry concealed weapons?

I have one and I carry at all times.

[Loser]

Good for him :thumbsup:

Do any of you guys carry concealed weapons?

Been CCW since it was legal for me to do so, at 18.

[Deepsepia]

A concealed handgun prevents yet another crime. I thought more people carrying firearms was supposed to increase gun crime :roll:

It does. Check the numbers.

Notice that this guy -- notwithstanding being a soldier, and trained and experienced in firearms -- missed, and its not clear that the assailants had a weapon in the first place.

Hardly a ringing bit of evidence for the utility of a gun in self-defense, is it? Having drawn his gun and fired, what about the possibility that his attackers pull out a gun and kill both him and his wife?

If you're saying "a gun is useful if you have one and your attackers don't have one" (true) -- well, then you're arguing for very strict gun control.

And here's what having the gun around the house in gun-friendly Texas does for you



Police say two more children have died after a shooting in southeast Texas.

Bay City police say two children who had been on life support died at hospital Thursday, a day after their two siblings were fatally shot.

Authorities say their father, 24-year-old Jose Avila, also shot his wife before turning the gun on himself Wednesday afternoon on a quiet street in Bay City.

His wife, Laura Gonzalez, was shot three times and remains hospitalized in Houston. Her condition is unknown.


Gosh, if only the kids had had guns, when their dad went nuts they could have responded with deadly force . . . or not.

More guns = more folks get shot. It really is that simple.

[Yt Trash]

I have a CCW but don't always carry. 90% of the time though It's wardrobe related, and not because of vanity, but I live in FL. I'm either in shorts and T-shirt or work uniform.

[Loser]

Aside from the typical anti firearm bullshit :roll:

It's proven that in states that allow CCW, per capita, crime is lower. The last two hold outs, D.C and Illinois, are at the top of the list for highest crimes. Chicago has stopped providing criminal statistic data to the local papers because it's gotten so bad.

[Deepsepia]

. . . the story almost certainly did not happen as described in the police report.

http://picload.org/image/wpprco/colomboquestions.jpg

Oh,yeah, you'll have to forgive me here, I have another question.

You said one of them had something that "looked like a machete"?

Uh-huh.

Probably was a machete, then, right? I mean, what "looks like a machete" -- and isn't one? I can't think of anything, can you?

OK, so they had a machete, and maybe a gun in the other guy's waistband -- it wasn't the guy with the machete who reached into his waistband was it?

OK, so they ran away . . . the guy with the machete held onto it, right? I mean, if you're running from a guy who's shooting at you, you'd need you hang on to your machete, right?

See, me, if I'm running from someone who's shooting at me, I'd drop the machete . . . but is that just me? What do you think?

Oh, yeah one other thing. Um, you fired a shot, right?

What did you shoot at, exactly? Did you fire "at the robbers"? Or "at the ground?"

I wasn't clear on that, I heard both answers, but there was only one shot, so it was probably one or the other, right?

And then, there's this other thing that was bothering me: these assailants, dressed all in black, right? With masks. OK, so they're like ninjas.

And they're walking around a suburban neighborhood in Colorado Springs? Do they get a lot of ninjas in Colorado Springs?

Oh, see, my bad . . . I'd said "just one more thing", but when I think about it, I have a lot of questions.

Yup, lotta questions.

[Loser]

Deep, you're like a song with one note... just plugging along with the same old shit :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Deep, you're like a song with one note... just plugging along with the same old shit :lol:

That's the difference between gun people and anti-gun people...people that are in favor of the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership can readily admit when guns are misused in crimes and such and we are all in favor of very stiff sentences when people are guilty of committing a crime with a firearm. Anti-gun folk on the other hand, can never ever admit that guns save lives and prevent crimes from occurring (as in this story). ;)

[Deepsepia]

That's the difference between gun people and anti-gun people...people that are in favor of the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership can readily admit when guns are misused in crimes and such and we are all in favor of very stiff sentences when people are guilty of committing a crime with a firearm. Anti-gun folk on the other hand, can never ever admit that guns save lives and prevent crimes from occurring (as in this story). ;)

Um, but I've already demonstrated that its almost impossible for the story to have happened as described. Read my post #13 again.
http://tehbasement.com/showthread.php?21082-Police-Soldier-Being-Robbed-Pulls-Gun-On-Assailants&p=209970&viewfull=1#post209970

It simply didn't happen as described.

Do folks ever use firearms lawfully to defend themselves? Yes, on occasion -- there are about 200 "justifiable homicides" a year. That's against roughly 20,000 murders, suicides, and accidents a year, so the ratio would be 100 tragedies and crimes to one lawful act of self-defense. Me, I think that's a terrible ratio, you might think otherwise.

Anyway, back to this story -- reading the police and news reports, I can say with some confidence that the story must be wrong in some important fundamental. I don't know what happened, but it can't be what the reports are describing. I looked up the actual police blotter, which is the source for the "bare bones" details, which are then supplemented by some quotes from a Sgt. Gilman . . . so it isn't that reporters are making up stuff, its that the story itself has more holes in it than I can count



A husband and wife who had just transferred from Ft. Hood were taking a walk in their new neighborhood when they were approached by two masked assailants. The suspects ordered the husband and wife to the ground. The husband who has his CCW pulled out his handgun and confronted the two suspects; they were caught by surprise and began to flee the area. One of the suspects turned around and rose what appeared to be a handgun at the husband and wife. The husband then fired one shot in the suspect’s direction who then fled on foot from the area. The victims said the suspects were dressed in all black clothing and they believed they were hispanic based on their accents.


If I had to guess at an explanation for the story, I'm at a loss for any logical robbery scenario that fits what's described.

[KevinD]

Oh wow..bring on the rabid gun control freaks.

Let's see, a few of my thought from "questions" about this.

Yes, robbers can and do walk around at night with masks on. Perhaps they were getting ready to rob a house and the couple walked by, therefore presenting a "target of opportunity" Now to you and me, it would be dumb to rob two people instead of the house, but hey, these are common criminals, most assuredly NOT the smartest folks in the world.
As for the "trained" soldier, with a license to carry, until and unless you yourself have been in a situation where you felt in imminent danger, you can't possibly understand how difficult it is to hit any target. Sure, you may qualify expert at the range, but shooting in a real situation is vastly different. Ask any LEO or combat vet.

[KevinD]

Um, but I've already demonstrated that its almost impossible for the story to have happened as described. Read my post #13 again.
http://tehbasement.com/showthread.php?21082-Police-Soldier-Being-Robbed-Pulls-Gun-On-Assailants&p=209970&viewfull=1#post209970

It simply didn't happen as described.

You demonstrated nothing there. Zero total facts (which you are usually good at supplying btw) Just your own prejudices.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Um, but I've already demonstrated that its almost impossible for the story to have happened as described. Read my post #13 again.
http://tehbasement.com/showthread.php?21082-Police-Soldier-Being-Robbed-Pulls-Gun-On-Assailants&p=209970&viewfull=1#post209970

It simply didn't happen as described.

Pretty sure you weren't there, so your opinion isn't relative as to the accuracy of the story ;)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Oh wow..bring on the rabid gun control freaks.

Let's see, a few of my thought from "questions" about this.

Yes, robbers can and do walk around at night with masks on. Perhaps they were getting ready to rob a house and the couple walked by, therefore presenting a "target of opportunity" Now to you and me, it would be dumb to rob two people instead of the house, but hey, these are common criminals, most assuredly NOT the smartest folks in the world.
As for the "trained" soldier, with a license to carry, until and unless you yourself have been in a situation where you felt in imminent danger, you can't possibly understand how difficult it is to hit any target. Sure, you may qualify expert at the range, but shooting in a real situation is vastly different. Ask any LEO or combat vet.

^^ This...plus add to the fact that this was at night at a moving target with a handgun.

[Acid Trip]

That's the difference between gun people and anti-gun people...people that are in favor of the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership can readily admit when guns are misused in crimes and such and we are all in favor of very stiff sentences when people are guilty of committing a crime with a firearm. Anti-gun folk on the other hand, can never ever admit that guns save lives and prevent crimes from occurring (as in this story). ;)

:+1:

I think Deep missed this post awhile back. That or he conveniently ignored it.


Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was "a very frightening decision" and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." . . .

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty had his own prediction: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."

If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self- defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence. If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun- related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban. . . . In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.
—Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting in District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008

(The possible harm from guns was central to his dissent, and the words “crime,” “criminal,” “criminologist,” “homicide,” “murder,” “rape,” “robbery,” "suicide," and “victim” were used a total of 122 times in forty-four pages.)

and what really happened:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BnWmPi9dtL4/TlkWtWh7S_I/AAAAAAAAB04/FW9W_gY9czQ/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2011-08-27%2Bat%2B%2BSaturday%252C%2BAugust%2B27%252C%2B12 .08%2BPM%2B1.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LhIY2FShViU/TlkWxIxrhMI/AAAAAAAAB1A/EAO8JoF4pRc/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2011-08-27%2Bat%2B%2BSaturday%252C%2BAugust%2B27%252C%2B12 .08%2BPM.png

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-what-happened-to-chicagos-murder-and.html#links

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Index%20Crime%20Statistics/2011%20Index%20Crime%20Statistics/mcsJune11.pdf

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Index%20Crime%20Statistics/2011%20Index%20Crime%20Statistics

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Um, but I've already demonstrated that its almost impossible for the story to have happened as described. Read my post #13 again.
http://tehbasement.com/showthread.php?21082-Police-Soldier-Being-Robbed-Pulls-Gun-On-Assailants&p=209970&viewfull=1#post209970

It simply didn't happen as described.

Also, if this didn't happen as described, why haven't the CSPD charged the man? If this whole thing was a lie, shouldn't he be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm in the city limits as well as lying to the police?

[KevinD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGWQauQOAQ

[Deepsepia]

Also, if this didn't happen as described, why haven't the CSPD charged the man? If this whole thing was a lie, shouldn't he be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm in the city limits as well as lying to the police?

They don't know what happened, and there is nothing on the record except the statement of the soldier (and his wife?). You'll note that the statement from Sgt Gilman doesn't agree with the police blotter as to what the soldier shot at. Did he fire a "warning shot" into the ground? Or did he fire in the direction of the robbers? One shot, so its gotta be one or the other

My guess -- and its only a guess-- is that he discharged his weapon for some reason that he prefers not to say and came up with this story.

You can't charge him with lying, without some evidence of lying.

You might suspect that, but unless you have some other evidence, no one's going to charge him with anything.

If you're the police, you put out the story, see if anyone else saw our ninjas -- my bet, no one else did -- and otherwise let the story die.

Here's one prediction I'll make: the media would love the story of the "hero soldier exercising his Second Amendment rights to defend himself and his wife" . . . every gun enthusiast jumps for those kinds of stories.

Now, if it were you, and you'd just successfully defended yourself against criminals, you'd have a reason to speak publicly about the experience.

On the other hand, if there were something wrong with the story, you'd be less inclined to want attention.

It's obviously not a %100 thing, but I think its more likely that our hero soldier remains anonymous . . .

[Acid Trip]

You can tell how someone views their fellow man by their stance on the 2nd Amendment. Those who trust their fellow man support their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms. Those who distrust their fellow man, or feel their fellow man must be controlled, seek to ban/control guns outright.

Is it a coincidence that those who seek to ban/control guns also seek to control the population in other ways? After all, once guns are outlawed the few people who have guns have an undeniable advantage over everyone else.

Just look at Syria. They protest and they get shot.

[KevinD]

I wouldn't want any media attention. I would think of it as simply doing what needed to be done, and move on.

[Deepsepia]

I wouldn't want any media attention. I would think of it as simply doing what needed to be done, and move on.

Especially if it didn't happen quite as described.

The story ain't right.

Unless Colorado Springs has a ninja community that I'm not aware of, masked men dressed in black do not wander in suburban neighborhoods.

BTW, the trickiest part of the story is that there's a husband a wife victim, two statements. Now, if two folks see someone -- they might be asked to describe them. The problem of differences between two victim statements would be significant, right? Unless, of course, the assailants were "two masked men, dressed all in black" . . .

If you wanted to bust their story, you'd interview the husband and wife separately, but the cops have zero reason to want to do that.

[KevinD]

Especially if it didn't happen quite as described.

The story ain't right.

Unless Colorado Springs has a ninja community that I'm not aware of, masked men dressed in black do not wander in suburban neighborhoods.

BTW, the trickiest part of the story is that there's a husband a wife victim, two statements. Now, if two folks see someone -- they might be asked to describe them. The problem of differences between two victim statements would be significant, right? Unless, of course, the assailants were "two masked men, dressed all in black" . . .

If you wanted to bust their story, you'd interview the husband and wife separately, but the cops have zero reason to want to do that.


Uh-uh, don't try to spin what I said. I made no qualifications in my statement. I wouldn't want any media attention period.
So, how is it that two people have the same (apparently) story, yet you continue to deny it happened that way.
If everything else was the same, and you substituted a dog for the gun, and the dog chased off the criminals, you'd likely not have a problem with it.
It is obvious to me that your hatred of lawful gun owning citizens is blinding you.

Oh, and once again, criminals when they are up to no good do in fact walk around at night dreesed all in black, and may have just possibly been know to wear masks.

[Deepsepia]

So, how is it that two people have the same (apparently) story, yet you continue to deny it happened that way.


We don't know that. We have no idea who said what to the police. We don't know when the police were called. We don't know who took their statements. We don't even know where this happened (there are two different general locations listed, both intersections, no street numbers on either). Its a very sketchy report. There is not on direct quote from either the husband or the wife. My impression is that the report is based on a complaint that they filed, but that's just a guess.

What we do know is that some things stated by the police don't agree with other things stated by the police

The soldier fired "at the assailants" or a "warning shot into the ground" -- well, one of those statements has to be wrong. Is one statement the wife's and the other the husband's? Dunno. All I do know is "fired at assailants" and "fired warning shot into the ground" are two very different things.

And the dude who's carrying what "looks like a machete". Umm hmmm . . . as the suspects fled the area, he held onto his machete, right? Fleeing for my life -- dude's shooting at me -- but I'll be holding on to my machete.

Are there a lot of machete armed ninjas where you live? Not where I live . . . and not in Colorado Springs, either. Looking through the police reports of robberies, I find a lot of hold ups (and yeah, in a robbery, the criminal does start with his gun out of his waistband.) Funny thing, though, not one "machete robbery". Well, there's always a first time . . .

Oh, yeah, in which direction did they run?

Looking at other police reports, they usually specify that: "fled in the direction of Pikes Peak highway" or similar. Not here. No indication of even the general direction in which the suspects fled. Why not?
If you look at the CSPD police blotter, this story is easily the sketchiest one there. Simple question: Who alerted CSPD? The blotter doesn't say. It nearly always describes how CSPD was contacted, and how CSPD responded . . . with this story, there's nothing. No "shots fired", no units responding, easily the sketchiest story I saw.


This is like one of those kids' stories "see how many things you can find that are wrong in this picture"


For comparison, here's the police blotter from CSPD where the witnesses are two middle school students



On 11/29/2011 at approximately 9:45AM, two Jenkins Middle School students advised the school staff that they were approached by unknown older adults in the Jenkins parking lot after school on 11/28/11 at around 3:50PM. The adults were driving a possible Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, described as light green with rust marks.

The victim’s stated that the unknown adults asked the victims to get into their vehicle and to help them get a “bike out of the back of the car.” The victims stated that they could see that there was no bike in the back of the vehicle.

The victims told the unknown adults “NO” and the vehicle left the area in a westerly direction out of the parking lot.

The driver of the vehicle was described as a white male in his 20’s and the passenger was an Asian male in his 20’s with a piercing in his lower lip.


Compare with



A husband and wife who had just transferred from Ft. Hood were taking a walk in their new neighborhood when they were approached by two masked assailants. The suspects ordered the husband and wife to the ground. The husband who has his CCW pulled out his handgun and confronted the two suspects; they were caught by surprise and began to flee the area. One of the suspects turned around and rose what appeared to be a handgun at the husband and wife. The husband then fired one shot in the suspect’s direction who then fled on foot from the area. The victims said the suspects were dressed in all black clothing and they believed they were hispanic based on their accents.


Yup, our report from two twelve year olds is substantially more detailed.

Don't you wonder why that is?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Don't you wonder why that is?

Nope, just sounds like spin from the anti-gun lobby as usual...no offense ;)

[Deepsepia]

Nope, just sounds like spin from the anti-gun lobby as usual...no offense ;)

Has nothing to do with being pro or anti gun.

Can we agree that

1) firing a shot at fleeing attackers

and

2) firing a "warning shot" into the ground

are in fact not the same thing?

My guess is that the shooter changed his story when a JAG corps lawyer advised him that claiming to have shot at a person was a bad thing, but that's just a guess.

And the first story, that the shooter "fired a shot in the direction of" the assailants. What does that mean? "In the direction of? You either fire at someone, or you don't. If you're the Coast Guard, you might put a shot "across the bow", but with a handgun?

You'll also notice when you read other reports on the Colorado Springs Police Department blotter that when someone reports an assault, and the police are called -- they go looking for them!

Here, you find no indication of any units responding, no search, no description. Is there a warning to the community that "two males dressed in black, armed with a machete and possibly a handgun" are on the loose? Is there any description of their clothing? EG, beyond "black" -- was the guy wearing a "hoody" or a sweatshirt, or what?

There's absolutely nothing. Not in the press, not on the PD website.

Methinks we have a case of imaginary ninjas.

My prediction: the savage reign of terror by the "Machete Bandit" will never add up to more than one incident . . and maybe not even one.

[Griffin]

a head shot would have been much better. One less criminal on the streets.

[Deepsepia]

a head shot would have been much better. One less criminal on the streets.

My guess is these two "criminals" never existed in the first place.

Oh, and perhaps-not-coincidentally Fort Carson has a terrible reputation for problems with soldiers shooting themelves and others.




COLORADO SPRINGS - A Fort Carson soldier has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter in a weekend shooting that left one woman dead.
It is the sixth homicide in Colorado since 2007 linked to a Fort Carson soldier.

Sgt. Scott Schwall said 24-year-old Thomas Woolly was arrested Sunday in connection with the shooting at an apartment in the 4000 block of Westmeadow Drive shortly before 3 that morning.

Police said officers arrived at the apartment to find that 19-year-old Lisa Baumann, from Colorado Springs, had been fatally shot. Police said Woolly had accidentally shot himself in the leg and was treated and released from a hospital for a minor injury.

{snip}

Woolly's arrest is the latest in a string of slayings over two years in which a Fort Carson soldier has either been convicted or named as a suspect. The trend caused former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to ask the Army last year to investigate the killings.

The military commissioned a task force to look into any commonalities in the homicides, which implicated Iraq War veterans from Fort Carson's 4th Brigade Combat Team - a 500-soldier unit which nicknamed itself the Lethal Warriors. Last week, Army Secretary Pete Geren said during a visit to Fort Carson that the study was nearly complete and would be released within a few weeks.







Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army's surgeon general, said while no one factor accounts for the violence, several causes contributed to the cluster, including substance abuse, mental illness and failures of leadership.

"Those three in combination are a really toxic mix," he said at a Fort Carson news conference.

The toxic mix left a death toll in Colorado.

Judilianna Lawrence, 19, was raped and killed by a soldier last October, prosecutors charge.
In June 2008, Cesar Ramirez Ibanez, 21, and Amairany Cervantes, 18, were mowed down with an AK-47. A soldier is charged.
In December, 2007, Spc. Kevin Shields was shot to death on the city's west side. Three soldiers are in prison for that.
A few months earlier, Pfc. Robert James was shot to death in a robbery. Two soldiers are doing time for it.
Before that, a taxi driver in Pueblo was gunned down by a Fort Carson GI who has since been convicted.
Another soldier is doing 30 years behind bars for gunning down an alleged drug dealer in a botched robbery.
One killed his infant.
One killed a friend with a fire poker.
Another killed his wife and then himself.

"Soldiers allegedly involved in crimes related to homicide at Fort Carson from 2005-2008 were, in retrospect, at risk for engaging in violent behavior based on a clustering of known risk factors for violence, namely prior criminal behavior and psychopathology," the report found.

[Griffin]

My guess is these two "criminals" never existed in the first place.

You are theoretically correct. Alleged intent is not a crime.

[Deepsepia]

You are theoretically correct. Alleged intent is not a crime.

What evidence exists that these folks existed?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

What evidence exists that these folks existed?

What evidence exists that they didn't? ;)

[Deepsepia]

What evidence exists that they didn't? ;)

The fact that the entire story makes zero sense and is missing basic details that would be in a police report, if the cops actually believed that there were real folks involved.

You've got two adult witnesses and the only description that you;ve got is "dressed all in black, with a mask, and a hispanic accent".

Well OK, what kind of a mask?

There are different sorts, after all, and would be highly distinctive. A ski mask? Well they're distinctive-- if that's what they had on, they'd have given that information
.
But no, there's zero . . . and there's zero sign that the police believe the incident occurred.

Basic details are missing or contradictory, details which folks who actually witnessed something would have had to see like:

"which way did they come from"?
"which way did they run?"

These aren't details which require some Sherlock Holmes power of observation, yet they're missing here.

And the details that are there don't make sense.

Sgt Gilman is quoted



The soldier “turned the tables” on the robbers when he pulled out his gun, sending the men fleeing, Gilman said.

The soldier told police he held off firing his gun until one of the men appeared to turn around and reach for his waistband, Gilman said


"Appeared to turn around"

How does that work?

The guy is supposed to be "fleeing" . . . if I'm running from you, I can't "appear to turn around." -- this ain't ice hockey.

The guy would be running, would have to stop, would then turn back toward the shooter

None of the details make sense, not a one.

[Griffin]

well there was the time my wife was stroking my barrel and accidentally squeezed the trigger ...

...but then I too digress into another tale.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The fact that the entire story makes zero sense and is missing basic details that would be in a police report, if the cops actually believed that there were real folks involved.

You've got two adult witnesses and the only description that you;ve got is "dressed all in black, with a mask, and a hispanic accent".

Well OK, what kind of a mask?

There are different sorts, after all, and would be highly distinctive. A ski mask? Well they're distinctive-- if that's what they had on, they'd have given that information
.
But no, there's zero . . . and there's zero sign that the police believe the incident occurred.

Basic details are missing or contradictory, details which folks who actually witnessed something would have had to see like:

"which way did they come from"?
"which way did they run?"

These aren't details which require some Sherlock Holmes power of observation, yet they're missing here.

Unless you were there, as I stated previous, your opinion on the validity of the story is meaningless ;)

[Deepsepia]

Unless you were there, as I stated previous, your opinion on the validity of the story is meaningless ;)

No, that's wrong.

I can evaluate the evidence in police reports, and the fact that this report is missing evidence that should be there.

I can notice that every other police report indicates where the suspects came from, and the direction in which they left.

Other reports will even say "it could not be determined in which direction the suspects fled"

This report doesn't have a word about that.

That's not my "opinion". Read the Colorado Springs Police Department blotter . . . this report is missing basic facts present in other reports, despite the presence of two adult witnesses.

Its also not my "opinion" that there's no indication that CSPD looked for the assailants, nor have they put out any description.

Its not my "opinion" that the police cite no corroborating evidence of any kind.

This occurred in a residential neighborhood. Now, the time is unknown -- like many details that should be there-- but if you've got two guys dressed all in black, with masks walking through a residential neighborhood, carrying a machete -- well, if someone saw that, that's the kind of thing that they'd remember. In fact, if you saw that out in your front yard, you'd call the cops.

Mysteriously, there's no indication that anyone else saw anything. . .