comscore Police say Pizza Hut employee shoots, kills would-be robber | Honolulu Star-Advertiser
Top News

Police say Pizza Hut employee shoots, kills would-be robber

Honolulu Star-Advertiser logo
Unlimited access to premium stories for as low as $12.95 /mo.
Get It Now

CHARLOTTE, N.C. » Police in North Carolina say a Pizza Hut employee used his own handgun to shoot and kill one of three armed robbers holding up the store.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said it happened early Sunday at a Pizza Hut restaurant near Interstate 85 in west Charlotte. Detectives say the restaurant was closed and there were no customers inside.

Police say their initial investigation indicates three people entered the restaurant around 1:40 a.m. Sunday and were in the process of robbing it when one of the employees used his personal handgun to shoot one male thief. Police say a handgun carried by the slain robber was recovered at the scene.

The two other suspects ran away and haven’t been captured.

Comments (44)

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Terms of Service. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. Report comments if you believe they do not follow our guidelines.

Having trouble with comments? Learn more here.

Leave a Reply

  • Yes. It’s high time time that victims of crime protect themselves instead of the dam-liberal-lunatic-fringe bemoaning how the perpetrators are to be pitied. But what will probably happen in this case is the employee will be brought up on some type of charge that ruins his life.

  • Don’t worry, something like this will never happen in Hawaii… because our police chief does not believe that citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families. 🙁

      • You are correct. In the cases I’ve seen, (and there haven’t been too many) the victim (shooter) is also arrested and released RPI, an investigation ensues and the Office of the Prosecutor declines Prosecution if self-defense elements are satisfied. The victim then has to petition for expungement of the arrest.

        • Even if “self-defense elements are satisfied” that does not always prevent a lawsuit filed by a wounded assailant or the deceased assailant’s next of kin. Depending on jurisdiction, the castle doctrine (applied to one’s dwelling, a personal motor vehicle or place of business) can deter frivolous lawsuits. If you happen to reside in a less evolved place (London, England comes immediately to mind) you may be obligated to do everything possible to flee your home or place of business if confronted by violent criminals. Be that as it may, I would venture to guess that the old adage “better to be judged by twelve than carried by six” will see you through any legal trouble if you were indeed in reasonable fear for the safety of you and yours.

        • DD: No, I was speaking of Criminal charges only. Civil actions are an entirely different matter. For the definition of Self-Defense in Hawaii, see the Hawaii Revised Statutes, readily available online.

        • Cellodad,

          My point was to raise the issue that criminal charges are only part of what a person who defends himself is likely to face, not to imply you didn’t know what you were talking about. If you feel slighted, then I apologize.

      • LMAO! So true.

        Besides, the whole police force is working on that mailbox case, so any critical calls for police enforcement to 911 get put on the back burner as they still try to unravel the chain of events and provide evidence to the defense attorney.

    • Sadly, you could be right. They might have a corporate policy against guns in the workplace even if someone has a CWP or unless explicitly permitted. I hope Good Samaritan laws in that jurisdiction will not allow the employer to terminate this employee in the event he was not permitted to have the weapon in the workplace.

    • LKK56,

      You do realize, of course, that a decision to resort to deadly force is only appropriate to protect oneself or another innocent party from severe bodily harm. The situation has to be extremely grave. Accidental injury to bystanders can happen it’s certainly true, however, such injuries are not intentional acts committed by a victim with a lot of time to ponder over the situation. A number of inadvertent shootings and even deaths are committed each year by uniformed law enforcement officers. Such incidents are sad for all concerned but seldom are serious proposals made to remove deadly force as an option for lawmen in the U.S.

      • emmm, that’s the law, using deadly force is ONLY justifiable in the event of imminent danger and loss of life, no other way around it. Not sure what you’re rambling about. Sure, there’s always the possibility of stray bullets hitting innocent by-standards. Still a better outcome than the possibility of the criminal of shooting multiple people dead.

        • Dragon,

          Not sure what the point of your reply is, unless you think LKK56’s opinion is valid? What is it about what I wrote that confuses you?

Click here to see our full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak. Submit your coronavirus news tip.

Be the first to know
Get web push notifications from Star-Advertiser when the next breaking story happens — it's FREE! You just need a supported web browser.
Subscribe for this feature

Scroll Up