• Home
  • News
  • After Worker Is Whipped With Glock, Store Owner, 72, Shoots 4, Police Say

Criminal Justice

After Worker Is Whipped With Glock, Store Owner, 72, Shoots 4, Police Say

Posted Aug 13, 2009 5:23 PM CST
By Martha Neil

Updated: After a 33-year-old worker inside a New York restaurant supply store allegedly was pistol-whipped with a 9-mm Glock by one member of a group of would-be robbers this afternoon, the 72-year-old owner of Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame Corporation took action.

He opened fire with his own shotgun, killing two members of the group and sending two others to the hospital, reports the City Room blog of the New York Times. The owner is identified in public records as Charles Augusto Jr.

Police say they don't believe the Winchester 12-gauge pump shotgun that was used to shoot the four was registered, contrary to city law. It has a pistol grip handle and was recovered at the scene in Harlem, as was the Glock, the newspaper recounts.

The New York Post reports that three shots fired by the store owner struck all four men. Witnesses, including Vernon McKenzie, who rents an apartment in the building from Augusto, described a wild scene, with men running out of the building pursued by an angry employee following the sound of several shotgun blasts.

"He's been robbed before and I guess he was prepared," McKenzie tells the tabloid, referring to his landlord. "Those dudes ran into some real tough stuff today."

The New York Daily News reports that two of the men were shot in the back.

Additional coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "‘No Choice’ But to Shoot 4 Would-Be Robbers, Says Store Owner, 72"

Last updated on Aug. 14 to link to subsequent ABAJournal.com post.

Comments

1.

Dayron Leon
Aug 13, 2009 5:42 PM CST

I’m not one to support breaking the law, but everyday citizens must stand up to crime. Simple as that. It’s not being a vigilante, it’s called being a responsible citizen.

Flag this comment

2.

P. Bryson
Aug 13, 2009 6:30 PM CST

Now that’s the kind of boss who really stands by his workers.

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
Aug 13, 2009 6:49 PM CST

In addition to the points already made, a Glock is a well-designed and reliable firearm.  It is not a club, sap, bludgeon or baton.  Any moron who gets blasted with a shotgun while he is standing there, stupidly beating someone with a loaded Glock, absolutely deserves whatever he gets.  His brain must be dead already, and thus, it is only fair to hurry the body along after it.

Flag this comment

4.

Keith Kemp
Aug 13, 2009 11:45 PM CST

This reminds me of the OKC pharmacy that was robbed but the owner went to far with it.

This guy was in the right because he was already in fear for his life.

Flag this comment

5.

Bakes, Esq.
Aug 14, 2009 6:12 AM CST

Let’s see how far those hypocrites, Morgenthau and Bloomberg go in seeking an indictment of this guy as they did with Plaxico Burress.  I mean, anyone could have been injured by this elderly man chasing these guys into the streets blasting away, right?

Mind you, I support the guy’s actions… but I’d just love to see the lack of flexibility in one case vs. the other explained.

Flag this comment

6.

Esq.
Aug 14, 2009 8:56 AM CST

Oh, come on @ Bakes: The Buress situation was almost too stupid for words.  He brings a loaded firearm into a packed nightclub, and then starts juggling about just to show how ‘gangsta’ he is.  His life was not in danger, not was his security threatened as he had two personal bodyguards with him.  Luckily the idiot only injured himself, but he could have killed someone over his senseless, childish nonsense.

The shop owner exercised the right to protect his property.  Although the assailants were fleeing, there’s a definite defense that they were shot in the heat of passion.  Especially since the assailants had brandished firearms in the store to pistol-whip the employees, and the owner had been previously robbed.  Also, because the assilants set the robbery in motion, they would have been liable for harm to anyone on the street injured as a result of the shopowner’s defensive response.

Flag this comment

7.

associate
Aug 14, 2009 10:40 AM CST

Unregistered?  Pistol grip?  The store owner should be locked up for life just to make an example of him.  We can’t just have vigilantes running lose in the streets.

This man had no right to protect his employee’s life or his pursuit of happiness, and certainly not with a firearm, espcially an illegal shotgun.

Flag this comment

8.

Esq.
Aug 14, 2009 11:27 AM CST

“The store owner should be locked up for life just to make an example of him.  We can’t just have vigilantes running lose in the streets.”

We already have vigilantes running the streets, and lax police enforcement in Harlem and the Bronx.  There are notoriously roving or loitering groups of up to 100 teenagers, at all hours of the night, and the police do nothing.  There have been several deadly shootings in the past few month that have resulted from these huge clusters of people.  But the police won’t intervene in what but for the gun violence would be a mere nuisance, because they will face complaints about upsetting the “culture” or neighborhood residents.  (And as a person of color, I can say it’s complete baloney).

And besides the shootings, there are numerous senseless beatings.  There was a Pratt University student (Brooklyn) who was just beaten into a coma with a CROWBAR by a group of teenagers who wanted to steal his wallet.  And there have been numerous attacks of Columbia university students by yet more roving groups of teenagers.

Flag this comment

9.

associate
Aug 14, 2009 1:05 PM CST

Well, if the only problem is weapons, then why don’t you just ban the guns and crowbars from your city?

Flag this comment

10.

Bakes, Esq.
Aug 14, 2009 4:07 PM CST

Esq. wrote: “Oh, come on @ Bakes: The Buress situation was almost too stupid for words.  He brings a loaded firearm into a packed nightclub, and then starts juggling about just to show how ‘gangsta’ he is.  His life was not in danger, not was his security threatened as he had two personal bodyguards with him.  Luckily the idiot only injured himself, but he could have killed someone over his senseless, childish nonsense.”

I seriously hope some law school didn’t confer a degree on you with your apparent penchant for fabricating stories.  “Juggling about just to show how ‘gangsta’ he is”... where did you get that ‘How Can I Be Down Yo?’ magazine?  Who were his “two bodyguards”, you and which other yahoo?

The actual circumstances of the Burress case aside, Burress was prosecuted and pilloried in the press by the two aforementioned hypocrites, who couldn’t speak enough about the need for a zero-tolerance policy with regards to illegal gun possession.

Drop your fixation on the Burress case for a second and try to see the larger point, the inconsistent application of NY’s gun laws when it comes to the Manhattan DA’s office, and the abhorrent schilling for votes by Bloomberg in attempts to secure yet another term in office for himself.

Flag this comment

11.

zekethewonderdog
Aug 14, 2009 5:34 PM CST

Augusto must be a bad shot.  Two got away.

Flag this comment

12.

B. McLeod
Aug 14, 2009 6:19 PM CST

No, I think they were captured, and will probably be charged with armed robbery (maybe felony-murder, if NY has that doctrine).  Plus, he actually hit them both as well.  Maybe the shotgun was loaded with birdshot.

Flag this comment

13.

Esq.
Aug 15, 2009 2:39 PM CST

@ Bakes:  http://www.nypost.com/seven/11292008/sports/giants/plaxico_burress_accidentally_shot_himsel_141427.htm

Has the best police-blotter and sports coverage in the city.  The Times is more reliable for almost everything else.

Send me a story about a white athlete who brings a gun into a NYC nightclub and accidentally shoots himself (endangering others in the process) and gets treated differently by the Manhattan DA’s office.  I can’t stand wanton stupidity, no matter the color of the doer.

Flag this comment

14.

B. McLeod
Aug 15, 2009 6:20 PM CST

Esq., it does not matter that the complaints about upsetting “the neighborhood” or “the culture” are “complete baloney.”  The gansters have learned well that when police enforcement campaigns begin, all they have to do is have some gang members and hangers-on float allegations of “racial profiling.”  Law-abiding residents are intimidated into silence, and only the gang-sponsored message gets any media coverage.  The police end up having to abandon those neighborhoods, because the residents who want law enforcement are not willing to defy the gangs in order to stand up and support it.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.