From a newer article
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/...hootout?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s :
So the suspect did fire first, contrary to what many of you think.
The media...I swear. The only thing riddled with holes are these news articles (all of them!) Btw this new article isn't new, it was supposedly published yesterday.
So read this:
It was unknown who opened fire first, but investigators said at least one of the burglars pulled a gun on the guard during the robbery.
then...
He was taking rounds, police Capt. Gary Ficacci said. He had a right to protect himself.
I thought the security guard was uninjured? how many rounds did he take? what about the store manager? how did they avoid close proximity gunfire?
then in the very same article...
Its clear from the (surveillance) video that one of the suspects almost immediately upon breaking into the store pulls out a pistol and starts shooting, he said.
So were the suspect(s) greeted with an already drawn weapon and began to fire? I thought the security guard said he opened fire when a suspect produced a gun.
The Security Guard was definitely within his right to open fire, but I must say that the security guard is one helluva lucky guy, I mean 40 rounds fired at him and not one hit him or the manager in close proximity? does anyone have a statistic on the chance of not being hit by 1 bullet in this situation?
I can't imagine a 58 year old dodging bullets like Keano Reeves in the Matrix. I wonder if he had a bullet proof vest on. He still should not have pursued the vehicle as it was leaving the crime scene running and gunning at it (the vehicle was apparently riddled with bullet holes.) Being a retired former deputy sheriff he should have known this. They do mention that they are going to determine whether or not to take Administrative action against the security guard, maybe because he chased down a fleeing vehicle shooting at it.
It is really strange how the latest linked article differs from the original two articles linked on this post. It was said in those two original articles that the suspects (2 males) broke the window and started grabbing things when confronted by the security guard, one suspect produced a gun and the guard opened fire. If the surveillance video (none of us have seen) shows they broke the glass and started shooting almost immediately, why were rounds/shells only found outside of the store? the updated story gave no mention of the "backside wound" on one of the suspects who apparently had two guns (one of which was stolen), and that the female was in the car the entire time. So all three walked up to the window and smashed it, all of them pulled out guns firing at the security guard and not one hit in close proximity? wow! we have ourselves a bulletproof guard!
The problem is that I suppose the media just can't get the story straight. I never trusted the media, and this is a good example. This story still seems itself, riddled with holes. I suppose what we're reading is hearsay, that until a full investigation is completed we're just reading bits and pieces of second hand information.