CNN: Robbery suspect shot by would-be victim: armed, off-duty deputy

[papercut]

I don't think this has already been posted...apologies to the board if it has.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/12/03/brf....ap/index.html

Robbery suspect shot by would-be victim: armed, off-duty deputy

December 3, 2000
Web posted at: 10:21 AM EST (1521 GMT)

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- When a Sumter, South Carolina, man allegedly tried to rob someone in a Columbia Mall restroom, he had no idea how soon he'd be face to face with a police officer.

Keith Atkins, 22, was arrested Saturday afternoon after he tried to rob an off-duty deputy sheriff, police said. According to authorities, the deputy sheriff, Michael Baker of Lexington County, shot his would-be robber during the attempt. Atkins was taken into custody at a hospital where he was recovering from gunshot wounds, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said.

Baker shot Atkins with a personal weapon, not his service revolver, Lott said.

Richland County deputies will investigate the case and give the results to Richland County prosecutor Barney Giese.

"It looks to be a justifiable shooting," Lott said.

Baker was not injured, and no one else was in the restroom when the shooting occurred.

Baker will be assigned to administrative duty until the investigation is complete, Lexington County Sheriff James Metts said.

[Jeff Thomas]

I'd wager that CNN ran this story because it was an LEO off duty. If this had happened to a 'civilian', it never would have hit their radar.

Glad to hear the deputy is OK.

Regards from AZ

[papercut]

Jeff, you're probably right.

Yes, it is rather good that he's OK. Personally, I prefer having the cops uninjured. They can do their job better that way. (Hey, it was an attempt at humor. I'm not trying to be callous.)

I see from GlockTalk that this story also ran in a South Carolina news outlet: http://www.thestate.com/whitney/loca...utyshoot03.htm

[Charmedlyfe]

Baker is D#mn good police, and Metts is good as Sheriff. Runs a good department. Friend of mine who still works for 'Little Leon' at RCSD said it was definitely justified....

[traitorjack]

George,

any info on what the personal weapon was that the deputy carried? load, even?

[Long Path]

This piqued my curiousity a little.

Very few departments still issue "service revolvers", anymore.

The distinction seemed to be made between "personal" weapon vs. "service" weapon, which, in the minds of a CNN journalist, could be fuzzy.

Many departments allow their officers to carry their choice of weaponry which might well include revolvers. Some old-line officers (esp. reserves) still carry their old issue service revolvers. But, it would be of academic interest to me if that department actually still issued "service revolvers." Anyone know?

My bet is that they simply wanted to know if it was his main duty weapon, and simply didn't even check whether: (A)Those main battery duty weapons are issued, nor (B)Those weapons are actually revolvers.

Glad to read the deputy did what needed doing, though I am surprised that there's a defendant left to charge. Well, some people do get excited in the heat of the moment...

--L.P.

[4V50 Gary]

the police carry S&W 686 revolvers. Their ESU/SWAT unit carries semiautos (Glocks). A lot of French police officers also carry revolvers (Rugers & some other makes).