Armed robber pistol whips clerk

April 5, 2011

Paso Robles Police are looking for a man who robbed a donut shop and pistol whipped an employee late Monday night.

The suspect, a white man with a scarf covering his face, entered DK’s Donuts on Spring Street around 10 p.m., took out a gun, demanded money and pistol whipped the employee before leaving with an undisclosed amount of cash. The employee did not require medical attention.

Police have not ruled out that a similar robbery on Sunday night at the Domino’s Pizza on Spring Street may have been the work of the same man. The two businesses are located on the same street about four blocks apart.


26 Comments

  1. willie says:

    The good news is, the employee was not shot and still alive.
    Employee did not require medical attention, so I do not believe s/he was truely “brutally pistol whiped!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  2. rogerfreberg says:

    yeah yeah, me bad… Half Moon Bay…

    It does make one wonder what some of our smaller cites will do, though

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • willie says:

      If the city does shut down its Police Department
      It is because to contract the Sheriff’s Department would be cheaper.
      What will likely happen is the Sheriff Department will hire or lateral transfer in the displace police officers.
      Its just a shuffling of expense

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • jev5010 says:

        Back in the mid-90s Atascadero PD was discussing this very thing with the Sheriff’s Dept. The plan was to disband the PD and contract with the SO for police services. Most of the current employees would be hired by the SO and would be required to stay in Atascadero for 1 year before being able to transfer to another station. The hangup, and what eventually killed the plan, was at what ranks and seniority status would the existing PD employees transfer over with. The PD wanted to keep their current ranks and seniority, but the SO didn’t think that would be fair to their employees to have a bunch of people come over with rank and seniority… and that was the end of that.

        Personally, I’m a big fan of “regional” services. Instead of a bunch of small independent agencies all spending money they don’t have on duplicate services and equipment, it makes more sense to me to pool it all together and have one larger regional agency. Huge money savings…

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  3. danika says:

    KSBY just reported the DK donuts robbery happened to a female employee. Not true. There is alot of misinformation being released. Someone should report correct info.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  4. danika says:

    The photo of DK’s Donuts shown is NOT the one that was robbed at gunpoint. I would think CCN would at least show the actual business??? Secondly, it wasn’t an employee that was robbed at gunpoint, it was the owner. He works the night shift. I spoke to him myself this afternoon; he was not “pistol whipped”, he was, by his own statement to me “barely tapped” by the robber. I personally know this gentleman and his business very well and just wanted to verify the facts…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

    • Side_Show_Bob says:

      You mean CCN embellished the story?!!!!

      Never thought THAT could have happened! LOLZ

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7

      • danika says:

        No, CCN did NOT embellish the story. They simply repeated the misinformation that was released to the press by the PR POLICE Dept.. Blame them.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  5. rogerfreberg says:

    Oh you guys are so quaint,

    It seems like a lifetime ago, but I was involved quite closely in convenience stores… the problem we had was an ethical one. In Houston, the most common cause of death was ‘working in a convenience store.’ If an employee was being escorted to the vault ( the walk in refrigeration unit), they knew they were going to be shot…. the vault is ‘sound proof.’ We had to stipulate ‘no guns in the store’ for insurance purposes… but –sadly– we knew we were making them ‘soft targets.’

    Many places in California have ‘panic buttons’ hidden in the store… but as we are learning with Morro Bay eliminating their police department… how effective is this actually going to be? If it takes longer than 5 minutes to have law enforcement reach the store… well… it’s too late.

    Who knows what will happen in the future, however, if I see a gun in a store now and again, I’m not going to be surprised.

    I think the person needs a new choice of vocation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    • jev5010 says:

      As mentioned in another thread, Morro Bay is NOT eliminating their police department. HALF MOON BAY is the city that’s eliminating the police department. They are not the same town, they are not in the same county, and they are not even closely related.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    • ApathyWillKillYou says:

      I called the Morro Bay Police Department and according to them they are NOT eliminating their police department. As a matter of fact they were quite disturbed that this rumor started!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • choprzrul says:

        Doesn’t really matter one way or another. Police investigate crimes. Pro-active citizens prevent crime.

        Nothing against law enforcement, they just simply cannot be everywhere all of the time. This makes them reactive rather than pro-active.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      • jev5010 says:

        I’m not sure it’s where it began, but Freberg started referring to the Morro Bay department in another story about the Half Moon Bay police department. For some reason he keeps referring to the Morro Bay department closing when he should be referring to Half Moon Bay. Ah well, chalk it up to another of his many inaccuracies…

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. choprzrul says:

    BobFromSLO sez: “…you seem to always be of the mindset that the only answer to any situation is for everyone to be armed.”

    Your credibility goes flying out the window when you make statements like that after I posted this above:

    choprzrul sez: “…the presence of a firearm in many situations can be detrimental.”

    Unfortunate since the rest of your post makes some valid points.

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    • bobfromsanluis says:

      Do you agree or not with my assertion that you do have a very pro-gun agenda? Simple yes or no answer is preferred, if you can.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      • choprzrul says:

        Supreme Court Justice Alito in writing for the majority in McDonald:

        “…we concluded, citizens must be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

        The Heller & McDonald SCOTUS decisions established the 2A as a fundamental individual civil right that is incorporated against the states.

        Am I “…always…” pro gun? No. Am I “…always…” pro civil rights? Yes.

        Are you for or against civil rights?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • bobfromsanluis says:

          Yes.I am for civil rights.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • bobfromsanluis says:

            I answered in a one word answer that you apparently could not, but you also raised another point I would like to ask you a question about. You stated: “Am I {….always….} pro civil rights? Yes.” Does that mean that you are for having the Equal Rights Amendment ratified? How about same sex marriage? My argument for same sex marriage is that by not allowing two people of the same gender to marry, they are being denied “equal rights” that opposite gender couples have available. Well?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

            • choprzrul says:

              Point me to where I can find those rights enumerated in our Constitution, and subsequent SCOTUS decisions (post Slaughterhouse) that incorporate those rights against the individual states, and then I will be happy to give you an answer.

              Rule of law, not rule of theoretical.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

              • bobfromsanluis says:

                The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as written: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
                Marriage is, among other things, a legal agreement between two unrelated, consenting adults that give those two persons certain rights, like be able to share common property, make life or death decisions for each other when one of them is incapacitated. When two people of the same gender want to have those exact same rights, way too many states in America deny them the ability to have those same rights, simply because they are of the same gender. The “Defense of Marriage Act” is therefore, IMO, unconstitutional, it just hasn’t been ruled that, yet. Explain to me then, why you would stand for having rights denied to anyone here in the United States of America simply because they are of the same gender.

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

                • choprzrul says:

                  Which came first: the United States or marriage? Obviously, the answer is marriage. Marriage has been around for thousands of years before anyone even started thinking about a Bill of Rights. The point is, marriage has always been a binding contract between a man, a woman, and god.

                  Fast forward in world history to the middle 19th century and you start to see government inserting itself into marriage. The point being, that government intrusion into an institution of the church is clearly a violation of separation of church and state. The whole concept of having the government involved in any part of marriage is completely unconstitutional.

                  Now, if the government wants to implement something like civil unions, then by all means, anyone and everyone should be entitled to enter into such a union and enjoy all the privileges of that union.

                  And just for reference, rights enumerated in the constitution are not always applicable to the individual states post Slaughterhouse. Until the recent SCOTUS McDonald decision, the citizens of California had no 2A rights. Just because it is in the constitution, doesn’t mean that you get to enjoy the right until SCOTUS rules accordingly. Crazy, isn’t it.

                  .

                  Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. choprzrul says:

    The employee should have dialed 911 to defend against the threat. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

    I really feel sorry for the defenseless employee who had to stand there while getting robbed and then get pistol whipped. I can’t even begin to imagine the pure terror of not knowing if the robber was going to kill me. Then, to be completely defenseless in the face of such brutality, is but yet another traumatic layer in that terror.

    I wonder why the employee was not armed?

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

    • Cindy says:

      When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have them. I support the right (our choice) to bear arms. Is it getting to a point where clerks will need to be trained to use a gun and have one available at their place of work in some establishments? What a sad thought but it would “SURELY” put a stop to these punks thinking they own the place when they walk in.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

      • choprzrul says:

        Those are important factors Cindy. However, without a mindset that enables the clerk to stop the threat against life or grave bodily harm, the presence of a firearm in many situations can be detrimental. I really do feel bad for anyone in our society that goes through this type of ordeal. I also feel bad that our society has devolved to this point. 150 years ago Paso was a lawless region of California and it appears that history is repeating itself. If my memory of that region’s history is correct, the lawlessness remained until the citizens took a stand against the tyranny of the lawless. All it takes is good people to do nothing.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    • bobfromsanluis says:

      “I wonder why the employee was not armed?” Perhaps the employees prefer not to own a firearm; perhaps the business owner prefers to not arm the employees due to liability issues or a personal feeling about firearms; point is, we do not “know”, but since this is a privately owned business, it is up to the owner to make that decision, period. Too many business owners who offer minimum wage jobs (or very close to minimum wage rates) do not “invest” in any real type of training for their employees other than how to handle regular transactions, how to make any product they sell and how to clean up. I am not suggesting that employers should invest in training the employees in self defense or firearm training, but perhaps a little more time invested in how to respond to a hold up might have saved the employees from being “pistol whipped” by responding to the demands of the gunman in a manner to get him out of the business as quickly as possible. And your sarcasm about dialing 911 was duly noted since you seem to always be of the mindset that the only answer to any situation is for everyone to be armed.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      • Side_Show_Bob says:

        bob,
        It’s just a valid point he made through sarcasm that 99% of the time, the Police can do absolutely NOTHING to protect us. In that situation, a person should be able to protect their own lives through equal or greater force.

        It is perfectly legal to carry openly or by concealment, a loaded firearm in a private business. Personally, if I were forced to work in such a job where the threat has become so common, I’d be fully armed whether my employer liked it or not. Unless my employer was standing right beside me sharing the same threat, his negative opinion of my self preservation would fall on deaf ears.

        Some people are just not capable of protecting themselves. It’s a choice and I feel sorry for those that choose not to do so.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

Comments are closed.