Local News

Suspect killed in Kenly attempted robbery IDed by authorities

Posted October 18, 2010

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

Map

— Johnston County deputies on Monday identified a man who was shot and killed while trying to rob a local restaurant on Friday.

Javier Francisco Bautista, 20, died in a shootout with the owner of Shoeheel Grill, Grocery and Gas, at 8212 Old Beulah Road in Kenly, according to the Johnston County Sheriff’s Office.

Bautista lived in a barn behind 602 White St. in Selma.

The robbery happened shortly before 6 p.m. on Friday, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.

The store owner, 59-year-old Donnie Creech, his son and two female employees were the only people in the store when Bautista walked in and displayed a weapon, Bizzell said.

Bautista pointed the gun at Creech's son, and Creech came from a back room with a weapon. In an exchange of gunfire, Bautista was hit and ran outside to a van, where he died.

Creech then grabbed a second weapon, went outside and was confronted by a second armed man, 17-year-old Felipe Alejandro Ortiz. They exchanged gunfire until Ortiz ran into a wooded area.

Ortiz, of 307 W. Jones St. in Selma, fled on foot and was later arrested and charged with attempted murder and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was denied bond.

Creech, his son and the employees were not injured. Bizzell said they would have likely died if Creech was not armed.

"If you're put in a life-and-death situation, I'm pretty sure anyone would've responded," Creech's older son, Donnie, said. "You've got to take care of yourself, take care of your family."

118 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • jay11 Oct 19, 2010

    Thanks to several of you for the different perspective. It didn't occur to me that a second threat was presented by other armed suspect he met outside. I was focused on why he was following an already neutralized threat out the door after retrieving another firearm. He was probably within his right to use justifiable deadly force in both cases, and I expect that's how a jury would see it...and it sounds like that is the point of view of the sheriff too.

    Still, this underscores the need to fully understand gun laws and the use of deadly force. We have had the luxury of discussing the issue back and forth. Just imagine if you had to make a split second decision with a threat in front of you. It's easy to say what you THINK you would do, even I am not sure what I would have done in the 2 seconds that I saw what he did. I simply suggest that gun owners would be better equipped to make these kind of decisions with the benefit of a course in gun ownership and the law.

  • doubletrouble Oct 18, 2010

    Chalk one up for the "good guys". Far more often than you believe, Police show up minutes or hours later and have to clean up the mess, in situations like these and normally, it's the bad guy who gets away. Police do "Protect and Serve", but any LE will tell you, they can't be everywhere, or always in the nick of time. Most LE's I know, fully understand that an honest, good citizen of the community, has a right to protect himself in such situations.

  • Eastern N.C. Native Oct 18, 2010

    Good deal! That's justice.

  • WRALSUCKS Oct 18, 2010

    "And I, for one, believe God alone judges a man's worth"

    And I hope he deals harshly with armed robbers.

  • passport423 Oct 18, 2010

    "But lest we forget, another human being died that day--maybe not the best human being, but a human being nonetheless. And I, for one, believe God alone judges a man's worth." dlk13ster

    I consider myself a liberal but that's just TOO liberal. If I'm being robbed and my child is being threatened, I believe I have the right to judge my child's life as being worth MUCH more than the robber's life. And I'm seriously considering arming myself given the home invasions, etc. of late.

  • dlk13ster Oct 18, 2010

    NCTeacher

    An excellent point. All excellent points, really, and I wish more people on this forum took your rational approach--an approach which I hope you are instilling in your students ;)

    The tricky bit for me comes from people who use legally-acquired guns for "crimes of passion," or hasty decisions. Case in point: in most incidents involving suicide via handgun, the decision to commit suicide lasted less than 30 minutes, and the only limiting factor was the availability of a firearm.

    I readily admit, however, that this is next to impossible to predict/legislate against. I guess my point is that I, for one, don't mind waiting the weeks, months, or even years required to legally obtain a firearm, if it means that even one other person is delayed from making tragic decision in the heat of the moment.

    But you are correct that people should, in extreme emergencies, be equipped to defend themselves and their homes. I just wish it didn't have to involve lethal force--on ANYONE'S part.

  • YA RECKON Oct 18, 2010

    jay11...

    You are correct in you understanding of the NC law, however I think you are misunderstanding the situation.

    The story says he exchanged gunfire with and shot the first guy while inside the store, the suspect fled the store, then he/they ran outside still armed while the first guy ran to his van and died,(first threat eliminated, continued use of deadly force against the first guy not justified). However, while outside he was confronted by a second man who was also armed,(New Threat, use of deadly force against second guy justified), they exchanged additional gunfire while they were both outside, the second guy ran into the woods (second threat no longer present, justified use of deadly force no longer in effect) Unless he shot either guy in the back while they running away, The threat continued outside and his right to self defense was still in effect, until the second guy was no longer a active threat. just saying...

  • NCTeacher Oct 18, 2010

    dlk13ster-

    It isn't that I am unhappy with the police or the amount of police we have. It's just that I know they can't be everywhere all at one time. If I have to call them because someone is breaking into my house to rob me or harm me, it's going to take them a few minutes (at least) to get there and solve my problem. I would much rather have a gun and be able to protect myself while I am waiting for them.

    And while most violent crimes might not be premeditated- someone breaking into your house or robbing your business is. It usually isn't well planned or planned way in advance, but that person made a conscious decision to do something illegal. And I don't believe they would do it with a gun unless they were planning on using it if necessary.

  • usmalenurse Oct 18, 2010

    --He was breaking the law by chasing the suspect outside of the store with a weapon and continuing to use deadly force as the suspect fled.--jay11
    The article said he went outside and "was confronted by a second 'armed' man.....and they 'exchanged' gunfire". I think he was quite justified to believe that he needed to use deadly force when he went outside and was confronted by a second man that was armed.

  • stonewall1901 Oct 18, 2010

    wrong, jay11. didn't say he shot at the person who fled the store. owner went outside and "was confronted" by an armed suspect. owner had right to defend himself. no law against him running outside his store.

More...