PDA

View Full Version : CVS Robberies


revance
March 11, 2008, 11:32 AM
So there have been a string of robberies at CVS stores in my area where the BG rounds up all the employees and patrons and makes them go into an office while he cleans out the registers and steals booze. He never displayed a weapon, but told everyone he had a gun and kept his hand up inside his coat sleeve.

I would like to address this question to those who have posted in the various "would you interrupt an armed robbery" threads saying that you would lay low and hope statistics work in their favor and the BG takes the money and runs. I'm not addressing these people because I think they are right or wrong, but rather I would like ask people who have shown they are very conservative in their decision to act.

Question: Would your decision to lay low and wait it out change if the BG started rounding up employees and patrons telling them to get in an office? What if you had an opportunity to hide or flee? As always, please explain.

The usual argument against taking action in a robbery is that its not worth endangering yourself or killing someone over "stuff". Do you think these actions would give you reason to believe it isn't just money and "stuff" on the line?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't turn this into the same old argument about whether or not to take action against a robber! I really just want to see how people who have a "stay out of it" mentality would treat this and if these circumstances differentiate it from a regular hold up robbery.

Thesenator
March 11, 2008, 09:12 PM
I'm not going into any office, with anyone, under any circumstances....period!

BG better be ready for a gunfight and he better have been going to the range more than twice a month for 4-6 hours each time, practicing his headshots......because I do.

I don't/wouldn't care if his sleeve is empty or not, if he points it at me, its the last thing he'll ever do besides hit the floor with two more holes in his head, like a sack of potatoes. He said he had a gun and I believe him.

Hardtarget
March 11, 2008, 09:15 PM
For a long time I leaned toward the " stay out of it" side.

Then there were a string of roberies in which either the clerk was shot or clerk and patron both were shot. Two or three deaths occured. One patron was laying on the floor and one was in his car and was shot at as BGs fled.

If I'm being herded into a group with those in the store...well...I just don't think I could stand it. To be pushed to the back room just to be murdered. NO. Not for me.

If ever there is a reason to make a stand, thats it.

Mark.

ps: the BGs were teenagers...15 to 19 yrs old...one shooter was a girl.

DonR101395
March 11, 2008, 09:19 PM
I'm not a herd type animal:)

jfrey123
March 11, 2008, 09:34 PM
I was one who voted to let the robbery happen back in that post way back. This case is different for me personally, because I'm being told to comply and let this BG trap me in a room.

Let's just say in this scenario, I would not comply. :)

Gbro
March 11, 2008, 09:48 PM
So there have been a string of robberies at CVS stores in my area where the BG rounds up all the employees and patrons

Then there were a string of roberies in which either the clerk was shot or clerk and patron both were shot.

If I had a good indicator that I or anyone wouldn't be shot I would(I think) hold off with LF.

Now if the indicator was these GB's were killing, Then we are going to have us a contest, and I am a cheater!

revance
March 12, 2008, 07:25 AM
I was one who voted to let the robbery happen back in that post way back. This case is different for me personally, because I'm being told to comply and let this BG trap me in a room.

Let's just say in this scenario, I would not comply.

This is what I was wondering. Seems to me the second they do anything other than "give me the money" all bets are off. Rounding people up and making them all go somewhere screams "hostage situation" to me.

The purpose of my OP was mostly to see if others felt these actions would imply the BG was planning something worse than a quick hold up robbery. In this case, he wasn't... but there is no way to know that ahead of time.

MLeake
March 12, 2008, 09:10 AM
As far as legal, moral, and ethical justification goes, if somebody wants to use a weapon to rob or coerce me, they are fair game until they cease in such attempts. I am not going to attempt to read their minds to determine if they really want to do me any harm.

So, would I feel justified in use of lethal force? Yes.

Would I use lethal force? Maybe.

The answer to that question would depend on if I felt I could get clear sightlines, avoid endangering other victims, etc.

But no way on earth am I being herded into a room. If they try that, there will be a fight.

chris in va
March 12, 2008, 01:05 PM
Like I always say, I won't know until the situation actually happens.

Tanzer
March 12, 2008, 06:41 PM
But no way on earth am I being herded into a room. If they try that, there will be a fight.
Gotta give a big +1 on that.

45Marlin carbine
March 12, 2008, 07:41 PM
circumstantially dependent of course but being 'herded' is a situ that could rapidly turn into a massacre. even at the risk of being shot I likely would attempt to draw and engage.

DRD
March 12, 2008, 08:40 PM
Here in the Chicago area we've had several instances of employees and/or customers being herded into the back and killed. Recently at a clothing store. Most famous was the Brown's Chicken massacre from a few years ago.
Our overlords don't trust us to walk around with weapons here but, rather than comply, I'd be willing to engage in risky behaviour to resist and fight back.

stephen426
March 12, 2008, 09:26 PM
No way in hell I'm going into the back office either. I own a restaurant. If someone tried to "herd" me into the cooler, I'd assume they are going to kill me. This happened in a Wendy's up in New York quite a few years back. I think about 6 people were killed.

I'm with Thesenator on this one... If he says he has a gun, I'm going to assume he does. Ooops... He was bluffing??? TFB... Too Friggin Bad!

COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

A restaurant owner fully complied with a robber down here in Miami. After he gave up the money, the robber shot him in the face. He had no friggin rhyme or reason to. Gang initiations often require pledges to kill someone. Sorry... but I bust my hump to be a positive member of society. If some punk gets killed for holding up a place... Too bad.

38SnubFan
March 12, 2008, 11:08 PM
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

So true.....yet still so many sheep! :rolleyes:

There's also been our fair share of "cashier complies and still dies" robberies in my area over the years as well. If someone comes in a store I am occupying saying "I have a gun" and/or "This is a robbery," then there is absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt, NO WAY IN 17 DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES OF HELL that I'm going to even THINK about complying. He's getting drawn down on and told to not move until police arrive to take him into custody. His failure to comply with me will be a fatal error on his part.

Flame me all you want with the legalities/liabilities of such an action, but I'd sooner be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

-38SnubFan

hogdogs
March 12, 2008, 11:36 PM
I won't even comply to lay down on the ground. Since these are rarely a first time action by a robber they become a bit complacent expecting absolute compliance. Most don't expect a full on charge from a "victim" and i intend to win. If he has a gun visible i will try to get inside his reach. If he thinks faking a gun is gonna work everytime he just rolled snake eyes and got dealt Aces and Eights!
I am in no way super bad ass but will use the element of surprise and other tactics to put him on to his guard and in a defensive posture. If I am armed with knife or gun i will draw on them too...
I just refuse to allow myself to be a victim without fighting to my death since my safety is not guaranteed in any situation where a criminal is in control.
Brent

MLeake
March 13, 2008, 05:04 AM
I live in Florida. There are no legal or liability issues with defense of self or a third party from an armed robber.

Survivors can always attempt to sue, but the way the laws are written here they don't have much chance of winning, assuming their cases aren't dismissed out of hand.

I'm a bit confused by people who would worry about liability issues when confronted by a BG threatening people with a weapon.

Hemicuda
March 13, 2008, 08:25 AM
I do NOT spend boucoup bucks on ammo and training, and many hours on practice so some scumbag can herd me into a small room and shoot me in the back...

ActivShootr
March 13, 2008, 08:58 AM
If he started shooting the employees I would say engage the threat. If he doesn't display a weapon and you shoot him, you may have just shot an unarmed man (the old finger in coat pocket gag). Besides, if he wasn't going to shoot and you pull out your gun and yell FREEEEZE, he might decide to start shooting.

If he is dumb enough to rob at gunpoint sans gun, chances are he is not clever enough to make a clean getaway. Give a good description to the cops.

MLeake
March 13, 2008, 09:14 AM
If a robber claims to have a weapon, and acts in a manner that suggests he has one, then it really doesn't matter if he's faking it. More to the point, there's no way for you to know he is bluffing, and it's very dangerous for you to assume that he is.

If a reasonable person would think he is armed, then for legal purposes, he is armed.

We have way too many instances where I live of robbers shooting people whether they comply or not. One of the more recent victims was an off-duty city policeman, who died of a single gunshot to the torso.

mvpel
March 13, 2008, 09:17 AM
If he started shooting the employees I would say engage the threat. If he doesn't display a weapon and you shoot him, you may have just shot an unarmed man (the old finger in coat pocket gag)
So what? SO WHAT?

If he wants to make a reasonable person believe that he has a gun, then a reasonable armed person will proceed on that premise rather than trying to read minds.

Besides, if he wasn't going to shoot and you pull out your gun and yell FREEEEZE, he might decide to start shooting.
Besides, if he was going to shoot you and you didn't pull out your gun, you'd be about 21 feet behind schedule.

This is not the appropriate stance to take with a violent criminal:
http://internetbrothers.com/images/carnac.jpg

DesertDawg
March 13, 2008, 10:55 AM
Several incidents come to mind. They all happened a number of years ago, so this "herding up, killing" is not new:

Bob's Big Boy restaurant: 4 employees herded into a walk-in freezer and shot to death.

A large shopping mall multi-movie theater complex: 4 employees herded into managers office and shot to death.

A small cellular phone business in a "strip" mall: 2 employees shot to death in rear storage room.

Another Bob's Big Boy restaurant: manager was shot to death while unlocking the office safe....only because he was trying to remove his wedding ring while he worked the combination of the safe.

In all of these incidents, the employees were not armed, and were subject to termination IF they were caught carrying a firearm at work.

In all of these incidents, the locations weren't in "bad" parts of town. In fact, they were all in relatively low crime "nice" areas.

In all of these incidents, the killings took place out of view of the public.

In all of these incidents, except for the manager trying to save his wedding ring from being stolen, the employees appeared to have fully complied with the demands of the shooter(s).

Even if you have 110% "situational awareness" of your surroundings, you may not be 100% "safe", no matter where you are.

Having brought up all of these items for you to ponder, I can only say that it's up to YOU, personally, to exercise your #1 "weapon"....your brain....and to realize that being "herded" into a back room or out of view might actually end up being a "slaughter". Use your "situational awareness", and don't get stuck in "gun mode only" as a way to survive! Think "What can I use as an effective ruse, or make-shift defensive 'weapon'?"

Lastly, an incident with a "happy ending"! A robber entered a crowded liquor store and pushed his way to the sales counter where he pulled out a sawed-off shotgun. The robber was wearing a ski mask. While the employee was emptying the cash register, a customer was able to "arm" himself with a bottle of wine from one of the racks. That customer was also able to sneak up on the robber and hit him solidly in the temple, which caused him to drop the shotgun and fall to the ground. A few other customers jumped on the robber, and the employee retrieved the shotgun.

I was a LEO at the time, and responded to the "Robbery in progress" radio call at the liquor store. My partner and I arrived within less than 2 minutes after the initial phone call. The suspect (robber) was definitely hurting, and even mouthed the words, "Kill me!"

The "hero"? A 19 year old illegal alien from Mexico! He was worried about his immigration status when we were conducting our initial investigation! Heck, I wanted to give him "instant" U.S. citizenship for what he had done! He DID, in fact, benefit from his heroism, for he was granted a "green card", and stayed in the USA to testify in the criminal trial. (He also got a case of beer....or so I heard....from the owner of the liquor store).

You have to admire someone like that! A wine bottle "weapon"? That was truly "situational awareness" at its best!

TexasSeaRay
March 13, 2008, 11:16 AM
If he doesn't display a weapon and you shoot him, you may have just shot an unarmed man (the old finger in coat pocket gag).

Shouldn't bring a finger to a gun fight.

Besides, if he wasn't going to shoot and you pull out your gun and yell FREEEEZE, he might decide to start shooting.

If you've never been a cop or soldier, you have absolutely zero business trying to control such a situation with voice. Sorry, but you don't. Cops, and many soldiers, HAVE controlled a number of situations with voice, and know how to use inflection, body language, etc, to help guarantee compliance.

Bad guys know this. Bad guys recognize this.

Bad guys do not want an off-duty cop/soldier as part of their robbery pool because they KNOW off-duty cops/soldiers WILL shoot their ass dead when defending themselves and the group they're a part of.

And if you pull out your gun and the bad guy decides to pull out HIS gun, you'd damned sure better have made the decision the nano-second you pulled your weapon that you had every intention of using it and using it lethally.

Again, if you've not been a cop or soldier, you have no business using your weapon as a persuasive or negotiating tool.

Jeff

Benzene
March 13, 2008, 11:42 AM
I much enjoyed your, "Shouldn't bring a finger to a gun fight"!!! :)

And you've skillfully blended that funny {but great} quip with the sobering, "Again, if you've not been a cop or soldier, you have no business using your weapon as a persuasive or negotiating tool." Hey, I'm NOT playing "judge" here; I'm just sharing the way I feel about a comment I think is good.

Archie
March 13, 2008, 04:04 PM
1. There are no instances where a LEO surrendered his (her) weapon and the villian let them go free. They have all been killed or a serious attempt made to kill them.

2. There are no instances where villians have 'herded' employees and patrons into a back room and then left without further action. Typically the people are killed, sometimes raped prior to killing.

A good man with whom I worked was murdered by being shot in the back at an ATM late last week. He offered no resistance other than trying to flee.

My own considered opinion is fully cooperating and surrendering to an assailant or armed aggressor is unmitigated folly and will only benefit the aggressor. (Which is not to say one can't feign cooperation in order to gain a tactical advantage.) I will resist; violently if need be.


TexasSeaRay, "Shouldn't bring a finger to a gun fight" is a most enlightened concept. Or I have phrased the sentiment, "He nearly scared me to his death."

ActivShootr
March 14, 2008, 07:48 AM
So would someone be legally justified in shooting a person who does not have a visible weapon? :confused:

stephen426
March 14, 2008, 08:54 AM
So would someone be legally justified in shooting a person who does not have a visible weapon?

Lets assume that there were several people at the store with you at the time it was robbed. If they were scared enough to comply with the robber, the threat was credible. Is that enough for the police to rule it a good shoot? I sure as heck would hope so. Its possible he was bluffing and its possible he is not. If he has his hand on a weapon, he probably has his finger on the trigger. Would you risk calling a bluff when he could shoot you or others? HE is in the wrong for holding up a store. You are acting in self defense, especially since he is herding people into the back.

Seems justifiable to me. Don't want to get shot... Don't commit robberies... especially without a gun! :rolleyes:

revance
March 15, 2008, 05:15 PM
I just wanted to emphasize that these are not made up scenarios... someone has done this recently at several CVS stores in my area. Each time the BG herded people into an office and then proceeded to empty the register and steal some booze while he had the store to himself. Nobody was injured in the robberies.

I however feel that herding people into a room does scream "hostage situation" or "execution style killing".

I think doing this is a particularly BAD decision on the part of the BG because many CCWs might stand by and let a regular robbery go uninterrupted since statistics are on their side (at least this was reflected on TFL poles). However I figured the act of forcing everyone into a room like that shows enough intent to kill for just about any CCWs to take action (even at risk to themselves). This seems to be much like the difference between getting involved in a robbery and getting involved in a kidnapping. Kidnappings seldom have good outcomes.

Scattergun Bob
March 15, 2008, 06:00 PM
You kinda changed the plot from the original robbery would I fight or flee. I suggest to you NEVER EVER let someone take you to a secondary location (the onion field comes to mind). In this new plot, I would have to respond by moving to safety and if that caused my enemy to respond negatively then so be it.

Sigma 40 Blaster
March 15, 2008, 07:19 PM
A "normal" robbery is "give me the money from the register".....and scram. The BG doesn't have much time to get nervous...or think about doing anything else stupid...he gets the cash he can and runs. The ones who try to take more, demand that the safe be opened and other stuff like "go to the back room" have shown obvious premeditation and will likely go farther than the dummy who runs in and out.

Stuff like the "normal" robbery happens so fast you probably couldn't stop it if you were not tracking the guy before he made the attempt to rob. The latter takes way more time, the BG's get nervous, and God forbid something in their "plan" goes wrong.

In the first case I have to say let it ride unless they start acting like the second case, which I think is about how long it'd take to process and ACT anyway, I think.

We're likely talking seconds here...very few. In that case you're probably facing some pretty determined BG's, use whatever training (if any) you have and go one or two shots COM and try to get behind some cover. Hopefully in the process you observed how many BG's there were and their locations...also you hope that once they hear gunfire not originated from them they will get nervous and leave their fallen buddies.

All of that is off the top of my head, I could be very wrong but that's my gut reaction to the question.

Aqeous
March 16, 2008, 01:53 PM
How about: If they commit an armed robbery, and they herd people in the back room, then they are profiling themselves with those who commit massacres against innocent people.


Thus: Let God deal with the sorting process . . . these kind of people are a waste of air and a waste of life.



I am on boar with the general consensus of this thread.

Mannlicher
March 16, 2008, 02:13 PM
Revance So there have been a string of robberies at CVS stores in my area where the BG rounds up all the employees and patrons and makes them go into an office while he cleans out the registers and steals booze. He never displayed a weapon, but told everyone he had a gun and kept his hand up inside his coat sleeve.



It helps to know where 'in your area' is, and of course, any link to a news article is beneficial.

Stevie-Ray
March 17, 2008, 04:41 PM
I guess it depends on where I was at the time. If I'm just walking up to the story and I see people being "herded" by somebody, I will definitely retreat and call 911 from my vehicle and be a star witness. If I am in the herd, I like to think I'll be prepared to put the guy down. Each situation is different, though, and needs on the spot decisions that can't be illustrated here with any surety.

One thing that weighs heavily on my mind is the one guy that I knew that was killed on his knees, execution style, in his own store less than a mile from my house.

MLeake
March 17, 2008, 04:57 PM
... are all pretty much agreed on this:

Plan for your enemies capabilities, not his apparent intentions.

It isn't that having an idea of intentions isn't useful, but you can't assess them nearly as accurately as you can assess capabilities. If your plan hinges on the BG having non-violent intentions in the end game, then it doesn't work so well if your assessment was not valid.

I'd rather let them count on my mercy, than vice versa.

Cheers,

M

scrat
March 17, 2008, 05:12 PM
id comply until i see an advantage. Then its lets beat the bad guy until someone pulls me off.

Colt Delta Elite
March 18, 2008, 12:17 PM
Archie, regarding your 2 observations:

2. There are no instances where villians have 'herded' employees and patrons into a back room and then left without further action. Typically the people are killed, sometimes raped prior to killing.

Reality:

I just wanted to emphasize that these are not made up scenarios... someone has done this recently at several CVS stores in my area. Each time the BG herded people into an office and then proceeded to empty the register and steal some booze while he had the store to himself. Nobody was injured in the robberies.

I hope this is not indicative of your situational awareness as well. :rolleyes:

Colt Delta Elite
March 19, 2008, 05:54 PM
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

Neither does fighting back.

It always make me shake my head when I read the responses of those that post something to the affect that they would make the BG eat lead. They always believe that they will come off the victor -- even though the vast majority have never drawn their weapon much less even fired a shot in a true SD situation. They without fail assume their prowess will overcome.

its the last thing he'll ever do besides hit the floor with two more holes in his head, like a sack of potatoes.

His failure to comply with me will be a fatal error on his part.

he just rolled snake eyes and got dealt Aces and Eights!

Then its lets beat the bad guy until someone pulls me off.

and he better have been going to the range more than twice a month for 4-6 hours each time, practicing his headshots......because I do.

GalilARM
March 19, 2008, 08:44 PM
Quote:
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

Neither does fighting back.

It always make me shake my head when I read the responses of those that post something to the affect that they would make the BG eat lead. They always believe that they will come off the victor -- even though the vast majority have never drawn their weapon much less even fired a shot in a true SD situation. They without fail assume their prowess will overcome.


Sure, it doesnt guarantee survival, but I'd damn rather die TRYING than sitting there on my knees. If the guy HINTS at harming me, I'll be hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst. Fight back and be killed, or sit there and be killed? You pick, my mind is made up.

TexasSeaRay
March 19, 2008, 09:23 PM
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!
Neither does fighting back.

For some of us, fighting back was the only thing that guaranteed our survival during some bad situations.

Jeff

Colt Delta Elite
March 19, 2008, 10:14 PM
I'm not promoting the pacifist position (or criticizing it for that matter). I was trying to draw attention to something I see over and over again.

A significant number believe (or at least comment in such a way as to infer) that if they engage a BG that it will naturally be a happy ending. It's just not always the case unfortunately. The realist understands action does not necessarily equate to success, and that it is foolish & dangerous to assume it will.

TexasSeaRay
March 19, 2008, 10:48 PM
Steve,

Could not agree more.

Would also add that "fighting back" isn't always as easy as it is in "training scenarios" or idle daydreams or gunstore counter conversations. They told us in the military that the single hardest decision we'd ever make was the decision to pull the trigger on another human being for the first time.

They were right.

Jeff

Colt Delta Elite
March 19, 2008, 11:12 PM
Would also add that "fighting back" isn't always as easy as it is in "training scenarios" or idle daydreams or gunstore counter conversations.

That is what I was getting at (or at least trying to...)
We are on the same page.
Take care.

Rifleman 173
March 19, 2008, 11:25 PM
Do you know what the difference is between a burglar and a murderer? A burglar is a murderer who has NOT confronted the home owner. ANY felon is a potential killer be they a burglar, robber or whatever. I don't go with anybody anywhere at all. Hide? Maybe if I think that I can get away with it. If not and I'm directly confronted by the bad guy, the fight is on.

MLeake
March 20, 2008, 07:41 AM
I was always taught you will have to expect to get bloody.

stephen426
March 20, 2008, 08:43 AM
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

Neither does fighting back.

Steve,

My post was just stating the obvious. You cannot just hope that you will not be harmed if you comply. There have been WAY too many cases where someone fully complied and was then shot in cold blood. Defending myself may lead to injury, or even death for that matter, but it beats getting lined up against a wall and executed.

I think that 9/11 and the Virginia Tech shooting are perfect examples of why you NEED TO FIGHT BACK.

While a flight attendant may have been killed for non compliance by the passengers, I hardly believe that anyone could take a plane now with box cutters. My mentality has now shifted to think of the greater consequence of INACTION. Everyone on board those planes DIED. Thousands more were killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In my opinion, those who resisted on board the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are heroes. While they died fighting back, who knows how many lives would have been lost had that plane struck its target? Maybe it was headed for the White House.

As for VA Tech shootings, I believe that fewer people would have died had a few brave students made a stand and rushed the shooter. Many were killed cowering under their desks, undoubtedly thinking "I hope he doesn't kill me". I'm sorry... but relying on the mercy of someone shooting people indisciminately does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I'm sure some of those who resisted would have been seriously injured or killed, but the death toll would have been much less.

As you clearly pointed out, fighting back does NOT guarantee survival, but we have seen more than enough results of where compliance still ended up badly.

Tuckahoe
March 20, 2008, 09:45 AM
Several years ago a grocery store here in N.C. was robbed by what was believed to be a lone individual. He entered the store and after robbing the cash register killed everyone in the store. Ten years later he has never been caught. This was in a small town with a low crime rate where nothing ever happened but it did.
When someone threatens the lives of my wife and kids I take that very personal. Would I take action? Yes. Would I use a firearm to protect another person? Yes.

Spenser
March 20, 2008, 10:23 AM
I think in most jurisdictions, the question can be framed as: what would an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person have done in the same or similar circumstances? What would the ORPP have believed?

It seems that a person in this situation would be quite justified in believing they were about to be killed. Therefore, the use is deadly force is probably justified. Emphasis on the "probably."

Tuckahoe
March 20, 2008, 10:33 AM
Spencer hit the nail on the head on this one.
A CCW does not make you a law enforcement officer however if you abide by the same use of force as used by law enforcement you will remain within the law.

MLeake
March 20, 2008, 10:47 AM
You are sort of right, but there is one major flaw in that argument.

LE are authorized to fire on fleeing violent felons. CCW are not, in most places.

Not to quibble, but that is one area where following the rules that apply to LEOs could get a private citizen in seriously hot water.

In Florida, you are authorized to defend a third party from threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Colt Delta Elite
March 20, 2008, 11:00 AM
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

Your point is true.

Neither does fighting back.

My point is true.


The reason for my post was to highlight the flip side -- that engagement will not always yield a better result. Some write stating staunchly that they would do such-and-such and the BG will be dead. I provided examples of such bravado from this thread, but you see it all over and every time a confrontation scenario is discussed. There are those that categorically imagine they'll prevail.

Bad assumption.

In posting, I'm emphasizing objectivity. I never indicated lack of fighting was the better course or even preferable. While you think that your stance is obvious, I believe mine should be obvious as well.

You cannot just hope that you will not be harmed if you comply.

It is very apparent that IS the thinking of those that chose that option in a particular instance. They follow the orders with the expectation of a decent outcome. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. The CVS robberies is an example of where it DID work. Individual personal judgement is required because each circumstance will be unique. One should not limit their available options by just concluding that engagement is a must.

As far as your 'perfect examples':
[9/11] proves both stances. In one plane the victims did not take action. It crashed into the WTC and all died. In another plane (Pennsylvania) the passengers fight back.... the plane crashes and all die.
Therefore, true, compliance did not guarantee survival, and equally true, fighting back did not guarantee survival.

[Virginia Tech]:
Many were killed cowering under their desks
This did not involve compliance or non-compliance, but a flight/hide response.

I believe that fewer people would have died had a few brave students made a stand and rushed the shooter.
Facts not in evidence. We all are entitled to our opinions. Perhaps notebooks and rulers would have overcome the assailant, perhaps not. At this point it's just conjecture.

Bottom line:
Your last sentence underscores my point....
As you clearly pointed out, fighting back does NOT guarantee survival, but we have seen more than enough results of where compliance still ended up badly.

Action versus non-action. EITHER may be appropriate. EITHER may allow you to survive or get you killed. Don't assume EITHER one is a foregone conclusion with a guaranteed result. Judge each situation individually to the best of your personal abilities and proceed. In the end you still have to hope for the best.

Spenser
March 20, 2008, 11:17 AM
Usually, the test in the law is a same or similarly situated person. So as a layman, I'm judged by the layman's standards, not the standards of what a ORP (ordinary, reasonable, prudent) lawman would be. While they are similar, they are not the same across the board.

Good distinction, sorry if I created any confusion.

Tuckahoe
March 20, 2008, 11:30 AM
Mleake, You are correct and I should have addressed that point in my earlier post. Protection of oneself or a third party from the use or threat of use of a deadly weapon.
In N.C. an officer can use deadly force against a person who is making his escape by use of a deadly weapon. This is based on the assumption that the perp is a continued danger and is actively using a weapon.
The NC department of corrections can fire on an unarmed convicted felon to prevent escape. A pretrial detainee(person in jail) cannot be shot to prevent his escape unless he is using a weapon as a means of escape.

primlantah
March 27, 2008, 09:42 AM
if i was in no immediate danger i would hold off. My reasoning is if the police are coming to stop an armed robbery i do not want to be mistaken for the BG.

If someone wants to line me up or herd me off then they better practice live fire more than i do.

MLeake
March 27, 2008, 10:16 AM
That's an awfully big "if"

If I heard sirens, I agree I'd hold off. Same if I noticed uniformed people sneaking toward the doors.

Short of that, I don't know that I'd assume the police are on their way. Unless the clerk has an alarm button he/she can press, and has been in a position where they could do so, or unless some unnoticed witness has called the robbery in, then why would anybody in the store assume that the police are on their way?

It's not like the police stop by CVS every few minutes to say hi.

Now, if you were in a position where you could stay fairly well hidden, monitor the situation, and call 911, that's something else.

Cheers,

M