Where is the line?

[P5 Guy]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=311193
I have seen many threads just like this one and all of them have had many thoughtful answers, but where is the line and how and when should it be crossed?
I have heard that money, car, jewelery and etc are not worth taking a life. But, there is a time when this should be stopped so that others do not have to suffer. I do not want to sound like a vigilante with this and I have given a lot of thought as to what I would do if I had to give up something of great value to me. Or in giving up the property I would be causing harm to myself or others at another time.
No armed robbery is a "good robbery" and many times these criminals go on to do more violence in future crimes. I am troubled by having to make the choice between passive and aggresive responce in a situation like the one in the post above or the threads in past posts. I know what the law says, but what would a reasonable person do?

[Scattergun Bob]

I understand your feelings, it is very difficult to figure out what is a reasonable response vrs what would be a reckless or criminal response.

The last thread had some posts with a preemptive flavor to them. In that I mean people may be advocating engaging before a clear cut life threatening event has occurred. Preemptive strikes, by white knights saving the day seem a correct line of action. In reality they are folly and very seldom are the correct action.

Guess I will trot out the old 3 prong test, again, it may be dusty but in 37 years it has not let me down.

A predator must have or reasonably appear to have:

the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (He is armed)

the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm. (distance, body type, position)

his intent indicates that he means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (mere words are not enough)

When all 3 of these element are in place simultaneously, THIS IS A THREAT STIMULUS!

I believe this is the only way to view events as they unfold, as much as we would like getting ahead of the clear intent portion of the test, as defensive shooters we can not.
At no time am I suggesting that we give up additional advantage to the enemy, but trying to help out humanity thru preemptive attacks is not what defensive is all about.

[Wayfarin'Stranger]

I don't think there's a 'reasonable' solution in an 'unreasonable' situation.

It probably boils down to how far you are willing to stand up for your beliefs, ie. shooting an armed attacker, and how willing you are to accept the consequences of that act.

If you shoot someone to prevent the loss of your posessions or dignity, then there's a real possiblity that you will wind up in prison. Now, you can either accept that fact and deal with the consequences or you can roll over and let anyone that wants to--rob you of everything. BTW, I'm not advising that you should shoot someone soley on the fact that they are robbing you.

There's not going to be a 'right' answer to whether or not taking a life is justified in most any situation.

Personally, I think the world would be a much better place if these murderous criminals were shot dead on the spot; instead of processing through the joke that is our legal system. Maybe people would think twice about their actions when they cross the line to commit criminal acts if this were the case.

I hope you get some good answers to your question....I'm still looking for good ones too.

[Threefeathers]

When you fear for your life or that of any innocent person you shoot.
In AZ you do not have to take a beating from anyone. An older person beaten might never recover from the incident.

[hogdogs]

To try to victimize me or my family in any way, shape or form is to cross the line.
Brent

[KLRANGL]

Ive heard of CCW instructors saying that if they brandish a weapon, act like he (she?) intends to use it...
Its hard for me to understand how, when someone points a weapon in your direction and demands property, you aren't justified in shooting. Just because you hand over money doesn't mean the threat to your life has ended... Now im not saying you should shoot in ever robbery case, im just saying i feel you are totally justified if you do end up shooting.

[skydiver3346]

What about using common sense to answer this question (if that can be done in situations like this)

First of all, if someone is attempting to rob your person (a felony of course), you have the right to defend yourself and/or protect your property. Now of course you have to use your head and make a quick decision on whether you are going to respond to this action or just be passive and let it just happen.

No way am I just going to just let it happen with no recourse (unless I already have a weapon drawn on me by the bad guy).

You need to respond (if you are carrying a weapon) to prevent further problems that do happen on a regular basis. A lot of thugs nowadays, shoot you or stab you after they rob you..... How do you know that they are just going to rob you and walk away? You don't, period!

Least of which, they are going to go on and rob someone else down the road and/or maybe shoot or stab them. We have a responsibility to prevent this if at all possible. Not only to yourself but others who may suffer at the hands of these criminals.

Solution: If you can, draw your weapon and stop the threat. Allow them to surrender and stop threat on your person. No one is saying draw and shoot the perp without other options. If the bad guy continues what he is doing and or threatens you in any way, USE YOU WEAPON and thats it. We try and make too much about being "correct" in doing the right thing when someone is actually taking your rights away and your property and even maybe your life. To hell with their rights. They started this and we can end it by having them arrested or worse (if they decide to go that way and force your hand). Thats my view and my action I plan to take.

I think about it all the time when out (especially at night) so I will be prepared and know what to do. Good luck to anyone out there who has to ever experience this. It happend to me in a hotel parking lot in Macon, GA a few years back and I was cut on the neck with a knife when attacked by 5 muggers. From then on, my outlook changed on how I would handle this. I got my carry permit and decided what I would do, (if it ever happened to me again). I plan on going home to my family each day and not end up in a morgue because I let some scum bag take my life during or after a robbery...........Think about it.

[OldMarksman]

First of all, if someone is attempting to rob your person (a felony of course), you have the right to defend yourself and/or protect your property.

Where I live, one cannot legally employ deadly force to protect property.

You need to respond (if you are carrying a weapon) to prevent further problems that do happen on a regular basis. ... Least of which, they are going to go on and rob someone else down the road and/or maybe shoot or stab them. We have a responsibility to prevent this if at all possible. Not only to yourself but others who may suffer at the hands of these criminals.... If you can, draw your weapon and stop the threat.[/I] [(italics mine)]

And where I live, deadly force may be used only when the threat of death or serous bodily harm is imminent, not when it is potential or even likely in the future. And the weapon may not be produced until such time.

Allow them to surrender

Where I live, the concealed carry permit does not grant police powers, and a civilian cannot detain another individual.

All of the above was taught in the state-required course given before a permit can be issued. If such instruction was not provided to you, I strongly suggest consulting an attorney.

I'm wondering if perhaps you already know all of this and were looking for this response.

[Double Naught Spy]

I have heard that money, car, jewelery and etc are not worth taking a life.

I am continually dismayed at the utter naivete of many gun owners who carry guns for self defense but have some sort of stupid value system in their head that must be reached before the stop a threat. The problem is, they are too caught up in the stupid philosophical and negotiation processes to understand that their lives are in jeopardy. It isn't some homeless guy asking for a handout. It is somebody with a gun, knife, baseball bat, or some other threatening object who is robbing you. There is the implied negotiation that if you comply, you will not be hurt. Sometimes it is stated outright. Negotiations at gun/knife point are not negotiations at all. The problem here is that the threat is has been made and is known. So at that point, it isn't any longer about the stupid material items. It is about protecting one's life! THIS SHOULD BE A NO BRAINER.

You may choose to comply in order to preserve your own life and that is your call at the time. However, the goal is to preserve your own life (and the lives of loved ones, yaddy yaddy yaddy).

But, there is a time when this should be stopped so that others do not have to suffer.

More philosophical garbage that doesn't help with the current situation. If you are being robbed (which comes with the threat of violence to you if you don't comply), are you so daft as to be more concerned about the next person being robbed than you are about your own life? Deal with the problem at hand that pertains to you and your situation and forget about what may or may not happen at some unknown point in the future! You need to survive NOW.

[pax]

Here is the bright, clear line that will keep you firmly on the sunny side of the law in all 50 states, and keep you alive to tell the story later: You must be able to articulate how an innocent life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

Put another way, the line looks like this: there is "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

Everything else is just chatter.

pax

[David Armstrong]

but where is the line and how and when should it be crossed?

First, as the physicians say, "Do no harm." In other words, don't make the situation worse.
Second, as pax said, "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." (emphasis added)

A third point, which really isn't a "when to cross" consideration, but is more of a "keep in mind as you cross" is "What line of action best reduces the loss of resources to me and mine."

Understanding crime and criminals helps to decide when that line should be crossed, BTW. It's interesting to me the number of gunowners that will spend thousands of dollars and hours learing how to attack the enemy but will not spend a single day or buy a single book to learn how the enemy does things.

[jbrown50]

In the overwhelmingly majority of cases, robbery (just like rape) isn't just about obtaining something from that person. It's about power, the power to gain control over another person's life and often that includes inflicting bodily harm upon the person. That's why so many robbers decide to shoot, stab or beat up their victims even though there was no resistance at all. This is also why so many of them end up getting caught. They'll eventually boast about the incident to someone else.

[Hondo11]

Scattergun Bob,

Your Quote: his intent indicates that he means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (mere words are not enough)
------------------

I hope I am misunderstanding your post. You're saying that an armed individual (has the means and opportunity...you set those conditions) who states that he is going to kill you "is not enough"? Wow. I guess one should wait until bullets are making holes in his or her body to determine that "intent" has been met?




David Armstrong,

Your Quote: Understanding crime and criminals helps to decide when that line should be crossed, BTW. It's interesting to me the number of gunowners that will spend thousands of dollars and hours learing how to attack the enemy but will not spend a single day or buy a single book to learn how the enemy does things.
----------------------

There is also such a thing as overthinking things. Many intelligent and well educated people tend to paint a situation as more complicated than it really is if only to justify their use of brain power. Afterall, if it were really so simple that a redneck could understand it, then my higher IQ and longer hours spent in the university library don't matter...and I don't like that. I like feeling that I am the only one who can understand the problem, therefore I make it more complicated than it really is to weed out the rednecks from the "those who get it" group...thus leaving me in a more select few.

Being well read in the Macro aspect doesn't mean a hill of beans when you're in a Micro situation. The best way to learn about criminals is through first hand experience...getting down in the trenches. Most of the time, you'll find that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to know why burglars steal things, why robbers steal things by force, or why drug users use drugs and steal things to pay for them.

There is always room for thought and consideration in any situation, but a real danger lies in overthinking instead of acting. Making things more complicated than they should be is how the best trained special operations units bungle missions. It's happened many times...usually when higher ups get involved in the planning and "think" too much instead of taking "it is what it is" and running with it.

"Keep it simple" applies to thought process as well as action.

[Hondo11]

As for assigning a property value that is worth taking a life over...why is it that WE always set that bar higher than the criminal?

Afterall, THEY are implying (by using deadly force or the threat of deadly force) that MY life is worth taking for whatever I have in my pockets. Why is it so bad to think that if someone has to die over the $10 in my pocket, that it might as well be THEM instead of ME? THEY are the ones who set the standard by robbing ME, not the other way around.

Thinking that wouldn't make me uncivilized. It would make me alive. I'll be back to being 100% civilized when it's over.

[David Armstrong]

There is also such a thing as overthinking things.
True. But there is also the problem of underthinking them also, or not be able to correctly think about them because you don't have correct/enough information.
The best way to learn about criminals is through first hand experience...getting down in the trenches.
That is one way, certainly not the only way. I learned a lot about criminals in 20 years as a LEO. I also learned a lot about criminals in 20 years of university study/work in the area. I've also learned most folks have no idea of what the crime problem really is, how criminals think and why they do things, and so on.
"Keep it simple" applies to thought process as well as action.
"Know your enemy" is also a nice cliche to keep in mind.

To bring this back to the topic, the more you know about the BG and how/why he does things, the more you understand how these situations tend to work out, the greater your understanding of the potential ramifications of your actions, the better you will be at figuring out where that line is.

[hogdogs]

I have thought further on this... I haven't changed my stance, rather just a bit different way to look at it...
Bad person has a weapon and demands my goods. Promises if I comply no harm will come to me.
Now for a bit different view... Bad person has a weapon and demands my wife or daughter give him a piece of tail, promises to use protection to prevent disease and if they comply no harm will come to them...
Heck I just ain't about to try to teach my family when it is okay to comply with a thug and when it isn't...
If a weapon or threat of violence is present it is okay to use violence to prevent harm. Gotta love a state that says you do not have to try to flee!
Brent

[Hondo11]

As I said, the Macro aspect doesn't have much application in a Micro situation.

Knowing why the terrorists/insurgents are attacking you (do they hate America? are they being paid by someone to do it?) with a combined IED/SAF ambush on Route 1 in Iraq isn't going to help you out any. Knowing IADs for an ambush will.

Knowing "how criminals think and why they do what they do" might help you curtail crime in a large area over a long period of time, but it won't help you out if you're being robbed. You don't know what THAT criminal is pointing THAT gun at you, or what THAT criminal is thinking at THAT moment. At that moment, he's not criminal "X23" in a study. He's a guy with a gun in your face and he poses a threat to your life.

Macro vs. Micro. Your arguments have all been the Macro version. They might help prevent a robbery and/or murder at a Waffle House 10 years down the road through community outreach/community policing, but it's not going to help you as much as you think when you're in the middle of one, right then and there.

[S832]

They can take everything of physical value from me, it is not something which I care that much about.

If they want the SUV, they can have it.

When it comes down to physical damage being inflected then it seems to me personally that the use of force is justified.

[bcarver]

I feel that anytime a criminal picks up weapons to steal that deadly force can be used.
The criminals are not generally stealing to pay for college. They are not going to become productive citizens. By the time they decide to kill someone it will be too late to react. This can be seen in several videos of robberies where the last act is to shoot the clerk.
Most criminals don't commit one crime. ("long rap sheets")

Imagine a society where when during a crime armed citizen pull weapons and shoot the suspects. One would suspect that robbers would reconsider hitting the local waffle house.

[David Armstrong]

As I said, the Macro aspect doesn't have much application in a Micro situation.
Sure it does. If you know that 95% of the members from Group A want to kill you, and 90% of the members of Group B want to be friends with you, and 75% of the members of Group C are only concerned about seeing if they can get some money from you (all macro); when you identify a person as belonging to a particular group it gives you guidance in what to expect from them and how best to interact with them (micro).
Knowing "how criminals think and why they do what they do" might help you curtail crime in a large area over a long period of time, but it won't help you out if you're being robbed.
Sure it does. See above.
Knowing IADs for an ambush will.
Yes. Just like knowing how most IADs are rigged in your AO (macro), where and how they are commonly set (again, macro) will also help to work at that micro level.
You don't know what THAT criminal is pointing THAT gun at you, or what THAT criminal is thinking at THAT moment.
Nope, but I do have a pretty good idea, and that will allow me to more accurately determine what my response needs to be to maximize my resources. You don't know what ANYBODY is thinking, but based on numerous interactions with others you can come to some conclusions about how to react in most social situations. Sometimes you are wrong, but the more you know the more you reduce the chance of being wrong .
He's a guy with a gun in your face and he poses a threat to your life.

Everybody poses a threat to your life. Understanding how much of a threat can be pretty helpful.
Your arguments have all been the Macro version.
Let's see now---watch what the bad guys are doing, use the knowledge and cues that you have to determine the probable outcome of the event, then engage the BGs in a non-confrontational, deceptive, or aggressive manner as appropriate. Sorry, that sounds pretty darned micro to me.
but it's not going to help you as much as you think when you're in the middle of one, right then and there.
We'll disagree. I've dealt with a lot of bad guys, in a lot of different situations, and every little scrap of knowledge I had about how BGs think, what they want, how they act, etc. was helpful.

[P5 Guy]

I'm going to have to reread some of Jeff Snyders' essays again if I can find them.
The problem that comes to my mind is; you have just chased a rapist out of your daughter's room. You see his back so you do not shoot. While reporting this to the police the rapist is down two blocks having his way with a mother and son. Of course it would be wrong to shoot someone fleeing, but look at the pain you could have prevented?
I think that as a moral agent I have a certain set of responciblities to myself and the community that at times the "law" prevents me from taking to heart!

[dabigguns357]

So tell me why we should calmly sit and analize what the bad guy is thinking while he is holding you and you family hostage.If your going to analize that much tell him to pull up a couch and talk about how bad his childhood was,or worse how you are going to cure his crack problem and make his pain go away.Take it for what it is worth they didn't care about you, why should you care about them.

Honesty it's not what you think,but how you act on what you know.Books can save you in a bad situation but you will need some duct tape to go with it.

[Scattergun Bob]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

You Said "I hope I am misunderstanding your post." No you did not, actually it is very clear. The test is not mine it was my states guideline for the use of deadly force. I find them very easy to understand, don't see what the problem is.

You Said "You're saying that an armed individual (has the means and opportunity...you set those conditions) who states that he is going to kill you "is not enough"? Wow. I guess one should wait until bullets are making holes in his or her body to determine that "intent" has been met?"

Perhaps you are having a problem with the word INTENT, in reality words have nothing to do with intent, within the law specific ACTIONS have everything to do with the word intent. I am not interested in taking the time to legally educate you in this matter, you may find the information in law books by Way or Black.

So, on the street, what comes out of a fellows pie hole is of little importance to me, idiots say most anything and what they say has Little Baring on what they intend to do! My enemies hands are the things that deserve my full intention, and will provide me with the proof of my enemies intent to engage me.

So, you may tell me that you do not intend to kill me, but as your hands reach for your gun in your waist band, I will believe that ACTION and seek to stop it.

Unlike you Hondo, My concealed handgun is for protection of life only. I Draw it only in preparation to protect myself from the willful and wanton life-threatening actions of another.

That is MY LINE IN THE SAND, and it has nothing to do with property or Preemptive Strikes, by white knights saving society the cost of a trial.

[P5 Guy]

The equation boils down to how much time you want to invest in prison versus what the value of the property you are to give up?

[Double Naught Spy]

The equation boils down to how much time you want to invest in prison versus what the value of the property you are to give up?

We are talking about robbery, and in the case of the thread cited in the OP, armed robbery with guns. We are not talking about burglary. When somebody threatens your life in an armed robbery so that you give them property, you have the right to defend your life. At that point, the property isn't even relevant. It is called self defense, not defense of property.

[Scattergun Bob]

armed robbery, where at no time did the original thread mention guns pointed at the CCW holder or his family. That has been the issue and discussion. Do you intervene on a armed robbery, not that the gun is pointing at you, if I remember correctly "guns waving around" was the exact quote.

[TripIII]

No one gets the wallet or family or anything else.

Whether they decide to threaten with serious bodily injury or death in order to get what they want is their choice.

That's where line is drawn.

[skydiver3346]

Again I say, this is up to each individual and their personal situation when robbery happens. Burglary and Robbery are two distinct crimes. Robbery is the more serious as it is actually occurring to you in real time, face to face and your life may be in danger more than you realize.
In my case, if I had had a carry gun with me when I was robbed and mugged and neck was cut with a knife, it would have ended before it began. I would not have went to the hospital and the bad guys would have gone to jail (or worse if they decided to engage me further).
All these legal eagle opinions I have been reading here are for folks who usually haven't been in situations like this. I used to feel exactly the same but not any more. Bottom line is that you are the victim of someone wanting to take your money, personal property, etc..But are you 100% positive that it will end there after you give it to them?
Hell no, you are not! Nobody can ever tell me what they "think" a criminal will do after they rob you because you never know what they are thinking. They could panic especially if it goes down wrong....
Too many folks have paid the price for doing the "right thing" and what they belive the law is for their area. In my humble opinion, this is truly the best saying regarding these situations:
"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6". I know it's trite, but belive me, it is actually true when its all said and done and your life has been on the line. Think about it.
Of course when its all said and done, each one of us will have to make his or her decision (quickly and decisively) on what you are going to do. You had better make the right one as the consequences could prove to be unduly harsh for you and/or your family if its the wrong decision.
Best of luck to anyone who unfortunately has to endure something like this.

[ArizonaTRex]

A little clarification please regarding-
1. "the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (He is armed)"
armed with a deadly weapon I would assume?
2."the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm. (distance, body type, position)"
He is close enough to take something from my hand?
3."his intent indicates that he means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (mere words are not enough)"
So would mere words -I'll kill you if you do/don't do X, meet all the criteria to respond with deadly force if #'s 1 & 2 are met?

Even waving the gun around in my direction would seem to be enough of a threat IF words of physical harm are uttered? "Pulp Fiction style robbery?"
Am I not supposed to believe someone with a weapon that threatens me means to do exactly what they say? And of course should I believe that they WON'T hurt me if I comply? Doesn't waving a gun in the direction of LEOs meet the criteria for them to respond with deadly force even if words are not exchanged?
As I write this I am about 2,000 miles from home, In a city with a high crime rate.... having to eat out. (which fortunately honors my CCW permit-except at their airport :mad:- unless it is in my luggage)
I believe I would do what ever is necessary to insure I would be able to see my family again.

[Scattergun Bob]

Where do it say " waved in your direction?"

Mere words,
I just explained that, I am not here to give a class in the 3 legged stool, do your own work.

The OP asked each of us to draw our line, I explained mine, then I re-explained, I believe I was clear, and It is, What it is.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[David Armstrong]

When somebody threatens your life in an armed robbery so that you give them property, you have the right to defend your life.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something, or even that it is a good idea to do it. That is the issue, folks. Nobody (AFAIK) disputes the legal standards establish a line. But do you base your actions on a non-thinking A/B legal response or do you think about cost/benefit, need, ramifications of act, etc?

[David Armstrong]

Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
Have you considered a third option, that it is better not to be tried or carried at all.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But, there is a time when this should be stopped so that others do not have to suffer.

This is what is known as reciprocal altruism. Here's the issue - in an incident should your goal be to minimize a negative outcome to you (and if you have loved ones near them) or do you want to make statement or generate an outcome that might lead to significant harm to you and your loved ones because if you harm that BG (even if you suffer many bad consequences) that may deter him or other BGs in future incidents.

If you were mugged (and it seemed that you could get by without harm without a fight), it that ok with you. Yes, your pride is hurt and you didn't deter.

However, if you start the fight (if it seemed that you didn't need to), you can suffer many negative personal, social and financial consequences. Folks who shoot someone don't always go unscathed by the incident (posture here if you must).

Do you make a social statement or hope to deter future crimes at a risk to yourself and family or do you act because your goal is to minimize grievous bodily harm in this incident.

If you postulate that you want to act for the great social good - is it a hero fantasy - a large part of some views of prosocial behavior? Be honest. That doesn't last long and some folks who acted heroically don't care for the accalades and some seek them and then go nuts when they fade.

If you read the professional literature on after gun fight consequences, it isn't always pretty and a thing to get into if you don't have to.

[OldMarksman]

Much of the above discussion has had to do with when and where it is permissible to use deadly force. In the case of the specific instance cited by the OP, the judgement on that score may be arguable. But let's return to the original question:

Two masked men entered waving guns and then proceeded to rob the individual customers before leaving. No one injured. .... Say you are a customer carrying your ccw when an incident like this happens. As a CCW holder, what actions do you take? Do you grab your weapon and open fire to protect yourself and others in the restaurant? Do you delay for a few to try to feel out how the incident is going to unfold?

Seems to me that if "you grab your weapon" when two men are "waving guns", you and others are a lot more likely to end up being carried by six than tried by twelve.

If you wait and determine that the masked men are leaving with their booty and you "open fire" nonetheless, it would seem highly likely that you will be found guilty by twelve under instructions given them by the judge.

So the best outcome is clearly

a third option, that it is better not to be tried or carried at all.

The worst would be for you to draw and get yourself and others killed.

If I had been there, I believe the only way I would have drawn is if one of the miscreants had started to shoot first.

[tirvin73]

The worst would you did nothing, you are dead. You did nothing, your family/friend is dead. You live the rest of your life wishing you could have done something.

Suzanna Hupp was forced to leave her pistol in her truck while dining at Lubys with her family. I say forced because Texas law,at the time had no ccw. So being a "good citizen" kept her from doing something.

[David Armstrong]

Or you live the rest of your life wishing you hadn't done it. Either is quite possible.

[FLA2760]

Pax wrote,"Here is the bright, clear line that will keep you firmly on the sunny side of the law in all 50 states, and keep you alive to tell the story later: You must be able to articulate how an innocent life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

Put another way, the line looks like this: there is "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

Everything else is just chatter".

A BIG +1

[OldMarksman]

The worst would you did nothing, you are dead.

Same outcome as if I tried to draw and got killed. What's the point?

From concealment, I'm not fast enough to stop a man whose gun is in his hand, much less two of them.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I hate to spout statistics but if you are robbed at gun point, you are less likely to get hurt than if robbed at knife point or with impact weapon. It's in the criminology literature - so one can go google-scholar or other data bases to look it up.

It's because the gun is usually used for compliance and gets such. With knives or clubs, people tend more to duke it out and get hurt and the BG sometimes starts with a whack to you to get compliance as they know people will try to duke it out if they don't have a gun.

No situation is the same - yes, you might get shot but compliance seems to work if you get past being outraged as a reason to shoot. Again, you have to see how it is going before starting an action.

Do you get hurt less if you start a gun fight against a drawn gun as compared to compliance? That's an interesting figure if someone wants to look for it - too busy now.

[dabigguns357]

So it would seem that the best defence is to do nothing and leave the guns at home in a safe because no matter what you do you are going to do the wrong thing.There problem solved:confused:

Not that i'm being pissy or a poor sport,but if you really want the best solution to the waffle house problem,DON'T go there ,stay home and cook.:D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No - the best thing is to have some thought and practice about possibilities. I'm afraid gun lists sometimes get pissy-wissy if the solution isn't just open fire.

It offends folks to think that a shoot out isn't a guaranteed solution.

[tirvin73]

I would rather live knowing I used every possible skill I had to defend myself and my family.

Like I said once before, if you are not aware of a problem you can't do anything about it. If you look up from your table and there are two armed men standing in front of you, you have lost that fight.

If you carry a firearm for self defence you are obliged to know how to use it. If not, you absolutley can't do anything about a threat.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would rather live knowing I used every possible skill I had to defend myself and my family.

Define skill - do you only mean starting a gun fight or does skill mean using intelligence to get to the best possible outcome?

If you look up and someone shoots you in the head immediately, you lost. If you are in the waffle house, those guys will draw before you, despite you being in Condition Flaming Crimson! So the guns are out, what then?

I'm sorry - I don't go for cliches over thought.

[tirvin73]

Or possibly I may have enough sense to say to myself "Hmm these guys don't look like they want waffles".

So I guess using your logic, we should just leave the guns at home if we aren't at the range.

The can nots are always so defensive when their skills tap them on their shoulder and say "nope, you can't do anything".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Missed the point - whatever.

In the Waffle House, in an urban area, lots of interesting strange people walk in for waffles. You gonna jump up and shoot everyone who walks up to the register who doesn't fit your view of the world. Get real here.

And if you want to postulate that I said to leave the guns home because I think about things a touch - that is a very misguided view and a typical response to someone who doesn't automatically say SHOOT 'EM ALL. Cheap rhetoric, IMHO.

Now, I getting pissy-wissy. :D

[KLRANGL]

The point isnt to leave your guns at home, or that you should never shoot... just that you should use your head before you do... correct?
Saying that you'll shoot just because someone is robbing you doesnt make sense...

edit: just beat by Glenn

[tirvin73]

Sounds like it.

[tirvin73]

You're right, I'll just give up the money. Sell the guns and stay home. Then I'll be safe.:barf:

[David Armstrong]

I would rather live knowing I used every possible skill I had to defend myself and my family.
There is far more to defending self and family than getting into a gunfight, just as there is a lot more to defense than shooting. Understanding that is the key to rational response, IMO.

[David Armstrong]

It's in the criminology literature - so one can go google-scholar or other data bases to look it up.
Heaven forbid we should actually look up data and research, Glenn. It is so much more satisfying to go on "That's the way it is 'cuz I seen it happen on the news once."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, if you are just going to open fire on the Goth Chick with the Biker who walk into Cracker Barrel and go to register - that's a good idea for you.

Maybe they want to buy some Tipsy Fudge Cake or have a Momma's Pancake Breakfast.

I remember sitting in the Pancake house waiting for some takeout and waiting for it. I was carrying a Glock 19 with Federal 124 gr Hydrashoks in a Milt Sparks IWB. In comes a big evil looking guy in leather jacket with chains on it. He walks to the cash register.

Shoot him? Because if he draws the gun, I lost the gun fight. But guess what, he was getting take out also.

Or possibly I may have enough sense to say to myself "Hmm these guys don't look like they want waffles".

I don't have the telepathic powers to discern who to shoot all the time.

[tirvin73]

Did I say shoot them because they look out of place? Did I say draw?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am of the opinion that unless your life or the life of a loved one (not some stranger) is in immediate unavoidable jeopardy then fine to shoot.

I do not think it is right or moral to shoot a thief who is not threatening you. The recent case in Texas of Joe Horn is one that quickly comes to mind. I think Joe Horn should have been prosecuted, but he wasn't, still I think he did wrong and am glad I don't have to live with the aftermath.

[Scattergun Bob]

Glenn, Would you please leave the Goth Chick alone, the NEAR dead have enough problems:).

Think I've fired all of my ammo on this subject, AGAIN all misses! Just wanted to again tip my hat, as of post #33 you have been compelling (Not quite as good as "what to do when the police come"), but a quality voice in favor of reason.

Aren't Milt's summer specials wonderful holsters, have now retired mine after 25 years of use for a Bladetec IWB. Times, they do change.

Good Luck & Be Safe

PS By the look of things, guess I need to reload and re-engage!

[Double Naught Spy]

Double Naught Spy
armed robbery, where at no time did the original thread mention guns pointed at the CCW holder or his family. That has been the issue and discussion. Do you intervene on a armed robbery, not that the gun is pointing at you, if I remember correctly "guns waving around" was the exact quote.

Yes, I am sure they didn't point a gun at a single person during the robbery such as those not complying fast enough. :barf:

You don't have to be swept by a gun to consider your life in danger by robbers who are systematically robbing the patrons of the eatery.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but if I am in a place during an armed robbery where the robbers have taken control of the situation, then I consider my life as being in danger and I won't have any problems justifying my actions via case or book law.

[Scattergun Bob]

I do not care about others, I am no longer a sheepdog, Good Luck white knight. When you are done I hope those very sheep you protect don't accuse you and file on you. :barf: right back at ya, sport.

[skydiver3346]

My response to David Armstrong who keeps ranting on what we should do when something terrible happens to us. I find it very hard to believe he was ever in law enforcement?? He doesn't have a clue to what I have been saying happened to me, (or all the other folks out there who are robbed and their life is put at rish by some low life loser).
Who the hell has time to worry about looking up some B.S. written by some legal eagle who says "this is exactly what you must do when your life is threatned or else you could end up in deep doo doo" Gag me! What a joke! You don't have that much time to think about it David. Trust me son, its scary and I acutally peed in my pants. I was attacked and injured. I was lucky because others have not walked away from robberies.
Maybe you need to go teach somewhere in a very liberal college where they would understand your "thinking"...........
I can't becuse, THIS IS THE REAL WORLD.

[Hook686]

... I am troubled by having to make the choice between passive and aggresive responce in a situation like the one in the post above or the threads in past posts. I know what the law says, but what would a reasonable person do?


If one knows what the law says, what is wrong with complying with the law ? If one does not, how can one say they are better that those that violate the law ?

It seems to me that if this distinction becomes blurred, then so does the 'line' between legal and illegal.

[tirvin73]

"I do not care about others"-Scattergun Bob

Tough to hear you don't care about others. The simple fact is, there are those of us here that will not be robbed, beaten, or watch this happen to our loved ones. It's not about saving the world, its about doing what needs to be done to protect ourselves. Not sitting there quietly and hope it does not take a turn for the worse.

[Scattergun Bob]

Please understand, for 20 plus years I was responsible for the safety and defense of others. I have great pride and bare the scars of that service. I am not suggesting that others are wrong doing this. I am simply saying that those who can not defend themselves need to look toward another white knight (sheepdog) beside ME. If that is a problem for you, well, DO your 20 and then see how you feel.

I don't know why you would construe my posts to suggest that I would "be sitting there quietly and hope it does not take a turn for the worse." If you knew my history and my writing you would find that observation as funny as I do :D. If a true and valid threat identifier is present, trust me I will respond with decisive and aggressive behavior, It may not be in the manner of the Hondo's on the forum.

[tirvin73]

I do not feel that it is the LEO's responsibility to protect me or my family.

[Scattergun Bob]

OK, and .................?

[Hondo11]

Quote from Scattergun Bob:

If a true and valid threat identifier is present, trust me I will respond with decisive and aggressive behavior, It may not be in the manner of the Hondo's on the forum


That's the kind of snide remark I would expect from a chick. Please tell me you weren't rolling your eyes with your hands on your hips when you said that?

Not one time did I ever advocate just blazing away. I even stated that I did NOT. I merely posted an opposing mindset to "sit back and give them what they want because the stats/odds are they won't shoot me."

[pax]

And that's about enough of that.

pax