Need help with legitimate scenerio

[chris in va]

We have occasional armed robberies around here. But they're 'polite' in a way, the BG simply presents a firearm or threat of one, takes the money and leaves. No violence ensues. BG is caught a few hours later usually.

So, if I'm stuck in a convenience store or bank lobby with a 'polite' robbery in progress, what is the best course of action I can take? The best I've come up with is find concealment/cover, hand on holstered weapon and wait to see what happens next.

Here's a couple that happened recently. ABC (liquor) store opens up for the day. Customer asks clerk to help with a selection toward the back of the store, brandishes a firearm and demands money. Caught at the grocery store next door.

Woman walks up to the back driveup window at the BB&T. Says she has a firearm, attempts to get some money. Clerk presses THE BUTTON, cops show up and she's still standing at the window.

Customer walks into the Suntrust at WalMart in full view of cameras. Brandishes firearm, clerk refuses to give money. He gets in a huff and walks out. Arrested soon after.

Seeing as most robberies around here don't involve anyone getting shot, what should I be doing if I get caught behind one of these winners?

[Keltyke]

My CWP instructor told us, "If someone has a gun, you MUST assume they're ready, willing, and able to use it."

If they have ability, opportunity, and intent - you may assume you're in imminent danger of life or serious bodily injury.

[David Armstrong]

Seeing as most robberies around here don't involve anyone getting shot, what should I be doing if I get caught behind one of these winners?
Most robberies everywhere in the US don't involve anyone getting shot. The best response is to cooperate with the robber until and/or unless something indicates that the robber is intending to harm you rather than rob you.

[peetzakilla]

My CWP instructor told us, "If someone has a gun, you MUST assume they're ready, willing, and able to use it."

If they have ability, opportunity, and intent - you may assume you're in imminent danger of life or serious bodily injury.


I would concur with that except that I would emphasize the "may" in "may assume". Your take of how the situation is playing out should always dictate your response.
I don't think any reasonable person should ever see a gun and start shooting in automatic response.

(Nor am I asserting that you are suggesting such Keltyke)
(Unless you are;):D)

[Keltyke]

That's right "peetzakilla". If the guy has the gun pointed in the air or at the ground, no shoot. If he begins to aim it at you or someone else - nail him. Of course, nothing prevents you from aiming at his COM and flipping the safety off just as a precaution.

[Hokie]

Of course, nothing prevents you from aiming at his COM and flipping the safety off just as a precaution.

Applied to running backs, however, this is questionable advice.

[Keltyke]

Applied to running backs, however, this is questionable advice.

Unless he turns and throws a shot at me. I can always be ready to shoot, then I have the option not to. Read my other post where I said the BG has to have opportunity, ability, and intent. I also have to be in imminent fear of my life.
"peetzakilla" understood it.

[James K]

Unless the BG is a direct, immediate threat to you or some other innocent person, do nothing. Don't draw, don't let on you are armed. You are NOT a police officer, you are NOT sworn to uphold the law and make an arrest. Even if you are, starting a gun fight where innocent people may be killed is NOT a good idea. (In fact, LEOs are told basically the same thing - don't try to make an arrest or begin shooting where there is a high risk to innocent people. The BG will be caught later.)

And what if you are the one who kills an innocent person, just so you can play cowboy and show off your gun skill, or lack of it? Are you SURE that you can absolutely, certainly, fire a handgun and take the BG down without hitting anyone else, or having his gun go off and hit someone? If you claim you can do that, then you are a liar.

If you start the shooting, and kill an innocent person, you could be charged with murder, especially if the BG's gun turns out to be a toy.

Does this mean you let the BG fire first? Not necessarily. If he points the gun and says he intends to kill, you would be justified. But just the fact of a crime being committed does not authorizer you to start spraying bullets all over the place.

Jim

[kraigwy]

Most stores you mentioned only have a few bucks to loose if they are robbed. Not worth getting involved in a shooting.

In my CCW classes I advise, Money isnt work shooting over. I advise only using deadly force to protect life regardless of what the law says.

[BillCA]

I'm with Jim Keenan on this one.

None of us are required to take any action. In the course of a robbery, if the robber simply demands the cash and isn't otherwise indicating violent tendencies, we should all be the best witnesses we can.

If he becomes violent - pistolwhipping the clerk or another patron - then I may decide to intervene. Or not. If I can't take a clear shot, I won't.

A huge problem in most convenience and grocery stores is that the shelves are merely concealment. In a gunfight, bullets can penetrate at least one aisle, maybe several. It would suck to survive only to find out your bullet struck a woman crouching low & out of sight to protect her two kids.

[grymster2007]

what should I be doing if I get caught behind one of these winners?

In all the situations you describe, do just what these other folks suggest. Stay out of it until you witness the BG do something that, should you act, your actions would survive the “reasonable person” test. Much easier when the BG’s gun is pointed at you rather than someone else, but a tough call for good people to make in any case.

[publius]

As others said, do nothing unless necessary, run if you have the opportunity. ( I hope I will follow my own advice if this ever happens.) As people here on TFL are reasonable, law abiding citizens, I think instinct will guide you in the right direction.

[GetYerShells]

I would lay low and try to not get myself killed first of all. If his intent turns from stealing money to inflicting bodily damage and mayham then I would take the shot. Only when life is threatened should you have to draw and fire.

[Dwight55]

I agree David Armstrong is 100% correct in what he says, . . . "Most robberies everywhere in the US don't involve anyone getting shot. The best response is to cooperate with the robber until and/or unless something indicates that the robber is intending to harm you rather than rob you."

The only caveat is that I really don't know what is going through the thinking process of the robber. If I cooperate, . . . and he is one of the minority of "leave no living witnesses" variety, . . . then I have to wait until I or someone else is shot before I begin to defend myself/us.

I really believe that IF I HAVE THE CHANCE I would unholster, be ready, be a good witness, . . . and if he decided to leave with only the money and maybe a bag of chips, . . . let him leave. Circumstances may not allow me to unholster, . . . so then you just have to watch closely and pray he just leaves.

However, . . . I do not plan to be in such a situation with the pre-formed attitude of doing nothing just because "most robbers don't shoot". Running into one that does changes my whole retirement plan and ruins my living 401k.

May God bless,
Dwight

[David Armstrong]

If I cooperate, . . . and he is one of the minority of "leave no living witnesses" variety, . . . then I have to wait until I or someone else is shot before I begin to defend myself/us.
Not really. "Comply with BG is the best response" does not mean "comply with BG is the only response". If the BG is going to shoot you the odds are he is going to do it either right away before you can do anything or he will do it after a build-up or response to something going on. Certain keys have been shown to be problematic over the years, and should probably indicate a need for a defensive response before the BG actually shoots anyone.

[ZeSpectre]

a 'polite' robbery in progress
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of a "polite" robbery.

I suppose I advocate choosing whatever path seems most likely to get you out of the situation without injury (or with minimal injury). However you'd better be ready to switch to "fight hard or die" mode if some twitch suddenly changes the situation.

I'm also going to harp on my same old saw about situations like this one (quoting because this is a repost).

Whenever a scenario like this one comes up I feel compelled to mention that this is also one of those classic scenarios where you MUST remember that the perp may not be alone.
Even if you are able to deal with the obvious threat it is critically important to remain alert and aware of your entire surroundings in case the badguy has backup present (just outside, in a car, or even in another part of the restaurant/club/stop n shop, etc). That's why it's so important to avoid acting too fast. You must assess the ENTIRE situation as much as possible before taking action and you MUST assume that the criminal has partners.

[fiddletown]

The difficulty with these "what if" deals is that there are so many variables. What is the layout of the premises? Could there be accomplices? What is the demeanor of the assailant and exactly what is he doing? Where are you? Where are there other people? The range of appropriate responses will depend on exactly what the situation is and how it's unfolding.

We all should pretty much know the standards for the justified use of lethal force. The question then becomes, if you use lethal force, can you articulate, based on the totality of the circumstances, why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent?

So you must observe and be prepared to exercise your best judgment. But absent one or more specific factors that you can identify as indicating that the assailant was manifesting an intent to escalate the level of violence, I think you'd have a very hard time justifying the use of lethal force.

[James K]

In this area not long ago, a disturbed man started shooting at random from the sidewalk outside a motel. He hit no one and, contrary to what you might think, witnesses did not run away or take cover; they stood around watching and getting in the way of the police. A sheriff's deputy maneuvered himself around to a point where he could get a clear shot without endangering anyone else and settled the problem.

Of course, he took a chance that someone could have been killed while he got into position, but he chose to take that chance rather than being in a position where his own shot would almost certainly have endangered innocent people. I think he did the right thing.

Jim

[Hook686]

Sounds like a good plan to me, unless you are close to an exit.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Jim - people milling around in disasters when the best plan is to head for the sunset is well known.

At some university rampages, the call to stay inside brought out students to see what was happening or to posture defiance. Duh.

I was in WalMart and a bunch of cop cars arrive, flashing and sirens. You should have seen the wave of 8 year old boys running from Mommy to go see. Darwin, Darwin, Darwin.

I sedately figured out where the cops weren't and strolled that way, despite having the bat belt.

[ranburr]

If a gun comes out, shoot shoot bad guy to the ground. If there is just a threat of a gun, give them what they want, call police and insurance co.

[onthejon55]

Maybe if more BGs got shot there wudnt be as many robberies?

[BuckHammer]

I have a right to my property. If and when someone tries to deprive me of my property, i will protect it by any means necessary. If it comes to killing the BG, I will do so unflinchingly. However, this will not be my first response, unless, of course, I feel that my life or well-being is being threatened (such as being robbed at gunpoint).

[David Armstrong]

Maybe if more BGs got shot there wudnt be as many robberies?
Or maybe if more BGs got shot, instead of just robbing someone they would start shooting first and then robbing them.

I have a right to my property. If and when someone tries to deprive me of my property, i will protect it by any means necessary.
How about protecting it by any legal means? Like it or not, protecting your property by any means necessary is pretty silly if you spend the next 20 years in prison for doing so.

[besafe2]

Be the best witness you can be.

[easyG]

If someone has gun pointing at you or anyone else, then it would be extremely foolish to think that they don't intend to use it.

Having said that, you certainly don't want to make a bad situation even worse.

There are too many variables to say that there is only one correct answer.

[Stevie-Ray]

Unless he turns and throws a shot at me. I can always be ready to shoot, then I have the option not to. Read my other post where I said the BG has to have opportunity, ability, and intent. I also have to be in imminent fear of my life.
"peetzakilla" understood it.But I don't think you quite understood Hokie. ;)

Flipping off the safety; that's great!:D

[chris in va]

Perhaps I'm making this too complicated.

I'm in a convenience store, getting my usual 'Dew out of the cooler in the back. In walks a perp, flashes a gun and demands money. No other accomplice is apparent, at least not *in* the store.

Do I unholster, conceal and sit ready for what comes next? Or keep it holstered/hidden and hide.

I agree, when/if the time comes my instincts will kick in and monday quarterbacking will all be moot. But at least I can have some idea of what to do.

[OldMarksman]

From BuckHammer: I have a right to my property. If and when someone tries to deprive me of my property, i will protect it by any means necessary. If it comes to killing the BG, I will do so unflinchingly.

BuckHammer, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with the laws involving the use of deadly force in Indiana.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.

Using deadly force to protect property under other circumstances is not permitted under the Indiana Code would get you in a world of trouble.

[David Armstrong]

But at least I can have some idea of what to do.
My advice? Stay back, sit tight, be a good witness, stay out of the way. If BG leaves without further problem, great. BG notices you? I won't give up a position where I think I'm better off for one that increases my danger, but I'm not going to start a shootout unless I can see no other viable option. BG notices you and wants your money, toss him your throwaway pack (you do have one, right??). Remember, you can always increase the violence, but once you start shooting there isn't any going back.

[Chuck Dye]

Why participate in any crime if there is an exit available? And yes, you may ignore the "Employees Only" sign on the door to the storeroom and the back door.

[heyduke]

Unless the BG is a direct, immediate threat to you or some other innocent person, do nothing. Don't draw, don't let on you are armed. You are NOT a police officer, you are NOT sworn to uphold the law and make an arrest. Even if you are, starting a gun fight where innocent people may be killed is NOT a good idea. (In fact, LEOs are told basically the same thing - don't try to make an arrest or begin shooting where there is a high risk to innocent people. The BG will be caught later.)


Very well said.

Flame away, however I've noticed that some who CC think of themselves as some sort of "police force" empowered by carrying.

Why, I don't know.

[BuckHammer]

The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.

However, this will not be my first response, unless, of course, I feel that my life or well-being is being threatened (such as being robbed at gunpoint).

Armed robberies would seem to create a situation in which I would need to defend myself or someone else. Also, the quote was about ARMED ROBBERIES, which it would seem, based on your take of Indiana law, to justify the use of deadly force. My take is almost identical to yours. That is why I made my post about the use of that "deadly force". Also, the second half of my post (which I quoted in this post) justified the first half, so please don't take the first half out of context. I stated that deadly force would not be my first response, which I hoped (without merit, apparently) would indicate my reluctance to use it or advocate it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't automatically assume the worst about me and my post. Also, don't demonize me based on what you perceive my opinion to be.

[OldMarksman]

From BuckHammer: Also, the second half of my post...["However, this will not be my first response, unless, of course, I feel that my life or well-being is being threatened (such as being robbed at gunpoint"] justified the first half, so please don't take the first half out of context. I stated that deadly force would not be my first response, which I hoped (without merit, apparently) would indicate my reluctance to use it or advocate it.

I apparently misunderstood you to say that while deadly force would "not be your first response", you were in fact willing to use deadly force to protect property. The intent of my response was to point you to the fact that you cannot do so. If you were saying that you would use deadly force only for protecting yourself, that's another matter.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't automatically assume the worst about me and my post.

I assure you that I haven't done that.

Also, don't demonize me based on what you perceive my opinion to be.

Nor that.

I have seen a lot of posts on this and another net forum from people who say that they would not hesitate to use deadly force to protect or retrieve their trucks, wallets, or other unspecified property. I see two risks here: (1) that those who post such things or others influenced by them may actually do that and become felons and (2), antigun people will react either to such tragedies or to the posts themselves and limit the rights of people to keep, carry, and use firearms.

When I read your post I interpreted it to be along such lines, and evidently, so did David Armstrong. If I missed the point, that's great.

Now, if you are the victim of an armed robbery, and under the circumstances at hand you reasonably fear for yourself, you have to decide what to do, taking into account that later, when your fate is not in your hands, you will likely have to convince others that your fear was in fact justified.

If you merely happen to be present at an armed robbery, it might be a lot harder to convince people afterwards that you had reason to fear for yourself. The fact that the police are advised against intervention during the event would probably work against you.

In any event, you are not permitted to protect your property by "any means necessary," and if your take is almost identical to mine, wonderful.

I hope you find this helpful.

[BuckHammer]

you were in fact willing to use deadly force to protect property. The intent of my response was to point you to the fact that you cannot do so.

In the case of an ARMED robbery (which is the scenario that is relevant in this thread), it is true that I might use deadly force. Also, the law, as interpreted by you:
The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.
assures me that I CAN, in fact, do so, since the fact that the robber in question is ARMED (which is the relevant case) would lead me, like I believe it would lead most people, to fear for my life. The fear of my life makes the property irrelevant really, which makes me realize that my original post was very deceiving.

A little case for clarification, I would NOT kill someone who I know pickpocketed me or was pickpocketing me just because I would be defending my right to property. However, if the guy was mugging me with a deadly weapon, that might be another story.

[BillCA]

My advice? Stay back, sit tight, be a good witness, stay out of the way. If BG leaves without further problem, great. BG notices you? I won't give up a position where I think I'm better off for one that increases my danger, but I'm not going to start a shootout unless I can see no other viable option. BG notices you and wants your money, toss him your throwaway pack (you do have one, right??). Remember, you can always increase the violence, but once you start shooting there isn't any going back.

I'm in 100% agreement with Dave on this one.

If you can "ride it out" without firing a shot, that's probably the best course of action. It causes you the least grief legally and in liability. Be a good witness.

You might be able to use the "Employees only" door, but the two places I most frequent, doing so would put me right in the line of sight of the BG. So that's out. On the other hand, in one location I might be able to enter the cooler to keep out of sight. (Brrr)

If the BG(s) start shaking down and/or assaulting the customers, I've ideally positioned myself away from the register with some concealment. In which case I may slide the gun behind my thigh and toss my decoy wallet. If he bypasses the wallet or comes past that point for any reason, the fight's on.

Remember, no law requires you to take action or to risk your life and limb. Morality and ethics are another matter, but legally you're not required to engage.

[OldMarksman]

From BuckHammer: In the case of an ARMED robbery (which is the scenario that is relevant in this thread), it is true that I might use deadly force. Also, the law, as interpreted by you: ["the gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it"] assures me that I CAN, in fact, do so, since the fact that the robber in question is ARMED (which is the relevant case) would lead me, like I believe it would lead most people, to fear for my life.

Too bad I oversimplified. The law starts out with the phrase "imminent danger". I wouldn't want to be the person trying to convince a jury that someone robbing an establishment in which I happened to be posed an imminent danger to me unless he had actually raised his gun and pointed his gun at me as if to fire, and I would then be relying on the hope that there are witnesses who could testify to that effect.

Now, that's my thought, but it's worth nothing to you. You really ought to invest in an hour's consultation time with a good, experienced criminal trial attorney before deciding for yourself what the law allows. An alternative is to avoid any course of action that would put you at legal risk.

The other factor to consider is the danger that your firing would pose to others. Should you kill or maim one or two others in the store the authorities would have to consider charges for that also, and there would be the civil exposure.

Do not take this post as argumentative. I worked directly for the general counsel of a major corporate enterprise for about two years, and closely with the company lawyers for another dozen, and if there are three things I learned that are worth sharing here, they were (1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2).

Fiddletown does have a backgound in the law, and I refer you back to two things he posted on this:

The question then becomes, if you use lethal force, can you articulate, based on the totality of the circumstances, why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent?

So you must observe and be prepared to exercise your best judgment. But absent one or more specific factors that you can identify as indicating that the assailant was manifesting an intent to escalate the level of violence, I think you'd have a very hard time justifying the use of lethal force.

I think that's pretty consistent with my lay discussion above.

[BuckHammer]

Relevant Indiana Law:
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Okay, this is not an argument, but a legitimate question:
If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).

[OldMarksman]

If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).

BuckHammer, if you do not receive a useful response from your quite reasonable query, please consider this: I have learned in my experience that attorneys are usually quite reluctant to put specific advice in writing. This was often extremely frustrating to management, who wanted something to define the boundaries of what they could do and remain compliant.

There are, I believe, two main reasons for that reluctance. The first is that, as both easyG and Fiddletown have mentioned regarding the case at hand, there are always far too many variables to be able to lay out a useful hypothetical example. The second, which I think derives from the first, is that they do not want to create something that may be used against their clients in a real situation later. A face to face consultation is always more fruitful. Both you and I would, I think, benefit from one.

One other thing: you use the phrase, "I feel." Realize that, as has been said before, you will have to later convince others that your "feeling" was reasonable. Your conclusion will be judged against the "reasonable person" standard, and you will have to convince others later that a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion, based on what you knew at the time.

The related experience that I have has to do with persons making informed judgments with which they were quite comfortable, and having auditors, regulators, and investigators look back at a later time at the facts and competing judgments that existed at the time and come to different conclusions. Sometimes this led to allegations, findings, and so forth that became very unpleasant indeed.

I do hope you find this constructive and helpful.

Your question is good one, but it is difficult to address in the abstract.

One other thing. In my CCW class, I was told that it is permissible in Missouri to protect a third party, but that one was only required to do so if the third party were a policeman. I was also told that attorneys recommend against intervention in a situation involving a third party. That's second hand information.

Good luck!

[David Armstrong]

(1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2).
+1 over and over! Way too many folks way to concerned about if they CAN shoot. That's almost irrelevant, IMO. Do you NEED to shoot is far more important. If you don't need to shoot, don't shoot even if you can. See #2 above.

[fiddletown]

The problem is that the legal standard is not a subjective one, i. e., you feel something. It's an objective standard. This is sometimes stated as : A reasonable and prudent person, in the same situation and knowing what you know, would conclude that the use of lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily harm to an innocent. Whether the the test is satisfied will be determined from the totality fo the circumstances. For example, did the gunman look crazed and unstable? Was he waiving the gun around wildly and in an overtly threatening manner? Or did he seem to be a cool, professional criminal.

In any case, it would be very helpful, if you decide that you must shoot, to be able to articulate the reasons you concluded that lethal force was necessary in that particular situation. Why did you conclude that you had no choice but to shoot?

That's one reason I think that training and practice are important. One wants to have decent mastery of the mechanics of using his weapon and confidence in his marksmanship and ability to use his weapon. That way he can focus on the decision.

And this is also why you can only take a hypothetical so far. There is no one magic characteristic that can give you the "green light." You have to be there and make a reasonable judgment, based on the whole picture, that lethal force is necessary to save innocent life.

[rampage841512]

Seeing as most robberies around here don't involve anyone getting shot, what should I be doing if I get caught behind one of these winners?

You should do whatever you think is best. Trust your own reasoning.