PDA

View Full Version : Video of robber killed in Pharmacy holdup - One-shot stop? Caliber?


brentfoto
February 12, 2009, 01:12 PM
http://www.wftv.com/video/18676583/index.html


This should generate some interesting discussion. It's one of the most graphic videos of actual CQC I've seen.

Someone else posted this video on S&W forum.

Comments?

Sparks2112
February 12, 2009, 02:10 PM
Hard to say how many shots were fired. Looks like 1, but could possibly be 2 (or 3).

I did notice however that the robber did not stop to ask the guy who shot him, what caliber he was planning on shooting him with so he could plan his actions accordingly. Almost makes me think that placement is kind of important.

Cerick
February 12, 2009, 02:13 PM
dropping like that, he may have been hit in the spine.

Playboypenguin
February 12, 2009, 02:17 PM
Excellent example of a SD shooting. The guard waited for his moment and then acted quickly and decisively. He protected both himself and the employees in a way as to not further endanger them. After the shooting compassion was shown for the fallen assailant in the fact they were trying to get him medical aid as quickly as possible. People often forget you use your gun to stop a threat, not to kill a person. You do not have to lower yourself to their level by hoping they die or saying "they got what they deserve."

Sparks2112
February 12, 2009, 02:20 PM
Cerick
Dropping like that, he may have been hit in the spine.

Seems to me that his feet were kicking around a bit too much for that to have hit his spine.

Out of curiosity, at the end of the video when the frame is frozen it looks like he might be using a shrouded revolver? Perhaps a .357 or .38 +P?

brentfoto
February 12, 2009, 02:20 PM
That was a justifiable shoot judging from the video. Slam-dunk. I don't see how the guard could've acted more valiantly.

It bothered me a little bit that the owner had apparently stated he had to hire the guard. I'm curious about the hx of this store re robberies, and if this particular robber had any contact with the store before.

Unfortunate incident. I feel sorry for the guard that he had to do what he had to do.

Was there a sight picture? Was there a variation of 'point-shooting'? Was it a one-shot stop?

Gosh, another split second and the robber would have shot the guard-did you see robber point the gun at guard after he saw him? That was really frightening.

I hope it (guard's gun) wasn't a .45.

ZeSpectre
February 12, 2009, 02:31 PM
From the way the thug was squirming on the ground I suspect what you see is a classic example of the "oh no I've been SHOT" mentality. Then again it could have simply been a good hit in a disabling area.

Sparks2112
February 12, 2009, 02:35 PM
ZeSpectre
From the way the thug was squirming on the ground I suspect what you see is a classic example of the "oh no I've been SHOT" mentality. Then again it could have simply been a good hit in a disabling area.

That was my feeling too. He was expecting to walk in, grab drugs, walk out. Probably never even occured to him that he could be hurt, let alone killed.

jg0001
February 12, 2009, 03:05 PM
Is there a legal requirement to have a reason to believe the gunman would actually shoot (assuming he wasn't further provoked) rather than take the drugs and leave? {We can assume he turned his attention and gun to the security guard b/c the security guard moved rapidly from his original position.}

Would this be the equivalent to shooting someone who is in your house without making any attempt to avoid shooting? i.e. You see someone in your house, "see" (or believe you see) a gun, and just shoot them with no hesitation.

The videotape in this question seems like it could be a liability, no?

[I'll agree that once the guard began to act, the risk to everyone went up quickly and shooting without hesitation was probably a good idea. However, I can see a liberal prosecutor trying to find a way to blame the security guard for the death, saying perhaps that he himself raised the stakes by making a move. Now, I couldn't tell if there was audio on that security tape to hear what was said which may influence the judgement.]

Playboypenguin
February 12, 2009, 03:10 PM
This situation is not at all similar to finding someone in your home and shooting without seeing a weapon. The assailant had a weapon drawn and actively threatening them.

I do agree that if they had complied, the assailant would have most likely left without firing. He was most likely after the drugs, not out to kill someone. His crime had a goal. If it had just been the employees they would have been best served to just turn over the drugs since the assailant was very focused on them and pulling a weapon or resisting would have most likely ended in injury or death if the assailant was willing to pull the trigger.

Luckily for the store owner, he had taken extra precautions by hiring a security guard. The guard was able to be outside of the actual confrontation and was able to act with less scrutiny from the assailant since he was existing outside of the assailants area of focus.

Hornett
February 12, 2009, 03:14 PM
I can see a liberal prosecutor trying to find a way to blame the security guard for the death, saying perhaps that he himself raised the stakes by making a move.When are we going to quit making excuses for people who use firearms in robberies?
Once a firearm is used in a robbery and actually pointed at a victim, the 'stakes' are already as high as they get.
Life or death.
One split second squeeze of the trigger and that pharmacist is dead.
Permanently.
When someone runs into anywhere waving a gun around they become the instigator.
They bring the violence.
This is all just IMHO of course, but I can tell you that, here in Indiana, they have increased the sentencing alot for guns used while in the commission of a crime.

Also the guard did not fire until the robber pointed the gun at him.
Do you have to wait until the robber shoots you?

Brian Pfleuger
February 12, 2009, 03:15 PM
Is there a legal requirement to have a reason to believe the gunman would actually shoot (assuming he wasn't further provoked) rather than take the drugs and leave?


No. Presentation of a gun is reason to believe the gun will be used. In some places nothing more than attempted robbery is sufficient reason to shoot, regardless of weapons presented. Once a gun is pointed at someone there is not a law I know of prohibiting defense of that person.

If someone robs my store with a gun then they're getting shot if I have a chance. A knife or simply the threat of a weapon is different. If I get the drop on a guy with a gun I'm gonna shoot, just like this guy.

Para Bellum
February 12, 2009, 03:15 PM
I hope it (guard's gun) wasn't a .45.
:);)
me too. must have been a nine.:D

Playboypenguin
February 12, 2009, 03:26 PM
me too. must have been a nine.

Maybe it was a Sig with a .22 conversion. :)

Sparks2112
February 12, 2009, 03:29 PM
It's interesting to think about what the anti's perspective would be here.

"If you had just given him what he wanted, he wouldn't be dead right now. Introducing a gun into the situation got someone killed..."

The obvious response being:

"But the robber was the only one who had a gun that didn't have a legal reason to be in the Pharmacy. So doesn't that mean the robber got himself killed?"

Sadly they can't seem to think this through on their own.

Lavid2002
February 12, 2009, 03:47 PM
heres an easy way to think of it.....If a cop was there would he have shot em? I dont think the cop would look at a man who has a bead on the clerk and say DROP IT DROP IT! He swung his gun to the security guard and obviously had intentions of shooting. The man was right in shooting him. It has to be done its a shame it happened but this man made the decision to end his life long before he pulled the gun on the clerk. PLay with fire...

Double Naught Spy
February 12, 2009, 03:59 PM
The security guard was a retired cop. He fired one shot according to witnesses.

So this is a one shot stop, one shot drop, one shot kill. The guard drew from concealment and shot while on the move, while advancing toward the bad guy.

http://www.palmettocops.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=44499&get=last

jg0001
February 12, 2009, 04:19 PM
I guess the real legal sticky would have been if the guard drew, the assailant shot the pharmacist, and then the guard dropped the assailant.

I'm not at all trying to defend the bad guy; even just in the few traffic incidents I've taken to court, I've seen how little the prosecutor cares about what actually happened, or whether or was legal or not.

I suppose the end result is this -- if this was your home, would you want a video tape of an incident like this or not? Take away the video tape and there's very little to play Monday morning quarterback with. In this case, the video seems like it could be used as evidence against the guard more than anything else.

hogdogs
February 12, 2009, 04:40 PM
BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT BAD SHOOT:eek::eek::eek:
That guy wasn't really gonna shoot no one... The gun was just for added affect! He just needed the drugs to sell to feed his children who were at home...

Brian Pfleuger
February 12, 2009, 04:42 PM
In this case, the video seems like it could be used as evidence against the guard more than anything else.

There is NOTHING to use against the guard. By all accounts the BG presented a gun, which is an explicit threat and demanded property- which is a shoot scenario in itself in many places. There is NO case to be made against the guard. This is 100% justifiable. Even the most liberal anti-gun DA would have major trouble prosecuting this one.

Double Naught Spy
February 12, 2009, 06:03 PM
I think 100% would be an underestimate.

Brian Pfleuger
February 12, 2009, 09:00 PM
Security guys gun looks Glock-ish to me, if I had to guess.

supergas452M
February 12, 2009, 09:23 PM
Is there a legal requirement to have a reason to believe the gunman would actually shoot (assuming he wasn't further provoked) rather than take the drugs and leave? {We can assume he turned his attention and gun to the security guard b/c the security guard moved rapidly from his original position.}

Would this be the equivalent to shooting someone who is in your house without making any attempt to avoid shooting? i.e. You see someone in your house, "see" (or believe you see) a gun, and just shoot them with no hesitation.

The videotape in this question seems like it could be a liability, no?

[I'll agree that once the guard began to act, the risk to everyone went up quickly and shooting without hesitation was probably a good idea. However, I can see a liberal prosecutor trying to find a way to blame the security guard for the death, saying perhaps that he himself raised the stakes by making a move. Now, I couldn't tell if there was audio on that security tape to hear what was said which may influence the judgement.]


What may happen to you my friend is, because you are so worried about being prosecuted, you may freeze when you need to shoot and instead of being prosecuted you will be dead.

Marred
February 12, 2009, 09:44 PM
The security guard showed amazing restraint. He didn't shoot until the gun was pointed directly at him:eek: I don't think I would wait that long. Hooray for the good guys:D

jg0001
February 12, 2009, 10:50 PM
What may happen to you my friend is, because you are so worried about being prosecuted, you may freeze when you need to shoot and instead of being prosecuted you will be dead.

I think my position would be to not be too open to discuss what happened with the cops until I had secured my own legal defense, regardless of how sure I was about my actions.

Now, in NJ, where I'm at, the only place I'd ever have my gun handy would be at home or the range. At home, I'm not going to have any security cams inside my house, so that's not an issue.

Just take a peek over at the other thread regarding whether or not to try and hold someone at gunpoint (in your house for example). There is too much legal gray area to be open with anyone who could use that info against you.

Read a little Ayoob if you think you know it all on what a good shoot would be. The law is a be-otch. Defending yourself (legally) after the shooting is over should not be forgotten.

nightshade1824
February 12, 2009, 11:03 PM
And pop goes the weasel

sureshots
February 14, 2009, 10:23 AM
If the robber was on his way out of the Store it would be A different situation,however the robbery was still in progress and who knows what was on the robbers mind. He may have shot the Pharmacist as soon as he got the backback back full of drugs. The security guard did his job,he wasn't hired to be A witness.

Double Naught Spy
February 14, 2009, 10:51 AM
I guess the real legal sticky would have been if the guard drew, the assailant shot the pharmacist, and then the guard dropped the assailant.

This would not be any more sticky than the situation as it was. The guard was threatened and being a guard, a policeman, or a regular citizen, had the right to defend his own life.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 10:54 AM
I do agree that if they had complied, the assailant would have most likely left without firing. He was most likely after the drugs, not out to kill someone.

Why are you even second guessing the BG here?? Are you omniscient? The robber was brandishing a firearm and was threatening the pharmacist. It sickens me to see an innocent man just trying to make a living being threatened with great bodily injury or death...and yet you think you know the "likely" outcome. You have zero idea of what the robber was capable of doing. Shame on you for even typing out your words.

:confused::barf::mad:

Chuckusaret
February 14, 2009, 11:07 AM
The BG had his weapon out, pointing it at the clerk and that is a treat to do harm, he also pointed it at the security guard when the guard moved. Deadly force is justified.

rshanneck2002
February 14, 2009, 11:32 AM
i agree chuck,what is there a debate over this for? the robber went their with the intent of robbery a felony with a handgun.there is no debate,the guard did what he was paid to do,protect the store. end of story! im willing to bet that when word of this hit the streets THAT store will be avoided,at least until the next junkie gets stupid.

m.p.driver
February 14, 2009, 11:37 AM
About ten years ago two 17 year olds went into a dairy mart in our area.5:00 in the morning so light traffic,told the 57 year old female clerk to empty the register.She complied so they made her lay on the floor and shot her in the back of the head killing her.So much for giving them what they wanted so they would leave.They were two white teenagers from a middle class background.You try to think too much into it and you'll be dead,best thing is to follow your instincts.Thirteen years in the military police and at least i learned that.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:13 PM
One thing people must remember is that the exception proves the rule...not vice versa. You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate. Especially if an armed assailant has the drop on you. Going for a weapon will almost guarantee they will fire if they are at all willing to do so. There is no denying that. That does not mean you are obligated to not fight back, it just means you decrease your odds of surviving the attack.

In this situation, there was one big advantage. A third party that was able to act decisively while not being the focus of the assailant.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 12:19 PM
i agree chuck,what is there a debate over this for?

Good question. Apparently some here have some deep seated need to amaze us yet again with their powers of perception based upon their acute expertise in the field of human psychology and (limited) experience in LE.

One thing people must remember is that the exception proves the rule...not vice versa. You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate. Especially if an armed assailant has the drop on you. Going for a weapon will almost guarantee they will fire if they are at all willing to do so. There is no denying that. That does not mean you are obligated to not fight back, it just means you decrease your odds of surviving the attack.

You are writing checks for us that you cant cash. Dont BS us with "rules". An experience like that in the video is an exception to the rule for everyone...especially to those who experienced it. I wont bet on what the other guy might "likely do" when it comes to my life. Again, you write of things which you know very little to nothing about.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 12:22 PM
Here's an article that provides more details. According to it, the attacker was shot twice in the chest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29069767/
You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate.That is not correct. The statistics indicate that the best chance for remaining uninjured during a violent crime is NOT compliance but rather resistance with a firearm.

Resisting without effective means does raise your chances of injury compared to compliance, but if you have a firearm and can bring it into play then, statistically speaking, you're better off resisting. Obviously every case is different and the statistics shouldn't be used to make blanket decisions without evaluating the particular situation.

One more caution. Those statistics are taken across the board. That is, they don't break down the violent attacks by whether/how the attacker is armed. There has been discussion on TFL about whether you still have an advantage when the attacker is armed with a firearm, but to my knowledge there are no statistics that speak directly to that question.

Based on the informal research I have done, attackers generally disengage immediately when a firearm comes into play on the part of the defender and that tends to hold true even when the attackers outnumber and "outgun" the victim. In other words, the attacker doesn't seem to be making a careful, logical decision when the victim presents a firearm (Let's see, I've got a rifle and a tactically advantageous position over that citizen armed with a mouse gun so I believe I'll stand my ground and shoot it out.). Instead it seems to be a subjective, emotional decision (I really don't want to find out how it might feel to get shot; I'm getting out of here NOW!).

Again, that is a general tendency, NOT a guarantee of a particular outcome. Every situation must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:25 PM
You are writing checks for us that you cant cash. Dont BS us with "rules". An experience like that in the video is an exception to the rule for everyone...especially to those who experienced it. I wont bet on what the other guy might "likely do" when it comes to my life.
You are always betting on what another guy "might do" in your life outside you home...and inside it to some extent. If a person does not possess the ability to rationally weigh the odds, they should not be armed.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 12:28 PM
If a person does not possess the ability to rationally weigh the odds, they should not be armed.

You amaze us yet AGAIN. Basically what your saying is that when I see a man standing less than 10 feet from me and is pointing a gun at my head (or someone near me), the odds are that I will be a-ok.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:33 PM
You amaze us yet AGAIN. Basically what your saying is that when I see a man standing less than 10 feet from me and is pointing a gun at my head (or someone near me), the odds are that I will be a-ok.
If that is the only way you are capable of comprehending the complexity of the statement I am afraid it does not matter what I am telling you.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 12:37 PM
That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:39 PM
That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed
No, it is very specific and factually supportable. Your desire to deny it does not change that.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 12:42 PM
Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.

Crosshair
February 14, 2009, 12:42 PM
You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate.

We had a college student get carjacked a few years ago. She Co-operated with her attacker. They found her body 5 months later when the snow melted.

So much for blanket statistics.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:45 PM
We had a college student get carjacked a few years ago. She Co-operated with her attacker. They found her body 5 months later when the snow melted.

So much for blanket statistics.
Carjacking and store robberies are not comparable. You are just muddying the waters and trying to confuse the issue. Plus, like I said, an exception does not disprove a rule. My guns usually fire safely when I pull the trigger. This one guy had his blow up when he did. Does that mean mine are not safe now?

Creature
February 14, 2009, 12:48 PM
Stop avoiding the question.

Prove that compliant victims are less likely to be killed when confronted by an armed assailant than an armed victim who has yet to draw a weapon.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:50 PM
Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.

John's post, while well thought out, is pretty much just a "it seems to me" statement. It is not supported in fact or statistics. I own my own business. I deal with insurance companies. These companies spend a lot of time having actuaries figure out your most likely means to avoid injury. None of their findings support fighting back unless you have immediate reason to believe they are going to shoot. Such as removing you from your workstation, locking doors, etc. You have obviously never owned a business or looked into the crime statistics regarding robberies and resistance.

John is absolutely right about one thing. Pulling a gun on a robber that is either not capable of firing or not willing to fire will cause them to flee. But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...unless you fancy yourself quite the Rambo.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 12:54 PM
Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.

I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it.

So, how about those verifiable statistics?

Philo_Beddoe
February 14, 2009, 12:56 PM
This was totally justifiable, the robber was pointing his gun at the pharmacist, obviously that is threatening deadly force.

This security guard will be fine.

You point a gun at someone, and you get shot, well thats on you as far as I am concerned.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 12:58 PM
Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.

I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it.

So, how about those verifiable statistics?
I have the weight of common knowledge on my side and have shown that.

How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk. :)

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 01:00 PM
John's post, while well thought out, is pretty much just a "it seems to me" statement.That's true as it applies to situations where the attacker is armed with a firearm since the statistics aren't broken out that precisely.

However, in the general case (across the board violent crimes) there are statistics that indicate clearly that resistance without a firearm is a better strategy than compliance if remaining uninjured is the goal.I own my own business. I deal with insurance companies. These companies spend a lot of time having actuaries figure out your most likely means to avoid injury. None of their findings support fighting back unless you have immediate reason to believe they are going to shoot.I'll bet if you get hold of the raw data they're using as opposed to their recommendations you'll see that you've misinterpreted their motives.

The problem with relying on the insurance companies is that they're not exclusively worried about the good guys remaining uninjured, they're also highly concerned with the bottom line.

Even in a case where the "good guys" prevail and no innocents are injured, the insurance company may end up paying out a large civil claim from an injured criminal or his family. On the other hand, if everyone complies, they have little to no liability as the result of actions by the criminal. In other words, if the criminal shoots someone the insurance company's liability is limited by the terms of the policy but if the security guard shoots the criminal the business/insurance company may have to pay out huge settlements.

Their advice is EXCELLENT if your primary concern is your business' bottom line, perhaps not so good if your primary concern is remaining uninjured.But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...The key is not capability but rather their willingness. That is a factor that seems to be in short supply, generally speaking.

I spend a good deal of time reading through reports of self-defense in the news and it is not uncommon for the defender to present a firearm against an attacker who "has a bead on" the defender and still prevail uninjured. Yes, there are armed attackers who are willing to press the situation even against an armed defender, but that is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

Drawing against an attacker who has a bead on you is more dangerous than drawing on an unarmed attacker, but it's overstating the situation to say that you have "sealed your doom".

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:02 PM
I have the weight of common knowledge on my side and have shown that.

How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk

I see. Your "verifiable facts" are now "common knowledge". You got nothing. You made a claim, and when I called you out on it to produce these facts and crime statistics, you come up empty. This is becoming a trend with you.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:05 PM
'll bet if you get hold of the raw data they're using as opposed to their recommendations you'll see that you've misinterpreted their motives.
No, you can take a "worker's safety course" in Oregon (and I know in AL too) that clearly shows the statistics of armed robberies, the percentage that involved resistance, the percentage that did not, and the percentage that did and did not end in the clerk being harmed. It is all pretty clear. Like I said, they do specifically point out situations where you are NOT supposed to co-operate.

It is similar to the "a man demands you keys at gun point " scenariio. The best answer is give him the keys and let him flee. Most gun owners would never say "pull your gun and start firing" because they realize the severe disadvantage they are at tactically and that he is likely to take the car and leave. If the man then says "get in the car" you fight back for all you are worth and take your chances.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:09 PM
I see. Your "verifiable facts" are now "common knowledge". You got nothing. You made a claim, and when I called you out on it to produce these facts and crime statistics, you come up empty. This is becoming a trend with you.

Naw, you could find that data too if you wanted to...but you chose not to so I would like to see what you can contribute. Please, regale us with your numbers and statistics...or at least where/how you came across the data to support your belief. Add something to the conversation besides dissent.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:10 PM
Nice try. I wont be baited. You made the claim...now back it up with actual verifiable numbers. That's YOUR job, not mine.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:13 PM
Nice try. I wont be baited. You made the claim...now back it up with actual verifiable numbers. That's YOUR job, not mine.

C'mon, I have never, ever seen you back up a claim. It would be a nice change. let's hear it. I have talked in length (as I often do) and will do so again after you present your side, but it is your turn now. Let's see something besides conjecture.

doc540
February 14, 2009, 01:15 PM
Good form

So, I gave the perp a 9.3 for form and completing two full gainers, but deducted .7 for not throwing his gun far enough.

btw: that move is called the "OC" or "Oswald Curl"

And if you freeze the frame where the guard first draws his weapon it looks like a flat-topped Glock, and, I'm guessing it was either a .40 or .45 and not a 9mm.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:17 PM
Thanks for proving yet again that your full of bluster and very little fact. Your shift away from the claim you made by asking me to disprove yours is classic PBP tap-dancing.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:17 PM
Thanks for proving yet again that your full of bluster and very little fact. Your tap dancing away from the claim you made by asking me to disprove yours is classic PBP tap dancing.
Still nothing of substance to add? At least you are consistant. :)

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 01:18 PM
No, you can take a "worker's safety course" in Oregon (and I know in AL too) that clearly shows the statistics of armed robberies, the percentage that involved resistance, the percentage that did not, and the percentage that did and did not end in the clerk being harmed. It is all pretty clear. Like I said, they do specifically point out situations where you are NOT supposed to co-operate.That doesn't contradict the results of the statistics I've been quoting.

Compliance IS a better strategy if the victim is UNARMED. That is NOT the case when the victim is armed with a firearm. In the case where the victim resists with a firearm the statistics indicate that his chances for remaining uninjured are better than if he had complied.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:23 PM
That doesn't contradict the results of the statistics I've been quoting.
it does and it doesn't. If you do not reach for a weapon the perp does not know you have one and your odds of survival are extremely high. In fact the vast majority of people that have been robbed are never injured. I have been robbed more than once. A couple times when working at a Subway in college and while working in a credit union once.

You would have to be able to show statistics on how many times a victim presented a firearm and how many of those events ended in injury of the victim. Those numbers would then have to greatly exceed the percentage of people that just do not get injured without resisting. Also, how many of those instances would have involved no injury without the firearm. Is there a big difference if any?

So if 95% of all robberies do not result in injury to the victim and 94% of robberies where the victim presents a firearm result in no injury to the victim it is still safer to not resist...and vice versa.

It is something that would be worth researching. I would love to see the statistics and see them examined. Your example is a valid hypothesis that can be quantified if someone has the means and desire to do it.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:23 PM
Still nothing of substance to add? At least you are consistant.

Unlike you, I never tried to add "verifiable specifics and facts" to the conversation, just opinion.

Now, how does being a business owner make you an expert on anything again? Especially self-defense and casualty avoidance?

Also, I have been mugged not less than four times while I was growing up in NJ. Each time, I was beaten and injured if for no reason other than to add time for the mugger to get away and ensure that I would not follow or be able to call for help.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 01:25 PM
You would have to be able to show statistics on how many times a victim presented a firearm and how many of those events ended in injury of the victim.The statistics specifically address the situation where the victim "RESISTS with a firearm".

In the general case that offers a better chance for remaining uninjured than compliance.Those numbers would then have to greatly exceed the percentage of people that just do not get injured without resisting.That is incorrect.

The only thing that the number of cases affects is the margin of error in the resulting conclusions.

In other words, if there were a million cases where a victim complied and with victims remaining uninjured 75% of the time and there were 2000 cases where the victim resisted with a firearm with 83% of the victims remaining uninjured you can still say that the odds favor resistance with a firearm.

The difference is that the compliance figure (75%) has a margin of error that is virtually nil while the the resistance with a firearm figure (83%) may have a margin of error that is a percentage point or two.

AK103K
February 14, 2009, 01:26 PM
Let's see something besides conjecture.
Isnt it all conjecture until its over?

I think old Andrew Jackson summed it up best......

"Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking...."

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:27 PM
The statistics specifically address the situation where the victim "RESISTS with a firearm".

In the general case that offers a better chance for remaining uninjured than compliance.
I can''t address that scenario statistically since I have never been privy to those numbers. What where the ones you are stating? How do they compare to the fact that the vast majority of all robberies do not end in injury?

We need to work out a proper formula to test the hypothesis. You never know, you might end up with something publishable. :)

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:28 PM
Unlike you, I never tried to add "verifiable specifics and facts" to the conversation, just opinion.
And I am asking what you are basing that "opinion" upon..reality, fantasy?

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:31 PM
And I am asking what you are basing that "opinion" upon..reality, fantasy?

Personal experience. See my last post. Those were robberies that turned into muggings AFTER I was compliant and handed over my valuables.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:37 PM
Still looking for your "exception to the rule" in my case...

Of the four muggings I experienced, loosing two teeth was the lightest injury I received by my merry muggers. Three weeks in the hospital with a broken arm, three broken ribs, two embolisms and fractured skull was the worst.

Tell me again how I should be compliant.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 01:38 PM
I can''t address that scenario statistically since I have never been privy to those numbers. What where the ones you are stating?http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/gun2doc.htm

Search that page for Kleck.

The statistics are stated in terms of the percentage of victims injured so smaller is better.

Self Defense Method Against Robbery vs Percent Injured
Gun--->17.4%
Other weapon--->22.0%
No resistance--->24.7%
Other measures--->26.5%
Threaten or reason with attacker--->30.7%
Nonviolent resistance and evasion--->34.9%
Knife--->40.3%
Tried to get help or frighten attacker--->48.9%
Physical force--->50.8%
How do they compare to the fact that the vast majority of all robberies do not end in injury?The numbers show that is true, but give an edge to victims that resist using a firearm.

AGAIN, these statistics do not differentiate between the case where the attacker is armed with a firearm and I'm not aware of any that do. It stands to reason that an armed attacker is more dangerous than an unarmed one, but in the absence of data it's hard to say how much that affects thing over the general situation.

I believe it's safe to say that resisting against an armed attacker increases your chances of being injured, it's just not possible to say if that increase is enough to overcome the 7% advantage of resisting with a firearm vs complying.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:38 PM
Personal experience. See my last post. Those were robberies that turned into muggings AFTER I was compliant and handed over my valuables.

That does not in anyway contradict what I said. I said there are exceptions but that "usually" you are uninjured if you co-operate. You are trying to say one except is disproving all other data. That is not logical. Like I said before....my gun routinely fires safely when I pull the trigger. A guy next to me at the range had his blow up when he did the same. Does that now make all guns with triggers unsafe?

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:43 PM
Well, lets see. Based upon my personal experience, you would be wrong. Since I should base my future reactions upon my past personal experiences, and not upon some conceptual study based solely on statistics where the situations do not exactly match mine, I am 100% sure that the BG is going to hurt me.

If I know my gun is going to blow up if I pull the trigger because I have experience with that gun, I am not going to convince myself that it wont because everyone else's gun probably wont.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:48 PM
JohnSKA,

One problem with those numbers is it is not dealing solely with "Armed robberies involving the assailant possessing and brandishing a gun." It is including all reported robberies. The number of robberies that result in injuries includes unarmed robbers or robbers armed with a knife where victims are injured during confrontation (whether the robbery was successful or not).

You would have to break down the figure to clearly show how many of the victims that presented a firearm and =survived unharmed did so against an assailant who was pointing a firearm at them and how many of the ones that did get injured did the same thing...and vice versa.

Meaning if there was 100 cases of a victim defending themselves with a firearm and only 17 of them were injured by the assailant, but all 17 where injured when the assailant also had a firearm and the 93 that did not get injured happened when the assailant did not have a firearm you get a different conclusion.

Milspec
February 14, 2009, 01:49 PM
We carry guns to protect ourselves and others from death or serious harm. We're not police...we don't have vests or backup or snipers on the roof. We're nice people who want to attend our kids' weddings and play with our grandkids. Show poor muzzle discipline and the risk is on you... :D

Milspec

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 01:49 PM
One problem with those numbers is it is not dealing solely with "Armed robberies involving the assailant possessing and brandishing a gun."You'll note that I've been careful to point that out.

I mentioned it in my initial post and was in the process of adding a reminder to my last post as you were posting.You would have to break down the figure to clearly show how many of the victims that presented a firearm and survived unharmed did so against an assailant who was pointing a firearm at them and how many of the ones that did get injured did the same thing...and vice versa.I would love to have statistics broken out like that. Unfortunately I have not seen any that break out the situations based on how the attacker is armed.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:53 PM
JohnSKA,

You responded before I added this part...
Meaning if there was 100 cases of a victim defending themselves with a firearm and only 17 of them were injured by the assailant, but all 17 where injured when the assailant also had a firearm and the 93 that did not get injured happened when the assailant did not have a firearm you get a different conclusion.

So you can see where I am going. With all the information it could be very easy to conclude that defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence. We would need all the information and not just parts of it. That is the type of thing the Brady's do. :)

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:53 PM
PBP, didnt you learn in Statistics 101 that once you manipulate the criteria, any statistical analysis can be made to indicate anything you want to advance as "proof". You continually keep trying to refine the criteria of the data sets to such an extent in your quest to question the veracity of John's casual study that anything but a very specific situation would warrant the compliance you are so desperate to advance.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 01:55 PM
PBP, didnt you learn in Statistics 101 that once you manipulate the criteria, any statistical analysis can be made to indicate anything you want to advance as "proof". You continually keep trying to refine the criteria of the data sets to such an extent in your quest to question the veracity of John's casual study that anything but a very specific situation would warrant the compliance you are so desperate to advance.
Okay, then "manipulate" the statistics to support a claim that fighting back is the best course of action against an armed assailant.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 01:56 PM
With all the information it could be very easy to conclude that defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence.It's difficult to quantify precisely how much the attacker's being armed affects the situation but it's easy to refute the part about the "guaranteed death sentence".

If you read through Clayton Cramer's self-defense blog which consists of a huge volume of news articles on self-defense shootings you will find that it is fairly common for victims to remain uninjured even when they pull a gun against an armed attacker.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 01:59 PM
Okay, then "manipulate" the statistics to support a claim that fighting back is the best course of action against an armed assailant.

You're doing it for me. Just you keep on writing. It more of what YOU cant prove than what you can.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 02:00 PM
If you read through Clayton Cramer's self-defense blog which consists of a huge volume of news articles on self-defense shootings you will find that it is fairly common for victims to remain uninjured even when they pull a gun against an armed attacker.
Then it should not be hard for him to further break down his numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence. I am not seeing where that has been done.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 02:06 PM
Then it should not be hard for him to further break down his numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence. I am not seeing where that has been done.The problem with using Cramer's articles to try to determine precise numbers is that it's impossible to determine how the data was collected. It's reasonable to look at very general trends (multiple attackers are common, attackers tend to run when confronted by an armed citizen, armed citizens usually prevail even against attackers who seem to have the advantage, etc.) but it's not kosher to take those articles and make more specific claims (40% of the time there are multiple attackers, 90% of the time attackers run when confronted by an armed citizen, 85% of the time armed citizens prevail..., etc.).

The only reason I referenced it was because it provided an easy counterexample to the speculation that "defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence." It doesn't take much reading to see that it's not at all uncommon for a citizen to defend with a firearm "against an assailant armed with a firearm" and to remain uninjured. It's just not possible to try to construct a valid statistic (defendable percentage) from those articles.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 02:11 PM
The problem with using Cramer's articles to try to determine precise numbers is that it's impossible to determine how the data was collected
Exactly, that is why it is not very valuable. We would need to determine a way to use real reports to gather the numbers. It would be a huge undertaking but a worthwhile one. Things would have to be done very precisely. All information would need to come from police reports and be easily verified. Otherwise it is just conjecture. The other side of the argument spends a great deal of time and money doing just that on the opposite side of the argument. As I have mentioned before, I have a friend that is an actuary and he is very well paid to do just that.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 02:17 PM
Exactly, that is why it is not very valuable.It's not that it's not valuable, it's that one must be careful in using it.

As I pointed out, it's perfectly valid to draw general conclusions from the results or look for counterexamples and trends, but it's a mistake to try to calculate numbers.As I have mentioned before, I have a friend that is an actuary and he is very well paid to do just that.He probably has access to raw data that would answer the question, it's just a matter of compiling it and doing the calculations.

I seriously doubt that any insurance company will pay him to do so, however, since it's not in their interest (limiting their liability) to provide statistics showing that armed self-defense is an advantage in any situation.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 02:22 PM
He probably has access to raw data that would answer the question, it's just a matter of compiling it and doing the calculations.

You would think that we could also get the information. It is public record. It would be a ton of work though. Something for one of the major gun groups to possibly undertake. Of course we do run into the possibility of doing all that work and not liking the conclusion. :)

You can't really draw a valid conclusion (general consensus or otherwise) without the real facts. You can't even look at trends if you do not know the circumstances of the attack. We would absolutely have to know if the assailant possessed a firearm at the time or not and know how many of those times went which way..

Creature
February 14, 2009, 02:23 PM
You can't really draw a valid conclusion (general consensus or otherwise) without the real facts. You can't even look at trends if you do not know the circumstances of the attack.

Now you're getting it. So, its back to gut feeling and personal experience.

Playboypenguin
February 14, 2009, 02:25 PM
Now you're getting it. So, its back to gut feeling and personal experience.
No, it comes down to looking at the numbers that DO include the necessary information and discarding anecdotes, exceptions to the rule, and unsupported arguments.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 02:28 PM
There you go again. Mistaking shaky and manipulated statistical data as fact...and dismissing personal experience, exceptions to the rule and anecdotes as irrelevant.

Brian Pfleuger
February 14, 2009, 02:30 PM
The key to it all is an ability to accurately interpret the intent of the BG. While we can't "read minds" we can interpret actions and observe body language to get an idea of what direction things may be headed. Any person being robbed who gets the idea that violence is forth coming would be just as fool hardy to not act as would the person who starts a gun fight after the BG is leaving peacefully.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 02:34 PM
Okay...are you able to accurately interpret whether a BG intends to shoot you or not when he is pointing a gun directly at you? Are you going to rely on "the insurance company's statistics" to decide?

Creature
February 14, 2009, 02:53 PM
<sound of crickets>

Yes?...no?...anyone?

BuckHammer
February 14, 2009, 02:57 PM
I learned in this thread that when you make a claim, it's up to the opposition to prove you wrong. Interesting. I seem to remember that the burden of proof rests upon the party that is making the claim.

JohnKSa
February 14, 2009, 03:02 PM
You can't really draw a valid conclusion (general consensus or otherwise) without the real facts. You can't even look at trends if you do not know the circumstances of the attack.That's true as far as it goes. However none of the articles provide zero information about the circumstances of the attack, and, it is to be presumed that the vast majority of them provide "real facts".

It is true that some are so sketchy as to be useless, others provide a considerable amount of information and even without knowing all the circumstances, it's still possible to look at trends if the pertinent circumstances are included.

Yes, as you read through the hundreds of articles (maybe thousands, I don't have the time nor inclination to count them) on the blog I mentioned you will find that some of them are so brief that they're not helpful. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.

Brian Pfleuger
February 14, 2009, 03:40 PM
Okay...are you able to accurately interpret whether a BG intends to shoot you or not when he is pointing a gun directly at you?

Yes... and no. I have no doubt that there are situations wherein the intent of the BG would be obvious. I'm equally sure that there are times that it is not.

The only thing I'm sure of is that "Gun! Shoot him!" as a standard, irreducible response is dangerously over simplistic. I'm not saying that you (or anyone in this thread) is necessarily advocating that idea but there are many who do.

Every one of us, when presented with a SD situation must make certain calculations and assumptions in planning our reaction to that situation. No two situations are identical, no two BGs have the same intent and no two of them can be counted on to react identically to our response. Dynamic situations require dynamic responses. There is no one size fits all.

AK103K
February 14, 2009, 03:53 PM
Okay...are you able to accurately interpret whether a BG intends to shoot you or not when he is pointing a gun directly at you?
Thats easy. The second he points the gun, he's started the ball rolling. The only way to stop it, is for him to put the gun down and get face down on the deck. Until that occurs, hes getting shot, stabbed/cut, or beaten, or all of the above, at the first opportune moment.

Are you going to rely on "the insurance company's statistics" to decide?
Nope.

Personally, I dont see what statistics have to do with any of this. There MAY be statistical data to support or disprove a lot of things, but who cares? It seems to me, every occurrence is a new slate, and the guy with the other gun is the one who makes all the decisions, his and yours.

Dynamic situations require dynamic responses.
Absolutely, and you need to determine beforehand just what that will be, given a simple, basic set of criteria. This isnt the time to start a deep, analytical discussion with yourself. If hes walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, hes a dead duck.

There is no one size fits all.
No, there isnt, but you can sure put it into S-M-L instead of 20 or 30 specific sizes.

Brian Pfleuger
February 14, 2009, 04:10 PM
If hes walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, hes a dead duck.

That is a one size fit all decision. It equates to "Gun! Shoot Him!"

We can all think of 1000 scenarios that are inarguable "shoot" situations and I think we can come up with 1000 scenarios that are arguably "don't shoot" scenarios, all of which involve guns.

We've all had this discussion before. The goal of a SD situation is, quite simply, to make the BG go away and leave me alone. Sometimes that means shoot him, sometimes not. Sometimes it means cooperate, sometimes not. Sometimes it's cooperate one second and shoot the next. The "Gun! Shoot!!" mentality can be dangerous to you and every one in the area should it ever goes down.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 04:13 PM
Sitting around trying to determine which of those 1000 scenarios you are smack in the middle of will likely get you killed.

Brian Pfleuger
February 14, 2009, 04:22 PM
Sitting around trying to determine which of those 1000 scenarios you are smack in the middle of will likely get you killed.

Yes, it will. Acting without thinking MAY do the same. The situation MUST be analyzed to determined what you believe to be the best course of action. Acting blindly based on preconceived notions can get you just as dead as not acting, sometimes deader, since not acting CAN be, in fact is, safe in many cases.

We must not believe that compliance MIGHT be deadly and action WON'T be deadly. Either could be deadly when the other may have been safe. The question is "Which action IN THIS CASE is safer?"

Let's take your example. You've been mugged 4 times and beaten 4 times. It is reasonable to believe that a mugging in that area will result in significant injury, therefore it is reasonable to take action. However, if you move to a new city then things may change. The sub-culture could be different, muggings may be generally "peaceful" (I know, "peaceful mugging", let's not go down that road) in that city and only those who resist tend to get hurt. Now, you personally might be inclined to resist and that's fine, I'm not saying it's wrong but in THAT city it may be that you are safer to NOT resist. Yes, I know, that situation is what it is and statistics don't apply to individual situations but that doesn't change the fact that resistance in one place or situation may be needed while compliance is safer in another.

AK103K
February 14, 2009, 04:25 PM
Sitting around trying to determine which of those 1000 scenarios you are smack in the middle of will likely get you killed.
Exactly!

You have to pre determine what your response will be to basic problems, even though the problem may not be simple. You have to set specific safeties he removes by his actions and implement your response at your pre determined level.

Simple to me is, he has a gun, hes pointing that gun at me, or someone else who doesnt deserve it, and by doing so, has already made his intention plain, so the next step will be for me to neutralize him by all and any means at the first possible opportunity.

You make things a lot easier on yourself if you have this worked out ahead of time. If you wait until its on you, and then try to reason it out, you'll die thinking when you should be doing something.

You also have to get your head right. There is nothing defensive about your response, its all pure aggression.

Brian Pfleuger
February 14, 2009, 04:30 PM
Simple to me is, he has a gun, hes pointing that gun at me, or someone else who doesnt deserve it, and by doing so, has already made his intention plain, so the next step will be for me to neutralize him by all and any means at the first possible opportunity.


Actually, I completely agree with that statement. The question is "When does that opportunity present itself?" It is entirely possible that it will not present itself, the BG will get his money (or whatever) and go away. That would be a fine outcome in my book.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 04:37 PM
My point was that inaction will get you injured or killed quicker than taking action.

In my case, each time I was compliant and handed over my valuables. But each time, the other guy behind me decided to try and kill me. At least that's what it felt like at the time.

The last two times I was accosted (mugging #3 and #4), I was initally compliant. I handed over my valuables without resistance. But as soon as they began began hitting me, I fought back. I was weaponless each time, but I fought back anyway.

In these last two muggings in which I resisted, my injuries were FAR LESS painful than mugging #2, which put me in the hospital. I can tell you that the recovery from my injuries in that mugging was no fun and has left me permanently physically scarred.

I will always choose to act rather than do nothing.

AK103K
February 14, 2009, 04:43 PM
I will always choose to act rather than do nothing.
While every situation is different, I agree with Creature for the most part.

The aggressor almost always has the advantage, especially if he acts first.

The boy who got shot in the video made the mistake of presenting an intent, the guard acted quickly and decisively, and prevailed. The other boy was way behind the curve at that point and never had a chance to recover. It could have easily been the other way around.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 04:48 PM
Anyone who tells you that when staring evil in the face to "Do nothing...you'll be fine!" is full of...themselves.

AK103K
February 14, 2009, 05:08 PM
The question is "When does that opportunity present itself?" It is entirely possible that it will not present itself, the BG will get his money (or whatever) and go away. That would be a fine outcome in my book.
Maybe a tolerable outcome, not fine. :)

I think some of the problem here, is what the problem is with most of these type threads, each poster has a narrow, specific scenario in their mind, when in reality, things are really always fluid, and there is no way to predict what will happen in the next breath, good or bad.

Yes, the bad guy could very well get the money, blow you a kiss, and walk, or maybe he blows you away as he goes, your the one taking the chance, you have to make the decision.

Personally, I'll be spending every possible second trying to get into position to deal with the worst, and not trust to luck. If you wait for him to make the first move, your screwing yourself, as you'll probably be to far behind the curve to recover.

In any case someone has a gun, you have two choices. The first, it to be as far away as possible, preferably behind cover, or in another town, or, get as close as you can get.

This may mean running to the target not from it. He cant shoot you if you have control of his hand with the weapon. He'll also have a tough time shooting you if he has to react to your action, just like you will to his. Being on the offense is better than being on the defense, especially if your at close range and your opponent has a gun.

Your also going to have to face the fact that your first response may not be with your gun. How are your grappling skills? Have you ever practiced disarming someone? I guess since this is a gun board, the only answer to the problem is your gun. If thats you plan, it might come up short. Most "plans" do.

Double Naught Spy
February 14, 2009, 08:54 PM
Statistics and percentage games with mutually exclusive historical data are of hueristic interest, but have no actual bearing on what my situation or your situation might be if we are involved in a self defense episode.

Creature
February 14, 2009, 08:56 PM
:rolleyes:

That's one way of putting it....

Playboypenguin
February 15, 2009, 03:17 AM
My point was that inaction will get you injured or killed quicker than taking action.
Okay, prove that statement...or at least show evidence beyond the anecdotal (written or verbal) that supports it. Maybe you will persuade me, maybe not...but it is worth a try.

PS: I feel like i got left behind in this discussion. I hate it when real life gets in the way of my forum life. :D

PPS: Of course while you guys were in here bickering, I managed to score myself a nice Colt Anaconda. :)

JohnH1963
February 15, 2009, 03:24 AM
Although this has been disputed many times in this forum, this video clearly demonstrates why the Glock in .45 caliber works. Would you carry a .45 after seeing this video?

brentfoto
February 15, 2009, 04:30 AM
Was it a .45 Glock? If so, what is the source of that information?

Creature
February 15, 2009, 04:52 AM
I feel like i got left behind in this discussion.

You were.

Okay, prove that statement...or at least show evidence beyond the anecdotal (written or verbal) that supports it.
I am way beyond having to prove anything to you PBP, especially since your experience in LE and the military, and your so-called actuary 'friend' in the insurance business, is telling you everything you need to know about this subject.

I gave you my personal experiences and why I made that statement, which by the way, anyone without blinders would have recognized as an opinion.
If you care for more details regarding my experiences, PM me and I can share some hospital photos displaying what compliance got me. I would be happy to show you my "anecdotal" evidence.

Playboypenguin
February 15, 2009, 04:56 AM
So in other words, righteous indignation aside, your "point" was nothing but baseless opinion and nothing more. You have absolutely nothing to offer besides relating an event that may or may not have happened to you.

scottie78
February 15, 2009, 06:21 AM
I worked as an armed guard in a bank that had been robbed several times in the past few years and had just returned from Operation Desert Storm as a Flight Medic and was expert qualified as a handgun marksman. This guard deserves credit for quick reaction under pressure, but you first have to realize a fact. A security guard's job consists of day to day activity that is mostly boredom, but you are paid the "extra money" to react if a situation arrises in which you are required to draw your firearm and take action, so this guard had probably been working all day on his feet chatting with the pharmacy staff and patrolling outside, but to react as quickly as he did is very commendable! Good job, Captian!

cchardwick
February 15, 2009, 07:57 AM
I agree, that guy is really a true hero, not only did he put his life on the line in the police force, he did it yet once again in this situation. In a split second the outcome could have been completely different, I'm talking seconds, if not fractions of a second, and that's how long it would have taken the bad guy to shoot both the guard and the clerk. Take a look at this snapshot, this was a face off if I've ever seen one. As you can see here the guard put his life on the line for sure. No question in my mind that this guy was doing the right thing when he shot the bad guy, gun pointed right at him just a few feet away.

http://www.capsandstems.com/shared/faceoff.jpg

bucknarley
February 15, 2009, 09:10 AM
Every possible scenario is different. In this case, in my opinion, the security guard acted correctly and I hope he gets a raise. Bottom line for me... It's like the old saying goes, "I'd rather be judged by twelve instead of carried by six."

MrClean
February 15, 2009, 09:26 AM
Wow.... what a read! Not sure how I missed this thread for so long. And actual good points on both sides of the fence.... and some on the fence. :p

Many years ago, maybe.... maybe I would think they would just take the goods and leave. Today? No. I work on a Gun Interdiction Team and I see absolutely no value for life with the people we deal with. None. Maybe the BG's are different where some of you live. Here, they would just as soon shoot you so there is less risk of being identified for even small crimes. I hear that from THEIR mouths while in handcuffs and taking them on that nice enjoyable ride to the jail.

No, I don't have "statistics" to back up anything. My statistics class professor spent the first 2 weeks showing us from various real life cases how stats can be twisted around to meet the compiler's needs anyway.

All I can say is if there is a 1% chance that he may shoot someone, I'll take that. And EVERYONE would agree to that small % I believe. I would rather not wonder about it after I had done nothing and he shot someone. I would much rather "explain" my actions after shooting him than explain my "lack of actions" to their next of kin.

The US has become way too "tolerant" on many issues in my opinion. And this is one that will cost lives.... when people freeze or hesitate because of all the PC and Sue Happy folks out there.... folks die.

Does every encounter have to end in a shooting? Most definitely NOT. It's the last thing I want to do. Once a weapon is brandished and there is a clear threat of life..... unfortunately it's time.

**stepping down off soapbox looking for HBP medicine** ;)

Vergeltung
February 15, 2009, 09:56 AM
guard did great (esp when you see that stop action photo just above, yikes! :eek: ). one less druggie piece of shiite in the world.

what's the issue? some of you 2nd-guessers are hilarious.

Creature
February 15, 2009, 11:32 AM
So in other words, righteous indignation aside, your "point" was nothing but baseless opinion and nothing more. You have absolutely nothing to offer besides relating an event that may or may not have happened to you.

No playboy. Once again you are trying to deflect. You made the claim...back in post #33. A so-called "verifiable" claim. But you failed to show actual numbers to back up your claim. You tapped danced, you deflected, and then you insisted that we try to disprove your claim.

My claim is not made on just "baseless opinion". It is based on experience. Experience paid for in blood and pain.

And now you are calling me a liar. How small of you. Not that I expected anything less from you. I trust that everyone in this forum, through your own writing in this thread, now sees you for what you really are.

Vergeltung
February 15, 2009, 11:50 AM
absolutely Creatch. :cool:

Playboypenguin
February 15, 2009, 12:15 PM
Creature, once again you fail to add anything of substance to an argument. You made a very strong and definitive statement that not resisting is more likely to get you injured. A statement that is completely in contrast to all empirical data. Then you failed to back that up with anything other than a story that may or may not be true. Then when asked for anything beyond conjecture you become defensive and spend all your posts talking about me instead of defending your position. Then you try to counter what peetza added with more conjecture. Not surprising. It seems to be the extent of your involvement in most threads.

John went about his argument correctly and actually gathered information and formed a possibly relevant hypothesis. The information is not complete enough right now to make a strong argument but it is very compelling and could really go somewhere. You might want to pay attention to how he approached the topic.

Creature
February 15, 2009, 12:18 PM
It seems to me that you did just the same. You added nothing. You still spout empirical data. Show us the data!

Creature
February 15, 2009, 12:29 PM
As for empirical data, how "empirical" can you get when looking at my own experiences?

Come on, pbp, lets see that empirical data of which you write.

David Armstrong
February 15, 2009, 12:39 PM
Naw, you could find that data too if you wanted to...but you chose not to so I would like to see what you can contribute. Please, regale us with your numbers and statistics...or at least where/how you came across the data to support your belief.
I've avoided this thread pretty much up until now, but it has reached the point where I feel the need to join. Playboy Penguin, you have hit it right on the head, and the posts are obvious. Way too many folks here want to those with info to spoon-feed them, but whenever they are asked to do a little research on their own to provide the slightest support for their claims they choose not to do so. Sort of makes you wonder what they are afraid of finding.
FWIW, there is a reason EVERY major LE organization, EVERY major professional security organization, and EVERY major employee safety organization Tha I have looked at advocates compliance to robberies. It is hands down the best option as reported in dozens of independent studies and reviews. There has been one study that suggested otherwise, and the author of it has even gone on record saying that you shouldn't really trust it much because the data source was not a good one for using the data in that manner, but it was the only thing available.

Creature
February 15, 2009, 12:48 PM
Okay, David. You stepped through that door....prove that EVERY LE organization, EVERY professional security organization, and EVERY employee safety organization advocates compliance to robberies. Lets see that documentation.

Oh, I see that you edited your post...to read "that you have looked at." Glad I copied your post before you side stepped the issue with the edit button.

Capt Charlie
February 15, 2009, 12:57 PM
:rolleyes:

There must be some variation of Murphy that proclaims threads with over 100 posts will become a train wreck.

Stick a fork in it; this one's done.