PDA

View Full Version : Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?


ig88250
March 25, 2009, 12:27 AM
The story can be found Here (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/965735.html). Now - we don't have all the information, and hindsight is 20/20 - but what would you have done?

It seems entirely possible that NO ONE would of gotten hurt had the customer not done anything.

No matter what your thoughts are this illustrates two points:

1. You can kill the perp and still die (or be seriously injured) yourself. Making the first shot a kill shot is critical and can only be achieved with LOTS of practice.

2. Not all defense scenarios are so cut and dry. Your decision to use deadly force could cause collateral damage - including your own life.

What do you guys think?

hogdogs
March 25, 2009, 12:49 AM
Google Miami burger king shooting...
Articles abound. seems a good shoot according to most but one political party site acts as if this is proof we need gun control:rolleyes: And a poster says "I wonder if they allow guns in there store...":barf:
Brent

jgcoastie
March 25, 2009, 01:06 AM
Well, for starters, I hope the good guy makes a full and speedy recovery.
Important parts of following statutes are bolded...


- Florida Statute 776.012
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...

(emphasis added by me, the statute continues, but that's the important part)

- Florida Statute 776.031
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

(emphasis added by me)

- Florida Statute 776.032
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

(emphasis added by me)

Looks like the good guy is standing on solid legal ground and everything should work out in his favor...

If I were in that situation, I can't say definitively one way or the other, but I most likely would have acted similarly if I felt the danger to myself or others warranted the use of deadly force...

We can all sit here and play armchair quarterback, but aside from getting himself shot, I think the good guy did the right thing.

jgcoastie
March 25, 2009, 01:15 AM
This case should bear fair warning to all CCWP holders and those who are lucky enough to live in Vermont or Alaska.

1. Know the law. Looks like this guy did and as soon as he recovers from his injuries, looks like he won't be facing any jail time or penalties.

2. Know your weapon and practice practice practice... If any of us find ourselves in such a situation; a definitive fight-stopping/preventing shot is what is required to prevent injury to ourselves or those around us. If you can't put your shots in an area that will end the fight, you need a lot of range time and probably a defensive fire training course.

Stay safe and know the important stuff.

Whiteboy67
March 25, 2009, 01:38 AM
Was it right for him to draw the weapon though? It's kind of like the whole bank robbery situation. We need more details, did the robber show intent to harm or anything like that? Or did the guy want to be a hero and pulled his gun? Seems like he made it more dangerous by doing so.

Wildalaska
March 25, 2009, 02:11 AM
Ditto more facts needed

Good shoot doesnt always mean good shoot

WildmorefactsaretheonlywaytotellAlaska TM

AZAK
March 25, 2009, 02:18 AM
Was it right for him to draw the weapon though? It's kind of like the whole bank robbery situation. We need more details, did the robber show intent to harm or anything like that? Or did the guy want to be a hero and pulled his gun? Seems like he made it more dangerous by doing so. Emphasis by AZAK
From the available telling at this point,

First bolded question:
Definitely not, using a gun while committing a felony only exacerbates the situation.

Second bolded question:
In Florida, not Aspen at the top of the chair lift, wearing a ski mask and demanding money from the cashier, while in possession of a loaded gun might be consuetude as "intent to harm".

Third bolded question:
Yes, demanding money from the cashier while wearing a ski mask in Florida with a gun is dangerous; one lesson that he failed to learn.

Let us remember who was, as in past tense, the criminal here.

hogdogs
March 25, 2009, 06:51 AM
Point a gun at my family, myself or another seemingly honest citizen and I would have to think intent to use it is high... If you just want to impose fear just yell... BOO... GIMME DA LOOT!!! real loud and you may have a chance!
Brent

Double Naught Spy
March 25, 2009, 07:24 AM
Seems like he made it more dangerous by doing so.

This sort of observation is sort of silly, sort of like the folks that believe that it is irresponsible to "escalate" a lethal force situation with a firearm.

If the robber is using a lethal force instrament to make threats (implied or stated), it is already a lethal force situation. Technically, anything that you do outside of full compliance will escalate the situation and hence make "it more dangerous by doing so."

Defending against lethal threats is dangerous. That is the bottom line.

If everyone is afraid of escalation or making a situation more dangerous, then you might as well lay down your guns right now because you can't fight lethal force otherwise.

A customer eyed him and the two started arguing. The customer had a concealed-weapons permit and his gun -- and the two exchanged gunfire.

Sounds like the customer was doing that "communicate" thing. I am not big on the notion of communicating with the bad guy AFTER he has already threatened lethal force and has the intent (threat), opportunity (gun and potential victim(s)), and ability (no doubt he can pull the trigger and hit people within range of the gun). As in this case, it captures the robber's attention, thereby making it harder to effect a good defense against the robber. If the robber sees you going for a weapon, he may be prompted to go ahead and shoot you...and apparently did.

dabigguns357
March 25, 2009, 07:53 AM
I agree with double,why would you want to argue with someone who is robbing the place.Swift commands to drop whatever weapon they have.Then he allowed the robber to turn the gun on him,not good.How many times have we heard,don't loss the element of suprise.

I wouldn't just start slinging lead but don't just stand and argue either.

KChen986
March 25, 2009, 07:54 AM
I think, given the proper state of mind (which, would be hard to do in a situation like this--I know my adrenaline would be through the roof), I would have taken cover, presented only my firearm, head and hands, and ordered the BG to drop his weapon.

Of course, this could have just as easily turned in to a 'bad shoot' if a bystander was struck and killed. Hard to say what the exact 'right' choice would have been.

SquidWarrior
March 25, 2009, 08:22 AM
This story hits close to home for me. I spent a good part of my life growing up in that area of Miami and I have eaten at that Burger King a few times. As with any situation, you cant say what you would do until you are there. If the VC leveled his weapon off at anybody, deadly force is just and authorized. Thank god he was there and he did the right thing. I wish him a speedy recovery.

#18indycolts
March 25, 2009, 08:35 AM
Making the first shot a kill shot is critical and can only be achieved with LOTS of practice.


and even then its not automatic.


Your decision to use deadly force could cause collateral damage


+1

Housezealot
March 25, 2009, 08:39 AM
I wonder about that all the time, I guess id depends if the place was crowded as all hell and i didn't have a perfectly clean shot I wouldn't risk my freedom and a bystanders life, but if I had a clean shot........

csmsss
March 25, 2009, 09:02 AM
The only quibble I have with what the CCW holder did was that he argued with the robber. He had the element of surprise up until that point and surrendered it for unknown reasons. He would have been better off shooting the robber immediately - very possibly the robber wouldn't have been able to return fire. Instead, the CCW sustained life threatening wounds.

Regarding the OP's "kill shot" idea, well - that's just Hollywoodspeak. There is no single shot that will produce a guaranteed drop 'em dead right there killing - not even a shot to the brain, and killing isn't the objective in the first place - stopping the threat is.

jg0001
March 25, 2009, 09:25 AM
1. Know the law. Looks like this guy did and as soon as he recovers from his injuries, looks like he won't be facing any jail time or penalties.

I still don't get these types of responses. Why should the law have anything to do with it in this life or death scenario.

Either (a) he didn't feel threatened, nor feel anyone else was threatened, and should not have escalated the incident or (b) he DID feel there was an imminent threat and/or was extremely uncertain about such threat and any INACTION could have led to a loss of life. Neither one of these relates to what the law might say, both of them relate to what is a correct course of action, given available facts.

Wouldn't you prevent a loss of life, possibly your own, regardless of whether or not it was legal, so long as it was moral and ethical? What if you were carrying in a place you were not supposed to be (say a Burger King within 500 feet of an elementary school -- assume for this discussion that the law at present in that location would not permit a legal carry), and the same scenario took place. If the legality of it changes, would your answer about what he should do really change? If so, then this life or death decision just became entirely too arbitrary. If the law said he couldn't shoot in a public place but the bad guy seemed like he was going to start dropping employees, should he just stand there and watch in order to avoid legal issues later on?

I can get the knowing the law to the extent it helps navigate uncertain waters and to the extent it is in line with what is ethically and morally correct. Beyond that, no one needs to be a witness against him or herself and should be acquiring the assistance of a properly trained and experienced defense attorney before speaking to the police.

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 09:44 AM
The only guarantee of a stop that will not result in a gun fight is a CNS shot.

These are difficult enough under ideal conditions, like shooting at paper with no one shooting back or threatening to shoot back.

This is why it is my position that shooting should only commence when you have some reason to believe that your inaction will cause more harm that your action. In other words, the mere presence of a gun does not always justify shooting. We should look at any situation as a "what will do the least harm" question. Sometimes that means being a good witness, sometimes it means shooting the BGs. There is no blanket answer and we always have to be aware that any action we take could get us killed, whether that action be compliance or shooting.

jgcoastie
March 25, 2009, 09:51 AM
What if you were carrying in a place you were not supposed to be (say a Burger King within 500 feet of an elementary school -- assume for this discussion that the law at present in that location would not permit a legal carry)

-jg001

You answered that question... With this statement...

I can get the knowing the law to the extent it helps navigate uncertain waters

If it's not legal for you to carry somewhere, either don't go (I'm assuming there are more BK's around than just the one within 500' of a school) or leave your weapon locked in a safe in your vehicle. Regardless of any hypothetical situation you can come up with...

If it is not legal to carry in a particular location, you should not be carrying there. To do so and be placed in a situation such as this gives the anti's more fuel for the "vigilante justice" argument. I tend to avoid places of business that do not allow firearms on the premises... I want my gun with me at all times, but I also know the law and wish to obey it to the fullest extent...

It amazes me how people can show a total disregard for the law in some cases... The scenario you just provided is illegal.

I thought we were all law-abiding citizens here???

hogdogs
March 25, 2009, 09:57 AM
In other words, the mere presence of a gun does not always justify shooting. We should look at any situation as a "what will do the least harm" question.
Exactly... The mere presence of a gun is not justification to shoot. Like at the gun range or gun store etc... The blatant use of a gun in a hold up is plenty of justification to shoot but it may not be safe... possibly an innocent bystander behind the BG or such.
Brent

csmsss
March 25, 2009, 10:02 AM
The only guarantee of a stop that will not result in a gun fight is a CNS shot. Even that isn't guaranteed. Plenty of people have sustained CNS gunshot wounds and kept going for quite a while. A wound to the brain stem would probably result in an instant stop, but that's an awfully small target, even if you knew exactly where to shoot to hit it.

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 10:05 AM
Plenty of people have sustained CNS gunshot wounds and kept going for quite a while.

Possibly, but not in the context that I am using the word. When I say "CNS" I mean brain or upper spinal column. "Insta-kill" or at least instant incapacitation.

rzach
March 25, 2009, 10:19 AM
the argument my have been that the shooter wanted him to empty his pockets where he keeps his gun :confused:

he probably did not want to be invoked i would to see the tapes

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 10:32 AM
Well this is news to me (in my neck of the woods) but I would have done absolutely nothing. Risking my life and inocent patrons for the contents of a cash register belonging to a multinational corporation?:confused:

pax
March 25, 2009, 10:33 AM
It seems entirely possible that NO ONE would of gotten hurt had the customer not done anything.

Hindsight isn't 20/20, despite the old saw. All we know is what did happen. We don't know what might have happened if things had been done differently.

What might have happened:

robber got the money and left without incident; no one harmed

robber got the money and forced clerk & witnesses into a freezer, but the people are found before they freeze to death so no one is harmed (http://www.wftv.com/news/17970825/detail.html) (in which case all the commenters say, "Thank goodness the employees did the right thing," but see below!)

robber got the money, then herded clerk & witnesses into a freezer where he then proceeded to shoot each (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/nyregion/wendy-s-murder-suspect-guilty-but-not-as-charged-defense-says.html) one in the head (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/27/us/4-are-found-shot-in-freezer-of-restaurant-in-dallas-area.html) -- or slit their throats (http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/case_updates/Htm/721097.htm) (not so many news reports say, "Thank goodness the employees cooperated" after such cases!)


So yeah, it's entirely possible nobody would've gotten hurt if he'd just cooperated. It's also possible everyone would have been dead if he had.

We'll never know.

pax

ZeSpectre
March 25, 2009, 11:00 AM
Well this is news to me (in my neck of the woods) but I would have done absolutely nothing. Risking my life and innocent patrons for the contents of a cash register belonging to a multinational corporation?

Resisting strong arm robbery is SELF DEFENSE not defense of property!

It seems to me (and I've posted on this before) that a lot of people can't distinguish between simple theft (illegal removal of property) and robbery by force (coercion via threat to life).

With simple theft (aka burglary) the criminal takes something but never directly threatens you (or may never even have any contact with you at all). For example, you come back to your car to discover a window smashed and stuff stolen. You and the criminal never had any direct contact. In a similar fashion you may arrive just in time to see the criminal run off into the distance. Again, no direct threat/contact. This is theft.

However

Robbery by force involves the criminal directly approaching you and making some sort of threat. That threat is almost always a variation of the hoary old chestnut of "your money or your life". In that case a self-defense response is NOT you protecting "property", it is you protecting your life and well-being which the criminal just directly threatened in an attempt to make you submit.

Each individual must evaluate each situation and decide on the best course of action, but in scenario 2 if means, motive, and opportunity are all met then lethal force may be an appropriate response.

Every time I hear the argument "just give them what they want and they'll go away" I'm astonished at the notion that I, or anyone else, should believe that about someone who was already far enough into criminal behavior to threaten violence and injury in order to rob me in the first place.

If they are far enough outside of the normal social boundaries to perform the bold, face-to-face action of robbery by force, then I tend to believe they'll do whatever else they please as well regardless of any "deal" they claim to be offering me.

Or more specific to this particular robbery. If someone comes into a place of business, makes some sort of demand, and "backs up" that demand with what a reasonable person would consider to be a legitimate threat (such as pointing a firearm) the entire event has ceased to be about property and is now about the threat to yourself and others.

Does this mean you should "just act"?

Hell NO! One should ALWAYS try to review the situation at least a little to determine what all of the options are. Additionally 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 bad guy 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.

csmsss
March 25, 2009, 11:05 AM
Well this is news to me (in my neck of the woods) but I would have done absolutely nothing. Risking my life and inocent patrons for the contents of a cash register belonging to a multinational corporation?I guess you're not familiar with the concept of a franchise, but franchised restaurants aren't typically owned by "multinational corporations", but by small business owners who pay the franchisor (in this case, Burger King) for the right to operate under their name and aegis. Not that it matters, of course. It is irrelevant who owns the restaurant as well as whether they are a multinational corporation or not.

What matters is that neither you nor I nor anyone else responding in this thread was there, and none of us has any idea what the robber was going to do had the CCW not interceded. Would he have left after getting the money? Maybe. Would he have shot one or more customers and/or employees? Maybe. There's no way of knowing, and basing your opinion of whether or not this was a "good" shooting on the fact that it is a franchise restaurant is as ridiculous as it would be to base that opinion on the color shoes the robber was wearing.

Creature
March 25, 2009, 11:06 AM
Well said, Ze...not enough people have thought things through to realize what you have just summed up.

pax
March 25, 2009, 11:27 AM
Ze -

Good post.

pax

jbrown50
March 25, 2009, 12:21 PM
Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking.:rolleyes:

The good thing is that this robber is dead and won't be robbing anyone else. The sad thing is that he didn't turn his life around before committing his last stupid act.

The robber caused this incident. No one else was responsible for the consequenses and outcome but him, but because or our selfish money grubbing society that's not always the case.

Replace the CCW holder with an off duty plain clothed cop and the same situation would have unfolded. This thread wouldn't exist because it would have been considered "the job of the police" to take care of it. That way there's someone with some money who we can sue just in case.

TLeo
March 25, 2009, 12:45 PM
If someone is commiting a robbery while armed the weapon is almost certainly going to be pointed at the intended victim, so.....the THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE already exists and probably the IMMINENT USE OF DEADLY FORCE EXISTS . You don't have to try and read the mind of the robber to be 100% certain he intends to use it or wait until he actually fires ---and far too many robbers these days get what they want and still kill the victims so not to leave witnesses....He has already threatened bodily harm by deadly force and the victim is totally within his rights to defend himself or someone else with deadly force if he feels his life is threatened or the life of a third party. Unless we were there it is not up to us to say the wounded victim was wrong to shoot. He had to make a split second decision and did so.

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 12:51 PM
Zespectre,


While I agree with your post, I would submit that the only part that really matters when you're in that resteraunt is this:

Hell NO! One should ALWAYS try to review the situation at least a little to determine what all of the options are. Additionally 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 bad guy 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.

The rest is just theory to be discussed on the internet. What matters when it's happening is get out with minimal damage, not what sort of crime it may or may not be.



So far as whose money is in the drawer... it doesn't matter. It's insured. That bloodbath cost the owner of that place far more than the cash in the drawer.

Would it have been a blood bath anyway. As others have said, there's no way to know. Observe, decide and act. That's all we can do at the time.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 01:03 PM
This sort of observation is sort of silly, sort of like the folks that believe that it is irresponsible to "escalate" a lethal force situation with a firearm.
Nothing at all irresponsible to suggest that whenever possible one should avoid firing a bunch of bullets inside a business with other people standing around. In fact, it seems like a pretty good bit of advice.

ZeSpectre
March 25, 2009, 01:04 PM
The rest is just theory to be discussed on the internet. What matters when it's happening is get out with minimal damage, not what sort of crime it may or may not be.

peetzakilla,
I understand your point and agree somewhat except for one important detail.

There are any number of people out there who have frozen at the critical instant because they were unsure if they were "in the right".

I know, it sounds stupid.

Sitting here keyboard quarterbacking it seems pretty obvious that if someone is threatening your life then of course you have the right to do whatever it takes to preserve your life...except that people have been so effectively programmed that "just self-defense" doesn't always seem like enough justification and the mental discord of programming vs survival causes people to lock-up under stress.

For that reason I consider the discussion of "type of crime" to be very important because it allows people to build some scenarios where it is already clear in their heads that under "condition A or B or D" I am clear to act appropriately but under "condition C or E" I am constrained.

Having those "game plans" generally worked out ahead of time greatly reduces the chances of a "brain lock" if (Maker forbid) a bad event happens.

Or, as they say, "Train and plan ahead of time because after the whistle blows is no time to come up with a game plan".

I've had two recent incidents where neither my wife nor I hesitated or got flustered but only because we'd considered similar scenarios ahead of time and already had a "game plan".

Bartholomew Roberts
March 25, 2009, 01:04 PM
All I can think is that this guy is facing a lifetime of pain and possibly disability as well as medical bills that are bound to be horrendous as a result of his decision. That is a big bet to make. I wasn't there so I don't know what the shooter saw that convinced him he had to act; but I know for me it would have to be something more than what the newspaper reported for me to take that bet.

From a legal standpoint, it looks like the shooter had every legal right to use lethal force. However, just because you can do it legally doesn't make it the best solution to a problem.

jg0001
March 25, 2009, 01:12 PM
If it's not legal for you to carry somewhere, either don't go (I'm assuming there are more BK's around than just the one within 500' of a school) or leave your weapon locked in a safe in your vehicle. Regardless of any hypothetical situation you can come up with...

If it is not legal to carry in a particular location, you should not be carrying there.

You're missing the point of my statement. There seems to be a lot of people under the belief that they should rely on the law to tell them when to shoot. Situations rarely unfold so nicely and the law is arbitrary from one county to the next.

What about the (real incident) situation with the teacher that had a loaded weapon in his car (parked well away from the school) that went and retrieved it to stop a school shooting? Should he not have gone to get it and bring it back, illegally mind you, onto school grounds to stop the killer?

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 01:20 PM
There are any number of people out there who have frozen at the critical instant because they were unsure if they were "in the right".... For that reason I consider the discussion of "type of crime" to be very important because it allows people to build some scenarios where it is already clear in their heads that under "condition A or B or D" I am clear to act appropriately but under "condition C or E" I am constrained.


I agree.

Well, that takes all the fun right out of it, doesn't it. Now how are we going to argue?;):D:)

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 01:45 PM
It seems to me (and I've posted on this before) that a lot of people can't distinguish between simple theft (illegal removal of property) and robbery by force (coercion via threat to life).With simple theft (aka burglary) the criminal takes something but never directly threatens you (or may never even have any contact with you at all). For example, you come back to your car to discover a window smashed and stuff stolen. You and the criminal never had any direct contact. In a similar fashion you may arrive just in time to see the criminal run off into the distance. Again, no direct threat/contact. This is theft.

However

Robbery by force involves the criminal directly approaching you and making some sort of threat. That threat is almost always a variation of the hoary old chestnut of "your money or your life". In that case a self-defense response is NOT you protecting "property", it is you protecting your life and well-being which the criminal just directly threatened in an attempt to make you submit.

Each individual must evaluate each situation and decide on the best course of action, but in scenario 2 if means, motive, and opportunity are all met then lethal force may be an appropriate response.

I thought the Burger King was being robbed, not the individual. I won't even bother checking the story.

Or more specific to this particular robbery. If someone comes into a place of business, makes some sort of demand, and "backs up" that demand with what a reasonable person would consider to be a legitimate threat (such as pointing a firearm) the entire event has ceased to be about property and is now about the threat to yourself and others.

Again, the contents of a cash register.

Does this mean you should "just act"?

Hell NO! One should ALWAYS try to review the situation at least a little to determine what all of the options are. Additionally 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 bad guy 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.

Hence, I would have never risked my life and the life of others for the contents of a cash register, weather it belongs to a particular person or is operated at a corporate level (some are). Like someone said, it don't matter who's money it is, it's only money. That's what the guy wants at the moment, you give him the money, he goes away. Now, if the life of another person was endangered by the robber, that is another situation, I think, but I'm not going to read the post again.

#18indycolts
March 25, 2009, 01:51 PM
you give him the money, he goes away

so you're the rare part of the population that can actually see into the future?


I won't even bother checking the story.


then how can you actually comment?

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 01:58 PM
so you're the rare part of the population that can actually see into the future?

Ahhhhhhhhh. Yeeessssss. No I don't pretend to see into the future but I don't pretend other things either. :D I don't think a robber is there to kill but to rob. I'm not happy with a robbery but I'm not the city's private police department because I have a CC permit.

I won't even bother checking the story.

then how can you actually comment?

Seems you like reading things out of context. I won't bother checking the story b/c I read the story. It is called sarcasm, angers little brother.

KnightZero
March 25, 2009, 02:09 PM
I didn't see it in this thread (I may have glazed over it) but after re-reading this story a few times, I can easily see a concerned CCW holder, who is attempting to be a good witness by noting the features and behavior of the perpetrator, suddenly becoming the perpetrator's new target simply because he was caught eyeing him. The "argument" may have even been an attempt to de-escalate the situation before the shooting began.

Just my take on the issue. May or may not be the case, but this seems like a good possibility. City life has taught me that being alert and aware can sometimes have unintended consequences - keeping an eye on shady characters around me in public has bought me a good deal of verbal abuse in my day. Toss in an armed robbery, and I could see this as a possible outcome.

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 02:17 PM
I didn't see it in this thread (I may have glazed over it) but after re-reading this story a few times, I can easily see a concerned CCW holder, who is attempting to be a good witness by noting the features and behavior of the perpetrator, suddenly becoming the perpetrator's new target simply because he was caught eyeing him. The "argument" may have even been an attempt to de-escalate the situation before the shooting began.

Just my take on the issue. May or may not be the case, but this seems like a good possibility. City life has taught me that being alert and aware can sometimes have unintended consequences - keeping an eye on shady characters around me in public has bought me a good deal of verbal abuse in my day. Toss in an armed robbery, and I could see this as a possible outcome.

That is a very plausible posibility, in such case, the robber escalated the situation and posibly the CC permit holder had no other option but to draw and shoot.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 02:30 PM
Replace the CCW holder with an off duty plain clothed cop and the same situation would have unfolded.
Not necessarily. Most department policies that I've seen instruct the off-duty officer to be a good witness and not start shooting unless there is no other alternative.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 02:35 PM
so you're the rare part of the population that can actually see into the future?
One does not need to see into the future in order to predict what is likely to happen. One response gives a strong likelihood that it will occur (give hm the money and he will go away). Generally a good bet to play toward the odds, not against them.

pax
March 25, 2009, 02:37 PM
That's what the guy wants at the moment, you give him the money, he goes away.

It sure (http://www.wsmv.com/news/15207409/detail.html) would be nice (http://10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2008/09/09/story_dairy_queen.html?sid=102) if things always (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/2007/11/thanksgiving-we.html) worked that way (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/15333624/detail.html), but they just don't! (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/80883)

A realistic threat assessment includes the possibility that the clerk and/or witnesses will be shot even if everyone complies (http://northwest2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/01/012302/city-county-authorities-compare-notes-3-robberies/) and does what they are told. (http://www.wtvf.com/Global/story.asp?S=7816218)

Believing otherwise is living in a fantasy land.

pax

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 02:53 PM
It sure would be nice if things always worked that way, but they just don't!

A realistic threat assessment includes the possibility that the clerk and/or witnesses will be shot even if everyone complies and does what they are told.

Believing otherwise is living in a fantasy land.

Pax. It sure would be nice. You have to play it by ear.;) From my expirience, if everyone complies, nothing happens. Hate it, YES! Wish things where different, YES, wished to do something about it, YES, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, only if the life of a person is at danger.

#18indycolts
March 25, 2009, 02:54 PM
One does not need to see into the future in order to predict what is likely to happen.

You can predict someone else's actions all day, but at the end of said day it still boils down to the fact that you really don't know what they will do. Remember that quote from a certain steven seagall movie? "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 03:11 PM
David Amstrong:

You go ahead and keep at it if you like. I've had enough of this post. As a matter of fact. It is difficult to have a conversation when the other party is being obtuse.

pax
March 25, 2009, 03:14 PM
Maromero ~

Yes, you do. Based on intelligent assessment of the situation, including body language and other cues that may not appear in the police reports later.

And yet people are willing to read a bare-bones newspaper account -- which definitely will not include all the relevant facts, and which probably will have some of the included facts outright wrong or at least distorted beyond usefulness -- and use that account to say the guy on the scene absolutely made the WRONG CALL (or absolutely made the RIGHT CALL). Either way, it's not realistic.

A realistic understanding of these types of situations includes the knowledge that they are dynamic: they happen quickly, they change quickly, and they are over quickly. Note the word "change." Change one teeny tiny detail -- a detail that probably won't be in the news reports, and may not even be accurate if it is, and which may be so small as to not even have been noticed by other, untrained people on the scene! -- and you've shifted from a situation where you definitely should shoot to one where you definitely should not. Or vice versa.

But the lines are already drawn here. Some participants in this thread are ready to sneer (in a refined, academic way) at anyone who would shoot. Others are fixing to impugn the manhood and ethics of anyone who would not shoot.

Me? For me, the only reason I'd ever shoot someone was if I believed an innocent person was going to die if I did not act immediately and decisively. Money in the drawer, money in my wallet, car keys, my wedding ring -- none of those are reason enough. But protecting my own life most certainly is. So if the situation appeared to warrant it, I'd have shot to defend my life and the lives of other innocents in the area. But I probably wouldn't have vocalized before firing, in this type of situation. If I'd vocalized at all, it would have been to command "DROP THAT WEAPON!" -- giving the criminal an opportunity to save his own life if at all possible -- but only if I could do so from behind cover or good concealment. If I were in the open, I probably would not have vocalized, since the only reason I'd have my firearm out in the first place was if I believed lives were in immediate and truly immenent danger, and given true imminency, an in-the-open vocalization would be foolhardy in the extreme.

(There. That should be enough to get both sides irritated with me. So be it.)

pax

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 03:26 PM
David Amstrong:
You go ahead and keep at it if you like. I've had enough of this post. As a matter of fact. It is difficult to have a conversation when the other party is being obtuse.
I don't mind keeping at it.:D
But yes, it is difficult to have a conversation when the other party refuses to recognize certain facts, or when they choose to deny behaviors and points that have been shown to be valid over and over again, just because "it doesn't mean it will happen this time."
I'm pretty simple about it. Comply when you can, shoot when you must. Just because you can shoot doesn't mean you should, and if you decide to shoot you better plan on it failing. So many here and on other forums have this strange hero complex, and are unwilling to even imagine that the scenario won't go just the way they want it to, with them never missing around, the BG never having any help, all their shots being instantly effective, and so on.

(There. That should be enough to get both sides irritated with me. So be it.)
Well pax, I'm sure both sides get you irritated plenty, it is only fair that you get to irritate both sides back every now and then!;)

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 03:42 PM
Me? For me, the only reason I'd ever shoot someone was if I believed an innocent person was going to die if I did not act immediately and decisively. Money in the drawer, money in my wallet, car keys, my wedding ring -- none of those are reason enough.

Bingo Bango... there's the answer right there.;):)

Glenn E. Meyer
March 25, 2009, 03:53 PM
I found Kathy's response if understood, should soothe the savage internet combatant. :D

Tennessee Gentleman
March 25, 2009, 03:59 PM
One response gives a strong likelihood that it will occur (give hm the money and he will go away). Generally a good bet to play toward the odds, not against them.

Other folks (like Gary Kleck) say that if you use your firearm against a criminal before you are injured you are less likely to be injured. They use their statistics to back that up. It is true that most robberies do not end up with someone being killed but you might have the one that defies the odds and then you are.. well we know:(

A realistic threat assessment includes the possibility that the clerk and/or witnesses will be shot even if everyone complies and does what they are told.

Quite right. What I seem to gather from most of these trainers I see on the tube and about say is to be aware as possible of your surroundings and try to get the advantage (cover, concealment, distance, surprise etc) and do not relenquish it! I like watching Michael Bane's "Best Defense" and Tom Gresham's PDTV. They seem to strike a good balance.

For those who always seem to recommend compliance and then if that doesn't work try something else assume (dangerously I think) that if you pass up an opportunity or advantage you will have another later on. I don't like that logic. Seems to not make sense. The sooner the danger is averted the better I would think. The Tacoma Mall shooting in 2005 and Mr. McKown come to mind.

PS Kathy I'm not irritated:p

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 05:36 PM
About 15 years ago, I was robbed while working at a sunglasess store on the Las Vegas Strip (not exactly a stop 'n rob in the ghetto). My hands were duct-taped behind me, and I was made to crawl into the bathroom, where I listened to the robbers debate whether or not to kill me. I do not believe the debate was serious, I think they were trying to scare me. (They did an excellent job.) Nevertheless, I decided that day that I'd rather take it in the chest, fighting back, than in the back of the head on the bathroom floor.

Deciding ahead of time that you'll comply is to rely on the good nature of violent criminals.

That being said, all such decisions are obviously situational. One thing I can say for sure, though, is I wouldn't be arguing with anybody, or ordering anybody to do anything. (Isn't that what screwed the guy who tried to stop the Tacoma mall shooting?) No warnings. The robber's warnings were the laws against armed robbery, and the number of robbers killed while plying their trade.

If I could manage it, the robber wouldn't even know things had gone badly for him until he saw St. Peter. The Marquis of Queensbury didn't address gunfighting.

Also, I do not think that the happiest outcome to an armed robbery is "no one got hurt." I think the happiest outcome is "no one got hurt - except the would-be robber."

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 06:08 PM
I think the happiest outcome is "no one got hurt - except the would-be robber."
The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.

csmsss
March 25, 2009, 06:17 PM
The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.You are making a fallacious assumption - that the robber wouldn't otherwise hurt anyone. How do you know that for certain? Well, you don't. No one does.

David Armstrong
March 25, 2009, 06:22 PM
It is no more of an assumption than that the robber would hurt someone. In fact, it is a much better assumption, given the facts.

cracked91
March 25, 2009, 06:26 PM
I probably would have done similar, but I would not have started an argument with him. Burger kings a pretty big and if there was any number of people in it you would have to be paying very close attention to try to see everyone while you were robbing the place. through a ski mask at that. I would have had my gun on him as soon as he had it on the clerk. I would have demanded he dropped the weapon, and if it came back towards me he would get two to the chest and one to the head. Secondly armed robbery would be considered a forced felony. So completley justified.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 25, 2009, 06:28 PM
The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.

That statement merely begs the question and there is no basis in the facts to make it true.

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 06:41 PM
I would have demanded he dropped the weapon, and if it came back towards me he would get two to the chest and one to the head.

Not me. No way, no how. He can turn before you can fire. Try it with paintball, or squirt guns or something: Action beats reaction, every time. He can PROBABLY fire before you can, as well.

No warnings.

dabigguns357
March 25, 2009, 06:46 PM
It seems all the choices that are given are wrong to someone else.We are all given a choice to carry or not to carry,to stay and fight or stand still and do nothing.It's your choice,now choose wisely.

cracked91
March 25, 2009, 06:46 PM
So if he his facing the counter and you are standing behind him gun on him you think he will be able to spin around and shoot you before you can squeeze the shot off. I paintball ALOT. I know it is not exactly real gunfighting but my experience has been that at ranges closer than ten feet if you have your marker on someone before they have theres pointed at you they might as well throw there gun down right then unless they would rather the pain of being tagged out.

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 07:15 PM
So if he his facing the counter and you are standing behind him gun on him you think he will be able to spin around and shoot you before you can squeeze the shot off.

Now you're behind him. OK. You're introducing new terms.

I didn't say he could "spin around and shoot you." I said he could TURN, and probably fire, and he could. (At the very least, you'd better assume he could.) Your fire is likely to be more accurate, but now you've got bullets flying around, and even if he doesn't hit you, he might hit someone. You've started a gunfight, in which you may have the advantage, but it's still a FIGHT. You might freeze, you might flinch. And now he's moving, so your ability to deliver an incapacitating shot is diminished. Remember, even if you get to "squeeze the shot off" first, your first shot may be the beginning of the fight rather than the end.

Personally, I'm going to try not to FIGHT anybody, and I'm sure as hell not going to try to apprehend anybody. I'm going to try to SHOOT the SOB. If I'm behind him, as you introduced, I'd be TRYING essentially to snipe him from short range.

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 07:40 PM
If I did decide that I needed to shoot in this scenario then there is one absolute:

There would be no warning. No way.

There is no legal or moral requirement to give this guy a chance to surrender. If I decide a shoot is necessary it's going to happen quick like, head shot preferred. I do NOT want this guy getting the chance to do exactly what did in fact end up happening.

B.N.Real
March 25, 2009, 07:47 PM
Guy walks into a Burger King.

You are standing there in line.

He's wearing a ski mask has a gun and is screaming for the clerk to give up the blankety blank cash or he's blankety blank dead.

You pull out your concealed weapon and TRY TO TALK HIM OUT OF A ROBBERY?HIM HOLDING A GUN IN PLAIN SIGHT?

I am not Dirty Harry and this is not tv.

That criminal is purposely putting everyone in danger by just trying to pull off an armed robbery.

I pull out my gun and convince him to stop by shooting him.

What little was reported said that the ccw holder got into a argument with the man.

He gave up one of the two weapons he had.

The element of surprise.

Had he even shot the guy in the hand,leg,foot or body,screaming "Get on the 'blanking ground now!"the bad guy might have dropped the gun.

If the bad guy did'nt and turned to the ccw holder,he was activily trying to shoot the ccw holder and because the criminal was already in the middle of a unlawful action that already jeopordized everyone the store,the criminal forced the ccw holder to shoot and kill the guy.

Ten years ago,I watched a video of an off duty police officer trying to stop a robber that just robbed a convienience store clerk and the robber was on his way out without shooting anyone.

I watch with horror on the video as the off duty officer got into a handgrab situation with the robber,pushed the robbers hand with the gun,high over the officers head.

The officer held the bad guys hand there and I watched in horror as that criminal rotated the gun down with his wrist and shot the officer point blank in the top of the officers head.

The officer died while he was standing there.

When he fell to the ground ,the officer immediately shrunk into a fetal position.

To this day,that video remains the most horrific example of the coldness and total lack of concern any robber has for you and me.

That was the real thing.

That was a real police officer,a fellow American just like you and me, that tried to stop someone that should have never been doing what he was doing in the first place.

And he died immediately because he was not armed and gave the robber the chance to defend the attempt to disarm the robber.

I have no intention of letting someone ever get a chance to shoot me like that ever.

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 07:49 PM
This is why it is my position that shooting should only commence when you have some reason to believe that your inaction will cause more harm that your action.


What if it was a peetza, trying to rob you? :p

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 08:24 PM
It also occurs to me that, this being a Burger King, the odds are overwhelming that there was at least one great big fat guy available to serve as cover.:p:p

Brian Pfleuger
March 25, 2009, 08:27 PM
What if it was a peetza, trying to rob you?


Different rules entirely.
If it has gross things like onions or peppers I will roll it up into a ball and stuff it in the garbage. If it has good stuff, like pepperoni, bacon, ham... well then it gets... um, "processed" internally and finds it's way to the septic tank.;):D

csmsss
March 25, 2009, 08:30 PM
It is no more of an assumption than that the robber would hurt someone. In fact, it is a much better assumption, given the facts.You don't know all the facts. No one does. What's dangerous is making assumptions like you seem to favor. I'd argue that making assumptions in lieu of using your own best judgment based on the immediate conditions is more dangerous than anything else one can do.

At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting? Does the bad guy have to kill an innocent before you'll bless the use of force by the CCW?

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 08:41 PM
If it has gross things like onions or peppers I will roll it up into a ball and stuff it in the garbage. If it has good stuff, like pepperoni, bacon, ham... well then it gets... um, "processed" internally and finds it's way to the septic tank.

And pineapple, the Doomsday Topping?

MrNiceGuy
March 25, 2009, 08:43 PM
An unstable man walks into a restaurant with a loaded firearm and starts threatening people.

I have no reason to trust that he will fulfill his promises of leaving after getting his money... he's already proven that he's dishonest, unstable, violent, and intends on doing whatever he feels like.

to believe him is a **** poor a gamble.... and i dont gamble with my life like that.

With the exception of an argument, I believe the CCW carrier was spot on from the facts that we know.
At the point he has a pistol out and is pointing it at people, his intentions have been stated and negotiations are over as far as i'm concerned.

JustDreadful
March 25, 2009, 09:01 PM
To stick a gun in someone's face and say "Give me your money or I'll kill you" is a vicious act. As someone posted above, it's not at all the same as burglary or picking pockets. It IS violence. Stick-up men are vicious.

Re4mer
March 25, 2009, 09:15 PM
I think the guy did the right thing morally, however I am not sure if talking/arguing with him before shooting was a good idea tactically. If a guy already has a gun out then talking is a wast of time.

chopz
March 25, 2009, 10:37 PM
my first thought: i'll bet the guy is somewhat happy with the outcome; he's still alive, he was justified in his actions and he might be thought a hero. but he's got serious injuries to overcome.

my second thought: the article says this was a time when the place was "regularly crowded with children." i have no reason, from the article to assume it wasn't full of kids when this happened. to me, facing an adversary who was surrounded by kids would be tantamount to facing someone who was using a hostage as a shield, but greatly multiplied. which of us would shoot if that were the case? even worse - if i myself was surrounded by kids, i know i can't account for every round that comes out of mister dimwitted-skimaskwearer's gun.

my third thought: if i was a parent who had been there with my kids, or if my kids had been there when this happened, i'd probably want to kick the living daylights out of this "hero."

room full of kids changes the situation greatly, as far as i'm concerned.

cracked91
March 25, 2009, 10:55 PM
If I was a parent and my kids had been there, depending on the actual details, I would probably want to thank the hero. Say the police roll in just as he is about to leave so he decides to grab a ten year old and stick a gun in there ear so he can get away? No way. If I was a hundred percent sure I could shoot him without hitting any innocents in crossfire, I would do it. If I was ninety percent sure I could apprehend him without shooting him, I would probably take that option too. . . but it all depends on the circumstance and like it has already been said I never intend to give someone a chance to shoot me.

Nnobby45
March 25, 2009, 11:12 PM
If this thread demostrates one thing, it's this:

If you have mere seconds to make a critical decision in a life or death situation (as he apparently saw it), then you can rest assured that there will be many people who will take many hundreds of thousands of seconds second guessing you--- and many won't have the slightest idea what they would have done in the same situation other than to do the aforementioned second guessing and tell someone else what they should have done.

Some have even been so arrogant as to say he "shouldn't have drawn". Since the citizen took the action he did, no one will ever know if he, and others, would have ended up in the back room lying on the floor with a bullet in their heads, or if the robber would have taken the money and left.

As Kathy points out, compliance is no guarantee of survival for you or other innocent people. Not in this day in age when Bubba can't afford witnesses, or is too high on crack, or......any other of the reasons why people end up dead, execution style, after offering full compliance.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:

Maromero
March 25, 2009, 11:27 PM
At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting?

Oh My Lord. Is this was all the bickering was all about? Show me where I wrote or posted that the shooting was not a "good shooting"? All I wrote was I would have done nothing in said situation. Does that position threaten your "good shooting" theory to the point the members of the board feel the need to attack someone that Lord forbid does not agree or, even worst, reach a different conclusion without disagreeing with the hidden premise?

And Yes, now for the record, it was a bad shooting, tacticaly speaking. The guy was lucky.

Also. I know I said I was through with the thread but upon inspection just could not help myself. I'll try not to make it a habit.

csmsss
March 26, 2009, 06:12 AM
Oh My Lord. Is this was all the bickering was all about? Show me where I wrote or posted that the shooting was not a "good shooting"? All I wrote was I would have done nothing in said situation. Does that position threaten your "good shooting" theory to the point the members of the board feel the need to attack someone that Lord forbid does not agree or, even worst, reach a different conclusion without disagreeing with the hidden premise?My question wasn't addressed to you, sir. For the record, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, and I attacked neither Mr. Armstrong nor you. You have a very creative and selective process of reading, to say the least.

And Yes, now for the record, it was a bad shooting, tacticaly speaking. The guy was lucky.You weren't there. All we have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and you've already drawn this conclusion. You have amazing prescience, I must say. You must be one smart cookie.

Also. I know I said I was through with the thread but upon inspection just could not help myself. I'll try not to make it a habit.Self-aggrandize much?

ZeSpectre
March 26, 2009, 07:57 AM
Here's an idea, take the personal battles to PM or someplace else.
Can we PLEASE get back on topic.? This thread has been holding up pretty well so far given the nature of the discussion.

David Armstrong
March 26, 2009, 10:43 AM
You don't know all the facts. No one does. What's dangerous is making assumptions like you seem to favor.
You might note that was my point, that without knowing all the facts one can make any assumption. As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds. It is less dangerous than doing things that increase the danger and/or cost to you.
At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting? Does the bad guy have to kill an innocent before you'll bless the use of force by the CCW?
If by a "good " shooting you are using the legal term, I've never said it wasn't good. In fact, legally, it appears the shooter is well within the law. Now if by "good" you mean the smart thing to do or the right thing to do, I won't accept it. Starting a gunfight when there is no need to start one in order to save a little money just doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to do.
Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing. I don't even thing it needs to be quit so restricted, you might want to save some that aren't so innocent. But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

You weren't there. All we have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and you've already drawn this conclusion. You have amazing prescience, I must say. You must be one smart cookie.
Whoa, Nellie, as my Grandmother used to say. Aren't you complaining about him doing the EXACT SAME thing that you are doing? You weren't there, all yo have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and yet you have drawn a conclusion, right? Is it your claim now that you have prescience?

Tennessee Gentleman
March 26, 2009, 10:51 AM
But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

The problem is that if you wait to see whether the BG wants more than the money it might be too late to react. That is the whole issue I see with "playing the odds" You might be the one in 450 that gets murdered.

Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing.

Might be too late to do anything if you don't gain the advantage first.

I think if you choose the comply first method you might be stuck with that as your only option and rely on the odds to save you.

OldMarksman
March 26, 2009, 11:22 AM
That is the whole issue I see with "playing the odds" You might be the one in 450 that gets murdered.

Seems to me that those odds are overwhelmingly better than trying to draw on and shoot someone who has his gun in his hand...

csmsss
March 26, 2009, 11:41 AM
You might note that was my point, that without knowing all the facts one can make any assumption. As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds. It is less dangerous than doing things that increase the danger and/or cost to you.
And you have No way of knowing whether the armed robber in this case did anything to further escalate the already high level of danger. Did he move aggressively toward the CCW? Did he move his firearm from a ready position to point it directly at someone? Did he flip a safety off or rack a slide? All of these things are possible, and would certainly escalate the danger in any reasonable person's estimation. Yet your blanket assumption does not allow for this.

If by a "good " shooting you are using the legal term, I've never said it wasn't good. In fact, legally, it appears the shooter is well within the law. Now if by "good" you mean the smart thing to do or the right thing to do, I won't accept it. Starting a gunfight when there is no need to start one in order to save a little money just doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to do.
Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing. I don't even thing it needs to be quit so restricted, you might want to save some that aren't so innocent. But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

Your irrelevant commentary on the use of the word "innocent" aside, you didn't answer the question - at what point would you in that situation endorse the use of force by the CCW? Because your arguments suggest that you would endorse that only at the point where the robber started shooting. I'd like to hear you clarify this.


Whoa, Nellie, as my Grandmother used to say. Aren't you complaining about him doing the EXACT SAME thing that you are doing? You weren't there, all yo have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and yet you have drawn a conclusion, right? Is it your claim now that you have prescience?
My point is that since we don't have all the facts, we should give the law-abiding CCW the benefit of the doubt unless and until such facts that warrant criticism of his actions emerge.

Brian Pfleuger
March 26, 2009, 11:49 AM
Yet your blanket assumption does not allow for this.


Both sides of this argument are making "blanket assumptions". There would be no way to discuss an issue this complex WITHOUT blanket assumptions. Every point made would have to be restricted by an untold number of "qualifiers". Every opinion would have to be the length of a short novel in order to even attempt to eliminate "blanket assumptions".


I would have.... Unless he.... then I would have... unless he.... so I would have.... except he might have....


Every action by both parties (BG and CCW) contains an infinite possible set of reactions from the other party.

csmsss
March 26, 2009, 12:10 PM
Both sides of this argument are making "blanket assumptions". There would be no way to discuss an issue this complex WITHOUT blanket assumptions. Every point made would have to be restricted by an untold number of "qualifiers". Every opinion would have to be the length of a short novel in order to even attempt to eliminate "blanket assumptions".


I would have.... Unless he.... then I would have... unless he.... so I would have.... except he might have....


Every action by both parties (BG and CCW) contains an infinite possible set of reactions from the other partI don't completely agree. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - my position is that armed encounters are not one-size-fits-all events whose outcomes can be accurately predicted by previous, unrelated events. Every encounter like this should be judged on its own merits.

I would also argue that unless we have reason to think otherwise, we should give the CCW the benefit of the doubt as to his observing a situation and believing that the use of his firearm was necessary.

Brian Pfleuger
March 26, 2009, 12:17 PM
...my position is that armed encounters are not one-size-fits-all events whose outcomes can be accurately predicted by previous, unrelated events. Every encounter like this should be judged on its own merits.

I would also argue that unless we have reason to think otherwise, we should give the CCW the benefit of the doubt as to his observing a situation and believing that the use of his firearm was necessary.


I can agree with that, with the possible exception that I do believe that we should be aware of past instances and the statistics associated with them in order to have a starting point in our assessment of the situation. For example, past instances tell us that the presence of a gun is still MOST OFTEN not likely to result in the death of innocents. Therefore, our default reaction should not be "Gun! Shoot him!". We should begin by believing that the best action is to be a good witness and change our minds along the way, as our assessment dictates. Now, "along the way" could be a grand total of 3 micro-seconds if we see something that "crosses the line".

AZAK
March 26, 2009, 01:54 PM
As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds.

Another perspective on this "playing of the odds" would be from the robber's point of view. I wonder what the odds are that a CCW holder would draw and kill the robber?

What if every CCW did attempt too? I wonder if this would be a deterrent to armed robbery?

Are there forums where armed robbers debate the "right" course of action when holding up a Burger King, and how to "play the odds"?

Obviously most armed robberies do not happen at shooting ranges, police stations, and gun stores. One would think that there is a reason for this.

Regardless of what one thinks about any of this, I still maintain that one should not gloss over the fact that it was the armed robber, committing a felony that endangered the lives of anyone in or near the "scene of the crime", who was at fault here.

Yellowfin
March 26, 2009, 02:09 PM
Lots of studies among prison inmates have shown that the only thing they really fear is armed citizens. I hope this stokes that fear even more and deters more crime. There is absolutely NOTHING to say than an armed criminal won't simply turn and shoot you later if you don't do something about them before they get the chance to. Of course in this case the outcome was that he shot back anyway...but who could predict that it wouldn't have been that bad or worse. Had he not shot the perp, they could have landed an immediately lethal shot and then continued to shoot more people.

We all know how a lot of unmitigated criminal attacks have gone. The results can't get any worse than a madman having their way, in many cases.

skydiver3346
March 26, 2009, 03:18 PM
From reading this, it sounds like the good guy did not have his gun drawn on the perp who was robbing the Burger King. Just told him to put his gun away, etc. Then perp shot the customer and the customer returned fire killing the robber (after taking three hits himself)? I don't know for sure, but I believe I would already have my pistol drawn, cocked, etc and ready to defend myself before ordering a robber to "put away his gun" (if I was going to get involved in the first place). Depends on the circumstances and you would actually have to be there to make the final call I would think. At any rate, he probably would have been better off having his gun out and ready to use, before ordering the bad guy to put his away (if that is what actually happend)
Don't know if I would have started a shootout in a crowded restuarant where innocent people where sitting or waiting in line to be served? At least it ended with a reasonably good outcome (no innocent people were hurt). Too bad about the good guy being wounded in the process. At least the perp won't be robbing any more places and/or placing folks in danger from now on.

hogdogs
March 26, 2009, 04:00 PM
Short of deciding upon possible collateral damages caused by me and my projectiles, Simply brandishing a weapon of any kind with implied violence is grounds to get yerself shot. Not only is it a self defense tactic but it is a message to likewise violent minded nefarious folks. Teaching a lesson by example is not a reason to shoot an armed robber but it sure is a nice windfall fringe benefit!;)
Brent

pax
March 26, 2009, 04:03 PM
Additional info in the updated news story: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/breaking-news/story/968765.html

pax

B.N.Real
March 26, 2009, 04:07 PM
The real question here is what kind of community do you want to live in?

Do you want to live in a community where criminals with handguns can rob people as they please and leave it up to the police to stop every criminal act?

Maybe next time it is your wife and child in line at the next store he robs and he takes your wife hostage,rapes her and kills her and your child before he gets 'arrested' by the police.

My view on this is very clear.

In my community,where I live,you rob ANYONE in front of me and I am armed,I will try to stop you probably with deadly force if you are armed with deadly force.

It is the ultimate stupidity to leave your safety and everyone else in your community to the whims and preferences of people that are trying rob you and your neighbors.

Do not expect to get a chance to shoot me if you rob anyone where I live.

And I live in Fredericksburg Va. and I am all over Northern Virginia everyday.

Take your crime elsewhere or just stop.

How about that?

Brian Pfleuger
March 26, 2009, 04:15 PM
Do you want to live in a community where criminals with handguns can rob people as they please and leave it up to the police to stop every criminal act?

Maybe next time it is your wife and child in line at the next store he robs and he takes your wife hostage,rapes her and kills her and your child before he gets 'arrested' by the police.

My view on this is very clear.


If only the world were always so black and white. To believe that the only possible options are "shoot on sight" or "let the police to everything" is naive beyond comprehension. To equate my (and others) position that shooting someone should only be done as a last resort with willfully allowing our loved ones to be raped is extremely insulting, not to mention an intentional mischaracterization of the argument and, really, quite juvenile.

csmsss
March 26, 2009, 04:49 PM
Additional info in the updated news story: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miam...ry/968765.htmlVery interesting, and if the article accurately represents the events, revises my own opinion of the CCW's actions. By initially attempting to be a good samaritan (as opposed to a threat-stopper), he placed his life (and that of others) in jeopardy.

My own opinion is that in a situation like that, the CCW should not bring the BG's attention to himself until the CCW has initiated decisive action. By attempting to remediate the robber's behavior, the CCW in this case got himself shot. Fortunately, no other friendlies were hurt.

Brian Pfleuger
March 26, 2009, 05:12 PM
My own opinion is that in a situation like that, the CCW should not bring the BG's attention to himself until the CCW has initiated decisive action. By attempting to remediate the robber's behavior, the CCW in this case got himself shot. Fortunately, no other friendlies were hurt.


That's for sure. It almost seems like this guy took the one course of action that I would NEVER condone. Namely, "half-assed". It seems clear to me that in this type of scenario you pretty well have to either shoot or shut up, there is no in between. In that regard, it is black and white. Whatever you do, do it all the way.

OldMarksman
March 26, 2009, 05:18 PM
Statistics do seem to say that the perp was unlikely to shoot anyone unless someone started something. Scary thought to decide to rely on that,

But--his gun was in his hand. Common sense says that a citizen who might choose to draw under that circumstance would be most likely, if not almost certain, to get shot. Ed McGivern demonstrated that convincingly.

And that's what happened. The citizen sustained three bullet wounds and is in serious condition. Maybe he will be able to handle a gun again. Maybe not. Luckily he was not killed.

And the perp is dead.

Other possible outcomes, with the citizen deciding to draw on the man with the gun in his hand:



Citizen dies
Felon is not hit
Felon shoots others in the building or outside
Citizen hits one or more innocent bystanders
Any combination(s) of the above


Given all of that, I won't apply hindsight to the citizen's judgment, but I will say he was extremely lucky.

If you infer from that that I don't think I would have drawn, you are correct. Of course I was not there and am basing that on the news reports.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 26, 2009, 05:33 PM
Seems to me that those odds are overwhelmingly better than trying to draw on and shoot someone who has his gun in his hand...
Depends on your position at the time. If his attention is focused elsewhere maybe not. I would agree with you IF he is focused on you and pointing a gun at you. I doubt anyone can outdraw someone who has the drop.

However, my real point in the post is what you said here:

Statistics do seem to say that the perp was unlikely to shoot anyone unless someone started something. Scary thought to decide to rely on that, my bolding

I agree and would use stronger language; it is nuts to rely on that. However, after further reading the report I think engaging the perp in conversation was not too sound. Probably better to do nothing or shoot.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 26, 2009, 06:05 PM
Depends on your position at the time. If his attention is focused elsewhere maybe not. I would agree with you IF he is focused on you and pointing a gun at you. I doubt anyone can outdraw someone who has the drop.

I've seen it done in FOF robberies by Greg Hamilton. The trick was to draw when the BG was blabbing away - the diversion of attention allowed Greg to nail a trained opponent.

However, if you get into a discussion with the BG - like this guy did or the Tacoma Mall guy - then you are asking for getting shot.

Do we all agree that this gentleman did not act wisely on a tactical level, if we get away from the moral, save civilization rhetoric?

cracked91
March 26, 2009, 06:06 PM
Screw walking up to him. He would have had a gun stuck behind his ear and as soon as he refused his brains on the wall

LoneWolf22056
March 26, 2009, 06:06 PM
I've always been told that if you pull your gun, you pull it with every intention of pulling that trigger, no matter what.

If you think you MIGHT not have to shoot, you're better off leaving it holstered.

Make the choice BEFORE YOU DRAW. After that, there's no going back. Be decisive, because your indecision will kill you.

The guy who tells the robber to "put his gun away" with no means of physically enforcing that is an idiot. You're making yourself a primary target because the robber will see you as resistance. Your best game plan is to either comply or put him down immediately. That doesn't mean that you absolutely have to fill him full of lead, either. If you choose to act, be that with a gun, knife, or your bare hands, it has to be fast and efficient. Your method will be dictated by the scenario. Just know that you only get one chance, so make it count.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 26, 2009, 06:30 PM
Do we all agree that this gentleman did not act wisely on a tactical level,

I agree with you.

If you think you MIGHT not have to shoot, you're better off leaving it holstered...Make the choice BEFORE YOU DRAW. After that, there's no going back. Be decisive, because your indecision will kill you.

Agree, also. Never relenquish your advantage to a BG.

Brian Pfleuger
March 26, 2009, 08:05 PM
Do we all agree that this gentleman did not act wisely on a tactical level, if we get away from the moral, save civilization rhetoric?

Yes sir. That is a fully condensed version of my opinion.

OldMarksman
March 26, 2009, 08:44 PM
... it is nuts to rely on that [the fact that statistics do seem to say that the perp was unlikely to shoot anyone unless someone started something].

Yeah? I think I would indeed rely on that, unless I were standing behind the perp where he could not see me, I could draw without attracting his attention or causing a reaction from someone else, and there were no reflections.

Never relenquish your advantage to a BG.

Seems to me the BG had the advantage from the outset, because he was holding a gun. What's to relinquish?

Your best game plan is to either comply or put him down immediately.

Can't argue with that. Now, just how would one "put down immediately" a crook with a gun in his hand?

Tennessee Gentleman
March 26, 2009, 10:45 PM
OldMarksman, here is what you said that I agree with:

Scary thought to decide to rely on that,

I don't think you got the point of what I said, I know what some claim the odds are, what is nuts is relying them rather than training and common sense.

Seems to me the BG had the advantage from the outset, because he was holding a gun.

Only to whomever he was focused on and also because they were unarmed. The guy with the CCW was not who he was robbing.

What's to relinquish?

Lots. First of all the BG didn't know the guy with the CCW was armed. This is a huge advantage. Second BG was concentrating on the clerk and not the citizen with the gun. Is it coming together now? What the CCW guy did was negate that advantage by engaging the guy in conversation without (I am guessing) having his gun ready to use and so he got shot.

What is nuts is relying on questionably applied statistics rather than common sense and training when in a life threatening violent situation and hoping the BG won't hurt you. Different story as I mentioned before if the BG has control over YOU. In this case he did not have control of the guy with the CCW. So advantage to Good Guy.

Now, just how would one "put down immediately" a crook with a gun in his hand?

Are you serious here? Or is this tongue in cheek?

David Armstrong
March 26, 2009, 11:34 PM
Seems to me that those odds are overwhelmingly better than trying to draw on and shoot someone who has his gun in his hand...
Exactly. Of course, if you understand the dynamics of robberies and robbers, you can get the odds even better for you, as there are reasons for most of the murders and other assaults in robberies. The way some folks look at odds and stats around here I hope they never go to a casino!:D

Yet your blanket assumption does not allow for this.
Look, you want to make wild assumptions without anything to bacdk them up, go ahead. I tend to base my assumptions on likelihoods and proven facts. I allow for just about anything, but I have the sense to give different events different levels of concern. If you don't like my version, that's fine, but don't try to claim your assumptions are somehow worthwhile and others assumptions aren't.
...you didn't answer the question - at what point would you in that situation endorse the use of force by the CCW?
Umm, hate to break it to you, but you didn't ask that question. I answered the questions you did ask.
My point is that since we don't have all the facts, we should give the law-abiding CCW the benefit of the doubt unless and until such facts that warrant criticism of his actions emerge.
LOL!!! So, according to you all of the arguments that so many here have posted are not based on facts that warrant criticism? Sorry, but apparently several here do think the facts indicate some criticism of his actions, on various levels.

Lots of studies among prison inmates have shown that the only thing they really fear is armed citizens.
Those same studies show that BGs would greatly prefer not to hurt anybody during robberies, and the the primary reason BGs hurt people during robberies is that the people do not cooperate.

David Armstrong
March 26, 2009, 11:54 PM
Do you want to live in a community where criminals with handguns can rob people as they please and leave it up to the police to stop every criminal act?

Why do those have to be the only options? Can we toss into the mix something about not wanting to live in a cuommunity where everytime there is a robbery everybody in the community is put in danger because of the shootout?

I've seen it done in FOF robberies by Greg Hamilton. The trick was to draw when the BG was blabbing away - the diversion of attention allowed Greg to nail a trained opponent.
Of course there is always the problem that just because you shoot the BG it doesn't mean you will stop the BG. That is the basic flaw with many responses, IMO...the idea that the GG will always shoot first and the BG will never get to fight back.

Yeah? I think I would indeed rely on that,....
Right. You have to rely on something. You have to base your decision-making proces on some information. Relying on the most likely odds is the overwhelmingly best place to start that process, and work out from there when and if additional information gives you a reason to change your evaluation of what is the best course of action.
Now, just how would one "put down immediately" a crook with a gun in his hand?
Yep, tha tis the problem. As mentioned, it seems rather silly to discuss how great your plan is when that plan is based on EVERYTHING going exactly right.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 27, 2009, 12:08 AM
and the the primary reason BGs hurt people during robberies is that the people do not cooperate.

And those who resist are seldom armed and the BG is. That is kind of a no brainer?

where everytime there is a robbery everybody in the community is put in danger because of the shootout?

I would be interested in how often that occurs vs how often the BG is the only one hurt after an armed victim responds. I think Dr. Kleck may offer better insight.

For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery.Gary Kleck, Address to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence (Apr. 3, 1990)

and here:
Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% injury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims. ref:http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html



Right. You have to rely on something.

I agree. However, I would rather rely on my training, my firearm and common sense rather than statistics that (supposedly) tell me the robber won't hurt me. Again, if we follow Mr. Armstrong's prescription then it really makes no sense to carry since you might hurt someone if you have to use the gun and you are unlikely to be injured anyway if you comply. Seems like all the pros are for not carrying and few if any if for carrying. Just trust the odds.:rolleyes: Now THAT is like going to the Casino.

JohnKSa
March 27, 2009, 01:22 AM
...when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered...Interesting statistic. Unfortunately it has very little relevance to the situation in question.

First, if the robber is unarmed, or armed with a relatively ineffective weapon, obviously the chances of a victim actually losing his life are much reduced. Recent statistics show that robbers in the U.S. are unarmed about half the time.

Second, murder is the only the absolute worst possible outcome. Studies show that the vast majority (around 80%) of persons shot with a handgun will survive. Surviving a stabbing is even more likely and the odds of surviving a violent encounter against an unarmed opponent are better yet. So what's the chance of being injured in a robbery? In 2006, 35% of robberies in the U.S., one in three, resulted in the victim being injured.

Which means it is clear that the statistic quoted dramatically understates the danger to a robbery victim in two ways. First it makes the assumption that the victim's death is the only negative outcome that is of concern. That is, as long as the victim survives we aren't concerned with any injury, no matter how serious, the victim incurs. Secondly it groups all robberies together when not all robberies involve robbers who actually have a reasonably effective means to cause death or serious injury.

A far more relevant statistic would provide the probability of being killed OR injured in robberies where the robber is armed with a lethal weapon and can bring it to bear on the victim.

AZAK
March 27, 2009, 03:03 AM
Those same studies show that BGs would greatly prefer not to hurt anybody during robberies, and the the primary reason BGs hurt people during robberies is that the people do not cooperate.(Emphasis by AZAK)

I am not sure just what you are trying to say by stating this.

Regardless, I am "not really at all comfortable with" wording like, "would greatly prefer not to" when used in this context. Is this a declining of an invitation to a dance at a cotillion made by a Southern Belle? We are discussing someone(s) who has chosen to violently threaten other's lives and limbs over a small amount of money.

Just the fact that "BGs" would even consider committing a violent felony where the victim(s) (not volunteers) has so much to lose, and the BG has so little to gain (honestly how much money is in the till at a Burger King?) does little to gain sympathy from me.

Without a threat it changes from robbery to a charitable donation. The method is paramount.

The threat of violence, with the ability to deliver that violence, is violence; regardless of "would greatly prefer not to".

OldMarksman
March 27, 2009, 07:53 AM
First of all the BG didn't know the guy with the CCW was armed. This is a huge advantage.

He did not know it because the citizen's gun was concealed and could not be used until it was visible.

Second BG was concentrating on the clerk and not the citizen with the gun. Is it coming together now?

Nope. You have made an assumption about what the crook was "concentrating on." Put yourself in the position of the robber. Your adrenaline is high and you are holding a gun. Do you not think you would be very alert for any threat that might materialize? In a state with hundreds of thousands of licensed concealed weapon carriers? I thinks it's naive to assume that he was "concentrating on the clerk" to the exclusion of watching others.

What is nuts is relying on questionably applied statistics rather than common sense and training when in a life threatening violent situation and hoping the BG won't hurt you.

OK. Let's rely on common sense. Common sense should tell you that trying to draw from concealment on a man who is holding a gun is nuts. If it doesn't, try to train for that and I think that you too will choose to do nothing, based on your training.

Simple risk management techniques here. Do nothing, and the likelihood of getting shot is lower. Draw, and getting shot becomes almost guaranteed.

Different story as I mentioned before if the BG has control over YOU. In this case he did not have control of the guy with the CCW. So advantage to Good Guy.

I fail to see how one who is holding a gun on people is not in rather complete control, or how the people in the store have any meaningful advantage.

csmsss
March 27, 2009, 08:03 AM
Look, you want to make wild assumptions without anything to bacdk them up, go ahead. I tend to base my assumptions on likelihoods and proven facts. I allow for just about anything, but I have the sense to give different events different levels of concern. If you don't like my version, that's fine, but don't try to claim your assumptions are somehow worthwhile and others assumptions aren't.
David, YOU are the one making the assumptions. I asserted that each event is unique with its own set of circumstances and that one should base one's response on those circumstances. Yet you would, apparently, assert that the only response in such situations is to meekly comply - soley based upon statistics of unknown origin that you possess. I place greater weight and comfort in my own observations in a situation than I do such statistics, and suspect that most others do as well. More to the point, what on earth should I do when confronted with a situation for which I haven't memorized the statistical outcome for each possible reaction? "Whoops! Sorry, bad guy, I forgot to memorize my statistically favorable outcome for this event. Can you come back and rape my wife later?"

Umm, hate to break it to you, but you didn't ask that question. I answered the questions you did ask.Oh, but I did ask you that question - and in the reasking, you STILL refused to answer it. Exactly WHAT circumstances in a similar situation would you regard as justification for the use of force by the CCW? Is the CCW required to wait until the bad guy actually shoots someone before he responds to the threat? A logical interpretation of your previous messages in this thread certainly seems to indicate so.

LOL!!! So, according to you all of the arguments that so many here have posted are not based on facts that warrant criticism? Sorry, but apparently several here do think the facts indicate some criticism of his actions, on various levels.Actually, there were nearly no facts known until PAX posted the update above. All we "knew" (as if you can really know anything from an uncorroborated news article anyway) was that a CCW had first a verbal confrontation with an armed robber at a Burger King, and then a shootout with the bad guy in which the bad guy was killed. That's ALL the facts that were known at the time - yet you were/are ready to condemn the CCW for the shooting.

As we now know, the bad guy shot first, and the CCW's shooting response can in no way be considered wrong. The only error he made was in an initial response which was less than decisive and violent enough.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 27, 2009, 09:37 AM
He did not know it because the citizen's gun was concealed and could not be used until it was visible.

Yes you state the obvious. Since he did not know any of the citizens in the store were armed he wasn't aware of an armed threat. That is called having the element of surprise and that is an advantage.

Nope. You have made an assumption about what the crook was "concentrating on."

Reread the news report. The robber was robbing the clerk, I think it safe to say he was looking at the clerk. The CCW guy walked up to the robber (without getting shot) and engaged him in conversation which got him shot.

Your adrenaline is high and you are holding a gun. Do you not think you would be very alert for any threat that might materialize? In a state with hundreds of thousands of licensed concealed weapon carriers? I thinks it's naive to assume that he was "concentrating on the clerk" to the exclusion of watching others.

I think you are giving these BGs way too much credit. I think believing that criminals are extremely tactically competent and CCWs are incompetent doen't square with reality. I don't think that fact that the state has "hundreds of thousands" of CCW even entered his mind.

Looking at the details of the robbery from the report (coming in during a busy time in the middle of the day) doesn't make this one look too smart. I don't think he is doing a tactical ninja scan throughout the place while simultaneously holding a gun on the clerk. I think he is focused on the clerk like most robbers would be and didn't even notice the guy till he came up AND started talking to him.

Common sense should tell you that trying to draw from concealment on a man who is holding a gun is nuts. If it doesn't, try to train for that and I think that you too will choose to do nothing, based on your training.

OldMarksman, I am beginning to wonder if you are reading these posts? Did you read what Glenn said in post #97? Drawing from concealment on a man holding a gun who isn't aware of you is not nuts. It is IMO a very good tactic if you are willing to fire. Just making that blanket statement above doesn't really reflect a lot of thought about these situations.

Simple risk management techniques here. Do nothing, and the likelihood of getting shot is lower. Draw, and getting shot becomes almost guaranteed.

That statement is without any fact or support but may be your opinion and so I respect it as such but it is just that and no valid "risk management" techniques are at play since your assumptions are too vague but you are free to believe it. I would read more from Dr. Kleck.

I fail to see how one who is holding a gun on people is not in rather complete control, or how the people in the store have any meaningful advantage.

Think about it a little bit. I think you can imagine the difficulty of holding a lot of people at bay with a gun and then factor in that one of them is armed but you don't know which one or are unaware of them at all. I think the advantage goes to the CCW. All the CCW has to do is wait for your attention to be elsewhere and then you would be the one behind the power curve. Ask Glenn Meyer what he thinks as he has done a lot of FoF drills using that technique. Also, watch the show "Best Defense" as they too do these drills.

David Armstrong
March 27, 2009, 09:56 AM
Interesting statistic. Unfortunately it has very little relevance to the situation in question.
If your view is that getting murdered or not is irrelevant to the question of force in robberies, so be it. I find such an opinion rather questionable myself.
So what's the chance of being injured in a robbery? In 2006, 35% of robberies in the U.S., one in three, resulted in the victim being injured.
If I may borrow a phrase, intersting statistic. Unfortunately it has very little relevance to the situation in question. By a huge margin those injuries are minor in nature, with (IIRC) less than 10% of such injuries needing medical attention beyond what is rendered at the scene.
First it makes the assumption that the victim's death is the only negative outcome that is of concern.
That is a heck of an assumption on your part, I would suggest. The loss of money is also a negative outcome, and it is of concern. Injuries are of concern. Danger to the patrons is a concern. Lots of things are a concern.
Secondly it groups all robberies together when not all robberies involve robbers who actually have a reasonably effective means to cause death or serious injury.
And how do you decide that? I prefer to work off the assumption that robbers present a decided threat to the victim, whether a firearm is displayed or not, as many robbers are armed but prefer not to display the weapon unless necessarry.
A far more relevant statistic would provide the probability of being killed OR injured in robberies where the robber is armed with a lethal weapon and can bring it to bear on the victim.
And I think the far more relevant statistic would be provide the probability of being killed or injured where the victim actively resists as opposed to complying with the robber. Oh, wait a minute we've done that! Compliance wins, hands down. So that sort of makes sense that one might start from a position that give the lowest chance of loss and working out from there. At least, it makes sense to me, every security organization, every LE organization, and so on.

David Armstrong
March 27, 2009, 10:02 AM
I am not sure just what you are trying to say by stating this.

I am saying there is a reason virtually every expert in the field, be they private sector security, local police, the FBI, or whoever, all make the same recommendation and they make it for the same reason...Robbers are there to rob, not to kill. Robbers rarely injure other than to gain compliance. Robbers overwhelmingly, when interviewed, have said they don't like to physically hurt folks and don't want to, and will do so only as a means to further the robbery. Now that doesn't mean there aren't some who are quite violent, but they are the rare exception rather than the rule.
We are discussing someone(s) who has chosen to violently threaten other's lives and limbs over a small amount of money.
EXACTLY! It is over a small amount of money! Why get into a shootout, putting yourself, the clerk, the public, etc in danger, over a small amount of money.

Tennessee Gentleman
March 27, 2009, 10:04 AM
And I think the far more relevant statistic would be provide the probability of being killed or injured where the victim actively resists as opposed to complying with the robber. Oh, wait a minute we've done that! Compliance wins, hands down. So that sort of makes sense that one might start from a position that give the lowest chance of loss and working out from there. At least, it makes sense to me, every security organization, every LE organization, and so on.

Which Dr. Kleck and others refute. The kicker is that you need to measure victims resisting who are armed. David is using stats that deal with all robberies in which the majority of vicitims are unarmed. See, everyone this is why you have to take statistics in context and not just use them in a blanket unscientific way. Sure LEOs tell civilians not to resist because most all of them are unarmed!

Glenn E. Meyer
March 27, 2009, 10:17 AM
No one here recommends not carrying or having the option of firearms usage from my read.

What I take away is that one should consider not immediately shooting it out as a necessary, mandatory or must do response. That is an extreme position at one end of the response continuum. The other is to always comply without any evaluation of what might happen. That is the other end and I don't think anyone states that. However, in a process of group polarization folks want to take posters close to one of the poles and push their position to the pole and then cuss and spit.

In my mind, after doing a lot of FOF and reading Kleck and books on criminal response, etc. is that you need to have:

1. An awareness of the likelihood of outcome as that can aid in your decision process to act - given you aren't immediately attacked. As if you are the bystander in the Stop and Rob and have a moment. Thus, the snippets out of one source and another are not sufficient - they represent branches that occur in different parts of the action. Compliance usually works on one branch, gun usage usually works if you do have to fight and/or can get the gun out/use it without getting killed or maimed. Sometimes each goes awry in that branch. I can quote both and so what - It means I have to think about it. In a FOF, I rapidly eliminated the BG (quite impressive) and then was in a gun fight with his hidden backup. In another I was a bystander and the new trainee decided to intervene in a bar fight (why? - moral?) and shot me. I intend to sue him. A cop shot me when I was fleeing a terrorist - :eek:

2. An awareness of your actual skill level - no good proclaiming you are One Shot Stop Superman if you don't know if you really can do that - remembering all the stress, drop in ability, etc. Many internet folks think they will always win the fight and hit the target. Seen folks freeze up solid. In a parking lot FOF, I managed to zipper (by accident - the first shot was a jerked trigger - :D) an oncoming nutso with a ballbat. Good shoot.

3. A good handle on your view of what is moral and a realistic view of outcomes before you proclaim that YOU must intervene to save others. Decide what you value - the clerk vs. your life and disruption of your family. Anyone who argues you must be self-sacrificial really needs to think about this before saying such. FOF - domestic violence gun fight - vaulted over the victim and headed for the tall timber. Call the cops from a safe distance - Moral? Insights training - haul your tushy out of there when the gun fight starts if you can.

It all depends - John Farnam says - know what you are doing and act!

So the exaggeration of polar extremes is really silly. The reasonable position in my view is awareness, knowledge and considered fast action. These come from training, study and cogitating over the combo of both.

chopz
March 27, 2009, 11:54 AM
3. A good handle on your view of what is moral and a realistic view of outcomes before you proclaim that YOU must intervene to save others. Decide what you value - the clerk vs. your life and disruption of your family. Anyone who argues you must be self-sacrificial really needs to think about this before saying such.

i'm under the impression the majority of people who have posted in this thread evaluate from the standpoint of how they would fare, given the circumstances of the scenario.

to me, the whole reason of "know your backstop" as the 4th rule is so you don't shoot innocents. i'd consider myself unqualified to own a handgun if i only considered how i myself would fare. in the aforementioned scenario i'd also have to consider what the backstop of the guy who would probably return fire would be as well. i'd rather die than kill an innocent bystander (or get somebody innocent killed), i'd like to think my actions would reflect that if push ever came to shove, but i can only hope i'd make the right choices.

does that make me cowardly?

David Armstrong
March 27, 2009, 12:08 PM
David, YOU are the one making the assumptions.
And YOU are making assumption. Everyone is making assumptions. I prefer to base my assumptions on proven facts and valid information. I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with that concept. If you want to base assumptions on the latest CSI episode, or the tactical wisdom of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" that's fine, I guess, but I prefer something a bit more valid.
I asserted that each event is unique with its own set of circumstances and that one should base one's response on those circumstances.
That's fine. It isn't correct, but that is fine. You can't accurately assess those circumstances without an understanding of what those circumstances mean. Otherwise you are just making a wild guess about what to do.
Yet you would, apparently, assert that the only response in such situations is to meekly comply - soley based upon statistics of unknown origin that you possess.
And that is an assumption on your part, an assumption tha tdoes not reflect the facts. Nowher have I ever said one should meekly comply as the only response, and nowhere have I ever said you should base a response soley on the statistics. FWIW, the stats are commonly available with a little research.
More to the point, what on earth should I do when confronted with a situation for which I haven't memorized the statistical outcome for each possible reaction? "Whoops! Sorry, bad guy, I forgot to memorize my statistically favorable outcome for this event. Can you come back and rape my wife later?"
Of course not, and such a response indicates not only a lack of undeerstanding about how to use statistics but also a lack of understanding about how one reasons through problems. You don't have to memorize all the stats about driving in order to correctly respond to problems on the road. This is no different.
Oh, but I did ask you that question
No, you didn't. Let me help you. Here is what you asked: "At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting? Does the bad guy have to kill an innocent before you'll bless the use of force by the CCW?" and that is what I answered.
Actually, there were nearly no facts known until PAX posted the update above.
Just because your knowledge is limited in scope doesn't mean others is also. Lots of facts out there. Facts relating to injuries, robberies, criminal behavior, and on and on. Lots of facts....if one wants to look at them.
As we now know, the bad guy shot first, and the CCW's shooting response can in no way be considered wrong.
Sure it can. If he hadn't engaged there is a very strong probability that there would not have been any shots fired at all. The bad guy shot first because he was confronted by the good guy.

David Armstrong
March 27, 2009, 12:12 PM
David is using stats that deal with all robberies in which the majority of vicitims are unarmed.
Please don't speak for David unless you are going to accurately represent what David says and does. So far, most of the stuff you have posted about what I think, or what I have said, or what I do, is incorrect. I have tried to ignore your repeated distortions and misrepresentations, but sometimes one needs to point out the truth. As Glenn posted:

"So the exaggeration of polar extremes is really silly. The reasonable position in my view is awareness, knowledge and considered fast action. These come from training, study and cogitating over the combo of both."

Exxagerating someone's position to try to make a point is silly, and only shows one cannot respond to the actual point, which is that training, study, knowledge, and other factors can give one a better chance at a reasonable response to a situation.

Glenn E. Meyer
March 27, 2009, 12:22 PM
I suggest that everyone stand done for awhile. This is a hint.

To all repeated participants - go to the Food Channel forum and debate various cheddar cheese variants.

:cool:

OldMarksman
March 27, 2009, 12:31 PM
Drawing from concealment on a man holding a gun who isn't aware of you is not nuts. It is IMO a very good tactic if you are willing to fire. Just making that blanket statement above doesn't really reflect a lot of thought about these situations.

In my opinion, making the assumption that he isn't aware of you, even while he is asking the clerk for money, or that he would not become aware of you very quickly, is a much bigger stretch than assuming that he is likely to shoot you if you do not act.

Thought? OK. If I were the perp, the first person in the room who made any unusual move--reaching under or unbuttoning a shirt or jacket or reaching into a pocket, walking to cover, stepping behind someone or something, trying to move around behind me--would not only draw my immediate attention and become the subject of my awareness, but would end up would dropping to the ground, wounded.

Yep, the bad guy would have fired first. That doesn't mean the citizen is not competent, it just means that the perp has gotten the drop on him.

In a recent episode of PDTV, Ayoob discussed how to enter a "Stop and Rob" safely. Slightly different scenario, but pertinent. The idea was to observe and withdraw as quickly as possible if anything appeared awry. An incident in which an off-duty policeman interrupted an armed robbery was described. When the clerk acknowledged the policeman, who would not have intervened otherwise, he was forced to draw, and he died.

That brings up the question of how police training would address the situation. Here's a blurb from a twenty-year plus law enforcement veteran who is a moderator on another board. It relates to the Miami shooing at hand:

How smart is it to start a gunfight under those circumstances? There is a reason the police don't just charge in shooting on an armed robbery call, but rather wait outside to catch the suspect while he's leaving.

Not very smart in his view, one would infer from that and the context in which it was posted.

We've been discussing the risk of a citizen's being shot by the robber if he or she chooses to draw.

Let's also consider that the robber might have an accomplice who could finish the fight.

Or that another CCW holder sees the citizen firing a gun at someone in the Burger King without having seen what had transpired or the ski mask, and shoots the citizen.

And perhaps most importantly, that the citizen's bullets hit one or more innocent bystanders. The police will not take that risk, and they are indemnified. The citizen is not.

Yes, I have read all of the posts, and I've given this a lot of thought. Personally, I think that trying to engage an armed robber in a business establishment would be foolhardy at best.

pax
March 27, 2009, 12:54 PM
Done.

pax