PDA

View Full Version : Update on Burger King shooting


Bartholomew Roberts
May 22, 2009, 02:35 PM
The citizen who stopped the robbery in a Burger King (mentioned in this thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347354&page=5&highlight=Burger+King) is a frequent poster at another forum I frequent.

Recently he added a little extra insight into what had happened during the incident and while it was relatively scanty given how recently it had occurred, there were a few insights that might be worth sharing:

1. The newspapers apparently botched the reporting on this badly. I am sure we are all shocked to hear that.

2. There was no argument or discussion prior to the gunfight. In fact the entire prefight discussion appeared to consist of the phrase "Don't move!" being shouted.

3. Shooter was quickly moving to seek cover even before the "Don't move" line started.

4. After hearing "Don't move!" the robber started the gunfight by both immediately moving and shooting.

Brian Pfleuger
May 22, 2009, 04:27 PM
Lesson being that if you're going to shoot a man holding a gun don't warn him first.

Deaf Smith
May 22, 2009, 06:06 PM
Yes this is a well know case.

The most important lesson is that if you are going to challenge a robber who has his weapon drawn, even from behind, GET BEHIND COVER FIRST before issueing the challenge.

He failed to do this, and the robber got inside his OODA loop, he's reflexes, and started shooting first.

Russ5924
May 22, 2009, 06:38 PM
Another great job of reporting, if you don't know make it up:barf:

mskdgunman
May 22, 2009, 06:49 PM
While I've never been in that situation and hope never to be, I'm not so sure that giving a verbal warning is such a great idea. If I have the element of surprise and am confident that it's a viable shoot situation, I'm not aware of anything that says I have to warn the BG before I take action. I think lots of folks (even some cops) have seen so many movies in which the cop/citizen goes "Drop the gun" and the BG slowly lowers his hands and drops the gun automatically that subconsciously, we think it'll happen. Problem is, the BG's have their own ops plan for the deal and giving up may not be part of it. I've already mentally made my choice for situations like active shooters that if the situation is in progress, the first notice that the BG will have from me is a 5.56 round. If you challange them and they don't automatically give up (which they won't) now you've lost the element of surprise and the BG could grab a hostage or aggressively turn the tables. Hpefully the citizen in this incident made out ok.

Sidewinder6
May 22, 2009, 08:01 PM
He was a guy trying to having lunch in peace. None of you are in a position to second guess what happened since the facts are not presented.

Give the guy a break. He is a crime victim who killed his attacker.


This sounds like the formerly famous clown at Front Sight who also decided to use the incident as a way to market. Well, right up until his place was seized.

GUNSITE
May 22, 2009, 08:07 PM
this is what happens when people watch to much TV... you know " hold it right there" " freeze " put down the gun, and all that stuff.

That's ok if your behind concealment, but be ready for a fire fight. The reason i say concealment is, your cover may not stop bullets.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 22, 2009, 08:18 PM
One other thing, the robber had an accomplice who was driving. He is still at large at this time. The robbery also went down ten blocks from the district police station.

FiveForSure
May 22, 2009, 08:26 PM
The hardest part of the "be a good witness" part of these arguments, for me, is how often these things turn deadly even with full cooperation. A couple years ago there was a robbery at a convenience store down the street from where I work. The clerk cooperated completely, handed over the money, didn't do anything to give the BG a reason to harm him... and he was shot in the face anyway. Luckily, the clerk survived. Probably a .25 or some other awful thing.

So now, knowing these things can and do happen, it is hard to convince myself that if a BG has a firearm pointed at an innocent person, that does not justify taking action already.

The issue actually recently came up for me, as I only recently started carrying concealed. My father and I work together in a small family-owned sort of thing, and while we're not at high risk for a robbery, anything is POSSIBLE. His belief is that if someone comes in and levels a gun at me, I should cooperate. My belief is that if someone comes in and levels a gun at me, I better consider the chances that this could turn ugly through no fault of my own and take advantage of any chance I get to turn the tables. Hopefully, neither argument will ever end up being "proven" in a real situation.

Sidewinder6
May 24, 2009, 09:39 AM
Exactly right. There were a series of doughnut store robberies right before this particular incident in South Florida, and the BG's shot the victims in the back while they were complying. Just so they could get the stats up. They were caught fleeing the country, they were local gang bangers just like the BG in the BK steakhouse robbery.

The realization that getting caught in the middle of a robbery or similar mass shooting spree was (IS) in the front of many people who choose to carry a firearm. There are many instances beyond this particular one where people have saved many lives as the result of this decision. In the BK incident, some of the police commented this victim who fought back, may have saved the lives of other patrons.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2009, 10:06 AM
Interesting - Bart - do have a link to that? Rob Pincus and associate had a simulation of this sort of thing on Best D TV this week. I think I would agree that challenging from out in the open and not from cover was a mistake.

Also, the OODA loop and germane schemas seem to be in play. I've always pondered about the draw and challenge schema we get in training. Is it a carry over from the police?

As civilians, we have no responsible to apprehend - only to survive. The challenge is a lead-in to apprehension for police. It is a lower level rung on the force continuum. If I as a civilian face a lethal threat - is a challenge a best neutralization. Compliance to the robbery, fleeing, hiding or shooting immediately to stop might offer a better probability of personal safety. That's a thought.

I recall an exercise of BG's in your house at the NTI. My 'son' was in the house in a location unknown but we were invaded. I was to move through and act appropriately. I 'shot' the BGs without challenge. Asked why - I said they were in my house and a threat - I saw no need to. On the other hand, another participant 'shot' his son - maybe a challenge would have been good.

I wonder if the GG here had a schema that a challenge would bring compliance - if he had trained that way. Thus, he was expecting it and the violationi of the schema made him slow to react. When you talk and have an expectancy of some action, your attention is focused on perceiving that action - when it doesn't occur, it take time to unhook and react. The loop again.

I saw Greg Hamilton draw a shoot a skilled shooter who had him at gun point (sims). The GG was talking about doing this or that. Mental capacity on the talk. Greg timed this and shot.

We also discount that the BG will take the round and still be in the fight.

David Armstrong
May 24, 2009, 10:20 AM
The hardest part of the "be a good witness" part of these arguments, for me, is how often these things turn deadly even with full cooperation.
To paraphrase from another thread, that is one of those perception versus reality issues. They very rarely turn deadly, and when they do it is usually because the victim has done something to set off the BG. Robbers are there to rob, not kill, and virtually every study out there indicates the reason robberies turn into killings is almost always the result of non-compliance. Sure, there are some that just go bad. But they are the exception, and we need to realize that and build a plan around that idea.
So now, knowing these things can and do happen, it is hard to convince myself that if a BG has a firearm pointed at an innocent person, that does not justify taking action already.
Of course taking action is a good idea. But whether starting a gunfight is a good idea is a different issue. Being a good witness IS taking action, and it is the action recommended by virtually all professionals in the area.
His belief is that if someone comes in and levels a gun at me, I should cooperate.
Good advice, up to a point. Learn the indicators that tend to show the robber wants more than money, and adjust the response accordingly. Cooperate when that is the best choice, fight when that is the best choice.

ulmer
May 24, 2009, 11:12 AM
Personally I am not a security guard for Burger King. I would get out of there, and quick. If the robber attacks me that's where my CCW comes in. Just because I can legally interfere doesn't mean I'm going to. Keep in mind that in case of a robbery it is you against most anyone in the store, for he may have an accomplice ready to gun down any wannabe hero.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 24, 2009, 12:07 PM
I have watched several debates on TFL about compliance vs resistance so I decided to look about a bit.

I am not a criminologist (although my bachelors degree was in criminology too long ago to mention) but there is a guy guy named Dr. Gary Kleck who is and is well known. I have read a lot of articles by Dr. Kleck and since the NRA likes him and the Bradys don't, I take that as a ringing endorsement

Anyway, here is what his take is on the resist/comply issue:

This is a documentary by a fellow named Larry Elder and it is very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxGVIMVohw

Pay attention to about 8:21 till the end of the segment.

And here is another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glHMRVafFZI

and pay attention on this clip to 01:54 to 02:07.

I will let you all draw your own conclusions but my take is that the conventional wisdom (which I think was intended for the unarmed public) that you should comply to avoid injury might not be so good an idea today if you are armed and can resist.

Finally, what I seem to see as good advice is; comply only if you do not have the advantage (cover, distance, weapon or concealment etc) and only comply until you have the advantage and then never relinquish it if you can get it (advantage) and then use it to protect yourself.

BikerRN
May 24, 2009, 12:30 PM
On Duty, if I was sitting in a BK eating my lunch, I would most likely allow the robbery to happen until factors change and the need for armed intervention is appearant.

The robber can be confronted outside the establishment with less risk to bystanders and passers-by. If the situation changes inside then I will react to that. There's an old joke about two NYPD Detectives sitting in a restaurant eating their meal. One looks at the Cashier and people at the front counter and sees a badguy with a gun trained on the Cashier and says to his partner, "Hey that guy's robbing the place." His partner replies, That's nice, how's your veal?"

Why would I want to turn a simple robbery in to a gunfight? There are no winners in a gunfight, only survivors. I'm not going to second guess the actions that took place here, as I wasn't there, am unable to view any videos of the situation and do not have access to the investigative material, so it would all be speculation on my part. I am not however suprised that what passes for news reporting may have gotten it wrong however, as that is usually the case.

Biker

Bartholomew Roberts
May 24, 2009, 05:14 PM
Glenn, you can find a link to the thread where the shooter discusses what happened (briefly) here (http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5436084761/m/575104962). However, you'll need to register at the site in order to view it.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2009, 07:12 PM
Thanks! I'll check it out.

David Armstrong
May 24, 2009, 08:30 PM
Why would I want to turn a simple robbery in to a gunfight? There are no winners in a gunfight, only survivors.
Strange how most of the professionals have that aattitude, while so many others argue vehemently against it. I guess that is the experience card again.

BillCA
May 25, 2009, 12:02 AM
To paraphrase from another thread, that is one of those perception versus reality issues. They very rarely turn deadly, and when they do it is usually because the victim has done something to set off the BG. Robbers are there to rob, not kill, and virtually every study out there indicates the reason robberies turn into killings is almost always the result of non-compliance. Sure, there are some that just go bad. But they are the exception, and we need to realize that and build a plan around that idea.

Only if that were so...
There is a liquor store and 7-11 store within about 1.5 blocks of me. In October of '97, the proprietor was robbed at gunpoint. The robber demanded the money and got it in a paper sack. Seemingly at the last moment, he asked for a pack of Zig-Zag papers on the shelf behind the counter. When the owner turned to reach for them, he opened fire. First round went through the owner's left arm and into his left lung. Second round entered just above the left kidney. The next two rounds missed, shattering liquor bottles. A fifth round splattered on the hard floor and bounced into the owner's left calf as the robber fled the store. Zero resistance, planned "execution" of the owner/clerk. Robber was never caught.

In 2000, a guy held up the night clerk at the 7-11. Mr. Singh is a Sikh Indian who does not wear a turban at work. Just after 1 AM a 22 y/o loser comes in, brandishes a pistol and demands money and a carton of cigarettes. Clerk complies. Robber demand the "rest of the money" and Mr. Singh removes the till drawer, shows him it's empty and so is the drawer underneath it. The robber fires one shot, catching Mr. Singh in the side, just above the belt line. He flings the till drawer up, spinning and it catches the robber in the face. He fires two shots wildly and Mr. Singh ducks behind the counter. A second later he comes up with a stubby baseball bat and knocks the gun out of the robber's hand, secures it and steps back. The robber starts to leap the counter and blocks two shots from the 9mm pistol. One fractures the left collar bone and the other shatters his knee. He left his gun and money behind but was picked up 30 minutes later at a hospital.

Aug '07, at a fast-food restraurant, just before 10pm closing, a man produces a small pistol. He tells the 17 y/o girl to bag the money from all three registers. When told that the manager has one of them is "locked up" he points the gun at her head and she moves just as he fires. The bullet cuts her ear almost in half and deafens her in that ear, plus powder burns to her face and eye. He vaults the counter and shoots a cook in the stomach and the 21 y/o night manager in the chest. After grabbing the money from the 2nd register, he pauses and shoots the young girl crying on the floor three more times before leaving. All of the staff survived.

In all three of these cases, the victims cooperated. In two of the cases, the robber appears to be "set off" when he thinks he can't get all the money. In the first case, why he started shooting is unknown.

The problem with blind cooperation is that you are relying on the mercy of a felon - who may not have any mercy in his soul.

In certain neighborhoods, if you are not of the same ethnic group as the robber, your chances for being shot during a robbery double or triple.

The other problem is you have no way of knowing what might "trigger" the robber. Telling him the other register is locked might do it. Asking him if he wants a paper or plastic bag for the loot might do it. Just saying "Yes sir" might anger him. So could not talking at all.

I'd rather have a chance, than none at all.

Brit
May 25, 2009, 06:19 AM
BillCA states...

The other problem is you have no way of knowing what might "trigger" the robber. Telling him the other register is locked might do it. Asking him if he wants a paper or plastic bag for the loot might do it. Just saying "Yes sir" might anger him. So could not talking at all.

I'd rather have a chance, than none at all.

The truth of the matter is hard for the average non violent person to grasp.

And the participants in this forum are mostly just those type of individuals, and you have to love them.

We all can afford access to the Internet, a Computer, a chair to sit on, and food in the fridge, plus the ability to have electrical power, to run the equipment.

The above is us!

Now for a quick peek at Joe loser who walks into a small business late at night, with a stolen hand gun, a drug habit, and is not the sharpest bulb in the box, even when he has the $20.00 in his pocket, for his next crack rock, which at this moment in time, he does not!

The only control you, the CCW person has, is trigger control, you shoot him quickly, and you shoot him a lot! You can not even have any other thought, he will or will not shoot all in the store, if he wants, and you happen to be one of them.

Creature
May 25, 2009, 07:33 AM
You assume a lot about armed robbers. Many are just maladjusted malcontents to lazy to hold a steady job.

skydiver3346
May 25, 2009, 08:14 AM
Good points you make BillCA,
You just don't have any idea whatsoever, what the bad guy is going to do to you after you cooperate. Used to be, people robbed you and ran away. Now, for some unknown reason, they shoot you after and/or before robbing you. What the hell is going on with society? No respect for authority and more importantly, no respect for human life.....

Bottom line: Know in you mind way ahead of time what you will do if this ever happens to you and/or your family. Have a plan and be ready to react to that plan (if at all possible at the time).

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 10:12 AM
Bill,

This is exactly what I have been learning about as well. In the clips I provided in my post above(which nobody has commented on:() one of the speakers talks about the "gentlepersons agreement" that used to be true during a robbery. You give me the money and I don't hurt you. Now that has changed and is not so true. I read a study that 7/11 commissioned where they interviewed convicted armed robbers in jail and a full 1/3 of them said they would harm their victim because "they liked to do it". That is not an insignificant number.

Used to be that LE always told you to "comply, don't resist, and give up the money" and that was good advice. Why? Because most citizens are not armed and an unarmed citizen trying to resist an armed BG is a recipe for disaster!

But now more and more citizens are armed and it seems the BGs are getting more violent. Does that old advice still make sense? Dr. Kleck says it may not. I think we might need a new paradigm here and I would like hear what other think about that.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 10:32 AM
Only if that were so...
It is so. There is a large amount of research out there on this subject, and it is overwhelming in its agreement. More people should look at the research on an issue instead of making decisions based on what the 6:00 news puts out there.
In all three of these cases, the victims cooperated.
And for each of those cases where the victim cooperated and got shot, one can find hundreds of cases where the victim cooperated and was not shot.
In certain neighborhoods, if you are not of the same ethnic group as the robber, your chances for being shot during a robbery double or triple.
I've never seen a study that indicated that, and certainly national numbers don't reflect that. Can you direct me to an article with that information?
The other problem is you have no way of knowing what might "trigger" the robber.
Not a problem. We know what DOES NOT trigger the robber ordinarily, and that is compliance and cooperation. I would suggest trying to fight with the robber has a high chance of "triggering" him.
I'd rather have a chance, than none at all.
One does not give up any chance by initially cooperating, one maximizes the chance that there will be no other problem. If other problems develop, one can always up the response. What makes you think your chances get better if you turn a robbery into a gunfight?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 10:45 AM
Used to be, people robbed you and ran away. Now, for some unknown reason, they shoot you after and/or before robbing you.
The violence level in robberies is lower than it has been in the past, not higher.

Used to be that LE always told you to "comply, don't resist, and give up the money" and that was good advice.
That is still what LE tells you, and for a very good reason...it has the greatest chance of avoiding injury to people.
But now more and more citizens are armed and it seems the BGs are getting more violent. Does that old advice still make sense?
Thus we see the problem. "It seems the BGs are getting more violent." Instead of "it seems," why don't we take a moment and actually look at the data that is available? Why not try to find out what the facts are instead of tossing around bad information? The violent crime rate in this country has gone done pretty steadily for over a decade now, not gotten worse. The BGs are not getting more violent, they are getting less violent.

MLeake
May 25, 2009, 11:09 AM
It's all well and good to look at statistics. Trend analysis is a useful tool. Statistical analysis plays into Operational Risk Management, which is used by military, airlines, and other potentially risky industries.

However, probabilities are only probabilities, not certainties. It's safer to prepare for worst case, and to always look for potential advantages in any actual confrontation.

Knowing the statistics can help in interpreting a situation, but should not lead to blind assumptions. The only "statistic" that will matter to me, in the end, is the one that derives from my individual case, in that moment.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 11:10 AM
Why not try to find out what the facts are instead of tossing around bad information? The violent crime rate in this country has gone done pretty steadily for over a decade now, not gotten worse. The BGs are not getting more violent, they are getting less violent.

I have looked about and found out what Dr. Kleck has produced. What studies have you done? Are they published? I think Dr. Kleck has done so. Why not comment on what he has said?

That is still what LE tells you, and for a very good reason...it has the greatest chance of avoiding injury to people.

And again a noted criminologist says otherwise. Is he wrong? Please explain.

If other problems develop, one can always up the response.

Maybe, maybe not. Once you gain an advantage in such a dynamic high stakes experience perhaps you should use it or certainly not relinquish it. You may not have another chance.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 11:18 AM
It's all well and good to look at statistics. Trend analysis is a useful tool.

Yes it may be if you look at them in context. What I don't think is helpful is just looking at raw statistics and then extrapolating them without study.

The only "statistic" that will matter to me, in the end, is the one that derives from my individual case, in that moment.

That is correct and of course you have to look beyond just statistical probability and look at how high the stakes are for you.

Brit
May 25, 2009, 11:25 AM
Not a problem. We know what DOES NOT trigger the robber ordinarily, and that is compliance and cooperation. I would suggest trying to fight with the robber has a high chance of "triggering" him.


The same old David, the slink and hide king of TFL. The only persons reactions that can be anticipated, and controlled are your own.

We the actual realists do not advocate "Trying to fight with him" but killing him!

That is what works. A nice retired old chap, same age as I, when two young misguided, non working, 21 year old friends attempted to push him into the wash room, after he had given up his cash, brandishing Revolvers, he drew his CCW .45, and shot them both! He was facing them in the open!

I think the Police replaced his rounds, cleaned his Colt 45ACP, gave it back to him? Well it was Florida don't you know.

David your philosophy of never fighting is not everybody's, especially on this Memorial Day thank goodness, or we would be speaking Japanese. In my case, German.

doh_312
May 25, 2009, 01:03 PM
Perhaps the only advantage you'll get in this situation is shooting at him first. It is possible that you waiting to see if he elevates the situation ends in him shooting you. Because after you comply, he decides to shoot you point blank. Well the only hint you have of the situation elevating is him raising his gun to your face and BOOM.

But how could this have happened? You complied, so statistics state he should let you go with a warm hand shake? Give me a break. Shoot first, that is your advantage in almost all situations I can think of. Let the cops do the apprehending, I plan on going home to my wife at the end of the day.

Sorry for the BG, but this means as soon as I can draw and shoot him first, I will.

A few members here keep repeating that statistics show if you comply you'll be released unharmed. In that case just leave your gun at home. If all you need to do is comply then there is no reason to have the gun on you.

It is too bad the GG got hit. At least he survived. Kind of a fact of guns though, if your around one you've got a chance to get shot. Take the BG's gun out of the picture. After all, your not going to shoot yourself with your gun, your going to get shot with his gun. Better put it, and him, out of service.

Creature
May 25, 2009, 01:20 PM
And for each of those cases where the victim cooperated and got shot, one can find hundreds of cases where the victim cooperated and was not shot.

Some how, those still dont seem like very good odds to me. Kinda like the reason why I dont play golf in a thunder storm.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 01:20 PM
I have looked about and found out what Dr. Kleck has produced. What studies have you done? Are they published? I think Dr. Kleck has done so. Why not comment on what he has said?
Because, at Pax's request, I am not gong to get into a big discussion of dueling research findings. I will point out that Kleck's study is the ONLY study that has come to that conclusion, and Kleck's work does not reflect gun response versus gun-wielding bad guys. Gun response versus non-gun bad guys is highly successful. Gun response against gun-wielding bad guys, not so successful and the injury severity goes up.
And again a noted criminologist says otherwise. Is he wrong? Please explain.
No, he is not wrong, he is discussing something different.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 01:25 PM
The same old David, the slink and hide king of TFL. The only persons reactions that can be anticipated, and controlled are your own.

We the actual realists do not advocate "Trying to fight with him" but killing him!

The same old Brit, tossing out personal insults and attacks rather than responding to the facts.
Others reactions can be anticipated. We do it all the time, in all sorts of other situations. Putting a gun into the mix does not change that. As for realism, "killing him" is a nice thought, but not very realistic. Realism is that you do have a fight.
David your philosophy of never fighting is not everybody's,
Brit, my philosophy is not and never has been never fighting, and for you to continue to present it as such is quite dishonest on your part.

pax
May 25, 2009, 01:28 PM
David ~

If you have data, produce it.

Don't do your standard trick of announcing, "The research overwhelmingly shows..." and then fail to provide any links whatsoever to anything meaningful, while denigrating what everyone else says. (That trick, of course, is what got my dander up before -- and will again, if you go that route.)

To be clear: provide the data itself, or a reasonable synopsis of it, along with an online link of some sort -- not an inaccessible offline reference that would take everyone weeks to hunt down for themselves, if they ever could.

pax

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 01:29 PM
But how could this have happened? You complied, so statistics state he should let you go with a warm hand shake? Give me a break. Shoot first, that is your advantage in almost all situations I can think of. Let the cops do the apprehending, I plan on going home to my wife at the end of the day.

So, do you think getting into a gunfight makes it more likely you will go home or less likely you will go home when compared to not getting into a gunfight?

pax
May 25, 2009, 01:30 PM
Moderator Note

I don't care how much you dislike one or more of the participants in this thread, personal insults will not be tolerated. Any more personal remarks -- even to someone who has made a personal remark to you first -- will result in an immediate banning.

pax

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 01:31 PM
David ~

If you have data, produce it.

Don't do your standard trick of announcing, "The research overwhelmingly shows..." and then fail to provide any links whatsoever to anything meaningful, while denigrating what everyone else says. (That trick, of course, is what got my dander up before -- and will again, if you go that route.)

To be clear: provide the data itself, or a reasonable synopsis of it, along with an online link of some sort -- not an inaccessible offline reference that would take everyone weeks to hunt down for themselves, if they ever could.

All right, let's get this clear....you want me to post about 200 pages of data, survey results, and findings, here on TFL, in the tactics forum. Is that correct? Will TFL be responsible for copyright clearance? I'm not sure that you actually understand what you are asking for. And it doesn't take weeks to hunt down off-line data, it takes a trip to your library and a request for an inter-library loan if it is not on the shelf.

I have provided multiple sources for my data in the past, and i will do so again. The fact that much research is not published on line does not in any way reduce the value or quality of that research.

Creature
May 25, 2009, 01:34 PM
All right, let's get this clear....you want me to post about 200 pages of data, survey results, and findings, here on TFL, in the tactics forum. Is that correct?

Like Pax said: you can paraphrase and / or summarize it for us...and post the link. Otherwise, why bring it up?

pax
May 25, 2009, 01:36 PM
David ~

You can summarize, with a link. That is, I believe, acceptable even to the most stringent of copyright standards.

I have provided multiple sources for my data in the past, and i will do so again.

No, you have not.

As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"

Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.

(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")

pax

hogdogs
May 25, 2009, 01:37 PM
David, the link would be fine...
Brent

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 01:49 PM
I don't have links, folks. I have books. I have magazines. I have research articles. I can tell you that:


Across all weapon types, the most dangerous actions for victims were attacking, threatening, or resisting the offender. That data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995 report.


That gun-armed robbers are less likely to inflict injury on their victims than unarmed robbers or robbers armed with other weapons is consistent with their preferring submission to inflicting injury. That is the findings from Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.


All of the available evidence indicates that the most common reasons for the actual use of violence during a robbery are victims resisting, making sudden moves, or otherwise hindering the completion of the robbery. Those findings come from Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996.


The highest fatality rate in robberies occurs when the victim resists and the robber has a gun. That is from Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997. One can also see also Block, Patterns of Change in Chicago Homicides, and Cook, Robbery Violence.

There may be links to some of this stuff out there, but I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking for them. I do find it rather sad that we as a society have reeached a point where someone's honesty is questioned unless the computer backs them up.

MLeake
May 25, 2009, 01:55 PM
I don't know that anybody is questioning your honesty. Personally, I don't know you, and therefore can't really have an informed opinion.

Well, I could have an informed opinion if you actually cited your sources more regularly, so I could compare your representations of studies with what they said. However, I can't do that easily. Still, I have no reason to impugn your integrity.

That said, I have no reason to believe in your analyses, either, if I don't know your methods, your source materials, your background, and any consistent biases you might have.

It does concern me that you are so loath to provide citations and links. That does send up a warning flag.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 01:58 PM
No, you have not.

As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"

Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.

(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")

That is simply not true, Pax. Here are citations, all of which have been previously given by me at various times here on TFL:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.

pax
May 25, 2009, 01:59 PM
David,

Thanks. That's the sort of thing that's more helpful.

Re the 1995 Bureau of Justice statistics, did they break it down further into armed vs. unarmed resistance?

Re the second study, I note it's not quite germane to the question at hand -- unless you or someone else is advocating the shooting of unarmed robbers, which would definitely open a can of worms big enough for another thread.

Re the third and fourth, same question: did they break it down to armed vs unarmed resistance? The two are not the same thing, after all.

I vaguely remember encountering a study some time back (perhaps in one of my books about women's self-defense) which noted that although the statistics showed a close correlation between women fighting back and women getting hurt, a closer look at those same statistics showed that the majority of women who chose to fight back did so only after the assailant harmed them, and not before. Correlation vs causation ...

pax

pax
May 25, 2009, 02:02 PM
That is simply not true, Pax. Here are citations, all of which have been previously given by me at various times here on TFL:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.

*Throws hands up in the air and sighs*

David, that's EXACTLY!!! what I was complaining about!

"Go read these six or seven books and studies, which I'm not going to tell you how they're relevant or which portions might apply or anything else about them, and which I'm too busy to summarize for you ..."

Grrrrf.

pax

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:04 PM
Well, I could have an informed opinion if you actually cited your sources more regularly, so I could compare your representations of studies with what they said. However, I can't do that easily. Still, I have no reason to impugn your integrity.
Thank you. My point is that I have cited these studies, and I have cited them regularly. Lots of research does not lend itself to accurate presentation in very short forms. Kleck's "you are less likely to get hurt if you fight back with a gun" research is a great example, one that is used and misused often. Unless one reads the material one misses things like the findings are based almost exclusively on the GG having a gun and the BG not having a gun.

Creature
May 25, 2009, 02:06 PM
It is quite possible that some entirely different conclusions could be drawn from the data if the last decade was included. Crime in America changes dramatically as regional populations grow/declines, demographics change and economies fluctuate. Conclusions drawn from data from sources that are at least a decade old is, in my opinion, probably not relevant.

pax
May 25, 2009, 02:11 PM
Lots of research does not lend itself to accurate presentation in very short forms. Kleck's "you are less likely to get hurt if you fight back with a gun" research is a great example, one that is used and misused often. Unless one reads the material one misses things like the findings are based almost exclusively on the GG having a gun and the BG not having a gun.

Despite your thesis sentence, I notice that with the two simple sentences which follow it, you managed to neatly summarize Kleck's findings and explain what else you believed others should look for in those findings.

pax

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:15 PM
Re the 1995 Bureau of Justice statistics, did they break it down further into armed vs. unarmed resistance?
Will the answer matter if I don't provide a link?
Re the second study, I note it's not quite germane to the question at hand -- unless you or someone else is advocating the shooting of unarmed robbers, which would definitely open a can of worms big enough for another thread.
This is why it is good to go read some of this stuff. It is germane because it indicates the mindset of the robber, which is the issue here--why does the robber use violence? The gun increases the intimidation factor, thus providing greater compliance, which is the robber's goal....submission, not injury.
Re the third and fourth, same question: did they break it down to armed vs unarmed resistance? The two are not the same thing, after all.
While the type of resistance is not the same, the issue is the same. Resistance tends to increase the danger. That is why one needs to look at a variety of sources, not just little snips that are generally put out by folks with agendas or other things. Look at what LE advises--compliance as an initial strategy. Look at what all the security consultants advise--compliance as an initial strategy. Do all of these folks not have any idea what they are talking about?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:17 PM
David, that's EXACTLY!!! what I was complaining about!
Pax, what you said was, "Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.
(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway....).
I have done the former, I have done it regularly.

RobertRogers
May 25, 2009, 02:19 PM
Especially if guns were involved, you will likely not get the real story from mainstream newspapers here.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:19 PM
Conclusions drawn from data from sources that are at least a decade old is, in my opinion, probably not relevant.
If one has more recent data, please feel free to post it or cite it.

pax
May 25, 2009, 02:20 PM
David ~

Will the answer matter if I don't provide a link?

Nobody called you a liar, so knock off the poor-pitiful-me undertone, please.

Look at what LE advises--compliance as an initial strategy. Look at what all the security consultants advise--compliance as an initial strategy. Do all of these folks not have any idea what they are talking about?

Not at all. Most of this advice is given to people who aren't armed and who won't arm themselves, no matter what.

What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation? Would you advise an armed and physically capable police officer surrender and submit to an unarmed suspect who asked him to do so?

Circumstances alter cases, and yet advice such as that given by LE officials to the general public is -- by nature! -- one size fits all.

pax

Creature
May 25, 2009, 02:21 PM
Despite the evidence presented so far and the statistical likelihood of unarmed compliance being far safer than armed resistance, how many of us are willing to disarm and let the law of averages dictate whether we survive an armed robbery?

I'm not.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 02:22 PM
OK, now we are talking. However, would somebody please go listen to the cites a I mentioned in post #14 if you have the bandwidth (some may be on dial up).

I will point out that Kleck's study is the ONLY study that has come to that conclusion,

Which is why I bring him up. His findings have turned a lot of things on their head in the gun world. So have John Lott's but he is more controversial. The anti-gunners don't mess with Kleck too much and I think that speaks to how good his stuff may be.

No, he is not wrong, he is discussing something different.

What is he discussing then that I am missing? He says the fighting back is better than not isn't he?

and Kleck's work does not reflect gun response versus gun-wielding bad guys.

David, are you sure he is only comparing resistance against non-gun wielding BGs? I am not saying you are wrong but that is not what I hear him saying. If you have a further cite please let me know.

Also, here is another good link where he expounds on his theories opposed by Paul Helmke of the Brady ilk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_kD6Gz7WZw I think if Kleck were only talking about fighting BGs who have no gun then wouldn't Helmke and crew bring it up? They didn't in this debate.

As I stated earlier, conventional wisdom used to say that one should not resist violent crime. Kleck looked at the data differently, controlled for a few things and came up with something different.

a closer look at those same statistics showed that the majority of women who chose to fight back did so only after the assailant harmed them, and not before. Correlation vs causation

Yes Kathy that is what Kleck discovered. The stats were showing people who resisted after they were injured and so it looked like if you resisted you would get injured. But Kleck controlled for that and found if you resisted before you were hurt the chances you would get hurt were very small.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:23 PM
Despite your thesis sentence, I notice that with the two simple sentences which follow it, you managed to neatly summarize Kleck's findings and explain what else you believed others should look for in those findings.

No, I did not, and that is more of my point. It is not a neat summary. Note that I say it is misused. And that is only one issue to look at when you go into the research. I also have a problem, for example, with the fact that one of his data points on using the firearm for self-defense indicated they had used the firearm to defend themselves some rather strange amount, 73 times in one year IIRC.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 02:24 PM
Most of this advice is given to people who aren't armed and who won't arm themselves, no matter what.
What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation? Would you advise an armed and physically capable police officer surrender and submit to an unarmed suspect who asked him to do so?

BINGO!

There seems to be a need for a new paradigm and the fact that more and more civilians are able to be armed might have an impact on older conventional wisdom.

hogdogs
May 25, 2009, 02:32 PM
To interfere with my peaceful grinding of a well made Whopper with cheese, no pickles or ketchup add mayo please... Will result in violence:D I wouldn't need to be armed to make the decision to end an armed robbery... Just the way I is...
Brent

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:32 PM
Nobody called you a liar, so knock off the poor-pitiful-me undertone, please.
Then do not say I have not done things that I clearly have done, please.
Not at all. Most of this advice is given to people who aren't armed and who won't arm themselves, no matter what.
It is also the advice given to those that are armed. It is also one of the reasons they recommend against arming oneself is to reduce the chance one will try to get into a shootout. NO LE agency or security consultant group I am aware of suggests shooting as the normal response to an armed robbery.
What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation?
I think we are changing the situation. "Armed attacker" covers a whole lot more territory than armed robber.
Would you advise an armed and physically capable police officer surrender and submit to an unarmed suspect who asked him to do so?
If the oficer was a witness to an armed robbery, I would advise him the same that his agency has probably advised him, to sit there, be a good witness, and not to do anything that would increase the danger. Refer back to Post #15, by BikerRN, which I note nobody has commented on although it says basically the same thing I have said.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 02:38 PM
It is also one of the reasons they recommend against arming oneself is to reduce the chance one will try to get into a shootout.

David, are you saying that most LE do not want civilians to CCW? You might be right. The anti-gunners say that but you say you were LE but yet you say you teach civilian classes to CCW? Do you think we shouldn't CCW or do it but not use them. :confused: I don't understand your point.

If the oficer was a witness to an armed robbery, I would advise him the same that his agency has probably advised him, to sit there, be a good witness, and not to do anything that would increase the danger. Refer back to Post #15, by BikerRN, which I note nobody has commented on although it says basically the same thing I have said.

Yeah OK but is that what we are talking about? Observing a robbery is not the same as being robbed. The issue we face is what to do when we are robbed. Kleck says we are better off fighting back if we can so do you agree with him or not and why.

pax
May 25, 2009, 02:43 PM
David,

Sure, a summary is only a summary, and looking at the research in detail is better.

In the real world, summaries are often both necessary and helpful.

Also in the real world, everyone else is just as busy as you are, and just as important too. Refusing to summarize is thus quite reasonably perceived as both rude and arrogant. (See this link (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2886240&postcount=3) for a further explanation, if one is needed.)

pax

pax
May 25, 2009, 02:47 PM
What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation?

I think we are changing the situation. "Armed attacker" covers a whole lot more territory than armed robber.

I notice you failed to answer my question. Let me try again:

Is the advice you would give to a weak, unarmed, untrained person the exact same advice you would give to an armed and trained person?

pax

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:49 PM
David, are you sure he is only comparing resistance against non-gun wielding BGs? I am not saying you are wrong but that is not what I hear him saying. If you have a further cite please let me know.
No. I am saying (and the research indicates) that he is comparing DGU against all attacks, gun and non-gun, for his ratios. IIRC (and I'm doing this from memory, as I don't have the material here at home) out of about 2500 total DGUs only 10 involved gun-wielding BGs.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 02:55 PM
David, are you saying that most LE do not want civilians to CCW? You might be right.
No, I did not say that. I said that LE recommends against cashiers in stores armikng themselves becasue they feell it increases the chance for injury, as the cashiers are likely to use force when it is not necessary.
Yeah OK but is that what we are talking about? Observing a robbery is not the same as being robbed. The issue we face is what to do when we are robbed.
Actually, if you will refer to the OP, we are discussing observing. It has moved over to what to do it you are being robbed, but I don't think it changes anything. Compliance is still the best default option available, the one most likely to lead to a successful outcome that minimizes your loss of resources.

Creature
May 25, 2009, 02:57 PM
so...do you go unarmed?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 03:03 PM
I notice you failed to answer my question.
I pointed out that you were changing the parameters. I still do. Different answers for different situations. "Armed attacker" covers a lot of territory, both for the attacker and the attack itself.

Is the advice you would give to a weak, unarmed, untrained person the exact same advice you would give to an armed and trained person?

In what situation? If we stay with the BK scenario, yes. If you are the cashier, give the BG the money is the default. If you are a witness, sit there and be a witness is the default. Do what is best to minimize loss of resources. If the sitution evolves then the response might also evolve, and being armed and trained can lead to a different response based on minimizing loss.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 03:05 PM
so...do you go unarmed?
I don't whip out my gun and shoot it every chance I get.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:06 PM
so...do you go unarmed?

Good point! If you comply with the robbery what good will it do to carry. Or are we talking other threats and robbery should be off the table for DGU?

I said that LE recommends against cashiers in stores armikng themselves becasue they feell it increases the chance for injury, as the cashiers are likely to use force when it is not necessary.

Actually, you didn't mention cashiers but I know you are responding to a lot of posts. Does LE think that CCW is a good idea?

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:09 PM
If the sitution evolves then the response might also evolve, and being armed and trained can lead to a different response based on minimizing loss.

OK! So when does that evolution occur? What are the signs? How do we know (statistics aside) that the BG is going the harm us? If we have the advantage (surprise, cover, distance, concealment, gun etc) should we use it as soon as we attain it or wait? How can we know ifwe will have another opening? In the BK case if the good guy had just walked up behind the BG and shot him in the head without warning would that meet more low risk criteria?

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:11 PM
I don't whip out my gun and shoot it every chance I get.

David, you say you are ex-military and I am retired so we both know what our Army buddies would say to that one;)

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 03:18 PM
Actually, you didn't mention cashiers but I know you are responding to a lot of posts. Does LE think that CCW is a good idea?
Sorry, missed the point. AFAIK, most all the research indicates nationwide LEOs are pro-CCW buy a fair margin. That varies a lot, though, based on location and rank.
Good point! If you comply with the robbery what good will it do to carry.
There are lots of reasons to carry outside of the robbery issue. If there were never any robberies would there still be times when one could be in a DGU? Sure.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:19 PM
I am saying (and the research indicates) that he is comparing DGU against all attacks, gun and non-gun, for his ratios. IIRC (and I'm doing this from memory, as I don't have the material here at home) out of about 2500 total DGUs only 10 involved gun-wielding BGs.

I think you are a bit off. 18%(360,000) of successful DGUs were against gun wielding BGs according to here: http://www.outdoors.net/site/features/feature.aspx?Forum=Firearms&ArticleCode=121&jse=1

Here's a quote too: Guns are extremely successful in preventing theft. They succeed almost 90% of the time, most often without being fired, or the thief injured.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:22 PM
If there were never any robberies would there still be times when one could be in a DGU?

So you advise us not to use firearms during robberies except when?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 03:28 PM
OK! So when does that evolution occur? What are the signs? How do we know (statistics aside) that the BG is going the harm us?
Pax posted a pretty good list of indicators/actions in another thread. Perhaps she would re-do it here?
And we don't know for sure, but there are some things that are indicative of the situation being taken up a notch. I can tell you some situations when I would probably fight, in a very broad context. I won't be tied up. I won't kneel down. I won't go to another room. I won't be taken to a car. I won't let the BG physically endanger me and mine. Lots of other factors can come into play.
we have the advantage (surprise, cover, distance, concealment, gun etc) should we use it as soon as we attain it or wait? How can we know ifwe will have another opening?
How do you know if you have an opening now? In the original story, the BG had a partner. In this case the partner staryed outside in the car, but he could just as easily have come in before and been sitting behind you eating some fries when you decided to act.
It may just be a difference of perspective. Some here seem to look at it as "how do I maximize my chance of shooting the BG" while I tend to focus on "how do I minimize the danger and loss."

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 03:41 PM
I think you are a bit off. 18%(360,000) of successful DGUs were against gun wielding BGs according to here: http://www.outdoors.net/site/feature...Code=121&jse=1

Nope. we are talking different things again. They are referring to the statistical computations (extrapolation), I'm referring to the actual numbers. Interesting, BTW, that so many want to use stats when it supports their position but then say how useless stats are when it shows their position wrong.
Here's a quote too:
Yes, theft is very different from armed robbery.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:45 PM
I won't let the BG physically endanger me and mine.

Not to pick nits but aren't you and yours in danger physically when a bad-intentioned BG who has a gun is robbing you or is nearby robbing another?

How do you know if you have an opening now?
Good question! How would you know when you had an opening in these situations?:I won't be tied up. I won't kneel down. I won't go to another room. I won't be taken to a car. What would you look for?

Some here seem to look at it as "how do I maximize my chance of shooting the BG" while I tend to focus on "how do I minimize the danger and loss."

I am with you here BUT I could care less about the loss and danger to the BG who has put my life in jeopardy. That may be the difference we are talking past each other on. The police don't want ANYBODY hurt which is why when they arrest dangerous criminals they don't just shoot them down immediately without trying to take them into custody. My issue is; I am a civilian with no duty IMO to capture any BGs but I want to live and if I have an advantage over a BG who has shown a willingness to harm me (an armed robbery is such) then I would be inclined to take the advantage rather than trust the odds you espouse over those which Dr. Kleck has said are really more on my side.

Going back to BK and your issues with Kleck. If the guy in BK had a knife would stepping up to him with a gun be OK from your perspective?

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 03:51 PM
Nope. we are talking different things again. They are referring to the statistical computations(extrapolation), I'm referring to the actual numbers.

Even with extrapolation wouldn't the % remain constant? Anyway, all these studies pretty much use extrapolation. In Mr. Kleck's remarks (and I really wish you would go listen to what he says) he says he uses the same statistical analysis that polls in elections use. I think it is common.

So are you saying that because there is not a large number in the sampling Kleck used that we should infer that fighting back with a gun against a BG who has a gun is more likely to result in injury to us?

Interesting, BTW, that so many want to use stats when it supports their position but then say how useless stats are when it shows their position wrong.

Can't speak for others but I have no problem with statistics IF they are used in context and explained. Otherwise they are misleading. Anyway, you mentioned the numbers about DGUs and I looked them up for you. Your welcome;)

Creature
May 25, 2009, 04:27 PM
I don't whip out my gun and shoot it every chance I get.

Now, David, that's not what I asked. How about answering my question. Do you actually believe in your research enough to put into practice the habit of going everywhere unarmed?

ftd
May 25, 2009, 04:30 PM
Excuse my ignorance, but....

Could someone please explain to me why the BK armed robbery event would be classified as a just a robbery rather than an armed attack waiting to happen on everyone in the place?

If someone busts into my home waving a firearm and yelling, I'm going to try to shoot him without even caring that he wants to just rob me. His breaking in and carrying a gun poses an imminent lethal threat to me and my household. Am I looking at this wrong? If so, please help me out.

If not, why is it different at a BK?

Jofaba
May 25, 2009, 04:48 PM
If it was me, I'd drop out of vision if possible. If not, I'd slowly snake my hand to my weapon. Regardless of cover, I'd make sure that my hand ended up on the handle of my gun.

If the guy fired a shot at anyone I would take him out. Even if I ended up doing time I would feel confident that I had saved lives.

If he did not fire at a person, if he shot the ceiling or the floor and I didn't see death, I would stand back.

If he came towards me without firing on anyone and got close and I felt that the next few seconds would dictate my life I would make my decision then and there based on the circumstances.

I would never stop a robbery as that is not my job as a citizen.

Sometimes I wish that we, as carrying citizens, could make that kind of decision and stop a crime, but I don't beleive that it is either part of our individual right, nor even our constitutional right.

As such, I will not hold someone at gun point and will not warn them of my presence. If I draw it will be based on my view that the perp is about to kill me or someone else.

If I kill someone while carrying, it will be to protect myself or a fellow human from immediate death. I am willing to end up in prison for life based on that action, as my life or the life i save is worth my incarceration.

In my eyes, accepting that kind of fate, that horror of justice, is what you are weighing when you pull the trigger.

Brit
May 25, 2009, 06:18 PM
[QUOTE][/And the participants in this forum are mostly just those type of individuals, and you have to love them.

We all can afford access to the Internet, a Computer, a chair to sit on, and food in the fridge, plus the ability to have electrical power, to run the equipment.

The above is us!

Now for a quick peek at Joe loser who walks into a small business late at night, with a stolen hand gun, a drug habit, and is not the sharpest bulb in the box, even when he has the $20.00 in his pocket, for his next crack rock, which at this moment in time, he does not!

The only control you, the CCW person has, is trigger control, you shoot him quickly, and you shoot him a lot! You can not even have any other thought, he will or will not shoot all in the store, if he wants, and you happen to be one of them.QUOTE]

The above is my true belief. The quote in blue.

It is called control, and you have not one tiny iota of control when a person appears in your midst, with a pistol, in a business, none whatsoever!

Whatever he wants to do (He/She) for instance raise pistol and shoot me! why? I have a hat on? I don't have a hat on.

I am Black/White/Indian/Short/Tall?

Marksmanship? Let me pick on Pax a moment, she shoots, has a CCW, could you hit a man sized torso, center of mass, at 5 yards, if this person was standing still? No need to answer, reference skill, and skill alone, I know the answer, yes you could.

If not one robber had ever shot a person, or group of persons in a robbery, the answer to this person with a gun, in your midst is simple, do nothing.

But as there are numerous accounts of these robbers shooting one, or a bunch, or all! Your only control is shoot them first, a lot!

And you can quote this study, and that study till you go blue, but reality is plain to see, it is sometimes stated as risk management.

The Israelis call it preemptive strikes. My nature falls back in to the Saxon' do unto others, as they would do unto you... BUT DO IT FIRST!

skydiver3346
May 25, 2009, 07:25 PM
I have read each and every post on this thread. I'm sure you have as well, judging from all your many responses to the other's here on TFL.
Most people don't agree with you sir and your logic simply does not hold water (when the chips are really down). To me its too complicated.
All the "facts" that you keep quoting from your personal sources are just not what I believe as the gospel.

This is the bottom line: When and if you are personally ever placed in a situation like this, (and I hope you never are) you do what you think is best and the rest of us will do what we think is best. It is nice to say what you "think" is the best solution (confrontations with the bad guy), but no one in the world knows exactly what might happen during a robbery or personal attack. You just can't read the criminal mind and know if he is going to rob you or shoot you. You do not know what they are planning to do. You should be ready to react. To each his own, is the best response in my opinion and we all need to be prepared. Not only by carrying, but having a plan of action in the back of your mind. Each scenario has its own particular responses (too many variables) and nobody can write a book or suggest "exactly how to respond" in each situation. Remember, none of the victims started any of this, (the perps did) and we are just responding to the threat. In most cases, he who hesitates is lost. We live in a different world now, where values and respect for authority (and human life) are non existent.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 10:38 PM
Not to pick nits but aren't you and yours in danger physically when a bad-intentioned BG who has a gun is robbing you or is nearby robbing another?
Not particularly. I suppose one could make a case depending on how they choose to define "bad-intentioned BG" but I (like most people) am not in that much danger during a robbery. Y'all seem to have this idea that they are violent, wild events, but that is extremely rare.
Good question! How would you know when you had an opening in these situations?:
I don't consider an opening in those situations. For me, those situations indicate the situation has changed significantly, thus the response needs to change significantly.
I am with you here BUT I could care less about the loss and danger to the BG who has put my life in jeopardy.
Same here. when I talk about minimizing loss of resources and such it is in reference to the good guys.
The police don't want ANYBODY hurt which is why when they arrest dangerous criminals they don't just shoot them down immediately without trying to take them into custody.
That is not correct, but as it is irrelevant to this issue I won't get into it unless you want to push the point.
Going back to BK and your issues with Kleck. If the guy in BK had a knife would stepping up to him with a gun be OK from your perspective?
I don't have issues with Kleck. I've talked with Gary and I've been on a panel with him. I have problems with the way some folks use/misuse his research. I do have a couple of philosophical differences about research methods, but taht is just part of the game, with different researchers considering different types of research and levels of analysis being more rigorous. And no, why would yo want to step up to him, period. Let him get finished and let everybody go on about their business. If folks want to catch BGs, go sign up for the police academy.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 10:53 PM
Even with extrapolation wouldn't the % remain constant? Anyway, all these studies pretty much use extrapolation.
Well, here it is according to Kleck, not somebody who read something about what somebody wrote about what Kleck found (which is why I don't use the internet for that much serious research):
1994 NSPOF Survey
Respondents N= 2658
Victims N= 141
Gun Use by Perpetrator N= 9
So are you saying that because there is not a large number in the sampling Kleck used that we should infer that fighting back with a gun against a BG who has a gun is more likely to result in injury to us?
No. I am saying the data overwhelmingly indicates that initial compliance is the best way to minimize loss and danger. I am saying that virtually every expert in the field says not to fight back as long as it is just a robbery.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 10:57 PM
Y'all seem to have this idea that they are violent, wild events, but that is extremely rare.

Interesting. An armed robbery isn't violent? What would you call it? You seem to be saying here that an armed robbery isn't very dangerous. I have never been robbed so I don't know but it would seem when someone is threatening you with bodily harm that would be called dangerous and violent. Not sure what you are trying to say with that.

I don't consider an opening in those situations. For me, those situations indicate the situation has changed significantly, thus the response needs to change significantly

I think the term opening refers to when you will act. So, if you are armed and faced with a BG that violates one of your "I won't do rules" you just draw and shoot? Or do you wait for an opening was my question and what determines that.

I have problems with the way some folks use/misuse his research.

What do you mean? How and in what way have you seen his research misused? Did you look at the link I provided in post#14?

And no, why would yo want to step up to him, period.

I guess my question is since the BG does not have a gun and you do is that more in line with what you think Kleck is saying?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 10:58 PM
Now, David, that's not what I asked. How about answering my question.
I consider myself to always be armed. Sometimes, like everyone here, I do not have a gun with me.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 11:00 PM
Could someone please explain to me why the BK armed robbery event would be classified as a just a robbery rather than an armed attack waiting to happen on everyone in the place?

Because you don't classify events on what might happen.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 11:04 PM
I am saying that virtually every expert in the field says not to fight back as long as it is just a robbery.

Except Kleck apparently. David, I don't think you have answered what Kleck's research and he is saying. From what I have presented Kleck says it is better to fight back than comply if armed. You say that is based on good guy having a gun and BG not having one but I don't see how you arrive at that. Kleck does not say that does he?

Experts say all kinds of things until someone comes along and shows something else. Think football and the T formation.

I think pax said it well when she talked about expert's audience being those who are not armed. No rocket science there to see that unarmed good guy fighting wiht armed BG is not too smart.

But that dynamic is beginning to change and I think Kleck's research may be showing that.

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 11:08 PM
All the "facts" that you keep quoting from your personal sources are just not what I believe as the gospel.
One is certainly entitled to believe whatever they wish. Some choose to believe that Rambo is a training film. Others choose to believe the Moon landings were faked. I tend to believe that certain facts can help us make our belief closer to reality.
This is the bottom line: When and if you are personally ever placed in a situation like this, (and I hope you never are) you do what you think is best and the rest of us will do what we think is best.
I don't think I have ever suggested otherwise. I have suggested that the more one understands the dynamics of crime and criminals the more accurate the decision on what do do will be.
We live in a different world now, where values and respect for authority (and human life) are non existent.
People keep saying that, but all the evidence says otherwise.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 11:16 PM
Well, here it is according to Kleck, not somebody who read something about what somebody wrote about what Kleck found (which is why I don't use the internet for that much serious research):
1994 NSPOF Survey
Respondents N= 2658
Victims N= 141
Gun Use by Perpetrator N= 9

So from that data you say that if you are armed and defend yourself against an non-gun wielding BG you are OK(won't be injured) but if he is with gun you are not OK (will be injured)? Please explain how you arrive at that. :confused:

PS I am not sure that Kleck used the 1994 NSPOF Survey. I think he used his own?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 11:27 PM
Interesting. An armed robbery isn't violent? What would you call it?
Not particularly. Most armed robberies go down without anyone being injured, and most injuries that do occur are minor in nature. As a general rule there is more violence when the local high school runs a football play than there is at an armed robbery.
You seem to be saying here that an armed robbery isn't very dangerous.
Most armed robberies aren't very dangerous. Thousands occur every day with no big deal. Some do become dangerous, usually because of failure to comply, but they are few and far between.
I think the term opening refers to when you will act. So, if you are armed and faced with a BG that violates one of your "I won't do rules" you just draw and shoot? Or do you wait for an opening was my question and what determines that.
If that seems the best response, yes. If some other response seems better I will choose it.
What do you mean? How and in what way have you seen his research misused?
I think I have posted that about 3 times now.
I guess my question is since the BG does not have a gun and you do is that more in line with what you think Kleck is saying?
I don't "think" what Kleck is saying. I respond to what Kleck and others have written or what they have siad. I do not try to color it with "I think".
Except Kleck apparently.
That is why we say "virtually."
David, I don't think you have answered what Kleck's research and he is saying.
And I think that I have.
From what I have presented Kleck says it is better to fight back than comply if armed. You say that is based on good guy having a gun and BG not having one but I don't see how you arrive at that. Kleck does not say that does he?
No, that is not what I say. I say that the statement you keep tossing around is based on respnse to all criminals, not just those armed with a gun. Please go read Kleck's work instead of reading what somebody thinks somebody else said about what they thought somebody meant when they talked about what someone said about Kleck. That is what I keep saying here. If people really want to learn about this stuff go read it, don't read some synopsis by some third party that takes a few points out of context. Then read about how to do analysis, and find out why an N of 9 really doesn't give you much to go on, and things like that.
Experts say all kinds of things until someone comes along and shows something else.
Gosh, I guess that sums it up. The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong and somebody on TFL who read what somebody else wrote about one bit of research is right. Hard to argue with logic like that.:rolleyes:
PS I am not sure that Kleck used the 1994 NSPOF Survey. I think he used his own?
Have you considered actually reading Kleck's work?

David Armstrong
May 25, 2009, 11:40 PM
So from that data you say that if you are armed and defend yourself against an non-gun wielding BG you are OK(won't be injured) but if he is with gun you are not OK (will be injured)? Please explain how you arrive at that.
The data does not show that, and I do not and have not said that.

skydiver3346
May 26, 2009, 08:36 AM
You keep saying that "most" armed robberies are not violent????

Are you living on another planet? I can assure you that any victim (who has actually experienced an armed robbery) can attest that it IS a violent crime committed against them. Not only physically (in some cases) but for sure mentally, for all of them. It alters the way people act and where they go from then on. It stays in the back of your mind and haunts you for a very long time to come.
NOTE: The reason I know this, is that I was unfortunate to be a victim of an armed robbery (by knife to my throat) 8 years ago in a hotel parking garage in Macon, GA. Trust me sir, it is something I guarantee that you never want to experience. It is VIOLENT in all respects. Although I only suffered a small cut on my neck (it still bled a lot), I was very lucky as it could have been much worse.
So the bottom line is (for me) always be prepared and alert. I never trust any strangers who approach me anymore. That is sad, but that is the way it has to be nowadays. Why? Because you never know what their "real" intentions are. They could possibly be violent and if it involes a robbery to your person, IT IS VIOLENT.

David Armstrong
May 26, 2009, 09:53 AM
You keep saying that "most" armed robberies are not violent????
Defining "violent" as relating to physical injury, yes, most armed robberies are not violent. As mentioned before, "Most armed robberies go down without anyone being injured, and most injuries that do occur are minor in nature." Football games tend to be more violent than most armed robberies.
Not only physically (in some cases) but for sure mentally, for all of them. It alters the way people act and where they go from then on. It stays in the back of your mind and haunts you for a very long time to come.
I think you are trying to make your experience cover everyone. I've known a number of folks, myself included, who have gone through armed robberies and it has not altered the way they think, act, where they go, or anything else.
Because you never know what their "real" intentions are.
You never know that about anybody, now do you? But for most things in life we look at likelihoods and probabilities, and act according to those. Otherwise we would never drive a car, for instance. It is only in the arena of armed robbery, AFAIK, that some say we should ignore virtually all the information and instead take the route that is most likely to create problems.

skydiver3346
May 26, 2009, 10:00 AM
Anyone who compares the violence of an armed robbery to a high school football game is just someone (that none of us can ever reach)....

Congrats, you win brother. I give up trying to make my points.....

Tennessee Gentleman
May 26, 2009, 10:14 AM
If that seems the best response, yes. If some other response seems better I will choose it.

Well, that seems definitive enough:rolleyes:

I think I have posted that about 3 times now.

Other than your claim (which I think is erroneous) that Kleck's work does not reflect gun response versus gun-wielding bad guys. I have not seen anything you have posted that shows how his studies have been misused. I dispute your claim that Kleck's data only reflects resistance against non-gun wielding opponents and while that may your opinion of his study that is not what he says or what his study shows.

That is why we say "virtually." The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong

When Galileo and Copernicus came along "virtually" all the experts said the earth was the center of the universe. Those two looked at some more evidence and found out something new. Maybe Kleck did too.

If people really want to learn about this stuff go read it, don't read some synopsis by some third party that takes a few points out of context.

Did you look at the reference I posted in #14? You can actually hear Kleck say it first hand!

Have you considered actually reading Kleck's work?


I am beginning to wonder if you have. Kleck has written a lot of things but yes I have read his work and that is why I dispute your assertion that his study does not reflect armed resistance to a gun wielding BG. His work seems to be doing pretty well against criticism and I would include yours as well.

It seems David that due to your dancing around on the issue you don't have a creditable answer to Kleck's position but that's OK, you are not alone as the antigunners are having problems with it too.;)

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 10:15 AM
Just like the phrase I use when someone postures in front of me, this thread seems to have followed "I am a merry go round, jump on when yer ready but jump off before you puke":barf: Seems the OP and topic has been made and now is just the usual players in the typical T&T circle of doom...
My final word on the point is I am glad a citizen legally used his weapon and skill to take out a gun toting violent robber (presence of gun to rob is violent IMHO) hope he fully recovers from wounds suffered by the BG's bullets...
Brent

Tennessee Gentleman
May 26, 2009, 10:21 AM
Anyone who compares the violence of an armed robbery to a high school football game is just someone (that none of us can ever reach)....

I agree Skydiver and I was curious to see how fast someone would jump on that one. I think this is a sign of straws being grasped and one cannot discuss issues without some common ground to base the discussion on.

Creature
May 26, 2009, 10:24 AM
Lets not forget that David admits that he choses to remain armed despite the evidence he has presented throughout this thread. That says more to me than what has been written so far.

pax
May 26, 2009, 10:31 AM
Four pages and now we're going in circles.

Closing this before anyone forgets my earlier warning...

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, folks.

pax