PDA

View Full Version : Wait vs Don't Wait Scenario?


stonewall50
April 5, 2011, 11:19 PM
If someone attempts to rob a place and they are unaware of your presence, but they have a firearm on the cashier/server/whoever? If you wait on the person to turn or take the firearm off of the person you are in a sitution where they may NOT take the gun off of them or they may shoot the person. If you announce your presence you may run the risk of a hostage situation. If you just shoot them you risk either collateral from either the bad guy shooting on his way down, or YOU hitting the bad guy and the bullet passing through(unlikely but possible if you have the right ammo).

If the person has a knife I would probably make it known that a gun was on them and give them the option of dropping the knife, but a gun changes the equation. I am wondering what should be done in this situation? I don't know if I would trust my anatomy lessons for the apricot shot. Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

MrDontPlay
April 5, 2011, 11:27 PM
I think if they have a gun in someones face you are justified to shoot. I would make a good example out of them. If they dont know you're there I would think you would have time to put the front sight on their head. quick follow up shots would also be advised.

stonewall50
April 5, 2011, 11:42 PM
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I am not questioning the justification. I know in my state the law is "stand in their shoes." If they are in danger of being shot then I can kill them legally and the state will pay for my court fees. My question is along the lines of what is a safe shot?

I understand that it is possible to shoot someone in the back of the head and end ALL bodily functions, but in that situation with a gun to someon else I do not know if that is a safe shot to attempt. What are the odds that they squeeze the trigger? I mean I reckon there is no safe shot but still. I mean obviously there are other factors like what the person with the gun is saying and how the person at the register reacts. I could point for them to move before I shoot, but any kind of action might tip off the bad guy and result in a shot anyway.

Lost Sheep
April 6, 2011, 12:36 AM
So, is this a medical question rather than a legal question?

(edited from OP's post #3)My question is along the lines of what is a safe shot?

I understand that it is possible to shoot someone in the back of the head and end ALL bodily functions, but in that situation with a gun to someon else I do not know if that is a safe shot to attempt. What are the odds that they squeeze the trigger?

A lot would depend also on the tactical situation. the amount of risk to the clerk being covered by the gunman/robber depends on your tactical situation. While your presence is unknown to the gunman, can you draw and aim at leisure or are you limited to a snap shot? How sure are you that there is not an accomplice stationed to cover just such a contingency as you?

Aside: If you live in a jurisdiction that will spend money to defend a private citizen in any kind of shoot, I think you are an exception.

I think there are too many variables for a single, definitive answer. The best you are likely to get is a list of factors that may or may not have bearing determining the answer.

Despite the above assessment, here is my snap opinion, given the scenario as I understand the way you have presented it:

Most convenience stores instruct their clerks to give up the money and not try to "be a hero". Regardless of how we feel about such policies rewarding bad behavior, I think they have found it has statistically better outcomes than resisting robberies.

In this case, standing aside and being a good witness might be the preferable course of action, no matter how much it galls your sense of right and wrong.

My defining factor: If it appears there is no intent to kill or injure, just to rob, I would probably forego use of deadly force to stop a robbery.

Good Luck

Lost Sheep

BikerRN
April 6, 2011, 02:43 AM
In this case, standing aside and being a good witness might be the preferable course of action, no matter how much it galls your sense of right and wrong.

My defining factor: If it appears there is no intent to kill or injure, just to rob, I would probably forego use of deadly force to stop a robbery.

Very well said.

For me the correct answer is, it depends.

While lethal force may be authorized it is not always the best way to handle a problem. It is but one of the options.

Biker

Eagle0711
April 6, 2011, 03:32 AM
Iv'e given this type of situation a lot of thought. You have to assume that they are going to pull the trigger. They are the one/ ones who started it.

To protect innocent persons step to the side or drop to one knee to change the angle. And as mentioned aim for the head. Try to imagine a line around the head at eye level. A shot here will disconnect the central nervous system and he can't pull the trigger. This is where a cool head and MARKSMANSHIP will pay off.

Crazy88Fingers
April 6, 2011, 04:22 AM
I'd tend to agree with Lost Sheep. But in my neck of the woods, it seems like robbery victims are getting shot whether they cooperate or not. I don't know if this is a new trend, or I'm just now noticing. Another thing to consider in a worst-case-scenario.

threegun
April 6, 2011, 05:56 AM
Most robberies end with only cash being stolen. If you introduce your firearm then you have just started a gunfight. IMO the best course of action would be to stay hidden and prepared to defend yourself or perhaps the cashier if the bad guy starts the fight.

I know alot of you guys are gonna flame me but it is foolish to start a gunfight when only money was going to be taken especially when it ain't your money.

Yes I would like to ruin the bad guys day and take them off the street and save the cashier but things don't always go as planned in gunfights. Thats why someone coin the saying that the best gunfight is the one that was avoided.

An old adversary (Glenn Myers know of whom I speak DA) once explained this to me in a similar debate. I was ready to open up a can of whoop butt on the bad guy no matter what. I felt it was the correct course of action. After our debate I realized he was right. Since most robberies end with no shots fired my premature involvement would certainly result in shots being fired. No shot vs shots, one of these scenarios ends way better than the other everytime.

threegun
April 6, 2011, 05:59 AM
But in my neck of the woods, it seems like robbery victims are getting shot whether they cooperate or not.

Crazy, I know it seems that way but its not so. Check the FBI unifored crime report or a similar report from your area. Shots being fired is way low in terms of odds.

gearhounds
April 6, 2011, 06:18 AM
Not at all foolish to avoid an avoidable exchange of gun shots. Be the best witness you can be instead, preferably from concealment (actual cover will likely be hard to find in a stop n' rob), then wait until his exit and try to watch his direction of travel, or get his getaway ride while dialing 911. Most likely, you will increase the risk to the cashier by attempting to intervening, unless of course deadly assault is already under way (which you wouldn't have been able to prevent anyway).

ClayInTx
April 6, 2011, 07:17 AM
There are a couple of ways to deal with this. One by the store and one by you.

Many years ago I was working construction in Albany, Georgia. One weekend a C-store was robbed, the cashier killed, and no witnesses. Next weekend the same thing at another C-store and a liquor store. Examination of victims indicated it was getting to be copycat.

You owl-BEN-nee locals probably remember this.

The owners got together and made a plan, took it to the judge. The judge agreed and called in the sheriff, police chief, and reporters. He told them what it would be and no news until Monday. The reporters agreed to a temporary suspension of their 1st Amendment.

The owners arraigned stock at the counter so a customer could approach the cashier in only one place. Behind the cashier was a screen with a look through hole. As soon as a gun was shown the cashier fell to the floor and the owner behind the screen blew away the BG. Monday morning there were, IIRC, seven dead men in the morgue.

After that a virgin with a sack of gold on her head could stand in any C-store in Dougherty County and no one dared harm her. It likely became the safest place to work in a C-store in the USA.

That’s an owner solution.

For the guy who just happens to be there as a customer it becomes a problem. You don’t want to witness a cashier killed and hope it’s just money going to be taken, but you don’t know that.

If the BG believes it’s just him and the cashier in the store there is a great possibility of the cashier getting killed. If you let your presence be known you are in danger of getting killed.

It has become far too common for a BG, if he believes there are no witnesses, to get the money, then kill. Especially if the store is in an isolated or rural area. That’s right, being in the boondocks doesn’t equal safe.

So what do you do? It’s a lose/lose situation. I would have a hard time living with the knowledge that I stayed hidden and witnessed murder but could have intervened. I’m not certain a shot to any part of the body would prevent a trigger being pulled by reflex action. Being a good witness to a robbery is one thing; being a good witness to murder is vastly different. Until a shot is fired or the BG just runs there is no way to know which one it will be.

Thinking it over, I believe I would do something like knock some cans off a shelf and if he didn’t run but came to investigate be ready to blast him.

GoOfY-FoOt
April 6, 2011, 08:43 AM
Not to play devil's advocate, but what if, it was a toy gun that looked real, had no bullets in it, and the 'robber' just went through some sort of trauma like he lost his job and his wife, and felt he had no choice but to 'steal' some cash so that he could feed his kids?
There are hundreds of circumstances that could cause a good person to do something bad. Should they lose their life for it?
Could you sleep at night, knowing that 3 kids would have even more to deal with and live through, because you wanted to be a 'hero'?

hartlock
April 6, 2011, 09:25 AM
If a guy comes in with a fake pistol, he needs to get whats coming to him.
There is, sometimes, no way to tell if a gun is fake or real, nowdays. If you
add to this the fact that a clerk is under stress from the robbery, looks like
a recipe for someone getting shot! I would feel no stress from shooting
someone that is robbing me, he put himself in that position. If he has kids,
he shoulda thought about that before trying criminal activities.

TailGator
April 6, 2011, 10:18 AM
While I agree with the majority in avoiding a gunfight whenever possible, it is quite conceivable that one would, in this situation, pick up some clues (verbal, body language, etc.) that the robber had an intent to kill. Our goal, in my mind, should be to let go a robber who only wants to leave with money, but to protect the lives of innocents from a robber with intent to do harm. The very presence of a firearm in this situation admits the possibility of the latter, but we need to simultaneously acknowledge to ourselves that our perception of the intent of a robber is going to be imperfect and we are not responsible for the actions of another.

As for the scenario proposed by GoOfy-FoOt, we clearly cannot require anyone to check an assailant's firearm for authenticity, functionality, and being loaded before defending themselves or others; nor can we require a review of their socioeconomic status. There are other avenues besides armed robbery for people who need financial assistance, and a person who commits armed robbery takes upon himself a certain risk, whether he chooses to use a loaded gun or a spray-painted water pistol.

MLeake
April 6, 2011, 10:31 AM
... though it might cause me some discontent after the fact, wouldn't ultimately matter much.

If somebody convinces me that he intends to harm me or somebody else, he alone is responsible for the outcome.

I know any number of people who've gone through absolutely miserable scenarios. None of my acquaintances have handled their difficulties by robbing banks or stores.

On the other hand, some of my relatives have been badly hurt by people who handled their personal demons by drinking, and then driving afterward. I haven't found myself sympathetic in any way to those drivers, either.

As to the OP's scenario, I'm not sure how I'd handle it. In my area, there have also been several killings of compliant victims in the last few months. Statistically, they most likely constitute a minority, but they still happen with frightening regularity.

Hiker 1
April 6, 2011, 10:38 AM
The problem with this scenario is that we don't really know what is in someone's dark heart. Someone robbing another person at gunpoint is not an individual climbing the socio-economic ladder very well. If you could see into his mind that all he wants is money, that would affect your decision, but you can't.

How many robberies, burglaries, etc end up with a dead victim because one of the perpetrators "just lost it" or "went nuts"? The Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders is a great example.

Violent criminals can become drunk with power they don't normally have and make snap decisions that weren't initially part of their plan.

As far as the down-on-his-luck man-with-a-toy-gun scenario? Is that a joke? You buy the ticket, you take the ride.

markj
April 6, 2011, 10:59 AM
If someone attempts to rob a place and they are unaware of your presence, but they have a firearm on the cashier/server/whoever?

Find cover, dial 911 I wouldnt just go blazing away unless he pointed it towards my vicinity. Even then you may expect problems afterwards.

Seaman
April 6, 2011, 11:43 AM
Bottom line...you just don't know what a criminal will do. When the BG is caught they swear up and down they didn't mean to hurt anyone, yet an innocent person is dead.

If I am in a c-store and a BG pulls a gun or knife, do I wait hoping the perp just leaves with the money?

Or wait till the store clerk is shot or guts are spilling on the floor?

Sadly the safest option is to just stop the BG. Move quickly to the side thus taking the store clerk out of the line of fire and stop the deadly threat.

"You buy the ticket, you take the ride." [Hiker 1]

BikerRN
April 6, 2011, 12:26 PM
I would feel no stress from shooting someone that is robbing me

Lots of bravado in this thread that doesn't match up with reality.

I can guarantee you that you will at some point in the entire encounter that you will feel stress. It may be when the DA is considering charging you with murder, but rest assured, you will feel stress.

Biker

Mr. James
April 6, 2011, 12:44 PM
. . . felt he had no choice but to 'steal' some cash so that he could feed his kids?

And why, pray, is steal in quotation marks here? Isn't that precisely what he's doing?

As for this fictive sad-sack's feelings, he best should have waited until he felt like something different, like maybe getting another job, asking family or church members for help, etc., etc. :confused:

therewolf
April 6, 2011, 01:08 PM
IMO, if the BG wants to kill somebody, then he's not going to

ask for money.

It's a little difficult to state for certain what they will or won't do,

as there are no guarantees in life.

What I DO know for sure, is I have NO LE :

BACKUP

AUTHORITY

INSURANCE

TRAINING


If I take no action, no one will question it. If I do anything, and

somebody is injured, they're going to pour all over me like maple syrup.

YMMV, but I'd prefer not to fish without B.A.I.T.

MrDontPlay
April 6, 2011, 01:56 PM
I'm still sticking by my guns and saying if you can stay calm enough to line up a shot, make a good example out of him. He has a gun pointed at someone who is just trying to do their job. If I did nothing and the clerk got killed I think I would really beat myself up over it.

old bear
April 6, 2011, 02:31 PM
AS I'm not willing to start a shootout in pubic place unless I have no other choice. I would not get involved, as much as I would like to, I will be a good witness when the police arrive. Now if the bandit turns on me or mine that is a different story.

irish52084
April 6, 2011, 02:55 PM
Ok, I'll play the what if game. If the robber is armed and not aware of my presence, I draw my weapon and remain hidden if possible. If at any point I feel the tone of the situation is escalating then I say engage the robber and end it then and there. As always, make sure of you targets background and foreground. Mae sure the clerk is clear of your bullet path and shoot at the bottom half of the back of the head. If you hit the CNS, he will die before being able to react.

I would agree with being a good witness unless I felt like that particular situation was escalating. It comes down to a personal judgment call and everyone perceives situation differently. In my mind, robbing a store at gun point makes it reasonable to believe that they will use lethal force to get the money and I should react accordingly. State laws vary in this regard as well, so that affects the situation as well.

ltc444
April 6, 2011, 03:39 PM
One of the gun writers, retired NYPD, I respected, I unfortunately cannot remeber his name, was faced with a situation in Michigan.

He and his wife were in a C Store when it was robbed. He was armed, experienced and able to intervene. He chose not to. His position was that the only way he would have drawn was if the Perp. had tried to force the customers into the cooler. At that time perps who put the victums in the cooler intended to kill them.

If a man of his skills and experience would take that course, then I will probably follow his lead.

Arkansas Sheriffs Tommy Robinson and Sheriff Jack Dews initiated a policy of posting Deputies in C-Stores with orders to shoot to kill any robbers. The Stores were clearly posted with warning signs stating that an armed Deputy might or might be present. If the Deputy was present he had orders to shoot to kill. After a couple of perps were dispatched there were no robberies of participating C-Stores.

Until faced with the situation, one does not know what he will do. The aftermath of a shooting is extremely hard on the shooter. If it isn't then that individual is not responsible enough to carry a firearm.

I have found that those with the most Bravado are the least likely to act responsibly.

MP9
April 6, 2011, 03:44 PM
If they are in danger of being shot then I can kill them

Kill some one?

I could shoot to stop a threat ,if the BG die is as result of trying to stop the threat

I think if you are involved in any situation and you say "I kill the BG por X reason"... could get you more trouble, I think, not sure cause I am not a lawyer but every word you use can and will be used against you.


in the other hand, I dont think I would try to act like a macho/hero.. that could be a hard shot, if you are hidden, maybe you will be a little far and probably the clerk will be in front of the BG.. if you shoot you can easily miss...if you are far, if you move just a little bit the muzzle while shooting, you will miss the BG...

Have you practiced shooting from cover? close and 10 yards ? in a not very comfortable position?

have you shoot something that is maybe moving?

and more important, have you shoot under stress to shoot a very accurate shoot at the head? even worst, if you miss you can shoot the clerk?


many of we can say I would do this or that or those... but have we practiced enough ? or have we only shoot straight at the range?

and even if we have some training there is the factor of stress in real situation, which it is hard to simulate...

MP9
April 6, 2011, 03:54 PM
I know in my state the law is "stand in their shoes." If they are in danger of being shot then I can kill them legally and the state will pay for my court fees

I see you are in FL, have you read the "Florida firearms law use & ownership", if dont, you should.. I got many answers after reading it.

I think every gun owner in FL should read this...

basically I will shoot only if I or my family are fear of death or if any BG is shooting/killing some one and I am close enough...other way I prefer to be a witness, sadly if you something, you could get many problems and the clerk/store's owner probably will not pay anything if you get sued (civil)...and that would cost a lot of money...

threegun
April 6, 2011, 03:55 PM
Sadly the safest option is to just stop the BG. Move quickly to the side thus taking the store clerk out of the line of fire and stop the deadly threat.



Do a commando roll and come up guns a blazin while we are making things up. We can go for that easy instant stop while we are at it.

Seriously since most convenient stores have different layouts and your position in said store at the precise time of the robbery is unpredictable it is pretty safe to say that this is fantasy.

The fact is the safest option is to do nothing. Statistics confirm this. I know because it was used to defeat me in a similar debate. My position was for action. I was shown that this choice virtually guaranteed injury to someone where none would have occurred statistically speaking had I simply stayed hidden.

Sure I would feel horrible if the cashier was injured by my not acting. Still I would feel worst if the cashier was injured because I acted.

What I have learned is that in a fluid situation there are no guarantees. You may miss, get a malfunction, get hit yourself, get the cashier shot by the reflexing bad guy, get someone outside hit from a stray, get sued, and many many more. All on a decision based on the very rarest of robbery outcomes. It just isn't smart to act unless there is no better option.

GregInAtl
April 6, 2011, 04:08 PM
I believe what I would do is yell "freeze" with my gun pointed at him from behind. I figure he is unlikely to shoot the clerk knowing there is a witness to the murder. Moreover, since he can't see you, for all he knows your a law enforcement officer and that he is dead meat if he shoots the clerk. So, he probably is going to hi-tail it out the door (dropping the money if he has already gotten it) to avoid being shot and take his chances of getting away without being arrested.

Then again, it's easy to say what you would do, it's another thing doing it.

threegun
April 6, 2011, 04:35 PM
I can guarantee you that you will at some point in the entire encounter that you will feel stress. It may be when the DA is considering charging you with murder, but rest assured, you will feel stress.



You are 100 percent correct.

My coworker interrupted a robbery in progress at a business next to our pawnshop. The bad guy exited and pointed his gun at my coworker. My coworker fired a round striking the bad guy and it caused him to drop his gun and money however he ran away. Later he was arrested in the hospital.

His 100 percent justifiable action still caused him much stress. Stress from thinking his ticket was about to get punched. Stress from the interview with law enforcement. Stress from concerns of retaliation. Finally stress from the robber he shot coming back to see him after being released 15 years later (thankfully the visit was to apologize and thank my coworker for saving him from death or life in prison.....his fate he predicted had his spree not been ended early by getting shot and arrested).

Seaman
April 7, 2011, 09:59 AM
"Seriously since most convenient stores have different layouts and your position in said store at the precise time of the robbery is unpredictable it is pretty safe to say that this is fantasy. The fact is the safest option is to do nothing. Statistics confirm this. "

Thank you for your comments, they are not without merit. My example presupposes a safe rescue can be attempted, if not, I hang tight.

Recall a c-store clerk who was robbed, he handed over the money, was docile thruout. Then the BG shot the clerk, the clerk fell and the BG reached across the counter and shot downwards at the clerk, emptying his gun. The c-store clerk died. He did nothing to provoke the BG. The entire incident was captured by the c-store TV camera, including audio. It was sick.

In another incident a clerk was shot to death in a similar manner, this was a real nice guy that I knew slightly from being a customer in his store.

Statistics can be against this kind of senseless violent homicide occuring but if I were at either place (and I could have been) and not tried to stop the murders, I would have a hard time living with myself.

If I can't try to help an innocent person who is clearly at peril, what am I worth? I am worth nothing.

threegun
April 7, 2011, 10:20 AM
Recall a c-store clerk who was robbed, he handed over the money, was docile thruout. Then the BG shot the clerk, the clerk fell and the BG reached across the counter and shot downwards at the clerk, emptying his gun. The c-store clerk died. He did nothing to provoke the BG. The entire incident was captured by the c-store TV camera, including audio. It was sick.


Seaman, As you know the odds are extremely low for the bad guy to even fire much less kill the clerk.

Statistics can be against this kind of senseless violent homicide occuring but if I were at either place (and I could have been) and not tried to stop the murders, I would have a hard time living with myself.


What kind of a time living with yourself would you have had you interveined and the clerk got shot in the exchange?

If I can't try to help an innocent person who is clearly at peril, what am I worth? I am worth nothing.

All good people would offer someone in trouble a helping hand. My point is that statistics say in this scenario you would be moving them from the frying pan and into the fire. Introducing gunfire to this scenario cannot help EXCEPT in the most extreme of circumstances. Those being an instant stop by you or if it prevents the eventual murder of the clerk. Both extremely rare indeed.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 7, 2011, 10:34 AM
If you have a hard time living with yourself - that can be easily dealt with by a psychologist. We have quite good stress disorder treatments.

Of course, you have to be alive to deal with such. So you would rather be dead than suffer some anxiety?

Many folks deal with terrible stress and failures due to their own actions and get beyond it.

Thus, one should read up a bit on the psychological and social consequences of a shooting. I saw Marty Hayes discuss that on TV a bit ago. We discuss that at higher end tactical conferences. A knowledgeable SD shooter should be aware of such just as you need to be aware of legal consequences. We did a study on such a couple of years ago that is making into some police psych. text books.

gearhounds
April 7, 2011, 11:21 AM
Cops are not immune to post shooting stress either; training to shoot other humans while making decisions on which to base said shooting can be difficult. Bravado in such a scenario as listed above is one thing; dropping the hammer is another entirely. There are lots of cops out there that have been removed/removed themselves from service after a fully justifiable shoot because wanting to kill another human being is not natural. Now imagine someone with no training doing it, or worse trying it and hitting the wrong target. Even if cleared, a long road can be expected afterwards. Stress central!

CCW'ing and off duty carry are huge responsibilities. All we can hope for is training physically and mentally to do the right thing in each persons unexpected minute or so in the box.

Microgunner
April 7, 2011, 11:35 AM
Simply not knowing if the BG reads statistical data, is sane, insane or whatever is going to prompt me to action. I'm going to draw and fire if possible.
People are often murdered in these situations even if "statistics" are largely against this occurance.
I've been robbed at gunpoint, when I was 15 and unarmed, and the BG was shaking so badly I thought he would shoot me accidentally. These are not the type of people I will trust with my life if I can help it even if some statistician says I should.

Manco
April 7, 2011, 11:52 AM
In this case, being armed with a gun definitely makes a difference in the choice I would make because choices are based on the options that are available. I'm pretty sure that I could deal with killing somebody (potentially in the process of stopping the threat) in order to save somebody else better than I could allowing somebody to be killed by my inaction. I think the latter would haunt me for the rest of my life, to tell you the truth, and rightly so. As for that other somebody--the criminal--they had a choice whether to threaten the cashier's life, and they made the wrong choice, so whatever happens to them, they asked for it.

I realize that the foregoing may seem like vigilantism to some, but it's really just the product of a narrowly-defined scenario in which only one person can make a difference. I believe it would be considered legally justified homicide (if the bad guy dies) in most if not all states, and there's a reason for this--people have the right to defend themselves and others from imminent deadly threats using lethal force.

As for the bad guy pulling the trigger in response to a head shot, I've seen several videos of hostage shots being taken and read accounts of other such incidents, and I don't recall any instances of triggers being pulled reflexively. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, but as far as I know it hasn't been proven, while there have been cases of fully compliant robbery victims being killed after the robbery, and it stands to reason that the risk would be greater for those who resist in any way.

Manco
April 7, 2011, 12:08 PM
People are often murdered in these situations even if "statistics" are largely against this occurance.

For that matter, statistics are also against any of us ever needing to own a gun for defense at all, but that doesn't seem to stop us from preparing for the worst case. That's because if and when it actually happens to one of us, the "statistic" then becomes 100%, and we need a gun right now--the gun we would not have if we had listened to statisticians or anti-gunners.

Even if the cashier in this example would most likely survive unscathed if we did nothing, I'd do whatever I could in order to improve their chances as well as my own. If that means quietly bushwhacking the bad guy from behind with a well-aimed shot to the head, then that's what I'd do.

brickeyee
April 7, 2011, 12:44 PM
I know in my state the law is "stand in their shoes." If they are in danger of being shot then I can kill them legally and the state will pay for my court fees

That is NOT what the law says.

The state is not going to pay your legal costs.

IF a civil suite is brought against you, and the court decides you acted within the law, the plaintiff is going to pay.

skifast
April 7, 2011, 01:03 PM
Personally, I think I would shoot. I would not want to live with being a witness to a murder that I could have stopped.

I was told that Gun Site teaches that the typical physiological effect of being shot in the head is for the bad guy to raise his gun. If he shoots, the bullet goes into the ceiling. Anyone else hear/teach this?

threegun
April 7, 2011, 01:04 PM
Simply not knowing if the BG reads statistical data, is sane, insane or whatever is going to prompt me to action. I'm going to draw and fire if possible.


You of all people (considering the shooting in your family) should realize that talking about taking a bad guy out quickly and actually hitting the upper spinal cord or brain to do so are two different beasts. Sure I shoot great and can hit very tiny objects pretty fast however that is at the range, against a non hostile target, which is motionless or motion predictable, with nobody's life hanging in the balance (talk about a pressure shot).

One thing is almost guaranteed if I introduce my gun there will very likely be a gunfight.

If I prepare but hold up remaining invisible there will likely NOT be a gunfight.

That is what we are facing. IMO riding the stats is a far better course of action than almost guaranteing a shootout.

If the clerk gets shot then start shooting. Sucks for the clerk at that point. If the clerk gets shot because you started the shooting and couldn't finish it quickly thats gonna suck for both of you.

threegun
April 7, 2011, 01:10 PM
Personally, I think I would shoot. I would not want to live with being a witness to a murder that I could have stopped.


How would you feel if the clerk gets murdered because your shot failed to instantly stop the bad guy? You now literally bear more of the responsibility.

I don't know about what happens after a head impact sorry. I do know that stress and duress will make a very good marksman lackluster. You simply cannot or shouldn't rely on an instant stop as it is extremely difficult to achieve under those conditions.

Microgunner
April 7, 2011, 01:39 PM
threegun,
I believe waiting for the BG to start perforating folks prior to acting is a really bad idea. You'll really be under a massive load of stress at that point and your manual dexterity will suffer even more.
Nope, I'm acting while I still have an opportunity to act.

threegun
April 7, 2011, 03:01 PM
I believe waiting for the BG to start perforating folks prior to acting is a really bad idea. You'll really be under a massive load of stress at that point and your manual dexterity will suffer even more.
Nope, I'm acting while I still have an opportunity to act.


So you start a gunfight that very more than likely would have ended in the bad guy walking out with the money.

I wonder if you were being held at gunpoint during a robbery would you welcome some CCW holder of unknown skill level opening up on the guy holding a gun in your face?

I know I would prefer to ride the odds considering one scenario ends in sure gunfire and the other potential gunfire.

BTW I agree that waiting in most situations is a bad idea.

Microgunner
April 7, 2011, 06:06 PM
So you start a gunfight that very more than likely would have ended in the bad guy walking out with the money.

Your contention is that I would be starting the gun fight, not the BG who has drawn his/her firearm and is threatening folks with it. Seriously, are you this confused?
When someone has drawn a firearm and is threatening people with it the fight has already begun. This person is unstable and you're willing to risk life and limb on statistics?
Not me.

threegun
April 8, 2011, 06:14 AM
Your contention is that I would be starting the gun fight, not the BG who has drawn his/her firearm and is threatening folks with it. Seriously, are you this confused?
When someone has drawn a firearm and is threatening people with it the fight has already begun. This person is unstable and you're willing to risk life and limb on statistics?
Not me.


You are risking the clerks life by shooting when no shots would have been fired otherwise. Sure there is no guarentee that the bad guy won't shoot the clerk. There is supporting data however that indicates this outcome to be very very rare. Given this undeniable information the prudent thing to do is wait.

Knowing the low odds of the bad guy shooting you intervien virtually guaranteeing a shootout. This is simply not wise. It seems to presume that when you open up on the bad guy the clerk would be safer. Problem is that the clerk would only be safer by you opening fire if in fact the bad guy was going to shoot them. This we already know is statistically rare.

So in the vast majority of times you intervien you in fact put the clerk in more danger. As well as yourself.

Example Microgunner stumbles into 100 robberies in progress. 98 of those robberies would have ended without lead in the air. Microgunner opens up on the bad guy everytime. Now 100 percent of the robberies ended with lead in the air. Not very good for the environment nor the clerk, bad guy*, other patrons, or yourself. See the error of your thinking yet?

*not that I give a rats sacks for the scumbag.

Microgunner
April 8, 2011, 07:29 AM
There is supporting data however that indicates this outcome to be very very rare.

Cite your sources please.

Example Microgunner stumbles into 100 robberies in progress. 98 of those robberies would have ended without lead in the air. Microgunner opens up on the bad guy everytime. Now 100 percent of the robberies ended with lead in the air. Not very good for the environment nor the clerk, bad guy*, other patrons, or yourself. See the error of your thinking yet?
You can use made up statistics to prove any point. Hell, I can prove the world is flat if allowed to make up my own statistics.
All sounds clean and sterile in calm conversation, just don't think it'll translate to real time.
The idea of the bad guy focusing on and shooting the clerk while someone else is firing at him from his blind side just doesn't seem, to me, the way the BG would react. If anything, I believe I'd invite greater risk to myself and I'll have my firearm already into action.
Leaving this world fighting isn't such a bad way to go.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 8, 2011, 09:13 AM
I've deleted a rather silly blood lust, chest thumper and the reasonable corrective reply (thanks for that , but I killed the interchange).

Please read the moderators of this forum views on such. Stating you will kill and empty your gun is not what we are about and indicates a lack of sophisticated knowledge.

shortwave
April 8, 2011, 11:13 AM
My line of thought on the OP'S original scenario pretty much mirrors Lost Sheeps #4 post. If on the other hand, the BG, would pull his trigger then that, for me, would takes things to a much more elevated level.

5whiskey
April 8, 2011, 11:33 AM
I would have to believe strongly in not pulling the trigger on someone who has their weapon pointed at another person.

However, armed robbery is nothing to sneeze at. Regardless of whether the perp has pulled the trigger yet, or has no intention to pull the trigger if everyone cooperates, it's still a scenario where deadly force is authorized. If someone is going to point a gun at someone to take what's not his, then I don't side or favor him getting away with it. The bad thing is, though, there's not much you can safely do.

What I would do in this case? I would have my gun drawn at the low ready in the direction of the threat, with me standing at a safe angle where no one is in between myself and the robber (or behind the robber). I would wait until he begins to leave (but not openly block his exit). IF the guy simply runs away, then let him go without engaging. If he makes a move that shows the intention to engage you, then engage. Most States have a law giving you authority to detain the offender, and if he uses deadly force in an effort to escape then you may engage. I would not advise this, however. I would be the best witness possible, while having my self defense ready to use. If goofy sees my self defense and flinches in my direction, I would use my self defense. That's what I would do, anyway

OldMarksman
April 8, 2011, 12:07 PM
... they may NOT take the gun off of them or they may shoot the person.And they may not. The majority of the time, it is "not."

But if you shoot, they will most certainly try to shoot.

It is amazing to me how many keybpoard strategists seem to believe that their shooting of an armed robber will somehow so immediately and effectively disable the person shot that that person will not be able to squeeze a trigger at least once.

As threegun has stated very well on more than one occasion here, the armed citizen who intervenes may well precipitate a tragedy that would not have happened but for his intervention.

Yes, in an armed robbery, one is justified under the criminal code to employ deadly force if immediately necessary, and there is some civil protection (relating to the perp, and to the injuries of no one else), but that gives the citizen neither the skill nor the power to do so successfully.

So--what would make it a good idea for a person other than a sworn officer, who is not indemnified by the community, to try to draw and shoot someone because he may shoot someone else? Not much. Perhaps, if the perp and his M.O. resemble that of someone who has in fact been shooting his victims in the area; perhaps, if the shot is clear and close; the backstop is good; the perp's attention is drawn from the citizen who is the would-be hero; and the perp's gun is pointed in a safe direction... maybe, then....

But then, no one has mentioned the likelihood that the perp has an armed accomplice standing behind you for just such an eventuality.

A friend of mine who recently took his CCL training in FL said that the recommendation was to do nothing unless and until it became quite clear that shooting was almost certain to take place.

An indication of that would be the issuance of orders for everyone to get into a back room, or on the floor. Absent such, unless shooting breaks out, my gun stays put.

Microgunner
April 8, 2011, 12:20 PM
These are good arguments in both camps but I still believe it better to act than hope. Statistics only show a majority of armed robberies end without violence, not all. I'd hate to die with a perfectly good sidearm still holstered, and not knowing which side of the odds I'm going to fall on I choose to fight.
Each has to decide for himself.

markj
April 8, 2011, 02:36 PM
It is amazing to me how many keybpoard strategists seem to believe that their shooting of an armed robber will somehow so immediately and effectively disable the person shot that that person will not be able to squeeze a trigger at least once.

But I saw it in a movie once well a lot of times.....

I always thought that when a person dies they could lock the fingers in what was called a death grip. I would not wish to find out if it is true or not on someone might not have gotten hurt if the bad guy was left alone.

When a gun is pointed at you then do as you wish but when your actions may cause death or harm to the one you are trying to protect.......... oops hate it when that happens.

BikerRN
April 8, 2011, 03:03 PM
These are good arguments in both camps but I still believe it better to act than hope. Statistics only show a majority of armed robberies end without violence, not all. I'd hate to die with a perfectly good sidearm still holstered, and not knowing which side of the odds I'm going to fall on I choose to fight.
Each has to decide for himself.

Keep in mind that the whole premise of this scenario is that you are a witness, not an active participant.

Do you then escalate the situation to a shooting situation when the felonious actor has yet to discharge his weapon? Granted one may be authorized and even justified in using deadly force, but is that really the best option at this time?

That is a decision you, the investigators, local prosecutor, and judge and jury will have to make.

Biker

gearhounds
April 8, 2011, 03:10 PM
The death reflex can be avoided by a well placed shot to the CNS for an instant shut down. Let's hope the BG is kind enough to announce a robbery, and then hold perfectly still.

I'm not going to tell people to shoot or not shoot; the circumstances will dictate the right action to take. I will say that maybe if people think there is the possibility it "could happen to them", that they train for it. Maybe tie helium balloons to strings on a breezy day and try to hit them with regularity, after drinking a triple latte and doing some jumping jacks.I'm not trying to be a smart ass, or down play anyone's abilities, but that would approximate the average persons response to being thrust into a deadly force situation. If the BG isn't hit by the first round and incapacitated, collateral damage is a strong possibility.

5whiskey
April 8, 2011, 04:30 PM
I'd hate to die with a perfectly good sidearm still holstered

I think you would have absolute justification in this situation to have your sidearm unholstered. I don't think anyone on TFL will tell you that's wrong, as long as you discreetly unholster and come to the low ready in the direction of the threat without announcing yourself. I think that would be reasonable and prudent in most cases, as long as your presence in unknown. The opportunity to thwart an armed robbery (or a threat to you or another person) may well present itself, and then you can act MUCH faster. To shoot an individual while he has a gun pointed at another person is probably not the best COA, IMHO. And this is from someone who can't stand good people looking the other way while crime takes place.

Manco
April 8, 2011, 05:10 PM
It is amazing to me how many keybpoard strategists seem to believe that their shooting of an armed robber will somehow so immediately and effectively disable the person shot that that person will not be able to squeeze a trigger at least once.

Well, I wouldn't be aiming at his butt. ;) If I have a good shot opportunity at his brain, then he'll go down instantaneously--he won't even feel a thing. Whether he lives or dies is not up to me, but he'll be stopped. On the other hand, if I didn't think that I could hit him with sufficient precision (e.g. too much movement of his head, too much shaking of my hands), then I wouldn't take the shot.

As threegun has stated very well on more than one occasion here, the armed citizen who intervenes may well precipitate a tragedy that would not have happened but for his intervention.

It's hard to say which option gives one the greatest odds of survival overall because we'd have to judge how likely the perp is to senselessly kill the cashier.

So--what would make it a good idea for a person other than a sworn officer, who is not indemnified by the community, to try to draw and shoot someone because he may shoot someone else?

Legal considerations aside, what makes it a good idea for a police officer to escalate the situation? Does that improve the odds of the cashier's survival over surreptitiously waiting for the robbery to end first?

Not much. Perhaps, if the perp and his M.O. resemble that of someone who has in fact been shooting his victims in the area; perhaps, if the shot is clear and close; the backstop is good; the perp's attention is drawn from the citizen who is the would-be hero; and the perp's gun is pointed in a safe direction... maybe, then....

Right, I'd have to be there to have any idea whether it would be worthwhile and whether I have the ability to make the shot. It's hard to go into the exquisite level of detail needed on a forum. I will say that for me it's an option I would not rule out ahead of time, and that it is actually preferred if (and only if) the situation calls for it.

But then, no one has mentioned the likelihood that the perp has an armed accomplice standing behind you for just such an eventuality.

Like the perp, my situational awareness could let me down, that's true. But then I'd be in trouble regardless of whether I take the shot.

I'm not going to tell people to shoot or not shoot; the circumstances will dictate the right action to take. I will say that maybe if people think there is the possibility it "could happen to them", that they train for it. Maybe tie helium balloons to strings on a breezy day and try to hit them with regularity, after drinking a triple latte and doing some jumping jacks.I'm not trying to be a smart ass, or down play anyone's abilities, but that would approximate the average persons response to being thrust into a deadly force situation. If the BG isn't hit by the first round and incapacitated, collateral damage is a strong possibility.

That's sort of how I train, actually--usually with Airsoft for safety and so that I can train against others, but I'll get paper targets to swing and bounce around (not hard to do) at the shooting range, as well (your balloon idea sounds like fun, though). If I had to, at this point I could almost certainly hit a slightly bobbing head-sized target from 5 yards out by point-shooting (indexing with the gun but not using the sights). Of course, I'd want more precision and certainty in a real scenario, so I'd use the sights and would only shoot as long as the target isn't moving too much, otherwise I'd forget about it due to excessive risk. The trick is knowing what one can and cannot do, and the only way to find out is to try all kinds of things ahead of time.

Microgunner
April 8, 2011, 06:37 PM
Keep in mind that the whole premise of this scenario is that you are a witness, not an active participant.

Well, I view this a little differently. Anytime someone would walk into a room that I occupy, brandish a firearm and start threatening to kill people I believe that I'm an active part of this dynamic situation by default. To believe otherwise would be foolish.

OldMarksman
April 8, 2011, 06:43 PM
Posted by Manco: Well, I wouldn't be aiming at his butt.Right--you will not be aiming at any part of him. You aren't at the range.

If I have a good shot opportunity at his brain, then he'll go down instantaneously--he won't even feel a thing.Methinks you should invest in some high quality defensive pistol shooting training, and perhaps some interactive training with simunitions.

One is trained to draw fast and to shoot instantly and rapidly at COM. There's a reason for that. Targets in real confrontations do not stand still--they move and shoot back. The head is just much too difficult to hit with confidence.

Perhaps you should also look at some accounts of actual police gunfights (such as the one we had here in town (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_795bcb80-6128-11e0-9b9a-0019bb30f31a.html) yesterday, where one perp was hit in the hand and in the ankle and in the buttocks, and the other in the head twice, and in the wrist. Both have been released from the hospital, by the way).

Don't jump to any conclusions about police skills and training. All of the officers I've shot with are good. One hit a torso sized steal plate at fifty yards strong hand, weak hand, and strong hand upside down. That was just for fun; real tactical situations don't involve that kind of thing.

Your "good shot opportunity at his brain" is the stuff of pure fantasy. Seriously, do you think he will stand still for you?

On the other hand, if I didn't think that I could hit him with sufficient precision (e.g. too much movement of his head, too much shaking of my hands), then I wouldn't take the shot.Now that's some good thinking. And that is most likely the outcome.

Of course, if you do not have sufficient training to understand the likelihood that that head will move just as you fire, or that the CNS is a small portion of the head, you may make a very poor decision through overconfidence.

It's hard to say which option [intervene or not] gives one the greatest odds of survival overall because we'd have to judge how likely the perp is to senselessly kill the cashier.Yes we would, but it isn't that hard. If the guy orders the cashier into the back room, the game is on. But if he does not, the general likelihood that he will shoot is generally less than 25%, and that means that the likelihood that he will kill is around 2-3%.

But if you intervene, the likelihood that he will shoot really, really skyrockets.

Legal considerations aside, what makes it a good idea for a police officer to escalate the situation? Does that improve the odds of the cashier's survival over surreptitiously waiting for the robbery to end first?Nothing, but the officer is sworn to perform a duty, and he or she is trained. He or she will not shoot unless he or she has to and can do so, and if things go south and they followed procedure properly the mess is not on their nickel.

But then I'd be in trouble [with the perp's accomplice] regardless of whether I take the shot.How so? If he has remained in the background, your producing a weapon will alert him and he will surely shoot you.

Of course, I'd want more precision and certainty in a real scenario,...Get some real training. Precision and certainty is for snipers.

Happens that I know a couple of former police snipers. They used very good scoped rifles, and they had spotters and someone to tell them whether to shoot.

MP9
April 8, 2011, 08:11 PM
for those who say they will hit the head, butt, ankle or whatever... do you have any very good training? or just watch youtube and shoot straight at the range? seriously....

or is that just the super rambo boy or "super I"....

I am no an expert shooting or LEO...but even for a LEO that would be hard, unless you already know how you are going to react and control the stress...

but as far as I know the people I know who teach SD or are expert in SD, the last thing they want to do is to shoot..

the more one read the law, the less one want to get involved in that situation, EVEN if you are in your right...

to shoot straight at the range with the target in front is one thing but to shoot behind cover in a not very comfortable way is not that easy... and even worst if the target is moving...or shooting at you....

but if you are an expert and you have a lot of training, so excuse me and good luck.. and please let us know where you got that training, for sure it would be very useful for us..

or are you a master shooting USPSA/IDPA?

Eagle Eye
April 8, 2011, 09:16 PM
Ok. I have been following this with great interest. Now let me change it up a bit. Let's put you behind the counter. Or let's put you in an alley somewhere. A BG approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your wallet. Are you going to hand it to him or are you going to say something like "sure, just relax. No reason for anyone to get hurt." Then you say "my wallet is right here." as you reach behind towards your pocket. Do you pull your 45 and shoot him (as you make an evasive move) or do you pull your wallet and no longer have an excuse to reach for your back pocket. Now the BG either will plan to leave with your wallet, but may first shoot the witness (you). And if you again reach for your back pocket because he is really going squirley, (no longer under the guise or reaching for your wallet) he will likely pull the trigger for sure.

As I see it, you are now trying to figure his intention. Now the law in KS says if he is pointing the gun at you (even if it is a toy and looks real), that you have reason to fear for your life and you are justified in using your weapon for self defense.

And you aren't likely to trade pointed guns and say "freeze." You had better shoot first.

In the case of the store clerk being the victim, in my opinion, you need to quietly assess the situation and decide whether to protect him. I doubt your decision will be perfect. And I imagine it will be impossible for us to predict all situations and outcomes here. It will be easy to Monday morning quarterback, however.

This whole thread is full of intrique and is thought provoking. We need to be alert, on our toes and make the best possible decisions when called to act. We won't be perfect. And we might need help to live with the outcome. But we will have done what we thought was best at the time.

Pray that it was -- that you will not be tried for murder or sued for deadly assault on the BG. That is all part of the responsibility of CC. If you do not want the responsibility, quit the game.

Old story: In Vietnam, we did not always recognize the enemy. We were not perfect in all of our decisions, but were forced to live with the outcome. Sometimes the enemy was a mother or a child. Sometimes we were right. Sometimes we were dead wrong. USMC, 1st MAW, 3rdMarDiv, KheSanh, DongHa, PhuBai, '68-69. Life is not always easy. Be responsible and work with the information you have. Live with your decisions.

BigBob3006
April 8, 2011, 11:41 PM
The man who attempts to take a gun away from some one who's armed, is a fool.

Lost Sheep
April 9, 2011, 03:00 AM
GoOfY-FoOt

Not to play devil's advocate, but what if, it was a toy gun that looked real, had no bullets in it, and the 'robber' just went through some sort of trauma like he lost his job and his wife, and felt he had no choice but to 'steal' some cash so that he could feed his kids?
There are hundreds of circumstances that could cause a good person to do something bad. Should they lose their life for it?
Could you sleep at night, knowing that 3 kids would have even more to deal with and live through, because you wanted to be a 'hero'?
Frankly, if an armed civilian has the attitude of wanting to engage in heroism that involves gunplay, I would definitely stay behind that person, WAY behind.

Most of us are not law enforcement, and if we sport delusions of such, we could drift over into vigilantism. Not a good thing.

There is a saying among (tv cops, at least), "If you want to be a hero, join the fire department."

The riskiest heroism I SEEK is donating to my local Blood Bank.

Lost Sheep

shortwave
April 9, 2011, 05:09 AM
I posted this along time ago in another thread.

Someone very close to me(I'll refer to as Jack) was going out gambling one night and was supposed to meet up with a friend at a Cols.Ohio bar called the O.K. Cowgirl Saloon located on S.High St. After they met, they were going to a big poker game out on the east side of town.

The inside of this bar was very long and narrow with a main entrance door off High St. and a rear entrance door from an alley in back. With only 6 or so local patrons sitting at the bar, Jack had no trouble finding a place to sit.

Jack sits down at the bar and orders a beer. He never got that beer half drank till a hooded man and woman entered the front door and another hooded man came in the back door. All had guns. Both men had handguns, woman had sawed off shotgun.
They announced they were robbing the place and ordered everyone against the wall with hands up on the wall. Robbers quickly took register till, all wallets, jewelry and for no more people present, the robbers scored fairly well. They were in and out in minutes. You could tell this wasn't their first rodeo.

Jack lost close to $600 and a very nice old Bulova watch given to him by his Uncle. The robbers missed several thous. $'s he had divided and hidden in his boots along with his pistol in an ankle holster.:D

Jacks biggest concern through the whole thing was that one of the patrons would try to be a hero. Since the bar was so narrow and with everyone lined up against the wall, one blast by the woman welding the shotgun would be devastating for several people down the line. Thankfully that never happened.

For those that think they would 'blaze away' or just 'shoot the BG in the head" if given the opportunity, I hope you really think about what you're doing. You may get some innocent people killed. You're scared and more than likely so is the BG. The money/valuables can be replaced.
Course, if the BG starts pulling the trigger, we have to do what we have to do.

PS. Jack really missed that watch. It had special meaning.:mad:

Oooops... forgot to mention, Jack also lost his wedding ring. Didn't take him long to get over that though, he soon divorced. :D

threegun
April 10, 2011, 10:53 AM
Maybe tie helium balloons to strings on a breezy day and try to hit them with regularity, after drinking a triple latte and doing some jumping jacks.I'm

Try shooting one of those skinny balloons used by entertainers to make different figures as this would simulate the small instant kill area inside the head or the upper spinal cord. Better yet try to hit that skinny balloon while its concealed inside the head sized round balloon. Now make it move erratically. You also have angles that can change where you need to impact the target for the bullet path to cross the desired instant stop zone. Reality has it much more difficult to instantly stop someone than most folks understand. Once I learned this it became very clear what the correct course of action is in this scenario.

Of course, if you do not have sufficient training to understand the likelihood that that head will move just as you fire, or that the CNS is a small portion of the head, you may make a very poor decision through overconfidence.


Now this is well said.

threegun
April 10, 2011, 12:56 PM
A BG approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your wallet.

If my situational awareness failed me and I was at gun point, I would ride the odds and comply. I'm pretty fast but not faster than a trigger finger. If at some point I felt that I was going to be shot anyway then I would go down fighting if my body and mind allowed it.

OldMarksman
April 10, 2011, 02:40 PM
Posted by Eagle Eye: A BG approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your wallet...Do you pull your 45 and shoot him...NO! I suppose there may some people who are in superb condition who have extremely fast reflexes and who practice all of the time who might be able to pull that off, but I am not one of them.

There was once a Border Patrol agent who probably could have gotten by with that, but whether he would have tried is another question. There were some TV stars in the fifties and later who could do that, but they depended upon the director's instruction that the other guy lose; they used single actions loaded with blanks and carried in special fast draw holsters; they got more than one try; and just to make the fiction look convincing, they needed training from Arvo Ojala and later, Thel Reed.

Now the law in KS says if he is pointing the gun at you (even if it is a toy and looks real), that you have reason to fear for your life and you are justified in using your weapon for self defense.Is there any jurisdiction in the country in which is that is not true (assuming, of course, that he is not an officer who is lawfully arresting you, and a few other things)?

However, being justified in doing something does not give you the ability to do it.

I recently saw Massad Ayoob demonstrating something on Personal Defense TV. The scenario was different: the perp has not yet drawn when he meets you at arms length, but his hand is on his gun. However, the question was the same: "Do you pull your 45 and shoot him (as you make an evasive move)...". Actually, it wasn't a .45.

The answer was no, because you cannot outdraw him. The recommended move was to get your other hand on his gun hand to prevent him from drawing and go for your gun as you do that.

If one cannot beat a man who has his hand on his gun, I cannot see how one could believe for a moment that he could beat a man who has his gun already pointed.

shortwave
April 10, 2011, 03:18 PM
There were some TV stars in the fifties and later who could do that...

Sammy Davis Jr. comes to mind.

Eagle Eye
April 10, 2011, 05:18 PM
I posted the scenario in order to make you all think. I wanted you to decide if you would act differently if it was you at risk instead of the store clerk. I actually think you would have been safer pulling on the bad guy who was threatening the store clerk (and yes, that would likely pass muster with KS law as well -- I don't want to research all other 49 states in which I do not live).

But by the way, the scenario was somewhat true. The victim acted calmly and reassured the BG that he could have his wallet. The BG relaxed a bit as the intended victim reached for his "wallet" in his back pocket and pulled a 45 instead. The BG was not shot but was held as police were summoned. This happened last fall in Kansas City.

I think the fact that the victim encouraged the BG to relax helped the situation. But the victim had to constantly read the BG and interpret his most likely responses. This would not be much different if the victim was the store clerk. Every scenario is different. Cool heads can prevail, but yes there is risk.

I would never engage in a quick draw and dodge contest unless I knew it was my only hope. And I hope it will never be.

Good comments. Keep thinking. Keep cool. Stay safe.

Jake Balam
April 10, 2011, 05:52 PM
I'm a cashier at a small convenience store. Not only is there always one armed cashier (usually two) let me just assure you of this. I don't want ANYONE shooting in my direction.

mnero
April 10, 2011, 05:56 PM
armed cashier WOW! I am staying away from your place LOL. Good for the fella that restrained himself and did not take a life. I kinda like my dad's idea in that situation. If you are unarmed then just toss the money in his direction and run the other way.:D

Jake Balam
April 10, 2011, 07:17 PM
Luckily this is a privately owned non chain store. You'll never see a 711 clerk packing.


My boss is a 60 year old Korean guy who wears his NRA jacket and hat to work every day.

He takes his son and I shooting once a week, even pays for ammo.

He was in the army in Korea, very good trainer

5whiskey
April 10, 2011, 11:40 PM
We have some mom and pop shops locally whom allow the clerks to be armed. Had 3 legit SD shootings during robberys in my county last year. All of them had good results. I still couldn't shoot someone who had a gun already pointed at another person.

BigBob3006
April 11, 2011, 01:40 AM
I hope you don't mind if I get in here with an other thought. If you want to be really impressed see if you can find a book titled "Fast and Fancy Shooting"
by Ed McGivern. I'm not real positive on the spelling of the name of the author
but that should get you there. I won't tell of some of the things that Ed has done with all sorts of handguns. But everything he has done has been documented.

I think I was pretty fast at one time, and I worked at it. But I wouldn't think of disarming a man by hand, and I've been trained to do so. Sure we all see the TV hero do fantastic things but let me clue you in on something. It happens because that is the way the script writer wrote it. If they killed the hero off, that would be the end of the show.

I liked John Wayne just as most of us did. I had a little extra reason. I saw him on a TV talk show one night and the MC asked him if it was possible for anyone to live up to his stature, to which Wayne said, " No man could ever measure up to his image.". When ask why, Wayne replied "I have two stunt men, four writers, a directer and a retake to redo it to make it better.".
At a time when most people were projecting a big image, John Wayne told it like it was. That goes a long ways.:):)

markj
April 13, 2011, 03:43 PM
A BG approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your wallet.

Well I would hand it over. But hell will be upon him if he turns his back on me. Some old timers use a "dummy wallet" with like 10 or 15 bucks and some old id stuff.

Some say toss this over the BGs shoulderm then when he turns to get it draw and shoot. hope you hit him and stop him before he shoots ya back.

If he wants only money let him have it, maybe he will OD :) problem solved.

Eagle Eye
April 13, 2011, 10:48 PM
This whole thread is full of bravado and speculation.

Let's think about the laws (thinking KS here -- you research your own state):

You cannot use lethal force unless you justifiably fear for your life or that of others.

So as one suggested (I paraphrase): All hell breaks loose if he turns his back on me... Really? Shoot him in the back? The threat to your life will be hard to justify after he turns his back.

And another says you don't have a chance of shooting him if he even has his hand on his gun (paraphrased again, so don't nitpick me). So if he produces a gun you do not have a chance, so just comply with his wishes and hope he does not shoot (one writer suggests he will only shoot 25% of the time). Don't even try in this case, since he will always outgun you.

And if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours?

Hell, none of this makes sense. You can't use your gun unless he goes first, but you don't have a chance, so don't dare try.

So will someone please enlighten me. Just why in the world do you bother to carry?

I remain confused. :confused:

MLeake
April 14, 2011, 12:23 AM
... you said yourself, in many jurisdictions, it's a threat to oneself OR OTHERS.

If the guy turns his back on me, but is still threatening the clerk, then it's quite possible that a shooting would be legally justified.

Whether it would be tactically sound is another matter entirely.

And one had better be extremely sure one understands the situation before defending a stranger; sometimes, the apparent BG is a plainclothes cop making an arrest, for instance.

But plainclothes cops don't typically hold up convenience stores.

OldMarksman
April 14, 2011, 06:06 AM
Posted by Eagle Eye: You can't use your gun unless he goes first,"Goes first?" Where did yoe get that idea? Study this. (http://www.useofforce.us/)

Eagle Eye
April 14, 2011, 07:14 AM
Leake & OldMarksman --

Read the other posts. I think my comments will make more sense. Please don't take them out of the context of many posts before mine. I don't have the time to pull a dozen quotes out specifically. Go read them.:confused:

OldMarksman
April 14, 2011, 07:58 AM
Posted by Eagle Eye: Read the other posts. I think my comments will make more sense.I have, and I'm afraid they do not.

Perhaps, and I'm guessing here, you are mixing three questions: (1) What to do in the clerk-at-gunpoint-scenario; (2) whether one would likely survive if one were to draw on someone already holding a gun; (3) when one is justified in shooting in self defense.

If so, perhaps, when you say "You can't use your gun unless he goes first", which is nonsensical, you are trying to paraphrase advice that a civilianshould not intervene in the clerk scenario unless things have gone beyond the point of no return.

Or not. Your statement "if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours" makes no sense at all.

If someone poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and if you have not other means of avoiding the threat, you do not have to wait until "he goes first".

I don't have the time to pull a dozen quotes out specifically.Fine. Don't worry about the quotes. However, I do strongly suggest that you take the time to study the entire paper to which I provided a link.

Eagle Eye
April 14, 2011, 10:10 AM
I am really poking fun at those who made these sorts of statements throughout the thread. I am trying to show that the conflicting comments make no sense. It is others who have made those statements in words that I have paraphrased and shortened. These are not my comments and thoughts. I am saying that if all these sorts of statements made by others were true, that they are so conflicting that one may as not carry.

This has obviously been lost on you and perhaps on others, so I give up. I do carry.

I will not continue to engage in a battle of wits with those who are obviously unarmed. I have therefore retreated.

Lighten up.

MLeake
April 14, 2011, 10:14 AM
Your sarcasm was too well masked, Eagle Eye. Thought you were being sarcastic at first, but then in your example of the clerk turning his back, you left out reference to third parties entirely.

Problem there is, if the guy were retreating and there were no third party, you'd have potential legal problems with a shoot.

So, it suddenly became muddy as to which of your points were sarcastic and which were serious.

OldMarksman
April 14, 2011, 11:03 AM
Posted by Eagle Eye: I am trying to show that the conflicting comments make no sense. It is others who have made those statements in words that I have paraphrased and shortened. These are not my comments and thoughts.So, here are the words, "paraphrased and shortened":

(1): You cannot use lethal force unless you justifiably fear for your life or that of others.

That's a pretty good generalization, though there are exceptions.

I do not see anything remotely similar to that in the thread, however.

(2): So as one suggested (I paraphrase): All hell breaks loose if he turns his back on me... Really? Shoot him in the back? The threat to your life will be hard to justify after he turns his back.

In the OP scenario, it is not the threat to "your" life that would make the use of deadly force justifiable, and shooting the perp in the back would be lawful if shooting him in the front or the side would be lawful.

(3): And another says you don't have a chance of shooting him if he even has his hand on his gun (paraphrased again, so don't nitpick me).Massad Ayoob did demonstrate that, and it is true for most people. You can try it yourself with Airsoft guns. Think about it: is it likely that one can draw, present, and pull the trigger more quickly than another can detect movement and pull the trigger? Even if so, is it at all likely that one's shot would prevent the other from firing?

(4): So if he produces a gun you do not have a chance, so just comply with his wishes and hope he does not shoot (one writer suggests he will only shoot 25% of the time). Don't even try in this case, since he will always outgun you.It's a personal judgment--one weighs the risks (very high liklihood of being shot if one draws vs. lower likelihood of being shot if one does not draw) and makes on'e own decision. I would comply rather than force him to shoot.

(5): And if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours?
Where did that come from? I did not see that in the thread.


I remain confused.That is demonstrated by this:

I am saying that if all these sorts of statements made by others were true, that they are so conflicting that one may as not carry.

If one eliminates (5), which is entirely incorrect, there is no contradiction among the other four statements.

The first one simply says that one must be justified to use deadly force justified; no reason for not carrying--just the law. Much of the gist of the thread had to do with whether it would be prudent for a civilian to intervene in a store robbery by shooting at the robber; one does not carry to shoot people who rob stores. Finally, the fact that it would probably be foolhardy to try to draw and shoot should one have a gun pointed at him point blank ((3) and (4)) does not indicate against carrying in any way. It simply highlights the need for situational awareness and for avoiding such situations.

Where are the supposed contradictions?

markj
April 14, 2011, 02:26 PM
Really? Shoot him in the back

I would jump on him not shoot him. We used to handle it with our hands. Most time I dont even carry a gun. Never go into a bad area, stay out of dark alleys, basically use my head and have been very safe so far.

These what if threads are fun only, I would never expect anyone posts here to do as they say they will do. I seen a guy freeze up 100% when fired upon, I dove under the truck.

Think I will go hunting,

jibberjabber
April 14, 2011, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't fire the first shot. The BG might just leave if he gets what he wants. But if the BG started shooting at people, I'd try to intervene. One thing though, I wouldn't want to shoot any innocent people, so I'd need to shoot from a distance where I was confident of not missing. So really, really close then.:p

OldMarksman
April 14, 2011, 03:15 PM
Posted by jibberjabber: I wouldn't fire the first shot. The BG might just leave if he gets what he wants. But if the BG started shooting at people, I'd try to intervene. One thing though, I wouldn't want to shoot any innocent people, so I'd need to shoot from a distance where I was confident of not missing. So really, really close then.You might want to consider one other thing: if one or more perps start ordering everyone into a back room, there's a pretty high likelihood that step two will be to get everyone onto the floor, and that step three will be to start killing people.

At some point in that sequence you will lose your ability to act.

You may be well advised to seize the opportunity while you can, if it is pretty clear that the situation is really going downhill.

threegun
April 14, 2011, 04:11 PM
Once the bad guys attention is turned on me or if the bad guy starts shooting, its on.

Alaska444
April 14, 2011, 04:34 PM
In my CCW class, the instructor posed the question, what would you do if you came out of a bathroom at a convenience store and saw the clerk held at gun point. His answer, go back inside the bathroom and lock the door.

He then went into a discourse about automatic reflexes and how just the startle reaction in someone with his finger on the trigger could get the clerk killed. To put a person down with a gun to someone else's head, you have to hit the midbrain. Otherwise, simply shooting someone could get the person killed on the other end of his gun. In this situation, you might end up the owner of a nice lawsuit by the victim's family.

His advice, conceal in good cover and take up a defense posture, armed and ready, but don't intervene UNLESS the perp is shooting already. Having a permit to a gun does not mean that we are LEO's in any sense of the word. Fortunately, most robberies do not involve murder. No way to tell the difference upfront, so taking a conservative role is the safest for all involved in most situations from all that I have heard. The examples previously of LEO's who likewise don't intervene when off duty is a really telling post.

jibberjabber
April 14, 2011, 11:04 PM
You might want to consider one other thing: if one or more perps start ordering everyone into a back room, there's a pretty high likelihood that step two will be to get everyone onto the floor, and that step three will be to start killing people.

At some point in that sequence you will lose your ability to act.

You may be well advised to seize the opportunity while you can, if it is pretty clear that the situation is really going downhill.


Yes, true. Hesitation can be deadly. The trick is in identifying that moment.