Bank/store robbery?

[chris in va]

Interesting responses.

I guess it just boils down to what happens at the time. In no way am I 'looking for a fight', on the contrary I'm generally considered pretty mild mannered and keep out of people's way.

But I was brought up to help if someone is in trouble, within reason. I'll never forget the time my mother heard a loud CRASH on the highway near our house, and next thing I knew she was up out of the chair and tearing ass to the scene. She managed to get traffic stopped, then ran to comfort the injured.

If I see a thug demanding money from a clerk, I'll try and find cover (concealment anyway), pull discretely and wait for what happens next.

[markj]

My line of work is with Credit Unions, similar to banks, some of the mhave been robbed with no one getting hurt. However in Norfolk Nebr a bank was robbed and 5 people shot to death, I often ask myself how I would react to this if it happened. First off I cannot CCW on the job, I work in a neighboring state that doesnt allow CCW from other states. My job also limits my ability to carry.

I now use the ATMs and direct deposit so I dont have to go into any CU or bank. I find it is safer this way.

[Groundhog]

Chris,

You'll get many opinions on these boards about stuff like this. Unfortunately, an awful lot of folks poo poo one position or another pretty vehemently no matter what. Bottom line is that it's going to be your call in the end in what ever situation you happen to find yourself in. Many people will encourage you to have YOUR line drawn where YOU believe it should be (within the law and reason mind you) prior to any event taking place. And get as much training with your firearm as you can.

I just got my CHL here in Texas. I made up my mind that I'd have to be willing to accept the worst possible consequences that could occur if I carried, and I have. To me, that would be someones possible death. I don't EVER want to encounter a situation where deadly force may be needed. I don't ever want you to either. But we carry to be prepared for just such an eventuality. In the end, it's going to be your call.

My CHL instructor had a bit of wisdom when answering several questions like yours during our class. To all the "when should you" questions it boiled down to this. "Most people", he said, "will instinctively know when they need to use their last resort". "It won't be something you'll need to debate with yourself".

All I can say is that I sincerely hope so if it ever comes to that.

Now I'm sure I'll get flamed for not having my pre thought out tactics and bug/butt out plan in order. But that's the nature of forums

Good luck Chris!

[Jason607]

First of all, I think it is insane to belive a gas station robber would be a reasonable thinker. How many times have we seen the videos where the clerk calmly did everything they asked and then right before the robber exited they shoot the clerk, sometimes even go back inside, shoot the clerk and then walk out.

Especially someone risking what they are for the very small amound of money inside a gas station's till. The guys that robbed that armored bank truck in FL, or even a major bank robbery, they just want the money, but at a convience store you either have a crazy person and/or somebody with something to prove.

What I would do, especially at a gas station is prepare and if the robber starts shooting anywhere, or makes any motions to me, I'm not going to wait until he shoots me first.

[Slugthrower]

There are some in this world that care for others. There are some in this world that only care for themselves. Which are you?

Maybe common law is outdated to some. I personally think that it is key stone to our society. It is sad that people have thrown it out the door.
Once upon a time if a person robbed the town of there earned riches, the robber would have been hunted down by that towns people.

Recently we had drug dealers try to set up shop in our neighborhood. We ran them back over the tracks. We used the police and we used our collective strength to send a message to those that would ruin our community. That show of unity told them they had no chance to succeed. Misery loves company and they thought they would share. We made them return to the hell hole from which they came. Just as it should be.

Too many today think to themselves. It isn't my problem, let someone else deal with it. That is why we find our cities and towns is the sad state that they are in. Deprived of liberty, life and limb is all that you will inherit by sitting on the side lines of that life. All that evil needs to flourish, is good men that do nothing. America is becoming a place that no one will be proud of in a very short term.

Societies that are based on personal freedom and liberty have historically only lasted about 200 years. Why do we think that our isn't susceptible to the same failures? Every great civilization thought that it would last forever. They deluded themselves. America is following the same course. The result will be the same unless people STAND UP for that which is right.

[nbk2000]

If it's just you and the robber, feel free to draw first and take your chances.

When others are around, it's irresponsible to risk their lives for the sake of your ego.

I've had numerous occassions to engage armed opponents, but have only done so twice (as discussed previously on TFL) because I've only twice been alone with the attacker. The rest of the time I was with others, so I didn't risk their lives through my actions, and they with mine.

It's neither your job (guard), nor your duty (police), to engage an armed robber and attempt to prevent the successful completion of his crime.

Robbers expect guards and cops to interfere, so they're already prepared for that in their mind. If some civvie in the crowd starts shooting at them, that's not something they're expecting. That makes everyone present into a potential threat, so someone amped on adrenaline and with a gun in their hand is probably going to go bezerk with it.

You are a citizen, so act like one by being a good witness, not a wannabe Hero.

All it takes is ONE shot fired by a triggerfinger spasm caused by your perfect headshot to kill an innocent bystander. Then who's going to be going to prison? It won't be the badguy 'cause he's dead. It will be YOU because the jury isn't going to care about what could'a/should'a/would'a happend if you hadn't shot the robber. All they'll see is that a 'Hero' instigated a firefight and got an innocent bystander killed. Even if no innocent is hit, you'll still very likely face charges.

A particular post by me that was deemed 'historical' by TFL staff would also apply to this thread.

Oh, and if that's not enough, perhaps this thread will make you think LONG and HARD about pulling out that gun.

[Groundhog]

So nbk2000,

it sounds to me that you basically don't think reasonable thinking people have any need to carry a gun hardly ever and thus ought not to?

[Lurper]

It really isn't a question of caring for your fellow man or not. When you use a firearm, your life will change. Whether you are justified or not. I'm sure no one is advocating just sitting back and watching a robber kill someone. However, what typically happens is people get involved too soon. If the robber takes the money and runs, no one is hurt so what is the problem? If you initiate a confrontation, there are too many variables that you can't control. The only thing you control are your actions. There is no doubt in my mind that I am more capable with a firearm than 99% of the people out there, but even with my level of skill and confidence, I am not going to start blazing away just because some crack head robs the 7-11. I can control where my shots go, but what about the robber? If he gets rounds off, where do they go? What if you miss or your rounds overpenetrate, where do they go? How are you going to explain to the family of an innocent bystander your reason for starting a gunfight that took their loved one's life? In many states, you are protected from civil suits in those circumstances, but what about all of the second guessing you may do? What about the differences in the way your friends, family, coworkers view you differently - good and bad?

If you have no choice, take action, but that should only be a last resort. You shouldn't get involved just to stop a robbery.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Independent of the great moral argument as to what is right or wrong, it behooves the CHL or CCW type to have some FOF experience. It tempers your view of the various branches of action and whether you will win the fight with ease.

There is always an implicit assumption that the CHL will end the fight with a one shot stop.

Things can go awry in ways not seen on the square range or even a match. Before one argues for a gun fight that may not be necessary, one should try it in simulation.

You may miss.
Your shot may be ineffective.
There may a secret backup (been shot by this guy)
You may shoot an innocent - did this and been the innocent.
You may get shot to pieces - happened to me.

You should not attempt a lethal force move unless you are truly certain that you need to prevent grievous bodily harm. Money is not that important.

Outrage over being robbed sometimes leads to pontificating as to why cowards don't start the gun fight while heroes and guardians of the right will. That's all well and good but the situation is more complex.

Oh - there are also significant psychological and social costs to killing someone. It is easy to say you will ignore them for the right! Some folks don't get them. Some very strong people do. Another reason not to glibly say you will start a gun fight without a real reason to think that this is the best way to prevent real harm from being done. That's a judgement call in the scenario.

[WeedWacker]

that was not what I read. I read a citizen should carry if thought nesessary and only use as a last resort, not as a response.

[threegun]

Those recommending intervention solely to prevent the loss of property probably believe that once hit the bad guy will die instantly. They probably think hitting under stress will be automatic because at the range they never miss. In reality it ain't easy to hit under stress and people don't die instantly (most of the time). Heed the warning of Lurper and NBK2000.

[Double Naught Spy]

There are some in this world that care for others. There are some in this world that only care for themselves. Which are you?

Given that there are those who are adults and who have had a lifetime to learn self defense and who have learned little or nothing, and given that there are those who insist on believing that compliance is the only way to be sure to survive, then I have no qualms with letting them attempt to test their decision in the real world at no risk to my own life.

Don't guilt the rest of us for the failures of others.

[threegun]

Its very similar to health insurance or retirement. Some people purchase HI and others choose to spend that money on luxury items. Some people save for retirement others choose to spend the money now. Bottom line is that I owe neither. Same for self defense. Are you selfish for saving your money for retirement? Am I forced to give it to someone with less or be branded as selfish?

If I can help I will only because I would want help myself if the roles were reversed. Not because I own anyone anything.Those capable of helping themselves need do just that. Perhaps in saving themselves other might benefit.

[Duxman]

If it were me, I would wait to see he if shoots anyone first, then I'll shootemdown.

My problem here, is if you could have prevented someone losing his/her life, or getting crippled for life. What if the person the robber decides to shoot is you.

When you use a firearm, your life will change.

I agree with you 100%.

Opportunity is the key here. If you are in an advantageous position - clear backdrop, someone is clearly being threated and is in danger of losing their life, then I would say do something - it does not mean you shoot the BG.

On the other hand - if there are 15 people behind and around the BG, there is no reason to endanger them by trying to shoot BG.

[Groundhog]

Ah, but now you are applying the idea that every scenario is different and must be judged accordingly! Sorry for the sarcasm there, but theres too many that just blanket state everything based on one small portion of a post.

(You didn't, that's a compliment)

[nbk2000]

Groundhog, since you're new here, you obviously don't know my viewpoint on the intentions of the founders regarding the 2nd, so your statement which seems to imply some sort of anti-gun belief on my part is far from correct.

I believe that any personal or crew-served weapon used by modern infantry should be available to any citizen over the age of majority, regardless of criminal record, as it was during the first century and a half of our nation.

Automatic rifles, heavy machineguns, automatic grenade launchers, anti-tank missiles, flamethrowers, and anything else used by combat infantry*, as the purpose of the 2nd was to prevent a large standing army which would be used to entangle us in foreign wars and form the basis for future oppression by our own government.

(*And don't bring up the red-herring of 'So everyone should have a nuke?' either.)

Since every citizen would form the body of the militia, it would be impossible for anyone to successfully occupy us, while also making it prohibitive for us to invade and occupy others. If we had stuck to this principle as set forth by the Founders, we would never have gotten into a lot of the messes we've gotten ourselves into, now and in the past.

Anyways, I think everyone should have access to the tools of freedom.

(Disclaimer: The paragraph below is called an 'analogy', for the inevitable dumb-ass who'd take it literally.)

But just because anyone can own a hammer, doesn't mean you can (or should) carry or use a hammer everywhere, because not every problem is a nail. Everyone needs to show good sense and discretion in knowing when and where a hammer is the appropriate tool to use.

That's what I want to see from someone who could use a tool in a situation that could get me killed...the good sense and discretion to know when NOT use it. After all, it doesn't take much thought to use a hammer for every situation (UGH! ME SMASH!), but it does take some thought to go 'I don't think a hammer is the appropriate tool for this task'.

During FOF training rookies routinely get themselves 'killed' because they fail to recognize that not every problem can be solved with force, since force is almost always the easiest option to use.

Sometimes leaving the scene to wait for reinforcements is the best option, but how often is this taught in police or military training? Virtually never.

[WeedWacker]

Maybe we should have tazer launchers that attatch to the tactical mount on some pistols. Kinda have a multitool hammer

[ATW525]

Maybe we should have tazer launchers that attatch to the tactical mount on some pistols. Kinda have a multitool hammer

The problem with that is the possiblity of "hitting the wrong button" and putting a very lethal round into someone you wanted to taser. There's already been occurances of police officers who have accidently drawn their handguns and shot suspects when they meant to draw their tasers, so it's not really that far fetched of a scenario.

[Groundhog]

nbk2000,

Maybe I am failing to make some kind of distinction in how you are posting. If so, I'm sorry about that. I thought about just taking this private but I think it may possibly be a great way to continue looking at what the OP asked and to clarify some positions. I don't mean to hijack the thread or bunny trail us off topic so just slap me if I do (jeez, did I say that? On this forum! LOL).

First off you said:

(*And don't bring up the red-herring of 'So everyone should have a nuke?' either.)

That made me chuckle because of how careful we seem to try to be to make our points precise so idjits don't take them wrong. Rarely works anyway but kudos for trying. Made me grin anyway.

Now, as to your post #42 (just a few above this if I type fast enough), I believe I agree with it almost 100%. For any wiggly areas, I bet I could be won over. The reason I asked what I did is because of your big post after your historic post. Here's what you said that makes me think you don't think people (yes, I know, gross generalization here, that's what I'm trying to get clarified) should carry guns (bold emphasis mine in your quotes below):

I've seen circumstances leading up to, and the aftermath of, gunfights, but never the "during" (thank God). I've always made it a point of removing myself from the area when I see the "up to" phase starting. Once I missed the "during" only by a few seconds. But then again I don't carry a gun 99.99% of the time so I'm not tempted to John Woo.

To me, a gun is a "mission specific" tool. If I don't already have a plan for using it before I head out the door, I'm not taking it with. Too much temptation with all the idiots out there that nature didn't cull first.

and

My personal defense philoshopy (SP?) is prevention. Too much to go into detail here, but if you don't set yourself up in situations where you need a gun, then you don't need a gun.

Then you went on to say:

And if I was at someone else's party, I'd mind my own damn business, regardless of what happening to the others, that's their look out. I know that's selfish, but "I" will only get to live once, and I want that to be as long as possible, as healthy as possible. That does NOT include catching bullets for the neighbors wife or brat.

Which, I realize, has nothing to do with being pro or anti carry, but when coupled with the other things in both posts it makes it look like you lean toward the idea that no one should carry. It also gave fodder to the folks who would one liner paint you as being an uncaring guy regarding others welfare. The only reason I bring up that last quote was because of how it added to the perception of how you were coming across. I have gone back and reread the thread and your posts numerous times and I realize you are advocating prevention and being responsible and thoughtful in both posts. You go on to say this:

To each his own. Carry whatever makes you feel safe. That's all anyone can do in life.

The very few times that I've had a party, I knew my guests were carrying, and they knew the same of me. Anyone coming uninvited would have met with a very "warm" reception.

Which makes you look pro carry. It all left me not exactly sure where you stand on that issue.

The real reason I am bothering to dig into this some is because I don't think the kind of response you gave in your historic post is warranted for every situation where a person asks what they should do or if they should intervene , or God forbid, should they shoot first. Going back and rereading most of this thread shows me that most of the people who have posted here seem to have legitimate questions and the responses seem to be fairly reasoned. I fail to see why every situation where a person thinks "maybe I ought to do something" and then asks "what should I do?" gets met with the same responses. I'm not saying you said all this but here's the gist of them.

1. Never EVER shoot first.
2. Never EVER intervene.
3. ONLY do whats necessary to keep extra holes out of your body (prior to the start of shooting).
4. All you are trying to do is protect property!
.....a. This is CONSTANTLY used when anyone uses the term robbery in a what if scenario. It never gets distinguished between
..........I) Freaked out robber pointing the gun at clerk in which case you can't know his/her life is not in danger, and
..........II) robber who comes in and shows pistol in waist band where you have a very good potential to just let things calmly play out.
5. Then you get "Oh no! Another HERO type!" COWBOY, RAMBO, what ever expression can be used to imply that the poster is using no reason or logic at all in there thinking.

Is there a place for these kinds of responses and stuff like your historic post? ABSOLUTELY! And I would whole heartedly agree with it many cases. What I see though is that it gets tossed on virtually every situation where a poster suggests or even asks if action should be taken.

It comes across to me like this. Many years ago I had some First Responder training. They take you through every situation they can on how to resuscitate a victim. It gets progressively more difficult the more happens to be wrong with the victim. During that class, I kept asking "When do you know they are dead?" The issue kept getting skirted and unanswered until I forced the issue. The basically did not want to talk about a situation where you might encounter a dead body (read 'shoot first' situation). It was something that they felt if they could discourage you from believing it could even happen, somehow you'd never give up even when you encountered a four week old corps with maggots crawling out of its mouth. They just did NOT want to deal with the idea that there was an area you might realize the victim was dead. This made sense given what they were trying to do, which was to instill the idea that you never give up on a patient until you can hand them over to the EMT or docs. But they refused to address the inevitable, that somewhere, sometime, you may come across a dead victim.

So, blanket statement. No victim ever dies and we just don't go there.

To bring this back around to the topic the OP presented us with, I think that it is possible, however rare, that there might be a situation occur where a person ought to shoot first. I think the line for when that occurs may be different for different people, but I'd bet not by much, except for the HEROs and COWBOYs and RAMBOs out there. Personally, I'd suspect that most of the folks that post HERO posts might just be full of bravado and not perform very well in an actual situation, but that's just suspicion . If there is a rule somewhere that there is a NEVER SHOOT FIRST or NEVER TAKE ACTION FIRST clause then I have to believe that there may be a few, and I mean very few, situations where it might actually be warranted. So, why jump all over people for suggesting the possibility? 99.99% of us don't want to do it, don't want to be in a situation that would require it, or want anyone else to be either. But, it could happen. So, when a person brings it up in a reasonable way, why jump their case? Why not present a well thought out response of why you should never shoot first if that's what you believe or you see the scenario the post presents in no way dictates that course of action?

Bottom line is that not everyone that asks the question or entertains the idea at some point is a HERO waiting to happen and they don't all need to be slapped down the way the drill sergeants did.

Disclaimer: This post should not be construed as me belittling, being angry at, or being a jerk toward nbk2000. It is impossible to tell tone in text. I intended this to be a thoughtful, reasoned post. The "tone" should be calmly conversational. I went out of my way to attempt to not be insulting to anyone. If I have failed in this attempt, I am deeply sorry and apologize in advance for any offense. I am only trying to address what I see as a trend on these forums and nbk2000 has said the most about it to date so I addressed nbk2000 throughout the post.

Hmmm, maybe should have put that at the beginning.

[nbk2000]

I lean towards no first-use of firearms in the vast majority of situations, simply because 99.9% of the time the consequences for getting it wrong are so terrible and irreversible.

As I've said elsewhere, if they're lining people up and shooting them, go for it. If you hear them talking about it, go for it. If there is no doubt in your mind that they are about to kill you or someone you care about, go for it.

But also be prepared for the consequences your actions may have for yourself or others. If you instigate a gunfight with the robber and he kills the clerk, are you prepared to support the clerks family now that their means of support is dead by your actions?

Conversely, could you stand by and watch someone else die if it meant you could live, if you don't do anything?

I can only talk from personal experience, but I've never yet seen it happen where the introduction of a gun defused a situation where the other person(s) were armed or feeling combative. And I say this having been on both ends of the gun.

Maybe it was the people involved, I don't know. Maybe I've been unlucky in only encountering people willing to kill or be killed, but I approach any armed stuggle as if someone is going to die, me or them, and to me that is the ONLY way to ever think of such a situation.

And I don't care about others. If I was in a bank with a gun, and had the opportunity to either use it to engage the robbers, or to shoot out a window and escape, I'm out the window and the Devil take the hindmost.

[Groundhog]

Fair enough. I think you have clarified things enough for me.

[chris in va]

These discussions definitely bring to light the shortcomings of firearms in general. We all want to STOP the threat...now...but we haven't been given the tools to do so just yet. Tasers aren't bad but aren't always reliable at shutting a nervous system down from what I've read.

What we need is something to simply drop a BG like a sack of potatoes, instantly. Hopefully not lethal.

But here we are in the 21 century still stuck with projectiles. They can overpenetrate and strike bystanders, or simply not hit anything meaningful to the task at hand.

It's frustrating. You want/need to do something when things go wrong, but can't because of too many variables.

Maybe I'll live old enough to see a totally new type of SD weapon that is a lot safer and much more effective. Until then, I carry my Sig.

[Groundhog]

That will surely lead to some interesting debates and situations in the future.

[newerguy]

Groundhog, not to change the subject, but I've had significant amount of first responder training, and my experience has been that not one talks about what to do if the victim is dead for two reasons. 1) If they really are dead, there isn't anything you can do. 2) Like in the Princess Bride, people can be only mostly dead, and CPR and an AED can bring them back. First responders are not qualified (practically or legally) to tell the difference between "mostly dead" and "all dead". That's the theory behind the rule that, once you start CPR, you don't stop until: someone takes over, you get a pulse, a professional decides the guy is dead, or you can't physically continue. It hasn't been my experience that people just didn't want to talk about the possibility that you might find someone who didn't need any help because they were already dead. (I was in classes where we sort of covered that, and even drills where "rescues" (I remember a trench collapse being one) were turned into "recoveries" on the the scene commander's call (meaning, you took too long, he'd dead, now be careful getting what's left of him out).

Back on topic - What's that have to do with self defense? It's real hard to tell the difference between mostly dead and all dead. A rescuer can't really do any harm trying to save a guy who's all dead (basically, unless you gave your self a heart attack doing CPR, or you got killed in a secondary collapse of a trench, or something like that). It's also really hard to tell the difference between a time when lethal force is needed and when less force, or no intervention is needed.

The difference is, you as a good guy can do a lot of harm with a gun, even trying to do the right thing. What if you miss? What if you have a malfunction? What if he'd got armor? What if he's got back-up? What if you shoot him, look for his back up, see a guy pulling a gun, shoot him, and he turns out to be another CCW holder or a cop who was trying to help you out? What if they robber would have taken $150 bucks and left? They do that more often then not.

What if's go on forever, and for every what if you have that justifies shooting, I have one arguing against it. You can't guess at the future. That's why minimizing your risk is the best way to go.

I'm with nbk2000, I'd rather use my gun to shoot out a window to excape through that to shoot it out with a robber (although I think we all know that shooting out the window isn't necessary, safe, or a good idea, but neither is sticking your nose in a robbery). (Off topic again, I also agree that the 2nd Amendment was intended to cover crew serviced weapons, but I think that's a moot point, because our society has changed too much (not for the better) from what it was in 1789, and neither your government, nor your neighbors would tolerate private ownership of crew serviced heavy weapons.)

Back to the comparison of deciding on giving first aid, and deciding on using lethal force, in the extremes both are easy. A guy's got no head, there's no reason to start first aid. A guy's comming down the hall to your second floor bedroom yelling, "I'm going to kill you" and shooting through your walls, you can't escape, your in danger, you need to shoot him. Its when you get more towards the more common situations that it get's tough.

[revjen45]

I took FAS-3 a few years back. The final exercise had the intended effect of convincing me to mind my own business and GFOD if at all possible. Protecting the public is the job of the police. They have virtual immunity for any consequences- an armed peon doesn't. Those who go out and about unarmed have accepted the "protection" of the law and I have no obligation to possibly destroy the rest of my life defending the sheeple. In fact I don't even want to be a witness- sorry I was taking cover and didn't see what happened well enough to testify about it. That's what stop-n-robs have cameras for. BGs can have friends who take out witnesses and I don't wish to place myself in the position of having to engage in armed self defense if it can be avoided. If I can't avoid it I will act with all possible skill and determination to save myself and/or a loved one. If this makes me selfish or a cynic, so be it.