Wait vs Don't Wait Scenario?

[MP9]

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]

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]

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.

[Roland Thunder]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Microgunner

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by threegun

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]

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]

Originally Posted by threegun

There is supporting data however that indicates this outcome to be very very rare.

Cite your sources please.

Originally Posted by threegun

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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.