Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done? - Page 3

Glenn E. Meyer · March 25, 2009, 03:53 PM

I found Kathy's response if understood, should soothe the savage internet combatant.

Tennessee Gentleman · March 25, 2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

One response gives a strong likelihood that it will occur (give hm the money and he will go away). Generally a good bet to play toward the odds, not against them.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by pax

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

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

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

PS Kathy I'm not irritated

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 05:36 PM

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

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

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

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

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

David Armstrong · March 25, 2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

I think the happiest outcome is "no one got hurt - except the would-be robber."

The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.

csmsss · March 25, 2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.

You are making a fallacious assumption - that the robber wouldn't otherwise hurt anyone. How do you know that for certain? Well, you don't. No one does.

David Armstrong · March 25, 2009, 06:22 PM

It is no more of an assumption than that the robber would hurt someone. In fact, it is a much better assumption, given the facts.

cracked91 · March 25, 2009, 06:26 PM

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

Tennessee Gentleman · March 25, 2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.

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

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

I would have demanded he dropped the weapon, and if it came back towards me he would get two to the chest and one to the head.

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

No warnings.

dabigguns357 · March 25, 2009, 06:46 PM

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

cracked91 · March 25, 2009, 06:46 PM

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

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

So if he his facing the counter and you are standing behind him gun on him you think he will be able to spin around and shoot you before you can squeeze the shot off.

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

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

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

Brian Pfleuger · March 25, 2009, 07:40 PM

If I did decide that I needed to shoot in this scenario then there is one absolute:

There would be no warning. No way.

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

B.N.Real · March 25, 2009, 07:47 PM

Guy walks into a Burger King.

You are standing there in line.

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

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

I am not Dirty Harry and this is not tv.

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

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

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

He gave up one of the two weapons he had.

The element of surprise.

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

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

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

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

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

The officer died while he was standing there.

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

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

That was the real thing.

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

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

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

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

This is why it is my position that shooting should only commence when you have some reason to believe that your inaction will cause more harm that your action.

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

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 08:24 PM

It also occurs to me that, this being a Burger King, the odds are overwhelming that there was at least one great big fat guy available to serve as cover.

Brian Pfleuger · March 25, 2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

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

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

csmsss · March 25, 2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

It is no more of an assumption than that the robber would hurt someone. In fact, it is a much better assumption, given the facts.

You don't know all the facts. No one does. What's dangerous is making assumptions like you seem to favor. I'd argue that making assumptions in lieu of using your own best judgment based on the immediate conditions is more dangerous than anything else one can do.

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

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

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

And pineapple, the Doomsday Topping?

MrNiceGuy · March 25, 2009, 08:43 PM

An unstable man walks into a restaurant with a loaded firearm and starts threatening people.

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

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

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

JustDreadful · March 25, 2009, 09:01 PM

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

Re4mer · March 25, 2009, 09:15 PM

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

chopz · March 25, 2009, 10:37 PM

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

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

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

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

cracked91 · March 25, 2009, 10:55 PM

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

Nnobby45 · March 25, 2009, 11:12 PM

If this thread demostrates one thing, it's this:

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

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

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

Just my thoughts on the matter.

March 25, 2009, 03:53 PM	#51
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I found Kathy's response if understood, should soothe the savage internet combatant. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

March 25, 2009, 05:36 PM	#53
JustDreadful Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2008 Location: Sin City Posts: 270	About 15 years ago, I was robbed while working at a sunglasess store on the Las Vegas Strip (not exactly a stop 'n rob in the ghetto). My hands were duct-taped behind me, and I was made to crawl into the bathroom, where I listened to the robbers debate whether or not to kill me. I do not believe the debate was serious, I think they were trying to scare me. (They did an excellent job.) Nevertheless, I decided that day that I'd rather take it in the chest, fighting back, than in the back of the head on the bathroom floor. Deciding ahead of time that you'll comply is to rely on the good nature of violent criminals. That being said, all such decisions are obviously situational. One thing I can say for sure, though, is I wouldn't be arguing with anybody, or ordering anybody to do anything. (Isn't that what screwed the guy who tried to stop the Tacoma mall shooting?) No warnings. The robber's warnings were the laws against armed robbery, and the number of robbers killed while plying their trade. If I could manage it, the robber wouldn't even know things had gone badly for him until he saw St. Peter. The Marquis of Queensbury didn't address gunfighting. Also, I do not think that the happiest outcome to an armed robbery is "no one got hurt." I think the happiest outcome is "no one got hurt - except the would-be robber." __________________ "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." "Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge."

March 25, 2009, 07:40 PM	#63
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	If I did decide that I needed to shoot in this scenario then there is one absolute: There would be no warning. No way. There is no legal or moral requirement to give this guy a chance to surrender. If I decide a shoot is necessary it's going to happen quick like, head shot preferred. I do NOT want this guy getting the chance to do exactly what did in fact end up happening. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

March 25, 2009, 08:24 PM	#66
JustDreadful Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2008 Location: Sin City Posts: 270	It also occurs to me that, this being a Burger King, the odds are overwhelming that there was at least one great big fat guy available to serve as cover. __________________ "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." "Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge."

March 25, 2009, 08:43 PM	#70
MrNiceGuy Junior member Join Date: August 16, 2008 Posts: 919	An unstable man walks into a restaurant with a loaded firearm and starts threatening people. I have no reason to trust that he will fulfill his promises of leaving after getting his money... he's already proven that he's dishonest, unstable, violent, and intends on doing whatever he feels like. to believe him is a **** poor a gamble.... and i dont gamble with my life like that. With the exception of an argument, I believe the CCW carrier was spot on from the facts that we know. At the point he has a pistol out and is pointing it at people, his intentions have been stated and negotiations are over as far as i'm concerned. Last edited by MrNiceGuy; March 25, 2009 at 08:52 PM.

March 25, 2009, 06:22 PM	#56
David Armstrong Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2005 Location: SW Louisiana Posts: 2,289	It is no more of an assumption than that the robber would hurt someone. In fact, it is a much better assumption, given the facts.

March 25, 2009, 06:26 PM	#57
cracked91 Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Posts: 385	I probably would have done similar, but I would not have started an argument with him. Burger kings a pretty big and if there was any number of people in it you would have to be paying very close attention to try to see everyone while you were robbing the place. through a ski mask at that. I would have had my gun on him as soon as he had it on the clerk. I would have demanded he dropped the weapon, and if it came back towards me he would get two to the chest and one to the head. Secondly armed robbery would be considered a forced felony. So completley justified.

March 25, 2009, 06:46 PM	#60
dabigguns357 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2008 Location: Ona,West Virginia Posts: 1,215	It seems all the choices that are given are wrong to someone else.We are all given a choice to carry or not to carry,to stay and fight or stand still and do nothing.It's your choice,now choose wisely.

March 25, 2009, 07:47 PM	#64
B.N.Real Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2008 Posts: 4,092	Guy walks into a Burger King. You are standing there in line. He's wearing a ski mask has a gun and is screaming for the clerk to give up the blankety blank cash or he's blankety blank dead. You pull out your concealed weapon and TRY TO TALK HIM OUT OF A ROBBERY?HIM HOLDING A GUN IN PLAIN SIGHT? I am not Dirty Harry and this is not tv. That criminal is purposely putting everyone in danger by just trying to pull off an armed robbery. I pull out my gun and convince him to stop by shooting him. What little was reported said that the ccw holder got into a argument with the man. He gave up one of the two weapons he had. The element of surprise. Had he even shot the guy in the hand,leg,foot or body,screaming "Get on the 'blanking ground now!"the bad guy might have dropped the gun. If the bad guy did'nt and turned to the ccw holder,he was activily trying to shoot the ccw holder and because the criminal was already in the middle of a unlawful action that already jeopordized everyone the store,the criminal forced the ccw holder to shoot and kill the guy. Ten years ago,I watched a video of an off duty police officer trying to stop a robber that just robbed a convienience store clerk and the robber was on his way out without shooting anyone. I watch with horror on the video as the off duty officer got into a handgrab situation with the robber,pushed the robbers hand with the gun,high over the officers head. The officer held the bad guys hand there and I watched in horror as that criminal rotated the gun down with his wrist and shot the officer point blank in the top of the officers head. The officer died while he was standing there. When he fell to the ground ,the officer immediately shrunk into a fetal position. To this day,that video remains the most horrific example of the coldness and total lack of concern any robber has for you and me. That was the real thing. That was a real police officer,a fellow American just like you and me, that tried to stop someone that should have never been doing what he was doing in the first place. And he died immediately because he was not armed and gave the robber the chance to defend the attempt to disarm the robber. I have no intention of letting someone ever get a chance to shoot me like that ever.

March 25, 2009, 09:01 PM	#71
JustDreadful Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2008 Location: Sin City Posts: 270	To stick a gun in someone's face and say "Give me your money or I'll kill you" is a vicious act. As someone posted above, it's not at all the same as burglary or picking pockets. It IS violence. Stick-up men are vicious. __________________ "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." "Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge."

March 25, 2009, 09:15 PM	#72
Re4mer Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2008 Posts: 240	I think the guy did the right thing morally, however I am not sure if talking/arguing with him before shooting was a good idea tactically. If a guy already has a gun out then talking is a wast of time.

March 25, 2009, 10:37 PM	#73
chopz Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 2007 Posts: 184	my first thought: i'll bet the guy is somewhat happy with the outcome; he's still alive, he was justified in his actions and he might be thought a hero. but he's got serious injuries to overcome. my second thought: the article says this was a time when the place was "regularly crowded with children." i have no reason, from the article to assume it wasn't full of kids when this happened. to me, facing an adversary who was surrounded by kids would be tantamount to facing someone who was using a hostage as a shield, but greatly multiplied. which of us would shoot if that were the case? even worse - if i myself was surrounded by kids, i know i can't account for every round that comes out of mister dimwitted-skimaskwearer's gun. my third thought: if i was a parent who had been there with my kids, or if my kids had been there when this happened, i'd probably want to kick the living daylights out of this "hero." room full of kids changes the situation greatly, as far as i'm concerned.

March 25, 2009, 10:55 PM	#74
cracked91 Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Posts: 385	If I was a parent and my kids had been there, depending on the actual details, I would probably want to thank the hero. Say the police roll in just as he is about to leave so he decides to grab a ten year old and stick a gun in there ear so he can get away? No way. If I was a hundred percent sure I could shoot him without hitting any innocents in crossfire, I would do it. If I was ninety percent sure I could apprehend him without shooting him, I would probably take that option too. . . but it all depends on the circumstance and like it has already been said I never intend to give someone a chance to shoot me.

March 25, 2009, 11:12 PM	#75
Nnobby45 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2004 Posts: 3,150	If this thread demostrates one thing, it's this: If you have mere seconds to make a critical decision in a life or death situation (as he apparently saw it), then you can rest assured that there will be many people who will take many hundreds of thousands of seconds second guessing you--- and many won't have the slightest idea what they would have done in the same situation other than to do the aforementioned second guessing and tell someone else what they should have done. Some have even been so arrogant as to say he "shouldn't have drawn". Since the citizen took the action he did, no one will ever know if he, and others, would have ended up in the back room lying on the floor with a bullet in their heads, or if the robber would have taken the money and left. As Kathy points out, compliance is no guarantee of survival for you or other innocent people. Not in this day in age when Bubba can't afford witnesses, or is too high on crack, or......any other of the reasons why people end up dead, execution style, after offering full compliance. Just my thoughts on the matter.