|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 12, 2009, 11:03 PM | #26 |
Junior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Posts: 2
|
And pop goes the weasel
|
February 14, 2009, 10:23 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Piedmont,NC
Posts: 464
|
Wasn't hired to be A witness
If the robber was on his way out of the Store it would be A different situation,however the robbery was still in progress and who knows what was on the robbers mind. He may have shot the Pharmacist as soon as he got the backback back full of drugs. The security guard did his job,he wasn't hired to be A witness.
|
February 14, 2009, 10:51 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
February 14, 2009, 10:54 AM | #29 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
:barf: Last edited by Creature; February 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM. Reason: Complying with forum rules... |
|
February 14, 2009, 11:07 AM | #30 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 5, 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 708
|
The BG had his weapon out, pointing it at the clerk and that is a treat to do harm, he also pointed it at the security guard when the guard moved. Deadly force is justified.
|
February 14, 2009, 11:32 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2008
Posts: 194
|
i agree chuck,what is there a debate over this for? the robber went their with the intent of robbery a felony with a handgun.there is no debate,the guard did what he was paid to do,protect the store. end of story! im willing to bet that when word of this hit the streets THAT store will be avoided,at least until the next junkie gets stupid.
|
February 14, 2009, 11:37 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 552
|
About ten years ago two 17 year olds went into a dairy mart in our area.5:00 in the morning so light traffic,told the 57 year old female clerk to empty the register.She complied so they made her lay on the floor and shot her in the back of the head killing her.So much for giving them what they wanted so they would leave.They were two white teenagers from a middle class background.You try to think too much into it and you'll be dead,best thing is to follow your instincts.Thirteen years in the military police and at least i learned that.
|
February 14, 2009, 12:13 PM | #33 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
One thing people must remember is that the exception proves the rule...not vice versa. You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate. Especially if an armed assailant has the drop on you. Going for a weapon will almost guarantee they will fire if they are at all willing to do so. There is no denying that. That does not mean you are obligated to not fight back, it just means you decrease your odds of surviving the attack.
In this situation, there was one big advantage. A third party that was able to act decisively while not being the focus of the assailant. |
February 14, 2009, 12:19 PM | #34 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 14, 2009, 12:22 PM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,988
|
Here's an article that provides more details. According to it, the attacker was shot twice in the chest.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29069767/ Quote:
Resisting without effective means does raise your chances of injury compared to compliance, but if you have a firearm and can bring it into play then, statistically speaking, you're better off resisting. Obviously every case is different and the statistics shouldn't be used to make blanket decisions without evaluating the particular situation. One more caution. Those statistics are taken across the board. That is, they don't break down the violent attacks by whether/how the attacker is armed. There has been discussion on TFL about whether you still have an advantage when the attacker is armed with a firearm, but to my knowledge there are no statistics that speak directly to that question. Based on the informal research I have done, attackers generally disengage immediately when a firearm comes into play on the part of the defender and that tends to hold true even when the attackers outnumber and "outgun" the victim. In other words, the attacker doesn't seem to be making a careful, logical decision when the victim presents a firearm (Let's see, I've got a rifle and a tactically advantageous position over that citizen armed with a mouse gun so I believe I'll stand my ground and shoot it out.). Instead it seems to be a subjective, emotional decision (I really don't want to find out how it might feel to get shot; I'm getting out of here NOW!). Again, that is a general tendency, NOT a guarantee of a particular outcome. Every situation must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
February 14, 2009, 12:25 PM | #36 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
February 14, 2009, 12:28 PM | #37 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
Last edited by JohnKSa; February 14, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Removed ad hominem. |
|
February 14, 2009, 12:33 PM | #38 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
February 14, 2009, 12:37 PM | #39 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
That's the very problem with your statement. You make generalities out a situation where likelihoods and probabilities could very well get you killed.
|
February 14, 2009, 12:39 PM | #40 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
February 14, 2009, 12:42 PM | #41 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.
|
February 14, 2009, 12:42 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
Quote:
So much for blanket statistics.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me. |
|
February 14, 2009, 12:45 PM | #43 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
February 14, 2009, 12:48 PM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Stop avoiding the question.
Prove that compliant victims are less likely to be killed when confronted by an armed assailant than an armed victim who has yet to draw a weapon. |
February 14, 2009, 12:50 PM | #45 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
John is absolutely right about one thing. Pulling a gun on a robber that is either not capable of firing or not willing to fire will cause them to flee. But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...unless you fancy yourself quite the Rambo. |
|
February 14, 2009, 12:54 PM | #46 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.
I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it. So, how about those verifiable statistics? |
February 14, 2009, 12:56 PM | #47 |
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
Join Date: March 3, 2008
Posts: 239
|
This was totally justifiable, the robber was pointing his gun at the pharmacist, obviously that is threatening deadly force.
This security guard will be fine. You point a gun at someone, and you get shot, well thats on you as far as I am concerned. |
February 14, 2009, 12:58 PM | #48 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk. |
|
February 14, 2009, 01:00 PM | #49 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
However, in the general case (across the board violent crimes) there are statistics that indicate clearly that resistance without a firearm is a better strategy than compliance if remaining uninjured is the goal. Quote:
The problem with relying on the insurance companies is that they're not exclusively worried about the good guys remaining uninjured, they're also highly concerned with the bottom line. Even in a case where the "good guys" prevail and no innocents are injured, the insurance company may end up paying out a large civil claim from an injured criminal or his family. On the other hand, if everyone complies, they have little to no liability as the result of actions by the criminal. In other words, if the criminal shoots someone the insurance company's liability is limited by the terms of the policy but if the security guard shoots the criminal the business/insurance company may have to pay out huge settlements. Their advice is EXCELLENT if your primary concern is your business' bottom line, perhaps not so good if your primary concern is remaining uninjured. Quote:
I spend a good deal of time reading through reports of self-defense in the news and it is not uncommon for the defender to present a firearm against an attacker who "has a bead on" the defender and still prevail uninjured. Yes, there are armed attackers who are willing to press the situation even against an armed defender, but that is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Drawing against an attacker who has a bead on you is more dangerous than drawing on an unarmed attacker, but it's overstating the situation to say that you have "sealed your doom".
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
February 14, 2009, 01:02 PM | #50 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|