Where is the line?

[Scattergun Bob]

armed robbery, where at no time did the original thread mention guns pointed at the CCW holder or his family. That has been the issue and discussion. Do you intervene on a armed robbery, not that the gun is pointing at you, if I remember correctly "guns waving around" was the exact quote.

[TripIII]

No one gets the wallet or family or anything else.

Whether they decide to threaten with serious bodily injury or death in order to get what they want is their choice.

That's where line is drawn.

[skydiver3346]

Again I say, this is up to each individual and their personal situation when robbery happens. Burglary and Robbery are two distinct crimes. Robbery is the more serious as it is actually occurring to you in real time, face to face and your life may be in danger more than you realize.
In my case, if I had had a carry gun with me when I was robbed and mugged and neck was cut with a knife, it would have ended before it began. I would not have went to the hospital and the bad guys would have gone to jail (or worse if they decided to engage me further).
All these legal eagle opinions I have been reading here are for folks who usually haven't been in situations like this. I used to feel exactly the same but not any more. Bottom line is that you are the victim of someone wanting to take your money, personal property, etc..But are you 100% positive that it will end there after you give it to them?
Hell no, you are not! Nobody can ever tell me what they "think" a criminal will do after they rob you because you never know what they are thinking. They could panic especially if it goes down wrong....
Too many folks have paid the price for doing the "right thing" and what they belive the law is for their area. In my humble opinion, this is truly the best saying regarding these situations:
"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6". I know it's trite, but belive me, it is actually true when its all said and done and your life has been on the line. Think about it.
Of course when its all said and done, each one of us will have to make his or her decision (quickly and decisively) on what you are going to do. You had better make the right one as the consequences could prove to be unduly harsh for you and/or your family if its the wrong decision.
Best of luck to anyone who unfortunately has to endure something like this.

[ArizonaTRex]

A little clarification please regarding-
1. "the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (He is armed)"
armed with a deadly weapon I would assume?
2."the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm. (distance, body type, position)"
He is close enough to take something from my hand?
3."his intent indicates that he means to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon me. (mere words are not enough)"
So would mere words -I'll kill you if you do/don't do X, meet all the criteria to respond with deadly force if #'s 1 & 2 are met?

Even waving the gun around in my direction would seem to be enough of a threat IF words of physical harm are uttered? "Pulp Fiction style robbery?"
Am I not supposed to believe someone with a weapon that threatens me means to do exactly what they say? And of course should I believe that they WON'T hurt me if I comply? Doesn't waving a gun in the direction of LEOs meet the criteria for them to respond with deadly force even if words are not exchanged?
As I write this I am about 2,000 miles from home, In a city with a high crime rate.... having to eat out. (which fortunately honors my CCW permit-except at their airport - unless it is in my luggage)
I believe I would do what ever is necessary to insure I would be able to see my family again.

[Scattergun Bob]

Where do it say " waved in your direction?"

Mere words,
I just explained that, I am not here to give a class in the 3 legged stool, do your own work.

The OP asked each of us to draw our line, I explained mine, then I re-explained, I believe I was clear, and It is, What it is.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[David Armstrong]

When somebody threatens your life in an armed robbery so that you give them property, you have the right to defend your life.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something, or even that it is a good idea to do it. That is the issue, folks. Nobody (AFAIK) disputes the legal standards establish a line. But do you base your actions on a non-thinking A/B legal response or do you think about cost/benefit, need, ramifications of act, etc?

[David Armstrong]

Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.

Have you considered a third option, that it is better not to be tried or carried at all.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But, there is a time when this should be stopped so that others do not have to suffer.

This is what is known as reciprocal altruism. Here's the issue - in an incident should your goal be to minimize a negative outcome to you (and if you have loved ones near them) or do you want to make statement or generate an outcome that might lead to significant harm to you and your loved ones because if you harm that BG (even if you suffer many bad consequences) that may deter him or other BGs in future incidents.

If you were mugged (and it seemed that you could get by without harm without a fight), it that ok with you. Yes, your pride is hurt and you didn't deter.

However, if you start the fight (if it seemed that you didn't need to), you can suffer many negative personal, social and financial consequences. Folks who shoot someone don't always go unscathed by the incident (posture here if you must).

Do you make a social statement or hope to deter future crimes at a risk to yourself and family or do you act because your goal is to minimize grievous bodily harm in this incident.

If you postulate that you want to act for the great social good - is it a hero fantasy - a large part of some views of prosocial behavior? Be honest. That doesn't last long and some folks who acted heroically don't care for the accalades and some seek them and then go nuts when they fade.

If you read the professional literature on after gun fight consequences, it isn't always pretty and a thing to get into if you don't have to.

[OldMarksman]

Much of the above discussion has had to do with when and where it is permissible to use deadly force. In the case of the specific instance cited by the OP, the judgement on that score may be arguable. But let's return to the original question:

Two masked men entered waving guns and then proceeded to rob the individual customers before leaving. No one injured. .... Say you are a customer carrying your ccw when an incident like this happens. As a CCW holder, what actions do you take? Do you grab your weapon and open fire to protect yourself and others in the restaurant? Do you delay for a few to try to feel out how the incident is going to unfold?

Seems to me that if "you grab your weapon" when two men are "waving guns", you and others are a lot more likely to end up being carried by six than tried by twelve.

If you wait and determine that the masked men are leaving with their booty and you "open fire" nonetheless, it would seem highly likely that you will be found guilty by twelve under instructions given them by the judge.

So the best outcome is clearly

a third option, that it is better not to be tried or carried at all.

The worst would be for you to draw and get yourself and others killed.

If I had been there, I believe the only way I would have drawn is if one of the miscreants had started to shoot first.

[tirvin73]

The worst would you did nothing, you are dead. You did nothing, your family/friend is dead. You live the rest of your life wishing you could have done something.

Suzanna Hupp was forced to leave her pistol in her truck while dining at Lubys with her family. I say forced because Texas law,at the time had no ccw. So being a "good citizen" kept her from doing something.

[David Armstrong]

Or you live the rest of your life wishing you hadn't done it. Either is quite possible.

[FLA2760]

Pax wrote,"Here is the bright, clear line that will keep you firmly on the sunny side of the law in all 50 states, and keep you alive to tell the story later: You must be able to articulate how an innocent life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

Put another way, the line looks like this: there is "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

Everything else is just chatter".

A BIG +1

[OldMarksman]

The worst would you did nothing, you are dead.

Same outcome as if I tried to draw and got killed. What's the point?

From concealment, I'm not fast enough to stop a man whose gun is in his hand, much less two of them.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I hate to spout statistics but if you are robbed at gun point, you are less likely to get hurt than if robbed at knife point or with impact weapon. It's in the criminology literature - so one can go google-scholar or other data bases to look it up.

It's because the gun is usually used for compliance and gets such. With knives or clubs, people tend more to duke it out and get hurt and the BG sometimes starts with a whack to you to get compliance as they know people will try to duke it out if they don't have a gun.

No situation is the same - yes, you might get shot but compliance seems to work if you get past being outraged as a reason to shoot. Again, you have to see how it is going before starting an action.

Do you get hurt less if you start a gun fight against a drawn gun as compared to compliance? That's an interesting figure if someone wants to look for it - too busy now.

[dabigguns357]

So it would seem that the best defence is to do nothing and leave the guns at home in a safe because no matter what you do you are going to do the wrong thing.There problem solved

Not that i'm being pissy or a poor sport,but if you really want the best solution to the waffle house problem,DON'T go there ,stay home and cook.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No - the best thing is to have some thought and practice about possibilities. I'm afraid gun lists sometimes get pissy-wissy if the solution isn't just open fire.

It offends folks to think that a shoot out isn't a guaranteed solution.

[tirvin73]

I would rather live knowing I used every possible skill I had to defend myself and my family.

Like I said once before, if you are not aware of a problem you can't do anything about it. If you look up from your table and there are two armed men standing in front of you, you have lost that fight.

If you carry a firearm for self defence you are obliged to know how to use it. If not, you absolutley can't do anything about a threat.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would rather live knowing I used every possible skill I had to defend myself and my family.

Define skill - do you only mean starting a gun fight or does skill mean using intelligence to get to the best possible outcome?

If you look up and someone shoots you in the head immediately, you lost. If you are in the waffle house, those guys will draw before you, despite you being in Condition Flaming Crimson! So the guns are out, what then?

I'm sorry - I don't go for cliches over thought.

[tirvin73]

Or possibly I may have enough sense to say to myself "Hmm these guys don't look like they want waffles".

So I guess using your logic, we should just leave the guns at home if we aren't at the range.

The can nots are always so defensive when their skills tap them on their shoulder and say "nope, you can't do anything".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Missed the point - whatever.

In the Waffle House, in an urban area, lots of interesting strange people walk in for waffles. You gonna jump up and shoot everyone who walks up to the register who doesn't fit your view of the world. Get real here.

And if you want to postulate that I said to leave the guns home because I think about things a touch - that is a very misguided view and a typical response to someone who doesn't automatically say SHOOT 'EM ALL. Cheap rhetoric, IMHO.

Now, I getting pissy-wissy.

[KLRANGL]

The point isnt to leave your guns at home, or that you should never shoot... just that you should use your head before you do... correct?
Saying that you'll shoot just because someone is robbing you doesnt make sense...

edit: just beat by Glenn

[tirvin73]

Sounds like it.

[tirvin73]

You're right, I'll just give up the money. Sell the guns and stay home. Then I'll be safe.:barf:

[David Armstrong]

I would rather live knowing I used every possible skill I had to defend myself and my family.

There is far more to defending self and family than getting into a gunfight, just as there is a lot more to defense than shooting. Understanding that is the key to rational response, IMO.

[David Armstrong]

It's in the criminology literature - so one can go google-scholar or other data bases to look it up.

Heaven forbid we should actually look up data and research, Glenn. It is so much more satisfying to go on "That's the way it is 'cuz I seen it happen on the news once."