Update on Burger King shooting

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The citizen who stopped the robbery in a Burger King (mentioned in this thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ht=Burger+King) is a frequent poster at another forum I frequent.

Recently he added a little extra insight into what had happened during the incident and while it was relatively scanty given how recently it had occurred, there were a few insights that might be worth sharing:

1. The newspapers apparently botched the reporting on this badly. I am sure we are all shocked to hear that.

2. There was no argument or discussion prior to the gunfight. In fact the entire prefight discussion appeared to consist of the phrase "Don't move!" being shouted.

3. Shooter was quickly moving to seek cover even before the "Don't move" line started.

4. After hearing "Don't move!" the robber started the gunfight by both immediately moving and shooting.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Lesson being that if you're going to shoot a man holding a gun don't warn him first.

[Deaf Smith]

Yes this is a well know case.

The most important lesson is that if you are going to challenge a robber who has his weapon drawn, even from behind, GET BEHIND COVER FIRST before issueing the challenge.

He failed to do this, and the robber got inside his OODA loop, he's reflexes, and started shooting first.

[Russ5924]

Another great job of reporting, if you don't know make it up:barf:

[mskdgunman]

While I've never been in that situation and hope never to be, I'm not so sure that giving a verbal warning is such a great idea. If I have the element of surprise and am confident that it's a viable shoot situation, I'm not aware of anything that says I have to warn the BG before I take action. I think lots of folks (even some cops) have seen so many movies in which the cop/citizen goes "Drop the gun" and the BG slowly lowers his hands and drops the gun automatically that subconsciously, we think it'll happen. Problem is, the BG's have their own ops plan for the deal and giving up may not be part of it. I've already mentally made my choice for situations like active shooters that if the situation is in progress, the first notice that the BG will have from me is a 5.56 round. If you challange them and they don't automatically give up (which they won't) now you've lost the element of surprise and the BG could grab a hostage or aggressively turn the tables. Hpefully the citizen in this incident made out ok.

[Sidewinder6]

He was a guy trying to having lunch in peace. None of you are in a position to second guess what happened since the facts are not presented.

Give the guy a break. He is a crime victim who killed his attacker.


This sounds like the formerly famous clown at Front Sight who also decided to use the incident as a way to market. Well, right up until his place was seized.

[GUNSITE]

this is what happens when people watch to much TV... you know " hold it right there" " freeze " put down the gun, and all that stuff.

That's ok if your behind concealment, but be ready for a fire fight. The reason i say concealment is, your cover may not stop bullets.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One other thing, the robber had an accomplice who was driving. He is still at large at this time. The robbery also went down ten blocks from the district police station.

[FiveForSure]

The hardest part of the "be a good witness" part of these arguments, for me, is how often these things turn deadly even with full cooperation. A couple years ago there was a robbery at a convenience store down the street from where I work. The clerk cooperated completely, handed over the money, didn't do anything to give the BG a reason to harm him... and he was shot in the face anyway. Luckily, the clerk survived. Probably a .25 or some other awful thing.

So now, knowing these things can and do happen, it is hard to convince myself that if a BG has a firearm pointed at an innocent person, that does not justify taking action already.

The issue actually recently came up for me, as I only recently started carrying concealed. My father and I work together in a small family-owned sort of thing, and while we're not at high risk for a robbery, anything is POSSIBLE. His belief is that if someone comes in and levels a gun at me, I should cooperate. My belief is that if someone comes in and levels a gun at me, I better consider the chances that this could turn ugly through no fault of my own and take advantage of any chance I get to turn the tables. Hopefully, neither argument will ever end up being "proven" in a real situation.

[Sidewinder6]

Exactly right. There were a series of doughnut store robberies right before this particular incident in South Florida, and the BG's shot the victims in the back while they were complying. Just so they could get the stats up. They were caught fleeing the country, they were local gang bangers just like the BG in the BK steakhouse robbery.

The realization that getting caught in the middle of a robbery or similar mass shooting spree was (IS) in the front of many people who choose to carry a firearm. There are many instances beyond this particular one where people have saved many lives as the result of this decision. In the BK incident, some of the police commented this victim who fought back, may have saved the lives of other patrons.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting - Bart - do have a link to that? Rob Pincus and associate had a simulation of this sort of thing on Best D TV this week. I think I would agree that challenging from out in the open and not from cover was a mistake.

Also, the OODA loop and germane schemas seem to be in play. I've always pondered about the draw and challenge schema we get in training. Is it a carry over from the police?

As civilians, we have no responsible to apprehend - only to survive. The challenge is a lead-in to apprehension for police. It is a lower level rung on the force continuum. If I as a civilian face a lethal threat - is a challenge a best neutralization. Compliance to the robbery, fleeing, hiding or shooting immediately to stop might offer a better probability of personal safety. That's a thought.

I recall an exercise of BG's in your house at the NTI. My 'son' was in the house in a location unknown but we were invaded. I was to move through and act appropriately. I 'shot' the BGs without challenge. Asked why - I said they were in my house and a threat - I saw no need to. On the other hand, another participant 'shot' his son - maybe a challenge would have been good.

I wonder if the GG here had a schema that a challenge would bring compliance - if he had trained that way. Thus, he was expecting it and the violationi of the schema made him slow to react. When you talk and have an expectancy of some action, your attention is focused on perceiving that action - when it doesn't occur, it take time to unhook and react. The loop again.

I saw Greg Hamilton draw a shoot a skilled shooter who had him at gun point (sims). The GG was talking about doing this or that. Mental capacity on the talk. Greg timed this and shot.

We also discount that the BG will take the round and still be in the fight.

[David Armstrong]

The hardest part of the "be a good witness" part of these arguments, for me, is how often these things turn deadly even with full cooperation.

To paraphrase from another thread, that is one of those perception versus reality issues. They very rarely turn deadly, and when they do it is usually because the victim has done something to set off the BG. Robbers are there to rob, not kill, and virtually every study out there indicates the reason robberies turn into killings is almost always the result of non-compliance. Sure, there are some that just go bad. But they are the exception, and we need to realize that and build a plan around that idea.

So now, knowing these things can and do happen, it is hard to convince myself that if a BG has a firearm pointed at an innocent person, that does not justify taking action already.

Of course taking action is a good idea. But whether starting a gunfight is a good idea is a different issue. Being a good witness IS taking action, and it is the action recommended by virtually all professionals in the area.

His belief is that if someone comes in and levels a gun at me, I should cooperate.

Good advice, up to a point. Learn the indicators that tend to show the robber wants more than money, and adjust the response accordingly. Cooperate when that is the best choice, fight when that is the best choice.

[ulmer]

Personally I am not a security guard for Burger King. I would get out of there, and quick. If the robber attacks me that's where my CCW comes in. Just because I can legally interfere doesn't mean I'm going to. Keep in mind that in case of a robbery it is you against most anyone in the store, for he may have an accomplice ready to gun down any wannabe hero.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I have watched several debates on TFL about compliance vs resistance so I decided to look about a bit.

I am not a criminologist (although my bachelors degree was in criminology too long ago to mention) but there is a guy guy named Dr. Gary Kleck who is and is well known. I have read a lot of articles by Dr. Kleck and since the NRA likes him and the Bradys don't, I take that as a ringing endorsement

Anyway, here is what his take is on the resist/comply issue:

This is a documentary by a fellow named Larry Elder and it is very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYxGVIMVohw

Pay attention to about 8:21 till the end of the segment.

And here is another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glHMRVafFZI

and pay attention on this clip to 01:54 to 02:07.

I will let you all draw your own conclusions but my take is that the conventional wisdom (which I think was intended for the unarmed public) that you should comply to avoid injury might not be so good an idea today if you are armed and can resist.

Finally, what I seem to see as good advice is; comply only if you do not have the advantage (cover, distance, weapon or concealment etc) and only comply until you have the advantage and then never relinquish it if you can get it (advantage) and then use it to protect yourself.

[BikerRN]

On Duty, if I was sitting in a BK eating my lunch, I would most likely allow the robbery to happen until factors change and the need for armed intervention is appearant.

The robber can be confronted outside the establishment with less risk to bystanders and passers-by. If the situation changes inside then I will react to that. There's an old joke about two NYPD Detectives sitting in a restaurant eating their meal. One looks at the Cashier and people at the front counter and sees a badguy with a gun trained on the Cashier and says to his partner, "Hey that guy's robbing the place." His partner replies, That's nice, how's your veal?"

Why would I want to turn a simple robbery in to a gunfight? There are no winners in a gunfight, only survivors. I'm not going to second guess the actions that took place here, as I wasn't there, am unable to view any videos of the situation and do not have access to the investigative material, so it would all be speculation on my part. I am not however suprised that what passes for news reporting may have gotten it wrong however, as that is usually the case.

Biker

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Glenn, you can find a link to the thread where the shooter discusses what happened (briefly) here. However, you'll need to register at the site in order to view it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks! I'll check it out.

[David Armstrong]

Why would I want to turn a simple robbery in to a gunfight? There are no winners in a gunfight, only survivors.

Strange how most of the professionals have that aattitude, while so many others argue vehemently against it. I guess that is the experience card again.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

To paraphrase from another thread, that is one of those perception versus reality issues. They very rarely turn deadly, and when they do it is usually because the victim has done something to set off the BG. Robbers are there to rob, not kill, and virtually every study out there indicates the reason robberies turn into killings is almost always the result of non-compliance. Sure, there are some that just go bad. But they are the exception, and we need to realize that and build a plan around that idea.

Only if that were so...
There is a liquor store and 7-11 store within about 1.5 blocks of me. In October of '97, the proprietor was robbed at gunpoint. The robber demanded the money and got it in a paper sack. Seemingly at the last moment, he asked for a pack of Zig-Zag papers on the shelf behind the counter. When the owner turned to reach for them, he opened fire. First round went through the owner's left arm and into his left lung. Second round entered just above the left kidney. The next two rounds missed, shattering liquor bottles. A fifth round splattered on the hard floor and bounced into the owner's left calf as the robber fled the store. Zero resistance, planned "execution" of the owner/clerk. Robber was never caught.

In 2000, a guy held up the night clerk at the 7-11. Mr. Singh is a Sikh Indian who does not wear a turban at work. Just after 1 AM a 22 y/o loser comes in, brandishes a pistol and demands money and a carton of cigarettes. Clerk complies. Robber demand the "rest of the money" and Mr. Singh removes the till drawer, shows him it's empty and so is the drawer underneath it. The robber fires one shot, catching Mr. Singh in the side, just above the belt line. He flings the till drawer up, spinning and it catches the robber in the face. He fires two shots wildly and Mr. Singh ducks behind the counter. A second later he comes up with a stubby baseball bat and knocks the gun out of the robber's hand, secures it and steps back. The robber starts to leap the counter and blocks two shots from the 9mm pistol. One fractures the left collar bone and the other shatters his knee. He left his gun and money behind but was picked up 30 minutes later at a hospital.

Aug '07, at a fast-food restraurant, just before 10pm closing, a man produces a small pistol. He tells the 17 y/o girl to bag the money from all three registers. When told that the manager has one of them is "locked up" he points the gun at her head and she moves just as he fires. The bullet cuts her ear almost in half and deafens her in that ear, plus powder burns to her face and eye. He vaults the counter and shoots a cook in the stomach and the 21 y/o night manager in the chest. After grabbing the money from the 2nd register, he pauses and shoots the young girl crying on the floor three more times before leaving. All of the staff survived.

In all three of these cases, the victims cooperated. In two of the cases, the robber appears to be "set off" when he thinks he can't get all the money. In the first case, why he started shooting is unknown.

The problem with blind cooperation is that you are relying on the mercy of a felon - who may not have any mercy in his soul.

In certain neighborhoods, if you are not of the same ethnic group as the robber, your chances for being shot during a robbery double or triple.

The other problem is you have no way of knowing what might "trigger" the robber. Telling him the other register is locked might do it. Asking him if he wants a paper or plastic bag for the loot might do it. Just saying "Yes sir" might anger him. So could not talking at all.

I'd rather have a chance, than none at all.

[Brit]

BillCA states...

The other problem is you have no way of knowing what might "trigger" the robber. Telling him the other register is locked might do it. Asking him if he wants a paper or plastic bag for the loot might do it. Just saying "Yes sir" might anger him. So could not talking at all.

I'd rather have a chance, than none at all.

The truth of the matter is hard for the average non violent person to grasp.

And the participants in this forum are mostly just those type of individuals, and you have to love them.

We all can afford access to the Internet, a Computer, a chair to sit on, and food in the fridge, plus the ability to have electrical power, to run the equipment.

The above is us!

Now for a quick peek at Joe loser who walks into a small business late at night, with a stolen hand gun, a drug habit, and is not the sharpest bulb in the box, even when he has the $20.00 in his pocket, for his next crack rock, which at this moment in time, he does not!

The only control you, the CCW person has, is trigger control, you shoot him quickly, and you shoot him a lot! You can not even have any other thought, he will or will not shoot all in the store, if he wants, and you happen to be one of them.

[Creature]

You assume a lot about armed robbers. Many are just maladjusted malcontents to lazy to hold a steady job.

[skydiver3346]

Good points you make BillCA,
You just don't have any idea whatsoever, what the bad guy is going to do to you after you cooperate. Used to be, people robbed you and ran away. Now, for some unknown reason, they shoot you after and/or before robbing you. What the hell is going on with society? No respect for authority and more importantly, no respect for human life.....

Bottom line: Know in you mind way ahead of time what you will do if this ever happens to you and/or your family. Have a plan and be ready to react to that plan (if at all possible at the time).

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Bill,

This is exactly what I have been learning about as well. In the clips I provided in my post above(which nobody has commented on) one of the speakers talks about the "gentlepersons agreement" that used to be true during a robbery. You give me the money and I don't hurt you. Now that has changed and is not so true. I read a study that 7/11 commissioned where they interviewed convicted armed robbers in jail and a full 1/3 of them said they would harm their victim because "they liked to do it". That is not an insignificant number.

Used to be that LE always told you to "comply, don't resist, and give up the money" and that was good advice. Why? Because most citizens are not armed and an unarmed citizen trying to resist an armed BG is a recipe for disaster!

But now more and more citizens are armed and it seems the BGs are getting more violent. Does that old advice still make sense? Dr. Kleck says it may not. I think we might need a new paradigm here and I would like hear what other think about that.

[David Armstrong]

Only if that were so...

It is so. There is a large amount of research out there on this subject, and it is overwhelming in its agreement. More people should look at the research on an issue instead of making decisions based on what the 6:00 news puts out there.

In all three of these cases, the victims cooperated.

And for each of those cases where the victim cooperated and got shot, one can find hundreds of cases where the victim cooperated and was not shot.

In certain neighborhoods, if you are not of the same ethnic group as the robber, your chances for being shot during a robbery double or triple.

I've never seen a study that indicated that, and certainly national numbers don't reflect that. Can you direct me to an article with that information?

The other problem is you have no way of knowing what might "trigger" the robber.

Not a problem. We know what DOES NOT trigger the robber ordinarily, and that is compliance and cooperation. I would suggest trying to fight with the robber has a high chance of "triggering" him.

I'd rather have a chance, than none at all.

One does not give up any chance by initially cooperating, one maximizes the chance that there will be no other problem. If other problems develop, one can always up the response. What makes you think your chances get better if you turn a robbery into a gunfight?

[David Armstrong]

Used to be, people robbed you and ran away. Now, for some unknown reason, they shoot you after and/or before robbing you.

The violence level in robberies is lower than it has been in the past, not higher.

Used to be that LE always told you to "comply, don't resist, and give up the money" and that was good advice.

That is still what LE tells you, and for a very good reason...it has the greatest chance of avoiding injury to people.

But now more and more citizens are armed and it seems the BGs are getting more violent. Does that old advice still make sense?

Thus we see the problem. "It seems the BGs are getting more violent." Instead of "it seems," why don't we take a moment and actually look at the data that is available? Why not try to find out what the facts are instead of tossing around bad information? The violent crime rate in this country has gone done pretty steadily for over a decade now, not gotten worse. The BGs are not getting more violent, they are getting less violent.