The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 14, 2008, 08:54 AM   #26
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 2,890
Quote:
So would someone be legally justified in shooting a person who does not have a visible weapon?
Lets assume that there were several people at the store with you at the time it was robbed. If they were scared enough to comply with the robber, the threat was credible. Is that enough for the police to rule it a good shoot? I sure as heck would hope so. Its possible he was bluffing and its possible he is not. If he has his hand on a weapon, he probably has his finger on the trigger. Would you risk calling a bluff when he could shoot you or others? HE is in the wrong for holding up a store. You are acting in self defense, especially since he is herding people into the back.

Seems justifiable to me. Don't want to get shot... Don't commit robberies... especially without a gun!
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old March 15, 2008, 05:15 PM   #27
revance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 305
I just wanted to emphasize that these are not made up scenarios... someone has done this recently at several CVS stores in my area. Each time the BG herded people into an office and then proceeded to empty the register and steal some booze while he had the store to himself. Nobody was injured in the robberies.

I however feel that herding people into a room does scream "hostage situation" or "execution style killing".

I think doing this is a particularly BAD decision on the part of the BG because many CCWs might stand by and let a regular robbery go uninterrupted since statistics are on their side (at least this was reflected on TFL poles). However I figured the act of forcing everyone into a room like that shows enough intent to kill for just about any CCWs to take action (even at risk to themselves). This seems to be much like the difference between getting involved in a robbery and getting involved in a kidnapping. Kidnappings seldom have good outcomes.
revance is offline  
Old March 15, 2008, 06:00 PM   #28
Scattergun Bob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 29, 2008
Location: Nine Mile Falls, Washington
Posts: 1,186
Rounded up

You kinda changed the plot from the original robbery would I fight or flee. I suggest to you NEVER EVER let someone take you to a secondary location (the onion field comes to mind). In this new plot, I would have to respond by moving to safety and if that caused my enemy to respond negatively then so be it.
__________________
First, with the most, WINS!
Regards, Scattergun Bob

Last edited by Scattergun Bob; March 15, 2008 at 06:01 PM. Reason: just stupid
Scattergun Bob is offline  
Old March 15, 2008, 07:19 PM   #29
Sigma 40 Blaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: East Texas
Posts: 997
A "normal" robbery is "give me the money from the register".....and scram. The BG doesn't have much time to get nervous...or think about doing anything else stupid...he gets the cash he can and runs. The ones who try to take more, demand that the safe be opened and other stuff like "go to the back room" have shown obvious premeditation and will likely go farther than the dummy who runs in and out.

Stuff like the "normal" robbery happens so fast you probably couldn't stop it if you were not tracking the guy before he made the attempt to rob. The latter takes way more time, the BG's get nervous, and God forbid something in their "plan" goes wrong.

In the first case I have to say let it ride unless they start acting like the second case, which I think is about how long it'd take to process and ACT anyway, I think.

We're likely talking seconds here...very few. In that case you're probably facing some pretty determined BG's, use whatever training (if any) you have and go one or two shots COM and try to get behind some cover. Hopefully in the process you observed how many BG's there were and their locations...also you hope that once they hear gunfire not originated from them they will get nervous and leave their fallen buddies.

All of that is off the top of my head, I could be very wrong but that's my gut reaction to the question.
Sigma 40 Blaster is offline  
Old March 16, 2008, 01:53 PM   #30
Aqeous
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Posts: 646
How about: If they commit an armed robbery, and they herd people in the back room, then they are profiling themselves with those who commit massacres against innocent people.


Thus: Let God deal with the sorting process . . . these kind of people are a waste of air and a waste of life.



I am on boar with the general consensus of this thread.
Aqeous is offline  
Old March 16, 2008, 02:13 PM   #31
Mannlicher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 2,973
Revance
Quote:
So there have been a string of robberies at CVS stores in my area where the BG rounds up all the employees and patrons and makes them go into an office while he cleans out the registers and steals booze. He never displayed a weapon, but told everyone he had a gun and kept his hand up inside his coat sleeve.
It helps to know where 'in your area' is, and of course, any link to a news article is beneficial.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan
Mannlicher is offline  
Old March 17, 2008, 04:41 PM   #32
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,556
I guess it depends on where I was at the time. If I'm just walking up to the story and I see people being "herded" by somebody, I will definitely retreat and call 911 from my vehicle and be a star witness. If I am in the herd, I like to think I'll be prepared to put the guy down. Each situation is different, though, and needs on the spot decisions that can't be illustrated here with any surety.

One thing that weighs heavily on my mind is the one guy that I knew that was killed on his knees, execution style, in his own store less than a mile from my house.
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old March 17, 2008, 04:57 PM   #33
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Machiavelli, Mahan, Sun Tzu, to name a few...

... are all pretty much agreed on this:

Plan for your enemies capabilities, not his apparent intentions.

It isn't that having an idea of intentions isn't useful, but you can't assess them nearly as accurately as you can assess capabilities. If your plan hinges on the BG having non-violent intentions in the end game, then it doesn't work so well if your assessment was not valid.

I'd rather let them count on my mercy, than vice versa.

Cheers,

M
MLeake is offline  
Old March 17, 2008, 05:12 PM   #34
scrat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Posts: 214
id comply until i see an advantage. Then its lets beat the bad guy until someone pulls me off.
scrat is offline  
Old March 18, 2008, 12:17 PM   #35
Colt Delta Elite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
Archie, regarding your 2 observations:

Quote:
2. There are no instances where villians have 'herded' employees and patrons into a back room and then left without further action. Typically the people are killed, sometimes raped prior to killing.
Reality:

Quote:
I just wanted to emphasize that these are not made up scenarios... someone has done this recently at several CVS stores in my area. Each time the BG herded people into an office and then proceeded to empty the register and steal some booze while he had the store to himself. Nobody was injured in the robberies.
I hope this is not indicative of your situational awareness as well.
__________________
steve

< this space for rent >
Colt Delta Elite is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 05:54 PM   #36
Colt Delta Elite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
Objectivity

Quote:
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!
Neither does fighting back.

It always make me shake my head when I read the responses of those that post something to the affect that they would make the BG eat lead. They always believe that they will come off the victor -- even though the vast majority have never drawn their weapon much less even fired a shot in a true SD situation. They without fail assume their prowess will overcome.

Quote:
its the last thing he'll ever do besides hit the floor with two more holes in his head, like a sack of potatoes.
Quote:
His failure to comply with me will be a fatal error on his part.
Quote:
he just rolled snake eyes and got dealt Aces and Eights!
Quote:
Then its lets beat the bad guy until someone pulls me off.
Quote:
and he better have been going to the range more than twice a month for 4-6 hours each time, practicing his headshots......because I do.
__________________
steve

< this space for rent >
Colt Delta Elite is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 08:44 PM   #37
GalilARM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2007
Location: TX
Posts: 267
Quote:
Quote:
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

Neither does fighting back.

It always make me shake my head when I read the responses of those that post something to the affect that they would make the BG eat lead. They always believe that they will come off the victor -- even though the vast majority have never drawn their weapon much less even fired a shot in a true SD situation. They without fail assume their prowess will overcome.
Sure, it doesnt guarantee survival, but I'd damn rather die TRYING than sitting there on my knees. If the guy HINTS at harming me, I'll be hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst. Fight back and be killed, or sit there and be killed? You pick, my mind is made up.
GalilARM is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 09:23 PM   #38
TexasSeaRay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
Quote:
Quote:
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!
Neither does fighting back.
For some of us, fighting back was the only thing that guaranteed our survival during some bad situations.

Jeff
__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing.
TexasSeaRay is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 10:14 PM   #39
Colt Delta Elite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
I knew this would happen...

I'm not promoting the pacifist position (or criticizing it for that matter). I was trying to draw attention to something I see over and over again.

A significant number believe (or at least comment in such a way as to infer) that if they engage a BG that it will naturally be a happy ending. It's just not always the case unfortunately. The realist understands action does not necessarily equate to success, and that it is foolish & dangerous to assume it will.
__________________
steve

< this space for rent >
Colt Delta Elite is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 10:48 PM   #40
TexasSeaRay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
Steve,

Could not agree more.

Would also add that "fighting back" isn't always as easy as it is in "training scenarios" or idle daydreams or gunstore counter conversations. They told us in the military that the single hardest decision we'd ever make was the decision to pull the trigger on another human being for the first time.

They were right.

Jeff
__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing.
TexasSeaRay is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 11:12 PM   #41
Colt Delta Elite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
Quote:
Would also add that "fighting back" isn't always as easy as it is in "training scenarios" or idle daydreams or gunstore counter conversations.
That is what I was getting at (or at least trying to...)
We are on the same page.
Take care.
__________________
steve

< this space for rent >
Colt Delta Elite is offline  
Old March 19, 2008, 11:25 PM   #42
Rifleman 173
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 588
Do you know what the difference is between a burglar and a murderer? A burglar is a murderer who has NOT confronted the home owner. ANY felon is a potential killer be they a burglar, robber or whatever. I don't go with anybody anywhere at all. Hide? Maybe if I think that I can get away with it. If not and I'm directly confronted by the bad guy, the fight is on.
Rifleman 173 is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 07:41 AM   #43
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
gunfight or knife fight

I was always taught you will have to expect to get bloody.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 08:43 AM   #44
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 2,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt Delta Elite
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!

Neither does fighting back.
Steve,

My post was just stating the obvious. You cannot just hope that you will not be harmed if you comply. There have been WAY too many cases where someone fully complied and was then shot in cold blood. Defending myself may lead to injury, or even death for that matter, but it beats getting lined up against a wall and executed.

I think that 9/11 and the Virginia Tech shooting are perfect examples of why you NEED TO FIGHT BACK.

While a flight attendant may have been killed for non compliance by the passengers, I hardly believe that anyone could take a plane now with box cutters. My mentality has now shifted to think of the greater consequence of INACTION. Everyone on board those planes DIED. Thousands more were killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In my opinion, those who resisted on board the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are heroes. While they died fighting back, who knows how many lives would have been lost had that plane struck its target? Maybe it was headed for the White House.

As for VA Tech shootings, I believe that fewer people would have died had a few brave students made a stand and rushed the shooter. Many were killed cowering under their desks, undoubtedly thinking "I hope he doesn't kill me". I'm sorry... but relying on the mercy of someone shooting people indisciminately does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I'm sure some of those who resisted would have been seriously injured or killed, but the death toll would have been much less.

As you clearly pointed out, fighting back does NOT guarantee survival, but we have seen more than enough results of where compliance still ended up badly.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 09:45 AM   #45
Tuckahoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Location: Central eastern North Carolina
Posts: 194
Several years ago a grocery store here in N.C. was robbed by what was believed to be a lone individual. He entered the store and after robbing the cash register killed everyone in the store. Ten years later he has never been caught. This was in a small town with a low crime rate where nothing ever happened but it did.
When someone threatens the lives of my wife and kids I take that very personal. Would I take action? Yes. Would I use a firearm to protect another person? Yes.
Tuckahoe is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 10:23 AM   #46
Spenser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 408
I think in most jurisdictions, the question can be framed as: what would an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person have done in the same or similar circumstances? What would the ORPP have believed?

It seems that a person in this situation would be quite justified in believing they were about to be killed. Therefore, the use is deadly force is probably justified. Emphasis on the "probably."
Spenser is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 10:33 AM   #47
Tuckahoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Location: Central eastern North Carolina
Posts: 194
Spencer hit the nail on the head on this one.
A CCW does not make you a law enforcement officer however if you abide by the same use of force as used by law enforcement you will remain within the law.
Tuckahoe is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 10:47 AM   #48
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Response to Tuckahoe

You are sort of right, but there is one major flaw in that argument.

LE are authorized to fire on fleeing violent felons. CCW are not, in most places.

Not to quibble, but that is one area where following the rules that apply to LEOs could get a private citizen in seriously hot water.

In Florida, you are authorized to defend a third party from threat of death or serious bodily harm.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 11:00 AM   #49
Colt Delta Elite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
Quote:
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!
Your point is true.

Quote:
Neither does fighting back.
My point is true.


The reason for my post was to highlight the flip side -- that engagement will not always yield a better result. Some write stating staunchly that they would do such-and-such and the BG will be dead. I provided examples of such bravado from this thread, but you see it all over and every time a confrontation scenario is discussed. There are those that categorically imagine they'll prevail.

Bad assumption.

In posting, I'm emphasizing objectivity. I never indicated lack of fighting was the better course or even preferable. While you think that your stance is obvious, I believe mine should be obvious as well.

Quote:
You cannot just hope that you will not be harmed if you comply.
It is very apparent that IS the thinking of those that chose that option in a particular instance. They follow the orders with the expectation of a decent outcome. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. The CVS robberies is an example of where it DID work. Individual personal judgement is required because each circumstance will be unique. One should not limit their available options by just concluding that engagement is a must.

As far as your 'perfect examples':
[9/11] proves both stances. In one plane the victims did not take action. It crashed into the WTC and all died. In another plane (Pennsylvania) the passengers fight back.... the plane crashes and all die.
Therefore, true, compliance did not guarantee survival, and equally true, fighting back did not guarantee survival.

[Virginia Tech]:
Quote:
Many were killed cowering under their desks
This did not involve compliance or non-compliance, but a flight/hide response.

Quote:
I believe that fewer people would have died had a few brave students made a stand and rushed the shooter.
Facts not in evidence. We all are entitled to our opinions. Perhaps notebooks and rulers would have overcome the assailant, perhaps not. At this point it's just conjecture.

Bottom line:
Your last sentence underscores my point....
Quote:
As you clearly pointed out, fighting back does NOT guarantee survival, but we have seen more than enough results of where compliance still ended up badly.
Action versus non-action. EITHER may be appropriate. EITHER may allow you to survive or get you killed. Don't assume EITHER one is a foregone conclusion with a guaranteed result. Judge each situation individually to the best of your personal abilities and proceed. In the end you still have to hope for the best.
__________________
steve

< this space for rent >
Colt Delta Elite is offline  
Old March 20, 2008, 11:17 AM   #50
Spenser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 408
Usually, the test in the law is a same or similarly situated person. So as a layman, I'm judged by the layman's standards, not the standards of what a ORP (ordinary, reasonable, prudent) lawman would be. While they are similar, they are not the same across the board.

Good distinction, sorry if I created any confusion.
Spenser is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15417 seconds with 7 queries