The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23, 2012, 10:24 AM   #51
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 507
We discussed this incident at length on The High Road. Everyone agrees there that it was a job well done by the shooter.

Madmag: Is this area a suburb of a major city? It seems like the area has a lot of problems.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, Varmint Hunters' Assn., ARTCA, American Legion, & South Cuyahoga Sportsmen's Assn.

"Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery...all else is twaddle!" --Admiral Sir John Fisher, RN
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 10:32 AM   #52
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 507
Quote:
I am not sure that crime was prevented. The story documents a considerable amount of crime that occurred against the business, each employee, and each patron. That the crimes were not brought to successful completion by the bad guys was prevented, but the crimes definitely occurred.
Let me see here:

1. The robbery was foiled; no good person was injured and no money lost.
2. If the BGs had been planning on executing anyone, that crime was stopped before execution (pun intended)
3. Neither one of them will be committing any other robberies or assorted crimes in the future.

Nope, no crimes were prevented here.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, Varmint Hunters' Assn., ARTCA, American Legion, & South Cuyahoga Sportsmen's Assn.

"Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery...all else is twaddle!" --Admiral Sir John Fisher, RN
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 11:47 AM   #53
sserdlihc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2008
Location: S.C.
Posts: 1,434
The population of Spartanburg is around 150,000. I live about 25 miles away and only go to spartanburg as on a "have to" basis.
__________________
Familiarity breeds contempt, while rarity wins admiration. Aupleius
If someone doesn't like you, that's their problem! Milton Childress
sserdlihc is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 11:49 AM   #54
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Things ended up turning out alright for the shooter.

If the debate is over whether he should have drawn his pistol, I agree he should have drawn. If the debate is over whether he should have shot the gunman Dante Williams - I agree he should have shot him.

But there are a few things here tactically that he could have done better and could have really gone badly.

1) Trying to hold the perpetrators for police.

IMO, he should have just drawn his own firearm and shot. Period.

Dante Williams could have shot him, or could have just "started shooting" and shot other patrons. The accomplice could have done the same thing. An initial report said that the accomplice was unarmed, but a subsequent report says that "two armed men entered the restaurant and tried to rob it." and:
"Deputies arrested Kenneth Jowan Craig, 29, and charged him with armed robbery and possession of a deadly weapon during a violent crime."

2) According to another report, he got into a physical scuffle with the second robber Kenneth Jowan Craig.


Quote:
the second suspect tried to leave. They said the customer tried to stop him, leading to a struggle and the suspect went for the customer's gun.

The customer fired one shot and the second suspect fled on foot, according to deputies.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/165...-armed-robbery

I'm glad that no innocent people were hurt, and the citizen should be commended for a defensive gun use that stopped a crime, but there are some bad tactics that were employed.



.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 02:16 PM   #55
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Quote:
Madmag: Is this area a suburb of a major city? It seems like the area has a lot of problems.
I live in SC but about 70 miles from Spartanburg. I think this was is a city area. It has a reputation for lots of crime.
madmag is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 07:50 PM   #56
sagamore
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2010
Posts: 13
The location of the attempted robbery was here (LINK).
sagamore is offline  
Old January 23, 2012, 09:24 PM   #57
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,343
Quote:
Why would the robbers want to herd the employees and patrons into the back room if they were not wanting to eliminate all witnesses?
Crowd control. They can't watch people over a large area so they confine them. This isn't an uncommon tactic.

Quote:
When I think about it, this may be true of all (or nearly all) lawful and successful self-defense uses of a firearm, i.e., the facts that make the self-defense use of a firearm lawful always (or nearly always) require an unlawful act by the bad guy.
Right. So a robbery was prevented, but attempted robbery occurred. You still have crime being committed. This is why these events don't produce noticeable changes in crime rates, even when the bad guys are killed.
__________________
"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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 12:50 PM   #58
Opinated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 338
This is the same sheriff that offered 30 women free training for CCW about a month ago after a woman was forced off the road after being followed from a convenience store. She was unarmed and was murdered. That incident was discussed on this forum.
Opinated is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 02:44 PM   #59
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Subsection A actually deals with "castles" - residence, dwelling, vehicle etc..

Subsection C just says:

Quote:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
Not sure why they mixed place of business with any other place a person has a right to be but anyway...

You can never tell what a jury is going to do but, in Illinois, most juries would consider being herded into a room as being in immnent peril. There have been too many instances where employees and patrons were herded into a room and killed execution style, including the infamous Palatine Brown's Chicken Massacre.

It may not matter under SC's Protection of Persons and Property Act any way because he also had the right to use deadly force to prevent a violent crime. The authorities aren't splitting hairs in this case, they obviously beleive the law covers the patron. I guess we'd have to see if the relatives of the deceased or the remaining assailant brings a challenge of it to court.


But the whole thing of being herded into a room - in Illinois at least would meet the criteria for resonable belief of impending death.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 03:10 PM   #60
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
The sadness of that life lost happened a good bit of time before the bullet hit him.
Yes and no:

It is sad, but no life was lost. This guy did not lose his life, he threw it away, gambling it for the money in the till. Guess he did not value it much...... that is sad.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 09:09 PM   #61
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
Crowd control. They can't watch people over a large area so they confine them. This isn't an uncommon tactic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by C0untZer0
But the whole thing of being herded into a room - in Illinois at least would meet the criteria for reasonable belief of impending death.
This back room thing is a key issue for me. Once you give into going to the back room you are trusting what the BG's want to do.....I don't like those odds. I will not interfere if robbers go to the counter and leave with the cash, but if they come to my area and demand people to go to a back room then there will be trouble for sure.
madmag is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 09:21 PM   #62
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
From early on...

Quote:
I agree that if the would-be-robber pointed the gun at the person with the CCW permit, I would assume intent to harm, and do the same.
It is that waiting until a gun is pointed my way I don't like... I fight dirtier battles... I might have the upper hand in a draw if the armed BG don't know I am drawing as he isn't lookin' right at me...

Feller with a gun? Yepper... I have reason to fear one of his rounds is meant for me!

Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 09:46 PM   #63
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
^ I agree

Since this is a tactics forum I would just say it's bad tactics to wait until the bad guy points a gun at you to shoot, but he wouldn't have been in that situation if he hadn't first made the decision to "hold" the assailants at gun point until LE arrived - another bad tactic.

There is a lot of talk on this thread about castle doctine - but just to separate it for a moment, not to belabor the old cliché "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" but from my point of view - no matter what state I'm in, regardless of what laws are in place, if someone initiates a robbery in an establisment with me in it, I'm going to constantly be making a judgement of what is my risk of bodily harm or death - if he is going to take the money and go or if he's going to do more... and as soon as robbers start herding people into a backroom, the scale just tipped and I am going to look for the BEST opportunity to draw my weapon and stop the aggression. If that means the assailant is looking the other way and I shoot him while his back is turned - so be it.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 09:47 PM   #64
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 423
Quote:
This is why these events don't produce noticeable changes in crime rates
source?
musher is offline  
Old January 24, 2012, 10:18 PM   #65
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Quote:
This is why these events don't produce noticeable changes in crime rates

Quote:
Originally Posted by musher
source?
Good question. One thing for sure, some of the areas with the strongest gun control are some of the highest gun crime areas in the country.

I think if there is a high incidence of civilians that lawfully CCW, then you will see a reduction in crime in that area. I admit I don' have numbers in hand but I remember a few years ago about an area in Florida that had civilian CCW after high crime rates and the crime went down.

Anyway, the crime rate for that day at that Waffle House was reduced by about 100%.
madmag is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 12:10 AM   #66
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmag
Anyway, the crime rate for that day at that Waffle House was reduced by about 100%.
No, it wasn't. A violent crime was committed: Attempted armed robbery. That is a crime, it makes the crime rate go up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by musher
source?
Sources:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/116969
Says that studies that say that more concealed guns reduce crime are "suspect".

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=13&id=&page=
"... no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime."

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa...nLaws-1998.pdf
"... results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, an increase in adult homicide rates"

http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~jswinton/E...Deterrence.pdf
"The benefits that a county obtains from its state passing a shail-issue concealed-handgun law are generally stronger than those found in previous work. Spillover effects on neighboring areas are almost always deleterious."
In other words, counties benefit, but it seems that crime just moves elsewhere instead of reducing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmag
Good question. One thing for sure, some of the areas with the strongest gun control are some of the highest gun crime areas in the country.
Violent crime rate for Anchorage, Alaska (no permit required for concealed carry) in 2005: 735.6 per 100,000. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html)
Violent crime rate for New York City (no concealed carry allowed) in 2008: 444.4 per 100,000. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm)

Crime is not as simple as allowing concealed handguns. This brings me back to my original point: we should not try to make the argument that carrying concealed handguns reduces crime. We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 12:36 AM   #67
kinggabby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 473
whether you agree or disagree about this stopping a crime. You can at least agree it helped stop some future crime. If the 19 year old would not have been shot and killed he probably would have went one to commit a future crime. This goes for the guy who was later arrested. So by him being killed and the other arrested that takes 2 criminals off the street.

Last edited by kinggabby; January 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM.
kinggabby is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 12:38 AM   #68
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,650
Quote:
Sources:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/116969
Says that studies that say that more concealed guns reduce crime are "suspect".
-Your link requires a subscription to read the article.

Quote:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=13&id=&page=
"... no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime."
-An analysis of the previous article; written by people loyal to the University of Chicago; with a bias toward getting guns out of the inner city. Your link requires a subscription to read the article.

Quote:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/pa...nLaws-1998.pdf
"... results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, an increase in adult homicide rates"
-Again, written by Chicago authors with a bias toward the Brady bunch, and removing guns from the inner city. Not to mention, it's 14 years old.

Quote:
http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~jswinton/E...Deterrence.pdf
"The benefits that a county obtains from its state passing a shail-issue concealed-handgun law are generally stronger than those found in previous work. Spillover effects on neighboring areas are almost always deleterious."
In other words, counties benefit, but it seems that crime just moves elsewhere instead of reducing.
-What's the problem? If it gets crime out of my area, why should I care?
You also left out the primary statement in that data: "Except for assaults, these spillover effects are either deleterious or insignificant."
...Not that the "insignificant" spill over effects matter... they're plugging their statistics into an unproven algorithm. None of their conclusions are based on hard data. It's based on estimates that were pumped out of the algorithm.


Quote:
Violent crime rate for Anchorage, Alaska (no permit required for concealed carry) in 2005: 735.6 per 100,000. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html)
Violent crime rate for New York City (no concealed carry allowed) in 2008: 444.4 per 100,000. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm)
That isn't a fair comparison. They're using different data collection and reporting methods. I can find data to support the idea that it's cheaper to live on Mars, than in Manhattan; but that doesn't make it true.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 09:40 AM   #69
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
Good reply from FrankenMauser. I can only add this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sefner
We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.
Ok, works for me.
madmag is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:24 AM   #70
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Calling the people who write the studies "biased towards the brady bunch" is an ad hominem pure and simple. You can't toss aside several sources just because they are from Chicago. That's something the Brady Campaign would do. And the "algorithm" is far from unproven. Neighborhood spillover effects are something that have been studied successfully for years (if that's what you're talking about... it's not really an algorithm they are using, it's a statistical model)...

Quote:
What's the problem? If it gets crime out of my area, why should I care?
Because that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about whether or not shall-issue reduces crime. My hypothesis says "maybe, but it's hard to prove". This paper, by saying that it only moves crime around supports that. If the crime moves, people are still getting robbed, raped, and murdered, just in different locations. It's a sad moral system that puts value on human life based on geographic location.

I've provided sources to back up my points, I await the same from the other side other than discrediting the sources. Sad that the thread has come to that. And you don't need an account to read that abstract that gives the overview of the results. I can get more if needed, there is far from a lack of substance in the literature.

Quote:
That isn't a fair comparison. They're using different data collection and reporting methods. I can find data to support the idea that it's cheaper to live on Mars, than in Manhattan; but that doesn't make it true.
The comparison is totally fair, you said that places with lax gun laws have lower crime rates and I've produced a result contrary to that. I could also produce a result that supports your conclusion, but that's not my point. My point is that crime is not as simple as "let people carry concealed handguns", there are tons more factors.

That data comes from the same place, the FBI's UCR. Here are the links to Anchorage and New York City, the numbers are the same:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ak.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_08_ny.html

At least try to refute the central point or get data that does instead of simply trying to discredit my data and sources as "the brady bunch"... That's not how this works.

Quote:
Good reply from FrankenMauser. I can only add this:

Quote:
We need to say that it stops crime from happening to law abiding innocent people.
Ok, works for me.
The difference in my verbiage is minute but important. We do know that many people have successfully defended themselves with concealed handguns, and that's the stories we need to tell. We need to tell stories like OP's. Stories of the grandma that defends her home from the 3 street thugs. Stories of the young woman who kills the serial rapist after being attacked on the street. Stories of how guns turned the table on violence scumbags. It is hard to say that concealed guns reduce overall crime (and if it were, it doesn't pull on the heartstrings like these stories do). It is very easy to say that concealed guns have saved countless lives from victimhood.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner

Last edited by Sefner; January 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM.
Sefner is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:51 AM   #71
kazanski612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 120
This should never have turned into "CCW reduces crime" discussion. That's missing the whole point.

None of us will ever be able to reduce crime. But we may be able to one day save a life. Here's to hoping none of us are ever in that position.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
kazanski612 is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 10:57 AM   #72
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Quote:
This should never have turned into "CCW reduces crime" discussion. That's missing the whole point.

None of us will ever be able to reduce crime. But we may be able to one day save a life. Here's to hoping none of us are ever in that position.
Excellent post!

Back on topic: Do we think it was OK for him to try to hold two attackers at gun point when one has a gun? I think it would be alright at that point (when the gun was pointed at him) to draw and immediately go hot, I'm not so sure attempting negotiations would be the most tactically viable choice...
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 11:11 AM   #73
Young.Gun.612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
Perhaps attempting to subdue them until police arrived was just a CYA method? That way in case an overzealous attorney convinced the family of the deceased to try and press a civil suit it could be in the record that he tried to simply stop them before firing? in order to not appear to be a trigger happy vigilante.
Young.Gun.612 is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 11:12 AM   #74
madmag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 4,239
First, you can find statistics to support either argument. Like the following interview with John Lott.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Quote:
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Quote:
This should never have turned into "CCW reduces crime" discussion. That's missing the whole point.
As the OP I agree.

The main point was to illustrate a SD shooting that represents a scenario that I have thought of many times. It's not a perfect world. Carrying a firearm can work against you, but I think the odds of it helping are in my favor. If I didn't believe that then I would not carry.
madmag is offline  
Old January 25, 2012, 12:36 PM   #75
DasGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2011
Posts: 318
Somewhat related: http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/165...******=content

"Spartanburg Co. councilman wants sheriff to drop weapons push"

Some of the highlights: "The Herald-Journal of Spartanburg reported that Councilman Michael Brown said he thinks Sheriff Chuck Wright's efforts are irresponsible." "...think Wright's efforts promote an environment of lawlessness."

Yep, if the Sheriff hadn't been supporting CCWs, this robbery never would have happened!
DasGuy 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 09:35 AM.


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 0.15363 seconds with 7 queries