Gas station robbery video, What would you do?

[Dufus]

JoeSixpack: thanks for bringing the topic back to life as I thought the thread was closed prematurely as did you.

I can only say that I know what I would have done, and I will keep it between myself and the Lord.

Fact is, NONE of us know what we would have done unless it happened to us. It happened quick and with no warning. The victim made a huge mistake when he drew his wallet out like that in open country. That was the very first mistake he made. The second mistake he made was not diagnosing the threat the very second the perpetrator grabbed the wallet from the victim's hands.

The victim was cornered and had no place to retreat. The victim really was out gunned by being very undersized compared to the perp. The consequences are present in the video.

[HiBC]

Bingo,
In the time frame when the victim was capable of self defense,IMO,deadly force was at least questionable. Unarmed man and a property crime.

Once the assault began,its hard for me to imagine the victim could effectively use a handgun.

Pre-empting the horrible beating pre-empts the justification.

Third party intervention? You cannot expect it. It did not happen.

I suppose the point is the time to take action is before you hold your wallet up to your nose while standing in line. La-la land can be a dangerous place.

[TXAZ]

The OP asked:

So tell me what you would do, Tell me what you think I should do different.

I've held 2 robbers at gunpoint, waiting for the police. I was a lot younger and stronger way back when, my point mention this is it depends on the person and circumstances as to what's right for them.

So at this much older age, if I decided to hang around and get involved:

I would get out of 'reach range' of the bad guy, preferably with something physical between us like the waist-high iced beer cooler

I'd call 911 (I use earbuds / voice command, & not holding phone)

I'd draw my weapon and suggest he lay off the guy and lay on the ground, in terms he'd understand, with limited time to comply

Having spent a fair amount of time in Lufkin, I'd have no problem stopping the guy and not worry about PD, the DA or a jury.


But all of this is based on a very narrow camera view of an incident, there's a lot more that would need to be processed before deciding the above, like if there were 10 armed thugs just outside the door.

As for what you should do, YOU have to determine that. You might be a Navy SEAL that can stop the attack with one kick to his knee /groin / wherever.
Or you might be older like many here and prefer a standoff shot(s) from the back aisle.

[themalicious0ne]

I think a lot of us are armchair quarterbacking this way too optimistically. Armed or not, whenever there is physical conflict you should always make space. I thought he reacted like most people would react. (Not saying us, just the general population) Without creating that distance, honestly I dont think that there was anything the victim could do at all.

Honestly, I am not sure if any of you have been in a fight, but I have been in many. I know that sounds bad, but between working as a bouncer for years, security, armed security and even my years in college, I would say that I am familiar with the subject. In control tactics courses we were always taught to make space between you and your aggressor first and foremost. I can say from experience that fights can start up out of no where. I have been randomly and I mean completely out of the blue randomly been sucker punched. I have been laughing or joking with my assailant before being struck, in fact I have been shaking my assailants hand, who was someone I was acquaintances with, pull a beer bottle out of his back pocket, break it over my head, slice across my face on swing two, and come at me to stab me in the stomach where I had gained enough consciousness to shove him back before he stopped. I was 6'0" and 185 lbs and in great shape and he was maybe 5'5" and 110 lbs. I have been rocked several times as well as seen dozens of people knocked unconscious. Things happen in the blink of an eye faster than you can bring your hands up to block it much less draw. When people are knocked silly like that, I can promise you they have literally no idea whats going on. I have had a kid who was knocked out while I was in uniform, gun, badge, A.S.P., OC, vest, I helped him up and asked if he was ok while police were right next to the entire ordeal and that kid swung on me while the officer and I were holding him up. As soon as you are hit like that, your motor function skills barely work and your brain isnt at normal operation either. You are almost 100% defenseless. That is why they teach in school and the academy, an officer can never ever lose a fight again. I will never be the victim again. If you ever get into a situation like that guy did, you are completely at the mercy of those around you period. If you don't believe me, put a dummy gun in your holster, have your buddy knock you unconscious and have a timer and see if after you get knocked out you can even remember to draw in 10 seconds.

I am not trying to say anyone is wrong here with their tactics. I am just trying to provide some clarity to the situation. Once it hits that point, there is zero discussion to be had in regards to the victim, there is probably nothing they can do, and that's without any additional blows being landed.

With that in mind, as a bystander, I am 100% positive I would intervene. I would draw at a distance and shout at him as loud as I could that if he did not stop his attack I would shoot him. If he continued or came at me, I would shoot him. I do not at all want to shoot him and rather he run but in my mind if he is being fatally threatened by me and continues to act aggressively, then the attacker believes that he has matched my level of threat and I would feel justification. I would gladly deal with the legal and financial repercussions because I feel obligated to protect that persons life. Please advise, this is my honest answer and is not my advise morally or legally.

[Deaf Smith]

How does such exist with effective self defense?

You presume such a defense would start at the FIRST of the attack. One can be blindsided and still put forth an effective defense. Simple example. The guy in the video, once on the ground and being beaten, pulls a small J .38 and smokes him.

See that was one of the big faults with the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident. No video of the attack. If there had been such a tape, showing Trayvon using Zimmerman's head to smash into the concrete walkway, I doubt anyone would have filed any charges... nor would any lawsuit have gone forth.

Deaf

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

The only thing I can come up with is some less then lethal solution, If you're not absolutely sure you can win a physical contest.. and even if normally you can you might not get the chance if the attacker lands a sucker blow.

To be honest, I cannot think of too many less lethal options that would have improved that situation for the victim. Considering the beat down he received just for blocking the exit, I'd hate to see what happens if he pepper-sprayed that guy. I just don't see that going well.

The problem with recognizing a wolf in sheep's clothing is that if you wait for the wolf to drop the disguise, you're behind the eight ball. If you don't wait, you look like a sheep killer. The robber let the sheepskin slip with that robbery; but it would look pretty bad for the victim if he immediately applied the force he'd need to apply to come out of that victorious. Even if he doesn't get injured, the death threats, the protests, the viral video...etc.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

See that was one of the big faults with the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident. No video of the attack. If there had been such a tape, showing Trayvon using Zimmerman's head to smash into the concrete walkway, I doubt anyone would have filed any charges... nor would any lawsuit have gone forth.

Gerald Ung. Attacked by four people with the whole thing on video, then still prosecuted by the DA and sued in a civil court after being acquitted of criminal charges.

[OldMarksman]

Only if the prosecutor decides to do anything. I doubt it here in Texas where it happened. We are a conservative bunch and there are plenty of SD cases where the Texas system didn't do anything to the defender, especially with such graphic video of the attack backing them up ... just like this one.

Did you forget that we were speaking of civil liability?

Yes, the defender would probably have the law in his side, but not before he had been taken to court.

[O4L]

I live in the free state of Oklahoma and yes I have a carry permit. I don't know where you guys that are telling me I need more learning are from but here we have laws that allow you to use deadly force when being physically attacked in such a violent manner.

I didn't say I would fire at the first sign of physical aggression but I would draw and then fire if the attack continued.

I would much rather go to court than end up dead or seriously injured by a POS thug.

Self defence in life threatening situations is the whole point in carrying a firearm in the first place.

[JoeSixpack]

O4L the question is when? please by all means walk us thru the scenario with you as the victim that's the whole point of the thread I'd love to get more perspectives on how it plays out.

[OldMarksman]

I don't know where you guys that are telling me I need more learning are from but here []OKwe have laws that allow you to use deadly force when being physically attacked in such a violent manner.

Yes, under some circumstances. But--the use of such force must be necessary and commensurate with the danger one faces.

Was the attack life threatening? Well, the assailant departed without trying to kill anyone.

Would the use of deadly force have been necessary? Well, the victim's having tried to block the door was not necessary, and it may well have eliminated any justification for the use of deadly force for self defense.

I would much rather go to court than end up dead or seriously injured by a POS thug.

Sure, but going to court could bankrupt you, even if you prevail.

And the victim here would easily have avoided whatever injuries he suffered by simply staying out of the way.

[spacemanspiff]

What did we do before we had Google to easily research in less than 5 minutes?

According to: http://http://www.lawfirmofoklahoma....iable-homicide
we have this paragraph:

However, in order for deadly force to be justified in self-defense, the use of such force must be necessary and commensurate with the danger one faces. If a person kills someone unnecessarily in resisting a misdemeanor, or if such force is unnecessary to deter the crime, he or she may be charged with manslaughter, a felony.

So go ahead, draw down, and start shooting. Your state has both Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. Just dont get too surprised when a prosecutor, and a jury of your peers, fails to agree with you on what a 'life threatening situation' is.

I agree with you that we carry as a means to protect ourselves. I am not opposed at all to using deadly force when it is necessary. But someone comes at me with fists, no weapons, I highly doubt I will draw my gun. If they are close enough to strike me, they are close enough for me to wrap my arms around them and go to the ground. For that matter, they are also close enough I can give them a good hard shove away from me so I can get distance.

Just because the laws where you live say you can 'stand your ground' doesnt mean you have to do such. Sometimes retreat is more prudent.

[Deaf Smith]

Did you forget that we were speaking of civil liability?

Yes, the defender would probably have the law in his side, but not before he had been taken to court.

Like I said, here in Texas... I doubt it. But if he did, it's called a frivolous lawsuit. Counter sue not only the thief but his lawyer for filing one. Ought to be fun.

Lawyers know if there is no money in it... they say no.

Deaf

[OldMarksman]

Like I said, here in Texas... I doubt it. But if he did, it's called a frivolous lawsuit.

But without such a suit, the immunity provision of the law cannot come into effect.

Lawyers know if there is no money in it... they say no.

That is usually the case. But some attorneys are motivated by other things.

Frivolous? Lessee. We would have an unarmed person who has been shot by an armed citizen.

Would the defendant prevail on a preponderance of the evidence basis, without needing a unanimous verdict?

Probably, but he might no enjoy the ride, or the risk.

Why is it that you seem to think that what would happen in Texas would differ very much for what might happen in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma.... ?

[Mainah]

Keep your wallet in your pocket and your eyes up.

[Rangerrich99]

Sc1: let him have the wallet and back away out of grabbing/punching distance.

Many, many moons ago I assisted my sensei as one of his instructors in both Judo and Tae Kwon Do. He also taught a street self-defense class, and the first thing he'd say to new students was, if a BG wants your wallet or your keys or even your shoes, just say, "ok," and give them whatever they wanted. His rationale was no piece of personal property is worth your life. Of course, in the classroom/dojo is one thing, in real life things can get a little stickier quick.

So it's probably no surprise that as a younger man I sometimes forgot that guideline and got into an altercation with some idjit over my keys or wallet. Now I'm getting too old for that sort of thing, but miraculously I haven't had a real confrontation in some time either. So I'd like to think I'd simply say, "ok, have it," and step back away from said idiot.

If not . . . At :24 seconds into the video, the BG's body language goes from he wants to leave, to he is going to attack the victim. He takes a small step back with his right foot, right shoulder goes back, head tips forward slightly, etc. This was the victim's last chance to back away from the assault, most likely.

If I were standing there and saw all those tells, hopefully my hands would've come up in a defensive posture, hands still open about chin high, step quickly to my right away from the BG's line of escape, chin down, knees flexed slightly, feet a bit more than shoulder-width apart. About one second later, the guy throws a decent right cross, which appears to make good contact; victim's head twists pretty quickly to his right. And, in my opinion, it looks like a very well-executed cross. Elbow stays high, shoulders and hips snap into the punch, right heel comes completely off the ground, pretty close to properly timed. The punch had good velocity and a lot of the attacker's body weight was behind that punch.

Chances are the victim's pretty hurt right there. Like seeing stars hurt. The victim takes a swing, but there's almost no speed on it and the next punch drops him fast. The victim is done at that point, but the BG keeps after him.

If I somehow got myself in that position, I'd roll onto my back, keep my hands up near my head, elbows locked to my sides, and kick out at the BG's knees, twisting(crawfishing) myself at all times to keep my head as far away from the guy as possible. Assuming I wasn't totally out of it. But even at this point, unless my kicks caused the BG to back off a step or two, he's really too close, in my opinion, to draw my weapon without risking him just jumping on top of me and wrestling him for it. Of course, if he started in with the big jumping stomps, I'd likely have to risk it.

Sc2: As a bystander, such as the guy with the case of beer, who left about one second before that first punch, I'd probably have done something stupid and tried to intervene. Would I have used my gun? Since I'm staring 50 in the face now, probably yes, I'd draw my weapon and order the idiot to stop and leave fast. My main concern at that point would be how badly was the victim hurt. If the attacker showed me all of those tells at that point? I'd like to think I could find a way out of that situation without having to shoot the idiot. But considering the attacker's size, strength and speed, if he took a step in my direction wanting to do to me what he did to the victim, I'd probably press the trigger.

Or smash that case of beer down on that guy's head just as hard as I could manage.

[Deaf Smith]

Gerald Ung. Attacked by four people with the whole thing on video, then still prosecuted by the DA and sued in a civil court after being acquitted of criminal charges.

Ung came out of a bar... where he had been drinking. Now if you intend to go drinking and then end up in a SD situation, fine with me. But in the case we are taking about, he didn't. Plus this ain't Philadelphia. This is Texas.

Show me a case where in Texas someone savagely beaten, defended themselves, AND a video of the incident was in evidence and were sued.

You guys keep worrying about what you 'think' might/maybe happen and your horrors of being maybe sued... I won't. I live in Texas and don't sweat it.

Deaf

[OldMarksman]

Show me a case where in Texas someone savagely beaten, defended themselves, AND a video of the incident was in evidence and were sued.

When I was in a prior life, "show me case where..." was on a list of "famous last words". The fact that we might not know the existence of an identical previous case, or that the defendant might have faired well in such a case, is not a good basis on which to build legal strategy or to make business decisions.

Circumstances, juries, and other things vary far too much to predict with any certainly the outcome of the legal process on the basis of similar incidents.

The victim in this case is certainly not going to be sued. He did not use excessive force.

Of course, he was injured, and that video shows that he could most likely have avoided that very readily.

Had the victim been armed and had he tried to resort to deadly force , things would likely taken a different course. One possible outcome might be the exoneration of the actor under the provisions of Code Section 9.42, unique to Texas. But the victim would not have enjoyed the ride or the aftermath.

Another possible outcome might involve the victim having his own gun used on him.

He had great opportunities to avoid either outcome, based on the video.

And had the thing gone father in the legal process, the video could have been what proved to be the victim's undoing.

It doesn't matter who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. What matters is the little matter of what was necessary.

Me? I surely would not have been so imprudent as to stand around displaying my money in a public place. And I would certainly not have tried to block the door to prevent the departure of a fleeing felon.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

Show me a case where in Texas someone savagely beaten, defended themselves, AND a video of the incident was in evidence and were sued.

I'd guess there at least a half dozen of those cases every year in Texas involving police officers being attacked by suspects.
<snip>
And as in this case, if you wait until you are being savagely beaten to pull the gun, then even drawing the gun is an iffy proposition. So the point where it would be tactically wisest to draw a gun is also often the point where it is on less solid ground legally and the optics are going to be very bad.

Getting back to the tactics discussion, at what point would you draw your gun if you were the guy in the video and armed? How would you create the space for that to happen? How far would you have to let it go in order to avoid drawing the ire of groups looking to make more money off your misfortune?

[Deaf Smith]

Guess you guys don't have any cases of citizens... right? In TEXAS?

Deaf

[OldMarksman]

Guess you guys don't have any cases of citizens... right? In TEXAS?

That would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what might transpire in a future incident.

[Evan Thomas]

I've edited or deleted some posts. This is the Tactics & Training forum -- political issues are off-topic.

[ATN082268]

How you would behave in a situation on a internet forum may be very different from that in real life. I remember a situation I had at a gas station about 6 months ago. I won't bore you with the details but tactically, the best decision for me was to retreat. Humble and alive beats macho and dead...

[Deaf Smith]

That would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what might transpire in a future incident.

Past behavior bears on what may transpire in a future incident. It's called, uh, a track record.

Deaf

[OldMarksman]

Past behavior bears on what may transpire in a future incident. It's called, uh, a track record.

We are not speaking of "behavior" here. The discussion has to do with the history and possible applicability of prior events.

"Track record"? Nope. Anyone with any understanding whatsoever of the subject of making projections from prior data knows that....

1. There must have been sufficient exposure to possible occurrences to provide the likelihood of an adequate sample size
2. The sample size must be sufficient
3. There must be a way to dustinguish among the effects of the different variables.
4. The data must be recorded

None of these conditions exist here.

Let's look for a moment at number four.

Anyone with any experience at all in the civil court system knows that, for reasons having to do with time and expense and risk, the attorneys for the defendants will very often advise settling out of court, and the clients will often do so. AND when that happens, the outcome is not made public.

That also impinges on numbers one, too, and three.

As I said before, "when I was in a prior life, 'show me case where...' was on a list of "famous last words". The fact that we might not know the existence of an identical previous case, or that the defendant might have faired well in such a case, is not a good basis on which to build legal strategy or to make business decisions."

That's not untested theory. That is the fact of sad experience, sometimes most unpleasant indeed for those who relied upon that unsound idea.

Now, the civil immunity laws have no doubt reduced the frequency of civil suits.

Provisions in the law that call for failed plaintiffs to be responsible for the legal expenses of defendants sound helpful, but does anyone here really think that the perp in the video would have the wherewithal to pay the bill? If not, just who would be left holding the bag?