what would you do in a stick up situation?

[Bauer]

Give the person whatever items they wanted. If they wanted my life...Krav Maga.

[cjw3cma]

(#1) I never park where it is dark when I go shopping. Well lighted areas only. If one is not available I will find another store to stop into.

(#2) If a BG does happen to get the drop on me then I agree to give them what they want - they want my wallet I'll give it to them. Being that I am aware of my surroundings I will drop it trying to act as nervous as possible to distract them ever so much. If I am able to distract so I can get to my 1911, then I will. But I will NOT if I am not sure I will "win".

I'm not the cowboy or hero mentality kind of concealed carry person. If I am not 100% sure that I will "win" in the outcome, the BG can have all of my stuff - I may drop everything they want until.............................

Give the person whatever items they wanted. If they wanted my life...Krav Maga.

Lichtenfeld's methods are sound / solid - but you need to know what you are doing - do you practice?

[Mausberg]

since when does a theif "ask" for your goods? haha i think when he says start peelin, its a bit more of a life or death demand


you also have to take into consideration you CCW holders and carriers, that he could have his gun on you, search you, and find your. now your helpless

[Brian Pfleuger]

you also have to take into consideration you CCW holders and carriers, that he could have his gun on you, search you, and find your. now your helpless

Absolutely positively. That's why situational awareness is key and we should all work our best at achieving it. We had this conversation in a recent thread. When somebody pokes a gun in your back you have VERY few options and none of them are very good.

[ZeSpectre]

Real world answers to the OP's question.

Flatiron got caught flatfooted.
http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=164445

Zespectre Ambushed in DC
http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=274291

WildAlaska caught off guard
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ghlight=robbed

[Sodbuster75]

"Do most stick-ups end in fatalities?"

"No, they do not. In fact the huge majority of armed robberies of all type end without the BG causing any major physical harm to anyone. The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying."

Sadly, there is no guarantee that your attacker will not kill you even though you fully complied with his requests. Although not common, it does happen. I work in Minneapolis, and about a year and a half ago here a family was exiting a restaurant when two men robbed them at gunpoint and demanded the mother's purse. If I remeber correctly, the adult son told his mom to give them the purse, and when she did, the son was shot anyway. He died from his wounds. The police did arrest them after a couple days, but it goes to show that you are at their mercy if they get the drop on you.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Sadly, there is no guarantee that your attacker will not kill you even though you fully complied with his requests.

There are never any guarantees. Fighting back doesn't guarantee success. It's not about guarantees, it's about maximizing your chances of walking away. Sometimes that means cooperating, sometimes it means shooting. Situations like this are unique and dynamic. No action is correct for every situation or even from one second to the next. All we can do is read the tea leaves and act accordingly.

[David Armstrong]

Sadly, there is no guarantee that your attacker will not kill you even though you fully complied with his requests.

There are no guarantees, just probabilities. If you start shooting at someone who has a gun, the probability that you will be shot at is fairly high. If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit.

[ActivShootr]

next reach into your bag of groceries that you had been carrying and grab the can of mixxed vegetables in your right hand and quickly and firmly bring it in contact with the opponets vital area.........

And dent mama's Veg-All? I don't think so...

You could always use your ninja-like skills to take his gun away. Hey, it works on TV.

[hogdogs]

SA, SA, And SA!!!
I had a buddy that was held up outside a "gentlemen's club" near closing time. He tells me the story and then finishes with, "If I woulda had my...." I stopped him cold and finished the setence for him... "... just put a snubby nose .38 in a crooks hands." It does no good to be armed and unaware. I swiftly delivered elbow shot to their snot locker should it happen to me but first you have to get thru my personal defense zone to rob me.
Brent

[Larry Spencer]

Just do what this man did: 70yr Old Louisville Man Survives Armed Holdup

[scorpion_tyr]

It is true that one cannot describe every detail and circumstance of any hypthetical senario. Taking just the information that you have said my answer is this:

In a split second I have to make the a decision. I can either surrender or fight. Fleeing in such a senario isn't really an option. No matter what I do the outcome will be that I will either live or I will die.

I will very calmly tell the BG something like this: "I'll give you everything. You don't have to shoot me, it's not worth it. I'll give you everything and I'll go home and you'll walk away with my money and valuables. I'm going to reach down and give you my wallet"

At this point I slowly move my right hand down to my wallet. Once my hand is as close to my weapon as it can be without letting the BG know it's there I explode with movement. I quicly turn to and move to the right, knocking his weapon to the left with my elbow or arm. With my left hand and/or one of my legs I push and/or kick him as far away as possible while drawing my firearm. I immediately take aim. If I have time I tell him something like "Drop the gun or I'll shoot you and kill you." If he doesn't do as I tell him to, or as soon as the muzzle on his gun begins to move in my direction, or if he makes any kind of movement I take as hostile, I open fire. I shoot until his gun contacts the ground or I run out of ammo.

That's the best answer I can give. I don't surrender to his threat because of three main reasons:

1. If he gets my gun that will only give one more BG the means to kill an innocent person. I'd die to keep that from happening.

2. He's a BG and I'm really sick and tired of BG's. I really wish I lived in a world where I didn't feel the need to have a firearm. I wouldn't have guns if none of the BG's had them.

3. I've defended myself from lethal force using hand to hand combat before. I know exactly how I react in such situations and I feel cofident I can take the average BG quick enough and long enough to pull my weapon. If the BG is close that close to me, he's close enough for me to engage him and I believe that because of my experiences and training I have the upper hand in that situation.

I'll be the first to admit that if the BG were to engage me using tactics that gave him the upper hand, and if I believed he would shoot me if I resisted and would let me live if I didn't, I would gladly hand over whatever he wanted. Until it came to my gun that is. I am a firm believer I am responsible for all of the firearms that I own, and every single bullet that goes through it's barrel. The only way to relinquish that responsibility is to transfer ownership of the firearm to someone who I believe to be just as mature and responsible as I am (another good guy). I'll die trying to keep my guns out of the hands of rapists, murderers, etc.

[ActivShootr]

^ good luck with that.

[hillbillyshooter]

In Ohio we're not allowed to use deadly force to protect property. Drawing your gun could make the guy mad (because you're not following the rules). He might even sue you for turning a simple exchange of property into an actual gunfight...

You have to protect the property between your ears. Gotta love the legal system. You would probably get more time than him even if he has 4 other felony convictions. Prosecutor would negatively skew it because the BG was outgunned with his Pheonix .25 and you had your "man killing" .45 auto that will be claimed was overkill for personal defense.

[Keltyke]

^ good luck with that.

I'll second that remark!

Go ahead, Mr. Norris, try your ninja stuff. Let's hope the BG isn't better trained than you.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Let's hope the BG isn't better trained than you.

Trained? Hell, you better hope he'd doesn't have his finger on the trigger. One quick move and BANG. All that dodge this and that will be a might tougher with a bullet in you and more on the way.

I know exactly how I react in such situations and I feel cofident I can take the average BG quick enough and long enough to pull my weapon.

Problem is, you have to pull your weapon, at least point it and pull the trigger. The BG has to pull the trigger. Two things:

1)How fast do you think you are? Unless you have YEARS of training (and not 2 or 3 "years") you have virtually NO chance.

2)What makes you think the BG is going to be in contact range? Sure if the gun is poking you in the back then you might have stellar odds, like 1 in a million. If he's 3 feet away, they go to about 0.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just a question - before one speculates on chances - how many folks have tried this scenario in some kind of FOF class?

I've seen guns drawn and shot against someone who has the drop on you. I've seen folks get off the X of a drawn gun. I've seen folks get 'shot' by trying such.

There are no guarantees but one should try it.

[RainbowBob]

The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying...If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit.

Mr Armstrong:
Can you cite some kind of reference for those statements - or are they simply your personal opinion?


What about this?

Victim resistance can be passive or verbal, but much of it is active and forceful. Potentially, the most consequential form of forceful resistance is armed resistance, especially resistance with a gun. This form of resistance is worthy of special attention for many reasons, both policy-related and scientific. The policy-related reasons are obvious: if self-protection with a gun is commonplace, it means that any form of gun control that disarms large numbers of prospective victims, either altogether, or only in certain times and places where victimization might occur, will carry significant social costs in terms of lost opportunities for self-protection.

On the other hand, the scientific reasons are likely to be familiar only to the relatively small community of scholars who study the consequences of victim self-protection: the defensive actions of crime victims have significant effects on the outcomes of crimes, and the effects of armed resistance differ from those of unarmed resistance. Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.[6] Cook[7] offers his unsupported personal opinion concerning robbery victims that resisting with a gun is only prudent if the robber does not have a gun. The primary data source on which Cook relies flatly contradicts this opinion. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.[8]

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.

[Brian Pfleuger]

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.[8]

I'll just say that "robber has a gun" is substantially different than "robber has a gun aimed at you".

and... it should be common sense obvious that if you resist a gun toting BG when you DON'T have a gun then you are more likely to get hurt than if you DO have a gun.

and... I'd like the definition of "hurt" in their study. I'd rather be "hurt" than dead.

[RainbowBob]

I'll just say that "robber has a gun" is substantially different than "robber has a gun aimed at you".

"Robber has a gun" INCLUDES all robbers with guns pointed at a victim. To be included in the studies, the victim had to be aware the assailant had a gun. The difference between a gun in hand and a gun actually aimed at you may not be that significant. It is likely that a gun in hand can be aimed and fired faster than we can draw and fire. And yet the data strongly suggests that you are safer resisting with a gun than not resisting at all, as was asserted by Mr Armstrong.

and... it should be common sense obvious that if you resist a gun toting BG when you DON'T have a gun then you are more likely to get hurt than if you DO have a gun.

Yes. But the point I'm trying to make is that being armed and resisting an armed assault with your gun increases your odds of avoiding injury and death over not resisting at all.

and... I'd like the definition of "hurt" in their study. I'd rather be "hurt" than dead.

I think it is safe to assume that "dead" is included in the definition of "hurt".

[Pyzon]

I'm sorta late checking in on this but for Milspec, a fellow Buckeye-here is some recent (April '08) good news regarding self preservation in Ohio.

If you didn't know this happened blame it on the media, they obviously don't cover good news.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5602

[Brian Pfleuger]

"Robber has a gun" INCLUDES all robbers with guns pointed at a victim.

I don't disagree with that. My point is that the "hurt" statistic doesn't differentiate between the two. It seems very likely that more injuries result from the "gun pointed at you" resistance than "has a gun" resistance.

I think it is safe to assume that "dead" is included in the definition of "hurt".

I would assume so also. Which is why I say I'm not sure I'd put much faith in those numbers because "hurt" could be dead or it could be a hang nail. If they don't make a distinction then non resistance could get you hurt (for example) 70% of the time with a knock on the head and dead 10%, whereas resistance with a gun could get you dead 30% of the time and otherwise hurt 20% of the time. If they don't makes distinction it seems better to resist but in reality you could be 3X more likely to die. I'm not necessarily looking to avoid injury, I'm looking to not die.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

peetza,

I think this is taking us back to these "academic statistics" which as rainbow has shown say all sorts of things. I guess I like some of the old rules of thumb that I have seen posted here before like Kathy Jackson and others have done. It seems to me that the minute we start quoting these "studies" without laying out what they mean we will get contradictions.

Crime "studies" are like all studies in that depending on the questions asked and the way the data is collected may contradict each other. I use coffee as an example, every few years a "study" comes out that coffee is good/bad for you. I just drink the stuff and make sure I am near a bathroom and don't drink the leaded stuff after 7:00 PM!

Anyway, thanks rainbow for publishing the reference. Some who post here won't do it but get ****** off when asked for the study and I thank you for your courtesy.

There are no guarantees but one should try it.

Now Glenn, there we have a strong case of agreement. I think FoF would show me more than conflicting studies. Where do you go to get all this FoF training?

[RainbowBob]

Anyway, thanks rainbow for publishing the reference. Some who post here won't do it but get ****** off when asked for the study and I thank you for your courtesy.

I've noticed that. In any case, I was specifically asking if Mr Armstrong had any data supporting his seemingly "definitive" answer to peetzakiller's question: "Do most stick-ups end in fatalities?" *

No, they do not. In fact the huge majority of armed robberies of all type end without the BG causing any major physical harm to anyone. The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying.

Not trying to pick on anyone, but IMO, an answer as definitive as "No, they do not" should either be supported by some kind of data or qualified as a personal opinion.

[David Armstrong]

Mr Armstrong:
Can you cite some kind of reference for those statements

Yes I can and yes I have. Might want to do a search, save us all some time, trouble, etc.

Yes. But the point I'm trying to make is that being armed and resisting an armed assault with your gun increases your odds of avoiding injury and death over not resisting at all.

Are we discussing armed assault or are we discussing robbery? The two are very different.

In any case, I was specifically asking if Mr Armstrong had any data supporting his seemingly "definitive" answer to the OP's question: "Do most stick-ups end in fatalities?"

Just the Uniform Crime Reports, which show that, for example, in 2004 there were 401,326 robberies and only 988 that resulted in a murder. Seems pretty definitive to me.