what would you do in a stick up situation?

[Nnobby45]

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

Blessed are those so bold as to think they can, in an instant, decide whether a robber is armed or not and have a seperate plan for dealing with either.

A weapon in a hand you can't see, or in a pocket can be rather difficult to spot.

Even more blessed are those who can formulate a plan for a dangerous situation and utilize it just like they had it planned in their head.

Not criticizing having a plan, but neither do I discount the importance of being quick of mind and feet in such matters. A boxer in a ring doesn't plan each move, but they do have tactics and strategy.

[David Armstrong]

Blessed are those so bold as to think they can, in an instant, decide whether a robber is armed or not and have a seperate plan for dealing with either.

A robber, armed or not, is still engaging in a robbery. Again, an armed assault is different than a robbery.

[Ridgerunner665]

I carry my wallet on the same side as my 45...If I could (depending on circumstances)...I'd probably shoot him then take his money. (No...I'm not kidding, times are hard around here...the loss of only $50 would mean the difference in whether or not my family has food to eat)

[Sparks2112]

I'd probably shoot him then take his money. (No...I'm not kidding)

While I agree with that for moral reasons, I can't help but think that it might get you in trouble if put to practice.

[Ridgerunner665]

Agreed...If I got caught.

[Hondo11]

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.

Robbery and Armed/Aggravated Robbery aren't the same thing. UCR lumps both types of Robbery together and we can assume that Armed/Aggravated Robberies are probably not the majority. We can also assume that most Robberies that are committed without the use of a weapon aren't likely to end up in a Murder. So that takes out a huge part of that 401,326.

988 of them resulted in a murder... But how many of them resulted in an injury to the victim? Just because it didn't result in a Murder doesn't mean the victim wasn't hurt. That makes the 988 number MUCH higher as well.

Yep, sounds pretty definitive...if you want to use it to back your position and start another condescending lecture.

Otherwise, not so much.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Interesting. So stealing money from bad people is OK? Or, is it only OK if you're using it to feed your family? I wonder if the hypothetical "BG" was just trying to feed his family.:barf:

[Ridgerunner665]

NO...stealing money is not OK.

But survival of the fittest is mother natures way...the "BG" got himself in this mess when he picked me...remember.

If it ever comes to that...I won't be robbing people to feed my family...I may get caught poaching game out of season, but I won't be the guy stealing purses at WalMart.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ah, the old "my behavior is justified by his behavior".

Wrong + Wrong = Right

I see.

[Ridgerunner665]

You still don't see my point...

And its clear to me that you never will.

[csmsss]

Interesting. So stealing money from bad people is OK? Or, is it only OK if you're using it to feed your family? I wonder if the hypothetical "BG" was just trying to feed his family.

Me? I wouldn't touch anything off a scumbag robber, but wouldn't feel the least bit offended if they hang the bastard's head on a pike in the town square. I'm sick to death of those who would treat criminals as victims and who might insist on some sort of proportionality in their treatment. Someone sticks a gun in my or anyone else's face? Deserves the very worst the law can provide - and then some.

Oh, and by the way....I'm happy I live in a state that provides the very common-sense doctrine that it is legal to defend one's or others' property with deadly force.

[Brian Pfleuger]

You still don't see my point...

And its clear to me that never will.

You're right I don't. Taking something you didn't earn or purchase is stealing. Whether it's a gallon of gas or a pad of paper from the office or the money in a dead guys pocket. Wrong is wrong.

Me? I wouldn't touch anything off a scumbag robber, but wouldn't feel the least bit offended if they hang the bastard's head on a pike in the town square. I'm sick to death of those who would treat criminals as victims and who might insist on some sort of proportionality in their treatment. Someone sticks a gun in my or anyone else's face? Deserves the very worst the law can provide - and then some.

With that I can agree.

[Ridgerunner665]

Hypothetical situation...

If you found a wrecked plane with $10,000,000 in a bag, about a ton of cocaine, and everybody on the plane was dead.

Would you turn the money in???

I wouldn't...but I'd darn sure leave the bag (No Country for Old Men)

I don't see anything wrong with turning "bad" money into "good".

[RainbowBob]

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.

Huh? What are you suggesting? Are you saying you DID cite the source of your assertion
(i.e., "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.)?

If so..I missed it somehow. Mea culpa.

On the other hand, if you did not provide a citation in this thread, are you suggesting I should do a forum-wide search or an internet-wide search of all possible variations on the theme in order to try and ascertain your source? How would would that be easier (and as accurate) as simply asking you to cite your source when making definitive statements that are presented as fact rather than opinion?

[RainbowBob]

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

I was thinking of armed robbery as an armed assault, although that is probably not a correct legal definition.

Robbery and Armed/Aggravated Robbery aren't the same thing. UCR lumps both types of Robbery together and we can assume that Armed/Aggravated Robberies are probably not the majority. We can also assume that most Robberies that are committed without the use of a weapon aren't likely to end up in a Murder. So that takes out a huge part of that 401,326.

988 of them resulted in a murder... But how many of them resulted in an injury to the victim? Just because it didn't result in a Murder doesn't mean the victim wasn't hurt. That makes the 988 number MUCH higher as well.

Peetzakiller's question had to do with whether or not MOST robberies resulted in murder. The data cited by Mr Armstong seems to definitively answer that question.

The OP's question (if I understand correctly) centered on whether or not it is tactically sound to resist an armed robbery with force, particularly if the firearm is actually in contact with the victim.

To answer the OP's question, it may be reasonable to suggest we disregard the outcomes of incidents in which the robber was not armed with a firearm.

It is also reasonable to consider robberies that resulted in injuries, rather than limit our consideration to those incidents that resulted in murder.

Now the question becomes: How many ARMED robberies result in injury or death to the victim?

I think it is safe to say that MOST robberies don't end in murder - but a MUCH higher proportion of armed robberies result in injury or death.

Having said that, if I'm being robbed, regardless of whether I see a weapon or not, I'm no longer inclined to wait to find out if this particular incident will result in injury or death.

I say "no longer inclined" because the only time I was robbed at gun-point (many years ago), I was unarmed and froze and gave it up (all $3). In this incident, the firearm was not in contact with my body. The robbers were in a car and had stopped me in a cross-walk (on a crowded street in broad daylight).

Although I didn't get shot, in retrospect I think I would have been smarter to take evasive action. Had I been armed, I think evasive action coupled with defensive ability would have presented better odds for avoiding injury or death than "stand and deliver".

In a recent news story (which I can't cite or link because I can't remember where I saw it) - a man was stuck up at gun-point at a gas station. The gun was in contact with his head and the BG stated that he was going to kill him. The victim was able to sweep the gun aside while drawing and firing his own, thus ending the threat and saving his life. My point for this unsubstantiated story is that if a BG has a gun to MY head, my assumption is that I WILL die, and have little to loose by taking action rather than surrendering.

That, of course, is a very personal decision that must be made based on the circumstances and gut sense.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Hypothetical situation...

If you found a dead guy on the street with $100 dollars in one hand and a baggie of crack in the other, would you take the money?

I wouldn't. I'd call the police.


$100 or $10,000,000, stealing is stealing.

[Stevie-Ray]

I'm with those that say,be very wary and aware of your surroundings at all times out in public.

+1, and I probably look very suspicious to most people, as I am constantly watching for anything that doesn't look quite right. I have come out of what I would otherwise call harmful situations, simply by seeing it beforehand and diffusing it before it started, sometimes with a look, sometimes by hand movement or something else entirely. Probably most of us have, even if we didn't know it.

If somebody truly got the drop on me, I can't say for sure what I'd do, it would depend on a whole lot of circumstances and variables.

[Nnobby45]

A robber, armed or not, is still engaging in a robbery. Again, an armed assault is different than a robbery.

David, that's not the point. Your life may depend on being able to determine if the robber is armed, and what he's armed with.

I'm not sure how an armed assault could be different from a robbery when both are happening at the same time. I doubt that you are either.

"Hey man, gi'mme ten bucks" may be the start of a robbery, armed or not, or it may be an act of intimidation that, in the eyes of the law, stops just short of a robbery.

[scorpion_tyr]

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.

1) Pretty fast when I need to be. 13 years of on and off training... probably enough to total 4-5 years steady. I've ran this exact drill w/ a digital stopwatch. From my first movement to my trigger pull is 2.25 seconds, 3.5 with proper aiming. What's better than that is I have 6 years BTDT experience. Much of that in countries where the common practice is to let you hand over your valuables so they don't waste time looking for them, and then kill you so there's no witness. This is common practice in some places, not the exception.

2) The OP said the BG was in contact range. Because of my experiences, and my confidence in knowing how I react I feel that as soon as the BG enters my "dead zone" he has put the odds in my favor. Anyone who gets that close is probably not trained at all.

My response was just what I would do. I would advise others to practice such drills and find out what works for them and what doesn't. Get an airsoft pistol and a buddy. Tell him to pull the trigger as soon as you move. You'll find out just how you need to move to prevent getting shot.

Would I get shot if I tried this? Maybe. Would I get shot if I complied? Maybe. Is it worth fighting back? Abolutely! Why? I love my guns and I don't want them in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to clean them properly.

[David Armstrong]

You still don't see my point...
And its clear to me that you never will.

I'm not sure I do either. I may get caught poaching game out of season, but I won't be the guy stealing purses at WalMart. So you think that your crime is better than somebody else's crime??

[David Armstrong]

Huh? What are you suggesting? Are you saying you DID cite the source of your assertion

I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying this has been done several times in the not-so-distant past, and rather than going through it all again you can find the information by searching a little bit. This issue is starting to reach the level of "Which is better, 9mm or .45".

[David Armstrong]

David, that's not the point.

Of course that is the point. If we are discussing robberies one does not mix them up with armed asssaults. They are two very different things.

I'm not sure how an armed assault could be different from a robbery when both are happening at the same time. I doubt that you are either.

I am quite sure that I know the difference. I would suggest that if one does not know the difference one should probably find out the difference before commenting, since there is obviously a problem in understanding the issue.

"Hey man, gi'mme ten bucks" may be the start of a robbery, armed or not, or it may be an act of intimidation that, in the eyes of the law, stops just short of a robbery.

Actually, if there is intimidation with that phrase, a robbery is in progress. Again, it is important to understand what words and concepts mean if one wishes to comment on them.

[RainbowBob]

I am saying this has been done several times in the not-so-distant past, and rather than going through it all again you can find the information by searching a little bit.

Mr Armstrong:
When you say "...this has been done..." - what are you referring to? What "this" do you mean?

Please give me a clue where to start my search for "this". I am not being facetious here, I really would not know where to begin to search for a reference or citation for your declaration, "If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit."

I do not understand why you are so defensive about your comments, and refuse to either provide a source for your statement or own it as your personal opinion.

There is nothing wrong with sharing your personal opinion here - unless you characterize it as "fact" supported by empirical evidence gleaned from peer-reviewed studies.

Heck, 99.95% of what is written on forums is comprised of personal opinions (in my personal opinion).

[R1145]

...not your wallet. Even if you are able to get him, it will end up costing you far more than what's in your wallet.

When I was in basic training, we were issued batons and posted at loading docks, etc. The Sergeant of the Guard was giving us our special orders, and one of the trainees asked what to do if confronted with a gun.

"Son," said the drill, "If he's got a gun, you help him load the [sic] truck!"

Your first course of action should be to be the best witness possible, get a license plate number, call the cops, etc. The system works pretty well in this country, if you give it a chance to work.

An earlier comment spoke about using lethal force to defend property. In this situation, you are defending your life, so self-defense is an option. If the robber is running away, and THEN you shoot him, well, you're on thinner ice...

You'd have to make some quick decisions in the situation described. You would probably be legally justified if you used lethal force. For moral and legal reasons, any sensible person will avoid that option except as a last resort.

If you draw and shoot against a man covering you with a gun, you have a surprisingly good chance, but it depends on many factors (not least of which is luck...) and you're betting with your life.

I'd look for my chance, I guess. I'd give up my wallet. I would not allow myself to be transported, because that drastically cuts the odds of survival.

[Keltyke]

If you draw and shoot against a man covering you with a gun, you have a surprisingly good chance,

Really? It takes between .5 and 1 second for the average human to be aware of and react to a movement. Are you SURE you can disarm or incapacitate him in that brief instant? Can you draw and fire in that time? If you fail in the famous "sweep the gun" maneuver, he's gonna recover and kill you dead. If it's a revolver and cocked, you're dead anyway. He'll be able to pull the trigger before you can "sweep" completely and get out of the muzzle line. Try it with some buddies using squirt guns.

If I'm SURE I'm gonna die anyway, I'll try it. Until then, it's your world, fella. You ninjas can go for it.

I'm outta here!