Thoughts on a local robbery.

[Lohman446]

I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. From an employer stand point I would much prefer you hand over the money, step back, and then defend yourself if things continue to escalate. I still think this is the most likely way for the employee to walk away unharmed and it is for certain the most likely way for everyone to walk away unharmed. This is not a situation where compliance necessarily results in someone being injured (or not) or where non-compliance and escalation results in the employee not being injured (or being injured).

It is possible that compliance results in everyone walking away unharmed as they did in the incident. It is possible compliance has a different outcome and either the clerk or robber or injured. I don't think compliance changes the tactical outlook from the time compliance was demanded. If the knife and attacker were super dangerous at that moment they were equally dangerous after compliance. Compliance MAY embolden a robber. It may also give a moment for the victim to overcome the surprise and gain some distance - and distance against a knife is important.

It is possible that non-compliance and drawing a firearm results in everyone walking away unharmed as well. It is also possible, even with a firearm, that the clerk is injured or killed. Of course there is the possibility the robber is injured or killed as well.

I have thought back to the time I can remember I was in some "similar" situation that I have shared here. There were three individuals in front of me, all of whom I judged to be high on meth, and all of whom were fairly light in stature. I do not know if the individuals in question were armed or not. We had a "discussion" at the counter where they demanded a rental truck that I simply did not have on the premises so could not rent them. There were various suggestions made and the demands became more and more aggressive. When I informed them I was working alone (an error on my part) and as such could not go to another location to retrieve a truck one of them made a remark about my safety when working alone and one of them placed his hands on the counter - a signal I took to indicate he was coming over. I took three steps back into an aisle behind me to assure that no-one could quickly come from the side (the end of the counter is open), placed my hand very visibly on my pistol, and informed him I felt perfectly safe working alone.

The situation very quickly ended. The officer I discussed it with said it was handled well and basically shrugged it off as "no harm no foul".

Now in fairness this is rather different then the situation described. No demand (that could be readily complied with) was made and no weapon was ever produced or indicated by the "customers". Unlike the clerk in question I did feel things were going to escalate quickly and out of hand.

Compliance does not require one give up all defensive position. Non-compliance does not require violent non-compliance. I have heard of bank tellers informing a robber, politely, that they would not or could not comply with demands and having the robbery thwarted as the individual just walked away.

My belief is that if you do not feel that compliance is going to remedy the situation it should only be used to gain a tactical advantage if at all. If it is going to remedy the situation it not worth the problems associated with violent defense or the threat thereof.

I still say we are all reading the dangers of that knife differently. While I respect that a knife is a very dangerous weapon at close range and this was at close range I think the obstacle is important. Further I don't think that knife becomes any more or less dangerous after compliance. Its still a threat as long as the person is standing there.

[OldMarksman]

From an employer stand point I would much prefer you hand over the money,....

Almost all employers feel that way.

It is possible that compliance results in everyone walking away unharmed as they did in the incident.

Yes, it is.

I don't think compliance changes the tactical outlook from the time compliance was demanded.

There are at least a couple of ways that the "tactical outlook" can change.

The first relates to the distraction of the robber. Mas Ayoob's old "toss the weighted bills behind the robber" gambit might work. Gives the defender time to draw, or the robber the opportunity to flee.

That's not an option for someone scooping money out of a cash-box and handing it to the robber.

Another relates to the fact that the robber moves in closer to get the money and possibly to stab or grab the defender.

I have heard of bank tellers informing a robber, politely, that they would not or could not comply with demands and having the robbery thwarted as the individual just walked away.

I sure wouldn't want to bank on that, without an immediate means with which to back up my "polite" refusal.

Further I don't think that knife becomes any more or less dangerous after compliance.

The issues are time and distance. The defender will need as much of both as possible. If compliance detracts from wither and cause the ability to resist to be lost, compliance would not be a good idea. If ability to defend effectively is in doubt at the outset. Compliance may be indicated--and it may be fatal.

We do not have a picture of the layout or of the "obstacle", and only one who was present and who had some basic understanding of methods of self preservation could judge.

The victim in this case came out okay. Perhaps, under the circumstances, she acted prudently. Or perhaps she was just lucky.

[OldMarksman]

Demanding money and presenting a deadly weapon is as good of justification for use of deadly force in self-defense as I can think of.

And it is a very good one, in the eyes of the law.

I also agree that giving an attacker or potential attacker the benefit of doubt before using lethal force is risky and dangerous.

Absolutely. The other major risk is that trying to use lethal force can be hat precipitates the use of deadly force bu the robber.

With all that said, we use our best judgement in a lethal attack, and live or die with the decision. The ability make the best decision is conditional on having the training and experience necessary to understand and execute what is needed.

[Lohman446]

That's not an option for someone scooping money out of a cash-box and handing it to the robber.

I've been thinking about the handing over the cash thing. Thinking with a cool head about it handing over the cash gives me time to adjust my feet (presumably I am already at the counter). Further if I hand it over with my weak hand I can hand over the whole "drawer" (the insert that sits inside the drawer). This puts something more on the counter for someone to stumble on if they come over while hopefully giving the robber something to look at and "deal" with in getting the cash. As soon as it is down and there is any distraction I am backing up.

I should note nowhere in my scenario should one close the distance between the robber and themselves in order to comply. Distance and obstacles between you and a knife wielding threat are your friend.

[OldMarksman]

Thinking with a cool head about it handing over the cash gives me time to adjust my feet ....

Adjust your feet?

Further if I hand it over with my weak hand I can hand over the whole "drawer" (the insert that sits inside the drawer). This puts something more on the counter for someone to stumble on if they come over while hopefully giving the robber something to look at and "deal" with in getting the cash. As soon as it is down and there is any distraction I am backing up.

Again, look into some good, relevant FoF training.

I should note nowhere in my scenario should one close the distance between the robber and themselves in order to comply.

If you are putting money on the counter for the robber to take, you are closer to the robber than you should be.

[Lohman446]

Chances are I was already that close. There was a transaction

[OldMarksman]

Chances are I was already that close [(lose enough for putting money on the counter for the robber to take,]. There was a transaction.

Unless one has s already decided to hand over the money, remaining that close after hearing "all the money in the drawer, please" would not seem prudent at all.

Handing over the money may have been a good strategy. It did work--that time.

It is what the employer would want, but that ipolicy is not designed for the safety and well being of the employee.

Employees are terminated routinely after having used or threatened force, even when making deliveries, and even when that had likely been their only safe choice.

Here's what happened when a business owner was victimized in an armed robbery.

Claude Werner is a highly respected trainer.

https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress....armed-robbery/

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Handing over the money may have been a good strategy. It did work--that time.

It is what the employer would want, but that ipolicy is not designed for the safety and well being of the employee.

Employees are terminated routinely after having used or threatened force, even when making deliveries, and even when that had likely been their only safe choice.

I'm sure it is about the money involving lawsuits, insurance, etc. There is a real problem when someone has to jeopardize their safety to subsidize the misconduct of criminals.

[OldMarksman]

I'm sure it [(policies against resistance in a robbery)] is about the money involving lawsuits, insurance, etc.

Absolutely!

If the employee is maimed or killed, the employer is rarely liable. If the employee harms someone else, including an armed robber, the employer may be liable.

There is a real problem when someone has to jeopardize their safety to subsidize the misconduct of criminals.

Or just to have a job.

[Lohman446]

Before we go too far down the rabbit hole of divining the motives of others is anyone interested in presenting data on the risk of injury with compliance vs non-compliance?

I don't have the data but I'm willing to bet, in a large sample, compliance is less likely to result in injury to the victim than non-compliance. The differences though are going to present some awful confounding variables though.

[OldMarksman]

... is anyone interested in presenting data on the risk of injury with compliance vs non-compliance?

Been discussed here many times over he years.

I don't have the data but I'm willing to bet, in a large sample, compliance is less likely to result in injury to the victim than non-compliance.

Yes. And to a greater extent in a store robbery than in a parking lot encounter.

But that would not necessarily indicate in favor of compliance; "it's the stakes, not the odds".

Whether the circumstances are such that resistance would be more dangerous, and is something that has to be evaluated in each and every circumstance.

"Less likely"? How much less likely would it take to make that risk an advisable one to choose?

If there is a gun already pointed at me, I'm going to seriously consider compliance, but I would be very much afraid.

The jewelry store owner in Claude Werner's link had a gun pointed point blank at his face, and he aid that he knew that he had to draw and shoot.

Scary---but Werner endorsed that reaction.

[Lohman446]

I should clarify my point. Its a judgement call.

If you feel compliance is most likely to result in you walking away uninjured I believe you should comply.

If you feel that compliance is not the most likely method of walking away uninjured you should try something else.

[OldMarksman]

Its a judgement call.

If you feel compliance is most likely to result in you walking away uninjured I believe you should comply.

If you feel that compliance is not the most likely method of walking away uninjured you should try something else.

Yes indeed.

There is one other consideration. If armed resistance that leads to you fire a gun cannot be accomplished without undue risk to others, that should be weighed.

Good training takes that into account, by teaching the defender how to move to gain a clear shot, with a backstop if possible.

The clerk in the OP had little choice, with her gun at the other register.

[briandg]

Sometimes I see these situations and think that stalling tactics may work in real life as well as in the movies. Push the alarm, then fumble with the cash drawer, hand the entire cash drawer over, drop the money, drop the keys, hell, even throw up or piss your pants and you'll throw the guy off balance. stalling for even five minutes can make the difference life and death. a hostage type situation is usually better handled by letting time pass and de-escalation.

Judgement call at the time. If nothing else, these will all require the bad guy to distract himself and take his weapon out of play for a few seconds.

Handing over the till is a suggestion I got from a security consultant from my company. It's amazing how many dorks will take the change as well, moving the weapon to weak hand and putting pennies into their pockets. Won't it set the guy back a pace when he gets the cash tray and has to deviate from his original script? He also suggested that the victim tell the bad guy his name if possible. Make it more personal.

just one more possible move to lower the possibility of being hurt.

[jackstrawIII]

Shooting somebody isn't something one gets past easily either.

My thoughts exactly. No way I'd shoot someone over money, regardless of whose it was. Nightmares wouldn't be worth it.

[OldMarksman]

No way I'd shoot someone over money, regardless of whose it was.

Good thinking.

Of course, the purpose of defending oneself in an armed robbery is not to protect the money,

[briandg]

I've never felt good about killing or using extreme violence to preserve personal property, even if it's ten thousand dollars of home entertainment system..
It isn't entirely correct but I equate it with the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Life and limb, or such incredible potential damage that a jury of reasonable people would gasp in horror.

Theft or vandalism is one category of crime, not something that should be answered with extreme violence.

When a criminal is engaging in violence, violence that may have long term consequences for the victim, all restrictions of society end. Unlimited and unfettered force should be used.

I'm accepting that preventing burning a house Down justifies extreme violent measures.

Being slapped, or even punched, no. I don't think that without further threat of danger, extreme force is justified. Any serious, or continued attack, or a genuinely threatening action, these call for whatever action may be necessary, as believed by the victim. For personal violence, I generally subscribe to the generally accepted castle type laws, but I think that it tends to be rather liberal. I don't believe that a violent and potentially lethal force should be used against any but the most extreme property crime.

And just to be clear, property crime that also includes a genuine threat of personal harm isn't property crime. If a thief threatens a victim while stealing his television, you can just disregard the property crime in the decision. The guy aiming the deadly weapon has crossed the line into a new category, the category that should allow his victim to use any level of force necessary to protect life and health, both personal and otherwise.

[OldMarksman]

I've never felt good about killing or using extreme violence to preserve personal property, even if it's ten thousand dollars of home entertainment system.

Should someone actually do that, he or she will feel a whole lot worse afterward, even in the rare instances in which it might be lawful to do that.

The use of deadly force to defend tangible, movable property is only lawful in one US jurisdiction, and there, only in very specific circumstances