How do you react?

[buzz_knox]

I've heard LEOs describe the increased willingness of criminals to eliminate witnesses due three strikes laws.

Perhaps we should inquire of thieves about their conviction status during the robbery? One strike we don't worry, while two we engage.

[David Armstrong]

Unusual and out of the norm?

Yes.

Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir.

What is on the news has little bearing on how common or uncommon an event is. For example, in 2007 the UCR lists 445,125 robberies in the U.S. and 16,929 murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Even if one assumed all murders were the result of robberies, that would be one in about 26. It's not that high, of course, and IIRC the actual number is closer to 1 out of 400, which I think everyone would agree is out of the norm.

The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.

Then you have obviously missed the point, as nowhere do I say one should trust the criminal for much of anything.

You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there.

Again we see a basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works. If you are having success without killing, why change your M.O. to make it harder/worse on you?

It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.

No, that is not a fact. Criminals tend to find something that works and stick with it. There is some escalation at times, just as there is some de-escalation, but the norm again is to repeat what works.

[hogdogs]

My use of the word "terrorism" is not based on the government description... It is used because TFL members say "don't shoot the deviant person with a gun because they only intend to scare people... not hurt them..."
Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!
If I was in the scenario mentioned with out a firearm or knife I would still attack the punks with my waffle fork!
I refuse to comply with demands from lesser humans. The only way to live for me is to fight crime with force. If no one were to comply with these demands than muggins and robberies would be very rare! BUTCH UP And demand that your civil rights are not trampled by criminals!
Brent

[AnonymousOne]

Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!

Care to try again?

Originally Posted by American_Heritage_Dictionary

ter·ror·ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I bolded part of that because of the actual working legal definitions.

[hogdogs]

You clarified for me...
"often" is not a chipped in stone term...
"OFTEN" They are just trying to force folks to come off their wallet!
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing....
Sounds alot like the intended affect of rushing into the waffle house with guns drawn...
You get a cookie for realizing that armed robbery is as much terrorism as blowing up a building.
The first case of "WAR ON TERROR" I can remember is when a young man shot punks on a subway in New York back many years.
Brent

[David Armstrong]

I refuse to comply with demands from lesser humans.

Once again we see that concerns with ego often lead to bad decisions. If you choose to attack multiple offenders armed with guns with your trusty waffle fork, I predict it will likely be a one-time event and will not change the outcome of the robbery, but will result in your family needlessly going to a premature funeral.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing....
Sounds alot like the intended affect of rushing into the waffle house with guns drawn

Except you chose to cut the definition off at a key point. I doubt that rushing the waffle house with guns drawn will have much intimidation or coercive effect on societies and governments. You seem to be confusing "terrorize" with "terrorism."

[FrontSight]

That Oklahoma 1978 killing was repeated around the year 1999 / 2000 in a NYC Wendy's, almost exactly the same. It astounds me what evil lurks in this world.

[hogdogs]

David A., that is a possibility... However I also know that if many of these so called thugs are confronted by a crazy redneck in an instant and violent defense they will show the cowardice they possess. If anyone gets close enuff to receive my goods first hand they are close enuff for me to attack. I will consider the possibility of taking their gun from them. i know these individuals expect utter compliance so I will do my best to throw them off kilter. I will do my best to take his life with any tools available. Broken water glass to the throat, ceramic plate to the bridge of the nose... My hand crammed down his throat... I don't care if I die as long as I do not die sitting on my laurels. I will not curr out for any one... EVER!
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If anyone gets close enuff to receive my goods first hand they are close enuff for me to attack.

So you qualify your actions based on distance? I take it the qualification means that if you are long way down the length of the restaurant, you don't start the gun fight from there or charge down the aisle? You let them empty the register and leave?

[hogdogs]

Yes society is US!!! If they get away with the crimes enuff than SOCIETY will be in fear of going out to eat... Matter of fact many here would not go out to eat with out a gun. If enuff folks get mugged walking down the sidewalk at night that society will fear walking around at night. If enuff islamic radicals hi-jack planes and crash them society will fear flying.
I dislike it very much when supposedly sane law abiding citizens minimize the actions of violent criminals. Sounds like a defense attorney.... "My client doen't deserve these penalties as he just meant to scare the people into giving him free money..."
You handle it how you choose, I will handle it how I see fit. Nut if we are in the place together... you better be ready because they may go nuts when I toss a wrench in their plans...
Brent

[David Armstrong]

However I also know that if many of these so called thugs are confronted by a crazy redneck in an instant and violent defense they will show the cowardice they possess.

Just as many will respond with violence. Seems pretty counterproductive. Let's be sebnsible. You have a gun, the other guy has a fork. Fork man starts yelling and charges you with the fork. Are you going to shoot or run??

I will not curr out for any one... EVER!

Sigh. Planning to act in a sensible fashion to maximize the chances of not just you but others in the vicinity is good common sense. That you would consider it curring out says a lot. Even John Wayne knew when to back down!

Matter of fact many here would not go out to eat with out a gun.

And yet millions of people manage to do that every day without too many problems.

I dislike it very much when supposedly sane law abiding citizens minimize the actions of violent criminals.

And I dislike it very much when some supposedly sane law abiding citizen decides that they will make things worse and put the life of me and my loved ones in danger for their ego.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Didn't really answer my question, if you were responding to me.

[hogdogs]

Glenn, If I am without a firearm, distance is crucial. Too far away and I will not have the element of surprise I need to affect a strong arm attack on an armed man. if I cannot affect a productive attack i will wait and if they leave then yes they get away. No I won't try to make a running start as it is likely suicide. But if they intend to include me directly in their scheme I will resist with or without a typical, accepted weapon.
brent

[hogdogs]

Fork man starts yelling and charges you with the fork... NOT ME!!! It will be a silent and instant attack. I do not offer warnings or guttural announcements of my intentions... Along with that fork stab I will also be trying to sweep his legs out... I have 4 limbs and will use them all...
The others around me are on their own as I am... Best of luck to them...
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, that's reasonable - my view is whether the attack would be productive and help out in the situation. That's the crux of the matter for me.

[Hondo11]

David,

You said that robbers rarely injure their victims and used that as your rationale for compliance. Someone pointed out that several dead victims had the same thought process and you spun that to bolster your argument by saying that they, in fact, proved your point as they were an exception to the rule.

I think that's ridiculous. Being an exception to the rule doesn't make you un-dead. That was my point about not waiting to see if you were the lucky 9 out of 10 or the poor bastard who gets killed.

Of course, you can't just run around, blazing away. But if/when the opportunity presents itself (you have the tactical advantage), I believe you should act rather than allow them to control the situation.

Regarding the other comment I addressed ("just because he's brandishing a gun doesn't mean it's a gunfight")...When you take it out of context, no it doesn't make sense. Of course, a gunfight is when they're going "bang". My point was to argue against the "just sit and wait" point of view. If a gunfight is going to break out, then I want to be the guy starting it. Like I said, I want to be getting the FIRST and ONLY shots off.

And no, the "shear aggression" remark wasn't "spouting cliche". And I never said to scream like a banshee and run across the restaurant or engage when you have a tough shot and innocent people likely to be hit. The point is to offer a different perspective.

Compliance and being a willing victim is one side if the coin. Taking the fight to the criminal is another. One common small unit tactic (a single person would be a small unit) when you are the one being ambushed (the robber has a tactical advantage over you) is to immediately charge the ambush. The same principle can apply in some self-defense scenarios. When you are at a disadvantage and behind the reactionary curve, you don't have a lot going for you. Sometimes the only way out is to go full force...when it gets nasty, you get nastier. That's the last thing they typically expect from anyone and believe it or not, badguys freeze up too. That can be to your advantage.

You offer your opinion and I'll offer mine. Personally, I don't think my wife is going to feel any better know that when the criminal dumped me, it was just an exception to the rule.

[buzz_knox]

The correct answer to every one of these kind of questions is, "it depends on the circumstances at the time."

If you condition yourself to sit and watch, you may find yourself fighting said conditioning when things go pear shaped. That delay could kill you.

If you condition yourself to fight, you may find yourself getting into a situation where shooting wasn't necessarily the best chance.

Shooting isn't always the best option but being a good witness might end up with your becoming a headless corpse.

[pax]

Buzz,

Good summary.

The real problem with online discussions like that is that so many people want kindergarten answers to PhD questions, and are rarely content with a thoughtful, "It really depends ..."

pax

[Hondo11]

You asked for them. Here are a few examples after about 11 seconds of Googling.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297027,00.html
Committed a robbery/murder, then stopped to shoot a 7-month old baby, execution style. (Guess the baby wasn't complying)

http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=7768814
4th sentence....killed after surrendering cash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0m4dn0hVRI
Here's a video for you. Guy hands over money, doesn't resist, and gets killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_WrjDsbO4U
Oh gosh, here's another video of a non-resisting store clerk getting killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Bif8JjX0o
Yet another one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d4IL77KzpU
These guys were walking out the door when the one with the gun turns to shoot the non-resisting clerk.

I guess I could find more, but what would be the point? All these people were exceptions to the rule, so that should make them feel better. Oh wait, they can't feel anything. They're dead.

[Hondo11]

And just to be clear, I am not of the opinion that there is only one way to skin the cat. I realize that each situation is unique. I'm just showing the flip side of the coin that some think only has one face.

[buzz_knox]

The real problem with online discussions like that is that so many people want kindergarten answers to PhD questions, and are rarely content with a thoughtful, "It really depends ..."

It's the internet, where everyone is 10 feet tall and an expert in every subject. The old advice about not opening one's mouth and removing all doubt about one's foolishness doesn't apply when one is merely typing.

Not point any fingers at anyone but myself with that last comment, having foolishly remarked on SEAL operations in the "real" SEAL and gotten smacked rather handily and deservedly. That "learned" me real quick about straying outside my lane.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Quick - shut it down on this note of reasonable discussion!

[David Armstrong]

You said that robbers rarely injure their victims and used that as your rationale for compliance.

Whoa. I do not suggest compliance. I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources. Sometimes that might be compliance, sometimes that might be a full-scale attack, sometimes it might be a bit of deception and trickery, sometimes it might be something else.

I think that's ridiculous.

You may think it is ridiculous, but again, that doesn't change the facts.

But if/when the opportunity presents itself (you have the tactical advantage), I believe you should act rather than allow them to control the situation.

And I believe that choosing to act does not necessarily mean you are in control of the situation, nor does sitting back prepared to respond if needed mean they are in control

If a gunfight is going to break out, then I want to be the guy starting it.

And there is the key. If you do not start it, there probably won't be one at all.

Like I said, I want to be getting the FIRST and ONLY shots off.

I would want that too. However, I would suggest it is rather questionable to plan for a best case scenario given that rarely works out.

Compliance and being a willing victim is one side if the coin.

I'll disagree that compliance is the same as being a willing victim.

Taking the fight to the criminal is another.

And there is yet a third---watchful observance, prepared to act if necessary but not acting until it is necessary.

....and believe it or not, badguys freeze up too. That can be to your advantage.

And believe it or not, sometimes they don't freeze up. Frequently they have a lot more experience at this sort of thing than you do. That is to their advantage. Remember the basic rule--always assume your opponent is just as well-trained and motivated as you are.

Personally, I don't think my wife is going to feel any better know that when the criminal dumped me, it was just an exception to the rule.

And I don't think she will feel much better knowing that the criminal wouldn't have dumped you at all if you hadn't created a problem for him. And my wife would be downright unhappy if I got killed by a stray round from the gunfight you started that wasn't necessary. Getting into a gunfight should be a last resort, not a first choice.

I guess I could find more, but what would be the point?

There wouldn't be one, except that for every one of those where there was a murder there were about 400 where nobody was murdered.

[Wayfarin'Stranger]

There wouldn't be one, except that for every one of those where there was a murder there were about 400 where nobody was murdered.

Okay. I think the point of the question for the original scenario was 'what would you do'.

We're delving into statistics, criminal mind reading, and debating how the wife would feel if you got shot when it could have been avoided.

Concerning the quote above....I'm not much of a numbers man, but what I do know is that there are at least 400 robberies being commited anywhere at one time. I'm not to thrilled about the idea of hoping I'm not that one guy that the criminal will shoot for the fun of it, even after my full compliance.

I'm even going to answer the OP's question again.
When faced with armed robbers going person to person in a resteraunt demanding money with the threat of violence for non-compliance, I will shoot them dead. I don't feel lucky enough to play the odd's.


Maybe this should have been a 'voting pole only' thread so there's no opportunity for flaming.

[Hondo11]

Nevermind. We're just talking in circles. I've already said that I don't think there is ONE solution that applies to EVERY situation. My solution isn't to start slinging rounds and laying hate at the drop of a hat. I just don't agree with sitting there and letting the criminal decide the when, where, and how.