Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?

[Maromero]

At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting?

Oh My Lord. Is this was all the bickering was all about? Show me where I wrote or posted that the shooting was not a "good shooting"? All I wrote was I would have done nothing in said situation. Does that position threaten your "good shooting" theory to the point the members of the board feel the need to attack someone that Lord forbid does not agree or, even worst, reach a different conclusion without disagreeing with the hidden premise?

And Yes, now for the record, it was a bad shooting, tacticaly speaking. The guy was lucky.

Also. I know I said I was through with the thread but upon inspection just could not help myself. I'll try not to make it a habit.

[csmsss]

Oh My Lord. Is this was all the bickering was all about? Show me where I wrote or posted that the shooting was not a "good shooting"? All I wrote was I would have done nothing in said situation. Does that position threaten your "good shooting" theory to the point the members of the board feel the need to attack someone that Lord forbid does not agree or, even worst, reach a different conclusion without disagreeing with the hidden premise?

My question wasn't addressed to you, sir. For the record, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, and I attacked neither Mr. Armstrong nor you. You have a very creative and selective process of reading, to say the least.

And Yes, now for the record, it was a bad shooting, tacticaly speaking. The guy was lucky.

You weren't there. All we have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and you've already drawn this conclusion. You have amazing prescience, I must say. You must be one smart cookie.

Also. I know I said I was through with the thread but upon inspection just could not help myself. I'll try not to make it a habit.

Self-aggrandize much?

[ZeSpectre]

Here's an idea, take the personal battles to PM or someplace else.
Can we PLEASE get back on topic.? This thread has been holding up pretty well so far given the nature of the discussion.

[David Armstrong]

You don't know all the facts. No one does. What's dangerous is making assumptions like you seem to favor.

You might note that was my point, that without knowing all the facts one can make any assumption. As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds. It is less dangerous than doing things that increase the danger and/or cost to you.

At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting? Does the bad guy have to kill an innocent before you'll bless the use of force by the CCW?

If by a "good " shooting you are using the legal term, I've never said it wasn't good. In fact, legally, it appears the shooter is well within the law. Now if by "good" you mean the smart thing to do or the right thing to do, I won't accept it. Starting a gunfight when there is no need to start one in order to save a little money just doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to do.
Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing. I don't even thing it needs to be quit so restricted, you might want to save some that aren't so innocent. But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

You weren't there. All we have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and you've already drawn this conclusion. You have amazing prescience, I must say. You must be one smart cookie.

Whoa, Nellie, as my Grandmother used to say. Aren't you complaining about him doing the EXACT SAME thing that you are doing? You weren't there, all yo have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and yet you have drawn a conclusion, right? Is it your claim now that you have prescience?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

The problem is that if you wait to see whether the BG wants more than the money it might be too late to react. That is the whole issue I see with "playing the odds" You might be the one in 450 that gets murdered.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing.

Might be too late to do anything if you don't gain the advantage first.

I think if you choose the comply first method you might be stuck with that as your only option and rely on the odds to save you.

[OldMarksman]

That is the whole issue I see with "playing the odds" You might be the one in 450 that gets murdered.

Seems to me that those odds are overwhelmingly better than trying to draw on and shoot someone who has his gun in his hand...

[csmsss]

You might note that was my point, that without knowing all the facts one can make any assumption. As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds. It is less dangerous than doing things that increase the danger and/or cost to you.

And you have No way of knowing whether the armed robber in this case did anything to further escalate the already high level of danger. Did he move aggressively toward the CCW? Did he move his firearm from a ready position to point it directly at someone? Did he flip a safety off or rack a slide? All of these things are possible, and would certainly escalate the danger in any reasonable person's estimation. Yet your blanket assumption does not allow for this.

If by a "good " shooting you are using the legal term, I've never said it wasn't good. In fact, legally, it appears the shooter is well within the law. Now if by "good" you mean the smart thing to do or the right thing to do, I won't accept it. Starting a gunfight when there is no need to start one in order to save a little money just doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to do.
Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing. I don't even thing it needs to be quit so restricted, you might want to save some that aren't so innocent. But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

Your irrelevant commentary on the use of the word "innocent" aside, you didn't answer the question - at what point would you in that situation endorse the use of force by the CCW? Because your arguments suggest that you would endorse that only at the point where the robber started shooting. I'd like to hear you clarify this.

Whoa, Nellie, as my Grandmother used to say. Aren't you complaining about him doing the EXACT SAME thing that you are doing? You weren't there, all yo have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and yet you have drawn a conclusion, right? Is it your claim now that you have prescience?

My point is that since we don't have all the facts, we should give the law-abiding CCW the benefit of the doubt unless and until such facts that warrant criticism of his actions emerge.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yet your blanket assumption does not allow for this.

Both sides of this argument are making "blanket assumptions". There would be no way to discuss an issue this complex WITHOUT blanket assumptions. Every point made would have to be restricted by an untold number of "qualifiers". Every opinion would have to be the length of a short novel in order to even attempt to eliminate "blanket assumptions".


I would have.... Unless he.... then I would have... unless he.... so I would have.... except he might have....


Every action by both parties (BG and CCW) contains an infinite possible set of reactions from the other party.

[csmsss]

Both sides of this argument are making "blanket assumptions". There would be no way to discuss an issue this complex WITHOUT blanket assumptions. Every point made would have to be restricted by an untold number of "qualifiers". Every opinion would have to be the length of a short novel in order to even attempt to eliminate "blanket assumptions".


I would have.... Unless he.... then I would have... unless he.... so I would have.... except he might have....


Every action by both parties (BG and CCW) contains an infinite possible set of reactions from the other part

I don't completely agree. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - my position is that armed encounters are not one-size-fits-all events whose outcomes can be accurately predicted by previous, unrelated events. Every encounter like this should be judged on its own merits.

I would also argue that unless we have reason to think otherwise, we should give the CCW the benefit of the doubt as to his observing a situation and believing that the use of his firearm was necessary.

[Brian Pfleuger]

...my position is that armed encounters are not one-size-fits-all events whose outcomes can be accurately predicted by previous, unrelated events. Every encounter like this should be judged on its own merits.

I would also argue that unless we have reason to think otherwise, we should give the CCW the benefit of the doubt as to his observing a situation and believing that the use of his firearm was necessary.

I can agree with that, with the possible exception that I do believe that we should be aware of past instances and the statistics associated with them in order to have a starting point in our assessment of the situation. For example, past instances tell us that the presence of a gun is still MOST OFTEN not likely to result in the death of innocents. Therefore, our default reaction should not be "Gun! Shoot him!". We should begin by believing that the best action is to be a good witness and change our minds along the way, as our assessment dictates. Now, "along the way" could be a grand total of 3 micro-seconds if we see something that "crosses the line".

[AZAK]

As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds.

Another perspective on this "playing of the odds" would be from the robber's point of view. I wonder what the odds are that a CCW holder would draw and kill the robber?

What if every CCW did attempt too? I wonder if this would be a deterrent to armed robbery?

Are there forums where armed robbers debate the "right" course of action when holding up a Burger King, and how to "play the odds"?

Obviously most armed robberies do not happen at shooting ranges, police stations, and gun stores. One would think that there is a reason for this.

Regardless of what one thinks about any of this, I still maintain that one should not gloss over the fact that it was the armed robber, committing a felony that endangered the lives of anyone in or near the "scene of the crime", who was at fault here.

[Yellowfin]

Lots of studies among prison inmates have shown that the only thing they really fear is armed citizens. I hope this stokes that fear even more and deters more crime. There is absolutely NOTHING to say than an armed criminal won't simply turn and shoot you later if you don't do something about them before they get the chance to. Of course in this case the outcome was that he shot back anyway...but who could predict that it wouldn't have been that bad or worse. Had he not shot the perp, they could have landed an immediately lethal shot and then continued to shoot more people.

We all know how a lot of unmitigated criminal attacks have gone. The results can't get any worse than a madman having their way, in many cases.

[skydiver3346]

From reading this, it sounds like the good guy did not have his gun drawn on the perp who was robbing the Burger King. Just told him to put his gun away, etc. Then perp shot the customer and the customer returned fire killing the robber (after taking three hits himself)? I don't know for sure, but I believe I would already have my pistol drawn, cocked, etc and ready to defend myself before ordering a robber to "put away his gun" (if I was going to get involved in the first place). Depends on the circumstances and you would actually have to be there to make the final call I would think. At any rate, he probably would have been better off having his gun out and ready to use, before ordering the bad guy to put his away (if that is what actually happend)
Don't know if I would have started a shootout in a crowded restuarant where innocent people where sitting or waiting in line to be served? At least it ended with a reasonably good outcome (no innocent people were hurt). Too bad about the good guy being wounded in the process. At least the perp won't be robbing any more places and/or placing folks in danger from now on.

[hogdogs]

Short of deciding upon possible collateral damages caused by me and my projectiles, Simply brandishing a weapon of any kind with implied violence is grounds to get yerself shot. Not only is it a self defense tactic but it is a message to likewise violent minded nefarious folks. Teaching a lesson by example is not a reason to shoot an armed robber but it sure is a nice windfall fringe benefit!
Brent

[pax]

Additional info in the updated news story: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miam...ry/968765.html

pax

[B.N.Real]

The real question here is what kind of community do you want to live in?

Do you want to live in a community where criminals with handguns can rob people as they please and leave it up to the police to stop every criminal act?

Maybe next time it is your wife and child in line at the next store he robs and he takes your wife hostage,rapes her and kills her and your child before he gets 'arrested' by the police.

My view on this is very clear.

In my community,where I live,you rob ANYONE in front of me and I am armed,I will try to stop you probably with deadly force if you are armed with deadly force.

It is the ultimate stupidity to leave your safety and everyone else in your community to the whims and preferences of people that are trying rob you and your neighbors.

Do not expect to get a chance to shoot me if you rob anyone where I live.

And I live in Fredericksburg Va. and I am all over Northern Virginia everyday.

Take your crime elsewhere or just stop.

How about that?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Do you want to live in a community where criminals with handguns can rob people as they please and leave it up to the police to stop every criminal act?

Maybe next time it is your wife and child in line at the next store he robs and he takes your wife hostage,rapes her and kills her and your child before he gets 'arrested' by the police.

My view on this is very clear.

If only the world were always so black and white. To believe that the only possible options are "shoot on sight" or "let the police to everything" is naive beyond comprehension. To equate my (and others) position that shooting someone should only be done as a last resort with willfully allowing our loved ones to be raped is extremely insulting, not to mention an intentional mischaracterization of the argument and, really, quite juvenile.

[csmsss]

Additional info in the updated news story: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miam...ry/968765.html

Very interesting, and if the article accurately represents the events, revises my own opinion of the CCW's actions. By initially attempting to be a good samaritan (as opposed to a threat-stopper), he placed his life (and that of others) in jeopardy.

My own opinion is that in a situation like that, the CCW should not bring the BG's attention to himself until the CCW has initiated decisive action. By attempting to remediate the robber's behavior, the CCW in this case got himself shot. Fortunately, no other friendlies were hurt.

[Brian Pfleuger]

My own opinion is that in a situation like that, the CCW should not bring the BG's attention to himself until the CCW has initiated decisive action. By attempting to remediate the robber's behavior, the CCW in this case got himself shot. Fortunately, no other friendlies were hurt.

That's for sure. It almost seems like this guy took the one course of action that I would NEVER condone. Namely, "half-assed". It seems clear to me that in this type of scenario you pretty well have to either shoot or shut up, there is no in between. In that regard, it is black and white. Whatever you do, do it all the way.

[OldMarksman]

Statistics do seem to say that the perp was unlikely to shoot anyone unless someone started something. Scary thought to decide to rely on that,

But--his gun was in his hand. Common sense says that a citizen who might choose to draw under that circumstance would be most likely, if not almost certain, to get shot. Ed McGivern demonstrated that convincingly.

And that's what happened. The citizen sustained three bullet wounds and is in serious condition. Maybe he will be able to handle a gun again. Maybe not. Luckily he was not killed.

And the perp is dead.

Other possible outcomes, with the citizen deciding to draw on the man with the gun in his hand:

• Citizen dies
• Felon is not hit
• Felon shoots others in the building or outside
• Citizen hits one or more innocent bystanders
• Any combination(s) of the above

Given all of that, I won't apply hindsight to the citizen's judgment, but I will say he was extremely lucky.

If you infer from that that I don't think I would have drawn, you are correct. Of course I was not there and am basing that on the news reports.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Seems to me that those odds are overwhelmingly better than trying to draw on and shoot someone who has his gun in his hand...

Depends on your position at the time. If his attention is focused elsewhere maybe not. I would agree with you IF he is focused on you and pointing a gun at you. I doubt anyone can outdraw someone who has the drop.

However, my real point in the post is what you said here:

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Statistics do seem to say that the perp was unlikely to shoot anyone unless someone started something. Scary thought to decide to rely on that,

my bolding

I agree and would use stronger language; it is nuts to rely on that. However, after further reading the report I think engaging the perp in conversation was not too sound. Probably better to do nothing or shoot.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Depends on your position at the time. If his attention is focused elsewhere maybe not. I would agree with you IF he is focused on you and pointing a gun at you. I doubt anyone can outdraw someone who has the drop.

I've seen it done in FOF robberies by Greg Hamilton. The trick was to draw when the BG was blabbing away - the diversion of attention allowed Greg to nail a trained opponent.

However, if you get into a discussion with the BG - like this guy did or the Tacoma Mall guy - then you are asking for getting shot.

Do we all agree that this gentleman did not act wisely on a tactical level, if we get away from the moral, save civilization rhetoric?

[cracked91]

Screw walking up to him. He would have had a gun stuck behind his ear and as soon as he refused his brains on the wall

[LoneWolf22056]

I've always been told that if you pull your gun, you pull it with every intention of pulling that trigger, no matter what.

If you think you MIGHT not have to shoot, you're better off leaving it holstered.

Make the choice BEFORE YOU DRAW. After that, there's no going back. Be decisive, because your indecision will kill you.

The guy who tells the robber to "put his gun away" with no means of physically enforcing that is an idiot. You're making yourself a primary target because the robber will see you as resistance. Your best game plan is to either comply or put him down immediately. That doesn't mean that you absolutely have to fill him full of lead, either. If you choose to act, be that with a gun, knife, or your bare hands, it has to be fast and efficient. Your method will be dictated by the scenario. Just know that you only get one chance, so make it count.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Do we all agree that this gentleman did not act wisely on a tactical level,

I agree with you.

Originally Posted by LoneWolf22056

If you think you MIGHT not have to shoot, you're better off leaving it holstered...Make the choice BEFORE YOU DRAW. After that, there's no going back. Be decisive, because your indecision will kill you.

Agree, also. Never relenquish your advantage to a BG.