March 14, 2008, 08:54 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
|
Quote:
Seems justifiable to me. Don't want to get shot... Don't commit robberies... especially without a gun!
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency! |
|
March 15, 2008, 05:15 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2007
Posts: 305
|
I just wanted to emphasize that these are not made up scenarios... someone has done this recently at several CVS stores in my area. Each time the BG herded people into an office and then proceeded to empty the register and steal some booze while he had the store to himself. Nobody was injured in the robberies.
I however feel that herding people into a room does scream "hostage situation" or "execution style killing". I think doing this is a particularly BAD decision on the part of the BG because many CCWs might stand by and let a regular robbery go uninterrupted since statistics are on their side (at least this was reflected on TFL poles). However I figured the act of forcing everyone into a room like that shows enough intent to kill for just about any CCWs to take action (even at risk to themselves). This seems to be much like the difference between getting involved in a robbery and getting involved in a kidnapping. Kidnappings seldom have good outcomes. |
March 15, 2008, 06:00 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 29, 2008
Location: Nine Mile Falls, Washington
Posts: 1,186
|
Rounded up
You kinda changed the plot from the original robbery would I fight or flee. I suggest to you NEVER EVER let someone take you to a secondary location (the onion field comes to mind). In this new plot, I would have to respond by moving to safety and if that caused my enemy to respond negatively then so be it.
__________________
First, with the most, WINS! Regards, Scattergun Bob Last edited by Scattergun Bob; March 15, 2008 at 06:01 PM. Reason: just stupid |
March 15, 2008, 07:19 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: East Texas
Posts: 997
|
A "normal" robbery is "give me the money from the register".....and scram. The BG doesn't have much time to get nervous...or think about doing anything else stupid...he gets the cash he can and runs. The ones who try to take more, demand that the safe be opened and other stuff like "go to the back room" have shown obvious premeditation and will likely go farther than the dummy who runs in and out.
Stuff like the "normal" robbery happens so fast you probably couldn't stop it if you were not tracking the guy before he made the attempt to rob. The latter takes way more time, the BG's get nervous, and God forbid something in their "plan" goes wrong. In the first case I have to say let it ride unless they start acting like the second case, which I think is about how long it'd take to process and ACT anyway, I think. We're likely talking seconds here...very few. In that case you're probably facing some pretty determined BG's, use whatever training (if any) you have and go one or two shots COM and try to get behind some cover. Hopefully in the process you observed how many BG's there were and their locations...also you hope that once they hear gunfire not originated from them they will get nervous and leave their fallen buddies. All of that is off the top of my head, I could be very wrong but that's my gut reaction to the question. |
March 16, 2008, 01:53 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Posts: 646
|
How about: If they commit an armed robbery, and they herd people in the back room, then they are profiling themselves with those who commit massacres against innocent people.
Thus: Let God deal with the sorting process . . . these kind of people are a waste of air and a waste of life. I am on boar with the general consensus of this thread. |
March 16, 2008, 02:13 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida & Miami
Posts: 3,207
|
Revance
Quote:
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan |
|
March 17, 2008, 04:41 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
I guess it depends on where I was at the time. If I'm just walking up to the story and I see people being "herded" by somebody, I will definitely retreat and call 911 from my vehicle and be a star witness. If I am in the herd, I like to think I'll be prepared to put the guy down. Each situation is different, though, and needs on the spot decisions that can't be illustrated here with any surety.
One thing that weighs heavily on my mind is the one guy that I knew that was killed on his knees, execution style, in his own store less than a mile from my house.
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
March 17, 2008, 04:57 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Machiavelli, Mahan, Sun Tzu, to name a few...
... are all pretty much agreed on this:
Plan for your enemies capabilities, not his apparent intentions. It isn't that having an idea of intentions isn't useful, but you can't assess them nearly as accurately as you can assess capabilities. If your plan hinges on the BG having non-violent intentions in the end game, then it doesn't work so well if your assessment was not valid. I'd rather let them count on my mercy, than vice versa. Cheers, M |
March 17, 2008, 05:12 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2008
Posts: 214
|
id comply until i see an advantage. Then its lets beat the bad guy until someone pulls me off.
|
March 18, 2008, 12:17 PM | #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
|
Archie, regarding your 2 observations:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
steve < this space for rent > |
||
March 19, 2008, 05:54 PM | #36 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
|
Objectivity
Quote:
It always make me shake my head when I read the responses of those that post something to the affect that they would make the BG eat lead. They always believe that they will come off the victor -- even though the vast majority have never drawn their weapon much less even fired a shot in a true SD situation. They without fail assume their prowess will overcome. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
steve < this space for rent > |
||||||
March 19, 2008, 08:44 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2007
Location: TX
Posts: 267
|
Quote:
|
|
March 19, 2008, 09:23 PM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
|
Quote:
Jeff
__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing. |
||
March 19, 2008, 10:14 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
|
I knew this would happen...
I'm not promoting the pacifist position (or criticizing it for that matter). I was trying to draw attention to something I see over and over again.
A significant number believe (or at least comment in such a way as to infer) that if they engage a BG that it will naturally be a happy ending. It's just not always the case unfortunately. The realist understands action does not necessarily equate to success, and that it is foolish & dangerous to assume it will.
__________________
steve < this space for rent > |
March 19, 2008, 10:48 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
|
Steve,
Could not agree more. Would also add that "fighting back" isn't always as easy as it is in "training scenarios" or idle daydreams or gunstore counter conversations. They told us in the military that the single hardest decision we'd ever make was the decision to pull the trigger on another human being for the first time. They were right. Jeff
__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing. |
March 19, 2008, 11:12 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
|
Quote:
We are on the same page. Take care.
__________________
steve < this space for rent > |
|
March 19, 2008, 11:25 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 589
|
Do you know what the difference is between a burglar and a murderer? A burglar is a murderer who has NOT confronted the home owner. ANY felon is a potential killer be they a burglar, robber or whatever. I don't go with anybody anywhere at all. Hide? Maybe if I think that I can get away with it. If not and I'm directly confronted by the bad guy, the fight is on.
|
March 20, 2008, 07:41 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
gunfight or knife fight
I was always taught you will have to expect to get bloody.
|
March 20, 2008, 08:43 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
|
Quote:
My post was just stating the obvious. You cannot just hope that you will not be harmed if you comply. There have been WAY too many cases where someone fully complied and was then shot in cold blood. Defending myself may lead to injury, or even death for that matter, but it beats getting lined up against a wall and executed. I think that 9/11 and the Virginia Tech shooting are perfect examples of why you NEED TO FIGHT BACK. While a flight attendant may have been killed for non compliance by the passengers, I hardly believe that anyone could take a plane now with box cutters. My mentality has now shifted to think of the greater consequence of INACTION. Everyone on board those planes DIED. Thousands more were killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In my opinion, those who resisted on board the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are heroes. While they died fighting back, who knows how many lives would have been lost had that plane struck its target? Maybe it was headed for the White House. As for VA Tech shootings, I believe that fewer people would have died had a few brave students made a stand and rushed the shooter. Many were killed cowering under their desks, undoubtedly thinking "I hope he doesn't kill me". I'm sorry... but relying on the mercy of someone shooting people indisciminately does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I'm sure some of those who resisted would have been seriously injured or killed, but the death toll would have been much less. As you clearly pointed out, fighting back does NOT guarantee survival, but we have seen more than enough results of where compliance still ended up badly.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency! |
|
March 20, 2008, 09:45 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Location: Central eastern North Carolina
Posts: 194
|
Several years ago a grocery store here in N.C. was robbed by what was believed to be a lone individual. He entered the store and after robbing the cash register killed everyone in the store. Ten years later he has never been caught. This was in a small town with a low crime rate where nothing ever happened but it did.
When someone threatens the lives of my wife and kids I take that very personal. Would I take action? Yes. Would I use a firearm to protect another person? Yes. |
March 20, 2008, 10:23 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 408
|
I think in most jurisdictions, the question can be framed as: what would an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person have done in the same or similar circumstances? What would the ORPP have believed?
It seems that a person in this situation would be quite justified in believing they were about to be killed. Therefore, the use is deadly force is probably justified. Emphasis on the "probably." |
March 20, 2008, 10:33 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Location: Central eastern North Carolina
Posts: 194
|
Spencer hit the nail on the head on this one.
A CCW does not make you a law enforcement officer however if you abide by the same use of force as used by law enforcement you will remain within the law. |
March 20, 2008, 10:47 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Response to Tuckahoe
You are sort of right, but there is one major flaw in that argument.
LE are authorized to fire on fleeing violent felons. CCW are not, in most places. Not to quibble, but that is one area where following the rules that apply to LEOs could get a private citizen in seriously hot water. In Florida, you are authorized to defend a third party from threat of death or serious bodily harm. |
March 20, 2008, 11:00 AM | #49 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 353
|
Quote:
Quote:
The reason for my post was to highlight the flip side -- that engagement will not always yield a better result. Some write stating staunchly that they would do such-and-such and the BG will be dead. I provided examples of such bravado from this thread, but you see it all over and every time a confrontation scenario is discussed. There are those that categorically imagine they'll prevail. Bad assumption. In posting, I'm emphasizing objectivity. I never indicated lack of fighting was the better course or even preferable. While you think that your stance is obvious, I believe mine should be obvious as well. Quote:
As far as your 'perfect examples': [9/11] proves both stances. In one plane the victims did not take action. It crashed into the WTC and all died. In another plane (Pennsylvania) the passengers fight back.... the plane crashes and all die. Therefore, true, compliance did not guarantee survival, and equally true, fighting back did not guarantee survival. [Virginia Tech]: Quote:
Quote:
Bottom line: Your last sentence underscores my point.... Quote:
__________________
steve < this space for rent > |
||||||
March 20, 2008, 11:17 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 408
|
Usually, the test in the law is a same or similarly situated person. So as a layman, I'm judged by the layman's standards, not the standards of what a ORP (ordinary, reasonable, prudent) lawman would be. While they are similar, they are not the same across the board.
Good distinction, sorry if I created any confusion. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|