How do you react?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry to be somewhat rational as compared to emotional. I agree that no one has the right to rob us or bully us, etc.

However, long ago, I took a course in military history from a distinguished major general. He stressed having an overall strategic goal as well as a grasp on tactics and equipment.

My overall strategic goal is to prevent grievous bodily harm to me and others I care about. A retreat or giving up some money to minimize a high probability of harm is preferrable than the harm. The problem is (as mentioned) judging the situation.

Some are easy - if you are by the door and the dude holds a gun on the clerk, you can probably run out. Some would be hard, if they start to search patrons.

Each situation is unique and there is no right answer. However, I think emotional outrage and talking about 'rights' and ego, doesn't really contribute to the actual decision process.

You may think that starting a gun fight that personally goes awry for you contributes to the greater good as it contributes to deterring some other crime elsewhere - if you want to be hurt for that, that is your decision.

I come down, again, to make a cognitive decision as to what action lowers my (and others I care about risks). If I don't know you and you are eating your waffles - I may not care about what happens to you.

The odds are in favor of there not be a shootout in the Waffle House - however, the actual decision of the BG to shoot has factors in it that might negate his or her tendency not to shoot. You have to try to figure that out.

I suppose it is difficult for the gun world to suggest rational thought over just shooting it out. But that's what's it is about. That's why the law use FATS training, etc. Why citizens are offered FOF training, etc. You have to think such that you can make a rational decision.

Folks who say always start the fight as it is their right to start the fight aren't thinking. Saying you never fight is also nonevaluative.

[David Armstrong]

How in the world could one know ahead of time whether there was going to be a shootout or not?

Whhile one can rarely know much with any certainty concerning interpersonal relations, one can (and does) identify certain behavior and actions that give indications of likelihood. For example, one should know that robbers rarely injure their victims if they cooperate. One should also understand that if the BG has not started shooting during the incident it is a pretty good indicator that he is not going to shoot barring some change in the situation.

I agree 100% that IF a person could know that there would be no shootout if he decided to do nothing that doing nothing would be the right choice.

Few things in life are 100%, yet that doesn't seem to bother most of us. There is not a 100% chance you will make it home from your next venture onto the highway, but we play to the odds.

You seem to have the idea that if no one offers resistance that nothing will go wrong.

I don't think I have ever said that. What I have said is that the chances favor that position by quite a bit, and one should keep that in mind when formulating responses. One can usually escalate the response if factors indicate the need, but once one has escalated it is hard to go back.

If you're going to play the odds, the statistics say that resisting violent crime with a firearm offers a better chance of remaining uninjured than simply cooperating.

That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher. So yes, if you have a gun and the BG doesn't, things work out pretty good for you. If you have a gun and the BG has a gun, maybe not so good.

"Always cooperate" is a bad plan:..."

Agreed, just as "always fight back" is a bad plan. One should understand the dynamics of violent encounters and respond in a manner that maximizes their potential loss of resources.

There is absolutely no LEO in this country, that is not going to pull his weapon when an individual brandishes a gun anywhere in his/her general direction, and I don't think anything different should be expected of us.

Actually LEOs are generally told that if they are off-duty and out of uniform to be a good witness in these situations and not start a gunfight unless absolutely necessary.

[JohnKSa]

Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher.

Your general premise (and your specific rebuttal to my post) relies very heavily on these controlled statistics you mention. I agree that such statistics could be very informative. Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.

Your argument is that the statistics I quoted should be dismissed because they include many situations that are more favorable to the defender than the scenario described here. The problem with that argument (in the absence of actual statistics to categorize the studied scenarios more carefully) is that the statistics I quoted also include many situations that are LESS favorable to the defender than the scenario described here. For example, any one-on-one confrontation with an armed attacker (quite a common scenario) would be far less favorable to the defender than a situation like this one where the defender can blend into the crowd until he chooses the proper time to respond.

I'm CERTAINLY not advocating that people respond with gunplay any time a crime occurs in their presence. What I am concerned about is the apparent attitude that CCW holders are far more likely to cause problems than help solve them. In reality, it's extremely rare for intervention by a CCW holder to do anything other than contribute to a positive outcome.

[Socrates]

HMMM.

One might also consider the gang factor. Hell's Angel's, for example, have an oath where if a fight is started, they all are obligated to get into it, and, stay in it until it's over. I'm not sure if this would apply to a gun fight, but, one might consider this as another factor.

Sometimes not starting something IS the best course of action, but, the only way you can know is to be there, and, know yourself, and, how you will react. A cool evaluation of your chances, and the situation are vital, and, difficult.

[hogdogs]

Kind of glad I was raised amongst the likes of the Banditos, Hells Angels, and Warlocks... rode with a club too. The way it works is not so much "if a fight breaks out they are obligated to stay until it is over..." it is more akin to never leave your brother in jeopardy. Got lots of education and training before I was 18 from the likes of these guys. May well be why I won't be a victim nor tolerate intimidation tactics...
Now as far as the types of "gangs" doin' strong armed and armed robbery they are real quick to dismiss loyalty and revert to every punk for himself... Seen to many robbery vids on youtube where one guy is left wounded while the rest flee to believe many will hang and fight for their "BRO"...

[Microgunner]

The robber rarely shoots unless there is some reason to do so

It's that "rarely" part that bothers me. I believe I'd rather rely on what I know how to do than hope they don't do what they "rarely" do. I don't want to wait until the muzzle's lowered on me before I decide to act. I prefer proactive management to reactive. But you just never know for sure how you may act in such extreme situations.

[Socrates]

hogdogs:

My only experience with the HA's was in SF. Some wannabe's girlfriend started mouthing off, and, some drunk kids talked back. The girls got into it, and, the HA's jumped in, knifed, and almost killed the guy/kid, and then got out.

The kid wouldn't testify, because, and I think they were right, that they were afraid of the HA's coming after them, at their home, and killing them.

I talked to the detectives involved, and, they said the wannabe disappeared, his shop was still there, but, he was gone. Their conjecture was the HA's hated publicity, or, getting into such situations, bad for business, having us chasing them. So, they disposed of the wannabe, and, the entire thing went away...

DA's office wasn't intrested, and, the SFPD had no evidence of any crime...

[hogdogs]

Socrates, That is just one of those cruxes of organized crime groups. Lots of wild hogs have been fed in the swamps of Louisiana, texas and florida in the years since I was 13 years old. Glad i am no longer affiliated with any of them.
Brent

[alloy]

as a retail bike shop owner/mechanic going on 12 years or so, within a short distance of 3 of the 4, sometimes things dont feel comfortable...i think Cooper's condition orange is my natural state. occasionally things have nearly accelerated. probobly why i'm here reading.

[Socrates]

It was suggested in our area, it's likely we had a fatter great white shark...

[DWFan]

David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...

http://newsok.com/article/3270704

[Hondo11]

The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous. Even if 9 times out of 10, they just take the money and leave, I will not be the 1 who they kill. I'm not going to wait and see where I fall either.

And these comments of "well, I'd wait until I felt in fear for my safety/life, etc" are just plain illogical.

The definition of Robbery is (paraphrasing as most states have it written differently) "theft from a person through force or the threat of force." Aggravated Robbery is the same, but with the use of a deadly weapon, or force or the threat of force that causes serious bodily injury and/or death.

By definition, if they are committing Aggravated Robbery, then you SHOULD feel in fear for your life and defend it accordingly.

The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...wait until they start shooting and put yourself in an even deeper hole? Personally, the gunfight I like to be in is the one where I get the first and only shots. But that's just me.

Shear aggression when it's not expected is something that not many people are hardwired to handle. It's what makes people vapor-lock...including badguys.

And if they only have toy guns or they're unloaded, then that's just even better for me.

[JKHolman]

Easy to see why these threads get shut down.

[Keltyke]

I disagree, JK.

This is a tactical decision that can go several ways. It's a scenario we all should play out in our heads while sitting at a WH enjoying a pecan waffle. "What would I do if..."

We need to talk this out WITHOUT getting personal in our remarks. What one person would do is not what another would do, but we can ALL benefit from each others opinions and suggestions.

[JKHolman]

Keltyke,
the thread is a good one. It's what the "heroes" do with it that cause the moderators to shake their heads.

- JKHolman

[hogdogs]

Not a hero, just a survivor and if I go out I am goin' out fighting for my life!
I must point out something not mentioned yet.... I tend to avoid the element of surprise. never my back to the door (even if wifey poo thinks she is picking the seat) always try to have windows and MUST have a view of the door. This puts precious seconds of decision making time in my court!
Brent

[David Armstrong]

Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.

John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?

Your argument is that the statistics I quoted should be dismissed because they include many situations that are more favorable to the defender than the scenario described here.

No. I do not think they should be dismissed at all. I do think they should be considered and used to help formulate a response. I also think they should be looked at in their entirety, as the dynamics do change significantly when one looks at all incidents as opposed to the narrower gun incidents.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK, automatically respond to the armed robbery as you might be at risk is one way to look at it.

How about this? Near me there is a restaurant called Jim's - a typical burger and pancake place. It's a large restaurant. I can be seated at a really long distance from the register - with lots of intervening tables.

In the evenings, it is quite full. I go there with my wife for pie and coffee.

A man comes in to the register and pulls a gun. He says: Give me the money.

It is a long way away with about 50 people between us. So do I:

1. Stand up and take the shot - note that around the register - in front, side and in back of the gunman there are probably quite a few folk.

2. Challenge him from a distance.

3. Run up to him.

Tell me how the automatic start the fight, be aggressive, surprise him, high speed aggression tactic works here.

Or is it possible that various scenarios have different contingencies? Cliches that one must act don't really cut in all situations. Nor does automatically just sitting it out. I can reference successful interventions that saved the day.

I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.

[stephen426]

I think there is no easy answer on this one as well.

Secario 1: You comply and hope the bad guys just take the money and leave.
Result a: The bad guys take the money and go. Your wallet is a few buck lighter and no one got hurt.
Result b: They take the money and then shoot the place up. You are behind the curve and get killed.

Scenario 2: You draw on the bad guy and begin shooting.
Result a: You hit the bad guys and the robbery ends.
Result b: The bad guys open fire on you and other patrons and people get killed.

I agree that there is no way to know whether or not the bad guys will or will not start shooting. In my mind, that leaves one option... Gain control of the situation if and when the opportunity presents itself. Of course you have to be aware of what behind your target and hitting bystanders. I am not a police officer or a cowboy, but I don't want to be a lamb to the slaughter either. If people are going to wave weapons around in public, I'm going to have to assume they are ready and willing to use them. To believe otherwise is just plain foolish in my opinion.


David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.

For example, one should know that robbers rarely injure their victims if they cooperate. One should also understand that if the BG has not started shooting during the incident it is a pretty good indicator that he is not going to shoot barring some change in the situation.

[David Armstrong]

David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...

Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.

The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that man can fly in a machine that weighs several tons, yet it happens regularly. What is ridiculous has no bearing on what the facts are.

The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...

So, if I am understanding you correctly, any time the police point a gun at a BG and deman he surrender they are engaging in a gunfight? Somehow, that doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.

Exactly. Either response can be good, either response can be bad. Assessing the realities of the situation and making a decision based on what seems to lead to the best outcome is the way to play it.

David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.

The easiest place to start is the Uniform Crime Reports.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There are many criminology and victimology texts as well as original scholarly articles that break down actions in robberies as well as the UCRs.

If one looks at the CJ texts on sale in many college book stores, you can find them.

We can't deny that most armed robberies don't end in shoot outs. In fact, to be nonscientific just watch the news. In San Antonio, almost every night we have a nonshooting armed robbery or two. We also have some gang, romance related shootouts every night.

The point of the stats is to indicate that armed robberies don't necessarily end in gun fights and if one thinks about it, you can take take into consideration when you run down the aisles of the Waffle House shooting away. Yes, it may end in a shooting incident but the difficulty in all these discussions in the implied and necessary gun fight. Knowning what can happens, usually happens and planning for contingencies is what it is all about. You don't get that at the square range.

[AnonymousOne]

I will not tolerate intimidation, terrorism or bullying from anyone.

What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.

[DWFan]

Quote:
David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...

Quote:
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.

Unusual and out of the norm? Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir. It might have been unique for 1978, but par for the course in 2008. As far as making your point? 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.
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. It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Might we have a source that cites that armed robbers who successful complete a robbery without gun fire then go on to use gun fire?

[buzz_knox]

What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.

Thank Congress circa 1993-94 for that one. After the OKC bombing, they wanted any crime committed with a firearm to be considered terrorism.