Example of restraint

[briandg]

If part of the information that has been processed suggests one course of action, It is essential to investigate other choices as well. If a dangerous and extreme course of action such as drawing a concealed weapon and shooting is one of those options, then the need for further critical analysis of the situation is even stronger. Maybe choosing the less extreme course could be called restraint, but I'm not liking this idea.

She said these two things:

“He just wanted pills and to leave.

Let's read this to mean "I don't think that he posed a threat. He wasn't going to shoot anybody and there was no need to escalate."

“Every ounce of my being, I wanted to shoot him, I wanted to prevent him from harming anybody,” she said.

Let's read this to mean "I wanted to shoot him. I thought that he might escalate and hurt people." But, didn't she just say the exact opposite?

In truth, this stands against self defense laws. She did not believe that he was a threat, but she wanted to kill him anyway?

Either option could be the wrong choice, and the only option that won't cause catastrophic repercussions is the choice to not escalate.

I’m never going to get the image of seeing my son with a gun pointed at his face (out my head).

Nope, maybe not. Would the sight of blood be easier to forget? If she had shot the BG, having any sort of doubts, How would that weigh on her soul? For that matter, if he did cap a pharmacist before she fired, how would it feel to have that blood on her watch?

Whether you call it common sense, intelligence, or restraint, she did well. Nobody was hurt. The man was arrested minutes later with no harm done. That, my dear friends, is the very best case scenario. I'm glad that she decided not to follow her more baser instincts.

[FireForged]

Brian, you are exactly right.. She sounds conflicted. If she is, its actually a horrible place to be for a potential defender.

[Mannlicher]

One of the most important aspects of carrying a weapon is having the mindset that if you need to use it, you will be able to. Otherwise, you may as well just don’t bother.

[armednfree]

I have to think more not of me missing but what he does after the bullet hits. He could have time to empty a mag. Pistol bullets do not tend to put people down immediately. Centralized hits do have a greater ability to drop that BP quickly, but you can't count on it. A CNS shot would of course eliminate that, but a CNS shot under stress is a great deal different than at the range.


Her decision, can't judge. We don't know the totality of the circumstances.

[stephen426]

I don't want to sound like a [keyboard commando], but if someone pointed a gun at one of my kids and I had an opportunity for a clean shot, I would take it. She stated that she had her hand on her gun that was in her purse. She could have drawn it discretely and drawn the robber's attention once she had her gun on him. I don't know her level of proficiency and what the distance was, but the robber could have easily shot everyone after robbing the store. How can she claim the robber only wanted the drugs and did not want to hurt anyone? Armed robbery is based on a threat of deadly force and giving the robber the benefit of the doubt could have gotten her son and others killed.

I guess since it all turned out okay, her decision was the right one.

[FireForged]

I agree with you Stephen and I think what is rather important is that [people] sort those things out well in advance. The personal moral implication, legal implications, willingness to accept risk and what you are actually willing to do in the name of defense.

Certainly there will be nuances which are specific to each event -and- action will always need to be "qualified" based on what is happening or what has happened but there are still plenty of mental hurdles you can get out of the way by making some basic decisions now.


Time is short and metal processes can often be long. Working all these issues at length and in the moment can result in being CONFLICTED.

[briandg]

Stephen.

You referred to that mythological thing that we sometimes refer to as the 'clean shot'.

Hundreds of pages, thousands of posts, all argued about which round will instantly incapacitate a guy. We argue even to the point of 50 fps or whether nickle brass makes a difference. Is it any wonder? Some people believe in the clean shot that will stop an attack, others don't, and in fact, it's all ridiculous. Every shot is a crap shoot. Every shot has a random value assigned as to whether it will work or not.

What you have just done there is created a mental algorithm or flow chart. You will wrap that in your mind, and when the time comes you may run that algorithm without putting a single brain cell towards information outside of those instructions that you have given yourself. Maybe in those instructions you will have forgotten 'release the safety' and you will be pointing a disabled gun at a bad guy. chaos is the only certain thing.

I know what she should have done, since she did what she should have done and it worked. Any solution that involved drawing her gun and shooting him may have been a very bad solution.

from wikipedia

January 30, 1835: Just outside the Capitol Building, a house painter named Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Jackson with two pistols, both of which misfired. Lawrence was apprehended after Jackson beat him severely with his cane. Lawrence was found not guilty by reason of insanity and confined to a mental institution until his death in 1861.[18]

I know well enough that this reporter is not a great thinker. It's disorganized and messy writing, and he just doesn't seem to care much. So I'm not going to presume anything but what he is reporting. what he is reporting is that she made the decision, second by second, over and over, not to escalate to a lethal outcome. Something in the scenario made her believe that shooting wasn't a great plan. It worked.

[briandg]

a part of the jackson story that may, or may not be myth. Both caps are said to have fired, but both pistols had wet powder. The caps going off are what alerted the targets.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by briandg

Stephen.

You referred to that mythological thing that we sometimes refer to as the 'clean shot'.

Hundreds of pages, thousands of posts, all argued about which round will instantly incapacitate a guy. We argue even to the point of 50 fps or whether nickle brass makes a difference. Is it any wonder? Some people believe in the clean shot that will stop an attack, others don't, and in fact, it's all ridiculous. Every shot is a crap shoot. Every shot has a random value assigned as to whether it will work or not.

What you have just done there is created a mental algorithm or flow chart. You will wrap that in your mind, and when the time comes you may run that algorithm without putting a single brain cell towards information outside of those instructions that you have given yourself. Maybe in those instructions you will have forgotten 'release the safety' and you will be pointing a disabled gun at a bad guy. chaos is the only certain thing.

Brian,
I used the exact term Anuszewski used in the article. I have quoted it below. I know that adrenaline wreaks havoc on accuracy and can cause tunnel vision, but the robber "counted down from 10 three times" while pointing a gun at her son's head. I'd trade my life for my kids' lives without a second thought. Anuszewski COUNTED on the robber not pulling the trigger. Personally, that isn't a risk I'd be willing to take.

Originally Posted by From the article

“I made the conscious decision that I wasn’t going to introduce the gun into the situation,” Anuszewski said. “He just wanted pills and to leave. I did, at one point, have a clear shot at him. If I had missed it would’ve been a horrible situation.”

[FireForged]

People who are waiting on that perfect set of circumstances, comfortable level of risk or any other assurances are not likely to ever find it.

[rodfac]

Just because a decision to use deadly force might be defended as being justified, excusable and lawful, that doesn't automatically mean it was necessary for the situation. Nor does it mean it was the right thing to do in that situation.

I remember as a young cop learning of a couple instances in which other off-duty cops decided to intervene and take action in on-view robberies where they were present, with their families (or just another family member).

In both of them the off-duty cops decided to draw and use their weapons when the armed suspects had other people at gun point, but hadn't actually fired any shots at their victims during their attempted robberies.

In both instances the suspects started shooting once the cops started shooting. When the smoke finally cleared, the cops had survived without being shot or injured, and the suspects were down ... but a family member of each of the cops involved had been shot (by the suspects) and killed. It might just as easily have been other innocent bystanders killed, too.

That left an indelible impression on me. You think those other cops in those incidents aren't going to forever be asking themselves whether their lost family members might still be alive if they hadn't started shooting?

That was the point in my early career when I decided that if I witnessed an armed robbery off-duty, unless I reasonably really believed that some particular armed suspect was actually going to shoot/kill some victim(s), and not just take their property and flee, I was going to remain a trained witness and not needlessly start a gun fight that might otherwise not have happened. The innocent family members of everyone else are just as important to them, as mine are to me.

Well said, Fastbolt in post #23. You've succinctly stated the crux of my personal, self-defense decision matrix.

Another poster opined, "wait your turn", which implies wisely (in a split second, granted), choosing the moment to intervene...which follows on to the decision to intervene..."when"...given the volitility of an encounter like that which the woman in the pharmacy experienced...the "when" could revert to a no-shoot decision. It's a conumbrum I hope never to face. Rod

[stephen426]

That was the point in my early career when I decided that if I witnessed an armed robbery off-duty, unless I reasonably really believed that some particular armed suspect was actually going to shoot/kill some victim(s), and not just take their property and flee, I was going to remain a trained witness and not needlessly start a gun fight that might otherwise not have happened. The innocent family members of everyone else are just as important to them, as mine are to me.

How does one go about discerning what a robber’s intent is? The threat of force should be taken seriously. With that said, I understand that you have to analyze the situation as there may be a shoot/don’t shoot situation. There is always the risk of hitting bystanders near or behind the bad guy. My point was that for me, I would not watch a bad guy count down to 10 with them pointing a gun at my child if I reasonably felt I could get a good shot and end the threat.

I guess part of the decision would be based on proficiency and the weapon you have with you. Practice often and carry a gun you can shoot well and packs enough punch to end a fight quickly.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stephen426

The threat of force should be taken seriously. With that said, I understand that you have to analyze the situation as there may be a shoot/don’t shoot situation. There is always the risk of hitting bystanders near or behind the bad guy.

If I read the article correctly, she was seated. The article said her hand on the gun was hidden under a row of chairs, and that the robber pointed his gun at her face and at her son's face. The robber, presumably, was standing. That means if he had taken a shot at his upper body, she would have been shooting up ... which significantly reduces the likelihood of hitting a bystander if she missed, or if her shot over-penetrated.

I wasn't there. It's a complex dynamic, and it plays out in a matter of seconds, or even fractions of a second. I can't condemn her decision not to shoot as "wrong," but I am far from the point at which I would label it "right" and praise her for her restraint. Candidly, I am inclined to think that her restraint was the result of her having frozen up and been unable to actually take the shot even when she thought she should.

Equally candidly, I acknowledge that I could easily have frozen under the same circumstances. The difference is that I would not afterwards try to portray myself as a model of restraint because I was too scared to do what I knew should have been done.

[GarandTd]

My interpretation was that she had a clear shot, but was unsure of herself. Taking the shot may have started a shootout, not that a miss would have hit innocent bystanders. I can neither commend nor condemn her actions. She and her adult son along with everyone else involved was fortunate. I imagine it's a tough decision to make and easy to to claim how one would respond while in a comfortable and presumably safe place.

[FireForged]

Speaking just for myself, I wouldn't get too involved in trying to figure out a persons absolute intent. If they are pointing a gun at me during the commission of a crime, I will consider them a deadly threat who likely means to kill me. If someone does not want to be considered a deadly threat, they should probably not point guns at people in some criminal fashion. Certainly there are issues which may take away from or add to the level of danger you perceive from a person but what I previously stated is my default.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Speaking just for myself, I wouldn't get too involved in trying to figure out a persons absolute intent. If they are pointing a gun at me during the commission of a crime, I will consider them a deadly threat who likely means to kill me. If someone does not want to be considered a deadly threat, they should probably not point guns at people in some criminal fashion. Certainly there are issues which may take away from or add to the level of danger you perceive from a person but what I previously stated is my default.

This is my point exactly. The article stated that the robber counted down from 10 three times. Maybe after the first count down, you could say he wasn't prepared to pull the trigger, but no way am I waiting to find out if my child's life was on the line. She had her hand on her gun and she claims she had a "clean shot". Things could have ended very badly for them if the robber really decided to start shooting. I'm not willing to say she showed "great restraint" just because no one got killed.

[davidsog]

The fact the criminal threatened deadly force but did not use it is irrelevant.

The outcome was good ONLY because the victims got lucky in leaving their fate up to their attacker.

There is no "good lesson" to learn nor is some treatise on "restraint" appropriate.

If someone does not want to be considered a deadly threat, they should probably not point guns at people in some criminal fashion.

EXACTLY. She could have saved the poor taxpayers some money and eliminated the possibility the man was going to kill her, her son, or anyone else that day.

[FireForged]

The fact the criminal threatened deadly force but did not use it is irrelevant.

The outcome was good ONLY because the victims got lucky in leaving their fate up to their attacker.

There is no "good lesson" to learn nor is some treatise on "restraint" appropriate.

I think this is the best way to say it

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by davidsog

The fact the criminal threatened deadly force but did not use it is irrelevant.

The outcome was good ONLY because the victims got lucky in leaving their fate up to their attacker.

There is no "good lesson" to learn nor is some treatise on "restraint" appropriate.



EXACTLY. She could have saved the poor taxpayers some money and eliminated the possibility the man was going to kill her, her son, or anyone else that day.

I've thought about this a lot ....
You are standing at a bank tellers station and a guy walks up next to you and points a gun at the teller next door..demands $..I have my handgun...do I pull it out and shoot him?

I know you cannot predict anything but I think everybody who CCW should have some answer..

[davidsog]

I know you cannot predict anything but I think everybody who CCW should have some answer..

And they should.

https://www.usacarry.com/concealed-c...efense-others/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I've thought about this a lot ....
You are standing at a bank tellers station and a guy walks up next to you and points a gun at the teller next door..demands $..I have my handgun...do I pull it out and shoot him?

I know you cannot predict anything but I think everybody who CCW should have some answer..

I know what my answer is while sitting in a chair, in front of my computer. That's theory.

Being in the actual situation is practice. Who knows if practice is the same as theory unless/until they face the real world situation? This is why I am not prepared to condemn the woman for not shooting, but I am certainly not going to praise her for having exhibited admirable "restraint." In short, I think she just froze. Even though I have been in armed combat, I can't say with any degree of certainty that I wouldn't have frozen under the same circumstances.

[briandg]

I know what my answer is while sitting in a chair, in front of my computer. That's theory.

Being in the actual situation is practice. Who knows if practice is the same as theory unless/until they face the real world situation? This is why I am not prepared to condemn the woman for not shooting, but I am certainly not going to praise her for having exhibited admirable "restraint." In short, I think she just froze. Even though I have been in armed combat, I can't say with any degree of certainty that I wouldn't have frozen under the same circumstances.

I think that this is an excellent answer. We don't even always know what our decisions are based on. Maybe the wedding ring on his hand registered, the crucifix at his neck, the non loaded chamber indicator, on and on, the woman obviously had reasons, and for that set of reasons, she chose to wait until a more solid feeling of danger arose,

Or she froze. I don't know.

The word gestalt applies here. A bunch of trivial information leads to making a huge, dangerous decision. There are half a dozen things that I will observe that are totally unrelated to the danger that is actually presented but will still weigh heavily on my decision. Big, ugly tattoos, thug clothing, dirty and or messy hair. Pointing a gun at the person rather than just brandishing it. a person can look threatening to me while fitting right in with the rest of civilization, and if I kill someone, I sure hope that I don't do it based on incorrect assessment of the threat level. I sure as hell hope that I don't do it based on the band that is printed on his T shirt.

Do any of you remember the movie maverick? when gibson pulled down danny glover's mask? For some reason, glover didn't kill him. I don't know why.

[FireForged]

Bank, gas station, parking lot, mailbox, isle 7, the public sidewalk... it doesn't really matter, the bottom line is still the same.

I am not a public sentinel but at the same time, I don't really consider myself "SAFE" if I am standing beside some jackass waving a gun around. If I were at the other side of the bank and could simply walk out the door, I probably would. If I am right beside the guy, I will have to make a judgment of him in about a 10th of a second. That decision may involve 100 different nuances but if my GUT tells me that I need to make a move on him, I will.


What I tell people is that you want to be very familiar with how to properly qualify ( or disqualify) the need to use significate force. You should also be able to clearly and competently articulate the method by which you connected the dots, checked boxes and flipped the go switch. No matter what you do, there will likely alwaya be someone who will say you shouldn't have done it. I expect any sort of self defense action to be immediately followed by a long, bumpy and costly road.


I have long sense come to terms with many metal hurdles regarding the use of force and its probably a good idea to mentally address these things sooner rather than later- if you plan to carry a gun. A person should probably examine exactly what they are REALLY willing and prepared to do and at what COST. The last thing you want to experience in the moment is an unwillingness to make the hard decision due to a sense of being conflicted.


I may not always make the right decision but I am going to make it quickly, stand by it and roll with it.

[davidsog]

What if....

What if a frog had wings? Would he bump his butt on the ground?

What if frogs had pockets? Would they carry pistols and shoot snakes??

I may not always make the right decision but I am going to make it quickly, stand by it and roll with it.

Pretty much it. Reasonable man standard.

Even though I have been in armed combat, I can't say with any degree of certainty that I wouldn't have frozen under the same circumstances.

Reminds of one reason why they send candidates to the Psych's.

You have three kinds of people in combat.

1. Those who can do it and recognize the need in defense of the weak and a free society.

2. Those that cannot do it. Nice people but totally and utterly worthless in terms of lethal force in combat.

3. Then you have the absolutely worst and most dangerous kind. Those who can do it once but no longer. They are the ones that get themselves and those around them killed because they are not able to be honest with themselves. Make no mistake, when the time comes and they fail to act, others will die.