Thoughts on a local robbery.

[briandg]

There is a huge discrepancy between a willingness to rob at the point of a weapon and the willingness to kill or maim after the primary goal of getting the money is accomplished. It seems to me that handing over the money will be the end of the encounter many, even most incidents. We seem to be talking about these events as more dangerous than they normally are.

Sure, the cashier is already at a tactical advantage and a gun would be nice to have. It isn't going to be what makes the difference between life and death in very many cases. In fact, having a cashier who owns a gun but has never trained with it at all and handles the occasion stupidly is far more likely to be hurt than anyone who hands over the money and lets the situation de-escalate on it's own.

Almost every store here at this point keeps at least two on staff at all times. The newest places in town have a raised floor space and counters that are about 40-48 inches high.

So many simple things can help deter danger, carrying or stashing a pistol on site seems to be the most extreme, and IMO, the most dangerous response to the possibility of a robbery.

Myself, I would carry a police level can of pepper spray, not one of the silly little purse sized as well as a handgun. If I owned a store, I would have permanent fixtures built on the counters to limit access to only a four foot wide area. Sometime in the future, it's a given certainty that after an incident, a company will be sued and lose because they built a new store with no security precautions while other companies have put a great deal of effort into prevention, and protection of the employees.

[Lohman446]

Come now! The ability to step back unharmed, or the ability to do anything else, for that matter, would be lost, should the robber opt to use the bladed weapon at short range.

You are already at the register (I presume) and already at short range.

I'm not suggesting one walk up to the register from somewhere else here. I have never been in a gas station where the attendant did his or her job from well behind the counter. If the robber in this case had wanted to grab the attendants arm and hold her there wouldn't this have more readily been done while she was scanning up items for a then presumed innocent customer?

[OldMarksman]

It seems to me that handing over the money will be the end of the encounter many, even most incidents.

Would you bet your life on "many", or even "most"?

We seem to be talking about these events as more dangerous than they normally are.

Armed robbery?

[briandg]

Yes, and yes, you are presuming that the guy with the plastic gun, empty gun, one who has absolutely no intention of shooting at the cashier is a serious danger. Yes, I am going to presume at the beginning that risk is minimal and try to resolve the situation as it is before even considering escalating it on my own. Someone came in and wanted money rather than coming in intending to kill me for no reason whatsoever.

Having a weapon close at hand isn't any guarantee, is it? No, it isn't, is it? Most of what is being said here seems to be about violent defense and resolution by force, very little attention is being given to prevention. In fact, throughout this thread, I don't believe that even a single mention of pushing the alarm button has taken place.

I know that this is the tactical subsection of a forum about guns, and that not many wants to discuss the idea of passively resolving an 'armed robbery'. In fact, I guess that a huge number of people will pray, but nobody has mentioned that as a possible source of safety.

God almighty, I already risk life and limb while driving, millions of people bet their lives on tobacco use. I'm not the type of person who will live my life thinking that the a situation of threatened violence is bound to end in violence. The chance of it ending in violence is slim.

This in the end seems to be all about presuming the worst and putting a firearm in the way, and dismissing even the thought that an armed robber may have no intention of causing violence.

I'm not going to be dragged into this dogfight any further. Read and understand my thoughts about risk and either agree or disagree

[OldMarksman]

...you are presuming that the guy with the plastic gun, empty gun, one who has absolutely no intention of shooting at the cashier is a serious danger.

One has no way of knowing the intentions of an armed person who is committing robbery. One only has reason to believe that he has both the ability and the opportunity to kill or seriously injure, and that he has placed the victim in jeopardy.

In the eyes of the law, a person who has reason to believe that a person who is robbing him is armed presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

In the scenario at hand, the possession of a weapon by the robber is a known fact.

It is possible that the robber has no intention of using the weapon. Perhaps the likelihood that he would use it is rather small.

The defender might choose to bank on that possibility. Most people would not consider it prudent to do so, however.

The real risk is that at short range, the defender would not be able to defend himself or herself in time.

That's why it might be wise to not force the issue and just hope for the best.

But that's a real gamble.

So is trying to draw and fire at someone in close proximity who is armed with a contact weapon, and if a threat has been made, the odds are not for the meek. We do not know the layout, but if it is at all possible, the defender would be well advised to try to put some distance between him or her and the robber while drawing, and to do so without delay.

The Tueller drill has been mentioned here. Has anyone here tried it? Would you really like to expend some of your very limited time fiddling with cash and trying to divine what will happen next before doing something about the threat?

[K_Mac]

There are times when compliance may be more prudent than resistance, but only when it appears likely that resistance might not represent a successful strategy.

Here is where the mindset between us differs. Resistance by use of force may not be the only, or best strategy even if it's likely to be successful in my opinion. If I determine, based on the situation at hand that I can hand over cash to stop the encounter, that is going to be my response. How quick on the draw I will be is entirely dependent on the situation. Any good FoF instructor will acknowledge that awareness, judgement, and even restraint are essential for responsible and effective self-defense with a handgun.

[Lohman446]

The defender might choose to bank on that possibility. Most people would not consider it prudent to do so, however.

Which most people? I'm willing to bet compliance with an armed robber FAR exceeds non-compliance let alone violent armed resistance.

The Tueller drill has been mentioned here. Has anyone here tried it? Would you really like to expend some of your very limited time fiddling with cash and trying to divine what will happen next before doing something about the threat?

Handing over cash is doing something about the threat. Considering the likelihood of failure based on the Tueller drill it may be the most likely way to escape without injury.

[OldMarksman]

I'm willing to bet compliance with an armed robber FAR exceeds non-compliance let alone violent armed resistance.

Probably so.

The most common reason is likely the fact that most victims are not armed or otherwise realistically capable of safely and effectively resisting an armed robber.

The other is that under the circumstances, they simply cannot do so timely.

In either case, the victim is left with trying compliance and hoping for the best.

But I cannot imagine any thinking person who has the opportunity to resist choosing to squander that opportunity by wasting valuable time trying to figure out what the robber will do next.

[OldMarksman]

Just to make my opinion perfectly clear....

If indications are that compliance would represent the best strategy for remaining unhurt, then by all means, comply.

I would not recommend choosing compliance just to avoid harming a robber, however, and given a viable alternative, I would not choose to trust my safety solely to the hope that the felon would not choose to harm me seriously.

I have been involved in three serious defensive gun use incidents, and I once stumbled into a robbery in progress that was aborted due to my unexpected arrival. In that one, I did not draw.

In none of those occasions did I fire, and I am eternally grateful that things turned out that way each time.

[fredvon4]

As a 17 year old high school kid in 1972 Oakland CA I worked night shift at a neighborhood 7/11

Got robbed at gun point twice... My boss said just let them have the stuff/cash "I am insured"

Big Black Guy with 1911 45 wants the cash...pretty calm... seemed to know I did NOT have access to floor safe and was ok with the paltry $45 in the register and a carton of smokes...no drama.. and I distinctly remember not being overly hyper or freaked out

Few Months later was a very hyper young white junkie with a 22 Ruger semi.... wanted the Million dollar score in the safe not the low bucks in the register... I was panicked...he shot one round into the floor to tell me serious...open the safe...no way I could comply....Customer tackled him and saved my life

Contrary to my bosses rule I carried a 1911 from that day to today

Every situation is diff...in first case IF I had been armed I still would have let Police handle it

If I had been armed in second case the junkie would have ultimately got all 8 round of 45

I think this clerk did good and the end is self evident

[In The Ten Ring]

fredvon4,

Thank Jesus you came through those two OK!

I worked a Stop & Rob with a big safe on the floor in a side office next to the counter. I knew if any robbers saw that the unlucky clerk behind the counter was toast. We didn't have the combination to it, it was a night deposit safe only. You'd never explain that to a robber though and they'd kill or maim us out of frustration. Since no other clerk ever locked the side or back office doors, I guess I was the only one to ever contemplate that eventuality.

[hdwhit]

In The Ten Ring wrote:
I wanted to say "if you, being armed, let it go so far that he had a knife to your throat, you made some very serious mistakes"

I think the serious mistake would have been for you to "Monday Morning Quarterback" the incident.

You weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. She told you she did not feel threatened under the circumstances as she described them. Deadly force is appropriate to end an immediate threat to your own life (we'll dispense with life of another or property in some cases since they're not relevant here) and if she didn't feel threatened, there was no justification for the use of deadly force on her part. Absent a perceived threat she could not legally use deadly force. So, there was no "error" on her part.

[In The Ten Ring]

I think the serious mistake would have been for you to "Monday Morning Quarterback" the incident.

You weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. She told you she did not feel threatened under the circumstances as she described them. Deadly force is appropriate to end an immediate threat to your own life (we'll dispense with life of another or property in some cases since they're not relevant here) and if she didn't feel threatened, there was no justification for the use of deadly force on her part. Absent a perceived threat she could not legally use deadly force. So, there was no "error" on her part.

If forum rules followed that line of thinking, there would be no forum titled "Tactics and Training." We learn best by discussion and this has been a lively discussion. I mean, even you weighed in to suggest "no one should weigh in" then proceeded to weigh in yourself.

Pointing a gun is not "deadly force" but if it is, then the assailant committed that first by pulling a knife and suggesting murder.

Please reread my opening post, where is it typed "she erred?" I have asked what others thought of the event and the clerk's actions. I have given my personal rules on such encounters, especially concerning working Stop and Robs, as have others.

[Lohman446]

I think the major discrepancy is how big of a threat we are seeing that knife as being. The OP reports the clerk telling about him showing the handle of a knife up his sleeve. To me I am envisioning a knife hidden in the robbers sleeve with the handle towards his hand (thus actually facing towards his elbow). Between this and the counter which represents some form of obstacle I am reasonably confident I could manage to disengage from any grapple across said counter, gain enough distance, and draw and engage before the robber could draw said knife, come over the counter, and present an imminent and serious threat of bodily harm.

Edit: To me this also speaks of a "gentleman's" robbery. The weapon is there for show to gain compliance. If he was intent on using it it would be out and in a much more ready position.

Because of that I am willing to hand over someone else's money and hope it does not escalate further while preparing to act if it does (backing up)

It appears others feel differently. Perhaps they simply perceive the threat as more imminent.

[In The Ten Ring]

If this is a "gentleman's robbery" then a clerk pointing a gun and demanding surrender is a "gentleman's defense."

The last documentary I saw concerning the D.B. Cooper case featured the stewardess that sat and spoke with Dan Cooper during his infamous skyjacking of 1971 and stated that she felt he was not a "gentleman robber" since he threatened to kill everyone on that flight unless his demands were met. If I recall the show correctly, she said that caused her a lifetime of nightmares and when she made that statement, she was in tears. The fact is, gentleman don't steal and they most certainly don't threaten to harm others to do so.

**

As long as we all can discuss or debate this civilly, I'm on board and welcome reasoned dissent but so far, I have not read a sufficiently convincing argument as to why my rules on this sort of thing are in error. True, this clerk's response worked and thank God it did, but it's not a guarantee for all cases.

[Sharkbite]

I think the major discrepancy is how big of a threat we are seeing that knife as being.

I would suggest watching some Kali practitioners workout. Most knife attacks start with the knife concealed (it aint like the movies, no telegraphing the attack). I am MUCH more afraid of a knife attack then a gun.

Now, im not saying this guy was a super ninja, but people need to respect the blade attack much more then is common. It seems like most folks think its a poker game. My gun beats your knive....doesn't work like that.

At contact ranges the knife is EVERY BIT as dangerous as a gun

[GarandTd]

I feel like she did the right thing, given those circumstances. I think drawing a weapon would have made the situation worse. I think if the robber was really intent on harming the clerk, he wouldn't have had the knife up his sleeve. I think introducing a weapon and demanding surrender could have initiated a fight response from the robber. Of course I'm only guessing. Thankfully, we'll never know what may have happened because what did happen was the best possible outcome.

[Lohman446]

I think your (Sharkbite) ignoring the counter obstacle. Still if that knife in the kids hand is that dangerous in the kids hand attempting to draw is suicidal. Time to comply and hope

[briandg]

There have been so many things tossed around in here that it's easy to get lost in the static, since we have gone into all sorts of ideas not actually involved with the event.

Something that seems to have come up several times was that he merely showed a knife handle. Not even a verbal threat, right? just an implied threat by showing the handle.

Did that justifiably constitute a threat of death or serious injury? If i had mel gibsoned the guy, wouldn't I be sitting in death row? No spoken threat, no actual visual threat, not even brandishing a weapon except in the most esoteric sense, all he did was display something that she believed was the handle of a complete knife. It might have even been his harry potter wand that he bought at a toy store.

Everything beyond that is supposition. When the lady said that she didn't feel threatened, maybe because the situation didn't feel threatening to her, that the situation didn't present as a threat at all.

Otoh, what if he had a stick? what if he held up brass knuckles? Brandished some other weapon in a more direct manner, or made a more threatening gesture, said something that actually presented as a genuine and serious threat? saying that you will beat someone to death is a whole lot more threatening than silently pointing to a weapon in the pocket.

I'm willing to give the woman credit that she obviously kept her head and didn't fall apart. Maybe she had read the situation properly and there was no genuine threatening behavior, no sign of danger that she could see. I don't believe that holding up a firearm in response to him showing his hilt would have been inappropriate. OTOH, if that event showed no greater threat than him asking for the money and showing but not brandishing a knife, it would have been wrong on some level, I'm not going to go any further than that. she was there and her interpretation of exactly what happened was that there was no genuine threat. Maybe she was right?

[OldMarksman]

Something that seems to have come up several times was that he merely showed a knife handle. Not even a verbal threat, right? just an implied threat by showing the handle.

That is a distinction without difference.

Did that justifiably constitute a threat of death or serious injury?

Yes indeed!

Do you know the definition of aggravated assault?

[briandg]

Yes, I do. Assault is any action that generates fear in the victim, speaking simply. Shouting, first shaking, making angry faces, anything that could reasonably construed as threatening or dangerous behavior.

She wasn't afraid, was she? She didn't feel threatened, did she?

Battery constitutes assault with physical contact. Aggravated assault means that something was done that made the assault more offensive, such as displaying a weapon.

She was not afraid, she did not feel threatened, the person does not appear to have done anything at all that would justify anything that would justify deadly force being used, since there must be a threat, or a sincere belief that a threat existed.

If this was, as stated, as simple as him demanding the money and showing that he had a weapon,I'm having a real hard time believing that it would even be prosecuted. It would probably been pled to simple larceny.

Carry on.

[OldMarksman]

She wasn't afraid, was she? She didn't feel threatened, did she?

She said she didn't, after the fact.


Would a "reasonable person" have believed that a demand for money accompanied by the purposeful display of a weapon constituted a threat to do harm?

Would her reported off hand comment to a third party that she had not "felt threatened" serve effectively in a defense by the robber?

She was not afraid, she did not feel threatened, ....

So she said, off hand. off the record.

Do you think it likely that she would testify to that effect?

...the person does not appear to have done anything at all that would justify anything that would justify deadly force being used, since there must be a threat, or a sincere belief that a threat existed.

He displayed a weapon, and demanded money. What would a reasonable person think?

If this was, as stated, as simple as him demanding the money and showing that he had a weapon, I'm having a real hard time believing that it would even be prosecuted.

Surely you jest!

It would probably been pled to simple larceny.

How on earth would her having given the person the money consensually, which is what you are implying, be considered larceny?

[briandg]

I thought that you, of all people, would be able to see some of these things.

What reasonable person will believe that she would have been justified in lethal force when he never even verbalized a threat?

What she said to him, you are asserting that she lied to him, that in fact, she was genuinely afraid at the time, sounds like you're just playing the 'what if' game. How can we assume that she reported something different to the responding officers? Her testimony would leave having perjured herself or filing an incorrect police report.

As for prosecution, I might as well ask you, are you kidding? The courts are backlogged, jails are full, truly evil people are running wild, and you believe that a prosecutor will look at this case, and I repeat myself, as the poster reported it and see fit to prosecute? A prosecuting attorney will in most likelihood, accept that this guy wasn't a genuinely dangerous guy, and settle the case without a trial. Do you know how many people are running around committing crimes while on probation or good behavior, dodging warrants, it, people who were released from custody awaiting disposition of the case.

Give me a break. You can't have it both ways. Out of one side you talk about freely giving the money, which isn't the case, then saying that demanding and taking money isn't theft? Somebody stole, either he did by taking it or she did by giving it, and once again, by initial reports, the money was not freely offered.

There is a lot of argument here and much of it is about supposition. We have what he said, about what she said, about what she perceived to be true, and what his intentions were are a complete mystery. Yet still, nobody can say a thing without this sort of Snarky reply.

I'm through, so you win. Go celebrate.

[OldMarksman]

What reasonable person will believe that she would have been justified in lethal force when he never even verbalized a threat?

Do you really, really think that the use of deadly force is lawful only when the person against whom force is used has actually said something?

As for prosecution, I might as well ask you, are you kidding?

Lessee--a man enters a business establishment, demands money, and displays a weapon....

Out of one side you talk about freely giving the money, which isn't the case, then saying that demanding and taking money isn't theft? Somebody stole, either he did by taking it or she did by giving it, and once again, by initial reports, the money was not freely offered.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

[K_Mac]

I find this to be an interesting discussion, and have tried to keep my natural snarkiness under control.

Brian we are in agreement that drawing a gun in this case was not necessary. With the information we have, I would have turned over the cash while watching and maintaining as much distance as possible from the robber. If he had pursued an attack, I would have drawn and fired.

OldMarksman, I don't question any of your points, and respect your judgement on this. Demanding money and presenting a deadly weapon is as good of justification for use of deadly force in self-defense as I can think of. I think most prosecutors and juries would agree. If it were my daughter behind the counter under discussion I would want her to draw and be prepared to shoot if the robber did anything but turn and run. I also agree that giving an attacker or potential attacker the benefit of doubt before using lethal force is risky and dangerous.

With all that said, we use our best judgement in a lethal attack, and live or die with the decision. The ability make the best decision is conditional on having the training and experience necessary to understand and execute what is needed. Even then, there will always be second guessing and acrimony. That is the reality of using a gun in self-defense, and discussing these things on the internet. It's all good.