Video of thwarted ATM mugging -- your tactical thoughts?

[OhioGuy]

I ran across this footage and it made me think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riqv...ature=youtu.be

Brief summary: it's apparently from Venezuela, and an especially crime-ridden area. A mugger pulls a gun on a victim surrounded by lots of bystanders...probably a good guess he intended to rob multiple people. The would-be victim was actually LE. He instantly surrenders his cash, then quickly circles behind a lady in line, to emerge with gun drawn. He rapidly lands 4 shots into the mugger, who appears to fire one shot of his own (anyone else see his muzzle flash?) before collapsing.

Now, let's imagine this happened in the US, and the victim was a CCW carrier and not LE. Maybe it's a mall food court or some other crowded area. My thoughts:

1. The victim, after surrendering the cash, had plenty of opportunity to flee and get away. He didn't have to shoot the robber. In theory he could have escaped and immediately called 911 or alerted some other security.

2. Everyone in the crowd panicked and ran, or dove for the floor when they heard the first shots. That could have become a stampede that was more dangerous than the robbery.

3. As noted in the commentary, he passed behind another person, using her for concealment, but this could have been interpreted as using her for cover or even as a shield and putting her life at risk.

4. If I'm right and the mugger fired a shot before collapsing, that shot could very well have hurt or killed someone two blocks away, or on the other side of the mall. It's possible that the mugger would never have fired at all if nobody had tried to stop him. He may have just fled with the cash.

So...tactically and legally...should a CCW-er have intervened in this manner? It may be that shooting the mugger saved many lives. It may also be that his one stray shot killed a bystander who would otherwise have lived, and that could be seen as the fault of the CCW-er. This mugger went down pretty quick, and stopped shooting, but others have been shot many more times and still fled, or lived long enough to blast away The fallout could have been much worse.

What would be the likely outcome for the CCW-er in these cases?

[TXAZ]

Situational Awareness is the first (and again) key attribute in really tough situations.

The officer is well trained. He quickly formulated a plan that uses the woman as a discontinuity, not cover, for the mugger. He comes up on the other side of the woman with gun drawn and ready to fire, doing so from less than a meter with a clear shot into the upper body.

What would happen in the US under the same conditions?
It all depends on the DA in the local jurisdiction. For a citizen in Austin Texas (and many other anti- cities), you're going to jail. For a citizen in a city that respects and appreciates lawful gun owners, you may get a commendation.

[FITASC]

Lesson to be learned - don't use an ATM, especially in a high-crime area.

[TXAZ]

^^^^^^ THIS!
Not sure what a robber would do if you have no cash, but in the US, it's becoming possible to avoid most cash transactions.

[OhioGuy]

Do you think he made the situation safer or less safe?

What about the stray bullets the robber may not have fired had he been left alone?

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

Situational Awareness is the first (and again) key attribute in really tough situations.

The officer is well trained. He quickly formulated a plan that uses the woman as a discontinuity, not cover, for the mugger. He comes up on the other side of the woman with gun drawn and ready to fire, doing so from less than a meter with a clear shot into the upper body.

What would happen in the US under the same conditions?
It all depends on the DA in the local jurisdiction. For a citizen in Austin Texas (and many other anti- cities), you're going to jail. For a citizen in a city that respects and appreciates lawful gun owners, you may get a commendation.

On what grounds would Austin convict the citizen?

[TXAZ]

3 years ago, in their infinite anti-Constitutional-I-know-whats-best-for-you-totalatarian attitude , the Travis County DA and former police chief Acevedo conspired (as quoted in the Austin paper) to arrest everyone who used a gun in self defense and let the grand jury decide.
The goal is to make people think twice about using a gun in self defense.
The irony is Austin PD lies about their response times big time, and more CHL would more likely help.
I worked for the State Police in Austin at the time and the vast majority were shaking our heads when that pronouncement came out.
Does that answer it in enough detail Ohio?

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

3 years ago, in their infinite anti-Constitutional-I-know-whats-best-for-you-totalatarian attitude , the Travis County DA and former police chief Acevedo conspired (as quoted in the Austin paper) to arrest everyone who used a gun in self defense and let the grand jury decide.
The goal is to make people think twice about using a gun in self defense.
The irony is Austin PD lies about their response times big time, and more CHL would more likely help.
I worked for the State Police in Austin at the time and the vast majority were shaking our heads when that pronouncement came out.
Does that answer it in enough detail Ohio?

Good Lord! Gotta protect those criminals! I'd hate to see them get their feelings hurt by responsible citizens!

[FireForged]

I have 2 primary beefs with the goodguy.. ultimately he did a good job but if I were to be critical of him I would say that:

1. Don't be totally oblivious in public spaces.
2. Why use an "arms extended" traditional firing stance at such close distances. Half-Hip would have been a much better option in my estimation.

Good job on taking him down, thinking fast and not getting tunnel vision.

[briandg]

The armed mugger appeared to pose a threat that justified deadly force under some laws. Under certain laws there is absolutely no distinction between possible victims, a carrier in a crowd does not have to be in immediate danger, if another is in danger of death or great injury the same laws and conditions apply.

For example, if I am in a group of four, a bad guy presents a deadly weapon and shows intent to shoot any of the others in my party,it is exactly as if he intended to kill me. This is the law in my home state.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm reporting law as read from local statues. Read and understand your own responsibilities for self defense.

[briandg]

I've watched it many times now. I think that it was an incredible job that he did.

In the wilder areas of the world shooting a thug like that without negotiating for surrender isn't so highly frowned upon as it is here, now. Every time I think about the Bonnie and Clyde ambush it sets me back a pace.

I see this guy as armed but probably not a killer. Maybe he should not have killed him. Not my job to judge, but I'm going to add it to my thoughts.

Going out like he did, dropping the punk and a quick search, was good. there were probably members of that guy's gang around as backup. When they saw big chief go down in a bleeding heap and an armed guy searching for another target, I believe that they would have fled.

This was a chain snatcher, a petty thief, not some cartel warrior. His backup, if he had backup, would have been local hoodlums.

[briandg]

I spent a little time looking at Venezuela. The country is in terrible shape and what I read said that it had the worst peacetime murder rate in the world, a death by murder on average every 21 minutes the constitution is suspended and it has been run by dictators for decades.

There is nothing unusual, I guess, for a supposed law enforcement officer to summarily kill a mugger. It explains why that guy was far better than would be expected, and like a swat officer in his actions.

The guy was kind of stupid to wear expensive chains, unless he was using them as bait.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I ran across this footage and it made me think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riqv...ature=youtu.be

Brief summary: it's apparently from Venezuela, and an especially crime-ridden area. A mugger pulls a gun on a victim surrounded by lots of bystanders...probably a good guess he intended to rob multiple people. The would-be victim was actually LE. He instantly surrenders his cash, then quickly circles behind a lady in line, to emerge with gun drawn. He rapidly lands 4 shots into the mugger, who appears to fire one shot of his own (anyone else see his muzzle flash?) before collapsing.

Now, let's imagine this happened in the US, and the victim was a CCW carrier and not LE. Maybe it's a mall food court or some other crowded area. My thoughts:

1. The victim, after surrendering the cash, had plenty of opportunity to flee and get away. He didn't have to shoot the robber. In theory he could have escaped and immediately called 911 or alerted some other security.

2. Everyone in the crowd panicked and ran, or dove for the floor when they heard the first shots. That could have become a stampede that was more dangerous than the robbery.

3. As noted in the commentary, he passed behind another person, using her for concealment, but this could have been interpreted as using her for cover or even as a shield and putting her life at risk.

4. If I'm right and the mugger fired a shot before collapsing, that shot could very well have hurt or killed someone two blocks away, or on the other side of the mall. It's possible that the mugger would never have fired at all if nobody had tried to stop him. He may have just fled with the cash.

So...tactically and legally...should a CCW-er have intervened in this manner? It may be that shooting the mugger saved many lives. It may also be that his one stray shot killed a bystander who would otherwise have lived, and that could be seen as the fault of the CCW-er. This mugger went down pretty quick, and stopped shooting, but others have been shot many more times and still fled, or lived long enough to blast away The fallout could have been much worse.

What would be the likely outcome for the CCW-er in these cases?

another theory is that as long as the bad guy still has his gun drawn the good guy could not safely turn his back and flee.

[Ricklin]

The robber was still an active threat, both to his intended victim, and to the bystanders.
Nice work by a well trained good guy. He stopped the threat. Excessive? No! Given the situation the key was putting the bad guy down quickly, ending the threat to all those nearby innocents. Score one for the good guys.
Beautiful move by the good guy, dropping his valuables on the ground gave him the SECONDS he needed to turn the situation around.

[FireForged]

another theory is that as long as the bad guy still has his gun drawn the good guy could not safely turn his back and flee.

I have no issues what so ever- with the fact that the goodguy took him out. Lets just not pretend that he couldn't have just as easily got away from him after dropping his goods. The badguy was a danger to everyone there and likely would have continued robbing people.. I think he was justified in engaging him. That said, .. the good guy chose to turn around and engage him. It wasn't as if that was the only means of escape at that point. He could have just walked off into the crowd.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by FireForged

I have no issues what so ever- with the fact that the goodguy took him out. Lets just not pretend that he couldn't have just as easily got away from him after dropping his goods. The badguy was a danger to everyone there and likely would have continued robbing people.. I think he was justified in engaging him. That said, .. the good guy chose to turn around and engage him. It wasn't as if that was the only means of escape at that point. He could have just walked off into the crowd.

...and what if he turned and ran and the bad guy shot him in the back? Would that still have been the easiest option?

[BOOGIE the oily]

I can't say what would've happened in the US. To be honest, I don't think anybody can, as it's strongly dependent on where in the US it happened.
I CAN say what would've happened in Argentina: the shooter would've gone to jail. And rightly so.

First, you can call it cover, distraction, whatever. The fact is he put that woman in the line of potential fire. He could've gotten her killed.
Second, up until that time, the BG had not been violent at all. In fact, he had been pretty discreet at targeting the good guy. So the GG had no real reason at all to start shooting in a room full of innocent people.
And third, it was just dumb luck (or sheer stupidity on part of the BG), that the BG didn't have an accomplice. If he did, the whole thing could've been a massacre.

So, maybe if he was a soldier we could say he was well trained. But as a LE, I think his performance was dismal.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by BOOGIE the oily

I can't say what would've happened in the US. To be honest, I don't think anybody can, as it's strongly dependent on where in the US it happened.
I CAN say what would've happened in Argentina: the shooter would've gone to jail. And rightly so.

First, you can call it cover, distraction, whatever. The fact is he put that woman in the line of potential fire. He could've gotten her killed.
Second, up until that time, the BG had not been violent at all. In fact, he had been pretty discreet at targeting the good guy. So the GG had no real reason at all to start shooting in a room full of innocent people.
And third, it was just dumb luck (or sheer stupidity on part of the BG), that the BG didn't have an accomplice. If he did, the whole thing could've been a massacre.

So, maybe if he was a soldier we could say he was well trained. But as a LE, I think his performance was dismal.

I would say that pulling a gun on someone is an act of violence, no matter how discreet one does it.

[BOOGIE the oily]

I would say that pulling a gun on someone is an act of violence, no matter how discreet one does it.

Ok, let me rephrase:

Up to the point the GG started shooting, the BG had not directly threatened anybody else but him. The situation did not justify at all for a supposedly trained LEO to start a potential shootout in a room full of innocent people.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by BOOGIE the oily

Ok, let me rephrase:

Up to the point the GG started shooting, the BG had not directly threatened anybody else but him. The situation did not justify at all for a supposedly trained LEO to start a potential shootout in a room full of innocent people.

But the GG didnt start the shootout, in fact the BG beat him to the draw....

[BOOGIE the oily]

But the GG didnt start the shootout, in fact the BG beat him to the draw....

Nope, he didn't. There's a difference between having a gun in your hand, and shooting a gun.

[TailGator]

There's a difference between having a gun in your hand, and shooting a gun.

The problem with that reasoning is that there is only a fraction of a second of difference between the two. You will never have the time to react to the movement of a trigger finger, but you might have time to react to the appearance of a handgun. Someone who has introduced a handgun into a confrontation cannot be trusted not to shoot. If you are going to act at all, you can't wait any longer.

[Ricklin]

Earlier I used the word SECONDS and I capitalized the word for emphasis.

I was WRONG, we need to make that FRACTIONS of a second. Because that was the time between the GG dumping his valuables prior to ending the threat.

Fractions of a second....

[OhioGuy]

I think BOOGIE makes a very good point above, and it's what still bothers me about this video, although all other points are valid too...

Had anything gone wrong in his well-executed maneuver here, a bystander could have been shot easily. He could have missed the bad buy and had a stray round ricochet off the floor. The bad guy could have fired unintentionally as he fell from being hit. He could have not gone down so easily and dumped his magazine in the general direction of the good guy and hit Lord-knows-how-many people. My guess is that a robber hopes to escape with whatever he stole, and isn't looking for a gunfight. Opening fire on him definitely risked escalating the situation.

Of course, it's all speculation because all we have is this video in which everything went right. And we'll never know how many people could have been killed anyway, had good guy just run away when he had the chance...robbers just kill people sometimes. Maybe there was an accomplice or two, who fled when they heard the gunfire, and nobody will ever know what their intentions could have been.

As LE, he has the duty to protect the citizens there. I guess he made the call that this was the best way to protect the greatest number of them. An armed citizen has no such duty (in a legal sense), and the cost to the citizen of something going wrong is likely far higher, because he'd be acting beyond what he's required and expected to do.

I dunno...but I have to say, if something like this happened in my town and I were the armed good guy...given the crowds and total uncertainty about how many accomplices could be outside my field of view, I'd probably have escaped or at least gone to a place of cover while calling the cops. There are SO MANY ways for something to have gone wrong.

Or what if I were the bystander who'd just been hit in the chest by a stray round? Would I feel better knowing an armed citizen had stopped a robber who may never have been a threat to me?

[BOOGIE the oily]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

...and it's what still bothers me about this video...

To be honest, what bothers me about this video is... everything. It seems like an exercise in stupidity, on both parts.

First, the robber, goes on to mug a guy inside an ATM when everybody knows they're full of security cameras everywhere. Now, I've never been to Venezuela, but, for what can be seen in the video, that ATM could easily be in Buenos Aires, and that is NOT how a bank mugging is done. A guy gets in the bank/ATM and marks people leaving with a lot of money, and guys OUTSIDE do the mugging.

Then, the robber goes to rob inside a room full of people WITH NO BACKUP? Seriously?

And finally, when the "victim" drops the cash, he forgets he's in a room full of potential threats, and, instead of making his "victim" pick it up, he bends over to pick up the stuff?

And then, the "cop" (if he indeed is one):

He's in a room full of strangers, yet until the robber is able to get right next to him and grab him, he's completely oblivious to what's going on around him. Talk about "situational awareness".
Then, once the BG bent over to pick up his cash, he could have ended the whole deal with a whack to the back of his head (with or without his pistol). No shots fired, end of story.
Or if, as the situation did call for (because the robber could've had an accomplice), he needed to kill the guy, he could've done it right from where he stood (instead of doing that dance around the woman, that would've been a loud wake up call for the potential accomplice), again with a bullet to the back of his head, or to his spine. At that range, a .22 would've been enough. And he wouldn't have put the woman at risk.

To be honest, the more I watch that video, the more it looks like a very badly scripted training vid to me...