Colt Delta Elite
New member
That is what I was getting at (or at least trying to...)
We are on the same page.
Take care.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CVS Robberies
- Thread starter revance
- Start date
That is what I was getting at (or at least trying to...)
We are on the same page.
Take care.
Rifleman 173
New member
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.
stephen426
New member
Colt Delta Elite said:COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!
Neither does fighting back.
Steve,
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
Colt Delta Elite
New member
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT GAURANTEE SURVIVAL!!!
Your point is true.
Neither does fighting back.
My point is true.
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.
You cannot just hope that you will not be harmed if you comply.
It is very apparent that IS the thinking of those that chose that option in a particular instance. They follow the orders with the expectation of a decent outcome. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. The CVS robberies is an example of where it DID work. Individual personal judgement is required because each circumstance will be unique. One should not limit their available options by just concluding that engagement is a must.
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]:
This did not involve compliance or non-compliance, but a flight/hide response.Many were killed cowering under their desks
Facts not in evidence. We all are entitled to our opinions. Perhaps notebooks and rulers would have overcome the assailant, perhaps not. At this point it's just conjecture.I believe that fewer people would have died had a few brave students made a stand and rushed the shooter.
Bottom line:
Your last sentence underscores my point....
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.
Action versus non-action. EITHER may be appropriate. EITHER may allow you to survive or get you killed. Don't assume EITHER one is a foregone conclusion with a guaranteed result. Judge each situation individually to the best of your personal abilities and proceed. In the end you still have to hope for the best.
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.
Good distinction, sorry if I created any confusion.
Mleake, You are correct and I should have addressed that point in my earlier post. Protection of oneself or a third party from the use or threat of use of a deadly weapon.
In N.C. an officer can use deadly force against a person who is making his escape by use of a deadly weapon. This is based on the assumption that the perp is a continued danger and is actively using a weapon.
The NC department of corrections can fire on an unarmed convicted felon to prevent escape. A pretrial detainee(person in jail) cannot be shot to prevent his escape unless he is using a weapon as a means of escape.
In N.C. an officer can use deadly force against a person who is making his escape by use of a deadly weapon. This is based on the assumption that the perp is a continued danger and is actively using a weapon.
The NC department of corrections can fire on an unarmed convicted felon to prevent escape. A pretrial detainee(person in jail) cannot be shot to prevent his escape unless he is using a weapon as a means of escape.
primlantah
New member
if i was in no immediate danger i would hold off. My reasoning is if the police are coming to stop an armed robbery i do not want to be mistaken for the BG.
If someone wants to line me up or herd me off then they better practice live fire more than i do.
If someone wants to line me up or herd me off then they better practice live fire more than i do.
Your reasoning is "if the police are coming..."
That's an awfully big "if"
If I heard sirens, I agree I'd hold off. Same if I noticed uniformed people sneaking toward the doors.
Short of that, I don't know that I'd assume the police are on their way. Unless the clerk has an alarm button he/she can press, and has been in a position where they could do so, or unless some unnoticed witness has called the robbery in, then why would anybody in the store assume that the police are on their way?
It's not like the police stop by CVS every few minutes to say hi.
Now, if you were in a position where you could stay fairly well hidden, monitor the situation, and call 911, that's something else.
Cheers,
M
That's an awfully big "if"
If I heard sirens, I agree I'd hold off. Same if I noticed uniformed people sneaking toward the doors.
Short of that, I don't know that I'd assume the police are on their way. Unless the clerk has an alarm button he/she can press, and has been in a position where they could do so, or unless some unnoticed witness has called the robbery in, then why would anybody in the store assume that the police are on their way?
It's not like the police stop by CVS every few minutes to say hi.
Now, if you were in a position where you could stay fairly well hidden, monitor the situation, and call 911, that's something else.
Cheers,
M