Example of restraint

T

TailGator

New member
The story in the attached post is local to me. A woman was in a pharmacy when an armed robbery occurred. She was armed, but refrained from taking a shot. At different times in the narrative, she says that she had a clear shot, and that she did not fire because of the consequences of a miss, which would seem to be at least somewhat contradictory. She made some comments that are beneficial to the firearm community, about being trained and about not being eager to put her firearm into action.

A discussion of her response might be of benefit, I thought, so:

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/c...obber-live-spare-others-crossfire/1677808001/
 
Women. They listen when you teach 'em and do what you tell 'em. Not a single "I'm a natural shot." among 'em either.
"...itching to shoot the man..." Somebody needs to talk to Corey Arwood's editor.
 
Women. They listen when you teach 'em and do what you tell 'em. Not a single "I'm a natural shot." among 'em either.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you don't know the some of the women I know. :D

As a topic for discussion of tactics, its fine, but I wonder why someone NOT shooting someone is NEWS???
 
As a topic for discussion of tactics, its fine, but I wonder why someone NOT shooting someone is NEWS???
Click to expand...

(1) There was still an armed robbery of a pharmacy and an arrest.

(2) It's a small town.:D
 
She does not really articulate clearly why she decided not to shoot.

::He just wanted pills and to leave:: .. that determination is based on what exactly?


::if she missed, it would be bad:: .. is that not the case in any defensive shooting?

Certainly the decision to use or [not] use force should be a thoughtful one. Not engaging in a gunfight may have been the correct call but just because he didn't start shooting people does not necessarily validate the decision. I want to believe that her decision was not based on denial or lack of confidence in herself but it will simply remain an unknown until more insight into her thought process is revealed. A person can choose the passive course in every conflict and it will probably turn out favorably at least some of the time.
 
Not engaging in a gunfight may have been the correct call but just because he didn't start shooting people does not necessarily validate the decision.
Click to expand...

Nor does it invalidate her decision. We weren't there, she was. No short news story can give us all the details needed for an accurate analysis.

Based on the what we're told, what do we know ??
People were threatened with a gun.
No one was shot. No shots were fired.

The rest is opinion. Consider what might have been going through her mind. ALL kinds of different things. Consider she might have thought "he hasn't shot anyone, yet, he might not, if I shoot so will he...." things like that.

Also there is the after the fact thoughts that probably didn't clearly occur to her during the short time, but are worthy of consideration when discussing this kind of situation.

Like other people, later on, deciding you weren't justified shooting. Possibly the personal horror of lifelong doubt afterwards that your action triggered harm to others that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't opened fire.

There are many, many possible things to consider, literally no time to do so, and I am of the opinion that if you aren't convinced you have to shoot, you shouldn't shoot.

I make a distinction between being legally justified shooting and "having" to shoot. In this case we have someone armed and in a situation where they would have been legally justified, but didn't feel they HAD to shoot, and so they chose not to. In this case it worked out no one was injured. Had that changed, she might have changed her mind and shot.

Its a judgement call, what you or I think she did right or wrong, we need to remember that just because you can (and be in the right) doesn't always mean you should.
 
While I agree that she got a good result and is fortunate not to be dealing with the aftermath of a shooting, I was struck by her statement that the BG put the gun right in her face and her son's face. She took a chance, IMO, by not responding with force at that point. I'm not sure if I would have taken the same chance if a gun was in the face of my wife, one of my daughters, or my granddaughter. If that isn't a time to respond, does one wait until a shot is fired? An innocent is down?
 
the BG put the gun right in her face and her son's face. She took a chance, IMO, by not responding with force at that point.
Click to expand...

I disagree. To attempt to “out draw”a drawn gun pointed at your face is unlikely to yield good results.

In FoF scenarios, this type of situation results in BOTH parties getting shot. Tactically, thats a loss, not a tie. If you MUST counter-ambush the BG, you need to be calm and patient. The term “wait your turn” is used often in this type of training.

Each person needs to establish their own “line in the sand”. When do you go? Only you can decide. That requires you to do a serious gut check and attempt to read the intent of the BG. A simple robbery and you think he is going to run once he gets the cash/pills (as in this case), i think she did great.

Gun fights are not what most pepple think they ae like. To think you are going to draw/fire and STOP the BG before he can shoot you, with his gun already on you is silly
 
Nor does it invalidate her decision. We weren't there, she was. No short news story can give us all the details needed for an accurate analysis.
Click to expand...

I made no claim that it invalidated her decision. I also suggested that more information was needed to fairly judge the potential merits of her decision. It should probably go without saying but if you want to throw some sort of ying-yang element into the mix... sure, her decision may have been right or it may have been wrong. I doubt I would have just stood there with someone pointing a gun in my kids face, but that's just me. I am simply interested to know a little more about how she qualified her decision. I remain skeptical about a few things


Based on the what we're told, what do we know ??
People were threatened with a gun.
No one was shot. No shots were fired.

The rest is opinion.
Click to expand...

of course, .. opinions make for well rounded and often fruitful discussion. If we simply submit facts and fail to opine, we wouldn't have much of a discussion forum.

Also there is the after the fact thoughts that probably didn't clearly occur to her during the short time, but are worthy of consideration when discussing this kind of situation.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure that issues which may impact you well on down the road should really be a part of qualifying or disqualifying the need of extreme force during an active robbery.

Like other people, later on, deciding you weren't justified shooting. Possibly the personal horror of lifelong doubt afterwards that your action triggered harm to others that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't opened fire.
Click to expand...


exactly.. none of which is going to factor into my decision to take action against a criminal who is actively threatening my life in the moment. What should probably be foremost on my mind is survival and the limits of legal action.

I make a distinction between being legally justified shooting and "having" to shoot. In this case we have someone armed and in a situation where they would have been legally justified, but didn't feel they HAD to shoot, and so they chose not to. In this case it worked out no one was injured. Had that changed, she might have changed her mind and shot.
Click to expand...


failing to make a distinction between those two things would be troubling in my humble opinion.

Its a judgement call, what you or I think she did right or wrong, we need to remember that just because you can (and be in the right) doesn't always mean you should.
Click to expand...

that is an interesting quip but I am not sure that anyone in this thread has suggestion that you should-simply because you can.
 
I disagree. To attempt to “out draw”a drawn gun pointed at your face is unlikely to yield good results.
Click to expand...

it may yield good result for the person you are trying to save or for others in danger. Sure.. you might invite harm upon yourself but if you feel that you can in fact [put the threat down], your goal might actually be met. I really just depends on what you goal actually is and how badly you are willing to accomplish it. I decided long ago that I am not going to allow someone with a gun to my head to act with impunity. Sitting here in my easy chair, I would say that in this is type of dire circumstance there is probably a 99.3% that I will either [go for his gun] or [bring my own weapon into action]. I concede that there is always a chance that I do nothing.

In FoF scenarios, this type of situation results in BOTH parties getting shot.
Click to expand...


depending on what hangs in the balance, that might be acceptable if you are able to put down the threat.


Gun fights are not what most pepple think they are like. To think you are going to draw/fire and STOP the BG before he can shoot you, with his gun already on you is silly
Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone make such a claim or stand in support of any such idea


The bottom line is that I am not really critical of the fact that someone decided to do nothing. Doing nothing might be the most practical decision in some circumstances. What I am naturally critical of is the process by which a person makes such a decision and what they base that decision on.

Whether or not her decision had merit remains to be seen. I consider this young lady and everyone else involved to be exceedingly lucky.
 
Last edited:
What I am naturally critical of is the process by which a person makes such a decision and what they base that decision on.
Click to expand...

It seems to me no more evidence along those lines is available other than what we already have.

Whether or not her decision had merit remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Well, she is alive. She may well have been alive had she chosen to use force as well.

I think there's value in bringing up and discussing alternatives (as I've said in the past). At some point, however, these threads always seem to get to the point of people repeating themselves, and then the thread gets locked. I'm not saying that is what you are doing here, but I think we're on the cusp of that happening.

I consider this young lady and everyone else involved to be exceedingly lucky.
Click to expand...

In most of these cases luck seems to be an element.

I could understand the argument for going for the assailant's gun to drive it off line and/or move yourself off line, delivering blows, drawing your own firearm in the process, etc. I've done training for some of those things. Putting them into action under stress of the level of loss of your own life isn't something most people have experience with.

At some level you have to consider your own competency and decide when/if doing those actions is appropriate. I would agree that there is no ideal situation (ideally a person wouldn't be in this situation) and a willingness to act needs to be an element as well as a willingness to wait.
 
TunnelRat said:
What I am naturally critical of is the process by which a person makes such a decision and what they base that decision on.
Click to expand...
It seems to me no more evidence along those lines is available other than what we already have.

Whether or not her decision had merit remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Well, she is alive. She may well have been alive had she chosen to use force as well.
Click to expand...
According to the article, the robber at one point had his gun aimed at her, and at another point he had the gun aimed at her son. So, we know she is alive and so is her son. They might both be alive if she had chosen to use her gun. She or her son could just as easily have been shot -- possibly killed -- if she didn't use her gun, or if she did use her gun.

From reading the article, I don't feel that I have enough information to decide whether or not I think her decision not to shoot was a good one. I don't regard the fact that the robber chose not to shoot as any sort of validation of her course of (in)action.

TunnelRat said:
I think there's value in bringing up and discussing alternatives (as I've said in the past). At some point, however, these threads always seem to get to the point of people repeating themselves, and then the thread gets locked. I'm not saying that is what you are doing here, but I think we're on the cusp of that happening.

I consider this young lady and everyone else involved to be exceedingly lucky.
Click to expand...
In most of these cases luck seems to be an element.

I could understand the argument for going for the assailant's gun to drive it off line and/or move yourself off line, delivering blows, drawing your own firearm in the process, etc. I've done training for some of those things. Putting them into action under stress of the level of loss of your own life isn't something most people have experience with.

At some level you have to consider your own competency and decide when/if doing those actions is appropriate. I would agree that there is no ideal situation (ideally a person wouldn't be in this situation) and a willingness to act needs to be an element as well as a willingness to wait.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the argument for going mano a mano with the armed robber at all. Even if you have had some training. The setting was inside a pharmacy, with other customers and store staff in close proximity. So you knock the robber's gun off line with you -- suppose that leaves it lined up an another customer when it goes off?
 
And suppose instead of just pointing a gun at people he used it on people. There absolutely is a danger that in pushing the pistol off line that it ends up pointed at someone else. Just as there is absolutely a danger that in not doing so you get shot in the head or elsewhere and have no ability to respond further. Rare are the situations that I read where it was absolutely clear what to do and that what was done was the only option and that the decision was such that there were no potential negative consequences.

I fully admit that when drawing dead in a group of people where my movement is limited and my chances for collateral damage high my tendency would be to wait for a better opportunity before acting. But to play devil's advocate, maybe in waiting I get shot and don't get that opportunity? I don't see a definitive right or wrong answer, personally.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Tunnelrat.. some people understand that dire times sometimes require dire measures and they understand what that means. In reading your posts in this thread, I think you understand that a Robber pointing a gun in a persons face is one of those "dire times". One man allowing another man to threaten him with impunity is not a natural condition. It is more common to find that a person would be inclined to act against it spite of potentially dire consequences. Preservation of self and preservation of offspring are some of the most powerful emotion known to man. Still, there will always be alpha and beta personalities.

It is certainly fair to say that discretion is the better part of valor but when we become overly analytical and overly cautious to the point of being "timid" we begin to extinguish the concept of valor all together. I am not sure that Valor can even exist without action in spite of substantial risk. I don't think that discretion mean to recoil from risk, I think discretion is being thoughtful in regards to when to take the risk to begin with.
 
Last edited:
I do get your point and to an extent I agree, and it's something that applies not just in this particular situation. Any time you use a firearm in defense there is the risk of collateral damage, to both people and property. There's always the concern of what could go wrong. However, if you allow the concern of what might happen to keep you from stopping something that is happening that could have serious consequences.

When I generally comment on these threads it's more to advocate for avoidance than anything else. That's not really applicable here. This situation was pressed onto this woman. I'm not sure if her decision was more in line with reasonable restraint or an inability to act, which I believe was one of your original questions.
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
I don't see a definitive right or wrong answer, personally.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I don't think there is any right or wrong answer.

I also recognize the possibility that the woman's "restraint" could as easily have been cowardice or freezing up rather than carefully considered, judicious restraint. Yes, whatever her motives, it worked out. But at one time the guy pointed a gun at her. If he had pulled the trigger, that would have removed possibly the only other armed person in the store from the equation.

In short, I don't fault her action, but I'm also not prepared to praise it.
 
I hope I'm never in that situation, but my feelings are mixed. On one hand, if the dirtbag doesn't start a shootout in a crowded place (defined as any place with even one innocent present), should I start one? On the other hand, as long as he is pointing a gun at an innocent, that person's life is in imminent peril and deadly force is justified. If I have the ability to eliminate the threat, I have a moral obligation to do so. There is no easy answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top