Example of restraint

When talking about human nature and "the mind", there certainly should be plenty of room for beliefs, truths and opinions. The idea that FACT should dominate is seemingly misplaced regarding this subject matter. FACT as it relates to human nature and mental processes can be very subjective.

If someone says that the Earth is 4.5 billions years old, is that fact, truth or opinion? I would say that its an opinion based on objective facts as we know them. This is much the same principal as our discussion here which is largely based on the known nature of people as well as mental processes.
 
This discussion is in the "Tactics and Training" discussion area. Pretty much by definition, tactics represent what someone thinks is the best way to approach a certain situation, in order to obtain a beneficial (to the proponent) result. Tactics very much represent opinion, not fact.

Likewise, training represents what the instructor thinks is the best way to accomplish ___. Different instructors emphasize different things, and what's taught as gospel today might be heresy tomorrow. One example is how to hold a handgun when shooting with two hands. We've gone from the "teacup" grip to the "revolver" grip to high thumbs or parallel thumbs. Each way of holding the firearm had its proponents. Even today, although I think it's safe to say that there aren't many adherents of the teacup grip any more, the prevailing high thumbs or parallel thumbs is widespread but definitely not universal.

When I was in high school and college, pretending to be an athlete, we did the high jump the way the Russian, Valery Brummel, did it -- approach the bar face on, outside leg swings up toward the bar, and the body (hopefully) rolls over the bar with your chest down. This style was called the "western roll." And then along came a non-conformist by the name of Dick Fosbury in the 1968 Olympics, and today I think the Fosbury Flop (back to the bar as you go over) is pretty much universal among competitive high jumpers.

Does this mean that all high jumpers before Dick Fosbury in 1968 were "wrong"? No. There were some practical reasons why that style wasn't even tried before about 1968. I competed in the high jump for four years between high school and college. I was never quite "world class." In the span of four years I changed my style of jumping three times -- twice as a result of different coaches, and once for one meet, at which the landing zone would have crippled me if I had jumped using the western roll. None of the changes got me above my highest jump height, which didn't change between my senior year in high school and my senior year in college.

Consequently, I don't think it's improper to be discussing opinions with respect to tactics and training. The whole point is to look at how tactics and training have worked in the real world, assess the results, and see if there are lessons to be learned.
 
Each situation can provide unique circumstances and influences that each individual must take into consideration when making a decision.

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.

I won't second guess the decision of the lawfully armed woman in the linked article, nor her reason(s) for deciding not to start shooting.

I carry my retirement weapon not to save property, or to intervene if I witness some on-view crime to try and apprehend criminals anymore (being retired), but only to save innocent lives. That may mean being willing to recognize when starting a gun fight, which might not otherwise occur, may present more of a risk to everyone than refraining from shooting if shots being fired by a suspect don't actually appear imminent.

It's always important to remember that innocent lives may always be at risk, and sometimes the consequences of our decisions and actions in this regard may last (or end) a lifetime.

Just my thoughts.
 
This discussion is in the "Tactics and Training" discussion area. Pretty much by definition, tactics represent what someone thinks is the best way to approach a certain situation, in order to obtain a beneficial (to the proponent) result. Tactics very much represent opinion, not fact.
Click to expand...


Agreed


You could have left the comment I was responding to in post 21 so that I don't look like I am talking all out of my head. LOL
 
Acting against the drop is a terrible situation but most people have run these things through their head once or twice. I will mention a few conditions that would likely cause me to move against a armed robber with the drop on me ( or others).

any attempt to take a hostage with him
any attempt to isolate witnesses away from the group
being ordered to lay down on the ground
attempt at restraint
discovering my weapon
a manic out of control offender
offender obviously under the influence of narcotic
offender obviously experiencing psychotic episode
few witnesses and the offender is not masked
if I am the only witness
if offenders avenue of escape is denied
if others make a move on the offender
offender onset of panic

When I wouldn't move against the drop:

if the armed robber is in control, keeps his distance, has a easy avenue of escape and in the presence of numerous witnesses.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
briandg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

From the article said:
“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.”
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stephen426 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top