Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Possibly, but not in the context that I am using the word. When I say "CNS" I mean brain or upper spinal column. "Insta-kill" or at least instant incapacitation.
Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?
- Thread starter ig88250
- Start date
- Status
Possibly, but not in the context that I am using the word. When I say "CNS" I mean brain or upper spinal column. "Insta-kill" or at least instant incapacitation.
Hindsight isn't 20/20, despite the old saw. All we know is what did happen. We don't know what might have happened if things had been done differently.
What might have happened:
- robber got the money and left without incident; no one harmed
- robber got the money and forced clerk & witnesses into a freezer, but the people are found before they freeze to death so no one is harmed (in which case all the commenters say, "Thank goodness the employees did the right thing," but see below!)
- robber got the money, then herded clerk & witnesses into a freezer where he then proceeded to shoot each one in the head -- or slit their throats (not so many news reports say, "Thank goodness the employees cooperated" after such cases!)
So yeah, it's entirely possible nobody would've gotten hurt if he'd just cooperated. It's also possible everyone would have been dead if he had.
We'll never know.
pax
Resisting strong arm robbery is SELF DEFENSE not defense of property!
It seems to me (and I've posted on this before) that a lot of people can't distinguish between simple theft (illegal removal of property) and robbery by force (coercion via threat to life).
With simple theft (aka burglary) the criminal takes something but never directly threatens you (or may never even have any contact with you at all). For example, you come back to your car to discover a window smashed and stuff stolen. You and the criminal never had any direct contact. In a similar fashion you may arrive just in time to see the criminal run off into the distance. Again, no direct threat/contact. This is theft.
However
Robbery by force involves the criminal directly approaching you and making some sort of threat. That threat is almost always a variation of the hoary old chestnut of "your money or your life". In that case a self-defense response is NOT you protecting "property", it is you protecting your life and well-being which the criminal just directly threatened in an attempt to make you submit.
Each individual must evaluate each situation and decide on the best course of action, but in scenario 2 if means, motive, and opportunity are all met then lethal force may be an appropriate response.
Every time I hear the argument "just give them what they want and they'll go away" I'm astonished at the notion that I, or anyone else, should believe that about someone who was already far enough into criminal behavior to threaten violence and injury in order to rob me in the first place.
If they are far enough outside of the normal social boundaries to perform the bold, face-to-face action of robbery by force, then I tend to believe they'll do whatever else they please as well regardless of any "deal" they claim to be offering me.
Or more specific to this particular robbery. If someone comes into a place of business, makes some sort of demand, and "backs up" that demand with what a reasonable person would consider to be a legitimate threat (such as pointing a firearm) the entire event has ceased to be about property and is now about the threat to yourself and others.
Does this mean you should "just act"?
Hell NO! One should ALWAYS try to review the situation at least a little to determine what all of the options are. Additionally this is also one of those classic scenarios where you MUST remember that the perp may not be alone.
Even if you are able to deal with the obvious threat it is critically important to remain alert and aware of your entire surroundings in case the bad guy has backup present (just outside, in a car, or even in another part of the restaurant/club/stop n shop, etc. That's why it's so important to avoid acting too fast. You must assess the ENTIRE situation as much as possible before taking action and you MUST assume that the criminal has partners.
I guess you're not familiar with the concept of a franchise, but franchised restaurants aren't typically owned by "multinational corporations", but by small business owners who pay the franchisor (in this case, Burger King) for the right to operate under their name and aegis. Not that it matters, of course. It is irrelevant who owns the restaurant as well as whether they are a multinational corporation or not.
What matters is that neither you nor I nor anyone else responding in this thread was there, and none of us has any idea what the robber was going to do had the CCW not interceded. Would he have left after getting the money? Maybe. Would he have shot one or more customers and/or employees? Maybe. There's no way of knowing, and basing your opinion of whether or not this was a "good" shooting on the fact that it is a franchise restaurant is as ridiculous as it would be to base that opinion on the color shoes the robber was wearing.
Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking.
The good thing is that this robber is dead and won't be robbing anyone else. The sad thing is that he didn't turn his life around before committing his last stupid act.
The robber caused this incident. No one else was responsible for the consequenses and outcome but him, but because or our selfish money grubbing society that's not always the case.
Replace the CCW holder with an off duty plain clothed cop and the same situation would have unfolded. This thread wouldn't exist because it would have been considered "the job of the police" to take care of it. That way there's someone with some money who we can sue just in case.
The good thing is that this robber is dead and won't be robbing anyone else. The sad thing is that he didn't turn his life around before committing his last stupid act.
The robber caused this incident. No one else was responsible for the consequenses and outcome but him, but because or our selfish money grubbing society that's not always the case.
Replace the CCW holder with an off duty plain clothed cop and the same situation would have unfolded. This thread wouldn't exist because it would have been considered "the job of the police" to take care of it. That way there's someone with some money who we can sue just in case.
If someone is commiting a robbery while armed the weapon is almost certainly going to be pointed at the intended victim, so.....the THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE already exists and probably the IMMINENT USE OF DEADLY FORCE EXISTS . You don't have to try and read the mind of the robber to be 100% certain he intends to use it or wait until he actually fires ---and far too many robbers these days get what they want and still kill the victims so not to leave witnesses....He has already threatened bodily harm by deadly force and the victim is totally within his rights to defend himself or someone else with deadly force if he feels his life is threatened or the life of a third party. Unless we were there it is not up to us to say the wounded victim was wrong to shoot. He had to make a split second decision and did so.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Zespectre,
While I agree with your post, I would submit that the only part that really matters when you're in that resteraunt is this:
The rest is just theory to be discussed on the internet. What matters when it's happening is get out with minimal damage, not what sort of crime it may or may not be.
So far as whose money is in the drawer... it doesn't matter. It's insured. That bloodbath cost the owner of that place far more than the cash in the drawer.
Would it have been a blood bath anyway. As others have said, there's no way to know. Observe, decide and act. That's all we can do at the time.
While I agree with your post, I would submit that the only part that really matters when you're in that resteraunt is this:
The rest is just theory to be discussed on the internet. What matters when it's happening is get out with minimal damage, not what sort of crime it may or may not be.
So far as whose money is in the drawer... it doesn't matter. It's insured. That bloodbath cost the owner of that place far more than the cash in the drawer.
Would it have been a blood bath anyway. As others have said, there's no way to know. Observe, decide and act. That's all we can do at the time.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Nothing at all irresponsible to suggest that whenever possible one should avoid firing a bunch of bullets inside a business with other people standing around. In fact, it seems like a pretty good bit of advice.
peetzakilla,
I understand your point and agree somewhat except for one important detail.
There are any number of people out there who have frozen at the critical instant because they were unsure if they were "in the right".
I know, it sounds stupid.
Sitting here keyboard quarterbacking it seems pretty obvious that if someone is threatening your life then of course you have the right to do whatever it takes to preserve your life...except that people have been so effectively programmed that "just self-defense" doesn't always seem like enough justification and the mental discord of programming vs survival causes people to lock-up under stress.
For that reason I consider the discussion of "type of crime" to be very important because it allows people to build some scenarios where it is already clear in their heads that under "condition A or B or D" I am clear to act appropriately but under "condition C or E" I am constrained.
Having those "game plans" generally worked out ahead of time greatly reduces the chances of a "brain lock" if (Maker forbid) a bad event happens.
Or, as they say, "Train and plan ahead of time because after the whistle blows is no time to come up with a game plan".
I've had two recent incidents where neither my wife nor I hesitated or got flustered but only because we'd considered similar scenarios ahead of time and already had a "game plan".
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
All I can think is that this guy is facing a lifetime of pain and possibly disability as well as medical bills that are bound to be horrendous as a result of his decision. That is a big bet to make. I wasn't there so I don't know what the shooter saw that convinced him he had to act; but I know for me it would have to be something more than what the newspaper reported for me to take that bet.
From a legal standpoint, it looks like the shooter had every legal right to use lethal force. However, just because you can do it legally doesn't make it the best solution to a problem.
From a legal standpoint, it looks like the shooter had every legal right to use lethal force. However, just because you can do it legally doesn't make it the best solution to a problem.
You're missing the point of my statement. There seems to be a lot of people under the belief that they should rely on the law to tell them when to shoot. Situations rarely unfold so nicely and the law is arbitrary from one county to the next.
What about the (real incident) situation with the teacher that had a loaded weapon in his car (parked well away from the school) that went and retrieved it to stop a school shooting? Should he not have gone to get it and bring it back, illegally mind you, onto school grounds to stop the killer?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Zespectre said:
I agree.
Well, that takes all the fun right out of it, doesn't it. Now how are we going to argue?
I thought the Burger King was being robbed, not the individual. I won't even bother checking the story.
Again, the contents of a cash register.
Hence, I would have never risked my life and the life of others for the contents of a cash register, weather it belongs to a particular person or is operated at a corporate level (some are). Like someone said, it don't matter who's money it is, it's only money. That's what the guy wants at the moment, you give him the money, he goes away. Now, if the life of another person was endangered by the robber, that is another situation, I think, but I'm not going to read the post again.
Last edited:
#18indycolts
Moderator
so you're the rare part of the population that can actually see into the future?
then how can you actually comment?
Ahhhhhhhhh. Yeeessssss. No I don't pretend to see into the future but I don't pretend other things either.
I don't think a robber is there to kill but to rob. I'm not happy with a robbery but I'm not the city's private police department because I have a CC permit. Seems you like reading things out of context. I won't bother checking the story b/c I read the story. It is called sarcasm, angers little brother.
KnightZero
New member
I didn't see it in this thread (I may have glazed over it) but after re-reading this story a few times, I can easily see a concerned CCW holder, who is attempting to be a good witness by noting the features and behavior of the perpetrator, suddenly becoming the perpetrator's new target simply because he was caught eyeing him. The "argument" may have even been an attempt to de-escalate the situation before the shooting began.
Just my take on the issue. May or may not be the case, but this seems like a good possibility. City life has taught me that being alert and aware can sometimes have unintended consequences - keeping an eye on shady characters around me in public has bought me a good deal of verbal abuse in my day. Toss in an armed robbery, and I could see this as a possible outcome.
Just my take on the issue. May or may not be the case, but this seems like a good possibility. City life has taught me that being alert and aware can sometimes have unintended consequences - keeping an eye on shady characters around me in public has bought me a good deal of verbal abuse in my day. Toss in an armed robbery, and I could see this as a possible outcome.
- Status