Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

That is a very plausible posibility, in such case, the robber escalated the situation and posibly the CC permit holder had no other option but to draw and shoot.
 
Replace the CCW holder with an off duty plain clothed cop and the same situation would have unfolded.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Most department policies that I've seen instruct the off-duty officer to be a good witness and not start shooting unless there is no other alternative.
 
so you're the rare part of the population that can actually see into the future?
Click to expand...
One does not need to see into the future in order to predict what is likely to happen. One response gives a strong likelihood that it will occur (give hm the money and he will go away). Generally a good bet to play toward the odds, not against them.
 
It sure would be nice if things always worked that way, but they just don't!

A realistic threat assessment includes the possibility that the clerk and/or witnesses will be shot even if everyone complies and does what they are told.

Believing otherwise is living in a fantasy land.
Click to expand...

Pax. It sure would be nice. You have to play it by ear.;) From my expirience, if everyone complies, nothing happens. Hate it, YES! Wish things where different, YES, wished to do something about it, YES, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, only if the life of a person is at danger.
 
Last edited:
One does not need to see into the future in order to predict what is likely to happen.
Click to expand...

You can predict someone else's actions all day, but at the end of said day it still boils down to the fact that you really don't know what they will do. Remember that quote from a certain steven seagall movie? "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
 
David Amstrong:

You go ahead and keep at it if you like. I've had enough of this post. As a matter of fact. It is difficult to have a conversation when the other party is being obtuse.
 
Maromero ~

Yes, you do. Based on intelligent assessment of the situation, including body language and other cues that may not appear in the police reports later.

And yet people are willing to read a bare-bones newspaper account -- which definitely will not include all the relevant facts, and which probably will have some of the included facts outright wrong or at least distorted beyond usefulness -- and use that account to say the guy on the scene absolutely made the WRONG CALL (or absolutely made the RIGHT CALL). Either way, it's not realistic.

A realistic understanding of these types of situations includes the knowledge that they are dynamic: they happen quickly, they change quickly, and they are over quickly. Note the word "change." Change one teeny tiny detail -- a detail that probably won't be in the news reports, and may not even be accurate if it is, and which may be so small as to not even have been noticed by other, untrained people on the scene! -- and you've shifted from a situation where you definitely should shoot to one where you definitely should not. Or vice versa.

But the lines are already drawn here. Some participants in this thread are ready to sneer (in a refined, academic way) at anyone who would shoot. Others are fixing to impugn the manhood and ethics of anyone who would not shoot.

Me? For me, the only reason I'd ever shoot someone was if I believed an innocent person was going to die if I did not act immediately and decisively. Money in the drawer, money in my wallet, car keys, my wedding ring -- none of those are reason enough. But protecting my own life most certainly is. So if the situation appeared to warrant it, I'd have shot to defend my life and the lives of other innocents in the area. But I probably wouldn't have vocalized before firing, in this type of situation. If I'd vocalized at all, it would have been to command "DROP THAT WEAPON!" -- giving the criminal an opportunity to save his own life if at all possible -- but only if I could do so from behind cover or good concealment. If I were in the open, I probably would not have vocalized, since the only reason I'd have my firearm out in the first place was if I believed lives were in immediate and truly immenent danger, and given true imminency, an in-the-open vocalization would be foolhardy in the extreme.

(There. That should be enough to get both sides irritated with me. So be it.)

pax
 
David Amstrong:
You go ahead and keep at it if you like. I've had enough of this post. As a matter of fact. It is difficult to have a conversation when the other party is being obtuse.
Click to expand...
I don't mind keeping at it.:D
But yes, it is difficult to have a conversation when the other party refuses to recognize certain facts, or when they choose to deny behaviors and points that have been shown to be valid over and over again, just because "it doesn't mean it will happen this time."
I'm pretty simple about it. Comply when you can, shoot when you must. Just because you can shoot doesn't mean you should, and if you decide to shoot you better plan on it failing. So many here and on other forums have this strange hero complex, and are unwilling to even imagine that the scenario won't go just the way they want it to, with them never missing around, the BG never having any help, all their shots being instantly effective, and so on.

(There. That should be enough to get both sides irritated with me. So be it.)
Click to expand...
Well pax, I'm sure both sides get you irritated plenty, it is only fair that you get to irritate both sides back every now and then!;)
 
pax said:
Me? For me, the only reason I'd ever shoot someone was if I believed an innocent person was going to die if I did not act immediately and decisively. Money in the drawer, money in my wallet, car keys, my wedding ring -- none of those are reason enough.
Click to expand...

Bingo Bango... there's the answer right there.;):)
 
David Armstrong said:
One response gives a strong likelihood that it will occur (give hm the money and he will go away). Generally a good bet to play toward the odds, not against them.
Click to expand...

Other folks (like Gary Kleck) say that if you use your firearm against a criminal before you are injured you are less likely to be injured. They use their statistics to back that up. It is true that most robberies do not end up with someone being killed but you might have the one that defies the odds and then you are.. well we know:(

pax said:
A realistic threat assessment includes the possibility that the clerk and/or witnesses will be shot even if everyone complies and does what they are told.
Click to expand...

Quite right. What I seem to gather from most of these trainers I see on the tube and about say is to be aware as possible of your surroundings and try to get the advantage (cover, concealment, distance, surprise etc) and do not relenquish it! I like watching Michael Bane's "Best Defense" and Tom Gresham's PDTV. They seem to strike a good balance.

For those who always seem to recommend compliance and then if that doesn't work try something else assume (dangerously I think) that if you pass up an opportunity or advantage you will have another later on. I don't like that logic. Seems to not make sense. The sooner the danger is averted the better I would think. The Tacoma Mall shooting in 2005 and Mr. McKown come to mind.

PS Kathy I'm not irritated:p
 
Last edited:
About 15 years ago, I was robbed while working at a sunglasess store on the Las Vegas Strip (not exactly a stop 'n rob in the ghetto). My hands were duct-taped behind me, and I was made to crawl into the bathroom, where I listened to the robbers debate whether or not to kill me. I do not believe the debate was serious, I think they were trying to scare me. (They did an excellent job.) Nevertheless, I decided that day that I'd rather take it in the chest, fighting back, than in the back of the head on the bathroom floor.

Deciding ahead of time that you'll comply is to rely on the good nature of violent criminals.

That being said, all such decisions are obviously situational. One thing I can say for sure, though, is I wouldn't be arguing with anybody, or ordering anybody to do anything. (Isn't that what screwed the guy who tried to stop the Tacoma mall shooting?) No warnings. The robber's warnings were the laws against armed robbery, and the number of robbers killed while plying their trade.

If I could manage it, the robber wouldn't even know things had gone badly for him until he saw St. Peter. The Marquis of Queensbury didn't address gunfighting.

Also, I do not think that the happiest outcome to an armed robbery is "no one got hurt." I think the happiest outcome is "no one got hurt - except the would-be robber."
 
The basic problem there is that trying to hurt the robber is going to increase the chances of others getting hurt.
Click to expand...
You are making a fallacious assumption - that the robber wouldn't otherwise hurt anyone. How do you know that for certain? Well, you don't. No one does.
 
I probably would have done similar, but I would not have started an argument with him. Burger kings a pretty big and if there was any number of people in it you would have to be paying very close attention to try to see everyone while you were robbing the place. through a ski mask at that. I would have had my gun on him as soon as he had it on the clerk. I would have demanded he dropped the weapon, and if it came back towards me he would get two to the chest and one to the head. Secondly armed robbery would be considered a forced felony. So completley justified.
 
I would have demanded he dropped the weapon, and if it came back towards me he would get two to the chest and one to the head.
Click to expand...

Not me. No way, no how. He can turn before you can fire. Try it with paintball, or squirt guns or something: Action beats reaction, every time. He can PROBABLY fire before you can, as well.

No warnings.
 
It seems all the choices that are given are wrong to someone else.We are all given a choice to carry or not to carry,to stay and fight or stand still and do nothing.It's your choice,now choose wisely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top