Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?

[cracked91]

So if he his facing the counter and you are standing behind him gun on him you think he will be able to spin around and shoot you before you can squeeze the shot off. I paintball ALOT. I know it is not exactly real gunfighting but my experience has been that at ranges closer than ten feet if you have your marker on someone before they have theres pointed at you they might as well throw there gun down right then unless they would rather the pain of being tagged out.

 

[JustDreadful]

So if he his facing the counter and you are standing behind him gun on him you think he will be able to spin around and shoot you before you can squeeze the shot off.

Now you're behind him. OK. You're introducing new terms.

I didn't say he could "spin around and shoot you." I said he could TURN, and probably fire, and he could. (At the very least, you'd better assume he could.) Your fire is likely to be more accurate, but now you've got bullets flying around, and even if he doesn't hit you, he might hit someone. You've started a gunfight, in which you may have the advantage, but it's still a FIGHT. You might freeze, you might flinch. And now he's moving, so your ability to deliver an incapacitating shot is diminished. Remember, even if you get to "squeeze the shot off" first, your first shot may be the beginning of the fight rather than the end.

Personally, I'm going to try not to FIGHT anybody, and I'm sure as hell not going to try to apprehend anybody. I'm going to try to SHOOT the SOB. If I'm behind him, as you introduced, I'd be TRYING essentially to snipe him from short range.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

If I did decide that I needed to shoot in this scenario then there is one absolute:

There would be no warning. No way.

There is no legal or moral requirement to give this guy a chance to surrender. If I decide a shoot is necessary it's going to happen quick like, head shot preferred. I do NOT want this guy getting the chance to do exactly what did in fact end up happening.

 

[B.N.Real]

Guy walks into a Burger King.

You are standing there in line.

He's wearing a ski mask has a gun and is screaming for the clerk to give up the blankety blank cash or he's blankety blank dead.

You pull out your concealed weapon and TRY TO TALK HIM OUT OF A ROBBERY?HIM HOLDING A GUN IN PLAIN SIGHT?

I am not Dirty Harry and this is not tv.

That criminal is purposely putting everyone in danger by just trying to pull off an armed robbery.

I pull out my gun and convince him to stop by shooting him.

What little was reported said that the ccw holder got into a argument with the man.

He gave up one of the two weapons he had.

The element of surprise.

Had he even shot the guy in the hand,leg,foot or body,screaming "Get on the 'blanking ground now!"the bad guy might have dropped the gun.

If the bad guy did'nt and turned to the ccw holder,he was activily trying to shoot the ccw holder and because the criminal was already in the middle of a unlawful action that already jeopordized everyone the store,the criminal forced the ccw holder to shoot and kill the guy.

Ten years ago,I watched a video of an off duty police officer trying to stop a robber that just robbed a convienience store clerk and the robber was on his way out without shooting anyone.

I watch with horror on the video as the off duty officer got into a handgrab situation with the robber,pushed the robbers hand with the gun,high over the officers head.

The officer held the bad guys hand there and I watched in horror as that criminal rotated the gun down with his wrist and shot the officer point blank in the top of the officers head.

The officer died while he was standing there.

When he fell to the ground ,the officer immediately shrunk into a fetal position.

To this day,that video remains the most horrific example of the coldness and total lack of concern any robber has for you and me.

That was the real thing.

That was a real police officer,a fellow American just like you and me, that tried to stop someone that should have never been doing what he was doing in the first place.

And he died immediately because he was not armed and gave the robber the chance to defend the attempt to disarm the robber.

I have no intention of letting someone ever get a chance to shoot me like that ever.

 

[JustDreadful]

This is why it is my position that shooting should only commence when you have some reason to believe that your inaction will cause more harm that your action.

What if it was a peetza, trying to rob you?

 

[JustDreadful]

It also occurs to me that, this being a Burger King, the odds are overwhelming that there was at least one great big fat guy available to serve as cover.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

What if it was a peetza, trying to rob you?

Different rules entirely.
If it has gross things like onions or peppers I will roll it up into a ball and stuff it in the garbage. If it has good stuff, like pepperoni, bacon, ham... well then it gets... um, "processed" internally and finds it's way to the septic tank.

 

[csmsss]

It is no more of an assumption than that the robber would hurt someone. In fact, it is a much better assumption, given the facts.

You don't know all the facts. No one does. What's dangerous is making assumptions like you seem to favor. I'd argue that making assumptions in lieu of using your own best judgment based on the immediate conditions is more dangerous than anything else one can do.

At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting? Does the bad guy have to kill an innocent before you'll bless the use of force by the CCW?

 

[JustDreadful]

If it has gross things like onions or peppers I will roll it up into a ball and stuff it in the garbage. If it has good stuff, like pepperoni, bacon, ham... well then it gets... um, "processed" internally and finds it's way to the septic tank.

And pineapple, the Doomsday Topping?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

An unstable man walks into a restaurant with a loaded firearm and starts threatening people.

I have no reason to trust that he will fulfill his promises of leaving after getting his money... he's already proven that he's dishonest, unstable, violent, and intends on doing whatever he feels like.

to believe him is a **** poor a gamble.... and i dont gamble with my life like that.

With the exception of an argument, I believe the CCW carrier was spot on from the facts that we know.
At the point he has a pistol out and is pointing it at people, his intentions have been stated and negotiations are over as far as i'm concerned.

 

[JustDreadful]

To stick a gun in someone's face and say "Give me your money or I'll kill you" is a vicious act. As someone posted above, it's not at all the same as burglary or picking pockets. It IS violence. Stick-up men are vicious.

 

[Re4mer]

I think the guy did the right thing morally, however I am not sure if talking/arguing with him before shooting was a good idea tactically. If a guy already has a gun out then talking is a wast of time.

 

[chopz]

my first thought: i'll bet the guy is somewhat happy with the outcome; he's still alive, he was justified in his actions and he might be thought a hero. but he's got serious injuries to overcome.

my second thought: the article says this was a time when the place was "regularly crowded with children." i have no reason, from the article to assume it wasn't full of kids when this happened. to me, facing an adversary who was surrounded by kids would be tantamount to facing someone who was using a hostage as a shield, but greatly multiplied. which of us would shoot if that were the case? even worse - if i myself was surrounded by kids, i know i can't account for every round that comes out of mister dimwitted-skimaskwearer's gun.

my third thought: if i was a parent who had been there with my kids, or if my kids had been there when this happened, i'd probably want to kick the living daylights out of this "hero."

room full of kids changes the situation greatly, as far as i'm concerned.

 

[cracked91]

If I was a parent and my kids had been there, depending on the actual details, I would probably want to thank the hero. Say the police roll in just as he is about to leave so he decides to grab a ten year old and stick a gun in there ear so he can get away? No way. If I was a hundred percent sure I could shoot him without hitting any innocents in crossfire, I would do it. If I was ninety percent sure I could apprehend him without shooting him, I would probably take that option too. . . but it all depends on the circumstance and like it has already been said I never intend to give someone a chance to shoot me.

 

[Nnobby45]

If this thread demostrates one thing, it's this:

If you have mere seconds to make a critical decision in a life or death situation (as he apparently saw it), then you can rest assured that there will be many people who will take many hundreds of thousands of seconds second guessing you--- and many won't have the slightest idea what they would have done in the same situation other than to do the aforementioned second guessing and tell someone else what they should have done.

Some have even been so arrogant as to say he "shouldn't have drawn". Since the citizen took the action he did, no one will ever know if he, and others, would have ended up in the back room lying on the floor with a bullet in their heads, or if the robber would have taken the money and left.

As Kathy points out, compliance is no guarantee of survival for you or other innocent people. Not in this day in age when Bubba can't afford witnesses, or is too high on crack, or......any other of the reasons why people end up dead, execution style, after offering full compliance.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Maromero]

At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting?

Oh My Lord. Is this was all the bickering was all about? Show me where I wrote or posted that the shooting was not a "good shooting"? All I wrote was I would have done nothing in said situation. Does that position threaten your "good shooting" theory to the point the members of the board feel the need to attack someone that Lord forbid does not agree or, even worst, reach a different conclusion without disagreeing with the hidden premise?

And Yes, now for the record, it was a bad shooting, tacticaly speaking. The guy was lucky.

Also. I know I said I was through with the thread but upon inspection just could not help myself. I'll try not to make it a habit.

 

[csmsss]

Oh My Lord. Is this was all the bickering was all about? Show me where I wrote or posted that the shooting was not a "good shooting"? All I wrote was I would have done nothing in said situation. Does that position threaten your "good shooting" theory to the point the members of the board feel the need to attack someone that Lord forbid does not agree or, even worst, reach a different conclusion without disagreeing with the hidden premise?

My question wasn't addressed to you, sir. For the record, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me, and I attacked neither Mr. Armstrong nor you. You have a very creative and selective process of reading, to say the least.

And Yes, now for the record, it was a bad shooting, tacticaly speaking. The guy was lucky.

You weren't there. All we have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and you've already drawn this conclusion. You have amazing prescience, I must say. You must be one smart cookie.

Also. I know I said I was through with the thread but upon inspection just could not help myself. I'll try not to make it a habit.

Self-aggrandize much?

 

[ZeSpectre]

Here's an idea, take the personal battles to PM or someplace else.
Can we PLEASE get back on topic.? This thread has been holding up pretty well so far given the nature of the discussion.

 

[David Armstrong]

You don't know all the facts. No one does. What's dangerous is making assumptions like you seem to favor.

You might note that was my point, that without knowing all the facts one can make any assumption. As for assumptions I favor, yes, when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered I tend to favor the school of thought that says play to the strong odds. It is less dangerous than doing things that increase the danger and/or cost to you.

At what point, David, are you prepared to accept this as a good shooting? Does the bad guy have to kill an innocent before you'll bless the use of force by the CCW?

If by a "good " shooting you are using the legal term, I've never said it wasn't good. In fact, legally, it appears the shooter is well within the law. Now if by "good" you mean the smart thing to do or the right thing to do, I won't accept it. Starting a gunfight when there is no need to start one in order to save a little money just doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to do.
Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing. I don't even thing it needs to be quit so restricted, you might want to save some that aren't so innocent. But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

You weren't there. All we have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and you've already drawn this conclusion. You have amazing prescience, I must say. You must be one smart cookie.

Whoa, Nellie, as my Grandmother used to say. Aren't you complaining about him doing the EXACT SAME thing that you are doing? You weren't there, all yo have are incomplete newspaper accounts, and yet you have drawn a conclusion, right? Is it your claim now that you have prescience?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But killing someone to save a couple of hundred bucks in a cash register? Nope, not so good.

The problem is that if you wait to see whether the BG wants more than the money it might be too late to react. That is the whole issue I see with "playing the odds" You might be the one in 450 that gets murdered.

Saving innocents? Sure, that is a good thing.

Might be too late to do anything if you don't gain the advantage first.

I think if you choose the comply first method you might be stuck with that as your only option and rely on the odds to save you.