Here is REAL scenario. What would YOU have done?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Do we all agree that this gentleman did not act wisely on a tactical level, if we get away from the moral, save civilization rhetoric?

Yes sir. That is a fully condensed version of my opinion.

 

[OldMarksman]

... it is nuts to rely on that [the fact that statistics do seem to say that the perp was unlikely to shoot anyone unless someone started something].

Yeah? I think I would indeed rely on that, unless I were standing behind the perp where he could not see me, I could draw without attracting his attention or causing a reaction from someone else, and there were no reflections.

Never relenquish your advantage to a BG.

Seems to me the BG had the advantage from the outset, because he was holding a gun. What's to relinquish?

Your best game plan is to either comply or put him down immediately.

Can't argue with that. Now, just how would one "put down immediately" a crook with a gun in his hand?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OldMarksman, here is what you said that I agree with:

Scary thought to decide to rely on that,

I don't think you got the point of what I said, I know what some claim the odds are, what is nuts is relying them rather than training and common sense.

Seems to me the BG had the advantage from the outset, because he was holding a gun.

Only to whomever he was focused on and also because they were unarmed. The guy with the CCW was not who he was robbing.

What's to relinquish?

Lots. First of all the BG didn't know the guy with the CCW was armed. This is a huge advantage. Second BG was concentrating on the clerk and not the citizen with the gun. Is it coming together now? What the CCW guy did was negate that advantage by engaging the guy in conversation without (I am guessing) having his gun ready to use and so he got shot.

What is nuts is relying on questionably applied statistics rather than common sense and training when in a life threatening violent situation and hoping the BG won't hurt you. Different story as I mentioned before if the BG has control over YOU. In this case he did not have control of the guy with the CCW. So advantage to Good Guy.

Now, just how would one "put down immediately" a crook with a gun in his hand?

Are you serious here? Or is this tongue in cheek?

 

[David Armstrong]

Seems to me that those odds are overwhelmingly better than trying to draw on and shoot someone who has his gun in his hand...

Exactly. Of course, if you understand the dynamics of robberies and robbers, you can get the odds even better for you, as there are reasons for most of the murders and other assaults in robberies. The way some folks look at odds and stats around here I hope they never go to a casino!

Yet your blanket assumption does not allow for this.

Look, you want to make wild assumptions without anything to bacdk them up, go ahead. I tend to base my assumptions on likelihoods and proven facts. I allow for just about anything, but I have the sense to give different events different levels of concern. If you don't like my version, that's fine, but don't try to claim your assumptions are somehow worthwhile and others assumptions aren't.

...you didn't answer the question - at what point would you in that situation endorse the use of force by the CCW?

Umm, hate to break it to you, but you didn't ask that question. I answered the questions you did ask.

My point is that since we don't have all the facts, we should give the law-abiding CCW the benefit of the doubt unless and until such facts that warrant criticism of his actions emerge.

LOL!!! So, according to you all of the arguments that so many here have posted are not based on facts that warrant criticism? Sorry, but apparently several here do think the facts indicate some criticism of his actions, on various levels.

Lots of studies among prison inmates have shown that the only thing they really fear is armed citizens.

Those same studies show that BGs would greatly prefer not to hurt anybody during robberies, and the the primary reason BGs hurt people during robberies is that the people do not cooperate.

 

[David Armstrong]

Do you want to live in a community where criminals with handguns can rob people as they please and leave it up to the police to stop every criminal act?

Why do those have to be the only options? Can we toss into the mix something about not wanting to live in a cuommunity where everytime there is a robbery everybody in the community is put in danger because of the shootout?

I've seen it done in FOF robberies by Greg Hamilton. The trick was to draw when the BG was blabbing away - the diversion of attention allowed Greg to nail a trained opponent.

Of course there is always the problem that just because you shoot the BG it doesn't mean you will stop the BG. That is the basic flaw with many responses, IMO...the idea that the GG will always shoot first and the BG will never get to fight back.

Yeah? I think I would indeed rely on that,....

Right. You have to rely on something. You have to base your decision-making proces on some information. Relying on the most likely odds is the overwhelmingly best place to start that process, and work out from there when and if additional information gives you a reason to change your evaluation of what is the best course of action.

Now, just how would one "put down immediately" a crook with a gun in his hand?

Yep, tha tis the problem. As mentioned, it seems rather silly to discuss how great your plan is when that plan is based on EVERYTHING going exactly right.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

and the the primary reason BGs hurt people during robberies is that the people do not cooperate.

And those who resist are seldom armed and the BG is. That is kind of a no brainer?

where everytime there is a robbery everybody in the community is put in danger because of the shootout?

I would be interested in how often that occurs vs how often the BG is the only one hurt after an armed victim responds. I think Dr. Kleck may offer better insight.

For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery.Gary Kleck, Address to the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence (Apr. 3, 1990)

and here:

Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% injury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.

ref:http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

Right. You have to rely on something.

I agree. However, I would rather rely on my training, my firearm and common sense rather than statistics that (supposedly) tell me the robber won't hurt me. Again, if we follow Mr. Armstrong's prescription then it really makes no sense to carry since you might hurt someone if you have to use the gun and you are unlikely to be injured anyway if you comply. Seems like all the pros are for not carrying and few if any if for carrying. Just trust the odds. Now THAT is like going to the Casino.

 

[JohnKSa]

...when the facts are that only 1 out of 450 robberies results in somebody getting murdered...

Interesting statistic. Unfortunately it has very little relevance to the situation in question.

First, if the robber is unarmed, or armed with a relatively ineffective weapon, obviously the chances of a victim actually losing his life are much reduced. Recent statistics show that robbers in the U.S. are unarmed about half the time.

Second, murder is the only the absolute worst possible outcome. Studies show that the vast majority (around 80%) of persons shot with a handgun will survive. Surviving a stabbing is even more likely and the odds of surviving a violent encounter against an unarmed opponent are better yet. So what's the chance of being injured in a robbery? In 2006, 35% of robberies in the U.S., one in three, resulted in the victim being injured.

Which means it is clear that the statistic quoted dramatically understates the danger to a robbery victim in two ways. First it makes the assumption that the victim's death is the only negative outcome that is of concern. That is, as long as the victim survives we aren't concerned with any injury, no matter how serious, the victim incurs. Secondly it groups all robberies together when not all robberies involve robbers who actually have a reasonably effective means to cause death or serious injury.

A far more relevant statistic would provide the probability of being killed OR injured in robberies where the robber is armed with a lethal weapon and can bring it to bear on the victim.

 

[AZAK]

Those same studies show that BGs would greatly prefer not to hurt anybody during robberies, and the the primary reason BGs hurt people during robberies is that the people do not cooperate.

(Emphasis by AZAK)

I am not sure just what you are trying to say by stating this.

Regardless, I am "not really at all comfortable with" wording like, "would greatly prefer not to" when used in this context. Is this a declining of an invitation to a dance at a cotillion made by a Southern Belle? We are discussing someone(s) who has chosen to violently threaten other's lives and limbs over a small amount of money.

Just the fact that "BGs" would even consider committing a violent felony where the victim(s) (not volunteers) has so much to lose, and the BG has so little to gain (honestly how much money is in the till at a Burger King?) does little to gain sympathy from me.

Without a threat it changes from robbery to a charitable donation. The method is paramount.

The threat of violence, with the ability to deliver that violence, is violence; regardless of "would greatly prefer not to".

 

[OldMarksman]

First of all the BG didn't know the guy with the CCW was armed. This is a huge advantage.

He did not know it because the citizen's gun was concealed and could not be used until it was visible.

Second BG was concentrating on the clerk and not the citizen with the gun. Is it coming together now?

Nope. You have made an assumption about what the crook was "concentrating on." Put yourself in the position of the robber. Your adrenaline is high and you are holding a gun. Do you not think you would be very alert for any threat that might materialize? In a state with hundreds of thousands of licensed concealed weapon carriers? I thinks it's naive to assume that he was "concentrating on the clerk" to the exclusion of watching others.

What is nuts is relying on questionably applied statistics rather than common sense and training when in a life threatening violent situation and hoping the BG won't hurt you.

OK. Let's rely on common sense. Common sense should tell you that trying to draw from concealment on a man who is holding a gun is nuts. If it doesn't, try to train for that and I think that you too will choose to do nothing, based on your training.

Simple risk management techniques here. Do nothing, and the likelihood of getting shot is lower. Draw, and getting shot becomes almost guaranteed.

Different story as I mentioned before if the BG has control over YOU. In this case he did not have control of the guy with the CCW. So advantage to Good Guy.

I fail to see how one who is holding a gun on people is not in rather complete control, or how the people in the store have any meaningful advantage.

 

[csmsss]

Look, you want to make wild assumptions without anything to bacdk them up, go ahead. I tend to base my assumptions on likelihoods and proven facts. I allow for just about anything, but I have the sense to give different events different levels of concern. If you don't like my version, that's fine, but don't try to claim your assumptions are somehow worthwhile and others assumptions aren't.

David, YOU are the one making the assumptions. I asserted that each event is unique with its own set of circumstances and that one should base one's response on those circumstances. Yet you would, apparently, assert that the only response in such situations is to meekly comply - soley based upon statistics of unknown origin that you possess. I place greater weight and comfort in my own observations in a situation than I do such statistics, and suspect that most others do as well. More to the point, what on earth should I do when confronted with a situation for which I haven't memorized the statistical outcome for each possible reaction? "Whoops! Sorry, bad guy, I forgot to memorize my statistically favorable outcome for this event. Can you come back and rape my wife later?"

Umm, hate to break it to you, but you didn't ask that question. I answered the questions you did ask.

Oh, but I did ask you that question - and in the reasking, you STILL refused to answer it. Exactly WHAT circumstances in a similar situation would you regard as justification for the use of force by the CCW? Is the CCW required to wait until the bad guy actually shoots someone before he responds to the threat? A logical interpretation of your previous messages in this thread certainly seems to indicate so.

LOL!!! So, according to you all of the arguments that so many here have posted are not based on facts that warrant criticism? Sorry, but apparently several here do think the facts indicate some criticism of his actions, on various levels.

Actually, there were nearly no facts known until PAX posted the update above. All we "knew" (as if you can really know anything from an uncorroborated news article anyway) was that a CCW had first a verbal confrontation with an armed robber at a Burger King, and then a shootout with the bad guy in which the bad guy was killed. That's ALL the facts that were known at the time - yet you were/are ready to condemn the CCW for the shooting.

As we now know, the bad guy shot first, and the CCW's shooting response can in no way be considered wrong. The only error he made was in an initial response which was less than decisive and violent enough.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

He did not know it because the citizen's gun was concealed and could not be used until it was visible.

Yes you state the obvious. Since he did not know any of the citizens in the store were armed he wasn't aware of an armed threat. That is called having the element of surprise and that is an advantage.

Nope. You have made an assumption about what the crook was "concentrating on."

Reread the news report. The robber was robbing the clerk, I think it safe to say he was looking at the clerk. The CCW guy walked up to the robber (without getting shot) and engaged him in conversation which got him shot.

Your adrenaline is high and you are holding a gun. Do you not think you would be very alert for any threat that might materialize? In a state with hundreds of thousands of licensed concealed weapon carriers? I thinks it's naive to assume that he was "concentrating on the clerk" to the exclusion of watching others.

I think you are giving these BGs way too much credit. I think believing that criminals are extremely tactically competent and CCWs are incompetent doen't square with reality. I don't think that fact that the state has "hundreds of thousands" of CCW even entered his mind.

Looking at the details of the robbery from the report (coming in during a busy time in the middle of the day) doesn't make this one look too smart. I don't think he is doing a tactical ninja scan throughout the place while simultaneously holding a gun on the clerk. I think he is focused on the clerk like most robbers would be and didn't even notice the guy till he came up AND started talking to him.

Common sense should tell you that trying to draw from concealment on a man who is holding a gun is nuts. If it doesn't, try to train for that and I think that you too will choose to do nothing, based on your training.

OldMarksman, I am beginning to wonder if you are reading these posts? Did you read what Glenn said in post #97? Drawing from concealment on a man holding a gun who isn't aware of you is not nuts. It is IMO a very good tactic if you are willing to fire. Just making that blanket statement above doesn't really reflect a lot of thought about these situations.

Simple risk management techniques here. Do nothing, and the likelihood of getting shot is lower. Draw, and getting shot becomes almost guaranteed.

That statement is without any fact or support but may be your opinion and so I respect it as such but it is just that and no valid "risk management" techniques are at play since your assumptions are too vague but you are free to believe it. I would read more from Dr. Kleck.

I fail to see how one who is holding a gun on people is not in rather complete control, or how the people in the store have any meaningful advantage.

Think about it a little bit. I think you can imagine the difficulty of holding a lot of people at bay with a gun and then factor in that one of them is armed but you don't know which one or are unaware of them at all. I think the advantage goes to the CCW. All the CCW has to do is wait for your attention to be elsewhere and then you would be the one behind the power curve. Ask Glenn Meyer what he thinks as he has done a lot of FoF drills using that technique. Also, watch the show "Best Defense" as they too do these drills.

 

[David Armstrong]

Interesting statistic. Unfortunately it has very little relevance to the situation in question.

If your view is that getting murdered or not is irrelevant to the question of force in robberies, so be it. I find such an opinion rather questionable myself.

So what's the chance of being injured in a robbery? In 2006, 35% of robberies in the U.S., one in three, resulted in the victim being injured.

If I may borrow a phrase, intersting statistic. Unfortunately it has very little relevance to the situation in question. By a huge margin those injuries are minor in nature, with (IIRC) less than 10% of such injuries needing medical attention beyond what is rendered at the scene.

First it makes the assumption that the victim's death is the only negative outcome that is of concern.

That is a heck of an assumption on your part, I would suggest. The loss of money is also a negative outcome, and it is of concern. Injuries are of concern. Danger to the patrons is a concern. Lots of things are a concern.

Secondly it groups all robberies together when not all robberies involve robbers who actually have a reasonably effective means to cause death or serious injury.

And how do you decide that? I prefer to work off the assumption that robbers present a decided threat to the victim, whether a firearm is displayed or not, as many robbers are armed but prefer not to display the weapon unless necessarry.

A far more relevant statistic would provide the probability of being killed OR injured in robberies where the robber is armed with a lethal weapon and can bring it to bear on the victim.

And I think the far more relevant statistic would be provide the probability of being killed or injured where the victim actively resists as opposed to complying with the robber. Oh, wait a minute we've done that! Compliance wins, hands down. So that sort of makes sense that one might start from a position that give the lowest chance of loss and working out from there. At least, it makes sense to me, every security organization, every LE organization, and so on.

 

[David Armstrong]

I am not sure just what you are trying to say by stating this.

I am saying there is a reason virtually every expert in the field, be they private sector security, local police, the FBI, or whoever, all make the same recommendation and they make it for the same reason...Robbers are there to rob, not to kill. Robbers rarely injure other than to gain compliance. Robbers overwhelmingly, when interviewed, have said they don't like to physically hurt folks and don't want to, and will do so only as a means to further the robbery. Now that doesn't mean there aren't some who are quite violent, but they are the rare exception rather than the rule.

We are discussing someone(s) who has chosen to violently threaten other's lives and limbs over a small amount of money.

EXACTLY! It is over a small amount of money! Why get into a shootout, putting yourself, the clerk, the public, etc in danger, over a small amount of money.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And I think the far more relevant statistic would be provide the probability of being killed or injured where the victim actively resists as opposed to complying with the robber. Oh, wait a minute we've done that! Compliance wins, hands down. So that sort of makes sense that one might start from a position that give the lowest chance of loss and working out from there. At least, it makes sense to me, every security organization, every LE organization, and so on.

Which Dr. Kleck and others refute. The kicker is that you need to measure victims resisting who are armed. David is using stats that deal with all robberies in which the majority of vicitims are unarmed. See, everyone this is why you have to take statistics in context and not just use them in a blanket unscientific way. Sure LEOs tell civilians not to resist because most all of them are unarmed!

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No one here recommends not carrying or having the option of firearms usage from my read.

What I take away is that one should consider not immediately shooting it out as a necessary, mandatory or must do response. That is an extreme position at one end of the response continuum. The other is to always comply without any evaluation of what might happen. That is the other end and I don't think anyone states that. However, in a process of group polarization folks want to take posters close to one of the poles and push their position to the pole and then cuss and spit.

In my mind, after doing a lot of FOF and reading Kleck and books on criminal response, etc. is that you need to have:

1. An awareness of the likelihood of outcome as that can aid in your decision process to act - given you aren't immediately attacked. As if you are the bystander in the Stop and Rob and have a moment. Thus, the snippets out of one source and another are not sufficient - they represent branches that occur in different parts of the action. Compliance usually works on one branch, gun usage usually works if you do have to fight and/or can get the gun out/use it without getting killed or maimed. Sometimes each goes awry in that branch. I can quote both and so what - It means I have to think about it. In a FOF, I rapidly eliminated the BG (quite impressive) and then was in a gun fight with his hidden backup. In another I was a bystander and the new trainee decided to intervene in a bar fight (why? - moral?) and shot me. I intend to sue him. A cop shot me when I was fleeing a terrorist -

2. An awareness of your actual skill level - no good proclaiming you are One Shot Stop Superman if you don't know if you really can do that - remembering all the stress, drop in ability, etc. Many internet folks think they will always win the fight and hit the target. Seen folks freeze up solid. In a parking lot FOF, I managed to zipper (by accident - the first shot was a jerked trigger - ) an oncoming nutso with a ballbat. Good shoot.

3. A good handle on your view of what is moral and a realistic view of outcomes before you proclaim that YOU must intervene to save others. Decide what you value - the clerk vs. your life and disruption of your family. Anyone who argues you must be self-sacrificial really needs to think about this before saying such. FOF - domestic violence gun fight - vaulted over the victim and headed for the tall timber. Call the cops from a safe distance - Moral? Insights training - haul your tushy out of there when the gun fight starts if you can.

It all depends - John Farnam says - know what you are doing and act!

So the exaggeration of polar extremes is really silly. The reasonable position in my view is awareness, knowledge and considered fast action. These come from training, study and cogitating over the combo of both.

 

[chopz]

3. A good handle on your view of what is moral and a realistic view of outcomes before you proclaim that YOU must intervene to save others. Decide what you value - the clerk vs. your life and disruption of your family. Anyone who argues you must be self-sacrificial really needs to think about this before saying such.

i'm under the impression the majority of people who have posted in this thread evaluate from the standpoint of how they would fare, given the circumstances of the scenario.

to me, the whole reason of "know your backstop" as the 4th rule is so you don't shoot innocents. i'd consider myself unqualified to own a handgun if i only considered how i myself would fare. in the aforementioned scenario i'd also have to consider what the backstop of the guy who would probably return fire would be as well. i'd rather die than kill an innocent bystander (or get somebody innocent killed), i'd like to think my actions would reflect that if push ever came to shove, but i can only hope i'd make the right choices.

does that make me cowardly?

 

[David Armstrong]

David, YOU are the one making the assumptions.

And YOU are making assumption. Everyone is making assumptions. I prefer to base my assumptions on proven facts and valid information. I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with that concept. If you want to base assumptions on the latest CSI episode, or the tactical wisdom of "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" that's fine, I guess, but I prefer something a bit more valid.

I asserted that each event is unique with its own set of circumstances and that one should base one's response on those circumstances.

That's fine. It isn't correct, but that is fine. You can't accurately assess those circumstances without an understanding of what those circumstances mean. Otherwise you are just making a wild guess about what to do.

Yet you would, apparently, assert that the only response in such situations is to meekly comply - soley based upon statistics of unknown origin that you possess.

And that is an assumption on your part, an assumption tha tdoes not reflect the facts. Nowher have I ever said one should meekly comply as the only response, and nowhere have I ever said you should base a response soley on the statistics. FWIW, the stats are commonly available with a little research.

More to the point, what on earth should I do when confronted with a situation for which I haven't memorized the statistical outcome for each possible reaction? "Whoops! Sorry, bad guy, I forgot to memorize my statistically favorable outcome for this event. Can you come back and rape my wife later?"

Of course not, and such a response indicates not only a lack of undeerstanding about how to use statistics but also a lack of understanding about how one reasons through problems. You don't have to memorize all the stats about driving in order to correctly respond to problems on the road. This is no different.

Oh, but I did ask you that question

No, you didn't. Let me help you. Here is what you asked: "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?" and that is what I answered.

Actually, there were nearly no facts known until PAX posted the update above.

Just because your knowledge is limited in scope doesn't mean others is also. Lots of facts out there. Facts relating to injuries, robberies, criminal behavior, and on and on. Lots of facts....if one wants to look at them.

As we now know, the bad guy shot first, and the CCW's shooting response can in no way be considered wrong.

Sure it can. If he hadn't engaged there is a very strong probability that there would not have been any shots fired at all. The bad guy shot first because he was confronted by the good guy.

 

[David Armstrong]

David is using stats that deal with all robberies in which the majority of vicitims are unarmed.

Please don't speak for David unless you are going to accurately represent what David says and does. So far, most of the stuff you have posted about what I think, or what I have said, or what I do, is incorrect. I have tried to ignore your repeated distortions and misrepresentations, but sometimes one needs to point out the truth. As Glenn posted:

"So the exaggeration of polar extremes is really silly. The reasonable position in my view is awareness, knowledge and considered fast action. These come from training, study and cogitating over the combo of both."

Exxagerating someone's position to try to make a point is silly, and only shows one cannot respond to the actual point, which is that training, study, knowledge, and other factors can give one a better chance at a reasonable response to a situation.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I suggest that everyone stand done for awhile. This is a hint.

To all repeated participants - go to the Food Channel forum and debate various cheddar cheese variants.

 

[OldMarksman]

Drawing from concealment on a man holding a gun who isn't aware of you is not nuts. It is IMO a very good tactic if you are willing to fire. Just making that blanket statement above doesn't really reflect a lot of thought about these situations.

In my opinion, making the assumption that he isn't aware of you, even while he is asking the clerk for money, or that he would not become aware of you very quickly, is a much bigger stretch than assuming that he is likely to shoot you if you do not act.

Thought? OK. If I were the perp, the first person in the room who made any unusual move--reaching under or unbuttoning a shirt or jacket or reaching into a pocket, walking to cover, stepping behind someone or something, trying to move around behind me--would not only draw my immediate attention and become the subject of my awareness, but would end up would dropping to the ground, wounded.

Yep, the bad guy would have fired first. That doesn't mean the citizen is not competent, it just means that the perp has gotten the drop on him.

In a recent episode of PDTV, Ayoob discussed how to enter a "Stop and Rob" safely. Slightly different scenario, but pertinent. The idea was to observe and withdraw as quickly as possible if anything appeared awry. An incident in which an off-duty policeman interrupted an armed robbery was described. When the clerk acknowledged the policeman, who would not have intervened otherwise, he was forced to draw, and he died.

That brings up the question of how police training would address the situation. Here's a blurb from a twenty-year plus law enforcement veteran who is a moderator on another board. It relates to the Miami shooing at hand:

How smart is it to start a gunfight under those circumstances? There is a reason the police don't just charge in shooting on an armed robbery call, but rather wait outside to catch the suspect while he's leaving.

Not very smart in his view, one would infer from that and the context in which it was posted.

We've been discussing the risk of a citizen's being shot by the robber if he or she chooses to draw.

Let's also consider that the robber might have an accomplice who could finish the fight.

Or that another CCW holder sees the citizen firing a gun at someone in the Burger King without having seen what had transpired or the ski mask, and shoots the citizen.

And perhaps most importantly, that the citizen's bullets hit one or more innocent bystanders. The police will not take that risk, and they are indemnified. The citizen is not.

Yes, I have read all of the posts, and I've given this a lot of thought. Personally, I think that trying to engage an armed robber in a business establishment would be foolhardy at best.