How do you react?

[tplumeri]

the first thing that comes to mind is the diner scene in pulp fiction.
but the reality is just wait it out.
i dont carry any cash in my wallet, but to protect my personal info i deny having a wallet and hand over the cash in my pocket.
this happened to me twice growing up in NYC (not in a resturaunt, in the subway) and there wasnt any escalation to violence either time.

 

[Socrates]

I've been mugged, but never robbed. The guy hit me over the head with a Walther PPK/S. IF he had pointed the gun at me, I was going to die, or they were, and, I was going to use my hands. I was much younger then, and such options would happen much slower now. I considered that the key point. Once the barrel is pointed at me, I have to decide if it's a good day to die, and do what I do, or, give control of that over to scumbag.

I consider pointing a gun at someone sufficient reason to be in fear of my life. Given that, I am not going to start something I can't win. On the otherhand, maybe death wouldn't be so bad. I can't answer it for everyone. I am NOT going to give some bad guy with a gun control over my life and death if I can help it. I am NOT going to shoot someone over property, though oddly enough in Kali, if they are stealing your guns, you get a CCW permit, in the hope you will shoot them, rather then BG's get your guns.

That said, a friend, Sarge in SF, was faced off against a guy he'd known a long time. The BG had a 454, and, concealment/cover behind the engine block of a car. My friend was in the open, with a 41 mag. He didn't shoot, but, he knew the guy, and knew the situation.

I've watched felons go from reasonable to psycho in handcuffs. What are they capable of with a gun pointed at you?

I will say that if you start a gunfight, you better be ready to die that day. If you are, you probably will be faster, and not, but, that's just a theory...

 

[hogdogs]

I fail to see any relation between ego and refusing to be a victim of violent behavior...
It is actually a constitutional right. The pursuit of life liberty and happiness or some such nonsense. If everyone was to rabidly defend every gift in our constitution then this nation would be stronger and safer...

I also insist I would weigh my options in a situation as originally posted with a little finger nudging the side of self defense jist a tad.

I have been in a few altercations with levels of violence ranging from fists to guns with knives and blunt objects and clubs in the middle and never once ran, never lost my composure (but I might have lost my cool) and in each and every case I did not escalate the situation with forward approach. Most times the aggressor panicked and tried to run, other times it threw them off guard and into defensive posture which they were unable to execute with the same bravado of their initial attack.
One thing I know is I have a severe dislike for pain and the sure way to reduce the influx of pain is to be in close to the aggressor dealing out my own abuse.
Brent

 

[JohnKSa]

And if your deciding to shoot some one who is just brandishing starts a shootout where there would not have been one otherwise...

How in the world could one know ahead of time whether there was going to be a shootout or not?

I agree 100% that IF a person could know that there would be no shootout if he decided to do nothing that doing nothing would be the right choice. However, a person with that kind of supernatural ability to predict the future could put it to better use by making sure that no one was at the robbery location except for police officers when the robbers showed up.

As mentioned above, it is amazing how many people have that idea that nothing will go wrong.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what I was thinking while I read your post.

You seem to have the idea that if no one offers resistance that nothing will go wrong. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not and there's simply no way to know which way it will play out until it's over.

If you're going to play the odds, the statistics say that resisting violent crime with a firearm offers a better chance of remaining uninjured than simply cooperating.

 

[JKHolman]

......

Years ago, I made up my mind to resist being robbed even over the miserable amount of a few dollars. I no longer subscribe to that foolish notion, and am glad not to have tested it. I did have to intervene over an attempted rape - my appearance being enough to scare off the perpetrator. Looking back, I was not psychologically prepared to go at it, so I was lucky on that one [as was the victim]. As mentioned, no one knows how these things will develope, and you have to decide for yourself what action to take, even if that action is passive. I am of the opinion that the action taken by the person involved is the right one because only he is the one in a position to do anything; the rest of us are safely in our homes oblivious to what is going on until we read about it in the papers the next day. Socrates, the fact that you were weighing your options as best you could in such a crisis (as opposed to a situation) tells me you were on the right track. You are doing the best you can with not much to work with (pardon the dangling preposition), and you have very little time to decide. You did better than I would.

- JKHolman

 

[zippy13]

Interesting thread, more questions than answers. Not having a CCW, I don't know the training prerequisites. Is a situation like this covered in typical CCW training? If yes, is it the same from state to state? Might not armed intervention get you a hero's medal, or an indictment depending on the jurisdiction? I wondered if I was on the same channel as other posters...

Sit there calmly and quietly, let the BGs finish their business, then finish your waffles and wait for the police to come. Then give the police what information you can. No sense in turning a robbery into a gunfight without some compelling reasons, IMO.

Sounds reasonable, but there's no way I'm going to be able to stay calm w/ BGs waving guns around.

I carry a fake wallet just for that purpose.

I thought this was a great idea. But, what if the robbers take a longer look and aren't fooled? Aren't you now the focus of their discontent?

A waffle house is an early morning/late night scene for all kinds of people and a likely scene for trouble. I simply avoid them.

A wise decision; but, aren't you're just reducing your possible problems? Any place can be robbed while you're there.

I couldn't tell you whether I would draw and shoot, or if I would just sit there wishing I had worn brown trousers.

A plausible reaction.

Are the robbers rational & reasonable?

I think this is wishful thinking. IMHO, by deciding to commit an armed robbery demonstrates they are neither rational nor reasonable.

I've been mugged, but never robbed.

Am I missing something, here -- isn't mugging a type of robbery?

I fail to see any relation between ego and refusing to be a victim of violent behavior...

I think the "ego relationship" isn't in how one would react, but in how one describes his anticipated reaction to others.

Years ago, I made up my mind to resist being robbed even over the miserable amount of a few dollars. I no longer subscribe to that foolish notion, and am glad not to have tested it.

+1 for JK

 

[Socrates]

Thank you Mr. Holman.
I started training in martial arts in about 1977, when surfing. I was always getting confronted by some sort of idiot. I remember one guy trying to pick on Mike Crouteau, a shaper that was about 6'5" and 275 pounds, about 90% of it muscle. I figured if some idiot who weighed 150 pounds would try and pick a fight with him, they would fight with me.
This was further reinforced when I watched a punk at Pleasure Point take off in front of former WWF World Wrestling Champion Don Morrocco, and then turn around and verbally abuse him. Edicate is the guy behind is the better surfer, and, it was true in this case. Mr. Morrocco was well over 6'4" and 330-340. He threw a stage punch at the guy, about 1/4" from his nose, and, the guy peeed his pants, and started yelling for help. When I stopped laughing, I realized I'd made the right choice in studying martial arts. The guys name was Troy and he maybe weighed 150 pounds, soaking wet.

My skills later saved my butt in Hawaii about 4 times, and, the issue posted above occured in a bowling Alley, Mel's, in Alemeda, in 1994-5. Three guys picked on me, because they though I was friends with the jerk that ran the bowling alley. I was in a bathroom, still in training, and, about 175 pounds. They all were over 230-240, and, I figured I actually had an advantage, since they didn't know who I was, and, because of my training, I reacted differently then they expected. As hogdogs has pointed out, in a confined space, when you are attacked at close range, by changing heights, you can strike very hard, and, be a very difficult target, and, anything you hit is going to be bad guy. I remember thinking of all the training I did, and, thinking this might be a bit of fun.
I was worried about the guy behind me having a gun, but, they all seemed to differ to one guy, since he had the gun. When he pulled it, all the rules changed.

Keep in mind, the only way you are going to know someones' intentions is by their actions, and, when most bad guys point a gun at you, the possibility of being shot is much better then the above dreamers would like to think. Police, with vests, cover and tactics are a more difficult target then the average person, and, their perspective is pretty much worthless for a civilian. Their perspective is altered by the many times, thanks to uniform, vest, gun, and backup, they may have survived having guns pointed at them.

One thing I have learned is that fear slows you down. I've spent many years training, and, this comes through loud and clear. To free your body and mind, you have to be willing to pay the ultimate price.

I face kids in the school I teach in now that are gangbangers, and, some are very large. We do not have metal detectors, and, one of these days, I'm afraid I'm going to find myself trying to defend, or break up a fight with deadly force involved. I have a vest, but, it's not suitable for daily wear. I can't get a CCW in my city, or, really haven't tried.

Maybe it's time...

 

[pax]

"Always cooperate" is a bad plan: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/danger-of-compliance.html

pax

 

[Wayfarin'Stranger]

Sorry if this offends anyone, but this is just my take on it.

All the guys that have the attitude of "I'm not going to defend a few dollars...." make me think you guys are pretty big pushovers, and easy targets. From what you guys have stated so far, if I was a robber, I'd rob you of everything you had once a week! My point of view is that it doesn't come down to whether someone is trying to rob me of $10.00 or $1000.00, it's still mine and no one else has the right to take it from me. (Although I let the government do it every two weeks )

There's no way I'm going to tolerate someone threatening me with deadly force (OP said they were waving guns and that equals deadly force in North Dakota), and just sit there and wait to see if they are going to shoot me or someone else. Let me make my position clear to answer the OP's question, when the guns come out, then they have initiated a gun battle, and I will fight back. There is absolutely no LEO in this country, that is not going to pull his weapon when an individual brandishes a gun anywhere in his/her general direction, and I don't think anything different should be expected of us.




I believe those of us that have obtained concealed weapons permits do so for the simple fact of having the ability to gain the upper-hand, and not be completely defensless against armed aggressors.

 

[David Armstrong]

I fail to see any relation between ego and refusing to be a victim of violent behavior...

There is none, AFAIK. The issue is when your choice to refuse to become a victim is based on your ego.

It is actually a constitutional right.

Just because one can do something doesn't mean that one should do something.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry to be somewhat rational as compared to emotional. I agree that no one has the right to rob us or bully us, etc.

However, long ago, I took a course in military history from a distinguished major general. He stressed having an overall strategic goal as well as a grasp on tactics and equipment.

My overall strategic goal is to prevent grievous bodily harm to me and others I care about. A retreat or giving up some money to minimize a high probability of harm is preferrable than the harm. The problem is (as mentioned) judging the situation.

Some are easy - if you are by the door and the dude holds a gun on the clerk, you can probably run out. Some would be hard, if they start to search patrons.

Each situation is unique and there is no right answer. However, I think emotional outrage and talking about 'rights' and ego, doesn't really contribute to the actual decision process.

You may think that starting a gun fight that personally goes awry for you contributes to the greater good as it contributes to deterring some other crime elsewhere - if you want to be hurt for that, that is your decision.

I come down, again, to make a cognitive decision as to what action lowers my (and others I care about risks). If I don't know you and you are eating your waffles - I may not care about what happens to you.

The odds are in favor of there not be a shootout in the Waffle House - however, the actual decision of the BG to shoot has factors in it that might negate his or her tendency not to shoot. You have to try to figure that out.

I suppose it is difficult for the gun world to suggest rational thought over just shooting it out. But that's what's it is about. That's why the law use FATS training, etc. Why citizens are offered FOF training, etc. You have to think such that you can make a rational decision.

Folks who say always start the fight as it is their right to start the fight aren't thinking. Saying you never fight is also nonevaluative.

 

[David Armstrong]

How in the world could one know ahead of time whether there was going to be a shootout or not?

Whhile one can rarely know much with any certainty concerning interpersonal relations, one can (and does) identify certain behavior and actions that give indications of likelihood. For example, one should know that robbers rarely injure their victims if they cooperate. One should also understand that if the BG has not started shooting during the incident it is a pretty good indicator that he is not going to shoot barring some change in the situation.

I agree 100% that IF a person could know that there would be no shootout if he decided to do nothing that doing nothing would be the right choice.

Few things in life are 100%, yet that doesn't seem to bother most of us. There is not a 100% chance you will make it home from your next venture onto the highway, but we play to the odds.

You seem to have the idea that if no one offers resistance that nothing will go wrong.

I don't think I have ever said that. What I have said is that the chances favor that position by quite a bit, and one should keep that in mind when formulating responses. One can usually escalate the response if factors indicate the need, but once one has escalated it is hard to go back.

If you're going to play the odds, the statistics say that resisting violent crime with a firearm offers a better chance of remaining uninjured than simply cooperating.

That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher. So yes, if you have a gun and the BG doesn't, things work out pretty good for you. If you have a gun and the BG has a gun, maybe not so good.

"Always cooperate" is a bad plan:..."

Agreed, just as "always fight back" is a bad plan. One should understand the dynamics of violent encounters and respond in a manner that maximizes their potential loss of resources.

There is absolutely no LEO in this country, that is not going to pull his weapon when an individual brandishes a gun anywhere in his/her general direction, and I don't think anything different should be expected of us.

Actually LEOs are generally told that if they are off-duty and out of uniform to be a good witness in these situations and not start a gunfight unless absolutely necessary.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher.

Your general premise (and your specific rebuttal to my post) relies very heavily on these controlled statistics you mention. I agree that such statistics could be very informative. Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.

Your argument is that the statistics I quoted should be dismissed because they include many situations that are more favorable to the defender than the scenario described here. The problem with that argument (in the absence of actual statistics to categorize the studied scenarios more carefully) is that the statistics I quoted also include many situations that are LESS favorable to the defender than the scenario described here. For example, any one-on-one confrontation with an armed attacker (quite a common scenario) would be far less favorable to the defender than a situation like this one where the defender can blend into the crowd until he chooses the proper time to respond.

I'm CERTAINLY not advocating that people respond with gunplay any time a crime occurs in their presence. What I am concerned about is the apparent attitude that CCW holders are far more likely to cause problems than help solve them. In reality, it's extremely rare for intervention by a CCW holder to do anything other than contribute to a positive outcome.

 

[Socrates]

HMMM.

One might also consider the gang factor. Hell's Angel's, for example, have an oath where if a fight is started, they all are obligated to get into it, and, stay in it until it's over. I'm not sure if this would apply to a gun fight, but, one might consider this as another factor.

Sometimes not starting something IS the best course of action, but, the only way you can know is to be there, and, know yourself, and, how you will react. A cool evaluation of your chances, and the situation are vital, and, difficult.

 

[hogdogs]

Kind of glad I was raised amongst the likes of the Banditos, Hells Angels, and Warlocks... rode with a club too. The way it works is not so much "if a fight breaks out they are obligated to stay until it is over..." it is more akin to never leave your brother in jeopardy. Got lots of education and training before I was 18 from the likes of these guys. May well be why I won't be a victim nor tolerate intimidation tactics...
Now as far as the types of "gangs" doin' strong armed and armed robbery they are real quick to dismiss loyalty and revert to every punk for himself... Seen to many robbery vids on youtube where one guy is left wounded while the rest flee to believe many will hang and fight for their "BRO"...

 

[Microgunner]

The robber rarely shoots unless there is some reason to do so

It's that "rarely" part that bothers me. I believe I'd rather rely on what I know how to do than hope they don't do what they "rarely" do. I don't want to wait until the muzzle's lowered on me before I decide to act. I prefer proactive management to reactive. But you just never know for sure how you may act in such extreme situations.

 

[Socrates]

hogdogs:

My only experience with the HA's was in SF. Some wannabe's girlfriend started mouthing off, and, some drunk kids talked back. The girls got into it, and, the HA's jumped in, knifed, and almost killed the guy/kid, and then got out.

The kid wouldn't testify, because, and I think they were right, that they were afraid of the HA's coming after them, at their home, and killing them.

I talked to the detectives involved, and, they said the wannabe disappeared, his shop was still there, but, he was gone. Their conjecture was the HA's hated publicity, or, getting into such situations, bad for business, having us chasing them. So, they disposed of the wannabe, and, the entire thing went away...

DA's office wasn't intrested, and, the SFPD had no evidence of any crime...

 

[hogdogs]

Socrates, That is just one of those cruxes of organized crime groups. Lots of wild hogs have been fed in the swamps of Louisiana, texas and florida in the years since I was 13 years old. Glad i am no longer affiliated with any of them.
Brent

 

[alloy]

as a retail bike shop owner/mechanic going on 12 years or so, within a short distance of 3 of the 4, sometimes things dont feel comfortable...i think Cooper's condition orange is my natural state. occasionally things have nearly accelerated. probobly why i'm here reading.

 

[Socrates]

It was suggested in our area, it's likely we had a fatter great white shark...