David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
http://newsok.com/article/3270704
http://newsok.com/article/3270704
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How do you react?
- Thread starter jclayto
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous. Even if 9 times out of 10, they just take the money and leave, I will not be the 1 who they kill. I'm not going to wait and see where I fall either.
And these comments of "well, I'd wait until I felt in fear for my safety/life, etc" are just plain illogical.
The definition of Robbery is (paraphrasing as most states have it written differently) "theft from a person through force or the threat of force." Aggravated Robbery is the same, but with the use of a deadly weapon, or force or the threat of force that causes serious bodily injury and/or death.
By definition, if they are committing Aggravated Robbery, then you SHOULD feel in fear for your life and defend it accordingly.
The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...wait until they start shooting and put yourself in an even deeper hole? Personally, the gunfight I like to be in is the one where I get the first and only shots. But that's just me.
Shear aggression when it's not expected is something that not many people are hardwired to handle. It's what makes people vapor-lock...including badguys.
And if they only have toy guns or they're unloaded, then that's just even better for me.
And these comments of "well, I'd wait until I felt in fear for my safety/life, etc" are just plain illogical.
The definition of Robbery is (paraphrasing as most states have it written differently) "theft from a person through force or the threat of force." Aggravated Robbery is the same, but with the use of a deadly weapon, or force or the threat of force that causes serious bodily injury and/or death.
By definition, if they are committing Aggravated Robbery, then you SHOULD feel in fear for your life and defend it accordingly.
The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...wait until they start shooting and put yourself in an even deeper hole? Personally, the gunfight I like to be in is the one where I get the first and only shots. But that's just me.
Shear aggression when it's not expected is something that not many people are hardwired to handle. It's what makes people vapor-lock...including badguys.
And if they only have toy guns or they're unloaded, then that's just even better for me.
Last edited:
I disagree, JK.
This is a tactical decision that can go several ways. It's a scenario we all should play out in our heads while sitting at a WH enjoying a pecan waffle. "What would I do if..."
We need to talk this out WITHOUT getting personal in our remarks. What one person would do is not what another would do, but we can ALL benefit from each others opinions and suggestions.
This is a tactical decision that can go several ways. It's a scenario we all should play out in our heads while sitting at a WH enjoying a pecan waffle. "What would I do if..."
We need to talk this out WITHOUT getting personal in our remarks. What one person would do is not what another would do, but we can ALL benefit from each others opinions and suggestions.
Not a hero, just a survivor and if I go out I am goin' out fighting for my life!
I must point out something not mentioned yet.... I tend to avoid the element of surprise. never my back to the door (even if wifey poo thinks she is picking the seat) always try to have windows and MUST have a view of the door. This puts precious seconds of decision making time in my court!
Brent
I must point out something not mentioned yet.... I tend to avoid the element of surprise. never my back to the door (even if wifey poo thinks she is picking the seat) always try to have windows and MUST have a view of the door. This puts precious seconds of decision making time in my court!
Brent
David Armstrong
Moderator
John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.
No. I do not think they should be dismissed at all. I do think they should be considered and used to help formulate a response. I also think they should be looked at in their entirety, as the dynamics do change significantly when one looks at all incidents as opposed to the narrower gun incidents.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.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
OK, automatically respond to the armed robbery as you might be at risk is one way to look at it.
How about this? Near me there is a restaurant called Jim's - a typical burger and pancake place. It's a large restaurant. I can be seated at a really long distance from the register - with lots of intervening tables.
In the evenings, it is quite full. I go there with my wife for pie and coffee.
A man comes in to the register and pulls a gun. He says: Give me the money.
It is a long way away with about 50 people between us. So do I:
1. Stand up and take the shot - note that around the register - in front, side and in back of the gunman there are probably quite a few folk.
2. Challenge him from a distance.
3. Run up to him.
Tell me how the automatic start the fight, be aggressive, surprise him, high speed aggression tactic works here.
Or is it possible that various scenarios have different contingencies? Cliches that one must act don't really cut in all situations. Nor does automatically just sitting it out. I can reference successful interventions that saved the day.
I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.
How about this? Near me there is a restaurant called Jim's - a typical burger and pancake place. It's a large restaurant. I can be seated at a really long distance from the register - with lots of intervening tables.
In the evenings, it is quite full. I go there with my wife for pie and coffee.
A man comes in to the register and pulls a gun. He says: Give me the money.
It is a long way away with about 50 people between us. So do I:
1. Stand up and take the shot - note that around the register - in front, side and in back of the gunman there are probably quite a few folk.
2. Challenge him from a distance.
3. Run up to him.
Tell me how the automatic start the fight, be aggressive, surprise him, high speed aggression tactic works here.
Or is it possible that various scenarios have different contingencies? Cliches that one must act don't really cut in all situations. Nor does automatically just sitting it out. I can reference successful interventions that saved the day.
I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.
stephen426
New member
I think there is no easy answer on this one as well.
Secario 1: You comply and hope the bad guys just take the money and leave.
Result a: The bad guys take the money and go. Your wallet is a few buck lighter and no one got hurt.
Result b: They take the money and then shoot the place up. You are behind the curve and get killed.
Scenario 2: You draw on the bad guy and begin shooting.
Result a: You hit the bad guys and the robbery ends.
Result b: The bad guys open fire on you and other patrons and people get killed.
I agree that there is no way to know whether or not the bad guys will or will not start shooting. In my mind, that leaves one option... Gain control of the situation if and when the opportunity presents itself. Of course you have to be aware of what behind your target and hitting bystanders. I am not a police officer or a cowboy, but I don't want to be a lamb to the slaughter either. If people are going to wave weapons around in public, I'm going to have to assume they are ready and willing to use them. To believe otherwise is just plain foolish in my opinion.
David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.
Secario 1: You comply and hope the bad guys just take the money and leave.
Result a: The bad guys take the money and go. Your wallet is a few buck lighter and no one got hurt.
Result b: They take the money and then shoot the place up. You are behind the curve and get killed.
Scenario 2: You draw on the bad guy and begin shooting.
Result a: You hit the bad guys and the robbery ends.
Result b: The bad guys open fire on you and other patrons and people get killed.
I agree that there is no way to know whether or not the bad guys will or will not start shooting. In my mind, that leaves one option... Gain control of the situation if and when the opportunity presents itself. Of course you have to be aware of what behind your target and hitting bystanders. I am not a police officer or a cowboy, but I don't want to be a lamb to the slaughter either. If people are going to wave weapons around in public, I'm going to have to assume they are ready and willing to use them. To believe otherwise is just plain foolish in my opinion.
David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.
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.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
It is absolutely ridiculous to think that man can fly in a machine that weighs several tons, yet it happens regularly. What is ridiculous has no bearing on what the facts are.The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, any time the police point a gun at a BG and deman he surrender they are engaging in a gunfight? Somehow, that doesn't make a ton of sense to me.The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...
Exactly. Either response can be good, either response can be bad. Assessing the realities of the situation and making a decision based on what seems to lead to the best outcome is the way to play it.I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.
The easiest place to start is the Uniform Crime Reports.David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There are many criminology and victimology texts as well as original scholarly articles that break down actions in robberies as well as the UCRs.
If one looks at the CJ texts on sale in many college book stores, you can find them.
We can't deny that most armed robberies don't end in shoot outs. In fact, to be nonscientific just watch the news. In San Antonio, almost every night we have a nonshooting armed robbery or two. We also have some gang, romance related shootouts every night.
The point of the stats is to indicate that armed robberies don't necessarily end in gun fights and if one thinks about it, you can take take into consideration when you run down the aisles of the Waffle House shooting away. Yes, it may end in a shooting incident but the difficulty in all these discussions in the implied and necessary gun fight. Knowning what can happens, usually happens and planning for contingencies is what it is all about. You don't get that at the square range.
If one looks at the CJ texts on sale in many college book stores, you can find them.
We can't deny that most armed robberies don't end in shoot outs. In fact, to be nonscientific just watch the news. In San Antonio, almost every night we have a nonshooting armed robbery or two. We also have some gang, romance related shootouts every night.
The point of the stats is to indicate that armed robberies don't necessarily end in gun fights and if one thinks about it, you can take take into consideration when you run down the aisles of the Waffle House shooting away. Yes, it may end in a shooting incident but the difficulty in all these discussions in the implied and necessary gun fight. Knowning what can happens, usually happens and planning for contingencies is what it is all about. You don't get that at the square range.
AnonymousOne
Inactive
What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.I will not tolerate intimidation, terrorism or bullying from anyone.
Quote:
David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
Quote:
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.
Unusual and out of the norm? Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir. It might have been unique for 1978, but par for the course in 2008. As far as making your point? The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there. It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.
David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
Quote:
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.
Unusual and out of the norm? Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir. It might have been unique for 1978, but par for the course in 2008. As far as making your point? The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there. It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Might we have a source that cites that armed robbers who successful complete a robbery without gun fire then go on to use gun fire?
What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.
Thank Congress circa 1993-94 for that one. After the OKC bombing, they wanted any crime committed with a firearm to be considered terrorism.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Yes.Unusual and out of the norm?
What is on the news has little bearing on how common or uncommon an event is. For example, in 2007 the UCR lists 445,125 robberies in the U.S. and 16,929 murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Even if one assumed all murders were the result of robberies, that would be one in about 26. It's not that high, of course, and IIRC the actual number is closer to 1 out of 400, which I think everyone would agree is out of the norm.Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir.
Then you have obviously missed the point, as nowhere do I say one should trust the criminal for much of anything.The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
Again we see a basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works. If you are having success without killing, why change your M.O. to make it harder/worse on you?You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there.
No, that is not a fact. Criminals tend to find something that works and stick with it. There is some escalation at times, just as there is some de-escalation, but the norm again is to repeat what works.It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.
My use of the word "terrorism" is not based on the government description... It is used because TFL members say "don't shoot the deviant person with a gun because they only intend to scare people... not hurt them..."
Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!
If I was in the scenario mentioned with out a firearm or knife I would still attack the punks with my waffle fork!
I refuse to comply with demands from lesser humans. The only way to live for me is to fight crime with force. If no one were to comply with these demands than muggins and robberies would be very rare! BUTCH UP And demand that your civil rights are not trampled by criminals!
Brent
Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!
If I was in the scenario mentioned with out a firearm or knife I would still attack the punks with my waffle fork!
I refuse to comply with demands from lesser humans. The only way to live for me is to fight crime with force. If no one were to comply with these demands than muggins and robberies would be very rare! BUTCH UP And demand that your civil rights are not trampled by criminals!
Brent
AnonymousOne
Inactive
Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!
Care to try again?
American_Heritage_Dictionary said:ter·ror·ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I bolded part of that because of the actual working legal definitions.
You clarified for me...
"often" is not a chipped in stone term...
"OFTEN" They are just trying to force folks to come off their wallet!
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing....
Sounds alot like the intended affect of rushing into the waffle house with guns drawn...
You get a cookie for realizing that armed robbery is as much terrorism as blowing up a building.
The first case of "WAR ON TERROR" I can remember is when a young man shot punks on a subway in New York back many years.
Brent
"often" is not a chipped in stone term...
"OFTEN" They are just trying to force folks to come off their wallet!
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing....
Sounds alot like the intended affect of rushing into the waffle house with guns drawn...
You get a cookie for realizing that armed robbery is as much terrorism as blowing up a building.
The first case of "WAR ON TERROR" I can remember is when a young man shot punks on a subway in New York back many years.
Brent
- Status
- Not open for further replies.