How do you react?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No I do not comply... if it is a single shot I hope I soaked up his only shell...
I refuse to comply with thugs demands (except gubmint thugs) The only thing in my wallet is too valuable to give up... My ID and social security card are not to be given up.
Yes sir I do hedge my bets But I will not waiver on my convictions and stand by the absolute.
Brent
 
hotdogs said:
Night Watch, I respect your views. But to some of us the presence of a bad person "IN MY SPACE" trying to intimidate me and mine into giving up our belongings with the possibility of violence even if we comply is more than I will accept. If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?

:rolleyes: Well, then, you’re just quicker to resort to violence or to kill than I am. When it comes to taking human life, ‘in my space’ is a meaningless expression to me. Will I voluntarily give up my personal belongings? If it means placing the lives of innocents at risk then, yes, I’m willing to let property go.

As another indication of the differences between our respective viewpoints: Around holiday time I have given money to homeless people. Sometimes it’s been money I needed for myself; I just thought that they might need it more.

Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with whatever (Ed.) I have. If someone (Ed.) so much as tries (Ed.) to snatch a piece of my pancakes off my plate they will be met with the sharp end of my fork! Ask my kids ... I don't give up what is mine easily... And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.

Well, first of all, there ain't a lot of, 'honor' associated with anything as proletarian as THE INTERNET! Sooner or later, someone is going to disagree, start playing dirty with you, and try to, 'steal your pancakes'! (Like so many other things in life, it takes a thick skin to come on here everyday, and being proud will often just get you into a larger argument!) ;)

In this instance, though, I believe I said pretty much the same thing as you have just stated. In a robbery of this sort, if the perpetrator doesn’t start shooting or doesn't personally confront me, then, I will NOT take action.

The problem I have with personal confrontation is that it’s difficult for me to reach for my wallet without revealing some sort of, ‘tell’ that I’m heavily armed. I might be able to do it; or, I might not. This forces me to make a decision about whomever might be confronting me. You ALWAYS have to remember Rule #4, ‘Mark your target AND what is beyond.’

My suggestion would be for you to, at least, be aware of whichever circumstance might be the lesser of two evils - to draw and fire, or not to draw and fire?

I am not a gun totter (Ed.) currently and would never shoot someone for wanting my goods but if they try to use force I have all legal rights to assume severe bodily harm is intended and thus will retaliate ... I have not won every scrap I have been in but have in the vast majority and some were against well armed individuals ...

I am a, ‘gun totter’. Still, because I’ve seen more ugly realities in this life than I would have otherwise cared to, I remain a very reluctant, ‘fast gun’. The extraordinary skill level is certainly there; however, someone would have to really push me before I’d make a conscious decision to use it!

There’s one other thing you should be aware of before you become too proud, or get too bloodthirsty in a situation like this: Even if you take your armed assailant out clean, what happens when the other members of his street gang are confronted with a severe loss of face, and have to publicly bury a fallen associate because of what you did? Think you might lose a few nights’ sleep over something like that? ;)
 
Don't have the URL anymore. But here you go.

Allison Thompson, Robber Gets Outgunned on Westside," Florida Times-Union
( Jacksonville, FL),September 24, 1997, p. B1.

Wednesday, September 24, 1997

Story last updated at 11:10 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 1997
Robber gets outgunned on Westside


By Allison Thompson
Times-Union staff writer

The shotgun-wielding man who burst into a crowded Jacksonville restaurant Monday night probably wasn't expecting Oscar Moore, but Moore had been waiting for him for years.

Moore, 69, of the Normandy area, said he goes over potential crime scenarios in his head and has been planning for something like the robbery he found himself in the middle of Monday. He said he carries a gun everywhere he goes unless it's illegal.

Yesterday, he said he had only one regret about the shooting - the gun he used.

''That gun I didn't trust to try to go for a head shot,'' said Moore, who shot the would-be robber in the midsection with a .22-caliber Magnum revolver. ''If I'd had another gun with me, I'd have gone for a head shotand taken care of it from here to eternity.''

As more than 30 diners sat in Sam's St. Johns Seafood at 4453 Blanding Blvd. about 7:20 p.m., a masked man entered the eatery and ordered everyone to the floor, said co-owner Sam Bajalia. The man grabbed waitress Amy Norton from where she and another waitress were huddled on the floor and tried to get her to open the cash register.

At that point, Moore stood up and shot him. Another diner, 81-year-old Robert Guerry of Birmingham, Ala., pulled out a .22-caliber derringer and fired at the man as he ran out of the restaurant. At least one shot hit the fleeing robber.

Seventeen-year-old Dervonne Marquise Moore of the 900 block of Frost Drive East arrived at St. Vincent's Medical Center later Monday night with a gunshot wound and was charged with armed robbery. Moore, who police said isn't related to Oscar Moore, underwent surgery and was in fair and stable condition yesterday.

Though it's been about five years since the restaurant was robbed, manager Carl Rix said he wasn't surprised when gunfire erupted.

Margaret Moore said she wasn't surprised either when her husband, who she said shoots pistols competitively, pulled out his gun.

''He goes prepared most places that he goes,'' she said.

She has had premonitions for the past several months that something was going to happen, Oscar Moore said.

Margaret Moore called her husband a hero, a sentiment others at the restaurant shared.

''I'm glad they [Moore and Guerry] were here because if that girl couldn't open the register, and he didn't get no money, he might have started shooting,'' Bajalia said.

Edward Hurst, 61, was having dinner with his brother and sister-in-law when the shooting began.

''I went over and thanked the one I thought hit him,'' Hurst said.

''They practically broke my arm shaking my hand,'' Oscar Moore said.

Norton, who has worked at the restaurant for a month and doesn't know how to open the cash register, was upset when Moore and Guerry shot at the robber.

''I was just scared they were going to miss and hit me,'' she said.

Police said Moore and Guerry won't be charged. Moore has a permit to carry a gun; it is unknown if Guerry has a similar permit from Alabama. He couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Moore believes with ''the weakness of our judicial system,'' a person confronted with a robbery should shoot to kill if given the opportunity.

''Somewhere along the line, we the people have to start protecting ourselves.''
 
If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?
Because failure to comply can end up costing far more than you lose by compliance. That is the key, IMO....what course of action is the most likely to minimize loss of resources.
And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.
Not sure how honorable it is to leave a family without a father, but this sounds a whole lot like why so many gangbangers fight.
 
i am not a gang banger... I do not go lookin' for trouble but if trouble comes lookin' for me I just haven't learned to run...
I have managed to stay alive thru the growth of my kids and my daughter... My daughter is 17 and knows her daddy ain't about to comply with no lowlife punk.
Brent
 
I agree with Brent.

Arizona allows you to use physical, and/or deadly physical force if you are in fear of your life; OR, to the extent necessary to stop a serious felony in progress. That list of serious felonies included armed robbery.

I have absolutely no use for a thief, and leaving them the option of killing me (there were armed and threatening people, right?) is not ok with me if I can avoid it.

So, if I'm in a restaurant, eating dinner and minding my own business when a thug or two come in with guns to threaten my life, I'm most likely going to do something about it. At the first chance I have to end the threat, I'm probably going to do just that. Having a handgun in my hand under the table, and dropping the piece of trash when they approach me is likely.

I don't go around looking for trouble with other people, and I expect others to treat me with the same respect.

Daryl
 
I don't think anyone disagrees with the right to take action against a lethal threat. However, that gets way confounded with what action is best to take.

Getting shot while waving a fork probably has a high probability of bad outcome than just giving over the wallet.

If the guy doesn't approach you and is just hitting the cash register - then the ambiguity starts. My story guy ran out after being shot. That he could run means he certainly could have fired into the waitress or the geezers.

There's no guarantees that action or inaction will be best and that's why someone argue for a continuum of response as compared to the automatic shootup based on philosopy.

l
 
the first chance I have to end the threat, I'm probably going to do just that. Having a handgun in my hand under the table, and dropping the piece of trash when they approach me is likely.
Again, there is that curious assumption that just because we are the good guy our actions will always be successful, nothing will ever go wrong, the bad guys will always drop like a rock with just one shot, nobody else will ever be hurt, and so on. This case is particularly problematic, of course, because of multiple BGs.
 
While I don't agree with DA's solution, he is right in that we have debated this topic to death before.
I did want to comment on this however:
On one of his latest radio segments he speaks of some force on force training he did for one of his PDTV shows and told us how many times he was "killed" while in these types of scenarios. I think one was a conveinience store holdup and another was a disgruntled employee and Tom was trying to "save" the boss from being shot. He said on his show that he got killed almost EVERY time he tried to intervene. He lived when he ran.
This is a perfect example of a useless and misleading test. About the only thing it tells you is that Mr. G gets killed whenever he tries it in that setting. The fact that all of the players know the scenario ahead of time invalidates the results. Even if all of the players didn't know ahead of time including the "good guy", the validity is still questionable. IRL, the theif may have no intention of shooting anyone, that would result in a different outcome than if he walked in intending to kill after he robbed. Also, The good guy may decide not to intervene, to intervene sooner or later, to use different tactics, etc. Not to mention the different skill levels, the mental attitude, fear, effects of drugs, alcohol, getting laid or not the night before and numerous other factors. There are plenty of cases where someone intervened and prevailed, there are also cases where they intervened and didn't. In this case, the test means nothing.
 
Tennessee, I bet you are right about that! But not all will chit and git...
I have looked that coward that won't show his face while packin' a hay knife in the face far too many times to worry about it now...
If told to handle over anything i will answer with a heartfelt and serious NO!
They can Kiss my butt, fight shoot whatever they want. This is on the internet but it is not internet chest thumping. Anyone that knows me well also knows I am not the one to run or comply to threats of any sort. Now if my kid was grabbed as a bargaining chip they can have my wallet and underwear... Once my kid is released I am goin marathon man huntin them down for scaring her.:mad:
Brent
 
Lurper,

A good role play takes all those types of decisions into consideration. The "good guy" goes into the scenario knowing nothing of what the role players will do. The person in charge directs the role players to do certain things in response to the good guy's actions. For example, the director might tell two role playing panhandlers, "Okay, if the good guy gives you a solid and clear voice direction, do what he says and back off, go away, whatever. If he doesn't use a good command voice, or if he backpedals without talking, follow him and get into his personal space. And if he pulls a gun, I want one of you to run and the other one to freeze."

That's the way a good FOF director sets the scene, and it is very realistic because it includes multiple branching outcomes depending upon the good guy's actions, and several places for human judgement (what's a "good command voice"? = that's up to the players to decide, whether they would be intimidated by it or whether it sounded fearful & weak. Just as in real life, a sometimes-panhandler might also be a sometimes-mugger depending upon the intended target's reaction to his opening gambit).

Far more realistic for the particpant than merely daydreaming online! Everyone's brave online, all command voices are deep and authoritative rather than squeaky and weak, all shots hit, all bad guys succomb or surrender.

Real life's even more chaotic than role play, but role play is far better than online mind games.

pax
 
pax,

Well said and the real value of the role play is you can imagine how much much more chaotic it is in real life.

If some of the people posting here actually try to do what they claim they will they might end up as great candidates for Darwin Awards.

I don't know what you think but I have always seen the bad guy thing like this.

Since the bad guy picks the time and place and method of attack then he/she is in front of the power curve and therefore has a great advantage over us good guys.

The CCW good guy has one advantage I believe that he/she MAY use and that is surprise and the ignorance of the BG that the Good Guy is carrying. That might negate the attacker's initial advantage. Maybe bad guys EXPECT their prey to be armed but I don't think so.

If the BG doesn't know I am carrying then I MAY get to pick the time and place of my response that will put him on the bad side of the OODA loop. One of the reasons I don't really care for open carry.
 
David Armstrong said:
Did that.
With all due respect, you most certainly did not.

You provided a sentence that supported a DIFFERENT assertion, not the one we were discussing. I made that abundantly clear in my last post and it has not escaped my notice that you made no effort to rebut that point but instead merely repeated what the sentence supported--which was not what you originally stated in the paragraph that I have quoted, requoted and re-requoted.
David Armstrong said:
did you read the Worrall book?
Again I refer you to the burden of proof fallacy. It is not my responsibility to research YOUR assertions. You made the assertions, you provide the evidence to support them. Telling someone to go read a book, go take a class in research statistics, go find the evidence, is not a valid response, not a polite response, not a constructive response, not a response that will garner you any credibility in the long run.

Responsible, constructive debate demands that those who make assertions (statements of fact) be willing to either provide supporting evidence, be willing to modify the statement to one of opinion rather than fact or even retract the statement if the situation calls for it. Those who refuse to do any of the above can not be considered a credible source.
David Armstrong said:
The other is that there is other data that provides some evidence of a factor that is not addressed in the Kleck article.
I have asked you repeatedly to provide this data and you have, over a period of several days come up with all manner of creative reasons why you can't or won't.

At this point it is clear that you will not (or can not) provide supporting evidence for your disagreement with my comment. That is most unfortunate.
 
A good role play takes all those types of decisions into consideration.
Therein is where the single biggest problem lies: not every director is "good". Not only that, some have predispostions for certain outcomes, procedures, etc. Even w/a good director, there are far too many variables that effect the outcome than can't be simulated to a reasonable degree to say that it correlates to the outcome. Again, you can't simulate the purpose or intent, effects of any of the substances or myraid other factors that not only effect the aggressors actons, but also effect his reactions, responses and ultimately the outcome of the entire situation. Not to mention the difference in skill, ability, equipment, mental and physical state.

The only way you could possibly come close to anything that correlates to real life would be to take total strangers and (for example) put one inside a store, give him a set of tasks to perform while telling the other to go rob this store sometime today. While I'm not discounting the training value, to say it relates to any type of outcome in real life is just not true.

Not to say that it can't effect the outcome of those involved, but to use it as a guide to 1. tell people this is what will (or is likely to) happen 2. you should base your decision to get involved or not, is hogwash. Even for those involved in the training, it is a double edged sword. FoF could build your confidence to a point where you intervene when you wouldn't have before the training or vice-versa. Either way you can't predict the outcome.

Which is the crux and weakness of this argument. Whether to intervene or not should be a personal decision based on several factors including skill, environment, gut feeling, emotional, mental, physical states and the same states percieved in the counterpart. To say that there is an argument to be made based on results of FoF is disingenuous.

There are plenty of cases where unskilled individuals have intervened even against multiple assailants and prevailed. I cited many of them in a previous thread. There are also plenty of cases where individuals comply and are killed anyway. You can use statistics to base your actions on if you want, but to base your actions on FoF is kind of absurd.
 
but to use it as a guide to 1. tell people this is what will (or is likely to) happen 2. you should base your decision to get involved or not, is hogwash.

I respectfully disagree. Using the results of FoF drills can help give you an idea of what you might face and using that training to make descisions is no more hogwash than:

Whether to intervene or not should be a personal decision based on several factors including skill, environment, gut feeling, emotional, mental, physical states and the same states percieved in the counterpart.

Gut feeling? I think the more you study and know the better. Can't remember how often my "gut" feeling has been wrong. I think training is better than intuition.
 
As I get older, and still owe the government a house or so, I take comfort in dieing, and depriving them of the benefit of my education.

I say that because when I was mugged, I may have got stiches from the Walther butt to my head, but, I survived, and, if the guys hadn't left, I was going to do everything I could with my hands to kill him. Now, I might be carrying a gun, so, the scenario might be just a bit different.

I've had the tar knocked out of my by 2 world heavyweight karate champs, and, has been noted, when guy are high or drunk they take punishment, and, keep coming. IF I ever face that situation again, I take comfort in knowing it's a good day to die, that I won't face the oppression of student loans, unlike AIG, I seem to have to pay, and, I have a few plans.

As a old boxer martial artist, I'm not an easy target coming in, even at my age. I'm still lifting every other day, and, I plan to start getting in the dojo again, very soon, due to my job, and area I'm in.

As I come in, my head is NOT easy to hit(think Mike Tyson bobbing and weaving, coming in..., and, most gang bangers, and punks use 9mm and under guns. The history of bad guys soaking up punishment from such calibers, and continuing to come is historically proven.

If that is the way I'm to go, I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can, and, that's a bit, to take the banger with me...
 
Using the results of FoF drills can help give you an idea of what you might face
In and of itself, this is true. But to say that there is a correlation between the outcome in real life and the outcome in FoF is not true. Statistically, the good guy doesn't get killed every time. In fact, they don't get killed that often. There are too many variables that can't be duplicated. To say it helps prepare you (in terms of skill, stress inoculation, tactics, etc.) is one thing. But to say that because you get killed every time in FoF, that anyone who intervenes is likely to get killed is quite a stretch at best.

Additionally, how did they define "killed" in their scenario? Just a hit anywhere? A hit C.O.M? Not only that, but how did they determine the actor's response to; someone intervening, a gun being introduced, the reaction of the actors to the previous, the effects of being shot at, the effects of being hit, fear, surprise, adrenaline, pain and countless other things that can't be simulated? No matter how well it is set up, the players in the FoF training are primed. They know something is going to happen. They aren't likely to get caught in condition white with their trigger finger up their nose when the defecation hits the oscillation. Yet that is typically how it starts in real life.

Again, FoF has training value, but it has little value as a predictor of likely outcomes in real life situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top