Mugging Teams

D

Duxman

New member
In speaking to my father over the weekend, (he was explaining about the various gang / hoodlum tactics being used in Kommiefornia) and I was wondering what suggestions you folks have to nuetralize the situation......In some cases, an unarmed would be mugger would approach you (on foot) for your wallet / while his accomplice waits in a nearby automobile.

The would be mugger tells you that his friend has a gun and will shoot you unless you give up the goods....what do you do?

In situation #2 - mugger walks up to you, flashes gun (typically Mexican carry) and asks you for your cash / money or he shoots you.

Is this threat justifiable? (Assuming the backstop is clear in both situations.):confused:
 
In our city of Tacoma WA they just today sentenced a 19 year old, (6'3" 230) for beating and stomping a 69 year old Navy Vet to death on a sidewalk in broad daylight. The predator took nothing from his victim. His attorney said it was a "mistake" (Ya gota love them lawyers :barf: ) in the course of a robbery. If they could have proved it was pre-meditated it would have been life or death penalty. Turns out after he got the 30 years (26 with "good behavior") he was doing a gang try out and the old vet was just the closest and handy. (So much for a lawyer telling the truth!!:mad: ) As the court room cleared out one of the preds buds yelled out "He was 69 you think he was going to live forever?" Total respect for life there huh.
Never assume anything about a “muggers” intention. Assume the worst and act accordingly!!
 
I say your definitely justified. Especially in situation 2 where the approaching you is the one with the gun. He absolutely gets shot if that is me in the scenario.
In either situation, at least here in Alabama, all you get from the police is a few high fives.
 
with #2: A weapons flash and a threat of potental physical harm I feel would be enough to use deadly force to defend yourself. I'm on the east coast and the weapon flash is a classic move here. The guy with the weapon will flash and never touch you, while his friend will go thru your pockets. Probably the logic is the guy with the weapon can plea innocent since he never touched you, the guy that robs you gets a lesser non weapons charge if caught. A guy I knew had this happen to him, ironically he was quick enough to snatch the flash weapon out of the guys waistband(would never advise anyone to try it). Good news it was a toy gun, bad news he suffer a wicked beating by the 4 guys pulling off the scam and got robbed anyway.

with #1, I never heard of that one, if someone said my friend in the car has a gun and I'm going to rob you. I would tell him "Yea right", and keep walking. If he tried to take a shot he is in a car, and a street bad guy is usually a bad shot anyway. Again if anyone pulls a weapon, or takes a shot at you, if you have a gun you are justified to return fire.

Now if you are in La La land without any weapons, and a group trys one of these moves on you. If your out in public and there are witnesses (some of these goofball will pull these mugging in broad daylight) yell at the top of your lungs "He's has got a gun, Police" regardless if you see a weapon or not. Run away from the guy and hope for the best.
 
In #1, you are only being threatened with force. There is a iffy situation for certain. You draw and fire on the yob on foot. You then spin and fire on the car driver. The investigation reveals that yob A was unarmed and yob B was a drugstore delivery driver who is innocent and does not have any connection with the mugger yob. Unless you see a weapon, you can't just throw lead. In the second situation, is your weapon at hand? You are at a disadvantage. I would lean into the mugger and kick to disable while drawing my own weapon. Three rounds to the COM. Dial 911.
 
Lemme ask this:

What happens with LEOs when one of them yells: "GUN!"?

Nuff said...The punk shows a gun, game on.

:(
 
1. Proximity - is the person (s) close enough to do you grave bodily harm

2. Ability - is the person(s) capable of doing grave bodily harm (multiple attackers, size of attacker, weapon involved)

3. Intent - Has the person physically or verbally displayed the intent to do grave bodily harm (said they are going to shoot you, aggressive actions,etc)

4. Fear - Do you fear for your life or another (do you BELIEVE you, or someone close by is in immediate danger of grave bodily harm)

The four requirements for deadly force.
 
Yell "Stop" or "Get down" as loud as you can while drawing and plugging the BG with a double tap to the head. Theres bound to be some reasonable person around that heard you yell that instead of "Ima a gang banger"
 
+1 DocFox.

Whatever the circumstances, whatever the time of day, whatever the number of zombies, whatever the caliber, whatever the number of ninja backflips it takes to reach cover,... Your post should end all scenario threads forever. Yeehaa - rejoice!
 
In #1, you are only being threatened with force. There is a iffy situation for certain. You draw and fire on the yob on foot. You then spin and fire on the car driver. The investigation reveals that yob A was unarmed and yob B was a drugstore delivery driver who is innocent and does not have any connection with the mugger yob. Unless you see a weapon, you can't just throw lead. In the second situation, is your weapon at hand? You are at a disadvantage. I would lean into the mugger and kick to disable while drawing my own weapon. Three rounds to the COM. Dial 911.
Click to expand...

What about just drawing on the Threat?? No shooting unless they escalate it. They already threatened to do great bodily harm and you have no reason they cant. They are in proximity.
 
In situation #2 - mugger walks up to you, flashes gun (typically Mexican carry) and asks you for your cash / money or he shoots you.
Click to expand...


Is there something to be said for simply LASHING OUT IMMEDIATELY and popping the guy in the face and pummeling him, even as you maybe grab for or press against the gun in his waistband? I think there is a case to be made for surprising the hell out of the guy, especially given that he is probably expecting compliance. YOU then have the element of surprise.


-blackmind
 
another +1 for DocFox.

Sit #1 - - I may or may not draw depending on credible he is, but I would certainly be extremely alert. If I "believe" him . . . if I "think" the perp in the car might be a threat both of 'em are targets prioritized by threat level.

Sit #2 - - I'm drawing my .45 and if I even "think" this guy is in anyway a threat I have no choice but to shoot and keep shooting till he is no longer a threat.

In both situations shouting stuff like "Stop", "No", and/or "Help" while drawing your weapon might help attract attention that may be beneficial after-the-fact.
 
I like Doc Fox's list of deadly force justification.

I would add though, that I don't care if the person attacking me is 5'4 130lbs or 6'10 300lbs...if they show a weapon they need not add a verbal threat or appear to be more of a threat due to their size, I would have to draw and fire for fear of my life.

Also. I don't think you ever draw a gun to de-escalate a situation. A firearm is the last resort. If you draw you plan on firing immediately. Unless the person flees or submits to your "stop" or "no" vocal message, the gun should be fired.

I guess I just wouldn't draw a gun unless I was sure I had to actually fire, I wouldn't use it as an intimidation tool or a de-escalation tool at all.
 
1. Proximity - is the person (s) close enough to do you grave bodily harm

2. Ability - is the person(s) capable of doing grave bodily harm (multiple attackers, size of attacker, weapon involved)

3. Intent - Has the person physically or verbally displayed the intent to do grave bodily harm (said they are going to shoot you, aggressive actions,etc)

4. Fear - Do you fear for your life or another (do you BELIEVE you, or someone close by is in immediate danger of grave bodily harm)

The four requirements for deadly force.
Click to expand...

It's a great post on whether or not use of deadly force is warranted. Nicely put.

Assuming those elements are met (which I think they are in both scenarios) you then have to decide whether or not it is in your best interest to respond with deadly force, warranted or not.

In most situations, I'm going to give up my wallet instead of getting into a shootout. It's my personal choice, and I'm glad some are more ready and willing to fight (overall makes life better for all of us) but to me it's a question of how much pain I'm willing to endure.

Replacing a wallet and credit cards = a few phone calls
Dealing with dead mugger = lengthy interviews with "da man" and potential court cases.

As for when to use force, here are some rules I have thought about:

  1. If you want my car, you can have it. If my kid is still in it ... you're going to have to kill me and pry my dead fingers from around your throat.
  2. If my kids not in the car you can have it. If you want me to come along ... if I've got a still-concealed weapon, I'll probably agree. But the first indication you'll have of that weapon is muzzle flash followed by a sinking sensation and the appearance of the fires of hell.
  3. If you're a BG and you're in my house and approaching me ... you'd better get REAL compliant REAL FAST or else run. There's no negotiating in my house (Colorado is a GREAT state!)
  4. If you want my wallet, you can have it. If it looks like you're going to hurt me or mine anyway -- see item on "muzzle flash" above.
  5. If you've realized I'm carrying a gun and want it ... have to play that one by ear. Better to give up the gun and maybe get executed while unarmed, or get shot while exchanging point blank fire. I dunno.
 
I was a juror on a DP trial recently and the defendant did some mugging in Berkeley and the surrounding area. His MO was:

  • Travel with 2 or 3 other people
  • Look for someone well dressed
  • 2 get out ahead of the vic, others stay in the car
  • casually walk up to the vic
  • bash him in the head/punch him in the face - stun him
  • one guy holds the vic while other hits him/her a few more times then they take the wallet/purse
  • one last kick before running back to the car
  • car zips back to 'hood where muggers blend in

Rarely did the muggers 'telegraph' their intent. In the one case they did, the vic was killed (thus the trial).

Postscript: Guy was convicted and got life w/o parole.
 
Never Give Up Your Weapon. Ever.

Never let another person have your firearm even if they get the drop on you. Fight back 150%.

Nobody should see a concealed weapon until it is truly needed. I would rather be shot in an attempt to move for cover and clear leather than just hand over my weapon. I feel that giving a weapon to a criminal will increase the bloodsheed and violence in our society that our personal carry guns are meant to protect us/others from.

Don't let them get in the car with you either, particularly if they want you to stay in it. You'll be too far behind the curve. Fighting is instinctual in nature and I believe one has to make a million choices in a split second...but whomever carjacks you and keeps you in the car does not have the best intentions for YOUR future in mind.

Again, Clint Smith, "If someone kills me with my own gun they'll have to beat me to death with it, for it should be empty." I know it's probably not the exact quote, but never let your weapon go without fighting your heart out.
 
shoot in both cases. Any threat like that is enough to put an old guy like me into 'instant' mode.

I would much rather face a possible court appearence than have my wife and kids attend court at the trial of my killer.
 
I was wondering what suggestions you folks have to nuetralize the situation......
Click to expand...
I've been holding off on submitting a response to these two quite plausible scenerios. I just feel there are two many variables.

However, the one thing that jumps out at me is that you don't have to neutralize the situation! You merely have to survive and escape it. Having the singular response of standing your ground, drawing a gun and shooting is not very savy out there.

The first move on both of these scenerios should be to survive and escape. The first step to doing that is to get to cover. MOVE! If the gun in the car or the guy with a gun in his pants is going to shoot you, make it more difficult by being a moving target. If he has a restraining hold on you, then get out of it. Use big muscle groups against his thumb and he must let go.

At any rate, get some distance, move quickly, and get behind something. Draw your gun while doing so. Your decision to shoot is then dependent on his response to your first act of survival. If he gives up the fight, and leaves, hold your fire. If he advances in any way then you are within your rights to apply lethal force.

From that point onward, my tactics are dictated by the gun in my hand. If I have a 1911 and a spare mag, and I am being shot at while hiding behind a car or dumpster, I might return a couple of shots. If I have a J frame or a 1911 without a spare mag, I will likely lie in wait behind cover, and ambush them if they go on the hunt for me. If possible, I will retreat further as long as I have adequate cover and a decent chance of escape.

I think too many people are too proud and tactical. Courses teach people to shoot. Teaching people to shoot is easy, that's why instructors teach shooting in all it's permutations. Teaching people to survive is much, much more difficult. You seldom see instructors mention survival without shooting. It is glossed over as though anyone could do it. That is not the case though. Survival skills are learned through experience, not from a book or scenerios. There are so many nuances in play on the street that it cannot be contained in a book, a scenerio, or taught on an IDPA range.

When you are attacked, the first object is always to survive. Then you have a choice of whether to launch a counter-attack or to retreat. In today's world, if possible, your best option is retreat, unless the threat has specifically targeted you, and will return for you specifically. Guaranteed, if you kill Chico, even if justified, your weapon will be confiscated, you will not be able to legally acquire another one immediately. You will be sitting at home awake through the night wondering if Chico's homies are capable of doing home invasions, either for revenge or to eliminate witnesses. That is not a good feeling. You placed yourself in greater jeopardy with less tools for survival. You are no longer a random victim, but a hunted one, and a hunted victim that does not have the option of a gun. Remember, goal #1 is survival, not choosing which threat to neutralize.

Law Enforcement has a duty to eliminate threats. Civilians only have a need to avoid or escape them. If you are a civilian, take advantage of the difference. It is a huge advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top