Resist the robbery or not?

W

wayneinFL

New member
Here's a situation in which a clerk is robbed, the clerk is compliant and the robber tries to shoot. Fortunately, the gun doesn't fire.

There is a prevailing school of thought that the victim should be compliant until he's pretty sure a robber will kill him, such as taking him into a back room or in a vehicle. In this case, I think the victim has ample reason to believe the robber means to kill him, without any of the normal indicators. At what point should he start to resist, if at all?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...scapes-death-orlando-20120103,0,4447256.story
 
There are no statistics showing fighting or complying is better than the other.

You do what you need to do.

I have seen instances where people complied and were not hurt.

I have seen instances where poeple complied and were killed.

I have seen instances where people fought back and won.

I have seen instances where people fought back and were killed.

there is no right way, only YOUR way.
 
Every situation is different. I do not believe that there is a "one size fits all" here. You just have to go with your gut feeling . . . and hope that you choose the right path.

Money is not worth a life, so I would try to give the robbers what they asked for with no resistance. However, if I thought there was a good chance I was not going to make it, then I would have to act accordingly ( even if that ment fleeing the situation and taking my chances getting gunned down from behind )

It's seems strange to me that someone would rob a store and shoot and kill the clerk, all for only a couple hundred dollars at most. What is this world coming to??:mad:

Thanks for the vid!
 
The 3 times I was held up at gunpoint, the robbers just wanted my stuff and wanted to leave quickly. 2 of the 3 times if I was armed, I could have ended their life. I am now always armed and hope the 4th robbery does not occur. If it does, someone is not making it home.
 
.40cal said:
It's seems strange to me that someone would rob a store and shoot and kill the clerk, all for only a couple hundred dollars at most. What is this world coming to??
Click to expand...

People have killed for less through out the history of man. Nothing is really any different, just more ways to do it.

I would like to think I would comply, but sometimes I think about it and really it depends on the situation. Would I wrestle for a gun, attempting a disarm I have practiced? Maybe, but he could flinch and shoot me if the gun is on me. Would I do everything possible to live, including giving him everything? Maybe, but after that what really stops someone from killing me if there were no other witnesses?
 
There is a prevailing school of thought that the victim should be compliant until he's pretty sure a robber will kill him, such as taking him into a back room or in a vehicle. In this case, I think the victim has ample reason to believe the robber means to kill him, without any of the normal indicators. At what point should he start to resist, if at all?
Click to expand...

I've seen too many videos where the victim DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO BE SURE OF A DANG THING.

He or she was just SHOT without any "ample reason", without any "indicators". In such cases, the victims' murders were probably determined in advance.

Starting the resistance when you have a gun to your head as you unlock your car or while in a 7 Eleven might be a bit late. It also might be your only chance, and no one on a gun forum can answer your question for you.

Just my opinion that may not be shared by all.:cool:
 
It comes down to whether or not you could reasonably feel your life or limb was in serious danger and the person actaully was capable of hurting you. If the assailant does not obviously pose a threat to do you serious injury than using dealdly force may not be applicable and could get you into serious trouble. Then you do whatever you can to get out of the situation including complying. Your wallet is not worth the assailant's life no matter how mad you may be about it.

Unless the assailant had a knife or gun and indicated he/she may use it or I was out numbered and the assailants seemed intent on doing more than just robbing me, I would try some other means to get out of the mess. My wallet does not have any really important stuff in it so I would have no problem handing it over if that would make someone happy. I also have some pepper spray that I could use if the situation warranted it.

I asked the question of my CC trainers, if someone approached you in a parking lot to rob you could you just pull your gun and say no, get lost. Basically the answer is no if your life isn't at that point in danger. Threatening deadly force is illegal by itself unless it is done in a viable self-defense situation.

The problem is when you don't see trouble coming and you have to act very quickly. The safer bet may be to pull the weapon and take your chances. But it is why it is so important to stay alert to your surroundings. My worst scenario isn't losing my wallet but having someone get my gun, too. Then I'm not only scewed but probably someone else later on.
 
The trouble is generally more that you are way, waaaay behind the reaction curve when someone is standing there with a gun pointed at you and yours is holstered somewhere.

I'm not so much an advocate of "compliance" as I am the realization that a guy who has to move one finger 3/4s of an inch has a distinct, almost insurmountable advantage over the guy whose gun is in a holster.
 
My standard answer to this - is that one should do a lot of FOF scenarios.

Sometimes you get shot, sometimes you don't, sometimes everyone gets shot. Sometimes you can just run out of the melee or hide.

There is no one answer but quality FOF gives you a handle on the alternatives.
 
Evil Monkey-
There are no statistics showing fighting or complying is better than the other.

You do what you need to do.

I have seen instances where people complied and were not hurt.

I have seen instances where poeple complied and were killed.

I have seen instances where people fought back and won.

I have seen instances where people fought back and were killed.

there is no right way, only YOUR way.
Click to expand...

Actually, according to a study done by the British Home Office (not exactly a pro-gun institution) “you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.”

In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%


http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
 
The two times I was in a robbery situation I resisted both times
and shot the assailants. The first time I was faster and the second
the culprit brought a pipe to a gunfight. I don't think there is a pat
answer. You do what you got to do to go home.
 
Interesting question.
I have no idea what I would do. That being said......
Some of you are telling us that you have been robbed several times and complied each time. Seems to me you have simply encouraged the BG to continue his chosen profession. So, if you do indeed fight back the next time, my questions is this.....WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG? Your original thought process was that your money wasn't worth his life and now it has changed. I know I'm sounding like a hard case but my wife has the same mentality. You see, she is Japanese and against guns. When I began getting interested in and purchasing guns, she did voice her oppinion (as a wife will do). I asked her one evening what she would do if I was away and someone broke into the house and was intent on doing the worst. She actually said she would rather they did whatever they wanted, she would/could never shoot someone. When I asked her what if our daughter was home at the time, she said maybe I needed to teach her how to use the pistols. She doesn't think she could do it but wants our daughter to be able to protect herself.
I understand that her feelings are a result of her culture, but we Americans have a different history. Whenever you allow the BG to do what he wants, he WILL do it again and again and again. It drives me nuts when I hear that it is a common practice to simply "comply" and then get on with your business. That is what they are counting on. I think the armed home robberies are down because the BG is afraid of an armed homeowner. But the armed robberies are up for business because they know noone will fight back. I understand the old saying "money isn't worth someones life", but we spend our entire lives trying to earn it. Why should we simply let some stranger walk in and take it away?
 
To me resisting during a robbery has nothing to do with money. I keep hearing that it's not worth getting shot over $x.xx dollars. When someone has a gun pointed at you, it's not about money anymore.

That said, I understand people wanting to play it safe. In this video, the best time to fight back, IMO, was as the crooks walked in with their guns. Seconds later, the guy was on the floor with 2 guns pointed at his head. If you go by the idea that you should comply with crooks with guns pointed at you until it's obvious or imminent that they will shoot, this is obviously the time to fight. But at that point, his chance of survival is pretty slim.
 
When do you resist? There are a lot of possible responses.
Ideally, you remain compliant so long as it is beneficial to do so. A lot of folks are of the impression that they must resist as soon as possible which may result in premature hostilities.

Resistence takes all forms, however, not all of which are direct. One of my favorite attempted robberies happened back around 2002. What was posted was a series of photographs from an ATM machine at night where a guy had walked up to get money. In the background you see two guys approaching and one apparently has a gun. A couple of frames later, they are about 10 feet behind the guy and have apparently said something because the intended victims facial expression has changed. Next frame, intended victim with the bad guys are close, maybe 5 feet behind the guy. Next frame...two bad guys both looking stage left. One has a gun drawn and the other has some sort of weapon, but isn't clear in the image as to what it was.

The intended victim simply bolted from the situation. The bad guys got the money that had been dispensed by the machine, but the guy apparently hit CANCEL before he bolted and they were unable to extract additional money despite having his card. They tried and because of the photographs were eventually caught. The victim's money was insured.

Actually, according to a study done by the British Home Office (not exactly a pro-gun institution) “you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.”
Click to expand...

Really? Just exactly what study was this? Please provide a link or actual citation to these data.
 
Speaking only for myself. The ideas that it's only money or that you're allowing a criminal to continue his career path are irrelevant when faced with deadly force.

I would not rely on the mercy of a criminal. I've made a conscious and considered decision that IF I was ever in such a situation I would resist to the best of my ability.

No, I don't think I'm wild Bill Hickok or Doc Holiday. I accept the very real possibility that I would be hurt or killed. Still I would choose not to be a victim and no matter how far behind I am on the reaction curve I would be looking for an opportunity every second.
 
Once the "valuables" ahve tranferred...

and the perpetrator hasn't departed.

My "this is not good" sense is between the "oo"'s, and any request to move is likely hostile.
 
Really? Just exactly what study was this? Please provide a link or actual citation to these data.
Click to expand...

I am still looking through the BHO website. They have lots of crime data in many studies. None seem to provide the data reported in Gunfacts which doesn't cite the actual name of the report or when it was conducted. This is rather odd given that the BHO site has so many entitled and dated articles on crime. It is almost as if the information was made up by Gunfacts and then attributed vaguely to BHO in a way by which the information cannot be readily found. You would think if such supporting information did exist in a study by the BHO, then Gunfacts would be quick to provide a proper referenceable citation (title, year, author, etc.) as they do this for several of their other sources.

Every place I have found this information on the internet attributes the data to the BHO, but is in the same form as Gunfacts. In other words, nobody else has seen this supposed study and are just copy and pasting the information from Gunfacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top