Thoughts on a local robbery.

[OldMarksman]

I am not going to draw on a strung out kid with a knife under his sleeve, who is separated from me by a physical barrier, unless I have to.

How do you know when you "have to?".

I am also not going to play cop and try to disarm and hold him until police arrive.

Good thinking!

If he gives me no choice I will draw and use my weapon until he stops his attack.

What sign would you look for? Without a barrier, the presence of the contact weapon, the demand, and a proximity of a few yards would define the time as now. And we do not know much about that "physical barrier", do we?

If he takes the money and leaves that is a successful encounter in my opinion.

Yep.

 

[K_Mac]

Ten ring your confusion is that in spite of your great experience and exceptional alertness, I disagree with your preconceived action plan.

I'm familiar with Tueller and how fast things happen in an encounter and you may be right that the robber wasn't a strung out kid. Neither of which change my view of using lethal force unless it is required.

 

[OldMarksman]

I'm familiar with Tueller and how fast things happen in an encounter...

Then you understand that you will have a very sort time in which to try t odors and fire.

... and you may be right that the robber wasn't a strung out kid.

Irrelevant. He was an armed robber.

Neither of which change my view of using lethal force unless it is required.

The whole point of Dennis Tueller's demonstrations was to illustrate that one who is threatened by a person armed with a contact weapon within, say, 21 feet woud not be able to respond effectively if he waits.

 

[In The Ten Ring]

Neither of which change my view of using lethal force unless it is required.


Where have I typed "I would have shot," based on what the clerk told me, and I stated in my first reply? Drawing and pointing is not the same as "using lethal force."

It hasn't been mentioned but maybe this is where some confusion lies---much CCW training includes "if you have to draw you have to fire" based on the assumption that the only reason to draw is to counter an immediate lethal force threat.

I don't believe that is good advice as many threats can be stopped without firing.....I realize we get into legal areas of "brandishing" and whether or not pointing is "lethal force" itself but if I can prevent my own injury or demise without harming the assailant I will do so, and worry about that silliness later (and charging the victim with brandishing in such a case would be silly).

I think drawing and pointing would prevent the assailant making good on his threat to kill the clerk....it's the only thing realistically guaranteed to do so. Criminals should never be taken at their word. They are already untrustworthy, else, they wouldn't be criminals.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

...much CCW training includes "if you have to draw you have to fire" based on the assumption that the only reason to draw is to counter an immediate lethal force threat.

That is NOT true. I don't know who you trained with or trainers you know - but no quality person and I've been at this for many years - says this.

If one of the licensed trainers in TX said this, they would be removed.

 

[K_Mac]

Ten ring I am not one who believes that drawing a weapon means that it must, or even should be used. Drawing and pointing a handgun is using lethal force by definition though, whether you believe it or not. You have brought into play force that "is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury."

OldMarksman I'm not advocating hesitation or delay in a lethal attack. I clearly understand that the speed at which things can happen in a fight is shocking. I'm simply saying that what is the correct response in one situation may not be in another. I'm also saying that given the opportunity, I will avoid using lethal force even if a case can be made that it is, or would have been, justified.

 

[Lohman446]

If that counter does not represent some type of obstacle (the point that calling it a barrier was incvorrect stands) then compliance may be even more called for. See the reference to the Tueller drill above. I’m not certain what compliance with the demand to hand over the cash costs the victim. He or she can tactically benefit his or her position by handing over the cash and backing up. It also gives the victim a moment to overcome the surprise of the threat. No drawing your gun does not mean you have to fire. Not drawing your gun also does not mean you cannot later. I’m not suggesting compliance such as moving to a secondary location, laying down, or even kneeling when confronted with a knife.

 

[OldMarksman]

I’m not certain what compliance with the demand to hand over the cash costs the victim.

It just might cost the victim his life, or serious bodily harm.

Not drawing your gun also does not mean you cannot later.

It just might mean exactly that.

A decision to not draw, and fire if necessary, would be appropriate if (1) the victim might be unlikely to prevail under the circumstances, or (2) indications are that drawing may result in increased risk to others,

 

[Lohman446]

It just might cost the victim his life, or serious bodily harm.

The scenario could have cost the victim his or her life or serious bodily harm. What tactical advantage would have been lost by handing over the cash and stepping back a couple steps? The victim in this case already started at a tremendous disadvantage. Buying a couple seconds seems to me to only be able to lessen that disadvantage.

 

[OldMarksman]

The scenario could have cost the victim his or her life or serious bodily harm.

Yes indeed!

What tactical advantage would have been lost by handing over the cash and stepping back a couple steps?

Come now! The ability to step back unharmed, or the ability to do anything else, for that matter, would be lost, should the robber opt to use the bladed weapon at short range.

The victim in this case already started at a tremendous disadvantage.

Yep.

Buying a couple seconds seems to me to only be able to lessen that disadvantage.

"Buying a couple of seconds"? Such a "sale" would require the agreement of both parties.

There are times when compliance may be more prudent than resistance, but only when it appears likely that resistance might not represent a successful strategy.

In such a circumstance, compliance just might prevent bodily harm...but there is absolutely no guarantee.

I think you would likely benefit from a few session of quality FoF training in various scenarios.

 

[briandg]

There is a huge discrepancy between a willingness to rob at the point of a weapon and the willingness to kill or maim after the primary goal of getting the money is accomplished. It seems to me that handing over the money will be the end of the encounter many, even most incidents. We seem to be talking about these events as more dangerous than they normally are.

Sure, the cashier is already at a tactical advantage and a gun would be nice to have. It isn't going to be what makes the difference between life and death in very many cases. In fact, having a cashier who owns a gun but has never trained with it at all and handles the occasion stupidly is far more likely to be hurt than anyone who hands over the money and lets the situation de-escalate on it's own.

Almost every store here at this point keeps at least two on staff at all times. The newest places in town have a raised floor space and counters that are about 40-48 inches high.

So many simple things can help deter danger, carrying or stashing a pistol on site seems to be the most extreme, and IMO, the most dangerous response to the possibility of a robbery.

Myself, I would carry a police level can of pepper spray, not one of the silly little purse sized as well as a handgun. If I owned a store, I would have permanent fixtures built on the counters to limit access to only a four foot wide area. Sometime in the future, it's a given certainty that after an incident, a company will be sued and lose because they built a new store with no security precautions while other companies have put a great deal of effort into prevention, and protection of the employees.

 

[Lohman446]

Come now! The ability to step back unharmed, or the ability to do anything else, for that matter, would be lost, should the robber opt to use the bladed weapon at short range.

You are already at the register (I presume) and already at short range.

I'm not suggesting one walk up to the register from somewhere else here. I have never been in a gas station where the attendant did his or her job from well behind the counter. If the robber in this case had wanted to grab the attendants arm and hold her there wouldn't this have more readily been done while she was scanning up items for a then presumed innocent customer?

 

[OldMarksman]

It seems to me that handing over the money will be the end of the encounter many, even most incidents.

Would you bet your life on "many", or even "most"?

We seem to be talking about these events as more dangerous than they normally are.

Armed robbery?

 

[briandg]

Yes, and yes, you are presuming that the guy with the plastic gun, empty gun, one who has absolutely no intention of shooting at the cashier is a serious danger. Yes, I am going to presume at the beginning that risk is minimal and try to resolve the situation as it is before even considering escalating it on my own. Someone came in and wanted money rather than coming in intending to kill me for no reason whatsoever.

Having a weapon close at hand isn't any guarantee, is it? No, it isn't, is it? Most of what is being said here seems to be about violent defense and resolution by force, very little attention is being given to prevention. In fact, throughout this thread, I don't believe that even a single mention of pushing the alarm button has taken place.

I know that this is the tactical subsection of a forum about guns, and that not many wants to discuss the idea of passively resolving an 'armed robbery'. In fact, I guess that a huge number of people will pray, but nobody has mentioned that as a possible source of safety.

God almighty, I already risk life and limb while driving, millions of people bet their lives on tobacco use. I'm not the type of person who will live my life thinking that the a situation of threatened violence is bound to end in violence. The chance of it ending in violence is slim.

This in the end seems to be all about presuming the worst and putting a firearm in the way, and dismissing even the thought that an armed robber may have no intention of causing violence.

I'm not going to be dragged into this dogfight any further. Read and understand my thoughts about risk and either agree or disagree

 

[OldMarksman]

...you are presuming that the guy with the plastic gun, empty gun, one who has absolutely no intention of shooting at the cashier is a serious danger.

One has no way of knowing the intentions of an armed person who is committing robbery. One only has reason to believe that he has both the ability and the opportunity to kill or seriously injure, and that he has placed the victim in jeopardy.

In the eyes of the law, a person who has reason to believe that a person who is robbing him is armed presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

In the scenario at hand, the possession of a weapon by the robber is a known fact.

It is possible that the robber has no intention of using the weapon. Perhaps the likelihood that he would use it is rather small.

The defender might choose to bank on that possibility. Most people would not consider it prudent to do so, however.

The real risk is that at short range, the defender would not be able to defend himself or herself in time.

That's why it might be wise to not force the issue and just hope for the best.

But that's a real gamble.

So is trying to draw and fire at someone in close proximity who is armed with a contact weapon, and if a threat has been made, the odds are not for the meek. We do not know the layout, but if it is at all possible, the defender would be well advised to try to put some distance between him or her and the robber while drawing, and to do so without delay.

The Tueller drill has been mentioned here. Has anyone here tried it? Would you really like to expend some of your very limited time fiddling with cash and trying to divine what will happen next before doing something about the threat?

 

[K_Mac]

There are times when compliance may be more prudent than resistance, but only when it appears likely that resistance might not represent a successful strategy.

Here is where the mindset between us differs. Resistance by use of force may not be the only, or best strategy even if it's likely to be successful in my opinion. If I determine, based on the situation at hand that I can hand over cash to stop the encounter, that is going to be my response. How quick on the draw I will be is entirely dependent on the situation. Any good FoF instructor will acknowledge that awareness, judgement, and even restraint are essential for responsible and effective self-defense with a handgun.

 

[Lohman446]

The defender might choose to bank on that possibility. Most people would not consider it prudent to do so, however.

Which most people? I'm willing to bet compliance with an armed robber FAR exceeds non-compliance let alone violent armed resistance.

The Tueller drill has been mentioned here. Has anyone here tried it? Would you really like to expend some of your very limited time fiddling with cash and trying to divine what will happen next before doing something about the threat?

Handing over cash is doing something about the threat. Considering the likelihood of failure based on the Tueller drill it may be the most likely way to escape without injury.

 

[OldMarksman]

I'm willing to bet compliance with an armed robber FAR exceeds non-compliance let alone violent armed resistance.

Probably so.

The most common reason is likely the fact that most victims are not armed or otherwise realistically capable of safely and effectively resisting an armed robber.

The other is that under the circumstances, they simply cannot do so timely.

In either case, the victim is left with trying compliance and hoping for the best.

But I cannot imagine any thinking person who has the opportunity to resist choosing to squander that opportunity by wasting valuable time trying to figure out what the robber will do next.

 

[OldMarksman]

Just to make my opinion perfectly clear....

If indications are that compliance would represent the best strategy for remaining unhurt, then by all means, comply.

I would not recommend choosing compliance just to avoid harming a robber, however, and given a viable alternative, I would not choose to trust my safety solely to the hope that the felon would not choose to harm me seriously.

I have been involved in three serious defensive gun use incidents, and I once stumbled into a robbery in progress that was aborted due to my unexpected arrival. In that one, I did not draw.

In none of those occasions did I fire, and I am eternally grateful that things turned out that way each time.

 

[fredvon4]

As a 17 year old high school kid in 1972 Oakland CA I worked night shift at a neighborhood 7/11

Got robbed at gun point twice... My boss said just let them have the stuff/cash "I am insured"

Big Black Guy with 1911 45 wants the cash...pretty calm... seemed to know I did NOT have access to floor safe and was ok with the paltry $45 in the register and a carton of smokes...no drama.. and I distinctly remember not being overly hyper or freaked out

Few Months later was a very hyper young white junkie with a 22 Ruger semi.... wanted the Million dollar score in the safe not the low bucks in the register... I was panicked...he shot one round into the floor to tell me serious...open the safe...no way I could comply....Customer tackled him and saved my life

Contrary to my bosses rule I carried a 1911 from that day to today

Every situation is diff...in first case IF I had been armed I still would have let Police handle it

If I had been armed in second case the junkie would have ultimately got all 8 round of 45

I think this clerk did good and the end is self evident