Thoughts on a local robbery.

[In The Ten Ring]

fredvon4,

Thank Jesus you came through those two OK!

I worked a Stop & Rob with a big safe on the floor in a side office next to the counter. I knew if any robbers saw that the unlucky clerk behind the counter was toast. We didn't have the combination to it, it was a night deposit safe only. You'd never explain that to a robber though and they'd kill or maim us out of frustration. Since no other clerk ever locked the side or back office doors, I guess I was the only one to ever contemplate that eventuality.

 

[hdwhit]

In The Ten Ring wrote:
I wanted to say "if you, being armed, let it go so far that he had a knife to your throat, you made some very serious mistakes"

I think the serious mistake would have been for you to "Monday Morning Quarterback" the incident.

You weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. She told you she did not feel threatened under the circumstances as she described them. Deadly force is appropriate to end an immediate threat to your own life (we'll dispense with life of another or property in some cases since they're not relevant here) and if she didn't feel threatened, there was no justification for the use of deadly force on her part. Absent a perceived threat she could not legally use deadly force. So, there was no "error" on her part.

 

[In The Ten Ring]

I think the serious mistake would have been for you to "Monday Morning Quarterback" the incident.

You weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. She told you she did not feel threatened under the circumstances as she described them. Deadly force is appropriate to end an immediate threat to your own life (we'll dispense with life of another or property in some cases since they're not relevant here) and if she didn't feel threatened, there was no justification for the use of deadly force on her part. Absent a perceived threat she could not legally use deadly force. So, there was no "error" on her part.

If forum rules followed that line of thinking, there would be no forum titled "Tactics and Training." We learn best by discussion and this has been a lively discussion. I mean, even you weighed in to suggest "no one should weigh in" then proceeded to weigh in yourself.

Pointing a gun is not "deadly force" but if it is, then the assailant committed that first by pulling a knife and suggesting murder.

Please reread my opening post, where is it typed "she erred?" I have asked what others thought of the event and the clerk's actions. I have given my personal rules on such encounters, especially concerning working Stop and Robs, as have others.

 

[Lohman446]

I think the major discrepancy is how big of a threat we are seeing that knife as being. The OP reports the clerk telling about him showing the handle of a knife up his sleeve. To me I am envisioning a knife hidden in the robbers sleeve with the handle towards his hand (thus actually facing towards his elbow). Between this and the counter which represents some form of obstacle I am reasonably confident I could manage to disengage from any grapple across said counter, gain enough distance, and draw and engage before the robber could draw said knife, come over the counter, and present an imminent and serious threat of bodily harm.

Edit: To me this also speaks of a "gentleman's" robbery. The weapon is there for show to gain compliance. If he was intent on using it it would be out and in a much more ready position.

Because of that I am willing to hand over someone else's money and hope it does not escalate further while preparing to act if it does (backing up)

It appears others feel differently. Perhaps they simply perceive the threat as more imminent.

 

[In The Ten Ring]

If this is a "gentleman's robbery" then a clerk pointing a gun and demanding surrender is a "gentleman's defense."

The last documentary I saw concerning the D.B. Cooper case featured the stewardess that sat and spoke with Dan Cooper during his infamous skyjacking of 1971 and stated that she felt he was not a "gentleman robber" since he threatened to kill everyone on that flight unless his demands were met. If I recall the show correctly, she said that caused her a lifetime of nightmares and when she made that statement, she was in tears. The fact is, gentleman don't steal and they most certainly don't threaten to harm others to do so.

**

As long as we all can discuss or debate this civilly, I'm on board and welcome reasoned dissent but so far, I have not read a sufficiently convincing argument as to why my rules on this sort of thing are in error. True, this clerk's response worked and thank God it did, but it's not a guarantee for all cases.

 

[Sharkbite]

I think the major discrepancy is how big of a threat we are seeing that knife as being.

I would suggest watching some Kali practitioners workout. Most knife attacks start with the knife concealed (it aint like the movies, no telegraphing the attack). I am MUCH more afraid of a knife attack then a gun.

Now, im not saying this guy was a super ninja, but people need to respect the blade attack much more then is common. It seems like most folks think its a poker game. My gun beats your knive....doesn't work like that.

At contact ranges the knife is EVERY BIT as dangerous as a gun

 

[GarandTd]

I feel like she did the right thing, given those circumstances. I think drawing a weapon would have made the situation worse. I think if the robber was really intent on harming the clerk, he wouldn't have had the knife up his sleeve. I think introducing a weapon and demanding surrender could have initiated a fight response from the robber. Of course I'm only guessing. Thankfully, we'll never know what may have happened because what did happen was the best possible outcome.

 

[Lohman446]

I think your (Sharkbite) ignoring the counter obstacle. Still if that knife in the kids hand is that dangerous in the kids hand attempting to draw is suicidal. Time to comply and hope

 

[briandg]

There have been so many things tossed around in here that it's easy to get lost in the static, since we have gone into all sorts of ideas not actually involved with the event.

Something that seems to have come up several times was that he merely showed a knife handle. Not even a verbal threat, right? just an implied threat by showing the handle.

Did that justifiably constitute a threat of death or serious injury? If i had mel gibsoned the guy, wouldn't I be sitting in death row? No spoken threat, no actual visual threat, not even brandishing a weapon except in the most esoteric sense, all he did was display something that she believed was the handle of a complete knife. It might have even been his harry potter wand that he bought at a toy store.

Everything beyond that is supposition. When the lady said that she didn't feel threatened, maybe because the situation didn't feel threatening to her, that the situation didn't present as a threat at all.

Otoh, what if he had a stick? what if he held up brass knuckles? Brandished some other weapon in a more direct manner, or made a more threatening gesture, said something that actually presented as a genuine and serious threat? saying that you will beat someone to death is a whole lot more threatening than silently pointing to a weapon in the pocket.

I'm willing to give the woman credit that she obviously kept her head and didn't fall apart. Maybe she had read the situation properly and there was no genuine threatening behavior, no sign of danger that she could see. I don't believe that holding up a firearm in response to him showing his hilt would have been inappropriate. OTOH, if that event showed no greater threat than him asking for the money and showing but not brandishing a knife, it would have been wrong on some level, I'm not going to go any further than that. she was there and her interpretation of exactly what happened was that there was no genuine threat. Maybe she was right?

 

[OldMarksman]

Something that seems to have come up several times was that he merely showed a knife handle. Not even a verbal threat, right? just an implied threat by showing the handle.

That is a distinction without difference.

Did that justifiably constitute a threat of death or serious injury?

Yes indeed!

Do you know the definition of aggravated assault?

 

[briandg]

Yes, I do. Assault is any action that generates fear in the victim, speaking simply. Shouting, first shaking, making angry faces, anything that could reasonably construed as threatening or dangerous behavior.

She wasn't afraid, was she? She didn't feel threatened, did she?

Battery constitutes assault with physical contact. Aggravated assault means that something was done that made the assault more offensive, such as displaying a weapon.

She was not afraid, she did not feel threatened, the person does not appear to have done anything at all that would justify anything that would justify deadly force being used, since there must be a threat, or a sincere belief that a threat existed.

If this was, as stated, as simple as him demanding the money and showing that he had a weapon,I'm having a real hard time believing that it would even be prosecuted. It would probably been pled to simple larceny.

Carry on.

 

[OldMarksman]

She wasn't afraid, was she? She didn't feel threatened, did she?

She said she didn't, after the fact.


Would a "reasonable person" have believed that a demand for money accompanied by the purposeful display of a weapon constituted a threat to do harm?

Would her reported off hand comment to a third party that she had not "felt threatened" serve effectively in a defense by the robber?

She was not afraid, she did not feel threatened, ....

So she said, off hand. off the record.

Do you think it likely that she would testify to that effect?

...the person does not appear to have done anything at all that would justify anything that would justify deadly force being used, since there must be a threat, or a sincere belief that a threat existed.

He displayed a weapon, and demanded money. What would a reasonable person think?

If this was, as stated, as simple as him demanding the money and showing that he had a weapon, I'm having a real hard time believing that it would even be prosecuted.

Surely you jest!

It would probably been pled to simple larceny.

How on earth would her having given the person the money consensually, which is what you are implying, be considered larceny?

 

[briandg]

I thought that you, of all people, would be able to see some of these things.

What reasonable person will believe that she would have been justified in lethal force when he never even verbalized a threat?

What she said to him, you are asserting that she lied to him, that in fact, she was genuinely afraid at the time, sounds like you're just playing the 'what if' game. How can we assume that she reported something different to the responding officers? Her testimony would leave having perjured herself or filing an incorrect police report.

As for prosecution, I might as well ask you, are you kidding? The courts are backlogged, jails are full, truly evil people are running wild, and you believe that a prosecutor will look at this case, and I repeat myself, as the poster reported it and see fit to prosecute? A prosecuting attorney will in most likelihood, accept that this guy wasn't a genuinely dangerous guy, and settle the case without a trial. Do you know how many people are running around committing crimes while on probation or good behavior, dodging warrants, it, people who were released from custody awaiting disposition of the case.

Give me a break. You can't have it both ways. Out of one side you talk about freely giving the money, which isn't the case, then saying that demanding and taking money isn't theft? Somebody stole, either he did by taking it or she did by giving it, and once again, by initial reports, the money was not freely offered.

There is a lot of argument here and much of it is about supposition. We have what he said, about what she said, about what she perceived to be true, and what his intentions were are a complete mystery. Yet still, nobody can say a thing without this sort of Snarky reply.

I'm through, so you win. Go celebrate.

 

[OldMarksman]

What reasonable person will believe that she would have been justified in lethal force when he never even verbalized a threat?

Do you really, really think that the use of deadly force is lawful only when the person against whom force is used has actually said something?

As for prosecution, I might as well ask you, are you kidding?

Lessee--a man enters a business establishment, demands money, and displays a weapon....

Out of one side you talk about freely giving the money, which isn't the case, then saying that demanding and taking money isn't theft? Somebody stole, either he did by taking it or she did by giving it, and once again, by initial reports, the money was not freely offered.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[K_Mac]

I find this to be an interesting discussion, and have tried to keep my natural snarkiness under control.

Brian we are in agreement that drawing a gun in this case was not necessary. With the information we have, I would have turned over the cash while watching and maintaining as much distance as possible from the robber. If he had pursued an attack, I would have drawn and fired.

OldMarksman, I don't question any of your points, and respect your judgement on this. Demanding money and presenting a deadly weapon is as good of justification for use of deadly force in self-defense as I can think of. I think most prosecutors and juries would agree. If it were my daughter behind the counter under discussion I would want her to draw and be prepared to shoot if the robber did anything but turn and run. I also agree that giving an attacker or potential attacker the benefit of doubt before using lethal force is risky and dangerous.

With all that said, we use our best judgement in a lethal attack, and live or die with the decision. The ability make the best decision is conditional on having the training and experience necessary to understand and execute what is needed. Even then, there will always be second guessing and acrimony. That is the reality of using a gun in self-defense, and discussing these things on the internet. It's all good.

 

[Lohman446]

I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. From an employer stand point I would much prefer you hand over the money, step back, and then defend yourself if things continue to escalate. I still think this is the most likely way for the employee to walk away unharmed and it is for certain the most likely way for everyone to walk away unharmed. This is not a situation where compliance necessarily results in someone being injured (or not) or where non-compliance and escalation results in the employee not being injured (or being injured).

It is possible that compliance results in everyone walking away unharmed as they did in the incident. It is possible compliance has a different outcome and either the clerk or robber or injured. I don't think compliance changes the tactical outlook from the time compliance was demanded. If the knife and attacker were super dangerous at that moment they were equally dangerous after compliance. Compliance MAY embolden a robber. It may also give a moment for the victim to overcome the surprise and gain some distance - and distance against a knife is important.

It is possible that non-compliance and drawing a firearm results in everyone walking away unharmed as well. It is also possible, even with a firearm, that the clerk is injured or killed. Of course there is the possibility the robber is injured or killed as well.

I have thought back to the time I can remember I was in some "similar" situation that I have shared here. There were three individuals in front of me, all of whom I judged to be high on meth, and all of whom were fairly light in stature. I do not know if the individuals in question were armed or not. We had a "discussion" at the counter where they demanded a rental truck that I simply did not have on the premises so could not rent them. There were various suggestions made and the demands became more and more aggressive. When I informed them I was working alone (an error on my part) and as such could not go to another location to retrieve a truck one of them made a remark about my safety when working alone and one of them placed his hands on the counter - a signal I took to indicate he was coming over. I took three steps back into an aisle behind me to assure that no-one could quickly come from the side (the end of the counter is open), placed my hand very visibly on my pistol, and informed him I felt perfectly safe working alone.

The situation very quickly ended. The officer I discussed it with said it was handled well and basically shrugged it off as "no harm no foul".

Now in fairness this is rather different then the situation described. No demand (that could be readily complied with) was made and no weapon was ever produced or indicated by the "customers". Unlike the clerk in question I did feel things were going to escalate quickly and out of hand.

Compliance does not require one give up all defensive position. Non-compliance does not require violent non-compliance. I have heard of bank tellers informing a robber, politely, that they would not or could not comply with demands and having the robbery thwarted as the individual just walked away.

My belief is that if you do not feel that compliance is going to remedy the situation it should only be used to gain a tactical advantage if at all. If it is going to remedy the situation it not worth the problems associated with violent defense or the threat thereof.

I still say we are all reading the dangers of that knife differently. While I respect that a knife is a very dangerous weapon at close range and this was at close range I think the obstacle is important. Further I don't think that knife becomes any more or less dangerous after compliance. Its still a threat as long as the person is standing there.

 

[OldMarksman]

From an employer stand point I would much prefer you hand over the money,....

Almost all employers feel that way.

It is possible that compliance results in everyone walking away unharmed as they did in the incident.

Yes, it is.

I don't think compliance changes the tactical outlook from the time compliance was demanded.

There are at least a couple of ways that the "tactical outlook" can change.

The first relates to the distraction of the robber. Mas Ayoob's old "toss the weighted bills behind the robber" gambit might work. Gives the defender time to draw, or the robber the opportunity to flee.

That's not an option for someone scooping money out of a cash-box and handing it to the robber.

Another relates to the fact that the robber moves in closer to get the money and possibly to stab or grab the defender.

I have heard of bank tellers informing a robber, politely, that they would not or could not comply with demands and having the robbery thwarted as the individual just walked away.

I sure wouldn't want to bank on that, without an immediate means with which to back up my "polite" refusal.

Further I don't think that knife becomes any more or less dangerous after compliance.

The issues are time and distance. The defender will need as much of both as possible. If compliance detracts from wither and cause the ability to resist to be lost, compliance would not be a good idea. If ability to defend effectively is in doubt at the outset. Compliance may be indicated--and it may be fatal.

We do not have a picture of the layout or of the "obstacle", and only one who was present and who had some basic understanding of methods of self preservation could judge.

The victim in this case came out okay. Perhaps, under the circumstances, she acted prudently. Or perhaps she was just lucky.

 

[OldMarksman]

Demanding money and presenting a deadly weapon is as good of justification for use of deadly force in self-defense as I can think of.

And it is a very good one, in the eyes of the law.

I also agree that giving an attacker or potential attacker the benefit of doubt before using lethal force is risky and dangerous.

Absolutely. The other major risk is that trying to use lethal force can be hat precipitates the use of deadly force bu the robber.

With all that said, we use our best judgement in a lethal attack, and live or die with the decision. The ability make the best decision is conditional on having the training and experience necessary to understand and execute what is needed.

 

[Lohman446]

That's not an option for someone scooping money out of a cash-box and handing it to the robber.

I've been thinking about the handing over the cash thing. Thinking with a cool head about it handing over the cash gives me time to adjust my feet (presumably I am already at the counter). Further if I hand it over with my weak hand I can hand over the whole "drawer" (the insert that sits inside the drawer). This puts something more on the counter for someone to stumble on if they come over while hopefully giving the robber something to look at and "deal" with in getting the cash. As soon as it is down and there is any distraction I am backing up.

I should note nowhere in my scenario should one close the distance between the robber and themselves in order to comply. Distance and obstacles between you and a knife wielding threat are your friend.

 

[OldMarksman]

Thinking with a cool head about it handing over the cash gives me time to adjust my feet ....

Adjust your feet?

Further if I hand it over with my weak hand I can hand over the whole "drawer" (the insert that sits inside the drawer). This puts something more on the counter for someone to stumble on if they come over while hopefully giving the robber something to look at and "deal" with in getting the cash. As soon as it is down and there is any distraction I am backing up.

Again, look into some good, relevant FoF training.

I should note nowhere in my scenario should one close the distance between the robber and themselves in order to comply.

If you are putting money on the counter for the robber to take, you are closer to the robber than you should be.