You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Thoughts on a local robbery.
- Thread starter In The Ten Ring
- Start date
OldMarksman
Staff
Unless one has s already decided to hand over the money, remaining that close after hearing "all the money in the drawer, please" would not seem prudent at all.Chances are I was already that close [(lose enough for putting money on the counter for the robber to take,]. There was a transaction.
Handing over the money may have been a good strategy. It did work--that time.
It is what the employer would want, but that ipolicy is not designed for the safety and well being of the employee.
Employees are terminated routinely after having used or threatened force, even when making deliveries, and even when that had likely been their only safe choice.
Here's what happened when a business owner was victimized in an armed robbery.
Claude Werner is a highly respected trainer.
Handing over the money may have been a good strategy. It did work--that time.
It is what the employer would want, but that ipolicy is not designed for the safety and well being of the employee.
Employees are terminated routinely after having used or threatened force, even when making deliveries, and even when that had likely been their only safe choice.
I'm sure it is about the money involving lawsuits, insurance, etc. There is a real problem when someone has to jeopardize their safety to subsidize the misconduct of criminals.
OldMarksman
Staff
Absolutely!I'm sure it [(policies against resistance in a robbery)] is about the money involving lawsuits, insurance, etc.
If the employee is maimed or killed, the employer is rarely liable. If the employee harms someone else, including an armed robber, the employer may be liable.
Or just to have a job.There is a real problem when someone has to jeopardize their safety to subsidize the misconduct of criminals.
Before we go too far down the rabbit hole of divining the motives of others is anyone interested in presenting data on the risk of injury with compliance vs non-compliance?
I don't have the data but I'm willing to bet, in a large sample, compliance is less likely to result in injury to the victim than non-compliance. The differences though are going to present some awful confounding variables though.
I don't have the data but I'm willing to bet, in a large sample, compliance is less likely to result in injury to the victim than non-compliance. The differences though are going to present some awful confounding variables though.
OldMarksman
Staff
Been discussed here many times over he years.... is anyone interested in presenting data on the risk of injury with compliance vs non-compliance?
Yes. And to a greater extent in a store robbery than in a parking lot encounter.I don't have the data but I'm willing to bet, in a large sample, compliance is less likely to result in injury to the victim than non-compliance.
But that would not necessarily indicate in favor of compliance; "it's the stakes, not the odds".
Whether the circumstances are such that resistance would be more dangerous, and is something that has to be evaluated in each and every circumstance.
"Less likely"? How much less likely would it take to make that risk an advisable one to choose?
If there is a gun already pointed at me, I'm going to seriously consider compliance, but I would be very much afraid.
The jewelry store owner in Claude Werner's link had a gun pointed point blank at his face, and he aid that he knew that he had to draw and shoot.
Scary---but Werner endorsed that reaction.
OldMarksman
Staff
Yes indeed.Its a judgement call.
If you feel compliance is most likely to result in you walking away uninjured I believe you should comply.
If you feel that compliance is not the most likely method of walking away uninjured you should try something else.
There is one other consideration. If armed resistance that leads to you fire a gun cannot be accomplished without undue risk to others, that should be weighed.
Good training takes that into account, by teaching the defender how to move to gain a clear shot, with a backstop if possible.
The clerk in the OP had little choice, with her gun at the other register.
Sometimes I see these situations and think that stalling tactics may work in real life as well as in the movies. Push the alarm, then fumble with the cash drawer, hand the entire cash drawer over, drop the money, drop the keys, hell, even throw up or piss your pants and you'll throw the guy off balance. stalling for even five minutes can make the difference life and death. a hostage type situation is usually better handled by letting time pass and de-escalation.
Judgement call at the time. If nothing else, these will all require the bad guy to distract himself and take his weapon out of play for a few seconds.
Handing over the till is a suggestion I got from a security consultant from my company. It's amazing how many dorks will take the change as well, moving the weapon to weak hand and putting pennies into their pockets. Won't it set the guy back a pace when he gets the cash tray and has to deviate from his original script? He also suggested that the victim tell the bad guy his name if possible. Make it more personal.
just one more possible move to lower the possibility of being hurt.
Judgement call at the time. If nothing else, these will all require the bad guy to distract himself and take his weapon out of play for a few seconds.
Handing over the till is a suggestion I got from a security consultant from my company. It's amazing how many dorks will take the change as well, moving the weapon to weak hand and putting pennies into their pockets. Won't it set the guy back a pace when he gets the cash tray and has to deviate from his original script? He also suggested that the victim tell the bad guy his name if possible. Make it more personal.
just one more possible move to lower the possibility of being hurt.
jackstrawIII
New member
Shooting somebody isn't something one gets past easily either.
My thoughts exactly. No way I'd shoot someone over money, regardless of whose it was. Nightmares wouldn't be worth it.
OldMarksman
Staff
Good thinking.No way I'd shoot someone over money, regardless of whose it was.
Of course, the purpose of defending oneself in an armed robbery is not to protect the money,
I've never felt good about killing or using extreme violence to preserve personal property, even if it's ten thousand dollars of home entertainment system..
It isn't entirely correct but I equate it with the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Life and limb, or such incredible potential damage that a jury of reasonable people would gasp in horror.
Theft or vandalism is one category of crime, not something that should be answered with extreme violence.
When a criminal is engaging in violence, violence that may have long term consequences for the victim, all restrictions of society end. Unlimited and unfettered force should be used.
I'm accepting that preventing burning a house Down justifies extreme violent measures.
Being slapped, or even punched, no. I don't think that without further threat of danger, extreme force is justified. Any serious, or continued attack, or a genuinely threatening action, these call for whatever action may be necessary, as believed by the victim. For personal violence, I generally subscribe to the generally accepted castle type laws, but I think that it tends to be rather liberal. I don't believe that a violent and potentially lethal force should be used against any but the most extreme property crime.
And just to be clear, property crime that also includes a genuine threat of personal harm isn't property crime. If a thief threatens a victim while stealing his television, you can just disregard the property crime in the decision. The guy aiming the deadly weapon has crossed the line into a new category, the category that should allow his victim to use any level of force necessary to protect life and health, both personal and otherwise.
It isn't entirely correct but I equate it with the constitution and cruel and unusual punishment. Life and limb, or such incredible potential damage that a jury of reasonable people would gasp in horror.
Theft or vandalism is one category of crime, not something that should be answered with extreme violence.
When a criminal is engaging in violence, violence that may have long term consequences for the victim, all restrictions of society end. Unlimited and unfettered force should be used.
I'm accepting that preventing burning a house Down justifies extreme violent measures.
Being slapped, or even punched, no. I don't think that without further threat of danger, extreme force is justified. Any serious, or continued attack, or a genuinely threatening action, these call for whatever action may be necessary, as believed by the victim. For personal violence, I generally subscribe to the generally accepted castle type laws, but I think that it tends to be rather liberal. I don't believe that a violent and potentially lethal force should be used against any but the most extreme property crime.
And just to be clear, property crime that also includes a genuine threat of personal harm isn't property crime. If a thief threatens a victim while stealing his television, you can just disregard the property crime in the decision. The guy aiming the deadly weapon has crossed the line into a new category, the category that should allow his victim to use any level of force necessary to protect life and health, both personal and otherwise.
OldMarksman
Staff
Should someone actually do that, he or she will feel a whole lot worse afterward, even in the rare instances in which it might be lawful to do that.I've never felt good about killing or using extreme violence to preserve personal property, even if it's ten thousand dollars of home entertainment system.
The use of deadly force to defend tangible, movable property is only lawful in one US jurisdiction, and there, only in very specific circumstances