Two attackers, one armed?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sadly, using that logic, you need to draw down on anyone that gets within 21' of you and shoot those that do not go outside that distance, because you don't know whether that particular person is going to try to attack you or not.

Actually, that logic doesn't follow at all. The question posed by the OP states that the two have shown their intent to rob by force and have brandished a weapon. So, we are past whether or not the two are BGs, they are. The question is do you trust your life to statistical probability and comply or use another set of statistics, like the ones Gary Kleck has promulgated and resist with your firearm when he has shown that if you do you are less likely to be injured.

When you drive to work you base your actions on what other drivers have done in the past, you don't need to know what a specific driver did at this specific place.

Sure, until one crosses the center line and is barreling straight at me. Then what do I do? That is the question.

These discussions to me are kind of funny. I think most people might believe that the majority of robberies end without injury to the robbed person. However, that doesn't mean you will be one of the lucky ones when you get robbed. There is more to the encounter than just that overarching statistic or injured vs uninjured.

That's why I think rules of thumb that have been posted here are useful to help us see what the robber's intent might be and then if we get the chance end the encounter on our terms.

 

[teeroux]

Well if one of them is obviously there to harm you and the other is obviously there to help him they both have deadly intent shoot the most threatful and if the buddy runs let him run if he stays let him have it.

 

[Hondo11]

Sadly, using that logic, you need to draw down on anyone that gets within 21' of you and shoot those that do not go outside that distance, because you don't know whether that particular person is going to try to attack you or not.

Seriously? A person walking within 21' of you is hardly comparable to a person who has a weapon and has demanded your money. One could be anyone, the other is the guy jacking your wallet, demonstrating his intent and willingess to take it by force or threat of force.

The bottom line is that what OTHER people hve done in the past, in THEIR respective incidents, has ZERO bearing on what THIS guy will do in THIS instance. It's EXACTLY like the lottery numbers. Just because the number 10 has been drawn first in 10 of the last 100 drawings doesn't mean that there is more than a 1 in 50 (2%) chance that it'll be drawn first in the current drawing. They are completely independent of each other.

YOU have made the argument that compliance should be the first option because of statistics that say 87% of people who have complied have been unharmed. That's a flawed argument for the reasons stated above.

I have not argued that compliance is not a good option. I have argued that you can't say it should be tried first because of what's happened in the past. I have argued that each incident is, in essence, in a vacuum, and should be handled however is best for THAT incident. If that means compliance, then fine. If that means an El Prez on three armd attackers, then fine. There is no best option. There is only a best option for THAT SPECIFIC situation.

I'm not the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type. As I said, I have been the victim of 2 Aggravated Robberies on 2 consecutive days. I was armed, but didn't shoot either suspect. I will just as quickly shoot or NOT shoot, depending on what's needed. And I don't determine when shooting is required. The badguy does.

 

[Japle]

David, I know what you mean when you say, "Look, you are trying to deny that you cannot do something that you do every day. Every day you make predictions about what people will do based on what people have done in the past". That may be true, but in those everyday cases, your life usually isn't at stake.

It's like trying to box by statistically predicting your opponent's next move based on his past punching pattern. You expect a left hook, so you put up a block for a left hook. It gets even worse if you're basing your prediction on all boxers, not just the guy you're facing.

There's an old military expression: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy!
In a fight, it's foolish to act on what you think your enemy's intentions are. You can't know. He might not intend to hurt you. He might not intend to leave a living witness. He might change his mind. He might react to what you do in a way you'll consider insane. He might be insane.

Any credible close-range threat of death or serious bodily harm may be legally and morally met with deadly force in my state and most others.

Armed robbery is a dangerous profession. The cops know that. The courts know that. The robber should know that.

 

[Hondo11]

Presenting a knife and asking for your money is not justification to kill two people, or even one.

Asking for your money? You make it sound so innocent. If you don't think that someone using a deadly weapon to commit a violent act against you is justification for shooting them, then what exactly do you think IS?

I'm not talking about "best options" or "better ways" to handle it... I'm not advocating that everyone should just start blasting. I'm just asking how far someone has to go before you think you're justified in shooting them? Do they have to hurt you first? Hurt your family first? I'm curious.

 

[David Armstrong]

Seriously? A person walking within 21' of you is hardly comparable to a person who has a weapon and has demanded your money.

Let me quote: "You don't know which side of the statistical fence THAT badguy is on." and then point out you don't know which side of the statistical fence the person walking near you is on either. Yet you make a decision based on previous information has indicated.

The bottom line is that what OTHER people hve done in the past, in THEIR respective incidents, has ZERO bearing on what THIS guy will do in THIS instance.

Again, using that reasoning, the fact that hundreds of people have safely passed you by means absolutely nothing in deciding if you should shoot the next guy that comes within 21' of you. After all, what other people have done in the past has zero bearing on what the next guy will do, right?

One could be anyone,...

Exactly, one could be anyone, EVEN THAT OTHER GUY! Yet you don't initially respond to everyone as that other guy because the odds are they are not.

YOU have made the argument that compliance should be the first option because of statistics that say 87% of people who have complied have been unharmed. That's a flawed argument for the reasons stated above.

Again, you are making things up instead of dealing with what has been said. I have not said anything about "...compliance should be your first option because..." I believe there are multiple reasons to consider compliance as the preferred response when appropriate. I have never argued that compliance should always be the first option. I can think of plenty of scenarios where compliance is a silly option, or even a dangerous option. The flaw is that you are trying to attack an argument that has not been made.

I have argued that you can't say it should be tried first because of what's happened in the past.

Ummm, trying compliance after the event sort of defeats the purpose of it all.

I have argued that each incident is, in essence, in a vacuum, and should be handled however is best for THAT incident.

And I have suggested that is not accurate, as they do not operate in a vacuum. There are norms and expectations that one can consider, and there are variations on those norms and expectations that can be considered.

And I don't determine when shooting is required. The badguy does.

I don't let BG's decide what I will do or when I will do it. That is under my control.

 

[David Armstrong]

That may be true, but in those everyday cases, your life usually isn't at stake.

I'm not sure why the stakes would change the accuracy of the statement. We are talking about understanding and knowledge and how to use them to your advantage in an encounter. The stakes might change, but how one goes through the process (or not) doesn't change.

It's like trying to box by statistically predicting your opponent's next move based on his past punching pattern.

But you are not doing that. You are using what you have learned about your opponent's past punching pattern to help you formulate the best response to this fight. If you know that 80% of the time when your opponent throws a left jab-right hook combination that he then steps to his left, you've got some knowledge that you can use to help you when he throws that combo at you. If you know that your opponent is short-winded and has trouble going the distance, that can help you figure out what strategy is best for you. Might not work every time, but it is something that can be predicted with a certain level of accuracy.

There's an old military expression: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy!

And yet the military still bases battle plans on predicting what someone will do and predicting what the likelihood is of certain responses once the battle is engaged.

Any credible close-range threat of death or serious bodily harm may be legally and morally met with deadly force in my state and most others.

Agreed, but just because it can doesn't mean it must, or even that it should. There are other options, and trying to figure out which options cause the least loss of resources for you is a good thing, I think. If giving the BG $20 means I don't have to give my lawyer $2,000 it seems like a worthwhile trade-off to me. If I give the BG $20 and it doesn't work, I really haven't lost anything. I can shoot him just as dead after as I could before. It's just that one way might save me $2,000.

 

[Hondo11]

David, your argument is a red herring. Anyone with any sense can see that, and some have already pointed it out. Not once in your 1700+ posts have I ever seen you budge from your high horse (granted, I haven't read them all, but I think it's a safe bet). So I'll just assume that no matter how logical and simple of an argument someone puts forth, you'll just throw out a bunch of straw men if you don't agree with it, in hopes that people will be convinced. I think I will save myself the trouble and just pass. Have a good one.

But you are not doing that. You are using what you have learned about your opponent's past punching pattern to help you formulate the best response to this fight. If you know that 80% of the time when your opponent throws a left jab-right hook combination that he then steps to his left, you've got some knowledge that you can use to help you when he throws that combo at you. If you know that your opponent is short-winded and has trouble going the distance, that can help you figure out what strategy is best for you. Might not work every time, but it is something that can be predicted with a certain level of accuracy.

Again, your analogy (albeit his first) doesn't apply. It would apply if you only talking about ONE badguy. If you knew that THAT badguy lets victims leave unharmed if they comply 9 times out of 10, then yeah, you could use the numbers to formulate your response...for THAT badguy. But you've suggested that because 87% of the time, the victim is unharmed when he complies, then you're 87% safer with compliance. That's like suggesting that because 9 of the last 10 boxers you faced threw a left jab-right hook combo and then stepped left, then the 11th boxer you face has a 90% chance of doing the same. That's absurd. The 11th boxer has nothing to do with the first 10. And the badguy that is robbing you today has nothing to do with the ones in the stat books.

Again, you are making things up instead of dealing with what has been said. I have not said anything about "...compliance should be your first option because..." I believe there are multiple reasons to consider compliance as the preferred response when appropriate. I have never argued that compliance should always be the first option. I can think of plenty of scenarios where compliance is a silly option, or even a dangerous option. The flaw is that you are trying to attack an argument that has not been made.

And yes, you have made the argument that compliance should be the primary response and you based your argument (at least a large portion of it) on the 87%/13% statistics. It's come up in multiple threads. On page 2 of this thread, while not referencing the statistics reasoning you've used before, you did say that compliance should be the "normal, default response."

 

[armsmaster270]

Sorry I've been there and he went down, it wasn't over money but trying to escape through me with a knife.

 

[rugerdawg]

2 VS. 1

If I am approached by two bg's intent on robbing or harming me and I have the opportunity to draw my gun and defend myself...there will be two dead guys waiting for body bags when the police arrive...and there will not be some lying scum sucking a-hole left to lie to anyone. Case closed.

 

[Skans]

Quckly shoot to kill them both, if at all possible. What? You want to give the guys a "fighting chance" to pull their guns out first?

 

[OldMarksman]

If I am approached by two bg's intent on robbing or harming me and I have the opportunity to draw my gun and defend myself...there will be two dead guys waiting for body bags when the police arrive...and there will not be some lying scum sucking a-hole left to lie to anyone. Case closed.

No, that's just the beginning.

The authorities arrive and you tell them that you are victim and will press charges, point out assailants and the knife, and point out any witnesses. After you have conferred with counsel, he transmits your story that the two people tried to rob you. The fact that you have given your story should not give you any expectation that you will be regarded as "the good guy" and the others as "bad guys" at that point.

Detectives then collect evidence--forensic and otherwise-- and interview witnesses, and the prosecutor ultimately makes a charging decision.

In the majority of cases at least one of the perps will survive, but that may not matter.

The presence of one knife and the fact that two people have been shot may not help you regarding the charging decision. Remember, it is now an established fact that you have used deadly force and perhaps committed homicide. What is left to decide is whether you were justified in shooting two people, one whom at least had a knife with him. By the way, that was the OPs origininal question.

Absent some pretty credible statements from favorable witnesses that support your story and indicate that the unarmed man constituted a serious, imminent threat at the time you fired, you may be on rather shaky ground. And from that point on, your fate is entirely out of your hands.

That's the way it is, and it's been that way since fair judicial systems first started trying murder cases.

Quckly shoot to kill them both, if at all possible.

See above.

 

[Japle]

Let's get back to the original question:
"Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?"

If the robber stops you, he's got to be close enough to be a threat. Otherwise, you'd have no reason to stop.

If he's that close, IMNSHO, shooting the knife man is justified. Shooting the other guy isn't justified just because he's part of the crime. If he continues the attack, that's a different story.

All this has been said before. Some don't agree and that's their right.
David will argue and I wish him well if he's ever in a situation like this.

Personally, as I've said before, I feel have no obligation to put myself in peril to spare an armed robber. He chose his path and has to accept the danger he'll find on that path. My path will lead me home to my family if I have any choice about it.

 

[David Armstrong]

David, your argument is a red herring.

Hondo, your argument is a red herring. Gee, see how easy it is to toss stuff like that out without anything to support it? Your claim is that you cannot predict with any certainty what someone will do in a given situation. I point out that you do it every day on a regular basis. I note you haven't disagreed with that, only tried to repeat that it doesn't apply in a particular situation without anything to support your claim other than you keep saying it.

Again, your analogy (albeit his first) doesn't apply.

If you want to argue applicability, argue with him. I just deal with the material provided.

But you've suggested that because 87% of the time, the victim is unharmed when he complies, then you're 87% safer with compliance.

Talk about a red herring! Once again you have claimed a position for me that I do not take or have. Gets sort of old repeating it, but please, don't put words in my mouth. Try to respond to what is said instead of making stuff up.

And yes, you have made the argument that compliance should be the primary response and you based your argument (at least a large portion of it) on the 87%/13% statistics.

One would think that if I had actually said that you would be able to direct us to it. If you want to know why I think compliance should be the normal default response (my actual position) you might try asking me instead of making stuff up. In fact, let's have a little challenge...please find ANYWHERE I have said that compliance should always be the the first response based on an 87%/13% statistic. You can't, and for you to continue to claim that I have is dishonest.

On page 2 of this thread, while not referencing the statistics reasoning you've used before, you did say that compliance should be the "normal, default response."

Which is quite different than what you keep claiming I have said. I note you also conveniently left out the rest of the statement, whichs was "...but it should not prohibit other responses as appropriate if it does not work."

 

[David Armstrong]

David will argue and I wish him well if he's ever in a situation like this.

Gets old, but please stop claiming things about David that are not true. David will not argue with that. David will agree that there is justification given the scenario as you modified it to shoot the first BG. Where David would disagree is if one should shoot him, not if you are justified to do so.

 

[Erik]

"Let's say there's two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!" ... do you treat them as one threat and shoot at both (disparity of force), can you safely assume both are armed from a legal standpoint?"

No, but the legal justification to use lethal force is not defined by if you recognize someone has a weapon or not. What are the threat indicators and how do they relate to the use of force options available? Granted, recognizing a displayed weapon is a glaring threat indicator.

"I could see a prosecutor saying "well yeah, you could shoot the guy with the gun/knife, but the other guy was unarmed""

I can see lawyers saying all sorts of things.

"thoughts?"
You can either recognize and articulate existing threat indicators or not. They either allow you to use a given level of force, or they do not. Even then, you do not necessarily have to use a given level of force when allowed, nor it it necessarily the best course of action.

"experiences?"
Some. No shootings yet.

So that puts me in the "shoot them if you can justify it and it is your best course of action" category. There's a lot of assumptions in that particular category, though.

 

[supergas452M]

If you want to know why I think compliance should be the normal default response (my actual position) you might try asking me instead of making stuff up.

I'm not asking, I really dont care. You just go on being compliant if it works for you.

As I stated earlier, my response would be utterly different.

My question to you is this...
DO you carry a concealed weapon?
Because if you do and your default response is to be compliant and you are ever attacked by BG's with evil intent, you are likely to be killed with your own gun.

 

[David Armstrong]

My question to you is this...
DO you carry a concealed weapon?

Yes, and have done so for about 30 years now.

Because if you do and your default response is to be compliant and you are ever attacked by BG's with evil intent, you are likely to be killed with your own gun.

That is just downright silly. All BGs, pretty much by definition, attack with evil intent, and folks regularly comply without being killed at all, much less with their own gun. Perhaps you could share with us some real examples where someone complied then was killed with their own gun? Or is this just more made-up stuff from the creative fiction area?

 

[David Armstrong]

They either allow you to use a given level of force, or they do not. Even then, you do not necessarily have to use a given level of force when allowed, nor it it necessarily the best course of action.

Well said.

 

[Hondo11]

Quote:
David, your argument is a red herring.

Hondo, your argument is a red herring. Gee, see how easy it is to toss stuff like that out without anything to support it? Your claim is that you cannot predict with any certainty what someone will do in a given situation. I point out that you do it every day on a regular basis. I note you haven't disagreed with that, only tried to repeat that it doesn't apply in a particular situation without anything to support your claim other than you keep saying it.

You're right. I said that when confronted by someone who is showing their intent and willingness to commit a violent act against you, that you don't know where THAT guy will fall statistically (the ones who won't hurt you or the ones who will). You tried to say that using that logic, you should shoot any random person who gets within 21' because you don't know what their intentions are. Yep, those are the same thing. You're right. Your argument isn't the red herring. My bad.

If you want to argue applicability, argue with him. I just deal with the material provided.

YOUR twist on the boxing analogy was that if your opponent does a particular series of moves a high percentage of the time, then you can use that to predict what he'll do next time. I said that doesn't apply because when you're confronted by a random badguy in a parking lot, you don't know what HE has done in the past. You know that out of a group of 1,234,567 badguys, 87% of them didn't hurt the victim if they complied. But you don't know that THIS badguy didn't hurt the victim 87% of the time if they complied. He might have hurt his victims 100% of the time. Using stats for what a huge number of people have done, as a group, has no bearing on what ONE of them has done or might do.

Talk about a red herring! Once again you have claimed a position for me that I do not take or have. Gets sort of old repeating it, but please, don't put words in my mouth. Try to respond to what is said instead of making stuff up.

One would think that if I had actually said that you would be able to direct us to it. If you want to know why I think compliance should be the normal default response (my actual position) you might try asking me instead of making stuff up. In fact, let's have a little challenge...please find ANYWHERE I have said that compliance should always be the the first response based on an 87%/13% statistic. You can't, and for you to continue to claim that I have is dishonest.

You have used those stats in numerous threads to argue your position for compliance. I've read it, everyone else has read it, it's there. And don't use the word "dishonest" when you're referring to me. That's a stronger word than you might realize (or maybe you do) and I wouldn't be throwing it around so much.

Which is quite different than what you keep claiming I have said. I note you also conveniently left out the rest of the statement, whichs was "...but it should not prohibit other responses as appropriate if it does not work."

You stated that you have NEVER said compliance should be the first option. I quoted where you said that it should be the "Normal, default response". What comes after the comma doesn't matter. (I happen to actually agree with what comes after the comma, but it's not the relevant part of the sentence.) Simply, you said you have never said that, so I pointed out where you had. But now you'll probably say that "first option" and "normal, default response" aren't the same thing and that I was dishonest for saying so.

I'm thinking that the hijack has gone on long enough and that I have contributed to it, so I'll apologize to everyone else and not make another post in this thread.