Two attackers, one armed?

[Japle]

Compliance is certainly an option (continuing the thread hijack), but I don’t believe it’s a good one and here’s why:

Trusting an armed robber to have your best interests at heart, in other words, to be willing to leave a live witness behind him rather than a dead victim, is irrational. To quote Nessus, “Such trust in another is insane”. That’s my opinion. People have survived by being compliant. But not all of them.

Among the general population, somewhere between 1% and 2% are psychopaths. I read that somewhere, so it must be true.
Among the armed robber population, that percentage is significantly higher. That’s just a guess, but I think it’s a reasonable one.

When you want a Hershey’s Kiss, you have to take off the little foil wrapper. When you get it off, what do you do with it? You throw it away. Why? Because it has no value.
To millions of psychopaths in this country, you’re that little foil wrapper. You’re holding what they want. Once they have it, you have no value. To them, killing you is like throwing away a candy wrapper. They don’t think twice about it.

Now the question is, are you facing a psychopath? How can you tell?
Ted Bundy seemed like a nice guy. So did Al Bundy. Ted was a psychopath and Al was just a sociopath. Personally, I wouldn’t trust either of them in a dark parking lot with a knife. In the situation presented by the OP, I’d shoot either one of them. I wouldn’t shoot the partner, though, assuming he gave up or ran away.

Anyone who wants to trust an armed robber is welcome to do so.
Just remember, there may be a Darwin Award waiting with your name on it.

 

[Skans]

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.

The original post said: "two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!"

They are together. I am outnumbered. They are both robbers acting in concert. They have demanded money. One is brandishing a knife coupled with "gimme yo money" indicates an iminent threat of at least agrivated battery, possibly murder if you don't do what he says.

I stick by what I said - I would shoot to kill both of them, under the scenario presented. I would shoot the guy with the knife first, and if the other guy was still facing me in a threatening manner I would shoo to kill him too. If he surrenders, or runs away, then I'm done - he lives. If I get charged - so be it, let the prosecutor try to make that case before a jury. I highly doubt it would ever get to a jury.

 

[OldMarksman]

The original post said: "two robbers that stop you in a parking lot. one displaying a knife with the cliche "gimme yo money!"

Yep, that's what it said.

That's about what every shooter will say happened.

Absent credible, favorable witness testimony, that may not be what the jury believes, however. Consider the likelihood that the only witnesses only turned their attention to you after hearing the shots and cannot substantiate that part of your story.

They are together. I am outnumbered.

That would raise your level of fear and it may convince the jury. Or it may not. Did you read Peetzakiller's analysis?

Disparity of force changes millisecond by millisecond. Two guys with a knife versus one innocent? Yep, disparity of force. One defender with a gun, a disabled or dead knifer and his unarmed buddy standing there with wet pants. The entire situation has changed. Shooting a man who is posing no threat is murder. It doesn't matter what he was doing or intending to do 2 seconds ago. It matters what he's doing RIGHT NOW. Shoot him before he threatens you and YOU are the BG. NOW, which side has a disparity of force? Now who is the attacker?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3342950&postcount=39

So, you may be acquitted of murdering the guy with the knife, and convicted for the second killing--The OP's question. No guarantees either way.

They are both robbers acting in concert. They have demanded money.

Certainly appears that way, but it is an assumption. Wouldn't it be something if the prosecution demonstrated that they had just met and one was giving a ride to the other?

And of course the only evidence that either one did in fact demand money may be your word. Don't assume that for some reason you will be automatically seen as the good guy.

I stick by what I said - I would shoot to kill both of them, under the scenario presented.

Any reasonable person may think it necessary to shoot both, but then there's the burden of presenting exculpatory evidence. By the way, it's shoot to stop. Saying aotherwise in advance could create a mountain of problems for your defense. Could help establish mens rea.

I would shoot the guy with the knife first, and if the other guy was still facing me in a threatening manner I would shoot to kill him too.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that having someone who is unarmed "face you in a threatening manner" is justification for using deadly force, but believe me, it isn't.

If I get charged - so be it, let the prosecutor try to make that case before a jury.

That's the way the system works.

Could cost you a fortune--say, $25,000 to six times that. And he might well succeed.

I highly doubt it would ever get to a jury.

Ever is a long time! There's no statute of limitations, and a future DA trying to get re-elected may have a lot of motive to go after the guy who shot an unarmed man.

There's also the civil jury. In that case the motivation is the contingency fee. And the burden of proof for the plaintiff represents a much lower chinning bar. That could cost you more than you have. Consider your future standard of living.

It may well be that shooting first is the only safe alternative. You stay alive that way, but you enter into a very bad period of your life no matter what happens. It may be that shooting both men seems necessary to you at the time but that could be a lot harder to defend in either a criminal or a civil proceeding.

I'm not one who would trust in compliance, but tossing a money clip while training the laser sight on the perp and yelling for him to take the money and get away non could be by far the best reaction.

If it doesn't work, you can still shoot. And if it does you're out a miniscule investment and your gun isn't taken as evidence.

 

[David Armstrong]

Yep, those are the same thing. You're right.

Very good. If your argument is that one cannot predict what a person will do based on stats for others people in one situation you have to logically carry that argument to other situations dealing with human behavior.

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.

Doesn't matter. Just like when you are confronted by a random driver on the road, or a random person walking near you, you don't know what HE has done in the past either. Yet you can still make some predictions about what he will do.

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.

So what? That is not what you use the info for, and that is where you keep making your mistake. You use the stats for figuring out what is the best way for you to get through the incident, based on what is likely to occur as determined by the information available to you. To stay with the auto, all your experience with other drivers has no bearing on what any one of them might do, but it still gives you the ability to make (hopefully) informed decisions on what to do as you are in traffic to safely get to your destination.

You have used those stats in numerous threads to argue your position for compliance.

But that is not what you keep claiming. Your claim is that I "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." That is not accurate

And don't use the word "dishonest" when you're referring to me.

See above. You have repeatedly distorted my position. I have told you that repeatedly, and yet you continue to disseminate the misinformation. Don't put words in my mouth, don't make things up and say I said them, do not claim I have taken positions that I have not taken.

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.

Of course it matters. That is more of that distortion you keep practicing.

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.

You called it. By your own admission you have claimed something for me that I did not say. You changed "normal default response" to "first option." And yes, they are not the same. Since you do not understand the difference, perhaps you should try to stick with what was actually said instead of making stuff up again.

 

[David Armstrong]

Trusting an armed robber to have your best interests at heart, in other words, to be willing to leave a live witness behind him rather than a dead victim, is irrational.

Only if you don't understand armed robbers. Their goal is robbery, not murder. They get what they want through compliance far easier than through murder. Murder gets a lot more LE attention than robbery, and muder tends to create victims with a greater tendency to fight back. A live witness doesn't mean much to a robber, they leave them behind most of the time.

Anyone who wants to trust an armed robber is welcome to do so.

I don't think anyone is saying to trust an armed robber. What some are saying is that you should try to minimize the danger and loss to you and that you can use knowledge to enhance that effort. Compliance is one tool to that end and should be tried when appropriate. What many seem to miss is that compliance has the beauty of allowing several other options to be used if it does not work, and if it works it will likely result in the smallest amount of lost resources. As OldMarksman said, "If it doesn't work, you can still shoot. And if it does you're out a miniscule investment and your gun isn't taken as evidence."

 

[OldMarksman]

I don't think anyone is saying to trust an armed robber. What some are saying is that you should try to minimize the danger and loss to you and that you can use knowledge to enhance that effort. Compliance is one tool to that end and should be tried when appropriate. What many seem to miss is that compliance has the beauty of allowing several other options to be used if it does not work, and if it works it will likely result in the smallest amount of lost resources.

That certainly describes my position accurately.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Only if you don't understand armed robbers. Their goal is robbery, not murder.

Except in 13% of the cases where they harm people in spite of being fully compliant.

Gee, how many folks here "understand" armed robbers well enough to gamble on their lives that compliance will be enough to keep the robber from harming them?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That certainly describes my position accurately.

OldMarksman, you seem to be discussing this one reasonably so let me ask you a few questions. First of all let me say that I generally find these threads tiresome as they degenerate into "Kill 'em dead!" or "Studies show!" or some other thing.

Going back to Hondo's and Japle may I put forth (on their behalf) that why we may not be trusting the robber if we are using statistics from some study then aren't we trusting those statistics with our fate?

Now to the questions.

In the OP the BGs have approached you with a knife and you are armed with a gun. So, from the start you have the superior weapon to their knife.

Would you comply, give up your advantage and trust the "statistics" to keep you safe?

Would you feel a greater risk from prosecution and civil tort or the BG in front of you with a knife?

If you say (as some have) that the primary goal of the robber is to rob how would you know if he wanted more than your money?

Would that be when he stabbed or shot you?

What rules of thumb could we use to determine the intent of the robber (sometimes we all know some robbers don't like to leave witnesses) and then decide to use deadly force?

How much time do you think you will have to sort through the options?

If you have the advantage, either in weaponry or surprise, and you are legally justified would it be better to comply or use force against the attacker?

When speaking of statistics there is a pretty reputable guy named Gary Kleck who has published some statistics himself. I can give you cites if you want them. Kleck says that when civilians use their guns first during an attack (rather than waiting until they are injured) their chance of escaping unharmed are very very high.

What do you think about that?

Finally, this seems to be the choice.

If you comply with the robber the best thing that can happen to you is that you lose your money, your gun if you are carrying and he finds it, some intense stress and perhaps some pride. The worst that could happen is that you are killed or seriously injured.

If you fight, the best thing that can happen is that you escape the encounter with your health, life and property. The worst thing that can happen (and I am using Kleck's conclusions) is that you might face prosecution legal or civil which you can fight over time and suffer some stress related to the incident.

Do you agree? Which would you choose?

 

[hogdogs]

Lets not forget that many "gangs" want the prospect to commit a violent crime to prove them self... The robbery may just be a means to get the "vic" to face off long enuff to get gutted!
fight or flight is for prey animals... I prefer fight or fight harder...
Brent

 

[OldMarksman]

Would you comply, give up your advantage and trust the "statistics" to keep you safe?

Absolutely not! My gun would be drawn as quickly as I took out the money clip. That gives up no advantage and does not rely on trust.

Would you feel a greater risk from prosecution and civil tort or the BG in front of you with a knife?

The latter, as long as he remained a threat. After the fact, things will change, the extent of which change will probably depend almost entirely on the presence or absence of credible favorable witnesses who will be willing to testify in my behalf when the time comes.

If you say (as some have) that the primary goal of the robber is to rob how would you know if he wanted more than your money?

Would that be when he stabbed or shot you?

First question (how): If he did not immediately take the money and depart.

Second question (when). No.

What rules of thumb could we use to determine the intent of the robber (sometimes we all know some robbers don't like to leave witnesses) and then decide to use deadly force?

The direction of his travel and his actions in response to your telling him to back off.

How much time do you think you will have to sort through the options?

Very little indeed. Study the Tueller drill.

My assumption is that if he demands money, rather than simply running at you with the knife, he will wait for a response, and that you can use that time to throw him a money clip and draw down on him. No time wasted. If the clip lands behind him you actually have more time, if he picks it up.

If he does not you have your answer.

When speaking of statistics there is a pretty reputable guy named Gary Kleck who has published some statistics himself. I can give you cites if you want them. Kleck says that when civilians use their guns first during an attack (rather than waiting until they are injured) their chance of escaping unharmed are very very high.

What do you think about that?

Sounds reasonable but irrelevant. At no time have I advocated waiting until sustaining an injury.

If you comply with the robber the best thing that can happen to you is that you lose your money, your gun if you are carrying and he finds it, some intense stress and perhaps some pride. The worst that could happen is that you are killed or seriously injured.

If you fight, the best thing that can happen is that you escape the encounter with your health, life and property. The worst thing that can happen (and I am using Kleck's conclusions) is that you might face prosecution legal or civil which you can fight over time and suffer some stress related to the incident.

Do you agree?

Almost. The worst thing that can happen if you shoot is loss of freedom and your personal fortune, and a permanent criminal record. A little different from suffering "some stress related to the incident", I think. You can fight, but your fate is entirely in the hands of others.

Which would you choose?

Neither.

Read my post again.

I'm not one who would trust in compliance, but tossing a money clip while training the laser sight on the perp and yelling for him to take the money and get away now could be by far the best reaction.

If it doesn't work, you can still shoot. And if it does you're out a miniscule investment and your gun isn't taken as evidence.

Now, whether you have the luxury of that strategy will be situation dependent. If he's, say, fifteen or twenty feet away and you can add some distance, it should work, and it's no less risky than firing first.

If he's already within slashing range you may not want to delay getting a couple of shots into center body mass.

 

[pax]

TG ~

I'll play.

If you comply with the robber the best thing that can happen to you is that you lose your money, your gun if you are carrying and he finds it, some intense stress and perhaps some pride. The worst that could happen is that you are killed or seriously injured.

If you fight, the best thing that can happen is that you escape the encounter with your health, life and property. The worst thing that can happen (and I am using Kleck's conclusions) is that you might face prosecution legal or civil which you can fight over time and suffer some stress related to the incident.

No, I don't agree.

If you comply, the best thing that can happen is you lose your money.

If you comply, the worst thing that can happen is that you are slowly tortured to death, raped repeatedly over a period of days or weeks, used as a sick toy for a psychopath until you eventually die, alone and in agony -- and your body is never found to bring closure to your family who go to their graves wondering what happened to you, if you abandoned them, if you are dead or alive, if you even loved them at all.

If you don't comply, the best that can happen is that you walk away with life, property, and dignity intact.

If you don't comply, the worst that can happen is that you die from blood loss when the attacker shoots or stabs you (but at least your family knows where your body is). Next worse is that you spend the rest of your life in jail, and both shame & bankrupt your family getting there.

Comparing the worst-case scenarios, I'd rather die quickly from blood loss, or spend my life in jail and bankrupt my family, than to spend the last days or weeks of my life as a toy for a psychopath. YMMV.

Oh, and I'm arrogant enough to believe I can avoid doing anything to land me permanently in jail as I defend myself anyway.

(Are any of these outcomes likely? Of course not. The vast majority of people go through life without ever being attacked at all, let alone encountering the worst of the worst. It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes.)

pax

 

[David Armstrong]

What some seem to keep missing is that compliance is not an "only" option nor does it end what you can do. Compliance is but one step in a series, and does not prohibit further steps. If I comply with the demand to give the BG my money it does not obligate me to then comply with his demands to do anything else. If I offer initial compliance and it doesn't work, NOTHING HAS CHANGED regarding my ability to respond.

 

[pax]

If I offer initial compliance and it doesn't work, NOTHING HAS CHANGED regarding my ability to respond.

David,

That's a nice theory but not congruent with reality in many cases. The fact is that at the very beginning of the incident, as it first starts to unfold and before the BG has total control of the situation, there is usually a response window where sudden, decisive, determined action can make an overwhelming difference in the outcome. If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back. Will there be other opportunities? Probably, if the BG makes other mistakes along the way. But once he has gained control, those later opportunities will always be considerably more risky to the actor than the first one would have been. And so the chances of those later opportunities being as easily-managed as the first one become somewhat more dicey.

See, for example, Strong on Defense for some discussion of how this dynamic works. There are others.

Kathy

 

[OldMarksman]

The fact is that at the very beginning of the incident, as it first starts to unfold and before the BG has total control of the situation, there is usually a response window where sudden, decisive, determined action can make an overwhelming difference in the outcome. If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back. Will there be other opportunities? Probably, if the BG makes other mistakes along the way. But once he has gained control, those later opportunities will always be considerably more risky to the actor than the first one would have been.

And that's why the gun come out concurrently with the moneyclip. For an instant, the ball is in the perp's court, if and only if he pauses--but only for him to decide whether to continue or to depart. At no point does he gain control. If he does not pause you are exactly where you would have been in terms of timing, and you have to fire.

Mas Ayoob wrote that back in the day, he used to carry a five dollar bill wrapped around a matchbook for the purpose. I prefer something that will fly a little better and is adequate to at least cause the man to consider.

(Are any of these outcomes likely? Of course not. The vast majority of people go through life without ever being attacked at all, let alone encountering the worst of the worst. It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes.)

And that's the thing to remember in risk management in this area. If we made all determinations solely on the basis of likelihood, we would not carry guns and train to use them.

 

[David Armstrong]

The fact is that at the very beginning of the incident, as it first starts to unfold and before the BG has total control of the situation, there is usually a response window where sudden, decisive, determined action can make an overwhelming difference in the outcome.

And in an armed robbery as described the BGs control of the situation has not changed by initial compliance. He has not moved closer, he has not changed his threat level, or any thing else. In fact, the advantage may have shifted to you a bit, as you are now more aware of the situation and what is going on. Your response window has not changed, and I would question the assumption that initial compliance indicates the BG has total control of the situation. IMO the BG does not have total control until I have either given that control to him or I am physically unable to resist.

If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back.

Equally valid is that if you immediately respond you will often miss an opportunity to improve your chances by waiting until the BG is less focused on you and his need to assert dominance. Your best opportunity may be immediate, but it may also be later on.

But once he has gained control, those later opportunities will always be considerably more risky to the actor than the first one would have been. And so the chances of those later opportunities being as easily-managed as the first one become somewhat more dicey.

We'll disagree. You seem to base the argument on the idea that the BGs will become more vigilant and suspicious the longer the encounter goes and the more you cooperate with them. According to my research and readings it is just the opposite, the more you comply the less of a threat they feel you present to them and the less they worry about you or focus on you. Let's ask a simple question...do you think you will be more focused on the BG that has broken into your house when you first confront him and don't know what he will do, or more focused after about a minute when he has complied with your requests to do whatever it is you requested?

ETA: Strong on Defense is a good read, but horribly inaccurate on many, if not most, of the predictions and such. IIRC, there is almost no support for many of his conclusions, and in fact some of his suggestions seem directly contradicted by research in the field.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Now, whether you have the luxury of that strategy will be situation dependent. If he's, say, fifteen or twenty feet away and you can add some distance, it should work, and it's no less risky than firing first.

One more question. Why give him the money and risk him rushing you? He has pulled a knife and demanded money. You are fully justified if he does anything else other than run to shoot him. The evidence will be there when the police arrive and more than likely the other dude will beat feet. Why not just draw and tell him to back off? If he feels inclined to die for the wallet he probably would have hurt you too. However, I like your draw and now you have the advantage. One final thing, I would NOT call drawing a weapon on a robber compliance. But that's just me

The worst thing that can happen if you shoot is loss of freedom and your personal fortune, and a permanent criminal record.

Based on the scenario presented I think the chances of that are low.

It's not the odds that bother me here. It's the stakes

This is wisdom. The problem with compliance is what do you have to lose beyond your cash. Avoidance is always best but having the advantage if you can is better.

If you miss that window, you have often missed your best opportunity to fight back. Will there be other opportunities?

Now this is really good. You know Kathy, you ought to do this professionally.

David tells us that police always tell you to comply. Maybe, but think about who their audience is (context is everything David) and why they say that. Are they talking to people who CCW to defend themselves and have studied and had some training?

No, they are talking to Joe and Jill Blow who don't carry and they only thing they could do is fight unarmed and have never thought about being robbed.

Once you have a CCW the odds change but you owe it to yourself and others to get smart about how to use those odds to your best advantage.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Your response window has not changed.

Yes it has. If you act first decisively you change the dynamic and put him on the defensive. Now HE must react. I could see using compliance IF the BG already has control over you but the OP did not put it that way.

Equally valid is that if you immediately respond you will often miss an opportunity to improve your chances by waiting until the BG is less focused on you and his need to assert dominance.

I think the saying goes "a bird in the hand" I'd rather get my advantage sooner rather than later in dealing with a criminal. No need to play it out if you don't have to.

You seem to base the argument on the idea that the BGs will become more vigilant and suspicious the longer the encounter goes and the more you cooperate with them.

Or they may become more violent the more you comply if they intend you harm as they gain more control.

According to my research and readings it is just the opposite, the more you comply the less of a threat they feel you present to them and the less they worry about you or focus on you.

Ahh, the secret studies. I knew we would hear about them soon. Any citation of this? I really wonder about all the advice you get on the Internet

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Mas Ayoob wrote that back in the day, he used to carry a five dollar bill wrapped around a matchbook for the purpose. I prefer something that will fly a little better and is adequate to at least cause the man to consider.

I read Mas' books too but I am not sure he would use that in the scenario presented. Why? Well, Mas also says that when faced suddenly with a life threatening situation motor skills get impaired. Tossing out a wallet while simultaneously drawing and aiming a handgun while under that stress is too rich for my blood. Why take that chance with a man standing there with a knife? Might even be better to just run away. Of course if you trained enough maybe but I would be leery.

 

[Deaf Smith]

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?

Incorrect thinking. You know at least one of them is armed. The second one may or may not be. Since they have started the ball rolling, and you don't have time to search the second one for a weapon, then you can very well argue you were in fear of your life as you were attacked by two people, and at least, to your knowledge, one was armed with a weapon (and the other one's hands could not be seen.)

 

[OldMarksman]

Why give him the money and risk him rushing you? He has pulled a knife and demanded money. You are fully justified if he does anything else other than run to shoot him.

I agree with that, subject to the assumption that you had no alternative,but the problem is whether the judicial system will see it that way. Why toss the money? Very simple: to diffuse the threat and reduce the risk.

The evidence will be there when the police arrive

What evidence? A man who has been shot by your gun? A knife? Perhaps witnesses with ambiguous, or even worse, unfavorable testimony?

...and more than likely the other dude will beat feet.

I guess your answer to the OP is that you would not shoot the second "dude."

Why not just draw and tell him to back off?

Good question. That's the usual response. But let's assume the man is desperate for money for food, gasoline, or drugs. He may not be easily dissuaded. But the money may motivate him to leave.

If he feels inclined to die for the wallet he probably would have hurt you too.

My point exactly.

I would NOT call drawing a weapon on a robber compliance. But that's just me

Who called it compliance?

Might even be better to just run away.

Actually, that's required in many states, if you can do so safely.

And you may be paying an expert witness to demonstrate why you had no other choice.

Let's address some hypoheticals.

A man with a knife, accompanied by a friend, kills a man with a gun. What actually happened was that the knife-wielder was the aggressor in an attempted robbery, but now it's his story. He says he asked for a match, the dead man drew a gun, and he had to use the knife in self defense.

Absent witnesses, what would lead the authorities to believe other wise?

One more time: do not presume that you will be seen as the good guy.

Consider a jury: All CCW licensees will have been challenged and removed. People who don't like guns will remain. The average juror will not understand why the use of a firearm against a man with a knife could ever be necessary. The idea that 21 feet is a threatening distance is foreign to them. There may be cultural biases. Some of them may not like your looks.

You will be paying for expert witnesses such as Mas Ayoob or David Armstrong to convince them that your actions were justified.

They might succeed, at great cost

Why give him the money

Did that answer your question?