Video of thwarted ATM mugging -- your tactical thoughts?

O

OhioGuy

New member
I ran across this footage and it made me think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riqv-a5NeWM&feature=youtu.be

Brief summary: it's apparently from Venezuela, and an especially crime-ridden area. A mugger pulls a gun on a victim surrounded by lots of bystanders...probably a good guess he intended to rob multiple people. The would-be victim was actually LE. He instantly surrenders his cash, then quickly circles behind a lady in line, to emerge with gun drawn. He rapidly lands 4 shots into the mugger, who appears to fire one shot of his own (anyone else see his muzzle flash?) before collapsing.

Now, let's imagine this happened in the US, and the victim was a CCW carrier and not LE. Maybe it's a mall food court or some other crowded area. My thoughts:

1. The victim, after surrendering the cash, had plenty of opportunity to flee and get away. He didn't have to shoot the robber. In theory he could have escaped and immediately called 911 or alerted some other security.

2. Everyone in the crowd panicked and ran, or dove for the floor when they heard the first shots. That could have become a stampede that was more dangerous than the robbery.

3. As noted in the commentary, he passed behind another person, using her for concealment, but this could have been interpreted as using her for cover or even as a shield and putting her life at risk.

4. If I'm right and the mugger fired a shot before collapsing, that shot could very well have hurt or killed someone two blocks away, or on the other side of the mall. It's possible that the mugger would never have fired at all if nobody had tried to stop him. He may have just fled with the cash.

So...tactically and legally...should a CCW-er have intervened in this manner? It may be that shooting the mugger saved many lives. It may also be that his one stray shot killed a bystander who would otherwise have lived, and that could be seen as the fault of the CCW-er. This mugger went down pretty quick, and stopped shooting, but others have been shot many more times and still fled, or lived long enough to blast away The fallout could have been much worse.

What would be the likely outcome for the CCW-er in these cases?
 
Situational Awareness is the first (and again) key attribute in really tough situations.

The officer is well trained. He quickly formulated a plan that uses the woman as a discontinuity, not cover, for the mugger. He comes up on the other side of the woman with gun drawn and ready to fire, doing so from less than a meter with a clear shot into the upper body.

What would happen in the US under the same conditions?
It all depends on the DA in the local jurisdiction. For a citizen in Austin Texas (and many other anti- cities), you're going to jail. For a citizen in a city that respects and appreciates lawful gun owners, you may get a commendation.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^^ THIS!
Not sure what a robber would do if you have no cash, but in the US, it's becoming possible to avoid most cash transactions.
 
Do you think he made the situation safer or less safe?

What about the stray bullets the robber may not have fired had he been left alone?
 
TXAZ said:
Situational Awareness is the first (and again) key attribute in really tough situations.

The officer is well trained. He quickly formulated a plan that uses the woman as a discontinuity, not cover, for the mugger. He comes up on the other side of the woman with gun drawn and ready to fire, doing so from less than a meter with a clear shot into the upper body.

What would happen in the US under the same conditions?
It all depends on the DA in the local jurisdiction. For a citizen in Austin Texas (and many other anti- cities), you're going to jail. For a citizen in a city that respects and appreciates lawful gun owners, you may get a commendation.
Click to expand...
On what grounds would Austin convict the citizen?
 
3 years ago, in their infinite anti-Constitutional-I-know-whats-best-for-you-totalatarian attitude :) , the Travis County DA and former police chief Acevedo conspired (as quoted in the Austin paper) to arrest everyone who used a gun in self defense and let the grand jury decide.
The goal is to make people think twice about using a gun in self defense.
The irony is Austin PD lies about their response times big time, and more CHL would more likely help.
I worked for the State Police in Austin at the time and the vast majority were shaking our heads when that pronouncement came out.
Does that answer it in enough detail Ohio?
 
TXAZ said:
3 years ago, in their infinite anti-Constitutional-I-know-whats-best-for-you-totalatarian attitude :) , the Travis County DA and former police chief Acevedo conspired (as quoted in the Austin paper) to arrest everyone who used a gun in self defense and let the grand jury decide.
The goal is to make people think twice about using a gun in self defense.
The irony is Austin PD lies about their response times big time, and more CHL would more likely help.
I worked for the State Police in Austin at the time and the vast majority were shaking our heads when that pronouncement came out.
Does that answer it in enough detail Ohio?
Click to expand...
Good Lord! Gotta protect those criminals! I'd hate to see them get their feelings hurt by responsible citizens!
 
I have 2 primary beefs with the goodguy.. ultimately he did a good job but if I were to be critical of him I would say that:

1. Don't be totally oblivious in public spaces.
2. Why use an "arms extended" traditional firing stance at such close distances. Half-Hip would have been a much better option in my estimation.

Good job on taking him down, thinking fast and not getting tunnel vision.
 
The armed mugger appeared to pose a threat that justified deadly force under some laws. Under certain laws there is absolutely no distinction between possible victims, a carrier in a crowd does not have to be in immediate danger, if another is in danger of death or great injury the same laws and conditions apply.

For example, if I am in a group of four, a bad guy presents a deadly weapon and shows intent to shoot any of the others in my party,it is exactly as if he intended to kill me. This is the law in my home state.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm reporting law as read from local statues. Read and understand your own responsibilities for self defense.
 
I've watched it many times now. I think that it was an incredible job that he did.

In the wilder areas of the world shooting a thug like that without negotiating for surrender isn't so highly frowned upon as it is here, now. Every time I think about the Bonnie and Clyde ambush it sets me back a pace.

I see this guy as armed but probably not a killer. Maybe he should not have killed him. Not my job to judge, but I'm going to add it to my thoughts.

Going out like he did, dropping the punk and a quick search, was good. there were probably members of that guy's gang around as backup. When they saw big chief go down in a bleeding heap and an armed guy searching for another target, I believe that they would have fled.

This was a chain snatcher, a petty thief, not some cartel warrior. His backup, if he had backup, would have been local hoodlums.
 
I spent a little time looking at Venezuela. The country is in terrible shape and what I read said that it had the worst peacetime murder rate in the world, a death by murder on average every 21 minutes the constitution is suspended and it has been run by dictators for decades.

There is nothing unusual, I guess, for a supposed law enforcement officer to summarily kill a mugger. It explains why that guy was far better than would be expected, and like a swat officer in his actions.

The guy was kind of stupid to wear expensive chains, unless he was using them as bait.
 
OhioGuy said:
I ran across this footage and it made me think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riqv-a5NeWM&feature=youtu.be

Brief summary: it's apparently from Venezuela, and an especially crime-ridden area. A mugger pulls a gun on a victim surrounded by lots of bystanders...probably a good guess he intended to rob multiple people. The would-be victim was actually LE. He instantly surrenders his cash, then quickly circles behind a lady in line, to emerge with gun drawn. He rapidly lands 4 shots into the mugger, who appears to fire one shot of his own (anyone else see his muzzle flash?) before collapsing.

Now, let's imagine this happened in the US, and the victim was a CCW carrier and not LE. Maybe it's a mall food court or some other crowded area. My thoughts:

1. The victim, after surrendering the cash, had plenty of opportunity to flee and get away. He didn't have to shoot the robber. In theory he could have escaped and immediately called 911 or alerted some other security.

2. Everyone in the crowd panicked and ran, or dove for the floor when they heard the first shots. That could have become a stampede that was more dangerous than the robbery.

3. As noted in the commentary, he passed behind another person, using her for concealment, but this could have been interpreted as using her for cover or even as a shield and putting her life at risk.

4. If I'm right and the mugger fired a shot before collapsing, that shot could very well have hurt or killed someone two blocks away, or on the other side of the mall. It's possible that the mugger would never have fired at all if nobody had tried to stop him. He may have just fled with the cash.

So...tactically and legally...should a CCW-er have intervened in this manner? It may be that shooting the mugger saved many lives. It may also be that his one stray shot killed a bystander who would otherwise have lived, and that could be seen as the fault of the CCW-er. This mugger went down pretty quick, and stopped shooting, but others have been shot many more times and still fled, or lived long enough to blast away The fallout could have been much worse.

What would be the likely outcome for the CCW-er in these cases?
Click to expand...
another theory is that as long as the bad guy still has his gun drawn the good guy could not safely turn his back and flee.
 
The robber was still an active threat, both to his intended victim, and to the bystanders.
Nice work by a well trained good guy. He stopped the threat. Excessive? No! Given the situation the key was putting the bad guy down quickly, ending the threat to all those nearby innocents. Score one for the good guys.
Beautiful move by the good guy, dropping his valuables on the ground gave him the SECONDS he needed to turn the situation around.
 
another theory is that as long as the bad guy still has his gun drawn the good guy could not safely turn his back and flee.
Click to expand...

I have no issues what so ever- with the fact that the goodguy took him out. Lets just not pretend that he couldn't have just as easily got away from him after dropping his goods. The badguy was a danger to everyone there and likely would have continued robbing people.. I think he was justified in engaging him. That said, .. the good guy chose to turn around and engage him. It wasn't as if that was the only means of escape at that point. He could have just walked off into the crowd.
 
FireForged said:
I have no issues what so ever- with the fact that the goodguy took him out. Lets just not pretend that he couldn't have just as easily got away from him after dropping his goods. The badguy was a danger to everyone there and likely would have continued robbing people.. I think he was justified in engaging him. That said, .. the good guy chose to turn around and engage him. It wasn't as if that was the only means of escape at that point. He could have just walked off into the crowd.
Click to expand...
...and what if he turned and ran and the bad guy shot him in the back? Would that still have been the easiest option?
 
I can't say what would've happened in the US. To be honest, I don't think anybody can, as it's strongly dependent on where in the US it happened.
I CAN say what would've happened in Argentina: the shooter would've gone to jail. And rightly so.

First, you can call it cover, distraction, whatever. The fact is he put that woman in the line of potential fire. He could've gotten her killed.
Second, up until that time, the BG had not been violent at all. In fact, he had been pretty discreet at targeting the good guy. So the GG had no real reason at all to start shooting in a room full of innocent people.
And third, it was just dumb luck (or sheer stupidity on part of the BG), that the BG didn't have an accomplice. If he did, the whole thing could've been a massacre.

So, maybe if he was a soldier we could say he was well trained. But as a LE, I think his performance was dismal.
 
BOOGIE the oily said:
I can't say what would've happened in the US. To be honest, I don't think anybody can, as it's strongly dependent on where in the US it happened.
I CAN say what would've happened in Argentina: the shooter would've gone to jail. And rightly so.

First, you can call it cover, distraction, whatever. The fact is he put that woman in the line of potential fire. He could've gotten her killed.
Second, up until that time, the BG had not been violent at all. In fact, he had been pretty discreet at targeting the good guy. So the GG had no real reason at all to start shooting in a room full of innocent people.
And third, it was just dumb luck (or sheer stupidity on part of the BG), that the BG didn't have an accomplice. If he did, the whole thing could've been a massacre.

So, maybe if he was a soldier we could say he was well trained. But as a LE, I think his performance was dismal.
Click to expand...
I would say that pulling a gun on someone is an act of violence, no matter how discreet one does it.
 
Originally Posted by BOOGIE the oily View Post
I can't say what would've happened in the US. To be honest, I don't think anybody can, as it's strongly dependent on where in the US it happened.
I CAN say what would've happened in Argentina: the shooter would've gone to jail. And rightly so.

First, you can call it cover, distraction, whatever. The fact is he put that woman in the line of potential fire. He could've gotten her killed.
Second, up until that time, the BG had not been violent at all. In fact, he had been pretty discreet at targeting the good guy. So the GG had no real reason at all to start shooting in a room full of innocent people.
And third, it was just dumb luck (or sheer stupidity on part of the BG), that the BG didn't have an accomplice. If he did, the whole thing could've been a massacre.

So, maybe if he was a soldier we could say he was well trained. But as a LE, I think his performance was dismal.
Click to expand...
I would say that pulling a gun on someone is an act of violence, no matter how discreet one does it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me rephrase:

Up to the point the GG started shooting, the BG had not directly threatened anybody else but him. The situation did not justify at all for a supposedly trained LEO to start a potential shootout in a room full of innocent people.
 
BOOGIE the oily said:
Ok, let me rephrase:

Up to the point the GG started shooting, the BG had not directly threatened anybody else but him. The situation did not justify at all for a supposedly trained LEO to start a potential shootout in a room full of innocent people.
Click to expand...
But the GG didnt start the shootout, in fact the BG beat him to the draw....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top