Wait vs Don't Wait Scenario?

[threegun]

Personally, I think I would shoot. I would not want to live with being a witness to a murder that I could have stopped.

How would you feel if the clerk gets murdered because your shot failed to instantly stop the bad guy? You now literally bear more of the responsibility.

I don't know about what happens after a head impact sorry. I do know that stress and duress will make a very good marksman lackluster. You simply cannot or shouldn't rely on an instant stop as it is extremely difficult to achieve under those conditions.

 

[Microgunner]

threegun,
I believe waiting for the BG to start perforating folks prior to acting is a really bad idea. You'll really be under a massive load of stress at that point and your manual dexterity will suffer even more.
Nope, I'm acting while I still have an opportunity to act.

 

[threegun]

I believe waiting for the BG to start perforating folks prior to acting is a really bad idea. You'll really be under a massive load of stress at that point and your manual dexterity will suffer even more.
Nope, I'm acting while I still have an opportunity to act.

So you start a gunfight that very more than likely would have ended in the bad guy walking out with the money.

I wonder if you were being held at gunpoint during a robbery would you welcome some CCW holder of unknown skill level opening up on the guy holding a gun in your face?

I know I would prefer to ride the odds considering one scenario ends in sure gunfire and the other potential gunfire.

BTW I agree that waiting in most situations is a bad idea.

 

[Microgunner]

So you start a gunfight that very more than likely would have ended in the bad guy walking out with the money.

Your contention is that I would be starting the gun fight, not the BG who has drawn his/her firearm and is threatening folks with it. Seriously, are you this confused?
When someone has drawn a firearm and is threatening people with it the fight has already begun. This person is unstable and you're willing to risk life and limb on statistics?
Not me.

 

[threegun]

Your contention is that I would be starting the gun fight, not the BG who has drawn his/her firearm and is threatening folks with it. Seriously, are you this confused?
When someone has drawn a firearm and is threatening people with it the fight has already begun. This person is unstable and you're willing to risk life and limb on statistics?
Not me.

You are risking the clerks life by shooting when no shots would have been fired otherwise. Sure there is no guarentee that the bad guy won't shoot the clerk. There is supporting data however that indicates this outcome to be very very rare. Given this undeniable information the prudent thing to do is wait.

Knowing the low odds of the bad guy shooting you intervien virtually guaranteeing a shootout. This is simply not wise. It seems to presume that when you open up on the bad guy the clerk would be safer. Problem is that the clerk would only be safer by you opening fire if in fact the bad guy was going to shoot them. This we already know is statistically rare.

So in the vast majority of times you intervien you in fact put the clerk in more danger. As well as yourself.

Example Microgunner stumbles into 100 robberies in progress. 98 of those robberies would have ended without lead in the air. Microgunner opens up on the bad guy everytime. Now 100 percent of the robberies ended with lead in the air. Not very good for the environment nor the clerk, bad guy*, other patrons, or yourself. See the error of your thinking yet?

*not that I give a rats sacks for the scumbag.

 

[Microgunner]

There is supporting data however that indicates this outcome to be very very rare.

Cite your sources please.

Example Microgunner stumbles into 100 robberies in progress. 98 of those robberies would have ended without lead in the air. Microgunner opens up on the bad guy everytime. Now 100 percent of the robberies ended with lead in the air. Not very good for the environment nor the clerk, bad guy*, other patrons, or yourself. See the error of your thinking yet?

You can use made up statistics to prove any point. Hell, I can prove the world is flat if allowed to make up my own statistics.
All sounds clean and sterile in calm conversation, just don't think it'll translate to real time.
The idea of the bad guy focusing on and shooting the clerk while someone else is firing at him from his blind side just doesn't seem, to me, the way the BG would react. If anything, I believe I'd invite greater risk to myself and I'll have my firearm already into action.
Leaving this world fighting isn't such a bad way to go.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've deleted a rather silly blood lust, chest thumper and the reasonable corrective reply (thanks for that , but I killed the interchange).

Please read the moderators of this forum views on such. Stating you will kill and empty your gun is not what we are about and indicates a lack of sophisticated knowledge.

 

[shortwave]

My line of thought on the OP'S original scenario pretty much mirrors Lost Sheeps #4 post. If on the other hand, the BG, would pull his trigger then that, for me, would takes things to a much more elevated level.

 

[5whiskey]

I would have to believe strongly in not pulling the trigger on someone who has their weapon pointed at another person.

However, armed robbery is nothing to sneeze at. Regardless of whether the perp has pulled the trigger yet, or has no intention to pull the trigger if everyone cooperates, it's still a scenario where deadly force is authorized. If someone is going to point a gun at someone to take what's not his, then I don't side or favor him getting away with it. The bad thing is, though, there's not much you can safely do.

What I would do in this case? I would have my gun drawn at the low ready in the direction of the threat, with me standing at a safe angle where no one is in between myself and the robber (or behind the robber). I would wait until he begins to leave (but not openly block his exit). IF the guy simply runs away, then let him go without engaging. If he makes a move that shows the intention to engage you, then engage. Most States have a law giving you authority to detain the offender, and if he uses deadly force in an effort to escape then you may engage. I would not advise this, however. I would be the best witness possible, while having my self defense ready to use. If goofy sees my self defense and flinches in my direction, I would use my self defense. That's what I would do, anyway

 

[OldMarksman]

... they may NOT take the gun off of them or they may shoot the person.

And they may not. The majority of the time, it is "not."

But if you shoot, they will most certainly try to shoot.

It is amazing to me how many keybpoard strategists seem to believe that their shooting of an armed robber will somehow so immediately and effectively disable the person shot that that person will not be able to squeeze a trigger at least once.

As threegun has stated very well on more than one occasion here, the armed citizen who intervenes may well precipitate a tragedy that would not have happened but for his intervention.

Yes, in an armed robbery, one is justified under the criminal code to employ deadly force if immediately necessary, and there is some civil protection (relating to the perp, and to the injuries of no one else), but that gives the citizen neither the skill nor the power to do so successfully.

So--what would make it a good idea for a person other than a sworn officer, who is not indemnified by the community, to try to draw and shoot someone because he may shoot someone else? Not much. Perhaps, if the perp and his M.O. resemble that of someone who has in fact been shooting his victims in the area; perhaps, if the shot is clear and close; the backstop is good; the perp's attention is drawn from the citizen who is the would-be hero; and the perp's gun is pointed in a safe direction... maybe, then....

But then, no one has mentioned the likelihood that the perp has an armed accomplice standing behind you for just such an eventuality.

A friend of mine who recently took his CCL training in FL said that the recommendation was to do nothing unless and until it became quite clear that shooting was almost certain to take place.

An indication of that would be the issuance of orders for everyone to get into a back room, or on the floor. Absent such, unless shooting breaks out, my gun stays put.

 

[Microgunner]

These are good arguments in both camps but I still believe it better to act than hope. Statistics only show a majority of armed robberies end without violence, not all. I'd hate to die with a perfectly good sidearm still holstered, and not knowing which side of the odds I'm going to fall on I choose to fight.
Each has to decide for himself.

 

[markj]

It is amazing to me how many keybpoard strategists seem to believe that their shooting of an armed robber will somehow so immediately and effectively disable the person shot that that person will not be able to squeeze a trigger at least once.

But I saw it in a movie once well a lot of times.....

I always thought that when a person dies they could lock the fingers in what was called a death grip. I would not wish to find out if it is true or not on someone might not have gotten hurt if the bad guy was left alone.

When a gun is pointed at you then do as you wish but when your actions may cause death or harm to the one you are trying to protect.......... oops hate it when that happens.

 

[BikerRN]

These are good arguments in both camps but I still believe it better to act than hope. Statistics only show a majority of armed robberies end without violence, not all. I'd hate to die with a perfectly good sidearm still holstered, and not knowing which side of the odds I'm going to fall on I choose to fight.
Each has to decide for himself.

Keep in mind that the whole premise of this scenario is that you are a witness, not an active participant.

Do you then escalate the situation to a shooting situation when the felonious actor has yet to discharge his weapon? Granted one may be authorized and even justified in using deadly force, but is that really the best option at this time?

That is a decision you, the investigators, local prosecutor, and judge and jury will have to make.

Biker

 

[gearhounds]

The death reflex can be avoided by a well placed shot to the CNS for an instant shut down. Let's hope the BG is kind enough to announce a robbery, and then hold perfectly still.

I'm not going to tell people to shoot or not shoot; the circumstances will dictate the right action to take. I will say that maybe if people think there is the possibility it "could happen to them", that they train for it. Maybe tie helium balloons to strings on a breezy day and try to hit them with regularity, after drinking a triple latte and doing some jumping jacks.I'm not trying to be a smart ass, or down play anyone's abilities, but that would approximate the average persons response to being thrust into a deadly force situation. If the BG isn't hit by the first round and incapacitated, collateral damage is a strong possibility.

 

[5whiskey]

I'd hate to die with a perfectly good sidearm still holstered

I think you would have absolute justification in this situation to have your sidearm unholstered. I don't think anyone on TFL will tell you that's wrong, as long as you discreetly unholster and come to the low ready in the direction of the threat without announcing yourself. I think that would be reasonable and prudent in most cases, as long as your presence in unknown. The opportunity to thwart an armed robbery (or a threat to you or another person) may well present itself, and then you can act MUCH faster. To shoot an individual while he has a gun pointed at another person is probably not the best COA, IMHO. And this is from someone who can't stand good people looking the other way while crime takes place.

 

[Manco]

It is amazing to me how many keybpoard strategists seem to believe that their shooting of an armed robber will somehow so immediately and effectively disable the person shot that that person will not be able to squeeze a trigger at least once.

Well, I wouldn't be aiming at his butt. If I have a good shot opportunity at his brain, then he'll go down instantaneously--he won't even feel a thing. Whether he lives or dies is not up to me, but he'll be stopped. On the other hand, if I didn't think that I could hit him with sufficient precision (e.g. too much movement of his head, too much shaking of my hands), then I wouldn't take the shot.

As threegun has stated very well on more than one occasion here, the armed citizen who intervenes may well precipitate a tragedy that would not have happened but for his intervention.

It's hard to say which option gives one the greatest odds of survival overall because we'd have to judge how likely the perp is to senselessly kill the cashier.

So--what would make it a good idea for a person other than a sworn officer, who is not indemnified by the community, to try to draw and shoot someone because he may shoot someone else?

Legal considerations aside, what makes it a good idea for a police officer to escalate the situation? Does that improve the odds of the cashier's survival over surreptitiously waiting for the robbery to end first?

Not much. Perhaps, if the perp and his M.O. resemble that of someone who has in fact been shooting his victims in the area; perhaps, if the shot is clear and close; the backstop is good; the perp's attention is drawn from the citizen who is the would-be hero; and the perp's gun is pointed in a safe direction... maybe, then....

Right, I'd have to be there to have any idea whether it would be worthwhile and whether I have the ability to make the shot. It's hard to go into the exquisite level of detail needed on a forum. I will say that for me it's an option I would not rule out ahead of time, and that it is actually preferred if (and only if) the situation calls for it.

But then, no one has mentioned the likelihood that the perp has an armed accomplice standing behind you for just such an eventuality.

Like the perp, my situational awareness could let me down, that's true. But then I'd be in trouble regardless of whether I take the shot.

I'm not going to tell people to shoot or not shoot; the circumstances will dictate the right action to take. I will say that maybe if people think there is the possibility it "could happen to them", that they train for it. Maybe tie helium balloons to strings on a breezy day and try to hit them with regularity, after drinking a triple latte and doing some jumping jacks.I'm not trying to be a smart ass, or down play anyone's abilities, but that would approximate the average persons response to being thrust into a deadly force situation. If the BG isn't hit by the first round and incapacitated, collateral damage is a strong possibility.

That's sort of how I train, actually--usually with Airsoft for safety and so that I can train against others, but I'll get paper targets to swing and bounce around (not hard to do) at the shooting range, as well (your balloon idea sounds like fun, though). If I had to, at this point I could almost certainly hit a slightly bobbing head-sized target from 5 yards out by point-shooting (indexing with the gun but not using the sights). Of course, I'd want more precision and certainty in a real scenario, so I'd use the sights and would only shoot as long as the target isn't moving too much, otherwise I'd forget about it due to excessive risk. The trick is knowing what one can and cannot do, and the only way to find out is to try all kinds of things ahead of time.

 

[Microgunner]

Keep in mind that the whole premise of this scenario is that you are a witness, not an active participant.

Well, I view this a little differently. Anytime someone would walk into a room that I occupy, brandish a firearm and start threatening to kill people I believe that I'm an active part of this dynamic situation by default. To believe otherwise would be foolish.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Manco: Well, I wouldn't be aiming at his butt.

Right--you will not be aiming at any part of him. You aren't at the range.

If I have a good shot opportunity at his brain, then he'll go down instantaneously--he won't even feel a thing.

Methinks you should invest in some high quality defensive pistol shooting training, and perhaps some interactive training with simunitions.

One is trained to draw fast and to shoot instantly and rapidly at COM. There's a reason for that. Targets in real confrontations do not stand still--they move and shoot back. The head is just much too difficult to hit with confidence.

Perhaps you should also look at some accounts of actual police gunfights (such as the one we had here in town yesterday, where one perp was hit in the hand and in the ankle and in the buttocks, and the other in the head twice, and in the wrist. Both have been released from the hospital, by the way).

Don't jump to any conclusions about police skills and training. All of the officers I've shot with are good. One hit a torso sized steal plate at fifty yards strong hand, weak hand, and strong hand upside down. That was just for fun; real tactical situations don't involve that kind of thing.

Your "good shot opportunity at his brain" is the stuff of pure fantasy. Seriously, do you think he will stand still for you?

On the other hand, if I didn't think that I could hit him with sufficient precision (e.g. too much movement of his head, too much shaking of my hands), then I wouldn't take the shot.

Now that's some good thinking. And that is most likely the outcome.

Of course, if you do not have sufficient training to understand the likelihood that that head will move just as you fire, or that the CNS is a small portion of the head, you may make a very poor decision through overconfidence.

It's hard to say which option [intervene or not] gives one the greatest odds of survival overall because we'd have to judge how likely the perp is to senselessly kill the cashier.

Yes we would, but it isn't that hard. If the guy orders the cashier into the back room, the game is on. But if he does not, the general likelihood that he will shoot is generally less than 25%, and that means that the likelihood that he will kill is around 2-3%.

But if you intervene, the likelihood that he will shoot really, really skyrockets.

Legal considerations aside, what makes it a good idea for a police officer to escalate the situation? Does that improve the odds of the cashier's survival over surreptitiously waiting for the robbery to end first?

Nothing, but the officer is sworn to perform a duty, and he or she is trained. He or she will not shoot unless he or she has to and can do so, and if things go south and they followed procedure properly the mess is not on their nickel.

But then I'd be in trouble [with the perp's accomplice] regardless of whether I take the shot.

How so? If he has remained in the background, your producing a weapon will alert him and he will surely shoot you.

Of course, I'd want more precision and certainty in a real scenario,...

Get some real training. Precision and certainty is for snipers.

Happens that I know a couple of former police snipers. They used very good scoped rifles, and they had spotters and someone to tell them whether to shoot.

 

[MP9]

for those who say they will hit the head, butt, ankle or whatever... do you have any very good training? or just watch youtube and shoot straight at the range? seriously....

or is that just the super rambo boy or "super I"....

I am no an expert shooting or LEO...but even for a LEO that would be hard, unless you already know how you are going to react and control the stress...

but as far as I know the people I know who teach SD or are expert in SD, the last thing they want to do is to shoot..

the more one read the law, the less one want to get involved in that situation, EVEN if you are in your right...

to shoot straight at the range with the target in front is one thing but to shoot behind cover in a not very comfortable way is not that easy... and even worst if the target is moving...or shooting at you....

but if you are an expert and you have a lot of training, so excuse me and good luck.. and please let us know where you got that training, for sure it would be very useful for us..

or are you a master shooting USPSA/IDPA?

 

[Eagle Eye]

Ok. I have been following this with great interest. Now let me change it up a bit. Let's put you behind the counter. Or let's put you in an alley somewhere. A BG approaches you with a gun pointed at you and demands your wallet. Are you going to hand it to him or are you going to say something like "sure, just relax. No reason for anyone to get hurt." Then you say "my wallet is right here." as you reach behind towards your pocket. Do you pull your 45 and shoot him (as you make an evasive move) or do you pull your wallet and no longer have an excuse to reach for your back pocket. Now the BG either will plan to leave with your wallet, but may first shoot the witness (you). And if you again reach for your back pocket because he is really going squirley, (no longer under the guise or reaching for your wallet) he will likely pull the trigger for sure.

As I see it, you are now trying to figure his intention. Now the law in KS says if he is pointing the gun at you (even if it is a toy and looks real), that you have reason to fear for your life and you are justified in using your weapon for self defense.

And you aren't likely to trade pointed guns and say "freeze." You had better shoot first.

In the case of the store clerk being the victim, in my opinion, you need to quietly assess the situation and decide whether to protect him. I doubt your decision will be perfect. And I imagine it will be impossible for us to predict all situations and outcomes here. It will be easy to Monday morning quarterback, however.

This whole thread is full of intrique and is thought provoking. We need to be alert, on our toes and make the best possible decisions when called to act. We won't be perfect. And we might need help to live with the outcome. But we will have done what we thought was best at the time.

Pray that it was -- that you will not be tried for murder or sued for deadly assault on the BG. That is all part of the responsibility of CC. If you do not want the responsibility, quit the game.

Old story: In Vietnam, we did not always recognize the enemy. We were not perfect in all of our decisions, but were forced to live with the outcome. Sometimes the enemy was a mother or a child. Sometimes we were right. Sometimes we were dead wrong. USMC, 1st MAW, 3rdMarDiv, KheSanh, DongHa, PhuBai, '68-69. Life is not always easy. Be responsible and work with the information you have. Live with your decisions.