what would you do in a stick up situation?

Interesting. So stealing money from bad people is OK? Or, is it only OK if you're using it to feed your family? I wonder if the hypothetical "BG" was just trying to feed his family.
Me? I wouldn't touch anything off a scumbag robber, but wouldn't feel the least bit offended if they hang the bastard's head on a pike in the town square. I'm sick to death of those who would treat criminals as victims and who might insist on some sort of proportionality in their treatment. Someone sticks a gun in my or anyone else's face? Deserves the very worst the law can provide - and then some.

Oh, and by the way....I'm happy I live in a state that provides the very common-sense doctrine that it is legal to defend one's or others' property with deadly force.
 
You still don't see my point...

And its clear to me that never will.


You're right I don't. Taking something you didn't earn or purchase is stealing. Whether it's a gallon of gas or a pad of paper from the office or the money in a dead guys pocket. Wrong is wrong.


Me? I wouldn't touch anything off a scumbag robber, but wouldn't feel the least bit offended if they hang the bastard's head on a pike in the town square. I'm sick to death of those who would treat criminals as victims and who might insist on some sort of proportionality in their treatment. Someone sticks a gun in my or anyone else's face? Deserves the very worst the law can provide - and then some.

With that I can agree.
 
Hypothetical situation...

If you found a wrecked plane with $10,000,000 in a bag, about a ton of cocaine, and everybody on the plane was dead.

Would you turn the money in???

I wouldn't...but I'd darn sure leave the bag (No Country for Old Men)

I don't see anything wrong with turning "bad" money into "good".
 
Mr Armstrong:
Can you cite some kind of reference for those statements?

Yes I can and yes I have. Might want to do a search, save us all some time, trouble, etc.

Huh? What are you suggesting? Are you saying you DID cite the source of your assertion
(i.e., "The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying...If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit.)?

If so..I missed it somehow. Mea culpa.

On the other hand, if you did not provide a citation in this thread, are you suggesting I should do a forum-wide search or an internet-wide search of all possible variations on the theme in order to try and ascertain your source? How would would that be easier (and as accurate) as simply asking you to cite your source when making definitive statements that are presented as fact rather than opinion?
 
Last edited:
Are we discussing armed assault or are we discussing robbery? The two are very different.

I was thinking of armed robbery as an armed assault, although that is probably not a correct legal definition.



Robbery and Armed/Aggravated Robbery aren't the same thing. UCR lumps both types of Robbery together and we can assume that Armed/Aggravated Robberies are probably not the majority. We can also assume that most Robberies that are committed without the use of a weapon aren't likely to end up in a Murder. So that takes out a huge part of that 401,326.

988 of them resulted in a murder... But how many of them resulted in an injury to the victim? Just because it didn't result in a Murder doesn't mean the victim wasn't hurt. That makes the 988 number MUCH higher as well.

Peetzakiller's question had to do with whether or not MOST robberies resulted in murder. The data cited by Mr Armstong seems to definitively answer that question.

The OP's question (if I understand correctly) centered on whether or not it is tactically sound to resist an armed robbery with force, particularly if the firearm is actually in contact with the victim.

To answer the OP's question, it may be reasonable to suggest we disregard the outcomes of incidents in which the robber was not armed with a firearm.

It is also reasonable to consider robberies that resulted in injuries, rather than limit our consideration to those incidents that resulted in murder.

Now the question becomes: How many ARMED robberies result in injury or death to the victim?

I think it is safe to say that MOST robberies don't end in murder - but a MUCH higher proportion of armed robberies result in injury or death.

Having said that, if I'm being robbed, regardless of whether I see a weapon or not, I'm no longer inclined to wait to find out if this particular incident will result in injury or death.

I say "no longer inclined" because the only time I was robbed at gun-point (many years ago), I was unarmed and froze and gave it up (all $3). In this incident, the firearm was not in contact with my body. The robbers were in a car and had stopped me in a cross-walk (on a crowded street in broad daylight).

Although I didn't get shot, in retrospect I think I would have been smarter to take evasive action. Had I been armed, I think evasive action coupled with defensive ability would have presented better odds for avoiding injury or death than "stand and deliver".

In a recent news story (which I can't cite or link because I can't remember where I saw it) - a man was stuck up at gun-point at a gas station. The gun was in contact with his head and the BG stated that he was going to kill him. The victim was able to sweep the gun aside while drawing and firing his own, thus ending the threat and saving his life. My point for this unsubstantiated story is that if a BG has a gun to MY head, my assumption is that I WILL die, and have little to loose by taking action rather than surrendering.

That, of course, is a very personal decision that must be made based on the circumstances and gut sense.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical situation...


If you found a dead guy on the street with $100 dollars in one hand and a baggie of crack in the other, would you take the money?

I wouldn't. I'd call the police.


$100 or $10,000,000, stealing is stealing.
 
Last edited:
I'm with those that say,be very wary and aware of your surroundings at all times out in public.
+1, and I probably look very suspicious to most people, as I am constantly watching for anything that doesn't look quite right. I have come out of what I would otherwise call harmful situations, simply by seeing it beforehand and diffusing it before it started, sometimes with a look, sometimes by hand movement or something else entirely. Probably most of us have, even if we didn't know it.

If somebody truly got the drop on me, I can't say for sure what I'd do, it would depend on a whole lot of circumstances and variables.
 
A robber, armed or not, is still engaging in a robbery. Again, an armed assault is different than a robbery.

David, that's not the point. Your life may depend on being able to determine if the robber is armed, and what he's armed with.

I'm not sure how an armed assault could be different from a robbery when both are happening at the same time. I doubt that you are either.

"Hey man, gi'mme ten bucks" may be the start of a robbery, armed or not, or it may be an act of intimidation that, in the eyes of the law, stops just short of a robbery.
 
Last edited:
1)How fast do you think you are? Unless you have YEARS of training (and not 2 or 3 "years") you have virtually NO chance.

2)What makes you think the BG is going to be in contact range? Sure if the gun is poking you in the back then you might have stellar odds, like 1 in a million. If he's 3 feet away, they go to about 0.

1) Pretty fast when I need to be. 13 years of on and off training... probably enough to total 4-5 years steady. I've ran this exact drill w/ a digital stopwatch. From my first movement to my trigger pull is 2.25 seconds, 3.5 with proper aiming. What's better than that is I have 6 years BTDT experience. Much of that in countries where the common practice is to let you hand over your valuables so they don't waste time looking for them, and then kill you so there's no witness. This is common practice in some places, not the exception.

2) The OP said the BG was in contact range. Because of my experiences, and my confidence in knowing how I react I feel that as soon as the BG enters my "dead zone" he has put the odds in my favor. Anyone who gets that close is probably not trained at all.

My response was just what I would do. I would advise others to practice such drills and find out what works for them and what doesn't. Get an airsoft pistol and a buddy. Tell him to pull the trigger as soon as you move. You'll find out just how you need to move to prevent getting shot.

Would I get shot if I tried this? Maybe. Would I get shot if I complied? Maybe. Is it worth fighting back? Abolutely! Why? I love my guns and I don't want them in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to clean them properly.
 
You still don't see my point...
And its clear to me that you never will.
I'm not sure I do either. I may get caught poaching game out of season, but I won't be the guy stealing purses at WalMart. So you think that your crime is better than somebody else's crime??
 
Last edited:
Huh? What are you suggesting? Are you saying you DID cite the source of your assertion
I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying this has been done several times in the not-so-distant past, and rather than going through it all again you can find the information by searching a little bit. This issue is starting to reach the level of "Which is better, 9mm or .45".
 
David, that's not the point.
Of course that is the point. If we are discussing robberies one does not mix them up with armed asssaults. They are two very different things.
I'm not sure how an armed assault could be different from a robbery when both are happening at the same time. I doubt that you are either.
I am quite sure that I know the difference. I would suggest that if one does not know the difference one should probably find out the difference before commenting, since there is obviously a problem in understanding the issue.
"Hey man, gi'mme ten bucks" may be the start of a robbery, armed or not, or it may be an act of intimidation that, in the eyes of the law, stops just short of a robbery.
Actually, if there is intimidation with that phrase, a robbery is in progress. Again, it is important to understand what words and concepts mean if one wishes to comment on them.
 
I am saying this has been done several times in the not-so-distant past, and rather than going through it all again you can find the information by searching a little bit.

Mr Armstrong:
When you say "...this has been done..." - what are you referring to? What "this" do you mean?

Please give me a clue where to start my search for "this". I am not being facetious here, I really would not know where to begin to search for a reference or citation for your declaration, "If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit."

I do not understand why you are so defensive about your comments, and refuse to either provide a source for your statement or own it as your personal opinion.

There is nothing wrong with sharing your personal opinion here - unless you characterize it as "fact" supported by empirical evidence gleaned from peer-reviewed studies.

Heck, 99.95% of what is written on forums is comprised of personal opinions (in my personal opinion).
 
Last edited:
Do what you need to do to save your life...

...not your wallet. Even if you are able to get him, it will end up costing you far more than what's in your wallet.

When I was in basic training, we were issued batons and posted at loading docks, etc. The Sergeant of the Guard was giving us our special orders, and one of the trainees asked what to do if confronted with a gun.

"Son," said the drill, "If he's got a gun, you help him load the [sic] truck!"

Your first course of action should be to be the best witness possible, get a license plate number, call the cops, etc. The system works pretty well in this country, if you give it a chance to work.

An earlier comment spoke about using lethal force to defend property. In this situation, you are defending your life, so self-defense is an option. If the robber is running away, and THEN you shoot him, well, you're on thinner ice...

You'd have to make some quick decisions in the situation described. You would probably be legally justified if you used lethal force. For moral and legal reasons, any sensible person will avoid that option except as a last resort.

If you draw and shoot against a man covering you with a gun, you have a surprisingly good chance, but it depends on many factors (not least of which is luck...) and you're betting with your life.

I'd look for my chance, I guess. I'd give up my wallet. I would not allow myself to be transported, because that drastically cuts the odds of survival.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you draw and shoot against a man covering you with a gun, you have a surprisingly good chance,

Really? It takes between .5 and 1 second for the average human to be aware of and react to a movement. Are you SURE you can disarm or incapacitate him in that brief instant? Can you draw and fire in that time? If you fail in the famous "sweep the gun" maneuver, he's gonna recover and kill you dead. If it's a revolver and cocked, you're dead anyway. He'll be able to pull the trigger before you can "sweep" completely and get out of the muzzle line. Try it with some buddies using squirt guns.

If I'm SURE I'm gonna die anyway, I'll try it. Until then, it's your world, fella. You ninjas can go for it.

I'm outta here!
 
There is nothing wrong with sharing your personal opinion here - unless you characterize it as "fact" supported by emperical evidence gleaned from peer-reviewed studies.

That is the issue and I suspect that ego comes into play at times. Even the "facts" that studies state have to be understood in context. That is why many say: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" or my personal favorite "Figures lie and liars figure".:)

Heck, 99.95% of what is written on forums is comprised of personal opinions

Some think their opinions are fact, based on their personal experience. They might be right...or dead wrong so it makes sense to check those ideas out with others and LISTEN to what they think. When you get to the point that you can't or wont' listen..look out.

I would not allow myself to be transported, because that drastically cuts the odds of survival

Don't know what the odds are and they don't matter, common sense tells us that if we get into the car with the BG he has more control over us and can take us somewhere quickly and far away where there are no witnesses. There are other indicators as well and I am not sure you need statistics to know them.
 
Are you SURE you can disarm or incapacitate him in that brief instant?...If I'm SURE I'm gonna die anyway, I'll try it.

How can you be SURE in either case? Doing nothing with a gun pointed at you is a BIG risk. So is doing something. You could die either way.

It comes down to your gut feeling about the particular circumstances in that moment. It's a high-stakes gamble either way. I think (although I can't be sure unless it happens to me) that I would rather gamble on gaining control of the situation, rather than allow the BG to decide if my time is up.
 
When you say "...this has been done..." - what are you referring to? What "this" do you mean?
Not sure why you are having trouble following the conversation. "This" is what you were talking about, read YOUR quote right above the statement. See, it says "Are you saying you DID cite the source of your assertion" which in turn refers back to YOUR statement "Can you cite some kind of reference for those statements?"
Please give me a clue where to start my search for "this".
Well, you can try doing a forum search for things like defensive shooting, robbery, and other key terms. Or you can do a full net search. Personally I'd suggest you start your search by reading a few dozen articles from academic journals regarding defensive gun use, supplement it by reading some of the better books on understanding robbers and criminals, go over about a decades worth of UCR and NCVS data, and read as many police reports as you can.
I do not understand why you are so defensive about your comments, and refuse to either provide a source for your statement or own it as your personal opinion.
I do not understand why somebody wants to suggest that statements are wrong, or that they are incorrect, or want to argue about them, when they have not done basic research on the topic.
There is nothing wrong with sharing your personal opinion here - unless you characterize it as "fact" supported by empirical evidence gleaned from peer-reviewed studies.
When I present my opinion I try very hard to identify it as an opinion. I also try very hard to present facts as the facts, and to the best of my knowledge I have never presented my opinion as a fact in this or any other forum.
 
Well, you can try doing a forum search for things like defensive shooting, robbery, and other key terms. Or you can do a full net search. Personally I'd suggest you start your search by reading a few dozen articles from academic journals regarding defensive gun use, supplement it by reading some of the better books on understanding robbers and criminals, go over about a decades worth of UCR and NCVS data, and read as many police reports as you can.

I do not understand why somebody wants to suggest that statements are wrong, or that they are incorrect, or want to argue about them, when they have not done basic research on the topic.


I've done quite a lot of reading and research, probably much of the same sources as you. Regardless, I STILL don't know if the following statements were presented as fact or opinion. And if they were presented as facts - what evidence are they based on? If you don't remember where you read it, why not say so?

"If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit."

"The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying."

Giving us a laundry list of all the reading you have done - and suggesting we attempt to read everything on your list before disagreeing with your statements - is kind of ridiculous.

I don't agree with the statements quoted above. I think ithey may even be dangerous ideas. I've stated my disagreement and cited sources that discount the veracity of your statements. You have yet to provide a credible source for the statements. Why not? Instead you suggest I do more research before disagreeing with you.
 
Last edited:
Giving us a laundry list of all the reading you have done - and suggesting we attempt to read everything on your list before disagreeing with your statements - is kind of ridiculous.
Expecting somebody to go back over everything they have read for decades to find a particular citation is kind of ridiculous. And suggesting one become familiar with a topic before commenting on it is quite sensible, IMO. If you don't agree with what I have posted as a fact fine, there might be conflicting data out there. Feel free to post it and give a citiation if you wish. If you really think it is less likely that someone will shoot at you if you are shooting at them than if you are not shooting at them, fine. Feel free to give a cite if you want. If you have something that says non-compliance is not the most common reason for violence to occur at an armed robbery, fine, tell us what is most common. Feel free to give a cite if you want. I've played this game before, several times (thus the "do a search") and I've yet to find any evidence of people actually going and looking up the information or even considering it. Usually what happens is it turns into an argument over why the info is wrong or why it shouldn't be believed instead of a discusssion of the issue itself.
I don't agree with the statements quoted above. I think ithey may even be dangerous ideas.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I prefer to discuss issues in a factual and scientific basis where possible.
I've stated my disagreement and cited sources that discount the veracity of your statements.
And I can cite sources that discount the veracity of the statements of the source you cited. See Cook and Ludwig, 1997, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownershhip and Use of Firearms." So where does that leave us?
 
Back
Top