An unsettling experience my friend had recently

Status
Not open for further replies.
cmdc said:
The point of this long-winded narrative is this: My friend carries a Kimber Solo with seven rounds, and a spare six round magazine, but he realized that if he had gotten cornered by these two strangers and had to defend himself, he would have been seriously outgunned if the other guys were each armed. He has decided to upgrade his firepower henceforth by carrying a Xdm 3.8 9mm with extra 19 round magazine in his vehicle.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

That's certainly a valid point. However, I believe that a far more important point to bring up is that your friend and his wife had adequate situational awareness of their surroundings, kept their cool, and took appropriate action to mitigate the possibility of having to resort to a potential deadly force scenario.

When considering effective self-defense of any kind, tactics is by far more important than equipment. This means if you take steps to improve your tactics, you'll have a far greater effect on your defensive posture than by improving your equipment.

And by "tactics", I mean your ability to use your brain to take in the situation and devise a variety of effective means to actively avoid or minimize the risk of a violent encounter, with deadly force being an option if this is not possible.


Now, none of this is to say that changing/upgrading equipment isn't necessary or that it's a bad thing. But the equipment is only a part of the whole picture.


Your friend did extremely well with his tactics...and he should be reminded of this and not lose sight of its importance.

:)
 
Brings to mind the adage, "if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck." Regardless of the firearms, magazines, etc., with which the subject could defend himself, there was no chance to know whether he would be in a fight in which the odds were in his favor. If the followers were armed, he's on the wrong end of the numbers game. If not, then he's still outnumbered and in a very stressful situation. And the presence of his wife should not be overlooked since she is at risk of anything presenting a risk to him, regardless of who is armed. Here, the tactical choice was what he did, making the fight definitely unfair to the followers, whose true intentions were unknown but reasonably presumed not to be friendly. Say what you want about the conversation in the restaurant/bar, this is a country in which we are supposed to be able to enjoy the right of free speech. I don't think there's blame in having a discussion with friends in a public place, although some discretion is often useful. Hard to go through life with the goal of not offending or irritating anyone, ever, by what we say or do. Those who are determined to be offended will find a way. And we need to be vigilant for those clowns.
 
cmdc said:
To clarify, I wasn't there.

As to flashing wealth, I get what you're saying, but neither of us do that except to say that, yes, driving an expensive car I suppose could be construed to be 'flashing wealth.' The thing is that in the area where we are, there are LOTS of those types of cars, so we don't really stand out per se. At the restaurant where he was, most of the cars in the parking lot will be high-end luxury brands of various makes.

I will also add that I asked him what kind of cars those two were driving and he said one was a older Honda and one was an older Chevy he thinks.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I don't drive an expensive car, that is, I don't want to draw any attention. The other reason I don't drive a fancy car, I can't afford it, lol! Anyhow, sounds like your friend did every thing right. He could have sped off like Tom Cruise's character in Risky Business but then that might also end in a serious accident.
 
cmdc said:
Said friend was at a restaurant lounge with his wife, visiting with some friends. The conversation got around to politics, and of course everyone has an opinion. During this discussion, two strangers sitting nearby apparently disagreed with the general tone of the discussion and proceeded to chime in but my friend and his friends ignored them, and the two strangers left.

When my friend and his wife left the restaurant, the two strangers were hanging around in the parking lot and when my friend left in his car, the two strangers got in their respective cars and proceeded to follow them. My friend noticed, and made several arbitrary, abrupt turns with the two cars still following. At this point he told his wife to call 911, and he proceeded to return to the restaurant parking lot, where he was met by three sheriff's cars. The two cars following him, seeing him returning to the restaurant, left the area.

The point of this long-winded narrative is this: My friend carries a Kimber Solo with seven rounds, and a spare six round magazine, but he realized that if he had gotten cornered by these two strangers and had to defend himself, he would have been seriously outgunned if the other guys were each armed. He has decided to upgrade his firepower henceforth by carrying a Xdm 3.8 9mm with extra 19 round magazine in his vehicle.

This incident occurred in a good neighborhood with a low crime rate.
Click to expand...

I'd say your friend did the right thing regardless of what weapon he was carrying. I understand about wanting to be prepared but in a worse case scenario where you have to fight multiple, armed attackers who aren't phased about being shot at, you're probably screwed no matter what weapon you are packing.
 
I keep one Glock 33 rounder by my bed, and one in my car, along with the other normal capacity mags. I'm actually looking at downgrading my carry to a Glock 43 tho. Probably not really a downgrade considering I will be carrying a lot more often with a smaller gun.
 
I'd say your friend did the right thing regardless of what weapon he was carrying. I understand about wanting to be prepared but in a worse case scenario where you have to fight multiple, armed attackers who aren't phased about being shot at, you're probably screwed no matter what weapon you are packing.
Click to expand...

Mindset -> skill set -> tool set works for the other side as well. A dedicated attacker or group is less likely to give up when they start getting shot. Add in the possibility of drugs or alcohol, and you have the closest thing to seeing the Incredible Hulk in real life.
 
Serious question: How often do multiple attackers press an attack after the defender fires one or more shots? I'm sure it happens, but the usual story seems to be that they flee at the first bang.

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk
 
Posted by MidwestMatthew:
Serious question: How often do multiple attackers press an attack after the defender fires one or more shots?
Click to expand...
Who knows?

There is one example on the Lessons from the Street DVD. A man being robbed in his house accessed a firearm and shot an attacker. A second one, who was looking for valuables in another room, apparently assumed that his accomplice had shot the defender and walked right into gunfire.

I'm sure it happens, but the usual story seems to be that they flee at the first bang.
Click to expand...
"Usual story", or conventional wisdom based on conjecture?

For an attacker to decide to flee after the first shot, several circumstances would have to happen, all at once:
  • In the confusion of the attack, he would have to realize that the shot had been fired by the defender
  • He would have to decide in a split second that fleeing would give him a better chance of survival than pressing the attack and overcoming the defender
  • He would have to assume that the defender would not shoot a fleeing felon in the heat of the moment
  • He would have to have a reasonable means of escape other than the taking of the defender's car
 
Most bad guys featured on YouTube security camera footage seem to have no problem with that sequence - in fact it appears many of them comprehend the first and second points simultaneously and don't stick around for further consideration. Granted, an anecdotal perception from Internet videos is obviously a lot different than statistics, and the medium practically guarantees a tilt in that direction.

But then there's also the media, and I can't recall ever hearing a story, not involving gang violence, where the attackers stuck around after shots being fired by the attacked.

Again, this is still different than statistics, which is why I asked. But offhand, these are the reasons I *suspect* five shots is about three more than *most* defenders will ever need.

(But no, I'm not banking my own life on that.)

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk
 
MidwestMatthew said:
Serious question: How often do multiple attackers press an attack after the defender fires one or more shots? I'm sure it happens, but the usual story seems to be that they flee at the first bang.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? Based on what I have seen of actual defensive gun use, most attacks with groups are over after the first one gets shot/at. Does that mean myself, or anyone for that matter, will start carrying a single shot or a weapon with one round? Conventional wisdom states that encounters are diffused with one shot or even just the sight of a firearm so why bother carrying more ammo than one round?

That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Just like a .22LR round can be lethal, doesn't make it a good carry round for self defensive. Same idea with the number of rounds carried. As cliche as it sounds, no survivor of a gun fight has ever complained about having too much ammo.
 
Posted by MidwestMatthew
:...I can't recall ever hearing a story, not involving gang violence, where the attackers stuck around after shots being fired by the attacked.
Click to expand...
You need to read more, and talk to some law enforcement officers.

No one expects any crook to "stick around". But if the second one is moving toward you at around five meters per second, and if you happen to see him in time to react, you would not expect him to try to turn around and try to outrun bullets.

After all, his reason for being there is the first place is to help the other one(s), and that would include taking out defenders. That's his job.

It is a good idea to learn to recognize them. If a guy in the Quickshop is looking around furtively at customers rather than at things on the shelves, he may well be what is commonly referred to as a "tail gunner".

Nothing to do with gang violence.

But offhand, these are the reasons I *suspect* five shots is about three more than *most* defenders will ever need.
Click to expand...
Yet, most responsible trainers will advise firing three to five shots immediately and very rapidly at a charging assailant.

That's for the good reason that the likelihood of any one of them hitting anything critical in the assailant's body and effectively stopping him are so very low. It is a stochastic thing. One cannot aim at critical things hidden within the opaque moving body of an attacker. One cannot see where they are, and there's no time, and moving target are hard to hit anywhere. One can only hope for an effective, timely stop.

And if the defender is lucky enough to stop the first one and to not be overcome by a second before it is too late, he or she does not want to end up holding an empty gun.
 
For an attacker to decide to flee after the first shot, several circumstances would have to happen, all at once:•In the confusion of the attack, he would have to realize that the shot had been fired by the defender
•He would have to decide in a split second that fleeing would give him a better chance of survival than pressing the attack and overcoming the defender
•He would have to assume that the defender would not shoot a fleeing felon in the heat of the moment
•He would have to have a reasonable means of escape other than the taking of the defender's car
Click to expand...
And all this assumes the attacker is a RATIONAL individual -- whereas most violent criminals are irrational, and many are on drugs.
 
And all this assumes the attacker is a RATIONAL individual -- whereas most violent criminals are irrational, and many are on drugs.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The decisions are for the most part the same. They may or may not be rational.

There is, of course, another possibility for the irrational--getting oneself shot on purpose.
 
While my carry piece is a 7-shot Polish P-64, my car gun is a 9-shot Ruger P90. A bit old-school, but it gets the job done, and that big ugly .45 commands immediate attention.

Your friend was smart in that he took steps to verify pursuit and then responded appropriately. However, I'd have tried to arrange the meeting with police to be somewhere less obvious than where I came from because these guys needed to be caught.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
And all this assumes the attacker is a RATIONAL individual -- whereas most violent criminals are irrational, and many are on drugs.
Click to expand...
I recently realized that around here the not-rational (drugged and/or mentally disturbed) are a much greater danger than rational I-rob-houses-to-get-money criminals.
 
old lady new shooter said:
I recently realized that around here the not-rational (drugged and/or mentally disturbed) are a much greater danger than rational I-rob-houses-to-get-money criminals.
Click to expand...

Do you mean burglars? Robbery be definition requires the use or threat of force, I wouldn't think a person willing to rob you in your own home is anything less than a severe threat. Even rational folks may not be impressed by your gun if they are committed to their actions.
 
I don't think so. The decisions are for the most part the same. They may or may not be rational.
Click to expand...
That's my point.

These boards are full of what someone SUPPOSES a criminal will do -- for example, "If you open carry he'll shoot you first."

Why not look at actual EXPERIENCE, instead of using IMAGINATION? For example, for decades the NRA has run the "Armed Citizen" column in The American Rifleman -- and they frankly state (and experience verifies) that in the overwhelming majority of cases, when a firearm is used for self-defense, it isn't fired.

So in actual reality, in most cases the attacker flees BEFORE the first shot is fired.
 
Posted by Vern Humphrey:
These boards are full of what someone SUPPOSES a criminal will do -- for example, "If you open carry he'll shoot you first."
Click to expand...
Yep.

Why not look at actual EXPERIENCE, instead of using IMAGINATION?
Click to expand...
For a very good reason: there haven't been sufficient numbers of actual data points recorded to allow valid analysis.

For example, for decades the NRA has run the "Armed Citizen" column in The American Rifleman....
Click to expand...
Which many of us believe to be flawed, for a couple of reasons, one of which is that The Armed Citizen Provides us only with accounts of successful defenses. I've been reading it for decades, but it really hasn't told me much.

-- and they frankly state (and experience verifies) that in the overwhelming majority of cases, when a firearm is used for self-defense, it isn't fired.
Click to expand...
I haven't drawn that conclusion from The Armed Citizen, nor have I seen much in the way of verifiable data supporting that assertion, but there are many cases in which the mere display of a defensive firearm is sufficient. My own experience has been consistent with that.

But again, there are few data on which to rely. None of my several experiences made their way into crime statistics. Many people do not even report their experiences, though they should.

So in actual reality, in most cases the attacker flees BEFORE the first shot is fired.
Click to expand...
Usually, unless the attacker is trapped or cornered, or has a very pressing need, one would expect that--from rational people.

But the discussion has been about what happens after the shooting starts. There are very few data on that, when one excludes sworn officer encounters, but what few data do exist do not support the conventional wisdom that second and third attackers will necessarily comprehend what has happened when shots are fired and decide to, or even be able to, depart without pressing the attack.
 
Warp said:
Do you mean burglars? Robbery be definition requires the use or threat of force, I wouldn't think a person willing to rob you in your own home is anything less than a severe threat. Even rational folks may not be impressed by your gun if they are committed to their actions.
Click to expand...
I phrased it the way I imagine the criminals talk, I highly doubt a criminal uses "burgle" as a verb to describe his activities.

That said, my distinction between "rational" and "not-rational" was more along the lines of, a "rational" criminal selects an unoccupied house over an occupied one, a "rational" criminal selects an easy-to-get-into house over a more fortified one, a "rational" criminal selects a large fancy house over a modest one.
 
old lady new shooter said:
a "rational" criminal selects an unoccupied house over an occupied one
Click to expand...

Maybe. Depends on what they are seeking.

Also depends on their ability to assess the occupancy status at the time.

old lady new shooter said:
a "rational" criminal selects an easy-to-get-into house over a more fortified one
Click to expand...

Maybe. Depends on what those houses are known or suspected to contain. More fortified locations/targets (not just houses, generally speaking) may well have better loot. In fact, they probably do. And if they don't, they probably give the impression that they do.


old lady new shooter said:
a "rational" criminal selects a large fancy house over a modest one.
Click to expand...

Again, maybe, maybe not. They likely aren't after the home itself, but who and what is or may be inside. That isn't always necessarily related to the size or value of the home.

Lots and lots of variables, and a lot of different ways to view situatios.
 
Warp said:
Maybe. Depends on what they are seeking.

Also depends on their ability to assess the occupancy status at the time.



Maybe. Depends on what those houses are known or suspected to contain. More fortified locations/targets (not just houses, generally speaking) may well have better loot. In fact, they probably do. And if they don't, they probably give the impression that they do.




Again, maybe, maybe not. They likely aren't after the home itself, but who and what is or may be inside. That isn't always necessarily related to the size or value of the home.

Lots and lots of variables, and a lot of different ways to view situatios.
Click to expand...
I doubt the average street criminal plans very much ahead to decide on which house to target, by definition these people are not good at deferred gratification.

Usually police officers describe the average criminal as "lazy", i.e. if there is a house he can get into easily, he won't bother with one that is more difficult, that's why they suggest security doors, motion detector lights, etc. I am of course talking about cases where the criminal does not know the victim.

My original point was that after multiple recent incidents in the neighborhood I believe I have more to worry about from people who are not rational. For example, someone going (on foot BTW) from house to house trying the front doors, in broad daylight and regardless of whether there are any cars in the driveway. If he were rational and looking to steal he would at least skip the houses where someone appears to be home.
 
old lady new shooter said:
I doubt the average street criminal plans very much ahead to decide on which house to target, by definition these people are not good at deferred gratification.
Click to expand...

You underestimate. Not all criminals are dumb, not by a long shot.


old lady new shooter said:
Usually police officers describe the average criminal as "lazy", i.e. if there is a house he can get into easily, he won't bother with one that is more difficult, that's why they suggest security doors, motion detector lights, etc.
Click to expand...

For burglary of an unoccupied dwelling what criminals want is time. Time to make entry, time to search the home to find the valuables, time to defeat locked doors or residential security containers, time to get away before anybody is looking for them. And they don't want anybody to see them.

Good exterior lighting that allows one to see people anywhere on the property/near the building(s) and illuminates doors/windows...landscaping that doesn't provide good concealment for approaching or working on a door or window...secured/locked/reinforced windows and doors so that defeating them takes longer and/or makes more noise...cameras so that anonymity is more difficult...a monitored alarm that makes noise to attract attention and starts a process that eventually probably leads to a police response thus limiting their time on target...these things are good to have.

It isn't necessarily about criminals being lazy, it's about many of them being smart and avoiding things more likely to get them caught.



old lady new shooter said:
My original point was that after multiple recent incidents in the neighborhood I believe I have more to worry about from people who are not rational. For example, someone going (on foot BTW) from house to house trying the front doors, in broad daylight and regardless of whether there are any cars in the driveway. If he were rational and looking to steal he would at least skip the houses where someone appears to be home.
Click to expand...

I'll bet people's doors are unlocked a lot more often when they are home than when they are not.

Perhaps he was looking for something other than what you suspect? Or perhaps he was irrational, don't know.
 
You underestimate. Not all criminals are dumb, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
You could be right, but right here in Mountain View, Arkansas (population 2750) we had the following crimes:

A burglar broke into a hardware store. An employee coming in early scared him, and he ran out and hid in the woods. Police and deputies, combing the woods, found him hiding in a pond amongst the cattails. Did I mention it was February?

A druggie had a fine to pay. So he robbed the bank, while a confederate phoned in a bomb threat to the school. Not only did he appear on CCTV, but the teller was a neighbor and recognized him.

A druggie at his trial tried to escape by diving out the courtroom window. He was wearing handcuffs, and the courtroom is on the second floor.

These guys are not what I would call "college material.":rolleyes:
 
Warp:

First of all, I didn't say criminals are stupid, I said the average street criminal is not good at deferred gratification. Not the same thing.

Secondly, after previously posting that I was wrong about the points I said would make a house less attractive, you now cite all the same things I cited as, guess what, making a house less attractive.

Then, after writing that criminals don't want to be seen, you say people who are home are more likely to leave their doors unlocked. Well, if they're home, won't they see the BG? (And for the record, while I understand that in places like rural Wyoming people may leave their doors unlocked, here in Los Angeles County I can't imagine anyone doing that, except maybe while taking their trash cans to the curb or something.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
My friend was carjacked. (Intense)
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
patentmike
P
MtnCreek
  • Locked
Friend of a Friend was Shot
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Mike J
M
P
  • Locked
Options: SD on the Road
2
Replies
33
Views
913
lateapex31
L
U
  • Locked
friend was shot
Replies
8
Views
509
uspJ
U
1
  • Locked
You never know... (my story)
Replies
23
Views
2K
HOV
H
Back
Top