You have got to really plan ahead...Before you draw! Right?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My hand to hand instructors have a saying for knowing when a situation calls for violence. Just put "so then I stabbed him in the neck" after it and see if it sounds reasonable (or of course "so then I shot him in the face" works also).

A guy takes my parking space and starts screaming at me...so then I stabbed him in the neck. Some drunk shoved me, so then I stabbed him in the neck. A guy in a mask blows the cashier's head off right in front of me, so then I stabbed him in the neck.
 
...I decided to quit patronizing dollar stores. I would prefer not to put myself in a position where I might shoot someone. I'm not saying I would draw but depending on the circumstances I might. I'd prefer not to be there instead.

So here we see where having a concealed handgun has actually constricted someone's freedom.
 
So here we see where having a concealed handgun has actually constricted someone's freedom.
Not at all. He merely applied the "three S rule"; avoiding Stupid people (The robbers) in Stupid places (places that were proven to be robbed in his area) doing stupid things. Do you walk in the saltier areas of Dallas late at night? (Been so long since I lived there, maybe there are even 'salty' areas of Plano or Frisco...)
 
Everyone should develop and commit to memory their own personal "rules of engagement" (ROE).

Under what circumstances are you willing to resort to the use of deadly force? Under what circumstances are you willing to be a victim of crime without fighting back? Are you willing to shoot to protect property (legal in some places, but illegal in most)?

If you haven't thought about these things then you probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon.
 
So here we see where having a concealed handgun has actually constricted someone's freedom.

The concealed handgun hasn't restricted my freedom. If I knew a place was likely to be robbed I would probably avoid it if I were unarmed also. When I was young I went all kinds of places I shouldn't have & did a lot of things I shouldn't have & made it through mostly unscathed. That doesn't mean I should put myself in harms way now though. If I needed to I might still go in one of them but not if it is near closing time as that is when they have been hitting them at closing time right before they empty the cash registers.
 
The way I see it, my gun is to protect life and limb, no more no less. With the political atmosphere today, the establishment would vilify you for shooting someone who has not yet shot anyone, it would crucify you if you shoot a bystander by mistake and it would prosecute you if you shoot a perp with a toy gun. Worth it?
 
Corporate executives don't provide security for their employees at store level because it costs money. Don't be stupid enough to provide free security service for them.

Stores are insured. Most robbers want money, not drama or violence. JMHO, but if nobody was going to get hurt to begin with, you shooting a
guy isn't going to meet with the investigating officer's approval. Consider a scenario where three people, yourself included, wind up shot, VS
one, or none. Many of us are too old to be the A-Team.
 
The way I see it, my gun is to protect life and limb, no more no less.
Good thinking!
ith the political atmosphere today, the establishment would vilify you for shooting someone who has not yet shot anyone,
No.
it would crucify you if you shoot a bystander by mistake
That would be bad.
it would prosecute you if you shoot a perp with a toy gun.
No.
....if nobody was going to get hurt to begin with, you shooting a
guy isn't going to meet with the investigating officer's approval.
How would you tell?
 
The way I see it, my gun is to protect life and limb, no more no less. With the political atmosphere today, the establishment would vilify you for shooting someone who has not yet shot anyone, it would crucify you if you shoot a bystander by mistake and it would prosecute you if you shoot a perp with a toy gun. Worth it?

Yikes, where do you live? What you describe wasn’t even true in Massachusetts during the last administration.
 
The way I see it, my gun is to protect life and limb, no more no less. With the political atmosphere today, the establishment would vilify you for shooting someone who has not yet shot anyone, it would crucify you if you shoot a bystander by mistake and it would prosecute you if you shoot a perp with a toy gun. Worth it?
The question is, are you a good enough behavioral scientist to tell the difference when a robber just wants the money and when he wants to "kill to see what it feels like" or because "the voices told me to do it" or myrad other reasons to kill; and are you going to bet your life on it?
 
But, my second after thought was, "Wouldn't' it be better just to let the bad guy go in this case and let the police do their job, that is, if nobody, including myself were threatened with imminent bodily harm?" (of course having a gun pointed at you might be consider an immediate threat)

Tell me, since you are doing these statistics, just what number of armed robberies involve nobody being threatened with imminent bodily harm? Isn't that how the robbery is accomplished...by forcing compliance from a victim via the threat of harm?

The question is, are you a good enough behavioral scientist to tell the difference when a robber just wants the money and when he wants to "kill to see what it feels like" or because "the voices told me to do it" or myrad other reasons to kill; and are you going to bet your life on it?

This ^^^
 
The question is, are you a good enough behavioral scientist to tell the difference when a robber just wants the money and when he wants to "kill to see what it feels like" or because "the voices told me to do it" or myrad other reasons to kill; and are you going to bet your life on it?
I would venture to say that the absolute inability of anyone to confidently t make that determination in such a situation is precisely the reason that robbery is considered a crime against persons rather than a property crime.
 
Statistically the odds of using a gun in defense of oneself or others are infinitesimally small;
The odds of having to defend oneself on any one day are infinitesimally small.

The odds of having to defend oneself during any one year. one year are remote, or less.

But on an average basis, the odds that now will be violently attacked during one's lifetime are much higher. For a twelve year old, the odds of being attacked at least once during his or her remaining lifetime appocach one in two--again, on an average basis.

But, my second after thought was, "Wouldn't' it be better just to let the bad guy go in this case and let the police do their job, that is, if nobody, including myself were threatened with imminent bodily harm?" (of course having a gun pointed at you might be consider an immediate threat)
As DNS has pointed out, robbery, by definition, involves a threat of imminent bodily harm.

(of course having a gun pointed at you might be consider an immediate threat)
Ya think? It would constitute a very real, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
 
OP was talking about THE STORE being robbed, not the patrons of the store. I've watched dozens of videos on YouTube of armed robberies and none showed the robber attempting to rob the customers but rather the store, even if I was asked to give up my wallet that's what I would do, it's just a wallet. In many of these videos, shootouts usually begin with John Q Public drawing on the robber, some of the videos show same shooting at the robber as he is leaving. This is the scenario I was addressing. Body language of the robber, who many times has his BACK to the patrons means for the most part that he's getting cash and leaving, neither the post or my reply was responding to some other WHAT-IF scenario.
What if he turns his gun on the patrons? What if he and his partner start herding customers to the cooler? What if he is mad as heck and and making threatening gestures and talk in general? These are certainly different scenarios that I wasn't addressing.
Certainly there are Good Samaritan laws in place but once again, you will have to prove that you were in fear of your life. Either the DA or the Defense will grill you extensively, what if video evidence proves he had his back to you the whole time and wasn't paying you the slightest attention? If you have never faced a police interrogation or prosecuted on the witness stand I would advise not to be hasty to get involved. If you can't read body language or if you have no law enforcement background and you aren't the stores security why put yourself in the position that George Zimmerman did?
Having said that, I always take into account that the store I'm in will be robbed and this brings me to my mindset. I'm no longer paid to protect people and when I was, only another LEO understands the tsunami of paperwork, testimonies, criticism, vilification and second guessing that goes on long after, and I mean long after the incident. This is the real world. What if race becomes an issue and Rev. Al and Rev. Jessie get involved? Now this issue isn't going away. What if the perp looks 20 but is really 15? What if his parents are high rollers like in the Mike Nyfong case (not that he was right and I'm glad he was fired). This is a Pandora box and the media and all the self righteous warriors are going to start digging up as much dirt on you as they can all the way to making it up, allegations are enough today.
What if your shooting was off or is spun to make you look like Zimmerman, a racist blood thirsty, wannabe cop?
So my mindset is simple which is why I also carry simple tools, a J frame in my front pocket which means I am concealed and have an advantage plus drawing from the pocket can seem innocent as if I was pulling out a wallet. It also means my hand can be ready to draw but I don't have to and if wrong I can't be accused of brandishing because my hand never left my pocket. The distances we are talking about is more a point-to-shoot scenario and not a take a nice slow aimed shot with your brand new $150 sights, in fact most of these shootings occur under tremendous stress, tunnel vision (which means peripheral eyesight gets blurred and even the rear site disappears. Ever wonder why in many shootings cops expend so many rounds? It has to do with blurred sight coupled with adrenaline that somehow makes intricate dexterity difficult, it muffles your hearing, your breathing is labored, your heart is pumping, and it disconnects you from everything but the task at hand which is why many cops are surprised that they fired a whole magazine when they testify that they only shot once or twice.
My J frame is for IF the scenario goes from robbery to homicide and usually this means someone already got shot, that's my clearest proof and my get-out-of-jail-free card. Sounds callous, welcome to the real world.
 
Last edited:
The question is, are you a good enough behavioral scientist to tell the difference when a robber just wants the money and when he wants to "kill to see what it feels like" or because "the voices told me to do it" or myrad other reasons to kill; and are yougoing to bet your life on it?

This is certainly a compelling point, but the truth is that, yes, we actually are pretty good at reading people. It's the social tool that we learn probably earliest, even before language. Not all us learn it perfectly well but all of us (outside of those on the autistic spectrum of course) do learn it to some degree.

It is part of situational awareness. It is part of deciding exactly how to respond to any situation whether there's a gun, or a knife, or fists or any kind of threat.

That is not to say that because you think you can read people you will not have to shoot. It is more to recognize that whether or not you should shoot is not something that you can know until that moment right there with that specific set of circumstances and actions unfolding before you.

As one of our members has in his sig line, sometimes you run. Sometimes you fight. Sometimes you don't do anything.

A gun is only one tool in the toolbox. The most important one is your brain in your social skills. Deciding to shoot could be the best decision or it could be the worst decision.
 
OP was talking about THE STORE being robbed, not the patrons of the store.
A store cannot be robbed--by definition.

A robbery committed anywhere is a crime against persons, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether the crime, as it has unfolded as of a particular point in time, may seem to have been directed against one person or against another. The crime involves an imminent threat against all persons present.

Body language of the robber, who many times has his BACK to the patrons means for the most part that he's getting cash and leaving, neither the post or my reply was responding to some other WHAT-IF scenario.
"For the most part" is by no means the only rational determinant.

If you can't read body language or if you have no law enforcement background.
Two things:

Trying to read body languages and other sighs might well help one decide what to do, but it is impossible for anyone to know the intent of someone else, and the commission of a robbery bey a person with a gun certainly provides alll of the elements--ability, opportunity, and jeopardy--to justify the lawful use of deadly force.

Second, a citizen will not be faulted if he does not intervene--but he may be shot, whether he tries to intervene or not.

It's a judgment call.

Certainly there are Good Samaritan laws in place but once again, you will have to prove that you were in fear of your life.
No.

It also means my hand can be ready to draw but I don't have to and if wrong I can't be accused of brandishing because my hand never left my pocket.
Whether one should draw is certainly open for discussion, and it might not prudent at all depending upon the circumstances, but I seriously doubt that anyone who draws a firearm during an armed robbery will ever be accused of "brandishing".

My J frame is for IF the scenario goes from robbery to homicide and usually this means someone already got shot, that's my clearest proof
Might it not be too late for you then?
 
Last edited:
The what-if discussion is endless. A jury of your so called peers will break them all down in a warm comfy room with tea and cake. I do my best to avoid going to the convenience store after dark in my very safe small city but armed robberies do happen, as do carjackings. Our first police officer was murdered a little over a year ago by a career criminal at night on a traffic stop. The first in 50 years. It was tragic but most of our crime is property and domestics. It could happen, but of all the armed robberies this past year, all were committed at convenience stores or fast food places and none of the patrons were robbed and no one was shot.
Next to our city of 100K is a city of 600K and crime does overflow but is usually confined to drugs, property and domestics. In the bigger city they deal with murder and mayhem on a daily basis and I don't go there at night although at their convenience stores two were shootouts.
I personally believe that I can read a situation fairly well but that isn't always the case. I'll just have to take my chances and react instead of act.
 
I've been speaking mostly from the standpoint of justification.

That is by no means the only consideration. Were I in a store when a robbery occurred, and were I able to get out and away safely and unnoticed by the robber, that is precisely what I would do,

On one occasion it did not work out that way. I stupidly ignored the signs--the car parked next to the door pointed the wrong way with the engine running, with a nervous looking driver at the wheel looking at someone inside--and walked in, alert but unwise.

Once inside, I was in view of the obvious robber, who had not yet acted or produced a weapon but who was concentrating on the manager's cubicle with the cash box, which was directly behind me. Exiting would have taken me past the getaway driver.

I moved quickly to get a clear shot with a backstop. The robber noticed my movement, dropped the large drink--one--in his hand, and ran out to the car. They drove away quickly.

I did not have to draw.

Had I been more observant, I would have driven beyond the view of the man in the car and called 911.
 
....Certainly there are Good Samaritan laws in place ...
Why do people think Good Samaritan laws are relevant?

Good Samaritan laws:
A good samaritan in legal terms refers to someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. Usually, if a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured or ill person who is a stranger, the person giving the aid owes the stranger a duty of being reasonably careful....

Here is an overview of the Good Samaritan laws of various States. Most are very specific and explicitly apply to providing medical aid to someone who is injured or sick and requires immediate care in an emergency. A few are a bit more vague but still appear to address only medical emergencies. I am not aware of any example of such a law being applied to one person using violence in defense of another, and if someone can cite an example of such application of a Good Samaritan law I'll be both surprised and grateful.

In general, the use-of-force laws of every State provide in various terms that one can justify the use of force in defense of an innocent third party if that third party would himself be able to justify using such force in his own defense. In any case the standards that will need to be met to justify a use of force in defense of another will be found in a State's body of use-of-force law.
 
You made me look it up. Exactly what the definition for many states that talk about medical or non-medical aid is unclear to me but many states write this in their Good Samaritan laws so I'm not sure how to read this. Some states talk specifically about medical aid and some use other terms including medical and non-medical aid.
 
You made me look it up. Exactly what the definition for many states that talk about medical or non-medical aid is unclear to me but many states write this in their Good Samaritan laws so I'm not sure how to read this. Some states talk specifically about medical aid and some use other terms including medical and non-medical aid.

Yes, I made you look it up. That's what people are supposed to do before deciding what the law is. That's how lawyers do things, and I looked things up before I posted.

And what the statutes mean and how they apply are unclear to you in part because you don't have the necessary foundational understanding of how these things work. They're also unclear in part because you haven't done any further research to better understand the history of Good Samaritan laws, and why they were adopted. They're also unclear to you in part because you haven't done any research into the case law to see how courts interpret and apply these laws.

But all of that is largely beside the point. The real point is that Good Samaritan laws really have nothing to do with the use of force in defense of others. The law does excuse the use of force in defense of others under certain circumstances -- in general the same circumstance that would excuse the use of force in defense of oneself. Similar rules apply, and similar criteria must be met, both to justify the use of force in defense of oneself and to justify the use of force in defense of others. And again, Good Samaritan laws are irrelevant.

So we're done with Good Samaritan laws, and any further off-topic posts will disappear.
 
I've had a gun pulled on me a few times. I was able to avoid being shot while not handing over my wallet. I've had someone attempt to carjack me 2 times and 2 guys attempt to rob me at knife point.The only time I was really concerned was the 2 guys with the knife. They looked unstable and hopped up on crack it appeared. I got cut that time. It's always a big chance of bad things happening when not complying. If I had my family with me I would have handed my money over. I routinely carry large-ish sums of money on me. If I'm by myself I'm not handing it over.

The car jacking attempts were pretty funny. I had a turbo charged sports car. It did not go well for them.Lol
 
Just bc you comply doesn't ensure your safety. I personally knew a guy that got robbed. He done as told, handed his money over, guy told him he was gonna kill him anyway. He begged for his life. Guy shot him 3 times. He told his story to paramedic and cops moments before he died.
 
There are a lot of what if situations that can happen and you can prepare for a million of them but it is the one million and one that will get you. The reality of the situation is that just because you have a license to carry does not mean that now you can be the good samaritan . Having a license does not grant you an extended obligation to do the job of a law enforcement officer. I applaud those that do but most of the time a situation will escalate from outside help especially from those without training that could end up in innocent lives being killed . Also just because you are getting your but whipped or your face beaten by a mad person, that in itself does not warrant a lethal response from you because you happen to have a gun. Just some things to consider would be some formal training in hand to hand combat and some professional CQB training. Heck I spend 21 years in the Army and I still take CQB training every 3 years. But that is just me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top