How to deal with store robbery as a 3rd party CCW

[Carbonator]

"Robbing a store is committing a crime. Just because he's using a gun to do it doesn't mean he's going to shoot someone, or even threatening to, it could be a fake gun or a toy, or unloaded. Oh, you didn't know that not all robbers use real guns, loaded with real bullets?" -rondog




That's a threat to shoot and kill someone, even if it's not a real gun.

 

[MariusDP51]

Can of worms...

 

[3:00hold]

I don't understand where many of those giving responses are coming from. The BG is pointing a gun at the clerk, right? So the clerk's life is in immediate danger, right?

Are you taking the BG at his word that 'this is a robbery'? Pretty trusting, especially when a twitch of his finger turns a robbery into a murder.

IMHO, you're not shooting to stop a robbery, you're shooting because the clerk's life is in immediate and grave danger.

If the situation was different, and the robber was not armed, that's different. I agree that you don't shoot to stop a robbery when no one's life is in danger.

#2 is not realistic - private citizens don't issue challenges. You either shoot or you don't.
#3 ok, but what if he shoots the clerk dead? You gonna jump in the time machine and prevent that? Wait, the BG wouldn't do that, it was a ROBBERY.

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't understand where many of those giving responses are coming from. The BG is pointing a gun at the clerk, right? So the clerk's life is in immediate danger, right?

Are you taking the BG at his word that 'this is a robbery'? Pretty trusting, especially when a twitch of his finger turns a robbery into a murder.

IMHO, you're not shooting to stop a robbery, you're shooting because the clerk's life is in immediate and grave danger.

Yes indeed.

Problem is, your shooting may cause the robber to shoot when he would not necessarily do so otherwise. That would likely seal the clerk's fate, and it might well result in others' being shot, including perhaps you.

And then there's the possibility of an accomplice watching you from behind...

And if you happen to hit an innocent person, you're hosed...

 

[shockwave]

Most of the crime videos I've seen involve the clerk on one side of the counter and the gunman or gunmen in arms reach of the clerk (to control the clerk, receive cash, and intimidate the clerk, or assault the clerk with a pistol whip, etc.). Sometimes on the opposite side of the counter as the clerk, and sometimes they jump the counter and get on the same side as the clerk.

This is true. In fact, in every video of a convenience store robbery I've seen, the perp is either at the counter (as seen here), leaning over the counter with the gun in the clerk's face or he goes over the counter to get on that side.
From a strategy and tactics perspective, a convenience store robber will be virtually by definition an amateur, risking a prison sentence for a few dollars. He'll be amped up on adrenaline, shouting, eager to flee out the door. Still, it seems to be rare for them to not wait until the store is empty of other customers, so it's highly unlikely that any of us would have a Travis Bickle opportunity. And, if we did, we'd probably be on camera. That complicates things because the DA would have to determine if the shooting was justified.

Here's a case where a customer already at the register drew and fired. That seems open and shut clear self defense, which is a bit different from sneaking up on the perp from behind, setting up, taking aim, etc.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I don't understand where many of those giving responses are coming from

3:00hold,

Do you have a permit to carry concealed in your state of residence, if your state issues one? If yes, what did your training, if any, cover in regard to the legalities of involving yourself in a situation like the one described here?

Have you ever had any formal training in the defensive use of firearms? Again, if so, what did your training have to say about the possible outcomes of getting involved in this sort of situation?

Do you have a criminal defense attorney on retainer, and have you discussed the possible ramifications of such situations with him or her? Are you a member of the Armed Citizens
Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/)? The US Concealed Carry Association (http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/)? Or any other body which tries to educate its members in regard to various aspects of concealed carry?

It could be that there are some very good reasons for the answers you're seeing here that you don't understand... and training, study, advice of legal counsel, experience and other such things could have a lot to do with it.

lpl

 

[Kleanbore]

It could be that there are some very good reasons for the answers you're seeing here that you don't understand... and training, study, advice of legal counsel, experience and other such things could have a lot to do with it.

Absolutely, and that is neither limited to 3:00hold nor to the situation discussed in this thread.

Lacking training, study, advice from qualified sources, and experience, many people base their thoughts on preconceived notions that they may have acquired from repeated exposure to fictional television and movies.

Some of those widely held notions might influence people's thoughts regarding the scenario at hand here, along with others; here are a few:

• The bad guy ceases to pose a danger instantly after having been shot
• The good guy knows where all the bad guys are (because the audience always does)
• The good guy's bullets never hit an innocent person
• The good guy is never mistaken for a bad guy and shot by a police officer, security guard, or armed citizen
• The good guy will be regarded as a good guy after the fact
• Investigations and lawsuits are never part of the show, and legal bills are never mentioned

 

[3:00hold]

Lee, I'm not sure how to paste differnent portions of your response, so I'll just go in order.

1 - Yes I have a permit, no I don't have any legal training. I assume the aftermath would be unpleasant even though I assume I would be judged to be in the right.

2 - No legal training. Defensive pistol training only. As above, I think the outcome would be unpleasant.

3 - No, no, no, no.

I primarily cary a gun to protect myself and family - mostly my family. However, unless my actions would compromise those primary objectives, I don't think I would stand there idly by while a criminal held at gunpoint and then shot an innocent man or woman. Since I have no way of reading someone's mind or seeing into the future, I could only assume that the BG pointing a gun at the clerk as described has every intention of shooting him.

The aftermath would suck, but where are we as a society if good people capable of affecting the outcome of a terrible situation stand by and allow it to happen? Maybe one of the organizations you cite suggests doing nothing in this case? Maybe you don't think it's our obligation as citizens to help each other if we're able? I disagree. Would you still hold your position if the situation was slightly different? What if a woman was in danger of being shot, what if she was being raped? Would you call 911 and watch it happen waiting for the police to arrive? We're all dead men Lee, might as well do the right thing every once in a while.

Based on my knowledge of the laws in PA, that would be a "good shoot" as the clerk's life was in immediate danger, and you can shoot to save someone else's life. I conceed there could be financial and civil implications.

 

[Kleanbore]

Based on my knowledge of the laws in PA, that would be a "good shoot" as the clerk's life was in immediate danger, and you can shoot to save someone else's life.

True in most places, but that isn't the issue. You've obviously missed the point. Apparently you not only do not understand "where many of those giving replies are coming from", you do not understand the replies. I do not intend for that to be taken personally.

Let me see if I can boil it down just a little more:

• The robber may shoot because of your "good shoot."
• The liability for your hitting anyone else could be astronomical; the legal defense alone could bankrupt most people.
• If you refrain from drawing, shooting, or otherwise interfering, the robber or robbers may well depart without injuring anyone.

Does that help at all?

 

[Fred Fuller]

3:00hold,

Where are you in PA? Anyplace close to http://www.westshoresportsmen.org/shootingskills.html? If so, you should visit, and participate in some of the activities there. You might find it helpful.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[leadcounsel]

rondog wrote

Jesus, read what I wrote. You have my quote right there. You don't have the right to intervene and shoot someone just because he's commiting a crime and you're licensed to carry. Robbing a store is committing a crime. Just because he's using a gun to do it doesn't mean he's going to shoot someone, or even threatening to, it could be a fake gun or a toy, or unloaded. Oh, you didn't know that not all robbers use real guns, loaded with real bullets?

If it's apparent that someone might get hurt or shot, that's another story. But just because Homie is holding up the Circle K with a gun is not a reason to whip yours out and start shooting. There's a fine line between a crime and a violent crime, you gotta make sure it's a good shoot or YOUR life is going to suffer.

Rondog, many states allow you to use lethal force in defense of another who faces imminent serious bodily harm. Having a gun pointed at that person would qualify.

 

[JoeSlomo]

In a situation as you describe, I would be fearful of sustaining serious bodily injury or death, and would immediately use deadly force to defend myself.

 

[ChaoSS]

Jesus, read what I wrote. You have my quote right there. You don't have the right to intervene and shoot someone just because he's commiting a crime and you're licensed to carry.

Look, it might not always be a good idea to kill someone just because he's committing a crime, but saying that you don't have the right just isn't always true. Let's take a look at the laws here in CA, a state that is often viewed as one that is not friendly to guns and violence:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
...

Again, it may not be a good idea, but depending on state law, you may have the legal right to shoot to kill just to stop a felony.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

lots of variables - myself I would get behind some cover if possible, take aim and announce to the robber to drop it, if he didn't comply then shoot com until he went down - which likely won't be more than twice w/a 9mm Makarov.

 

[ChaoSS]

Honestly, the answer to the question must depend on the skill of the person answering the question. In this scenario, there is a clear danger to the life of the clerk. If you feel confident in your ability to put a bullet into the BG's head and stop the threat with one shot, it's pretty clear that you have the legal right to take the shot and it's probably a good idea unless it is pretty clear that the guy will never take the shot.

If you aren't confident, if shooting may mean a gun battle with possible collateral damage, then you'd damn well better wait until it is clear that people will get shot if you don't start shooting yourself.

 

[JDoe]

• 1% (1 out of every 100) gun robberies results in murder.
  
• 31% (31 out of every 100) of all robberies result in some injury to victims.

When does a threat become enough of an immediate threat of grievous injury or death to justify stopping it?

References

Park Elliott Dietz, MD, MPH, PHD, Susan P. Baker, MPH:
Murder at Work. AJPH October 1987, Vol. 77, No. 10

Citing

Bureau of Justice Statistics: Criminal Victimization in the United States,
1983. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1985.

Cook PJ: Reducing injury and death rates in robbery. Policy Anal 1980;
6:21-45.

Zimring FE: Determinants of the death rate from robbery: A Detroit time
study. J Legal Stud 1977; 6:317-332.

 

[Fred Fuller]

which likely won't be more than twice w/a 9mm Makarov

Really?

lpl

 

[ChaoSS]

Shouldn't be more than once if you can take a head shot.

If you have reason to shoot someone who's back is to you, and you are confident enough with the guy you are carrying, what reason is there to not take the head shot?

 

[Seattleimport]

If you have reason to shoot someone who's back is to you, and you are confident enough with the guy you are carrying, what reason is there to not take the head shot?

Because it's *definitely* dangerous to start a gun fight. Versus *very probably not* dangerous to hide and let the robbery play out.

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheArmedCitizen#p/u/52/Oy0vl52GfIk

Three shooters in that scenario: robber, clerk, and concealed gun-packing cousin. How would the clerk and cousin react when you draw and start blasting? You'll likely find all three guns pointed your way.

Or this one, where an employee enters the scene from outside and starts shooting at every non-clerk that he sees holding a gun: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheArmedCitizen#p/u/53/ZFFTsrIOBnY

Too many what ifs. Too many things to go horribly wrong. And even if everything goes right--you blow the robber's brains out with one shot--your life is seriously negatively impacted, forever.

$200 of someone else's money is simply not worth it. Far too much to lose, for zero gain.

 

[rainbowbob]

...draw my weapon while hitting 911 on my cell phone if possible.

You have all disabled the feature that *BEEPS* when you dial your cell phones - haven't you? Nothin' says "Here I am - shoot me!" like a beeping cell phone.

That warning could be the difference between you being the hero, or you being the fellow prisoner.

Huh? Where is it legally required we "warn" a violent felon before taking action to prevent his violence? I haven't heard about this...please enlighten me.

 

[WardenWolf]

I have thought about this, and instinctively analyze my surroundings and make my decision before a problem arises. You have absolutely no duty to intervene, but if you can make a positive difference without undue risk, you should do so. Arizona state law regarding defense of others is, "Put yourself in their shoes." If you, in their position, would be justified in shooting to defend yourself, you may use your weapon to defend them.

If I walked in and there was a robber beating the clerk, I would probably intervene. He is involved in a physical struggle, which means he is not prepared to deal with another person. Disparity of force means the clerk would be justified in using a weapon, so you may do so to defend them. Whether I would pull the trigger is dependent on the situation at hand. If there was a gun or knife on the counter within reach or in the guy's hand, there's no question. As long as I can get a clear shot, he's going down. If his hands are empty, and he cannot immediately duck behind cover (such as the counter), I may tell him to freeze first.

If, however, the guy has a gun pointed at the clerk, I would step back, discretely draw while keeping my weapon out of sight, and wait for him to either make a mistake or leave. If he points his gun away from the clerk (waving with it, etc.), and I have a clean shot, he's going down. If I cannot make the shot without endangering the clerk's life, I won't intervene.

The goal here is to not increase the danger for either you or anyone else. If you can stop the threat, thus ending the danger, without increasing it, it makes sense to intervene. If, however, intervening will merely up the ante of the situation, increasing the overall threat level for innocent parties, the best thing to do is stay out of it.

 

[WardenWolf]

That warning could be the difference between you being the hero, or you being the fellow prisoner.

Huh? Where is it legally required we "warn" a violent felon before taking action to prevent his violence? I haven't heard about this...please enlighten me.

In some states, issuing a warning is either required, or issuing a warning means you are not in imminent danger and thus are legally considered brandishing. In Kansas, for example, if you draw you MUST pull the trigger. Otherwise you will be charged with brandishing because your failure to do so is indicative that there is not an immediate threat to life. There is no "defensive display of a firearm" allowed. If that gun comes out, you have to use it.

 

[rainbowbob]

In some states, issuing a warning is...required...

Which states? I've never heard of this.

In Kansas, for example, if you draw you MUST pull the trigger....If that gun comes out, you have to use it.

I don't believe this is correct. Can you provide the applicable excerpt from the Kansas firearm statutes?

 

[nitetrane98]

Just because he's using a gun to do it doesn't mean he's going to shoot someone, or even threatening to, it could be a fake gun or a toy, or unloaded. Oh, you didn't know that not all robbers use real guns, loaded with real bullets?

That is perhaps the most obtuse application of logic I have ever heard. Do we finally get clarity in the situation when we hear the bang or do we need to wait until we see blood or brain matter? Oh, but wait, we don't know if the BG only had one bullet in the gun, or maybe he was using blanks just scare everybody. Do you think the BG is going to get time shaved off his Armed Robbery sentence for using a toy gun or an empty gun?

But if it's apparent that violence is imminent, innocents are in danger, and I have the opportunity to intervene, I will.

Somebody waving a gun around shouting orders is pretty much going to do it for me on the "imminent violence" scale.

There's a fine line between a crime and a violent crime,

Not so fine as you might think, the introduction of any weapon is generally sufficient.

I don't think I could look at myself in the mirror if I failed to act. The old LEO would have to come out. Certainly without the bravado and drama of Wyatt Earp in Tombstone, the words NO, NO, NO, NO would be ringing in my ears.

As somebody else said, the BG set the table for the outcome. Just because it doesn't turn out as he planned doesn't change that fact.

A wise man once told me, "If you're scared, say your scared. It makes it easier to live with your action or inaction."

 

[rainbowbob]

In Kansas, for example, if you draw you MUST pull the trigger....If that gun comes out, you have to use it.

I don't believe this is correct. Can you provide the applicable excerpt from the Kansas firearm statutes?

WardenWolf:
I did some research and was surprised to find the following, which indicates you are (or were) correct about Kansas use of force statutes. Fortunately they have corrected that.

Kansas Now Allows Threat of Deadly Force in Self-Defense, and Not Just Use of Such Force
Eugene Volokh • April 20, 2010 7:30 pm

You wouldn’t think that it would take a statute to do this. After all, if it’s OK to kill someone to defend against a threat of death or serious injury, the lesser harm of threatening to kill someone should be fine, too.

But last year the Kansas Supreme Court held that existing Kansas law only allowed a defense for actual use of force, which didn’t include threats; earlier this year, the Kansas Court of Appeals faithfully applied this principle. Fortunately, the Kansas Legislature (apparently prompted by the urging of gun rights advocates) passed a law that — among other things — makes clear that threats of force should qualify as justifiable self-defense, to the same extent that the actual use of force qualifies; and just yesterday, the governor signed the bill. Good work.