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

[Zoogster]

* 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.

That 1970s and 1980s data citing even earlier years is a little behind the times.
I seem to recall more recent statistics suggest that closer to 13% of robbery victims that comply entirely are still killed.
That is just out of those who comply, the percentage of course being higher for those who do not comply or lose the gunfight.


So it is not 1% of gun robberies or 1% of all robberies, it is not even 13% of all robberies, it is 13% of robberies where everyone does exactly as the robber says.
It is even higher when someone does not do what they say. For all you know the gunman is going to turn to a customer in the store, demand a woman's wedding ring or something else sentimental, and they will hesitate, being shot.
The chance of that is much higher than 13%.
Or they will turn to you, with the gun pointed at you and demand something. Now your element of surprise and the ability to draw and act in defense of the lives in the store before being shot are severely reduced.

Or someone will choose to act, but do so poorly, resulting in the robber killing them, and perhaps then choosing to shoot everyone else who witnessed it.
If you act do so decisively.

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.

Which I think you fail to see makes them even more likely to shoot.
The person out of their element, high on adrenaline, scared, and who is your typical selfish thug. Their judgment is way off, and they may decide to shoot over things that don't even make sense.
Or think murdering someone (and getting long term homicide detectives typically more adept than the average officer after them) is more likely to result in getting away with the robbery than simply running away.
They are inexperienced and making poor choices.

They may shoot over nothing, or even by accident. ND do happen in robberies, while the gun is typically pointing at someone, they just don't get reported as such because only the robber will know it was an accident, and everyone else will assume it was intentional.
The result will still be a victim shot.

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.

First there is nothing Travis Bickle about it, you are not a vigilante by choosing to shoot someone posing a lethal threat to another person's life just because the person posing the threat never sees it coming.
Shooting someone clearly committing a robbery of a store with a lethal weapon who is still posing an imminent danger in a situation with an unknown outcome is entirely 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.

There is no difference. There is no legal requirement that you must make yourself vulnerable before saving someone's life.
In fact by choosing to give the robber the chance to change his mind, or to engage in a gunfight, you are putting not only your own life in greater danger but the lives of others.
If he chooses to engage you, everyone is in more danger.
The shootout itself will be on more equal terms, resulting in a lot more lead flying from both sides that is less precisely aimed. Which places more innocent people in danger.



We have a thread here on THR where someone stopped a robbery in progress in Florida, and while pointing their firearm at the criminal told them to drop it. The criminal instead chose to turn and fire.
This resulted in both of them taking multiple rounds as both proceeded to rapidly fire their weapons.:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=437913

Unlike in the movies (like most westerns) the first person shot COM with a handgun does not keel over and die no longer posing a threat to anyone. They simply have a hole or holes in them.
They remain conscious for many seconds (or even minutes), seconds they can also use to operate their own index finger.
You may have had the opportunity to take a precisely aimed shot with a high likeliness of ending the situation immediately before they knew you were there. But once they know you are there and armed and become a blur of motion and are trying to shoot you that opportunity for precision is lost.
You are then trying to put them down quickly, and they are doing the same, and a lot more lead is likely to fly.
Posing a greater threat to you and every innocent person around.

If you feel morally obligated to give them a warning while you feel you have the upper hand, that is your call. It is not a legal requirement, and don't expect them to immediately drop when shot if they decline your request and choose to start shooting at you instead.



In fact the only thing I might consider waiting for if I had a clean shot and the criminal was unaware was for the criminal's muzzle to not be pointed at someone. To reduce the chance of their reflexes cause the gun to go off and hit someone.
However be aware that the clerk is likely to look at you whether sneaking up or after you draw your gun. The bad guy is going to see the clerk look at something behind them. There is also various mirrors, live security camera feeds on a monitor, or other reflective things in many stores the bad guy may see you on.
So act quickly.


(This of course assumes you know it is a robber, having witnessed the entrance or demands.
Don't barge in someplace with a crime in progress and just shoot someone armed. It could be an armed employee no longer behind the counter, another armed good guy, a bad guy, etc)

 

[ChaoSS]

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

When I said "if you have reason to shoot someone" I didn't mean legal justification, I meant that you were going to shoot someone. That particular statement was meant to mean that if you are going to shoot and you are confident in your ability, you would be better off shooting someone in the head than COM.

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheArmed...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/TheArmed...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.

You're right. Too many what ifs? What if the guy who seemed to be calmly robbing the place a second ago suddenly decides to execute the clerk and start going after other people before you can put a bullet into him accurately. What if he suddenly decides to turn and order everyone on the floor? What if, what if, what if?

I think the risk of a good guy getting killed by a bad guy outweighs the risk of accidentally getting shot by another good guy.

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

Of course it's not worth it. It is worth it to kill to save a life though. I think this whole thing boils down to the situation, and it's simply not possible to put into words exactly how you make these decisions on the spot. That being said, I just don't understand people with a complete non intervention policy.

 

[Zoogster]

That being said, I just don't understand people with a complete non intervention policy.

You mean the same people who say "If only someone was carrying concealed (they may not have been murdered)" when they see a story where the bad guy does something horrible?

Yeah me neither.

They claim concealed carry would make everyone safer, and then support inaction when it would actually make a difference.
Maybe a good guy present did have a gun, they just chose to hope for the best because it was not them or their family in immediate danger.

It is always easier for someone else to help another individual who has the full attention of the armed bad guy than for the victim to try and help themselves.
You can go for your gun, and you can stop the bad guy before he knows what is even going on.
The victim cannot, they have an armed bad guy watching their every move. They may still prevail if they take action, but the odds are much worse for them if they take action than if you came to their aid.

There is no obligation of fairness for the bad guy choosing to pose a lethal threat to innocent people. This is not a movie. The bad guy made the decision to risk rounds coming at them from any unseen angle the moment they decided to pose a lethal threat to innocent people by committing an armed robbery (which may be a murder for all you know).

 

[rondog]

Man, there's a lot of bloodthirsty vigilantes here. "It's legal to shoot felons in this here state, I'ma gonna go git me one!" Just because it's legal to shoot someone committing a felony or pointing a gun at someone, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or a good idea. IF someone else is in danger, sure, blast away. But just because a robber is pointing a gun at a clerk doesn't mean that clerk is really in danger and you have a green light to be a hero.

There's no cut and dried to this, no black and white. Every situation will be different. Yes, there's dangerous savages out there that WILL shoot with no provocation, and they need to be taken out without prejudice. But the basic fact is that most robbers are are just as scared as their victims and have no intention of hurting anyone, they just want the money so they can haul ass and go get high. Do you really want to gun down some scared junkie just because you can?

 

[shockwave]

Which I think you fail to see makes them even more likely to shoot.

Hardly. I don't "fail" to see anything. But you have grasped my point: a convenience store armed robber is a very dangerous animal because it is likely to do anything. This sort of person has no coherent awareness of risk vs reward, and is in the parlance of law enforcement, a "highly disorganized" criminal.

There is no legal requirement that you must make yourself vulnerable before saving someone's life.

Nobody said there was. Personally, if I were inclined to engage, I'd think about grabbing a can or a bottle and tossing it over toward the other side of the store. With any luck the perp would turn and face that way and then I'd drill the bastard from behind. The problem is how all this would look on video and how I'd be explaining this to a jury.

Prosecutor: "So you distracted the deceased so that you could safely shoot him from behind."

Me: "Yep."

Prosecutor: "So your intention was to kill the deceased and you arranged things so that you could kill him without offering him an opportunity to disarm or leave the premises?"

Me: "Yep."

Prosecutor: "Then ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what you have here is a cold-blooded killer who set up, aimed, and killed the deceased..."

And so forth. Might be a good move, and maybe you'd have to do it, but depending on how all the legal angles play out, letting the clown split with the cash could be the wiser move. Like a lot of people point out here, we're talking hypotheticals. The actual, real-life situation would involve a lot of things that would factor into your estimation of the level of threat and need for intervention.

 

[Zoogster]

Man, there's a lot of bloodthirsty vigilantes here. "It's legal to shoot felons in this here state, I'ma gonna go git me one!" Just because it's legal to shoot someone committing a felony or pointing a gun at someone, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or a good idea. IF someone else is in danger, sure, blast away. But just because a robber is pointing a gun at a clerk doesn't mean that clerk is really in danger and you have a green light to be a hero.

Just because someone who is selfish and has unknown morals is choosing to criminally pose a lethal threat, and has who knows what in store, or may react in some random way to any perceived problem...

There is people shot on a regular basis because the victim complied and the criminal feels it is not enough money. Expecting more they feel cheated, and bam someone dies.
Now you may have prevented that.


This happens many times every year.
Here is one example earlier this year with video that shows him hand over all the cash, complying, and then shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkl12Qy5cr4

You can find many similar videos any year. Complying clerks shot and killed after doing everything they were supposed to.

But of course shooting that poor criminal would have been being a "bloodthirsty vigilante".
He was only pointing a gun and demanding cash.

Here is another story from last month, guy complies, begs for life, robber is walking out of store and at the last moment turns and fires:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/video-reveals-details-in-shooting-death-of-7-eleven-clerk-89665377.html

But I guess these were the good people? :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76UZY1mZEk
Just mind their own business and let others get shot.


In many chain stores they cannot even have much available to take, here is a clerk fired from his job for having more than $50 in the register when he was robbed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJTOALBjuuE

But here is a guy killed for complying but not having enough money in the register to satisfy the robber:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b277833c9



There is literally thousands of videos you can watch of clerks being murdered after complying with all demands.
They are simply endless.
And you may one day be in a position to stop it, but have already decided not be be a "bloodthirsty vigilante" and let the bad guys posing a lethal threat determine the outcome.
Give them the benefit of the doubt they will choose to show mercy to those they victimize.

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, folks. This one is close to running off the rails here. When we get going with the emotionalism and the what-iiffing, we're on the rumble strip and already across the yellow line.

Step back, take a breath, go re-read the rules on reality in S&T and the prohibition against blood lust, and try coming at this from an angle where no one is 100% prescient about outcomes, no one's concealed carry handgun is an unerring Hammer of Thor and not every good guy has nerves of steel and doesn't flinch in a crunch and yank the shot.

Much more of the kind of conduct that has marked the last couple of pages (remember the 3-Page Rule?) of this thread is going to put the kibosh on it... fair warning.

lpl

 

[jcreid06]

rondog- really thats your answer. Riddle me this you are a store clerk and you have a gun pointed at your head. Do you think that your life is in danger and you could die? I sure as hell would. In TX and in many other states a third party has the right to protect someone else in that situation. Like I stated at the very beginning of this post to the OP google Texas Penal Code Chapters 9.31, 9.32 and 9.33 and then tell me that the LAW doesn't blatantly say you have the legal right to use deadly force against the bad guy in this situation. Am I saying that its the best option in every situation, NO. But the law is pretty easy to understand when it pertains to this scenario, at least here in TX.

 

[Fred Fuller]

WHAT THE LAW BOOK SAYS is not the main issue here. The question here IS NOT what you CAN do under the law- it's what you as a responsible mature non-LEO CCW person SHOULD do when confronted with an armed robbery that does not involve you as the victim.

One more outburst of black-letter law quoting here and and we are done with this one. That's TWO warnings...

lpl

 

[rainbowbob]

...just because a robber is pointing a gun at a clerk doesn't mean that clerk is really in danger...

Sure...it may just be a big joke. You'll have plenty of time to decide if the danger was "real" after the assailant leaves the store. You'll be able to tell by whether or not the clerk is still standing. We wouldn't want to rush to judgement, would we?

...there's dangerous savages out there that WILL shoot with no provocation, and they need to be taken out without prejudice...

Except by your standard, you won't know which ones they are until it's too late.

...fact is that most robbers are are just as scared as their victims and have no intention of hurting anyone...

That poor, scared fellow holding a gun to the head of the store clerk probably wouldn't hurt a flea...leave him alone!

 

[Crusader103]

As an instructor I could go into all the reasoning behind taking action now vs tactical patience vs it's not me that is in danger, etc. I'm going to forego that this time and keep this response reasonably short, understanding that each person ultimately makes the action/inaction decision of their own accord.

If an armed robbery occurs I consider that prima facie evidence of a lethal threat to myself or someone else. Given even the slightest opportunity to act, that perp's criminal act is not likely to conclude in the manner which they planned.

Am I placing innocents in danger? No, the perp did that. Am I increasing the danger? Again, no. I am ending it.

That is my answer. Your answer (and the answer of many of my students) may reasonably differ from mine. Our mindset and skillset is probably not identical and I recognize these things to be valid factors. Some will take action in all life threatening situations regardless of who is the victim, some will take action only when their life is in danger, and some will find an excuse to never draw their weapon.

I refuse to be a victim or watch someone else become a victim if there is anything I can do about it.

 

[JDoe]

...it's what you as a responsible mature non-LEO CCW person SHOULD do when confronted with an armed robbery that does not involve you as the victim.

As a responsible, mature non-LEO [regularly trained, practice nearly everyday and accurate on the move and under pressure] CCW person that is confronted with an armed robbery [outcome is unpredictable] and does not involve me as the [current] victim and knowing that somewhere between 1% of all robberies and 13% of armed robberies where the victims cooperate with the robber end in the murder of one or more people, I'm having a hard time seeing more than one option that might be considered reasonable--even if I were acting 100% selfishly and taking steps to maximize my chances of survival.

I would like to find some statistics from a reliable source (FBI, DOJ, etc.) regarding the percent of robberies of various types that include the murder or grievous injury of innocent parties. If anyone has stats I'd sure appreciate getting a link...

Here is an example of a law abiding gun owner that just opened fire without warning on a would be robber who was threatening customers and staff with with a sawed off shotgun.

An armed robber was shot and killed in an Omaha business Monday night, police said. Investigators said a customer intervened and fired on the gunman...

...Police said two masked individuals walked into the store. One of them was armed with a short shotgun. The gunman pointed the weapon at customers and at the clerk behind the counter.

A man who had a permit to carry a gun saw the robber point the weapon at the clerk and pulled out his handgun and shot the suspect multiple times, police said. The robber, identified by police as 18-year-old Marquail Thomas, stumbled out of the store and collapsed.

He was taken to Creighton University Medical Center, where he later died.

The man, Harry J. McCullough, 32, was cited because he didn't have a permit that allowed him to carry the gun concealed.

The dead robbers shotgun was not loaded.

The customer who killed a would-be robber inside an Omaha Walgreens will not be charged, according to the city prosecutor.

Marty Conboy made his decision Tuesday just after 2 p.m., saying James McCullough's weapon was not completely concealed during the incident.

McCullough opened fire on 18-year-old Marquail Thomas after police said Thomas barged into the store with a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money.

McCullough had a registered weapon but no permit to carry it concealed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Am I placing innocents in danger? No, the perp did that.

From the standpoint of criminal culpability, true, as long as you exercise reasonable judgment and do not recklessly disregard obvious risks. Hit a third person, however, and see what happens in civil court.

Am I increasing the danger? Again, no.

I cannot agree. While the clerk is clearly in danger as the victim of an armed robbery in progress, your setting off a firefight that results in death and injury that might not have occurred but for your action would clearly constitute an increase in the level of danger.

I am ending it.

Well, yeah, but perhaps not in the best manner. The danger might otherwise have ceased to exist without bloodshed.

Unless the thing has already turned into an active shooter situation, you stand the risk of making it become one by acting prematurely.

I suggest that your chance of saving the clerk by shooting at a person holding a gun on him may be less than your chance of causing his death or serious injury.

If you shoot and the clerk is shot, you will never know whether your action caused the shooting.

 

[zxcvbob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvW9kXhEnc

bob,

Always post at least a short description of the content, and not just a bare link, please. I'll fix it for you. -- lpl

Related news story -- http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/052010/05232010/550115?rss=local

Man refused to do nothing
Good Samaritan says he just couldn't stand there while would-be robber shot clerk
Date published: 5/23/2010
BY PORTSIA SMITH

[Fredericksburg, VA] A former Marine, Theodore Edmond served two tours in Vietnam and suffered only a scar on his chest from a barbed-wire fence.

It wasn't until the 61-year-old Maryland man made a routine fuel stop in Caroline County two weeks ago that he received war-like wounds.

Edmond, nationally recognized as a good Samaritan, was shot four times when he struck a gunman in the head with a bottle of Yuengling beer during a robbery attempt at a Carmel Church gas station.

While he has been praised by the cashier whose life he possibly saved, he has been teased by his close friends and relatives.

"They told me if I had been a drinker, I would have known to grab a 40-ounce," he laughed in an exclusive interview with The Free Lance-Star. "I told them the next time I need to hit someone with a beer bottle, I'll call them first for a brand recommendation."

But when he walked into the Mr. Fuel gas station on the night of May 8, it was no laughing matter.

He said he walked right past the gunman who was pointing what looked like a toy gun in the face of the frightened cashier.

"It looked like a plastic revolver you play cowboys and Indians with," Edmond said.

He said he tried to find something heavy to use as a weapon, as the frustrated gunman raised his voice at the woman, who couldn't get the register open. Then he heard two loud bangs from the gun. It was no toy.

He assumed the cashier was dead and, running out of time, grabbed the first thing he could get his hands on--a plastic bottle. Then he saw the Yuenglings.

Edmond said he was happy to see that the cashier was alive, as he crept up behind the man, whose voice was getting louder and louder. The first shots were intended as a warning, but he figured the next one would be fatal.

"There's no way I'm going to stand around and watch him murder this lady," Edmond said. "That's what I couldn't understand about the other people who were in there. I just know I could not look in the mirror if I had just stood there and did nothing while he shot that lady. I did what I had to do."
//snip//

 

[metalman8600]

It is safe to say that 80% of the armed robbers you see are multiple offenders. It is not their first time, they have done it before and will do it again, guaranteed. If the conditions permit, take the shot. Because there is a high chance that someone else in the future will die for your inaction.

 

[Fred Fuller]

If the conditions permit, take the shot.

I would amend that to "If the circumstances require and the conditions permit, take the shot."

I just got done mangling zxcvbob's post above, to include some of the story involved in the video link. Since some folks are still stuck with dialup, it's necessary to be considerate and not just post a kwick'n'ezy bare link, especially to a video. And we are always considerate here in S&T, right?

At any rate, the circumstances in the situation Mr. Edmond faced certainly demanded action, and all I can say is that it's a shame Mr. Edmond didn't have a good sidearm, legally carried, and a clear field of fire (he's since had offers of help getting a Virginia concealed carry permit, BTW). Note Mr. Edmond was shot four times for his trouble after doing what he did, and take that into consideration if you decide to jumpstart a gunfight in public where innocent parties are present.

There was no guarantee a couple of the bullets that struck Mr. Edmond might not have been dispatched into the clerk, had the robber so decided. There was no guarantee the robber might not have shot Mr. Edmonds to the floor, executed him with a final bullet, and then turned on the clerk and executed her as well.

There are no guarantees in a gunfight. None.

When some of us here say "Get training" over and over, it is because good training training and the subsequent practice of improved skills imparted by good training improve your individual odds of coming out on top in a bad situation. But any trainer who is honest will tell you the truth- you can do everything right in a gunfight and still get killed, or worse, get some innocent party nearby killed.

We talk about 'reality in S&T' for good reason. This is why. What we undertake when we elect to go about armed in public is a deadly serious business. We owe it to ourselves and everyone around us to be as mature, as responsible, as proficient in our decision-making skills and in the use of our chosen sidearm as we can be. Anything else is negligent and when our actions are examined in the cool, ordered realm of the courtroom, MUST be able to stand the test.

Y'all accuse me of not having much of a sense of humor. Damn right I don't, where this subject is concerned.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[Crusader103]

I cannot agree. While the clerk is clearly in danger as the victim of an armed robbery in progress, your setting off a firefight that results in death and injury that might not have occurred but for your action would clearly constitute an increase in the level of danger.

If a weapon is pointed at them, the clerk is NOT just in danger of an armed robbery. They are in danger of death or serious bodily harm. True, if I take action, someone may get hurt. I plan for that to be the perp. Even if someone else is hurt, I would rather live with the fact that someone was hurt while I at least tried to do something about it. I could not live with the fact someone was hurt or killed while I stood by and did nothing.

I cannot and will not count on the mercy of an "armed robber" (read desperate killer) to spare innocent life while I convince myself that they will take the money and run.

You can say that the harm may not have come but for my actions. I would turn that right around and say that the victims may die if I do not take action. I have seen way too many "compliant" victims seriously hurt or killed. One perp I interviewed, after the robbery of a corner convenience store, money in hand, where the clerk had fully complied, told me face to face, "I just wanted to know what it was like to kill someone."

You know, until he pulled the trigger, everyone inside just thought it was a robbery. Are you so fast that you can act the moment the robber decides he wants to know what it is like to kill someone?

Well, yeah, but perhaps not in the best manner. The danger might otherwise have ceased to exist without bloodshed.

There is no "best manner" for a robbery/potential killing to conclude. I will take the action that I have the most control over, in lieu of allowing the perp to conclude it the way they see fit.

Again, I will not disparage anyone else's actions/inactions here. When to get involved is a very personal decision. I know my capabilities. Everyone else should know their own. This is not an attempt to boast, but only an attempt to show where I am coming from. I have never shot someone that lived to tell about it (I would have rather them lived), I have shot in confined spaces with bystanders and children present, and each time it has been very chaotic. Every one of my bullets found the exact mark I chose. I am also a competitive shooter and shoot all the time, and dry-fire practice more than that. I am not under the assumption that others have the same level of training and/or experience. That's why it is a personal decision, taking all things into account including your own abilities.

 

[Kleanbore]

If a weapon is pointed at them, the clerk is NOT just in danger of an armed robbery. They are in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Absolutely, and by definition.

True, if I take action, someone may get hurt. I plan for that to be the perp.

Obviously, or you would not even consider shooting.

I could not live with the fact someone was hurt or killed while I stood by and did nothing.

Yes, you would always be rethinking what you should have done.

I cannot and will not count on the mercy of an "armed robber" (read desperate killer) to spare innocent life while I convince myself that they will take the money and run.

Of course not, but at this point it is not you who must count on anything--it is the clerk.

You can say that the harm may not have come but for my actions. I would turn that right around and say that the victims may die if I do not take action.

That's the crux of the matter. If no one does anything at all and the clerk complies, the robber may leave; on the other hand, the robber may shoot the clerk anyway.

Someone said that the likelihood of the latter happening may be something like 13%. Could be 10%, could be 33%. For purposes of discussion, let's use 25%.

That means that the clerk has, nominally, a 75% chance of coming out of things unharmed, if you or someone else doesn't do anything precipitous. Think maybe that might be why corporate policies call for employees to comply with robbers?

Now, suppose you pull your gun unnoticed, no one screams, no accomplice shouts or starts shooting, and you shoot the robber. Remember, the robber, who is in an excited state, is holding a gun at point blank range on the clerk, undoubtedly with his finger on the trigger.

What are the chances that, when you fire, he will not get at least one shot into the clerk? Pardon me, but I put them at less than 75%--a whole lot less, for most people.

If you fire and the clerk is shot, how would you feel when the clerk's attorney brings in witnesses who testify that, based on crime statistics, the chances were high that the robber would not have fired but for your actions; puts the clerk or a fellow employee on the stand to tell how previous robberies had turned out without bloodshed; puts someone on the stand to explain the store's compliance policy; and puts expert witnesses on the stand who testify how the physiological effects of your shot probably caused the robber to fire reflexively?

You would be up against a preponderance of the evidence threshold and likely against a lot sympathy, and your only defense would be that you had considered the clerk to have been in danger, which is obvious, and that you just wanted to help. You could lose everything to that ungrateful clerk whose protector you had considered yourself to be.

If I were sworn officer, my legal expenses would be covered, and I would be indemnified against a civil judgment. However, I am not, and taking a real chance losing everything, including my standing as a competent, constructive citizen, over what is regarded after the fact to have been the wrong move is not for me.

That brings up one question that has neither been posed or answered here: how would a police officer be expected to act under a similar situation?

 

[Gouranga]

Man, there's a lot of bloodthirsty vigilantes here. "It's legal to shoot felons in this here state, I'ma gonna go git me one!"

I do not see a lot of this here. I think what I have gotten is we got a person committing a felony, but more importantly threatening the life of the clerk and/or customers in the store, including potentially ourself.

Just because it's legal to shoot someone committing a felony or pointing a gun at someone, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or a good idea

.

Totally agree. There are so many variables, the situation needs to call for it, and you need to be able to take a shot without unacceptable risk to others when weighed against the danger to others. You take the shot you will be called to justify that decision in court after the fact.

But just because a robber is pointing a gun at a clerk doesn't mean that clerk is really in danger

This point I would disagree. He has a lethal weapon, pointed at the clerk. By NC law anyway, he is already using lethal force. No matter what the full intention of the robber (which we do not know), at this point legally you are justified in using lethal force to protect the lives of others, NOT to protect property. Once that weapon comes off the clerk and the BG runs, the threat is over and lethal force is not required, nor legal in many states.

There's no cut and dried to this, no black and white.

Absolutely. Every situation is unique and will involve many variables. At best, this thread has given some awesome guidelines and considerations though. You guys really rock!

Do you really want to gun down some scared junkie just because you can?

This may sound cold but when that junkie took to using lethal force to others, I lost all sympathy for him. His problems take a back seat the the danger he has pushed on others. Would I want to shoot him, absolutely not. I do not want to shoot anyone. Without the gun in his hands, I would actually have a list of people I could call to try to get him help with his addiction. That being said, would I to protect the lives of myself or others he has endangered? Absolutely.

 

[ChaoSS]

I have a question. Does anyone have even one example of an incident where a man gets shot in the head or even multiple fast shots to COM of his back, and still manages to put a bullet in someone? I'm sure it's happened with shots to the back, but probably not very regularly at all. With a shot to the head, I wonder if it has ever happened, at all.

 

[nitetrane98]

I hope this isn't drifting too far off to summon the hammer.

It has occured to me that the mindset of the "do nothing crowd" is very similar to the mindset in place pre 9/11 on airplanes. "This is your Captain speaking, We've been hi-jacked, ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seat and do as you are told. We are confident that the BGs cannot possibly have enough ammo to kill everybody on board and after all they just want to go to Cuba. And remember, there's a chance those guns aren't even loaded and they might just be toys, but if they are real we sincerely hope you're not one of the ones that does get shot and, as always, thank you for flying with us."

You don't hear that advice on planes so much anymore.

 

[Fred Fuller]

ChaoSS,

Bullets are simply not that predictable, no matter how big/fast they are or where you think you directed them. Louis Awerbuck told us in a shotgun class that he had seen a slug fired from less than ten yards glance off the plastic bill of a baseball cap one of his 3-D targets was wearing without penetrating. A one in a million chance? Yes. But yet it happened...

During my time working rescue, we got a call on someone who had been shot in the head. Bullet hole in the forehead, bullet hole in the back of the head, but a fully awake/aware patient, pupils equal and responsive, no signs of neuro problems at all, both when we arrived and when we transported him shortly thereafter. Why? Because the bullet had skated between skull and scalp over the top of his head and exited without doing any real damage. I had hands on that patient, this isn't just hearsay. Granted, this was with a small caliber, but it has happened with larger calibers as well. A penetrating hit that disrupts the area of the brain stem IS a definite instant off switch, but the brain stem has to be hit and that's often a pretty demanding assignment with a handgun. Even being able to visualize it inside the body can be difficult, and shooting for a 3D target can be a challenge.

As far as hits to the body are concerned, unless you get CNS (central nervous system) disruption fairly high up on the spine, it's not too likely an adrenalin charged human is going to be switched off soon enough to avoid the ability to do damage. People can soak up amazing amounts of damage and keep going just on sheer will and adrenalin, not even involving other drugs. Take a look at the AAR on the FBI's Miami Shootout for several examples. See http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm for one source, if you haven't seen this document before.

Pistols are not death rays. People are unpredictable in how they react to gunfire or to being shot. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. None.

Sorry about that...

lpl

 

[Gouranga]

the mindset of the "do nothing crowd" is very similar to the mindset in place pre 9/11 on airplanes

I am not sure that characterization is fair. I think the mindset we are seeing is really a representation of the outcome being completely variable. On some robberies, probably the majority, you could do nothing, the guy would take the money and nobody would get hurt. In those situations firing your weapon would change that outcome. At least the criminal would get hurt maybe others. That being said there are those who would rather not gamble they are in one of THOSE situations and take matters into their own hands should the opportunity arise to do so in as safe a manner as possible.

I would wonder this, for those who would shoot given the opportunity(and I am in that group), describe the scenario that pops into your head as you make this decision. Would be interesting to see the specific thoughts we have on that.

For me, I am seeing the BG take his weapon off the clerk for a second with me positioned in his blind side with a clear shot, a solid wall behind him, and all customers on the floor. I think the specific situation we all have in mind, if any, really helps determine our course of action.

 

[Gouranga]

Pistols are not death rays. People are unpredictable in how they react to gunfire or to being shot. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES. None.

I have been searching for it, but was there not a posting on here recently about a guy who was hit multiple times center mass with a .40 from a cop and they still had to wrestle him to the ground? I have hear plenty of stories of people being hit with 9mm and they kept coming. I am certain as Lee said, it is very likely that even after shooting the criminal he/she will have a chance to return fire. I would count on it and be pleasantly surprised if it did not happen.

 

[Fred Fuller]

All right folks, it's homework time. Before posting (or posting again) on this thread, go read http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm . All of it. If you need help interpreting the ATSA-speak, there's a glossary at http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5561615&postcount=10 .

Don't whine, just do it. Or don't post here on this thread again until you do. There are some basic understandings that need to be in place for everyone here, whether or not everyone agrees with them. But if someone in S&T says ADEE vs. AOJ, people here need to know what is being talked about and why.

If you are really here to learn, you will go read these lecture notes, if you are not already familiar with them. If you are here thinking this is just one more place on the Internet to go and argue with people, better think again.

lpl