Rethinking the robbery scenario strategy

[mbok1947]

Conventional wisdom is that, should one be caught up in a business robbery situation while carrying a concealed handgun, the best tactic is to just be a good witness, remain calm and not produce or use the weapon unless directly threatened or unless the robber(s) open fire first.

However two incidents this very week here in Oklahoma make you wonder.

In one, a convenience store in a Tulsa suburb, the armed robber apparently entered, walked behind the clerk and shot him in the back of the head with no announcement or warning. The robber then hauled the cash register to a back room to open it. When a customer came into the store he was ambushed and executed with a shot to the face. No provocation, just flat out murder.

In the second, a robber struck a laundromat of all places in an OKC suburb early in the morning. He executed the female attendant and when a male customer tried to come to her aid slaughtered him as well. In both of these cases the conventional wisdom would simply assure your death.

Frankly, while I hope the issue never has to be decided, if I am in a store when a robber enters and commences to commit his deeds, I would be a lot more likely, given these situations, to look for a chance to take him down. A dead witness is pretty worthless.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't really see how either of those scenarios support your conclusion.

In both cases, the robber killed the attendant before anyone else had a chance to do anything and then killed anyone else who they encountered. Under those circumstances, I would think that anyone present would fear for their lives and be more than justified in defending themselves with deadly force. It's also not the kind of scenario where there's really a choice. I haven't seen anyone suggest that a person should stand by and watch others be shot without provocation and wait to be next to be shot while being a good witness.

A scenario which would support your conclusion would be one where everyone cooperates with the robber, the robber gets the money without hurting anyone and then kills the attendant or bystanders without provocation on the way out of the store. In that case, bystanders would have a realistic option to intervene or not. In the case where a robber walks in and shoots someone right off the bat and then kills anyone else who shows up or confronts them, it's not like a bystander has a lot of options other than to defend with deadly force if they can't get away.

 

[Kleanbore]

I do not think one can characterize that as "the conventional wisdom". If one is robbed, one is justified in the use of deadly force at the time, and if there is no reasonable alternative. However, being justified, while necessary, may not be sufficient. Should it appear that an attempt by the defender to use deadly force would precipitate the robber's use of deadly force, and that the robber would likely not otherwise use deadly force, the defender would be led to the decision to not resist. But its a crap shoot. One cannot base anything on statistics--one must judge each situation.

 

[mbok1947]

Yes I agree each situation has to be assessed at the moment. The point was and is that armed robbers seem to be ramping up their aggression level, which has the potential of shifting the "what do I do?" calculus in the direction of anticipating that with a quicker response. When you see four innocent people slaughtered within one weekend in one locale it is in fact somewhat ominous.

 

[xXxplosive]

Yup........

 

[Sam1911]

The point was and is that armed robbers seem to be ramping up their aggression level, which has the potential of shifting the "what do I do?" calculus in the direction of anticipating that with a quicker response. When you see four innocent people slaughtered within one weekend in one locale it is in fact somewhat ominous.

It is only ominous if you can actually discover a correlation and/or identify a real trend. Two robberies make a coincidence, not a trend. 25 or 50 or 100 that all go the same way might indicate a new tactic, or a ramping up of aggression levels, being adopted across a region or nation, with copycat effects and shifts in the behaviors of that group as a whole. Two is just, well, something that happened. But that doesn't really matter because...

Further, and as a rather separate issue:
In these cases I don't see that there are any real decision points for defensive minded persons in that scene. These are ambush killings, and in a peaceable society there really aren't very effective defensive strategies for a truly vicious, well set and well planned ambush killing. If someone walks into a store where you're shopping and shoots you dead before you're even aware, what choices are there to make? If you're walking down the street and someone walks up behind you and shoots you in the back of the head, there isn't a strategy for how to fight your way out of that. Life sucks like that sometimes.

(An extremely heightened degree of situational awareness, and even going out in public with a partner who is equally observant and aware and who will work with you to cover approaches and spot threats would do wonders, but pretty much NOBODY lives like that, unless they're billionaires with security details or drug kingpins, or maybe persons in the federal witness protection program.)

If this was a case where there was some time to observe, decide, and intervene or not intervene, we might make a discussion out of it about whether we should jump to guns immediately or be a good witness. But in these cases there isn't time for any response at all. IF you were there, and IF you managed to grab your gun, you're already under dire lethal threat and certainly would have every legal and tactical reason to be firing back immediately.

 

[luzyfuerza]

These are low-probability events, and I agree that we can't say that bad actors' aggression levels are increasing globally solely on the basis of these two incidents.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with the OP's main point:

The point was and is that armed robbers seem to be ramping up their aggression level, which has the potential of shifting the "what do I do?" calculus in the direction of anticipating that with a quicker response.

Restated: "do we take too long to observe, analyze, and then act when faced with one of these situations?"

In almost all armed attacks, the criminals have the initiative, and defenders must respond. If as defenders, we wait until we see an event like an armed robbery going down to:

1) evaluate available cover/concealment,
2) look for escape routes,
3) balance requirements of the law,
4) estimate distance to target,
5) consider ammo penetration characteristics,
6) identify and count the adversaries,
7) estimate adversary skill levels and intents,
8) determine the tools/force multipliers the adversaries are using,
9) consider the capabilities of the tools you're carrying at the moment (including H2H skills),
10) evaluate your current skill level with those tools,
11) identify innocent bystanders,
12) continuously monitor those who have been identified as innocent bystanders, to make sure that none of them turn out to be partners of the evil actors,
13) identify possible co-defenders,
14) formulate a list of possible responses (e.g. retreat, move to cover/concealment, choose among available tools, comply with the robbers' demands, counter-ambush, move with stealth or speed),
15) select the best of these options,

and then and only then to act, then we have wasted precious time that may make the difference between life and death for us, our loved ones, and for others.

We hear the phrases "situational awareness", "condition yellow", etc. a lot here. However, I suspect that some of us haven't really considered what these phrases mean. For me, being in condition yellow means to be considering the items I listed above (and many others) all the time but in the background of my mind, so that when the bad guy draws his gun to threaten the clerk, I'm already well down the path of deciding how to respond, and of then responding with speed and determination.

For me, learning to effectively use a tool like a handgun or a knife is much less challenging than learning to use the weapon that is my brain.

Carefully considering any event that encourages someone to develop their skills further, and to spend more time in condition yellow (even if it is a low-probability event) is a good thing.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I have my own rules....

If a robbery goes down, I will be the best witness I can be as long as the robbers are not violent.

BUT, if they do any violence..... All of Sparta goes to war.

Just that simple.

Deaf

 

[luzyfuerza]

Deaf, for you, where does seeing a robber threatening with a deadly weapon (like an edged or contact weapon, or a firearm) short of actually using the weapon, fall in your decision-making process? Does threatening the use of deadly force constitute a justification for "going to war"?

 

[Sam1911]

Are we separating this discussion, then, from the two incidents that prompted it? Because I'm not sure I see how all of the usual condition yellow and OODA loop come into play when you walk into a store and someone just flat shoots you in the face.

 

[huntsman]

the best tactic is to just be a good witness, remain calm and not produce or use the weapon unless directly threatened or unless the robber(s) open fire first

And what if you can use your firearm to remove yourself from the situation? I really don't want to be a witness or a LEO I just want to be safe.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Deaf, for you, where does seeing a robber threatening with a deadly weapon (like an edged or contact weapon, or a firearm) short of actually using the weapon, fall in your decision-making process? Does threatening the use of deadly force constitute a justification for "going to war"?

Mostly when they are hurting anyone physically. That may be pistol whipping, punching, kicking, stabbing... But if they are shooting into the ceiling or such,actually firing the guns, that might do it to. Waving a gun won't get me to go... but firing it anywhere may but with the caveat that if he has the drop on me.. maybe not!

Deaf

 

[luzyfuerza]

Are we separating this discussion, then, from the two incidents that prompted it? Because I'm not sure I see how all of the usual condition yellow and OODA loop come into play when you walk into a store and someone just flat shoots you in the face.

Sam, you're right, if these victims were flat shot in the face from a solid ambush, then there's not much to learn here. Maybe, when we have better data/video, we can discuss the incidents themselves in a meaningful way. In the meantime, should we just move along?

That being said, attackers are more likely to look like they came from a solid ambush to someone who is in condition white than to someone who is REALLY in condition yellow.

These events drove the OP to ask himself (and us) whether conventional wisdom was good enough, or if other tactics could be used. He also expressed the need to speed up his OODA loop. These are good things, even if it means that we respond to him by discussing concepts that are widely known and understood. By some.

For me, REALLY being in condition yellow includes asking myself questions that are prompted by events I come across. For example, when I read about these two events, I asked myself:

1) In the course of a regular day, how do I respond when an individual moves behind me? Is moving behind me via my gun-side different from going around my support-side?

2) If I walked into a c-store, and no clerk is visible, do I look around for anything amiss? Say, for the register? Is the register open? Do I look around for the missing clerk? Do I look for blood splatter? Stuff on the floor that shouldn't be there? If the register is missing, or I see the clerk on the ground in a pool of blood, what would I do?

3) If I walk into a c-store or laundromat and smell burned gunpowder (sweet at the range, but means something quite different elsewhere) what do I do?

4) Should I evaluate individuals differently when they come into a business "early in the morning"? If I'm an attendant or a customer and someone comes into a laundromat "early in the morning", without any laundry, should that mean something to me? How about in the middle of the afternoon?

5) What's the first thing that a typical customer does when they walk into a laundromat? Look for open machines, right? When a customer doesn't do this, does it mean anything? If a c-store customer goes right to the clerk/register, does this seem unusual? Maybe he's buying smokes, but maybe not. Is this individual worth watching a little more closely?

6) Given a choice, while I'm waiting for my load to wash, should I sit where I can see my machine and the entrances/exits, or should I bury my face in my phone in a back corner? Might that have helped either the laundromat attendant or customer?

7) How carefully do I look at others' hands during a regular day? Might watching the hands have helped any of these victims?

8) If I come into a store and the "clerk" doesn't have on a uniform, or just doesn't "look right", does that mean anything? What should I do?

And so on.

S&T is a great forum for discussing these concepts. I wish more used it this way.

 

[guyfromohio]

If a person is pointing a gun at a human while committing a crime, the only appropriate interpretation is that the intent is to use it to kill. What one does next must be based on that assumption. Protect that life. Protect your own life. Run and hide. Watch someone be gunned down. Be gunned down. Or perhaps be a witness and discover later it was a hood with an air soft gun.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

What the OP is basically referring to is being blindsided. And in that scenario there's usually not much anyone can do. As someone else stated sometimes life happens and it's unfortunate.


You can have all the situational awareness in the world and still be blindsided, regardless of from what direction. I don't really see where there's any discussion here.

 

[strambo]

There is a hand to hand/martial arts version of this as well. Also comes from fear-based thinking; "What if they come from behind and put you into a (fill in the black impossible to escape) choke hold?" Then you get choked out...

Get (at least some) professional training and practice. Be observant and aware of your surroundings. Think through different scenarios ahead of time. In any situation, make your best decision based on all of the data you have. Don't worry about the stuff you can't control, that will take care of itself.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If a person is pointing a gun at a human while committing a crime, the only appropriate interpretation is that the intent is to use it to kill.

This has been proven numerous times, over many years and thousands of occurrences, to simply be untrue.

Post action interviews have overwhelmingly been consistent in describing that the display of guns in a robbery as usually to intimidate

 

[guyfromohio]

This has been proven numerous times, over many years and thousands of occurrences, to simply be untrue.

Post action interviews have overwhelmingly been consistent in describing that the display of guns in a robbery as usually to intimidate

Would you agree that the true understanding of that intent comes always after the act? While occurring, a gun pointed is intent to kill.

 

[Sam1911]

While occurring, a gun pointed is intent to kill.

It's hard to sustain that assertion since we KNOW that most of the time guns are pointed at someone there is no intent to kill them. In fact, if we're seeing guns pointed at someone, as an ongoing condition, then that would be at least fairly indicative that the robber isn't intending to kill them because if he was, he'd have simply done it and taken what he wanted off of the dead body.

There are certain markers that one could point to which DO indicate an intent to kill, in the near future (like moving victims to a more secluded place, etc.) but simply the act of pointing a gun at someone is much more clearly a sign that someone's coercing them to do something, give up something, and/or not to do something. If the intent is to kill, nine times out of ten, that can be accomplished more smoothly by simply doing it than by standing around pointing a gun at them.

 

[Sam1911]

Ha ha, I just was reminded of the comic book and James Bond trope of the bad guy, who's certainly going to kill the good guy in just a moment, standing around for 10 minutes giving him a long-winded explanation of his plans and all the nasty things he's going to do after Our Hero is dropped into the vat of boiling acid full of surgically-modified sharks (or whatever).

Most violent actors in the real world don't seem to be big on grand statements and plot exposition. They're going to be as quick and efficient as they can be.

 

[Kleanbore]

While occurring, a gun pointed is intent to kill.

No.

I have pointed firearms at others when necessary to defend myself. I did not intend to shoot unless pointing the firearm did not suffice. Moreover, if I had fired, the probability that the attacker would have survived is high.

In a defensive encounter, one can judge ability and opportunity objectively, and jeopardy subjectively, but one cannot really define intent.

 

[X-Rap]

So as a private citizen we should not consider having a gun pointed at us as intent to do harm?
Is not the mere presence in the hand a precursor to many who are shot by the authorities?

 

[Sam1911]

You may decide whatever you think is true about someone's intent if they point a firearm at you. And the length of your life may depend very much on whether you decide (and act) correctly, either yes or no.

That's the practical end of that question. What does this guy REALLY intend to do to me, and how should I best respond to give myself the greatest odds of surviving?

Only a complete fool would decide today what any person who ever might point a gun at them, someday, intends.


The other side of the question is the legal one. And someone pointing a gun at you is often a strong point in presenting an affirmative defense of self defense, should you decide to use force in response. As we so often say, the actual totality of all the circumstances of that moment will all be factored in.

 

[mbok1947]

All very good comments. The good news is that the POS suspect in the laundromat murders was arrested yesterday. Seems he has a lengthy criminal/prison record. I am sure the DA will go for lethal injection on this one.

 

[JohnKSa]

As is often the case, there's more than just one aspect of this to consider.

From a legal standpoint, a robber pointing a gun at you is almost certainly going to provide justification for the use of deadly force. In other words, if you do end up having to use deadly force, the fact that a robber pointed a gun at you would be enough to satisfy a judge or jury that you were legitimately in fear of being killed or seriously injured.

From a survival standpoint, reacting immediately with deadly force to a gun pointed at you won't always be the best strategy. As has been pointed out, outside of military actions or premeditated murder, guns are more often used to intimidate/coerce/deter than to kill or injure. Taking the blanket approach, by responding with deadly force to any pointed gun, could actually reduce your chances of surviving/remaining uninjured. You'll have to assess the circumstances of the situation to determine what you feel makes the most sense, but you don't want to stop thinking and begin an automatic/reflex type response just because you see the muzzle of a gun. It's easy for us to assume that once we make the decision to draw and fire that it's all going to be clear sailing, but the outcome for defenders isn't always positive--they aren't bullet proof superheroes. If it looks very likely that an armed robbery can be resolved without shooting, then not shooting is probably the safest strategy from a survival standpoint. When the shooting starts, there are no guarantees that all the bullets will end up in the bad guy. Defenders (or bystanders) can also end up seriously injured or killed.