What would you do?

[Sisco]

Armed robbers hit a local Pizza Hut last week, got away with $1,200 cash plus checks & credit card receipts.
Since Kansas doesn’t allow concealed carry no one could do much of anything. Having no training in this type of situation I asked myself “What would I have done if I were legally armed?â€
Would you draw you weapon and confront the three? Wait until they shoot somebody, hopefully not you, then open fire yourself? Wait and see how it was going down, hope it goes down exactly as it did - take the money & run, no one hurt?
It wasn’t reported how many customers were in the place at the time, only that the perps took a cell phone from someone at a table. Here’s a good one too; witnesses reported that one of the three men was armed with either a pistol or a shotgun. (??) Guess they couldn’t tell the difference. (OK sir, did the gun fit in one hand or was it between two to five feet long?)
No one saw a getaway car or which direction they went after leaving despite large windows all around the building.
Police suspect the same three men are responsible for similar robberies at another fast food place and a convenience store.

 

[Preacherman]

Simple answer - you are only permitted to use lethal force in the face of direct, immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious injury. If the thieves were threatening you with their weapons, or if they bragged that they were going to kill everybody in the store, no question - pop 'em! But if they are only intent on getting the cash and leaving, I would be very hesitant about taking them on. There are innocent bystanders around who could be hit by their (or your) misses: you might not get all of them before one of them gets you: and so on. Rather leave it alone, let them go, and then catch up on your breathing. However, I'd be in high alert the whole time, and would (if possible to do so unobserved) have my gun ready, so that if something did go wrong and things turned lethal, I'd be able to intervene as quickly as possible.

 

[Erik]

I would have made an exellent witness when the authorities arrived.

 

[Drjones]

Ditto Preacherman and Erik.

You MUST remember: A CCW permit is NOT a badge. It does NOT turn you into a police officer.

You carry for the protection of YOUR life, those of your loved ones, and those lives alone.

If you think that by intervening as a third party in a situation such as the one you described, that you could make a difference, be careful. Research NOW the legalities, moral and ethical implications, as well as the legal consequences.

Example: You see a man and woman fighting. The woman is screaming for help. This is ALL you have seen: you did NOT see the situation from the beginning.

How do you know it isn't a man accosting a woman who just tried to kidnap his son? How do you know she didn't try to kill HIM?

In your example above, keep in mind; it is only MONEY. No more, no less. Until your life or the lives of others are in IMMINENT danger of Grave harm or death, you should NOT intervene.

 

[Sisco]

You carry for the protection of YOUR life, those of your loved ones, and those lives alone.

I am in total agreement that lethal force is not to be used to protect property, only life.
My way of thinking is with Preacherman and I do believe I would be a better witness than those at the scene.
But in the situation above if you were positive that the BG was about to do harm to a third party (waitress, other customer etc)you would be under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to intercede?

 

[Drjones]

But in the situation above if you were positive that the BG was about to do harm to a third party (waitress, other customer etc)you would be under no legal, ethical or moral obligation to intercede?

SK: I apologise if it wasn't clear in my thread, and I don't think it was.

Lethal force is only justified (of course we all know it varies by state...but in general...) when a person is in imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death.

In the situation described above, IF lives were to be in IMMINENT danger of death or harm, I would intercede IF I thought I could make a difference.

What I attempted to point out in the rest of my response was that when interceding in a situation which does not directly affect you (like my example of coming across a man and woman fighting without having knowledge of WHY they are fighting) you need to proceed carefully.

That advice is sorta OT from this thread, but I wanted the inital poster to be aware of it nonetheless.

Confused yet???

 

[Seminole]

You carry for the protection of YOUR life, those of your loved ones, and those lives alone.

I've got to disagree. If I could save the life of someone who, through no fault of his own, is being threatened, I would hope that I would do so. The reality is that I would probably factor in the probability of my success, the danger to myself and others, my responsibility for the continued protection of my own family, etc. But someone who is callously threatening the life of one person in such a situation is by definition already a threat to me and every other person there.

 

[Drjones]

OK, apparently I'm writing as clearly as mud today.

(Sorry...I'm soooo excited this new forum is open!!! )

Me personally, if I were to happen across a situation in which I could aid someone, I would.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, you must act carefully; there HAVE BEEN CASES of people interceding in an event; a fight or something, and ended up interfering in the affairs of an UNDERCOVER COP!!!

Basically, I'm trying to say that if you do not see a situation develop from the very beginning, you need to proceed carefully, as the person you percieve as the "bad guy" may indeed be the "good guy." Get it?

Again, I personally would very likely help others though...that's just who I am. I am just pointing out that you need to BE CAREFUL.

 

[Sisco]

Drjones I understand exactly what you're saying.
Since this is Strategy & Tactics, let's go further with the scenario and say deadly force is justified. Obviously take out the BG with the gun first. Now what? Wait to see how the other two react or go ahead and take out the one closest to you?
I would probably wait for reaction but one would hate to wait too long. One would also hate to be charged with shooting an unarmed person that was making no overt threats at the time.
I really think that discussions like this one serve to make people aware of just how much responsibility is involved in daily carry of a firearm.

 

[Drjones]

Thanks, SK.

I've seen much mention of "moles" or "sleepers" or something like that, whose function is; if say, a pair of guys comes in to rob a bank, store, etc., there is ALSO a third guy ALREADY IN the place, waiting to take out a possible CCW holder or other rebel.

I have not heard real-life stories like such, but have seen much talk of them on TFL.

Something to consider...

 

[Tim Burke]

Robbers armed with firearms have taken over the Pizza Hut in which you are eating.
If you get up to leave, are they going to let you walk out? If not, you are in grave danger, and AOJP have all been met. You should be legally justified in using deadly force.
Legally justified doesn't mean it's a good idea. Whether or not it is a good idea is a judgment call that you usually can't make from a hypothetical scenario.
If you engage, then once you decide to engage, I'd recommend that you stay on the offensive. If the other 2 robbers have guns tucked away, you will be reacting if you wait to see what they do.

 

[C.R.Sam]

Would you draw you weapon and confront the three?

Confront...no.
Either try to become invisible...
Or STOP them as soon as you present your arm.

Confronting them gives them the opportunity to shoot you at leisure.

Having your arm ready but out of sight if possible part of becoming invisible.

Sam

 

[Preacherman]

Another point on this one. If the BG's threaten anyone, you are now in a position to protect innocent life. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate... (BTDT!) However, you will also be responsible for any other damage/injuries/deaths that occur as a result of your intervention. For example, if the BG is pointing his gun at a woman clerk and threatening her, and you shoot him, and in his pain his finger tightens on the trigger, shooting the woman, you are instantly at least partially liable for her injuries, as without your shot the BG's gun might not have been fired. This is why it's SO important to practice fast, accurate head-shots at close to medium range with your carry gun and load.

A shot to the brain stem will "shut down" the body's nervous system instantly and completely, and it's unlikely to the vanishing point that the BG will be able to pull the trigger, even on a light SA trigger like a 1911-type auto. The "brain stem" shot is made by shooting at the center of the head, aiming to put the bullet path through the rear half of the brain (i.e. from the ears to the back of the head), at an elevation between the eyes themselves and the upper lip. Put one round right through the middle of this, and the BG's going to drop like a sack of coal dust. If shooting from the front (i.e. directly facing the BG), a good target is to aim for the nose - there's a nice gap in the skull right behind it... nothing to impede even a lower-power bullet from penetrating.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

At least here in Texas, there have to be exits other than the front door such that patrons can leave in an emergency, such as during a fire or robbery.

In the situation described, the robbery is really inconsequential in the situation except for being the catalyst that brought the robbers to be in the same place as you. They may be there for the money, but what is needing to be protected is human life.

Assuming you do decide to intervene, I think I would also hesitate in giving the bad guys some sort of verbal compliance command. You ARE outnumbered (which you know), but you have no idea as to how well the bad guys might be armed. A verbal compliance command gives the robbers a chance to get the upper hand. Do you really think you could incapacitate all three before they shoot you? No insult intended here, only a consideration of how badly the unknown factors may stack th e odds against you.

If lives are at risk and you do act, then I am a firm believer you should drop them as quickly as possible. If they are not watching you and are focused on the register, then shots to the back are just fine. There are no laws I know of that state that you can't shoot folks in the back. If you have the right to use lethal force and the robbers made the grave tactical error of having their backs to you, then exploiting that mistake would be in your best interest.

For my particular situation, I have a much greater duty of being a live provider for my family than I do to saving the lives of strangers. More than likely, I would have the gun drawn and be trying to increase my distance from the bad guys as quickly as possible, going to cover, or out the emergency exit. Being a live witness beats the heck about being a dead hero.

Here is another consideration. You have seen three robbers come in the pizza place. Other than that information, how aware are you of happenings going on immediately outside? Do the bad guys have one or more stooges outside serving as lockouts or covering their six? If you did draw your gun, do you know for certain that there isn't a person outside who is waiting to shoot you through the glass?

All that being said, there are additional considerations. According to FBI data presented in a documentary on Discover Channel, about 12-13% of robbers will go ahead and shoot clerks or patrons even after they have fully complied with demands. I don't consider that to be a good thing for me. Additionally, while I may not shoot to try to save the clerks or other patrons in the pizza place, if I feel my life is endangered, then I have no problem with protecting myself. It just may be a nice side benefit that I saved the patrons, clerk, and $.

It was not my intent to get a concealed carry permit and go around playing hero to all the sheeple out there who apparently don't care or are unwilling to get their own permits and get regular gun handling practice.

 

[MitchSchaft]

I'd rather be a good witness unless they started shooting at people.

You carry for the protection of YOUR life, those of your loved ones, and those lives alone.

In this state you can protect 3rd party people that are not family. You can't use deadly force to protect personal property, though.

 

[ArmyCop]

What'd I do? Depends on a few things like; Family with me? Where am I sitting in respect to the BG's and entrance\exit, anyone in the way?
I am of the frame of mind that if\when someone does something like this - I have no reason to believe they won't shoot someone (my family, me, other innocents).
I know of one fellow working in a Tom Thumb quick-stop store who was alone - BG came in with shot gun, made the clerk lay on floor, robbed place & had no resistance from the clerk but on the way out the door the BG shot the clerk anyway, just for the heck of it.
If they have a gun(s) I'd not have any reason to believe they weren't going to shoot someone and if I had a resonable safe shoot I'd have family get down and take em all out if I could.
If I didn't do this and one decided just for the heck of it - and unexpectedly were to shoot one of my family I'd always think it would not have happened if I had of taken action. I'd have a hard time living with that - harder than if I'd took action to prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

[Drjones]

Army cop raises a good point, which I think may already have been brought up:

When someone brandishes a weapon, isn't that considered "Deadly Force"? Assuming so, you WOULD be justified in using deadly force in return, ESP. if they are threatening people.

However, it becomes less clear how to react (if at all) when there are multiple guys.

 

[spacemanspiff]

unless i somehow get a psychic revelation that the BG is just going to rob the place and would not under any circumstances harm anyone in the process, i am going to do what i can to answer that definite threat.
granted, this can only be applied when i am certain the BG has made threats against human lives.
since i am not a psychic and i dont know what the BG's intentions are, i am given two options:
1. do nothing and have my conscience torture me the rest of my life if the BG does shoot a victim;
2. do something and hope that my conscience will go a little easier on me if i shoot the BG and he/she subsequently shoots someone else.

is it elevating the risk for me to draw a weapon on an armed attacker? maybe, but the risk was already elevated to a deadly point by the BG making the threat with such a weapon in the first place. i am not necessarily elevating the risk per se, but reacting to the initial risk.

multiple BG's are a different story. requires a lot more skill and an extra heaping of luck to get the drop on all of them.

 

[King]

I would, to the extent that I had the opportunity, stay invisible but monitor what was going on, call 911 if possible (via my cell phone), make a plan to defend myself (and the other patrons) should the need arise.

1) Robbery with no apparent threat to kill the clerk or patrons, let them have the money and make a good witness.

2) Apparent threat to kill clerk, respond with deadly force if needed. If possible includes not getting myself killed.

3) Robbers spot me and demonstrate intent to harm me, I would use deadly force to defend myself.

- That said, I would already have determined who and in
what sequence to take out (if possible)

Key point, avoid confrontation and possible loss of life. Make a good witness if at all possible.

Protection of a business's financial assets are not an issue. Could not cate less about their money.

 

[BogBabe]

I'd be scared totally crapless. I'd try to get my weapon ready to use, so that I'd be ready if necessary, but no way I'm going to insert myself into the middle of things, if I can blend into the background instead.

 

[David Scott]

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT OFFERED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

As in so many cases, local law comes into play. Here in Florida, you're legally justified in shooting to stop a violent felony in progress. As soon as the robbers show a weapon -- threat of violence -- you may, but are not obligated to, use force to stop the crime.

If all they want is the money, I say let 'em take it and go. Pizza Hut is no doubt insured. If, however, they show the slightest inclination to hurt someone, I think that's the time to intervene. If you do choose to intervene, I think you should put one round into each perp, starting with the greatest immediate threat, and then assess the need for follow ups. IMHO it is foolhardy to try to cover three guys and talk them into surrender. Lousy odds.

 

[22x9]

Pizza Hut was mentioned as the restaurant, correct? They serve beer at our local one and so, in the Commonwelath of VA, thats one of the places you can not carry. So I either:

A. Would not be armed
B. Would not be eating there.

Sorry, moot point for me.

 

[Chris Rhines]

You carry for the protection of YOUR life, those of your loved ones, and those lives alone.

Doc Jones is exactly right. Intervening to protect an unknown third party (or in the Pizza Hut case, an unknown third-parties' money,) is a very bad idea.

Along with everything else, my assessment of the particular situation would color my actions. In general, if I could leave the area without drawing attention to myself, I would. Otherwise, I'd be a good witness.

- Chris

 

[Smurfslayer]

"Pizza Hut was mentioned as the restaurant, correct? They serve beer at our local one and so, in the Commonwelath of VA, thats one of the places you can not carry. So I either:

A. Would not be armed
B. Would not be eating there. "

[SS] It's one of the places that you cannot carry CONCEALED ...
So option A is not on the table. Whether or not eating at Pizza Hut is ...uh... Tactically sound, is another thread entirely ;-)

 

[22x9]

[SS] It's one of the places that you cannot carry CONCEALED ...

So I can walk in with my Steyr in my belt holster and as long as I don't have my jacket on (i.e not concealled), I'm good to go? [Yes. I know. "DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT OFFERED AS LEGAL ADVICE"]

If true (will go look into this), I'll be eating out some more.