Police: Clerk "...did just what he should have done..." but still dead

[Sam1911]

Let me see if I got this right..... The robber doesn't care about the consequences of his actions -- or hers; let's be fair. We on the other hand (because this is The High Road) have to agonize for hours over the moral and philosophical implications of each shot. Who is going to win that fight every time?

You are exactly right. A criminal actor holds a great many cards the lawful defender does not. He doesn't have to care about the laws regarding possession and carrying of weapons. We do. He doesn't have to care about the laws against making threats and brandishing weapons. We do. He doesn't have to care about whether or not his use of deadly force is excused in the eyes of the law due to circumstances. We do. He doesn't have to care WHO appears in front of his muzzle or who catches a bullet he's fired. We do. He doesn't have to concern himself with sticking around to speak to the police, make sworn statements which may incriminate him of some inadvertent criminal offense. We do. He doesn't have to concern himself with civil suits from his victims or bystanders looking to take his savings (because he almost certainly has no assets). We do. He doesn't have to concern himself with the moral or ethical implications of any act he took or didn't take (having already breached societies mores and whatever personal morals he might have had to pursue a criminal life). We do.

Very similar to the terribly frustrating circumstances our armed forces sometimes find themselves in -- there are huge drawbacks and risks inherent when you accept the role of being "the GOOD GUY." The enemy can dispense with or ignore almost any factors that would restrict his actions in any way. We cannot.

So what do you propose?

Situational awareness. Avoidance. De-escalation. Retreat. And if all that fails, acting with explosive violence, only when you are reasonably certain that if you do not act you (or someone in your charge) will be greviously hurt or killed. There's no easy answer. Sometimes there is no RIGHT answer. Only various shades of negative outcomes. Sometimes you do everything right (as this clerk nearly did) and you die anyway. Life sucks like that.

 

[CoRoMo]

Are there any CLUES you might see that would indicate that the bad guy is going to do more than just leave with the money?

Probably not.

I believe this is the given scenario:
An armed criminal is holding a firearm at point blank range to a 3rd party; we can all assume his finger on the trigger, chamber loaded. There could be almost no hint that he's decided to fire in that situation even if you are staring closely at his trigger finger.

I think the better question is this: Is there any assurance that initiating a gun fight in that situation will have no harmful effects? I can't accept that there is.

Okay, removing fog of war, ambulance chasers, greedy relatives, bleeding heart juries...

Eh. As entertaining as the world of fantasy is, I think the only productive discussions in this forum are those based in reality.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by zxcvbob: Let me see if I got this right... shooting the bad guy is never the right answer unless you are certain that he's gonna kill you -- which you can't know with any certainty until it is too late.

Well, no.

It's unless you have reason to believe that you are in imminent danger of death or serious injury and that you have no alternative to the use of deadly force.

There are also justifications involving the necessary prevention of forcible felonies, and the defense of a third party, provided that the actor has reason to believe that the third party would himself be justified in the use of deadly force for self defense.

Would you really have it any different?

So what do you propose?

What's the question?

The robber doesn't care about the consequences of his actions -- or hers;...

That is completely irrelevant.

...let's be fair. We on the other hand (because this is The High Road) have to agonize for hours over the moral and philosophical implications of each shot.

No. Because we live in a society of laws, we are responsible for each shot. Always have been, going back to the first firearms.

Who is going to win that fight every time?

What fight?

 

[Ryanxia]

If you have the chance to do so without the likelihood of getting yourself or others killed, take out the BG.

 

[Skribs]

The problem nowadays is that anyone who is a witness becomes a threat to the assailant. So just by being the victim, the assailant will consider you a threat, regardless of how de-escalating you are.

This is why, going into the situation of an armed robbery, I would already be afraid for my life.

 

[CoRoMo]

If you have the chance to do so without the likelihood of getting yourself or others killed, take out the BG.

Don't forget injury to yourself/others. Becoming a quadriplegic, yet surviving, is not as ideal as walking away unharmed. The attorney of the paralyzed bystander who caught a stray bullet might not shrug it off and blame the armed robber.

 

[Sam1911]

This is why, going into the situation of an armed robbery, I would already be afraid for my life.

Of course you would! Robbery is a forcible felony. The prevailing issue is not the threat of property loss, but the fact that your own life is at risk.

However, there's a point in the proceedings where (should they play out as they did for this poor clerk) that threat has passed, or it would appear to a reasonable person that it has.

 

[Jim K]

If the clerk had ever indicated to management that he wanted to be armed, and was told it was against company policy and he would lose his job if he armed himself, his survivors might have a case against the company, putting them in a legal bind. If they say their policy is correct, then they are responsible for the clerk's death. If they say it is not correct, then they have to change it or face more law suits.

Up to now, they have always been able to claim that their clerks don't need a weapon, would not be able to have one (age, criminal record) or never wanted to have one. Someday, that policy will rise up and bite them.

Jim

 

[mljdeckard]

I do not accept that being robbed and being in legitimate fear of your life are the same thing. You can certainly have one without the other.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, at the very least there is either an assault happening (you're being grabbed, held, restrained, and your pockets rifled) or there is an assault being threatened. Otherwise, it's just panhandling. There has to be some violent componant to coerce you to give up your valuables. (As opposed to a theft where there is no violence, only a taking.)

How threatened you feel, and to what level that threat rises is of course situationally dependant. However, being assaulted or threatened with assault by someone with the means and opportunity to carry out that threat is a pretty clear indicator that use of force (or deadly force, depending) is warranted.

 

[mljdeckard]

I do maintain that I would have to look at the situation and make a decision on whether or not the guy was truly likely to be violent before I used deadly force. If I REALLY think he's goung to take his fistful of twenties and run, I'm not killing anyone.

 

[Sam1911]

Absolutely concur.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Let me see if I got this right... shooting the bad guy is never the right answer unless you are certain that he's gonna kill you -- which you can't know with any certainty until it is too late.

So what do you propose?

It is a mindset thing, to me.

In the midst of an encounter like we're talking about, you do what you have to do to survive based on the information available to you at the time. But mindset also includes a realistic appraisal and understanding of the potential consequences of carrying concealed and employing deadly force. If you haven't considered that you might be absolutely on the side of the angels in a shooting and still face criminal prosecution and/or financial ruin from the experience, you haven't thought things through.

As was said up thread, employing deadly force is often the second worse possible outcome of an encounter like we're discussing.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Delaware?

No wonder he had no gun and did as the 'authorities' told him.

Here in Texas they would throw the clerk a party if he capped a robber.

Sad indeed a man who worked hard for a living was killed by a low life that didn't have the guts or will to get a honest job.

Deaf

 

[Yoda]

"If I REALLY think he's goung to take his fistful of twenties and run..."

But has there been any research or studies that might shed some light on whether he's going to be happy with just running out of the store with the cash, or if he might be inclined to gratuously shoot someone on his way out?

- - - Yoda

 

[Skribs]

But has there been any research or studies that might shed some light on whether he's going to be happy with jusy running out of the store with the cash, or if he might be inclined to gratuously shoot someone on his way out?

I can only repeat what my Mom told me when I was a teenager (at this time, we weren't gun owners). "When I was growing up, we were told if someone asks for your money, you give it to him, and he'll let you go. Now, you get all these drug babies, who have no conscience, and if you give them your money they'll just kill you anyway. So if someone asks for your money, you just run."

Luckily, I haven't been in that situation, but like I said above, if someone is commiting a forcible felony, especially with a weapon, I'm not inclined to think they have nothing but good tidings in store for me.

 

[huntsman]

Standing there and watching them walk out the door apparently cost him his life.... and they probably shot him for kicks, or out of spiteful contempt, or out of racial hatred.

If unarmed.... complying with demands makes sense WHEN they the BG has the drop on you and is in you face....

But when the BG turned his back or opens up distance, dropping down behind the counter or bolting for the back room might have save this poor chap's life.

Working at a party store certainly is a hazzardous job.

yeah that's what I thought, quit watching and start moving.

gimme three steps gimme three steps mister.

 

[Sam1911]

Delaware?

No wonder he had no gun and did as the 'authorities' told him.

What the heck does THAT mean, Deaf? DE is very gun-friendly. CCW isn't difficult. In fact (HEY TEXAS!) Open Carry is legal there, too!

 

[xXxplosive]

SSN VET.........+1 on this.

Personally, not goin' down without a fight......ever.

 

[scaatylobo]

7-11 = no gun

The store policy is to ban ALL store employees from being armed.

And fire you if you are caught armed.

So even if you carry and keep it concealed,IF you get caught then your fired.

IF you believe that CCW is your own business [ I do ] but you use OR just get caught with a firearm on their premise = your fired.

AND convenience store clerk is the most dangerous job [ according to FBI ] in America.

So it was very unlikely that the perps would be facing an armed clerk.

Making their actions all the more disgusting.

 

[Yoda]

Copy all, but the question is "Are there any clues that might lead you to believe that the bad guy might shoot, even after he has the cash and can exit unmolested?"

Stone cold eyes? Darting eyes? Drugged? Any reasearch on the subject?

In other words, the issue is not what you think you might do, but information that might help others make an informed decision.

- - - Yoda

 

[blarby]

A few things of note to look for, sometimes helpful, sometimes not :

A career criminal is much more likely to be confident in their gun handling skills. Shaky nervous gun play is a bad sign....and usually one of desperation...this guy is much more likely to shoot, intentionally or not. This is probably the easiest thing to notice, and the most commonly known. A career BG wants to get away- a junkie just wants a fix. One of these is infinitely more dangerous than the other.

Verbal cues are going to be your greatest asset in situations like this, and your gut will give them away instantly. In this case, as the perp turned, im certain something was coming out of his mouth- as the video of Ullah in the news shows him reacting, almost as in a flinch, before the shots were fired OR the perp had fully turned to shoot him.

I wish they would have showed the whole video, from them entering to exiting...not just the shooting.

In the end though- street bravado is becoming hard to overcome as a causal justifier these days.... You may be better off shooting and hitting your target regardless, the moment a weapon is presented.

Thats your choice when you carry, you need to make that choice before you need to make it in RL.

 

[Yoda]

BLARBY...

Thanks. That's the direction I was hoping to drive the discussion.

I've already decided on some red lines, but I've also realized that there's good reasons NOT to shoot if it looks like the bad guy is just going to be happy with the money and a clean escape. (Even if I were certain where all my rounds might go--which is unrealistic--I don't know where HIS might go.)

The problem is trying to decide what the bad guy will do a second or two in the future. As you seem to say, the less calm and composed a bad guy is, the more likely he might be to shoot without provocation.

I wonder if someone else would argue the opposite, that a cool and calm bad guy might be more inclined to make a conscious decision to leave no witnesses.

Maybe one factor might be if the bad guy thinks the clerk or customers have seen enough that they could ID him later. Prominent tattoos would then be a factor, if the bad guy was self-concious about them or overly concerned that they were too distinctive.

- - - Yoda

 

[lemaymiami]

I've dealt with many robbery vics as well as other vics of violent crime (armed subjects, every form of weapon you can imagine, including knives and the traditional "blunt instrument"}. Being a good rabbit (or good victim) may be all that's needed - on occasion it just gets the victim slaughtered.... The problem for all of us is having the experience to tell when co-operating keeps you safe and when co-operating gets you killed. How any victim will actually respond when put on the spot is anyone's guess. I've seen strong capable individuals (male or female) freeze up or actually break down totally when the deal goes down and for the first time in their lives they're facing a death threat. I've seen mild mannered "librarian types" turn into tigers. I could never have predicted which way they'd go (and that includes folks that I was the one pointing the gun at....).

When I first got into police work I didn't have a clue about human behavior but I was forced to learn. When I left that line of work 22 years later I was actually able to correctly anticipate (most of the time) which way most would jump if it came down to it. None of that was ever taught in any class I ever attended (but there might actually be courses and training that does teach those skills)...

My advice to victims or potential victims (clerks in all night convenience stores should be equipped with bullet proof underwear in my judgment), was usually the same. Co-operate with the BG, let them have the money or other goods they're seeking.... but never under any circumstances allow yourself to be taken hostage (don't go anywhere with a BG). Subterfuge, barfing on the bad guy.... do anything but leave with them. The old fake heart attack has saved a few folks over the years. The moment you decide that co-operating isn't the way to go.... ACT on that judgement and do anything necessary to survive. Getting behind something that will stop a bullet is probably a good first step. Bolting at the first opportunity is another. If you're certain that very bad things are about to happen don't just stand there. Remember as well that many, many gunshot wounds are survivable, and that the will to survive may be the best weapon any of us has.

After preaching like this, I'd like to admit right up front that I'd like to live out the rest of my life and never face an armed opponent again.... In real life it's just not much fun.

 

[Mr Gunsmith]

This scenario is the very one that I'm agonizing over & trying to work up a solution for in my own business. It's good to read about the abundance of caution so many of you are advocating.

Me personally, having faced an attacker who wanted to slice me to ribbons with a large kife in a previous occupation (truck driver delivering gas), I have no doubt that since I began to carry a firearm on my person that my reaction would be to defend myself by any means I had available. Consequences, legal or moral, really won't play into my mind at the time as my survival instinct will be in control. I certainly remember the helpless feeling I had when I was being mugged even though I carried no cash on me. And I know now that my own psyche would go into self preservation. The angles in my mind that would make up that preservation would depend on my means of dealing with the situation. If flight is my option then flight it is. Careful diffusing through negotiation then I go that way. But if faced with eminant violence & the gun is at my side, being the only option to stop someone intending me grave harm, I'm going to use it & not hesitate.

Now that I am a business owner of a small community convenience/grocery store, I have to do what I think is best for the safety of my employees & family in the store & my customers. For me it is being openly armed & well trained to handle the firearm in an emergency confrontation. The hiding of guns from most peoples view has made us too comfortable with the idea that someone will save us from the bad guys.

How about we not be the sheep in line for the wolves to take but be equally a wolf ourselves? If you know what I mean.