The armed citizen's (CCW holder) response: At what point do you intervene?

[TexasRifleman]

I thought that was the premise: You're made aware of a robbery when the leader points his gun at you.

Right, it's a bad situation, there is no doubt about it. But the idea that we should not respond and just hope for mercy from the bad guy doesn't make sense to me.


If I am not willing to shoot a guy who points a gun at me, why exactly am I carrying a gun of my own? Of course it's very situational and you never know what is best until you are there, but the idea was put forth that someone pointing a gun at folks is not sufficient threat of violence to warrant a response, and I just don't understand that.

 

[comus3]

Even with a gun and all the skill/training in the world you can't control the outcome in every situation. I think you are fooling yourself if you believe you can and your choices might not be the best.

 

[Sam1911]

If I am not willing to shoot a guy who points a gun at me, why exactly am I carrying a gun of my own?

Well, certainly, but the question of drawing to a drawn gun comes into play.

In the scenarios, role play, force-on-force testing, drawing to a drawn gun is a completely losing proposition. It's just suicide, given an observant and focused attacker with his finger on the trigger.

So I think we then have to assume that the smart response to finding yourself inspecting the rifling of a bad guy's pistol and hearing, "YOU, DOWN ON THE GROUND!" is not to slap leather immediately.

If not "immediately," then when? We can assume the bad guy will keep his attention on you until you are proned out, not giving you the chance to reach for your gun without inviting an immediate bullet. (That you can't outrun -- no way, no how.)

So you have no choice (it seems) but to pause for a moment and observe the proceedings as you assume the horizontal. That moment should give you some kind of idea as to how these folks are intending to act.

Do you counterattack the moment their attention is off of you? Do you bide more time and observe a little longer? It seems to me that the longer you observe, the more time has passed without you having to shoot, the closer these clowns are to their goal and their set time of departure. Perhaps the fewer moments remain for someone to do something "twitchy."

Of course, the question is a little different if you weren't the first guy confronted and maybe you do have a little time to act before you're literally under the gun.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well, certainly, but the question of drawing to a drawn gun comes into play.

I'm aware of that, and that's probably a losing potation to be in. I am simply saying that some have put forth that the presence of a gun in the hand of a bad guy does not rise to the level of enough threat to warrant a response and I'm having a hard time figuring out what WOULD be, if that isn't.

The idea that I should trust a bad guy not to shoot, and that I should not respond if i am able to just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Sam1911]

some have put forth that the presence of a gun in the hand of a bad guy does not rise to the level of enough threat to warrant a response and I'm having a hard time figuring out what WOULD be, if that isn't.

Ahhh, I see. No, I don't agree that it doesn't warrant (in other words, justify) a violent response. My line of thinking is aimed at how to determine whether that violent response will make things turn out better or worse. I doubt (even outside of Texas! ) most DAs and juries would convict you for manslaughter if you killed a robber when he drew his pistol in a jewelry store, just about regardless of whether he intended to use it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've read of justifiable homicides wherein the robber had an unloaded gun or even a fake one.

But the opportunity to draw and fire your own weapon without immediately dying may not clearly present itself. And setting off a gunfight in which several people are killed is a very negative outcome, too, especially if the immediate social cues did not lead you to believe that their (and/or your) deaths were otherwise imminent.

The idea that I should trust a bad guy not to shoot, and that I should not respond if i am able to just doesn't make sense to me.

No. But each choice involves risks that the person involved will have to evaluate in the moment.

Deciding that someone holding a gun on you may be trusted not to kill you is no more reasonable than deciding that, simply because he's holding a gun on you (or others) that he WILL kill you (or them).

There are two possible working theories in that moment:
1) "This guy will walk out of here with his sack of loot, without firing a shot, if I just bide my time and no-one does anything to trigger violence."
2) "This guy is going to kill people before he leaves."

Several things should inform your evaluation:
1) What is the guy saying and doing? What's his mental state? What cues do you have about him personally that indicate which way he's going?
2) Most armed robbers don't shoot or kill anyone because there's no money or security benefit in it and it comes with some negatives.

Several things could inform you decision:
1) I do/don't have an unobserved moment to draw my gun.
2) I do/don't have a moment of distraction to aim and fire my gun.
3) I do/don't have a clear shot at one or more robbers without killing the wrong person; and,
4) Events are/aren't rapidly escalating to immediate bloodshed.

Number 4 there has the power to reduce or even nullify many of the other 3.

I'm looking at this the same way I believe most hostage negotiators do. The best result for all the innocents involved is to finish the scene without any shots fired. We can (try to) end this with violence at any minute, but the stakes for the lives of the innocents (including yourself, here) are very grave. (Ha! A pun! Shakespearean, no less! ) We can risk giving the bad guy the time to work things out to what he thinks is his advantage, and see if either things de-escalate, or things come to a crisis of violence. Be prepared for that violent crisis and act unhesitatingly if it does come.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Seems like unless they show you the means to kill, and or declare their intention to kill, your justification for drawing your own weapon is reduced.

Sam, I disagree.

Their numbers alone constitute lethal force as they enter: they have means and opportunity. As to jeopardy, a "riotous and tumultuous entry" is in many states enough to allow you at least to go for your gun as the situation unfolds. And certainly, as soon as they do start ordering people around (under implied threat of violence, or overt presentation of weapons), you're justified.

If not "immediately," then when? We can assume the bad guy will keep his attention on you until you are proned out

Maybe. Maybe you go down on one knee as if to comply, and he turns to persuade and check on others. This might be your moment: you can still draw easily (compared to prone), and if only the robbers are standing, it's the best target exposure you could hope for.

I'm looking at this the same way I believe most hostage negotiators do.

We all agree that no shots fired is the best resolution*, and that a foolish SD try can bring down a bloodbath. The stakes are high.

But recall that this is NOT a hostage negotiation: there are no cops waiting outside, there is no containment of the situation. There is literally nothing in the way of these folks deciding to murder everyone, or to take hostages.

Well, nothing but their good natures, of course!

(*Exception: I'd rather fire shots than have a "no-shot-fired resolution" that included a loved one being taken hostage.)

 

[Sam1911]

Seems like unless they show you the means to kill, and or declare their intention to kill, your justification for drawing your own weapon is reduced.

Sam, I disagree. They have an intention to kill unless you do exactly what they say...and they might kill you anyway.

I think you mis-read me. I said: "So, if a group of guys enter a jewelry store wearing masks and hoodies, but no weapons are visible ... what to do? Seems like unless they show you the means to kill, and or declare their intention to kill, your justification for drawing your own weapon is reduced."

That was all in response to the idea that you weren't faced with a gun pointed at you and a robber showing you his means to kill you if you don't comply.

As I said in post 30, once the gun is known/visible and/or the threats are made, the LEGAL justification is certainly established.

Just not, necessarily, the opportunity or the critical decision that armed response is required at that immediate moment.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think you mis-read me.

You are correct. I was just going to change my post; so I will now. Done. Apologies.

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe. Maybe you go down on one knee as if to comply, and he turns to persuade and check on others. This might be your moment: you can still draw easily (compared to prone), and if only the robbers are standing, it's the best target exposure you could hope for.

Yes! Maybe it would play out that way, and maybe there's the opportunity that hits the balance of need-vs.-risk.

 

[ForumSurfer]

But recall that this is NOT a hostage negotiation: there are no cops waiting outside, there is no containment of the situation. There is literally nothing in the way of these folks deciding to murder everyone, or to take hostages.

That is right. That also means that you have no backup. It also means you aren't wearing a ballistic vest and you don't have a partner to radio "officer down" to get the ambulance there double-time before you (edit:: or your SO) bleed out. If you decide to draw and fire, you better hope you've practiced dynamic drills involving multiple (likely moving) targets. That means that if we had been in this situation (edit::and fired), this would have went from a less than 2 minute robbery where everyone went home to a botched robbery where likely yourself, possibly other people and maybe the robbers themselves took a few rounds. Hindsight is 20/20, but clearly the fact that everyone walked away from this robbery demonstrates that drawing and firing is not the always the most prudent choice. It's just something to ponder on while we sit here being glad it wasn't us making this decision.

In the scenarios, role play, force-on-force testing, drawing to a drawn gun is a completely losing proposition.

Honestly, I don't know which is worse for my family...drawing down on 2 or more guns already drawn and ensuring a shoot-out, or complying with what appears to be a fast, coordinated smash-and-grab robbery suspect. When I draw to "defend" my loved ones on multiple armed attackers, I am ensuring that my family WILL be in the middle of a two-way range.

We all have the best of intentions. It really is hard to say because there are so many variables with regards to the bad guy's positions, demeanor, where each of their attentions are focused and whether they are armed and presenting.

 

[Sam1911]

There is literally nothing in the way of these folks deciding to murder everyone, or to take hostages.

Well, nothing but their good natures, of course!

Saying, "nothing but their good natures," is an ironically sarcastic way of indicating that there is no validity in expecting that possibility because -- they're armed robbers, ergo: their natures are not "good."

I think it would be more appropriate to say, "nothing but history and logic."

History because, as I pointed out, the great majority of armed robbers don't kill anyone, and logic due to the related point that there is no direct need for him to harm anyone to effect a successful robbery, and doing so has certain direct, compelling negative effects. It probably WON'T happen unless, 1) he's irrational and psychotic, 2) his strategy is very different than the majority of armed robbers, or 3) something tips his hand and forces him to act outside his plans.

It would be irrational to believe that an armed robber WOULD NOT kill you or others, should it benefit him.

It is also irrational to believe that he plans to, wants to, or WILL -- absent some specific indicators beyond the presence of the gun.

The statistics would tell you that you'd probably survive the encounter with no gun at all, helpless to his whim. Deliberately choosing not to act, based on the information you have and the opinions you're able to form in that moment is not an irrational decision.

Having your own firearm makes it possible for you to resist should things go very much contrary to the trend -- and I'd want the option, myself, certainly. But it should not compel you to act.

 

[heeler]

I too belong to the camp that I have little faith with a criminals intention as he comes in with a gun robbing and scaring everyone nearly to death.
This is not an easy call and I would have to be there at the moment to decide what I would do when it was going down.
I can tell you there have been numerous unprovoked murders of clerks and the general public here in Houston by people robbing them or the place of business and can say categorically that issue would be heavily weighing on my mind.

 

[Loosedhorse]

complying with what appears to be a fast, coordinated smash-and-grab robbery suspect.

Well, there's the rub. I suspect that none of us are trained in knowing the difference at the outset between a no-shots-fired robbery and one where they decide to search those in the store, shoot anyone armed, and take a hostage. So, I'm not sure we'd actually be going by appearence--more assumption, or hope.

The lack of back-up, armor, and aid will also apply if you are shot in the head while prone, or taken to a secondary crime scene.

"nothing but history and logic."

One might argue that history and logic suggest there's no need to go armed ever--I've certainly never needed to draw my gun. And yet we resist acting on that conclusion despite its probability.

The problem with induction as a tool of logic is that all it takes is one counter-example to show the previous data did not justify your conclusion. Is it okay if that counter-example occurs during your robbery?

It is also irrational to believe that he plans to, wants to, or WILL -- absent some specific indicators beyond the presence of the gun.

It is also irrational to assume that if a robber decides to kill you, he'll give you warning, allowing you to act.

Let's perhaps compromise: if I accept the assumption (and I do) that the most probable outcome if I submit is that everyone will be fine...

Can we also accept the assumption that if we submit, any subsequent attempt at self-defense (if we conclude we must act) will be even less likely to succeed?

That's a true Devil's Bargain.

 

[rondog]

All I know is, I was in an armed robbery once 30 years ago in a convenience store. I was young and had no permit or gun of course. The guy had a small auto, probably a .25, and all he wanted was the money and the 6-pack that he'd walked up to the counter with. There was a checkout station in the middle of the store, with two counters, registers and clerks. I was on the far side of the store, with both clerks between me and the BG, so shooting would have been out of the question.

I'd started to leave the store, didn't even know what was going on. He hollered at me to "get back in here", I turned and saw the gun pointed at me, so I just put my hands up, turned my back to him and looked at the magazines. He took the cash and the beer and booked.

Will every armed robbery happen that way? Of course not. But I'll also never assume that every armed robbery is grounds for an immediate shootout. I'm not a cop or a superhero, and fighting crime ain't my bag. But if someone is getting hurt or a shot is fired....even into the ceiling, and I'm armed at the time, it may well be a very different story.

But in this scenario of three guys doing a planned robbery of a big jewelry store in a crowded mall? I wouldn't consider drawing unless there was an absolute need to save my life or someone else's. They're there to smash, grab and haul ass, ASAP. Unless lives are at risk, take no heroic measures. The store's insured. I'm not risking my life or the lives of others just to protect some multi-millionaire's inventory.

In MY mind, just because some robber's waving a gun around doesn't automatically mean everyone's lives are in danger and someone must act immediately to stop him. The potential is there, of course, but my bet is on them wanting what they came for and the quickest exit possible. I sure as hell don't want to be the "hero" that jumps up to stop them and causes them to start trying to shoot their way out.

Just my opinions and way of thinking, of course, you guys that wanna be heroes...go for it. Just let me scoot over out of the way first, please.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Everyone here wants the same thing. We seem to be discussing how probable it is that things will go as you hope, if you'll have any realistic chance of doing something about it if things go south, and whether those considerations inform what you should do when the robbery starts. Or whether they don't...perhaps because there is never a realistic chance to defend oneself in this situation.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Namecalling, even indirectly, isn't going to advance the discussion. The "hero/coward" stuff stops, right now.

orders you (and all the other customers) to the floor

You and all the other customers. And the store staff. How many people are there in the store? Where are those innocent people in the store?

Did any one of the group of robbers come in early and quietly and 'hide' among the other customers? In other words, is there what's often referred to as a 'tailgunner' in your midst? Behind you maybe? Waiting for you or someone else to do something to interfere with their activities?

Any off duty or undercover cops in the store or nearby?

LOTS of stuff to think about in a situation like this. Best try and get some of it out of the way in advance...

 

[Owen Sparks]

Many in government, especially those in law enforcement believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

This is very jealously guarded as it sets them apart from and above the commoners. Use of force by the individual is often frowned upon even when it is in self-defense. You are not even allowed to use force to protect your property in most places. In some states you can’t even use force to resist a criminal if you have the ability to flee. If you were to shoot someone to protect a third parties property the police will come down harder on you than they would the original thief as resisting an unlawful crime can be as serious a crime as resisting a lawful arrest. The WORST thing you can do is take the law into your own hands as this challenges their monopoly on violence.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, there's the rub. I suspect that none of us are trained in knowing the difference at the outset between a no-shots-fired robbery and one where they decide to search those in the store, shoot anyone armed, and take a hostage. So, I'm not sure we'd actually be going by appearence--more assumption, or hope.

No, I'm not sure anyone is trained in that analysis. But we do have innate facilities to interpret words, statements, tone, attitudes, body language, and such which most of the time give us accurate impressions of what others are thinking, planning, and preparing to do. It sure isn't perfect. But its also just about all we'd have to go on in that moment.

In the instant of recognition that a robbery is taking place, we may simply grab for our sidearm and engage. But I don't believe that's honestly the most likely reaction -- even if we've predetermined that that is what we think we most aught to do. Failing that, two things are happening -- we're searching for our moment to regain the initiative and/or we're observing and trying to inform the analysis described above. I'd say we should be doing both.

One might argue that history and logic suggest there's no need to go armed ever--I've certainly never needed to draw my gun. And yet we resist acting on that conclusion despite its probability.

Right, but the stakes here are higher. The negatives drawbacks of carrying a gun when we didn't need to are pretty minor. A momentary hassle from an uninformed cop, perhaps -- maybe a bad back after a few years of sitting on it.

The risks of a poor choice when drawing that gun are a lot higher, and I believe more weight should be given to the analysis of the situation, vis-a-vis those risks.

The problem with induction as a tool of logic is that all it takes is one counter-example to show the previous data did not justify your conclusion. Is it okay if that counter-example occurs during your robbery?

No, it is not "okay." It is also not "okay" if three people die in a shootout that maybe didn't need to happen. Either is possible. Fortunately, neither is likely. But either way, we roll the dice and take our chances.

It is also irrational to assume that if a robber decides to kill you, he'll give you warning, allowing you to act.

Perhaps. But I'm still going to give a lot of weight to the evidence of my eyes and ears. He may be utterly psychotic. He may not. He may give me no opportunity to act at all. If that's the case, well, there's not much point in worrying about it, is there?

Let's perhaps compromise: if I accept the assumption (and I do) that the most probable outcome if I submit is that everyone will be fine...

Can we also accept the assumption that if we submit, any subsequent attempt at self-defense (if we conclude we must act) will be even less likely to succeed?

Less likely? Quite possibly. But we'd have to define "less likely than WHAT?" Planning an ambush while lying on the floor and surreptitiously drawing your weapon while the lookout guy is distracted might indeed be more likely to succeed than grabbing your gun at first notice -- when you're staring down the barrel of the robber's gun. Or you may lose all your ability to act by submitting initially.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I think the important exercise in this discussion is the mental pre-programming that can come from it, good and bad.

If you pre-program yourself to expect NOT to have to act because most of these incidents end without violence then you may very well be caught off guard and behind the curve if the situation DOES require action RIGHT NOW.

Better to program yourself to be ready and willing to act and deliberately choose NOT to until the time is right, if that time happens at all.

It's a subtle difference but as many will say, coming out OK in these things is mostly mental.

For me, it's a mental statement of "I will default to responding actively but with conscious decision making" vs "I will default to being passive unless I have no other choice". How long does it take one to make that mental switch from passive to active? Can it be done in time? I don't believe it can.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you pre-program yourself to expect NOT to have to act because most of these incidents end without violence then you may very well be caught off guard and behind the curve if the situation DOES require action RIGHT NOW.

I think that captures it exactly.

The risks of a poor choice when drawing that gun are a lot higher, and I believe more weight should be given to the analysis of the situation, vis-a-vis those risks.

And I like this, too. It is going to be almost always true that more "bad" things can happen by drawing a gun than good things--and that suggests a strong predisposition toward not drawing.

You all have helped me a lot. The two things I'm struggling with:

1. We know about the "trigger" in Cooper's Condition Red that should cause you to start shooting. What's the right trigger here?

2. I have already decided that I will not choose to disarm under criminal threat. As in, if a hostage-taker says, "Give me your gun or I shoot the hostage," I will not comply: disarming won't help the hostage and will likely get me killed. That's a disputable, philosophical position--but it's the one I'm comfortable with.

Given that: How far along the path toward being disarmed is complying with a request to lie face down? (It severely compromises, but does not elimininate, the later possibility of self-defense.)

The above don't require answers--just wanted to explain my mindset.

 

[Mr. Doughnut]

This is a most informative discussion, and I thank everyone for their frank and thoughtful input.

The tailgunner angle (Lee's post at 14:27 today) is a sobering thought, as is the prospect that the robbers could be wearing armor.

If engaging the bad guys were seriously considered, I would think that one's available firepower would need to be factored in. (Think five-shot J-frame versus, say, 18 rounds from a PT92).

Taking the hypothetical case -- based on the actual armed robbery of a Kay Jewelers in Tilton, NH a few days ago -- what would be your minimum firepower requirements?

Mr. Doughnut

 

[Cosmoline]

Once the firearm is out along with a threat of unlawful, imminent deadly force then you either fight back, flee or you leave your life or death to the criminal. The engagement is NOT a binding contractual agreement. The cash, jewels or whatever are IRRELEVANT and have nothing to do with your response except in a tactical way.

 

[Mr. Doughnut]

There are four video clips of the actual robbery available here:

http://www.wmur.com/news/29702546/detail.html

 

[rmantoo]

When watching the videos my first thought/reaction was that those guys are big enough, and their jackets were bulky enough that all 3 could easily be wearing body armor... which was followed immediately by, "crap, 3 guys, head or limb shots only--limbshots being pretty much impossible, followed closely by head shots being difficult to impossible under stress-- to say nothing of draw, target, shoot, transition, shoot, transition AGAIN, shoot, ALL for head shots...not a good scenario if it goes hot."

That thought started as the 1st guy cleared the entrance, as I could see the 2nd guy clearly at the same time...but by the time the 3rd guy was in the entrance, and I'd confirmed my initial size estimates, I'd also thought that the 1st guy pulled his pistol, but the 2nd guy had a hammer, and the 3rd guy had a bag, possibly w/more weapons in it, but the way he carried it by the straps, with the bottom of the bag almost horizontal, made me think probably no weapons in it, just empty bag...but still possible the 2nd and 3rd guy might have guns in their jackets or pants.

---at which point, we're about 4-5 seconds into the tapes, and all 3 are in the store.


I've been through a lot of reaction drill training, I used to shoot IDPA, and I'm a former MSF (motorcycle safety foundation) instructor, so I go through a LOT of mental drills ALL the time(about people, with guns, and vehicles, which are just as deadly, imho) about "what would I do IF" this or that happens. I concealed carry about 90% of the time, and in this instance, I don't honestly think I would have tried to draw on and engage these guys as they entered or even shortly thereafter, and once we're 30seconds or so in, their behavior seemed very focused on the display cases, NOT the customers or even staff to the extent that did not appear to be an unfolding case of hostage taking or 'kill all the witnesses.'

I'm not the most paranoid guy I know (that would probably have been my Korean war vet father, who was a 26 year Houston Police officer from 1958 to 1984), but I do my best to look at everyone who comes into places I'm already in, and to play scenario games about what and how I'd react if they did something crazy.


There are definitely situations where I'd draw immediately, but simply by viewing the tape, I honestly don't think this is one of them. Likewise, unless the verbal tone and language of the guy w/the pistol was grossly divergent from his physical behavior, I can't see me doing anything UNLESS their behavior changed radically from how it started.

 

[ChCx2744]

From the way they were having trouble with breaking the cases, it seems like those cases would actually provide moderate cover from gunfire. Maybe not that great of cover, but they may actually be able to divert the trajectory of bullets. Now be aware, that I would have never guessed jewelry store glass cases could do that, so I don't know if I would have the nerve to just draw and start engaging without proper cover. I'm a strong advocate of trying my best to get to cover first before engaging someone. In this situation, I wouldn't have known that, therefore I probably would have just complied. Now if they came up to me in a fashion as if I was about to be executed, better believe I'm drawing and engaging them. I'm about to die, why the hell not?