"Hand over the money or I will kill you!"

here dont bang bang bang

You know, all of our lives would be so much easier and less-complicated if someone would teach criminals one simple phrase: Don't Poke The Fate Bear.

I'm surprised that it took til halfway down the second page before anyone even mentioned the three words (or similar enough) Ability, Opportunity, Jeapordy.

Click to expand...

Considering that the originating post specified that this was an active robbery situation where there was little doubt that the threat was credible why should anyone have mentioned it?

If someone says, "Give me your money or I will kill you," while standing next to you why would you have to strain all credibility in his favor?

Granting that there are few limits to the stupidity of the really dumb sort of criminal, ...

Where, in reality, are you going to find a crook half your size shouting that phrase from 50 yards away while displaying two empty hands?

In reality, if you're being robbed there is a person within reasonable reach who has made some sort of attempt to present a credible threat. You are not required to make an absolute determination whether the hand inside his jacket is holding a real gun or a roughly gun-shaped Lego creation. You are not required to determine if the glint of steel in his hand is a razor-sharp blade or the butterknife he used to spread jelly on his toast that morning. You are not required to make him break a board with his menacingly-clenched fist to prove that he is actually capable of knocking all your teeth out and breaking your nose.

If he's not presenting some kind of credible threat he's not a robber, he's a panhandler and you can simply say, "No!" and go on your way. Without a credible threat its not a robbery so all the round and round and round "what if" stuff is completely ridiculous.

A couple of others have phrased it differently but the rule of thumb I was taught was that the situation must meet "M.M.O."

Means - Does he have the means to harm you (and yes a big man with bare fists is enough)

Motive- Is there a motive for the person to harm you (theft of money)

Opportunity- Can the harm actually be carried out? (If the person is right there in your face then yes)

All met in this case and self defense is justifiable (though you'll still wind up paying at least $20k in legal fees before it's all over).

people seem to forget that a weapon is not needed to take a life

I don't think anyone is talking about an unarmed loud mouth a considerable distance away, at least no the OP.

The rights of a victim are absolute; those of a criminal are null and void.

The right to defend one's property stems from the right to one's own life. A victim acting responsibly to a confirmed threat has no obligation to value his actual or would-be destroyer to any extent, whether he risks his wallet or his life. It is not a case of trade or compromise, but of unilateral crime. There is no warrior code between victim and robber or murderer.

How would I respond? With any amount of force necessary to protect my rights. My value for a criminal is below zero; whether my property is then "50" and my life "100" is irrelevant. Property is a product of life, of time, effort, thinking and acting. I am in the right, he is in the wrong. He chose to step outside the rules of civilisation and subject himself to the rule of force, and what's more, he forced that rule onto me as well. It is my task to ensure my superior strength in that arena.

Lethal force only? I will accept neither a blind eye, a damaged finger joint, a broken nose nor the complete loss of my life. I am supremely in the right and he is uncontestably in the wrong. There are no degrees. As a righteous man I reserve the right to be one hundred percent free from crime, and one hundred percent will I give against those who would differ.

Every day I carry: Wallet (2 IDs, 2 credit cards, ZERO cash), keys, cell phone, smokes, gun.

I don't carry money you see. Does that mean I already lost that argument?

I would certainly pull out the gun at that point and point it at the BG. He runs, I dial 911 and file a report. He moves as much as an millimeter closer to me and my pregnant wife... well, let's just say he will have to get to her over my dead body.

EDIT TO ADD: My neighbor is a former FBI agent with some "experience" in the area. I asked him once about when it's the appropriate time to pull out a gun etc. He looked at me, smiled, and said "You'll know".

I've had three people try to mug, three different incidents. Two had knives, one had POS .22lr. The knife wielders were little punks, one dropped with a swift kick to the jewels, I got stuck breaking his wrist because he wouldn't let go of the knife and then kicking him hard in one of his knee caps after he tried to get up 'to continue attacking me'. I did the old "yeah let me get you my wallet" then dropped it in front of him and the punk actually started to bend over to pick it up taking his eyes completely off me.

The other knife wielder was essentially the same trick with a punch to the throat then a kick to the jewels followed with an elbow slam to his upper spine(yeah that hurt my elbow a lot!!). If he hadn't taken his attention off of me when I dropped my wallet it would have been more difficult.

The gunman, oh man that was pure hillarity as I look back at it. A whole of bunch of cumulative stereotypes coming into play. The guy had a SA Heritage Rough Rider .22lr short barrel. I actually said "if you plan to shoot me you might want to take the safety off" well thank god it was dark out and the guy actually brought it about a foot from his face to see if he had taken the safety off, so I punched him in the throat and grabbed the gun and managed to work my middle finger between the hammer and the gun so him pulling the trigger was in vain. A one-sided beating ensued and the arriving officer and 911 operator got to hears his screams as the heel of my boot sat on his jewels ready to unman him.

The second the perp makes a valid threat and has a weapon ready, well karma sucks. I've had friends, colleagues, and others look at me like I was nuts when I tell them that if someone threatens my life, my only impression is that they are suicidal types looking to either die or kill me then die and there is simply no need for my death to be in the equation. Now if in a clean shoot the guy doesn't die but rather falls down and is no longer a threat I will by law be forced to stop shooting. But I train for double and triple taps off my .45s and .357s in the hopes of not leaving a standing risk to my danger.

Is that you Gecko?

^^ He's baa-aaack!

The rights of a victim are absolute; those of a criminal are null and void.

The right to defend one's property stems from the right to one's own life. A victim acting responsibly to a confirmed threat has no obligation to value his actual or would-be destroyer to any extent, whether he risks his wallet or his life. It is not a case of trade or compromise, but of unilateral crime. There is no warrior code between victim and robber or murderer.

Click to expand...

Wrong. And were you in the U.S. and tried this line of logic in most states (including Texas, by the way) you would find out HOW wrong. Many states still codify the "duty to retreat". For some, the "Castle Doctrine" removes that requirement in one's home (and sometimes in one's car and place of business). But even in the most gun-friendly, self-defense friendly states, there is nothing, nada, zip, zilch, that suggests that the rights of a criminal are null and void.

You have the right to defend yourself until the threat is stopped; that does not give you carte blanche to kill once the threat has been eliminated. The fact that he *was* a threat does not allow you to continue shooting to slide lock if the guy is no longer that threat.

I am supremely in the right and he is uncontestably in the wrong. There are no degrees. As a righteous man I reserve the right to be one hundred percent free from crime, and one hundred percent will I give against those who would differ.

Click to expand...

There ARE degrees. Some 98 pound punk who is unarmed is a WHOLE different matter than a 300 pound meth head with a tire iron. Learn to differentiate, or you may find yourself behind the same bars as the guy you shot.

Springmom

Would the people who are determined to twist the OP's original post about there being no doubt of a real threat into a situation where all credibility is strained in favor of the criminal making the specific threat, "Hand over the money or I will kill you!" please address my contention that if there is no credible threat you are dealing with a panhandler, not a robber?

With those words spoken I see only 2 options.

#1. You have a credible threat of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" and are thus justified in using deadly force to stop that threat.

#2. There is no credible threat and you can ignore the person who spoke those words and leave.

I fail to see any possible middle ground where the level of threat is great enough to compel me to give up my hard-earned property and yet not so great as to justify the use of deadly force.

Again acknowledging the boundless stupidity found in the criminal community, does the real world contain a crook who would actually say, "Hand over the money or I will commit simple assault by slapping you with a carefully measured amount of force which will bruise you but not break bones or cause any other type of great bodily harm. And here is a notarized document promising that I will certainly not commit any form of sexual assault against you or the children accompanying you after I have you under my control." ?

How can it be possible that, unless the criminal were to grapple you, take the wallet/purse, and leave in an ambush situation that took you completely by surprise, a robbery can occur without satisfying the means, motive, and opportunity criteria?

Just in case anybody missed what the OP was clearly setting forth for discussion:

Obviously there are a million ways for this to play out so I'll try to narrow it down. First I'll say that there is little doubt of one's life is in danger

Click to expand...

I have had people tell me (in response to a similar question) that "violence is never the answer" and "just hand over your wallet".

As 3KillerBs indicates, the idea of cooperating with someone under those circumstances assumes it is possible to enter into a contract (i.e., "I'll pay you not to kill me") with a person who obviously does not honor contracts.

springmom: I wasn't referring to the law as it is, but what it should be like. Also, perhaps I should've added that as a citizen, I would not have the right to, as you put it, empty the magazine into a criminal who is lying on the ground, since only the government may dispense retaliatory force. When force stops being defensive in nature, it becomes the domain of the government.

Oh, and don't get the impression that what I described would work in Sweden. You have much more freedom and right to defend yourself in the US. Here, it is illegal to carry any weapons and there are no obtainable licenses to permit such.


rainbowbob: "...the idea of cooperating with someone under those circumstances assumes it is possible to enter into a contract (i.e., "I'll pay you not to kill me") with a person who obviously does not honor contracts."

Exactly. Someone who initiates force must appropriately be dealt with by force. They've willingly thrown reason out the window, they're playing the violence game. You simply have to be more violent. Hopefully no one would be stupid enough to attempt a reasoned argument with a puma or a bear. Yet they might consider it when it comes to criminals who have no more interest in that than a wild predator.

Enuf fer now. Let the OP sit back and think on it.

Art