Armed robbers shoot compliant victim

[Boss-Saint-Tony]

I think one good way to take out an aggressor who gets too close and doesn't pay enough attention is to stomp the knee backwards. First, you must get your hands onto the gun, to control the muzzle direction, then stomp your full weight onto his knee. It seems to me that a lot of humans live very much "in their head," and often aren't paying attention to the lower half of their own body. A person holding a gun is especially focussed on the weapon, on the upper half of their body -- not expecting to have their knee crushed backwards. At the moment when the shotgun went one-handed, had the clerk grabbed the gun (enough to control it) and stomped the guy's knee backwards, things would have turned out very different. Keep in mind, to accomplish this, it is important not to "telegraph" your move. Make the guy think you are completely focussed on the weapon, and that is what will open the window for the knee stomping.
--BST

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Boss-Saint-Tony:
I think one good way to take out an aggressor who gets too close and doesn't pay enough attention is to stomp the knee backwards.[while controlling the weapon]

Good idea. I also think that recognizing what's afoot and, if at all possible, stopping the bad guys before they get behind the counter and draw the shotgun would be the best action. Thus my curiosity about what other observers see, and the surveillance-video reminder that speed and timing are often critical. If one does not have the speed, at least initially, then one might well wait for the next best time to act.

I worked with some extremely petite women, and to imagine them tussling with even one fellow over a shotgun seems a pretty tall order, especially if there may be a better way. For that reason, too, I was curious about matters of timing, were a hypothetical clerk in such an instance armed.

Thanks for commenting.

Meanwhile, an arrest warrant has been issued for an 18-year-old suspect, one Carlos Xavier Ross, and Mr. Vaka, the shot clerk, remains in critical condition. Here's hoping his condition improves.

 

[Victor1Echo]

BOTH OF THE PERPS ARE ARMED. The other looks as though he has a handgun of some sort.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Victor1Echo:
BOTH OF THE PERPS ARE ARMED. The other looks as though he has a handgun of some sort.

Interesting observation. I'll have to look again, more closely this time...

 

[Nick5182]

at around the :20 second mark (where everyone brings up that the perp is only holding the shotgun one handed, he's not even looking at the clerk from what I can see. I definitely would have made a grab for the gun then. When I worked at a convenience store (I was about 20 at the time), we were always trained if we were robbed to comply, comply, COMPLY! And honestly, that's a bunch of crap. Complying to a point where you have the tactical advantage is much better, and I believe you should always fight before laying down or getting on your knees. That's like asking them to take your life. I think if you see any opportunity to defend your life, you gotta take it.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Victor1Echo:

At about :28 to :30 seconds, goon 2 appears to possibly take something from shotgun-fellow's backpack and transfer it from left hand to right, and it appears visible to about :40 seconds. I can't make out what it is, but it also seems evident that he puts it away in favor of the shotgun.

Even if it were not another gun in his hand, it seems the safest course of action is to always assume that other participants in violent crime are also armed.

Good observation. Thanks.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

what!?! i thought just giving them whatever they want was always the best defense. just ask the brady bunch.

I don't recall the Brady folks ever claiming that giving the bad guys whatever they want was the best defense. The arguments that I have read suggest compliance as a means to avoid being harmed or killed. So the stress is not on defense at all, but compliance.

The sentiment is echoed by numerous law enforcement agencies as well, not to mention countless businesses.

Statistically, it is a very successful strategy as it works approximately 87% of the time according to FBI stats from about 10 years ago.

That is not to say that I believe compliance is the right way to go. I believe in complying only when you have to do so and only so long as it is the most advantageous thing to do.

What I have never seen are data that who what the injury and/or death rates are for victims who fight back. It could possibly be that fighting back increases the risk over compliance.

Of course what probably can never be measured would be the % of those who are injured or killed while fighting back that are untrained versus those who are trained, and cross-referenced with those who are armed and those who are not.

No doubt that for many people, compliance is the best choice because they are untrained, unarmed, or are some of those folks that simply cannot bring themselves to harm another person violently.

 

[James T Thomas]

se la vie

Tomorrow, are you willing to place your life on the line, knowing that the cold, hard data of statistics indicates that it may be your 13% unsuccesful day, according to the FBI?

Of the 87% that worked out "well," what data is there that may indicate that should those that cooperated, did resist, that it may have not turned out sucessful also?

Statistics are abstract and capricious math.

 

[JoeSlomo]

Statistics are abstract and capricious math.

Another way to look at it is that criminals have an 87% chance of executing their felonious acts without suffering ANY risk to themselves. This fact PERPETUATES the criminal belief that "yea, it's worth it...."

Getting stung makes one wary of handling bee's.

 

[Fred Fuller]

V1E,

I thought the same thing the first time I watched it. After watching several times on full screen, it seems that Dark Hoodie hands the shotgun off to Light Hoodie at about the 28- 29 second mark. Then Dark Hoodie got busy with both hands trying to get the cash register open.

As far as I can tell, there was only the one shotgun involved. Dark Hoodie brought it into the store and then handed it off to Light Hoodie while Dark Hoodie focused on the register. Meanwhile Light Hoodie was busy stuffing cigarettes (I think that's what it was) into Dark Hoodie's backpack.

As to the odds of being injured if cooperating vs. resisting, my usual personal conclusion in matters of this nature is that it isn't the odds that matter so much as the stakes. If I can prevent it, I am not going to allow a VCA the opportunity to injure or kill me. If I have to appear to cooperate up until the point I have sufficient advantage, I will do so. This is not intended as advice in that regard, of course. And my preference would be to exercise sufficient awareness to avoid or short circuit the encounter before it developed to the point where any application of physical force took place in either direction. But if my awareness failed... and it certainly could... then I'm a lot closer to having to make decisions based on 'the stakes.'

fwiw,

lpl

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Tomorrow, are you willing to place your life on the line, knowing that the cold, hard data of statistics indicates that it may be your 13% unsuccesful day, according to the FBI?

I am sorry, but were you unable to read the rest of what I posted? Apparently not. Go back and reread when you can. I think you will find that it reads a lot like the Lee Lapin post that followed.

Of the 87% that worked out "well," what data is there that may indicate that should those that cooperated, did resist, that it may have not turned out sucessful also?

Statistics are abstract and capricious math.

Statistics argued from an unknown, which you suggest, certainly may be abstract and capricious.

They data I noted are neither. What they are is historical data. What can be argued is that such statistics pertaining to mutually exclusive events (which most such aggrevated robberies are) are not actually predictive. For any given situation that happens in the future, the ratio of the historical data is meaningless.

Given the historical data, however, compliance has been a very successful strategy.

 

[James T Thomas]

good read

DNSpy:

I was able to read your entire post sir. With trifocals, but I made it.
And I did re-read it as you suggested.

You state: The data I noted are neither; abstract or capricious.
You gave percentages, which are not data. They are from a summary of data.
They are historical by their time line and date, true, but have no virture of correct or incorrect by that classification.

The conclusions can be argued if the data is available for analysis, but most often of all, the data ends up not being comprehensive enought to draw a deduction but rather a conclusion is arrived at by inductive reasoning; the conclusion of which is never certain, but remains in the murky math of probability.
And as is so often the case with the historical stuff, later on in the future, with further investigation, as with the hand gun stopping power investigations of the past, so much pertinent detail is omitted or never gathered, that the whole premise cannot stand.

I meant no personal criticism of you by my statements, but am a sceptic when I see posts about statistical inferences.

 

[TEAM101]

That could never happen at my local convenience store, they have a sign in the front window clearly indicating no firearms are permitted inside.

 

[brasos]

The shotgun looks like a single shot to me - NEF maybe? what do yall think?

 

[al123]

Just curious. Is the barrel approximately 12 inches long? The stock also looks like just a handle.

Poor guy. I hope the clerk makes it.