Ignition Override
Member
The vast majority of criminals don't expect victims to potentially be armed, do they?
This excludes people near gun ranges, shops, shows, or LEOs.
This excludes people near gun ranges, shops, shows, or LEOs.
Do armed criminals usually fight or run when the intended victim pulls a firearm?
- Thread starter soonerboomer
- Start date
- Status
Some people are too stupid to be scared.
I had a couple of situations occur years ago.
In one, a HUGE dude tried to pull me from my car by my throat.
I drew my .357 because I WAS in fear for my life, and was getting lightheaded from his big hand squeezing my throat.
He exited, stage left, immediately.
The other time, my dad and I were at the car wash. I was under the hood of the car, spraying the engine down with degreaser.
I heard a car pull up behind our car, and heard car doors shut. Two "gentleman" had gotten out.
One had approached my dad and was asking him repeated questions about how much the car was worth and how much could he (the asker of the questions, not my dad) could get for the car.
I saw the other one walk into the wash stall next to us. I figured he was going to get behind my dad while the other distracted him. They had been so focused on my dad, that they didn't see me peeking out from behind the hood.
I was carrying my Makarov back then. That was back when you could get Cor Bon loads for them, 1996.
When the other "gentleman" stepped out from the next stall, he walked right into the muzzle of my Mak.
I had drawn it as soon as the hair on the back of my neck stood up.
He looked like he didn't know whether to scat or go blind. He turned around and ran back to his car.
His partner did the same.
A man had been carjacked and murdered a mile from that spot, only a week before, as a gang initiation.
My dad was lucky that I was there.
I was lucky that I was armed with a reliable pistol and was willing to use it if I needed to, to protect myself and my family.
Are my cases indicative of what any other criminal would do?
I have no idea. I hope I never find out. I didn't enjoy either situation and I don't want to experience them again.
IF necessary, I will protect myself and my family.
I sure hope it never comes to that.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
BTW, I was very lucky in both situations. I escaped unharmed, with the exception of bruises on my throat in the first case, and my dad and I both were unharmed in the latter case.
I was also very lucky, in that I didn't have to shoot anyone.
It easily could have turned out very differently.
I had a couple of situations occur years ago.
In one, a HUGE dude tried to pull me from my car by my throat.
I drew my .357 because I WAS in fear for my life, and was getting lightheaded from his big hand squeezing my throat.
He exited, stage left, immediately.
The other time, my dad and I were at the car wash. I was under the hood of the car, spraying the engine down with degreaser.
I heard a car pull up behind our car, and heard car doors shut. Two "gentleman" had gotten out.
One had approached my dad and was asking him repeated questions about how much the car was worth and how much could he (the asker of the questions, not my dad) could get for the car.
I saw the other one walk into the wash stall next to us. I figured he was going to get behind my dad while the other distracted him. They had been so focused on my dad, that they didn't see me peeking out from behind the hood.
I was carrying my Makarov back then. That was back when you could get Cor Bon loads for them, 1996.
When the other "gentleman" stepped out from the next stall, he walked right into the muzzle of my Mak.
I had drawn it as soon as the hair on the back of my neck stood up.
He looked like he didn't know whether to scat or go blind. He turned around and ran back to his car.
His partner did the same.
A man had been carjacked and murdered a mile from that spot, only a week before, as a gang initiation.
My dad was lucky that I was there.
I was lucky that I was armed with a reliable pistol and was willing to use it if I needed to, to protect myself and my family.
Are my cases indicative of what any other criminal would do?
I have no idea. I hope I never find out. I didn't enjoy either situation and I don't want to experience them again.
IF necessary, I will protect myself and my family.
I sure hope it never comes to that.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
BTW, I was very lucky in both situations. I escaped unharmed, with the exception of bruises on my throat in the first case, and my dad and I both were unharmed in the latter case.
I was also very lucky, in that I didn't have to shoot anyone.
It easily could have turned out very differently.
Last edited:
MuleRyder
Member
Please stop giving advice...your post is full of bad advice and this is probably the worst advice I've seen in a long time
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
There are a number of people who analyze the backgrounds, motivations, psychological makeup and mindset of the "opposition," those people we often dismiss with little thought. And that easy dismissal is, IMHO, a mistake.
Heinlein was quoted as saying that "Your enemy is never a villain in his own mind." The work of professionals like William Aprill, Dr. Glenn Meyer, Skip Gochenour and others offer some insight into what makes VCAs (violent criminal actors) tick, and how those of us on the other side of the mirror image can better adjust our own mindset. For example, the blogger at http://blog.ryjones.org/2012/02/13/on-being-aware/ apparently spent last weekend in the same place I did (http://www.rangemaster.com/events/the-tactical-conference.html).
Lightly dismissing VCAs as "stupid" or whatever isn't going to help much. The reality is often a good bit more complex than that. And some basis of understanding of that reality can help those of us who consider ourselves "the good guys" to better maintain our own situational awareness in order to avoid confrontation with VCAs, and to better cope with an offer of violence from VCAs if our awareness fails.
Most of the time, an offer of violence from a VCA is actually the opening round in a negotiation, even though the motivation is the offer of violence. "Give it up" means give me your money/whatever so I don't have to hurt you. The VCA may well look at the situation as 'just getting paid' by someone who owes him for a lifetime of getting taken advantage of by 'tha man' or 'tha system.' You might disagree, but his perception, whatever it is, constitutes his reality. And appearing to thwart the VCA's attempt to 'get paid' is not going to go over very well, unless you are ready and able to thwart it decisively.
Some old Chinese general is reported to have opined, It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
Know your enemy, and do not take him lightly...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1285487_Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics.html&page=1
Street Robberies And You - The Basics
-discussed here at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=642205
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/Feature/2007/07_Feature.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/04_StudyDay.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/08_StudyDay.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2007/ResponsetoPredation.pdf
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2008/ManagingEncounters.pdf
Heinlein was quoted as saying that "Your enemy is never a villain in his own mind." The work of professionals like William Aprill, Dr. Glenn Meyer, Skip Gochenour and others offer some insight into what makes VCAs (violent criminal actors) tick, and how those of us on the other side of the mirror image can better adjust our own mindset. For example, the blogger at http://blog.ryjones.org/2012/02/13/on-being-aware/ apparently spent last weekend in the same place I did (http://www.rangemaster.com/events/the-tactical-conference.html).
Lightly dismissing VCAs as "stupid" or whatever isn't going to help much. The reality is often a good bit more complex than that. And some basis of understanding of that reality can help those of us who consider ourselves "the good guys" to better maintain our own situational awareness in order to avoid confrontation with VCAs, and to better cope with an offer of violence from VCAs if our awareness fails.
Most of the time, an offer of violence from a VCA is actually the opening round in a negotiation, even though the motivation is the offer of violence. "Give it up" means give me your money/whatever so I don't have to hurt you. The VCA may well look at the situation as 'just getting paid' by someone who owes him for a lifetime of getting taken advantage of by 'tha man' or 'tha system.' You might disagree, but his perception, whatever it is, constitutes his reality. And appearing to thwart the VCA's attempt to 'get paid' is not going to go over very well, unless you are ready and able to thwart it decisively.
Some old Chinese general is reported to have opined, It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
Know your enemy, and do not take him lightly...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1285487_Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics.html&page=1
Street Robberies And You - The Basics
-discussed here at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=642205
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/Feature/2007/07_Feature.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/04_StudyDay.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/08_StudyDay.htm
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2007/ResponsetoPredation.pdf
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2008/ManagingEncounters.pdf
gunsNgearguy
Member
Criminals by definition tend to make bad decisions. If they have a gun it would be a safe bet to assume they are willing to use it. Even if they run they will most likely hold their gun out behind them, blasting as they go. And dont listen to anyone that advises you to shoot someone in the leg. If you have to shoot, shoot center mass.
He may not have his weapon at that point or it could be hidden in his belt, I have been in these situations,Monkey, and you just can't gun somone down on broadway if he's running away. You can however warn him to stop and if he doesn't you can shoot, to stop a threat,if he turns the gun on you, or let him go, you aren't a cop. You can't just shoot a purse snatcher in the head, unless he has a gun pointed at you. Unless you are in your house or on your property, I have been involved in several of these. You may think your john Wayne, but after he sues you in civil court and his family gets you house, you will learn why only a shoot to kill when it's necesary. You aren't a cop. You are supposed to stop the threat. Go shoot a guy in front of 20 or thirty people who isn't pointing a gun at you, or running away, and you will be going to jail.
The op said he has a firearm not that it's in his hand or pointed at you. After a few shootouts you learn the difference.
On the internet everone is a tough guy, when your out on the street and you don't know how many guys your facing you want to disable the one you get, either by cuffing him, or using ties if your alone, until you figure out what just happened. When you have 5 come through your front door, PM me and let me know how you did.
Criminals are not all stupid, some are and some are not, it's a cross section of society. They do this for a living, if they work a crew, chances are they are better at it than you are.
Let a guy draw you into a side street or alley, suddenlly there are 3 more there waiting for you.
You may have to shoot guy to stop him if he dosen't drop the weapon, if he doesn't take commands well. Even cops don' shoot until the weapon is leveled up at them in many situations. The judge is going to ask you why you chased down a guy who wasn't causing you a threat? What's your answer goingto be, because I have a gun and I read it on the internet. Too many people talk through their butt when it comes to what they would do if.They would do nothing most of the time, unless it concerned them. Your license is for self protection only, not to capture criminals. Once he is past that danger point 25 feet out the door, you better not take target practice on him, ot it's a manslaughter rap.
The op said he has a firearm not that it's in his hand or pointed at you. After a few shootouts you learn the difference.
On the internet everone is a tough guy, when your out on the street and you don't know how many guys your facing you want to disable the one you get, either by cuffing him, or using ties if your alone, until you figure out what just happened. When you have 5 come through your front door, PM me and let me know how you did.
Criminals are not all stupid, some are and some are not, it's a cross section of society. They do this for a living, if they work a crew, chances are they are better at it than you are.
Let a guy draw you into a side street or alley, suddenlly there are 3 more there waiting for you.
You may have to shoot guy to stop him if he dosen't drop the weapon, if he doesn't take commands well. Even cops don' shoot until the weapon is leveled up at them in many situations. The judge is going to ask you why you chased down a guy who wasn't causing you a threat? What's your answer goingto be, because I have a gun and I read it on the internet. Too many people talk through their butt when it comes to what they would do if.They would do nothing most of the time, unless it concerned them. Your license is for self protection only, not to capture criminals. Once he is past that danger point 25 feet out the door, you better not take target practice on him, ot it's a manslaughter rap.
Most do, yours might not.
It also depends on what type of crime we are talking about.
Was it a dispute with posturing and peer pressure involving an argument, or an attempted robbery.
Most common criminals operate on risk and reward to a large extent. It is not a one time event for them, they want to get easy money on a regular basis.
They also have no ego involved in the fight in a common robbery scenario.
They want to get away more than anything.
If something may prevent that then that changes things dramatically.
Now some do fire as they run, or fire reflexively.
A percent also kill cooperative victims, and you may not have the option to choose to fight back effectively after cooperating.
Guns do not discourage all criminals. They are less often discouraged if macho posturing is involved beforehand, or their ego or reputation amongst gang members or peers is on the line.
Gang members routinely target and kill other gang members they know are armed. (Gang crime has been decreasing dramatically though.) So they will attack people they know have a gun and are willing to use it.
Many similarly target drug dealers they know are armed, along with high value targets they think will have a lot of cash, drugs, and some other valuables.
Being armed by itself does not stop all criminals, but it deters.
As for the news portraying a lot of crime. It is strange but our nation actually has a lower violent crime rate than it has in decades.
A lot of this is the decline in gang violence, dropping so much that even if there is some increase in other segments of the population it is a net loss.
As the economy has become worse, more people are presumably desperate, and desperation generally increases crime, yet we are still dropping in violent crime significantly.
The media and scare mongering for ratings may give the appearance of a violent dangerous society, but violent crime is lower than it has been since the 1960s in most of the country.
Many are out to take undeserved credit for the drop too. As they have laid off police in several local cities, and reduce presence dramatically due to the economy the violent crime has still dropped in the last few years.
Politicians scramble to claim credit, claiming various policies, crackdowns, etc
But its not generally responsible either.
The dramatic decrease in violent crime is interesting.
Of course gang members generally targeted each other. So the dramatic reduction in gang members attacking gang members does not impact most citizens.
So a reduced overall violent crime rate may still actually be an increased violent crime rate against regular people.
It also depends on what type of crime we are talking about.
Was it a dispute with posturing and peer pressure involving an argument, or an attempted robbery.
Most common criminals operate on risk and reward to a large extent. It is not a one time event for them, they want to get easy money on a regular basis.
They also have no ego involved in the fight in a common robbery scenario.
They want to get away more than anything.
If something may prevent that then that changes things dramatically.
Now some do fire as they run, or fire reflexively.
A percent also kill cooperative victims, and you may not have the option to choose to fight back effectively after cooperating.
Guns do not discourage all criminals. They are less often discouraged if macho posturing is involved beforehand, or their ego or reputation amongst gang members or peers is on the line.
Gang members routinely target and kill other gang members they know are armed. (Gang crime has been decreasing dramatically though.) So they will attack people they know have a gun and are willing to use it.
Many similarly target drug dealers they know are armed, along with high value targets they think will have a lot of cash, drugs, and some other valuables.
Being armed by itself does not stop all criminals, but it deters.
As for the news portraying a lot of crime. It is strange but our nation actually has a lower violent crime rate than it has in decades.
A lot of this is the decline in gang violence, dropping so much that even if there is some increase in other segments of the population it is a net loss.
As the economy has become worse, more people are presumably desperate, and desperation generally increases crime, yet we are still dropping in violent crime significantly.
The media and scare mongering for ratings may give the appearance of a violent dangerous society, but violent crime is lower than it has been since the 1960s in most of the country.
Many are out to take undeserved credit for the drop too. As they have laid off police in several local cities, and reduce presence dramatically due to the economy the violent crime has still dropped in the last few years.
Politicians scramble to claim credit, claiming various policies, crackdowns, etc
But its not generally responsible either.
The dramatic decrease in violent crime is interesting.
Of course gang members generally targeted each other. So the dramatic reduction in gang members attacking gang members does not impact most citizens.
So a reduced overall violent crime rate may still actually be an increased violent crime rate against regular people.
Last edited:
beatledog7
Member
Statistics tend to show that the most effective deterrent to violent crimes committed on the individual and home invasion crimes is the Second Amendment.
People are almost universally afraid of getting shot, and a smart criminal knows that having a gun himself is no assurance that he won't take a bullet. Wherever the citizens are allowed to be armed, crime rates fall.
There is no way to accurately predict whether a perp's level of commitment will wain if his victim presents a viable defense against attack. Every situation is completely and wholly isolated from every other situation.
In short, regarding violent crimes, there is no "usually."
People are almost universally afraid of getting shot, and a smart criminal knows that having a gun himself is no assurance that he won't take a bullet. Wherever the citizens are allowed to be armed, crime rates fall.
There is no way to accurately predict whether a perp's level of commitment will wain if his victim presents a viable defense against attack. Every situation is completely and wholly isolated from every other situation.
In short, regarding violent crimes, there is no "usually."
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
I would strongly suggest spending some time reading at http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/ , and buying Miller's books Meditations On Violence and Facing Violence -
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594391181...ef-refURL=http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594392137...ning.com/Site//Home_files/widget3_markup.html
There is also a bad guy in a fight (or many) and you must understand him. If he is a predator he is there neither to test you nor to help you develop skills. He is there to take something from you and do it as safely and efficiently as possible. To let you know anything in advance or to feed you the type of attacks you have trained against would be stupid. Do not count on the threat being stupid. You should know, as much as possible, how threats think and feel and plan as well as how all humans move and how they break. -- Rory Miller, from Drills: Training for Sudden Violence (sample at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/44993 )
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594391181...ef-refURL=http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594392137...ning.com/Site//Home_files/widget3_markup.html
There is also a bad guy in a fight (or many) and you must understand him. If he is a predator he is there neither to test you nor to help you develop skills. He is there to take something from you and do it as safely and efficiently as possible. To let you know anything in advance or to feed you the type of attacks you have trained against would be stupid. Do not count on the threat being stupid. You should know, as much as possible, how threats think and feel and plan as well as how all humans move and how they break. -- Rory Miller, from Drills: Training for Sudden Violence (sample at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/44993 )
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Would be interesting to note whatever numbers can be derived in statistic form, but anecdotally, on the local front, this BG, when faced with armed victim decided to shoot it out... and lost.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-killed-in-pawn-shop-shooting-identified-136399458.html
Plan on the worst, hope for the best, check your six, everyones hands and eyes, never give up, never surrender (too much Galaxy Quest there, sorry)
http://www.lvrj.com/news/man-killed-in-pawn-shop-shooting-identified-136399458.html
Plan on the worst, hope for the best, check your six, everyones hands and eyes, never give up, never surrender (too much Galaxy Quest there, sorry)
It seams I've enjoyed and suffered a little bit or allot of just about every walk of life, from ghetto to backwood towns, wealthy to poverty. And frankly, I went to high school during the California gang wars of the 1990s which I had to live through and today live in an area that's a checkerboard of good and bad neighborhoods where ranches and horse riding schools are found less then a mile from crack houses and biker bars. Needless to say, I've seen plenty of the different worlds being discussed on this thread.
I am strongly with jscott, though it seams to me that it has more to do with emotional self-control. Though my experience is that violent criminals tend to have no less self-control then your average Joe. To put it bluntly, average people seam to think they have more self-control then they actually do while violent criminals are about what they seam or at least usually are. The difference is what sets them off and how they behave when set-off. Criminals and average people have the same amounts of fears, but are afraid of different things, as where the hardened criminal's fears are usually based within the criminal element while the average man's fears of the same type are of the law and going to jail. So your average Joe might make an effort to refrain from responding to offense with violence out of fear of the law. On the other side, your seasoned criminal may be afraid of local hierarchy or mafia elements in the criminal world and watch his behavior as to not offend them but has little or no fear of the law and won't hesitate to resort to violence towards law abiding citizens over the slightest offense.
The coward criminals tend to be of the young age range while the more daring ones tend to be; as jscott put it, the more experienced ones. Among this crowd, the question is mainly whether or not pointing a gun at them will set them off. I've seen allot of criminals in their 30s and 40s who would leave me surprised if they got scared and retreated if someone pointed a gun at them. I'd sooner expect them to go off the deep end and become even more violent.
Statistically, I don't know if there has ever been a study on the probability but experience of seeing how these people behave up close and personal tells me that I'm not going to pull a gun on anyone unless I'm prepared to kill them because there's a very good chance I will. I'd say that's a very good rule to live by.
Don't ever point a gun at anyone unless you're prepared to use it.
I am strongly with jscott, though it seams to me that it has more to do with emotional self-control. Though my experience is that violent criminals tend to have no less self-control then your average Joe. To put it bluntly, average people seam to think they have more self-control then they actually do while violent criminals are about what they seam or at least usually are. The difference is what sets them off and how they behave when set-off. Criminals and average people have the same amounts of fears, but are afraid of different things, as where the hardened criminal's fears are usually based within the criminal element while the average man's fears of the same type are of the law and going to jail. So your average Joe might make an effort to refrain from responding to offense with violence out of fear of the law. On the other side, your seasoned criminal may be afraid of local hierarchy or mafia elements in the criminal world and watch his behavior as to not offend them but has little or no fear of the law and won't hesitate to resort to violence towards law abiding citizens over the slightest offense.
The coward criminals tend to be of the young age range while the more daring ones tend to be; as jscott put it, the more experienced ones. Among this crowd, the question is mainly whether or not pointing a gun at them will set them off. I've seen allot of criminals in their 30s and 40s who would leave me surprised if they got scared and retreated if someone pointed a gun at them. I'd sooner expect them to go off the deep end and become even more violent.
Statistically, I don't know if there has ever been a study on the probability but experience of seeing how these people behave up close and personal tells me that I'm not going to pull a gun on anyone unless I'm prepared to kill them because there's a very good chance I will. I'd say that's a very good rule to live by.
Don't ever point a gun at anyone unless you're prepared to use it.
I believe this kind of discussion is comparable to another situation. As a law enforcement officer, we have many custody situations. This can be compared to whether the suspect fights or submits to being taken into custody without resisting. All I can say is the response of the suspect many times depends on your approach. There is a fine line between being belligerent and inciting escalation. You don't want to infuriate your target. But on the other hand you have to present yourself as a very prepared, practiced, capable adversary. You also have to appear calm. My advice to anyone who has made the decision to resist with armed force is to do so with firmness and confidence. Once you make the decision, FOLLOW THROUGH. That is the best way to ensure you come out of it uninjured. You want that guy to run away. That's the best win you can have as a civilian defending yourself. Tell the guy that it is not in his interest to test you, because you are ready. If you are solid in your resistance, he will run. And never, ever belittle your adversary. No implication of age, race, if he's a fat guy etc. keep your mouth shut. Tell him with your actions that you respect him but you are ready to kill him. He may very well believe his friends are watching. Don't give him a stage.
Certaindeaf
member
Hey soonerboomer, do you have a thought or an "aha" moment you'd like to share?
Well said whalerman. I would go so far as to say someone with poor self-control is more afraid of someone with very good self control then weapons. At least, that's the impression I get from most people. Now ARMED people with good self-control got a (minimum) 50 to 1 kill ratio in Somalia and people can sense why when they encounter such folks. If you're armed, confident and unafraid to put a criminal down, criminals tend to realize that they are going to die if they attempt to threaten your life. But if you draw your gun shaking frantically and sounding like you got kicked in your manhood, don't be surprised if you get laughed at and your gun taken away.
Certaindeaf
member
^
What happened to that Cooperman? Maybe I'd better re-study up like that'd even matter. It was probably just an example I forget.
What happened to that Cooperman? Maybe I'd better re-study up like that'd even matter. It was probably just an example I forget.
SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
Member
It is my opinion that if the occasion demands that I draw my weapon ,I plan to be firing that weapon once drawn ! If the criminal runs or drops it makes little difference as long as he stops doing what it is I decided to shoot him for doing ! We shoot to stop ! Kevin
lemaymiami
Member
Tried to read every single post in this thread before speaking up and it was pretty easy to note the ones operating from theory as opposed to experience.... Street life is a jungle plain and simple. Predators are always on the fine edge of attack or flight. Weakness or the appearance of weakness invites a predator... strength, confidence or at least the appearance of same is a real deterrent in most cases, in my experience.
Now for my point of view. Violent confrontations or armed confrontations are so volatile and unpredictable (on both sides of the equation) that you can never be sure how they'll play out... No matter how well you're trained or armed - they're best avoided if at all possible. If you have to act to save your life or someone else's then act decisively and don't back off until the threat is ended or the opponent flees. You won't like the alternative. I've had many, many occasions to point a firearm at someone that we were going to arrest and could never predict whether they'd submit, flee, or attack (many times you're just not dealing with anyone in their right mind....). In 22 years on the street I only fired one shot (and wish I hadn't - but that's another story). The vast majority of the time the offender submitted and was taken into custody without incident. I do know that I had many ignore a pistol pointed at them but no one ever ignored a shotgun.... Violent offenders that would try to face down an armed male officer behaved completely differently when a female officer was the one pointing a gun at them (I'd guess that in their world a woman with a gun was going to use it most of the time....). I can remember more than one really bad dude that was visibly frightened when a female pointed a gun at him (who knew? I never would have guessed that reaction if I hadn't seen it more than once...). These were the kind of guys that would assault an officer in a heartbeat if the opportunity was there...
Everything I'm talking about here is based on police work - ordinary citizens (armed or not) are at a real disadvantage in a real life armed confrontation since you have no support or backup and no way other than your demeanor and self confidence to show a predator that you might be the wrong victim... Most of what I trained and practiced on the street involved minimizing any one on one situations. What the public considers bravery on the part of an officer might easily be considered foolishness by professionals. We did everything we could using sound tactics and pre-planning to make sure the odds were heavily in our favor in any confrontation...
Like I said, an armed confrontation is so un-predictable that they're best avoided if at all possible. I've been retired from police work for about sixteen years now and I'd like to spend the rest of my life without that kind of excitement....
Now for my point of view. Violent confrontations or armed confrontations are so volatile and unpredictable (on both sides of the equation) that you can never be sure how they'll play out... No matter how well you're trained or armed - they're best avoided if at all possible. If you have to act to save your life or someone else's then act decisively and don't back off until the threat is ended or the opponent flees. You won't like the alternative. I've had many, many occasions to point a firearm at someone that we were going to arrest and could never predict whether they'd submit, flee, or attack (many times you're just not dealing with anyone in their right mind....). In 22 years on the street I only fired one shot (and wish I hadn't - but that's another story). The vast majority of the time the offender submitted and was taken into custody without incident. I do know that I had many ignore a pistol pointed at them but no one ever ignored a shotgun.... Violent offenders that would try to face down an armed male officer behaved completely differently when a female officer was the one pointing a gun at them (I'd guess that in their world a woman with a gun was going to use it most of the time....). I can remember more than one really bad dude that was visibly frightened when a female pointed a gun at him (who knew? I never would have guessed that reaction if I hadn't seen it more than once...). These were the kind of guys that would assault an officer in a heartbeat if the opportunity was there...
Everything I'm talking about here is based on police work - ordinary citizens (armed or not) are at a real disadvantage in a real life armed confrontation since you have no support or backup and no way other than your demeanor and self confidence to show a predator that you might be the wrong victim... Most of what I trained and practiced on the street involved minimizing any one on one situations. What the public considers bravery on the part of an officer might easily be considered foolishness by professionals. We did everything we could using sound tactics and pre-planning to make sure the odds were heavily in our favor in any confrontation...
Like I said, an armed confrontation is so un-predictable that they're best avoided if at all possible. I've been retired from police work for about sixteen years now and I'd like to spend the rest of my life without that kind of excitement....
I think if the criminal already has the initiative and has the gun drawn I personally have a few options. 1. Comply 2. If there is enough distance get to cover at speed and in the process draw and return fire (if possible) 3. Disarm him. Drawing just standing there hoping they run is not even in my thought process. That sounds like similar thinking along the lines of "racking a shotgun will scare the bad guy away." Poor and dangerous mindset(s) IMHO.
If there's one thing i've learned during my years of growing up in a high crime inner city, the military, as a inner city cop and through martial arts/self defense training is that you never underestimate the capabilities mindset or resolve of your opponent.
I've seen too many dead bodies whereas their adversary had taken a lowly .32or 380 and put several shots on center mass. I've seen too many good guys who've either gotten their gun taken away and used upon them or have gotten carved up like a Christmas turkey with their gun in hand or still in the holster. I've seen too many 'expert' hand to hand fighters and boxers get their butts kicked by an angry hopped up thug.
Your gun is not a prop. It's to be used to defend innocent life and, that means you may have to kill someone in the process. If you can't stomach that then you need to leave it home in the safe.
I've seen too many dead bodies whereas their adversary had taken a lowly .32or 380 and put several shots on center mass. I've seen too many good guys who've either gotten their gun taken away and used upon them or have gotten carved up like a Christmas turkey with their gun in hand or still in the holster. I've seen too many 'expert' hand to hand fighters and boxers get their butts kicked by an angry hopped up thug.
Your gun is not a prop. It's to be used to defend innocent life and, that means you may have to kill someone in the process. If you can't stomach that then you need to leave it home in the safe.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Really?
North Hollywood bank robbers
Platt and Matix
Columbine
Charles Whitman
Tyler Courthouse Square
Florida School board shooting
Branch Davidians
Fort Hood Shooting
Symbionese Liberation Army gun battle
Criminals may not frequently stand their ground in gun battles, but this is not out of cowardice. More often than not, retreating is the most pragmatic thing to do. In many cases, the criminals don't stand their ground because the ground they are on isn't theirs and they have no reason to occupy it longer than necessary. In some of the cases noted above, when criminals do stand their ground, it is often because they are on their own ground.
From a logic perspective for most criminals, there is no profit in staying and fighting. Usually their goals are to accomplish some task and to get away without being caught. Staying to fight a gun battle increases their chances of of being injured, killed, or caught. They also realize that the longer a battle progresses, the less chance they will have for escape.
I find it interesting that when such tactics are used by the good guys, we consider the tactics to be a smart, prudent course of action to minimize risk and maximize reward.
brigadier said:
Actually I observed that quite often the opposite was true.
The young ones tend to be the most dangerous because they are often out to prove something to the older ones and their peers.
They have not yet earned the respect that was so important to most of the violent ones.
They would do things that are foolish, 'put in work', and commit excessive violence or react to even the slightest offense in the most excessive manner because they care more about what other gang members will think.
The young ones were the foot soldiers.
Not the brand new ones, but the ones that had been doing it just a few years, and wanted to be known as 'down' 'riders' and various other slang terms and have a reputation for being willing to kill or seriously injure anyone that disrespected them or the gang.
They compensated for not really being tough or experienced by being as vicious, ruthless, and excessive as possible.
These were the age groups that did the most killing and were the most killed.
They died for 'respect'.
Trying to prove something to others.
Even with common criminals it is the young inexperienced one that comes up with ideas like killing all witnesses in a robbery. So instead of being just another common robbery in a bad area and a higher chance of getting away with it, they get a team of detectives and high amount of resources trying to track them down because they are murders, while ruining lives and bringing suffering to families. It actually makes them less likely to get away with it, but they are young and stupid and improvising as they go along. So they come up with stupid ideas.
Likewise they are the ones more apt to just shoot an uncooperative victim after an order is not obeyed, or even if the reward they got was less than expected.
They are less predictable and have not learned methods that allow them to operate outside of jail/prison/ or a graveyard for longer stretches of time yet.
So they do things more likely to get them caught, sent to prison, or killed, like react in unpredictable and excessive ways.
The older gang members and organized crime members in their mid 20-40s by contrast were more reserved, calculating, and certainly predatory, but slower to excessive reaction. Someone only gets to react excessively so many times before they end up dead, and if they lived that long and were not serving life already it was because they didn't do that or learned not to before it caught up with them.
They still care a lot about ego and reputation as a member of organized crime, and so would make an example of those who were blatant and put them on the spot in front of others, but they had a more tempered predatory perspective.
They may plot a hit later for something they consider worth it, but don't generally over react to a slight offense and kill someone in public in front of witnesses that know who they are insuring a conviction for example. But the younger ones would just go full attack mode immediately in the heat of the moment, evidence or longevity be damned.
The young ones reacted on emotion, and a desire to be seen as tough guys which in their minds meant being the most violent.
So generally the young stupid ones tended to be the most dangerous to other people.
That may not fit the romantic fictional notions of Hollywood, glamorizing sophisticated criminals, where smart and sophisticated correlate with more dangerous, but it was true more often than not.
Actually I observed that quite often the opposite was true.
The young ones tend to be the most dangerous because they are often out to prove something to the older ones and their peers.
They have not yet earned the respect that was so important to most of the violent ones.
They would do things that are foolish, 'put in work', and commit excessive violence or react to even the slightest offense in the most excessive manner because they care more about what other gang members will think.
The young ones were the foot soldiers.
Not the brand new ones, but the ones that had been doing it just a few years, and wanted to be known as 'down' 'riders' and various other slang terms and have a reputation for being willing to kill or seriously injure anyone that disrespected them or the gang.
They compensated for not really being tough or experienced by being as vicious, ruthless, and excessive as possible.
These were the age groups that did the most killing and were the most killed.
They died for 'respect'.
Trying to prove something to others.
Even with common criminals it is the young inexperienced one that comes up with ideas like killing all witnesses in a robbery. So instead of being just another common robbery in a bad area and a higher chance of getting away with it, they get a team of detectives and high amount of resources trying to track them down because they are murders, while ruining lives and bringing suffering to families. It actually makes them less likely to get away with it, but they are young and stupid and improvising as they go along. So they come up with stupid ideas.
Likewise they are the ones more apt to just shoot an uncooperative victim after an order is not obeyed, or even if the reward they got was less than expected.
They are less predictable and have not learned methods that allow them to operate outside of jail/prison/ or a graveyard for longer stretches of time yet.
So they do things more likely to get them caught, sent to prison, or killed, like react in unpredictable and excessive ways.
The older gang members and organized crime members in their mid 20-40s by contrast were more reserved, calculating, and certainly predatory, but slower to excessive reaction. Someone only gets to react excessively so many times before they end up dead, and if they lived that long and were not serving life already it was because they didn't do that or learned not to before it caught up with them.
They still care a lot about ego and reputation as a member of organized crime, and so would make an example of those who were blatant and put them on the spot in front of others, but they had a more tempered predatory perspective.
They may plot a hit later for something they consider worth it, but don't generally over react to a slight offense and kill someone in public in front of witnesses that know who they are insuring a conviction for example. But the younger ones would just go full attack mode immediately in the heat of the moment, evidence or longevity be damned.
The young ones reacted on emotion, and a desire to be seen as tough guys which in their minds meant being the most violent.
So generally the young stupid ones tended to be the most dangerous to other people.
That may not fit the romantic fictional notions of Hollywood, glamorizing sophisticated criminals, where smart and sophisticated correlate with more dangerous, but it was true more often than not.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
