Do Criminals Sometimes Shoot Cooperative Victims to Eliminate Witnesses?

[BullfrogKen]

There was a lot of speculation about what happened at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

Otherwise known as Custer's Last Stand for those of you in Rio Linda.


For years historians tried to theorize about what occurred at the battle. The small handful of wounded survivors were interviewed, yielding little useful information. A rough timeline and sequences of engagements were reconstructed by surveying the battlefield. But little was gained to definitively say what happened.


"We'll never really know", we were told, "because there were no survivors."


That wasn't true. There were a great many survivors of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The historians of the time simply didn't care to hear what they had to say.

Because after all, the Indians were savages, of course. Murderers and killers of children. Drunkards and men who couldn't see past the violence of the moment.


What good would it do to actually talk to them?

 

[leadcounsel]

I think that if you are in the situation as a victim, you only feign cooperation until the first of either: you see an opportunity to 1) escape without harm to you or others, 2) strike back with an attack of low risk/high reward; or until you determine that you're death is imminent (armed thug has already shot and killed one person).

 

[Sam1911]

There are many comment in this thread, and in quite a few others recently, about how stupid, dumb, and completely irrational criminals are. It seems that we, as "law abiding citizens" have no empathy at all, or ability to put ourselves in the position of someone who has taken the low road in life. We distance ourselves by assuming that we're just a better breed of cat that that guy in the mug shots.

I read the same tales of "dumb" criminals as everyone else, and it's very easy to say, "well anyone who'd commit a crime is illogical and stupid." But I can't really see it that way. Just because someone has loosened their personal mores to the point that they can accept violence against another as a means to "make a living," "get by," or even "get their next fix," doesn't mean that their decision-making skills an ability to stratagize is markedly less apt than the average joe.

In fact, I'd say that the average "middle class" guy, if put into some of the desperate situations (alone, or with a very sketchy group of associates, operating outside of the law and without training, organizational support, or any kind of safety net) that a career criminal faces, would make a lot of the same kinds of "dumb" mistakes.

Sure, there are some folks who commit crimes who are too desperate, too drug-addled, or, yes even too stupid, to make rational decisions, but I don't believe that this is the majority of criminals. I think there are plenty of criminals who do what they do as a job. A risky job, sure. But a job that if they survive, they can learn to do well, to minimize their risks and maximize profits. Their acts aren't random and aren't reflective of the blind aggression of a sick animal.

Dismissing these acts of violence as irrational attempts to eliminate witnesses, or as simply the unfathomable products of a totally alien, animal consciousness, seem to be dodging the harder answers.

IMHO

-Sam

 

[BullfrogKen]

Relegating violent criminals to low IQ animals . . . crazy people . . . mindless, chemically dependent zombies . . . pick your label . . . suggests we have very little to learn from them.


Why they do what they do. How they do it. The actual motivations behind why they use violence, not why we think they use it. Even the act of assaulting or murdering a victim when at first blush it didn't seem necessary at all.


When we decide to dismiss it all and simply write them off as savages, it's . . . simple-minded on our part.


There is much to learn. All we need do is ask and study. But of course the world is a much simpler place when we reduce every complex problem to a nail, because our solution is a hammer.

 

[Trebor]

Relegating violent criminals to low IQ animals . . . crazy people . . . mindless, chemically dependent zombies . . . pick your label . . . suggests we have very little to learn from them.


Why they do what they do. How they do it. The actual motivations behind why they use violence, not why we think they use it. Even the act of assaulting or murdering a victim when at first blush it didn't seem necessary at all.


When we decide to dismiss it all and simply write them off as savages, it's . . . simple-minded on our part.


There is much to learn. All we need do is ask and study. But of course the world is a much simpler place when we reduce every complex problem to a nail, because our solution is a hammer.

So, are you aware of any studies by LEO's or others that would address any of the issues raised in this discussion?

I know that at various times, various people have interviewed criminals for different reasons. Anything particularly relevant you can point us to to review?

 

[griz]

Here is a local story about just such a situation. Three guys robbed a fast food place. The mask of one of them fell off, and he knew one of the cashiers from church and knew she would remember him. So he executed her but none of the other witnesses. The three of them split 150 bucks for her life.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think there are plenty of criminals who do what they do as a job.

Indeed. And a big part of that job is ensuring there are no witnesses. The best ones will do what they do and you'll never even see them. The ones going around committing armed robberies are dangerously stupid. Some are genuinely psychotic. All are utterly worthless scum.

All we need do is ask and study. But of course the world is a much simpler place when we reduce every complex problem to a nail, because our solution is a hammer.

You are mixing up two completely different issues. In the broad sense we can try to understand the causes of crime. And in that context it makes sense to try to understand what motivates criminals.

But we're not talking about that here. We're talking about what chances you have of living when some goblin draws iron and demands your money. The ONLY SAFE AND PROPER ASSUMPTION is that he intends to kill you. Kill him first. If that means dropping your wallet to get you a chance, fine. If that means plugging him in the back when he turns, fine. Unless and until he throws down his own firearm or moves so far away that he cannot possibly hit you, he is an imminent unlawful threat of deadly force and you ought to respond with deadly force of your own. Do not hesitate. Do not warn. Do not empathize. Do not wonder what led him to this. Shoot him and keep on shooting him until he no longer poses a deadly threat.

I realize this is a brutal way of seeing the world, but this is a very brutal world. And there's nothing mild or fun about using a firearm to defend yourself. It's horrific and incredibly violent. You have to be prepared for that.

I could tell you the tale of two hotel clerks. One was confronted by a punk with a gun demanding money. That clerk opened fire and killed the punk, a teenager. The clerk lived. I know him. The other clerk late last year cooperated with another punk, as did a guest in the lobby. Both of them got robbed and shot. The punk is still at large around here somewhere.

Or I could tell you about the young punks who brutally murdered the manager of a fast food restaurant, after debating about what gun was going to kill her. They wandered away on foot after doing the deed and were such profound morons they left clear footprints in the new snow. APD nabbed them that night. But the manager was dead.

Or I could tell you about the ex who just stabbed his former wife dozens of times. It goes on and on and on and on and on. It never ends. It never will end. Thus is the world. Be ready for it.

 

[BigO01]

I can't remember where I heard this, maybe, on TruTV. That seasoned criminals will sometimes kill cooperating victims to eliminate potential witnesses. Anyone else heard this?

You can bet life they/he may just decide to kill you no matter how much you cooperate .

I personaly remember two such cases one in which I knew a worker at a store who would have died had events not have unfolder as they did .

He normally worked the night shift untill closing time and got a phone call from the manager asking if he would work a day shift instead and do some outside work like mowing what grass the property had and restriping some parking spaces . When he agreed the manager made a change in the scheldule and had someone else work his night shift .

As it happen that night I think they claimed a group of four or so men robbed the place and took the wrokers into the freezer and excuted every single one of them all of which were fairly elderly say 50 + it made the news for several days untill they made arressts of the scum back in the 80's.

Another was a story from a co work that also made a short TV news piece , he told me as he arrived home from work he saw his neighbor getting out of his car on the passenger side with his wife driving and his head was all bandaged up .

Being neighbors and friends for years my coworker went over to see what had happened to him .

Seems he rode the public bus to work and back and while waiting alone for the bus about 5 am a punk approached him and pulled a gun demanding his money .

He only had $5 which he gladly hander over and told the guythats all carried to work to buy his lunch .
The punk replied "Old man $5 aint enough so I gotta kill you" and fired at the mans head .

Luckily it was a small caliber and basically bounched off his skull and knocked him out leaving him with a nasty fracture but that was all .

So yes Complying by NO means means you'll be left alive by the scum that commit violent crimes .

 

[squinty]

Yes. A good friend of mine was murdered at work, after giving the cheap psycho all the money ($40) from the register and cooperating with him in every way.

 

[CajunBass]

My brother in laws, father, drove a lunch wagon. He heard someone at the back of the truck and went to the back, found a couple of 12-13 year old kids there and asked if he could help them. He caught a shotgun blast in his lower jaw that pretty much blew most of his face away. They then robbed the till.

He never got a chance to even cooperate. (He did survive, but reconstruction surgery and such took years.)

 

[MisterMike]

Sure, there are some folks who commit crimes who are too desperate, too drug-addled, or, yes even too stupid, to make rational decisions, but I don't believe that this is the majority of criminals. I think there are plenty of criminals who do what they do as a job. A risky job, sure. But a job that if they survive, they can learn to do well, to minimize their risks and maximize profits. Their acts aren't random and aren't reflective of the blind aggression of a sick animal.

I suspect that this is correct with respect to some, perhaps even a large, percentage of criminals. However, acknowledging that a certain percentage of criminals may fall into "professional criminal" category in no way diminishes the fact that there are many people whose judgment, values and behavior fall far outside social norms. There just aren't too many cases of the honest baker turning to strong-arm robbery because his business has gone under.

I don't claim to be a sociologist, but a large percentage of the criminals I've dealt with over the years have shared two characteristics: (1) an indifference toward conventional morality and (2) an inability to fully comprehend the long-term consequences of their actions. A lot of these people have operated superficially in a manner that appears pretty normal, yet much of their hidden, criminal behavior reflects sociopathic values and an inability to think beyond the present. If their friends, neighbors and family can't spot this schism, there's little chance that you, the victim of a forcible crime, will be able to predict the bad guy's mindset or behavior.

Therefore, I think you have to always anticipate that things could go to Hell in a handbasket at any moment.

 

[Fred Fuller]

There is no greater calamity than underestimating the enemy. If I take my enemy too lightly, I am in danger of losing my compassion, moderation, and non-competitive spirit. - http://www.wayist.org/ttc compared/chap69.htm

There's another self-defense oriented forum I'm familiar with. The members there postulate a fictional opponent, to whom they have awarded a nickname I will not repeat here. But they assume their unknown, nameless, faceless opponent-to-be is every bit as serious about being prepared to prevail on the street as they are. It's one way they use to motivate their own willingness to work, study, practice, and train.

Is this the mugger/robber/burglar/home invader you will meet when your roll of the dice comes up snake eyes? I don't know, and frankly, neither do you. It might be you get the first-time felon who has no self confidence, no good plan, and no idea what to do with himself or you when he wades into the situation. He might kill you out of sheer fear, incompetence at what he's doing, inability to use his weapon of choice. You can't know. It's not possible.

Or you might get the individual who is my own personal nightmare. I'm not naming names in an open forum, but this individual is currently doing life in a Supermax prison. He was an active duty Tier One operator who went rogue. Yes, the taxpayers spent a million bucks training this guy to be as good as anyone can get, and he was good enough to make the cut.

He was good enough to fool the shrinks in every psych eval along the way, too.

So- still think you are good enough to prevail against some criminal as you stand, without needing any professional training at all? If so, I hope you're right.

Sure, the odds are you won't ever get crossways with any criminal, much less someone who's a major league strategic level threat like this guy (and by the way, I know of at least one more Tier One guy from a different unit who went bad, too- so there wasn't just one of them). But as for me, any time I need any motivation to check and make sure the back door is locked before I go to bed, any time I need any more motivation to pony up for the next training class, all I have to do is think about this particular inmate. There are good friends of mine who still to this day haven't gotten over not being able to tell what kind of man he really was.

And I am just not willing to assume, or to take the word of someone who is willing to use force to separate me from my possessions, that he won't hurt me if I cooperate. Sorry. Not in this lifetime.

Y'all have often seen me suggest to new members here that they obtain a copy of Jeff Cooper's little book, Principles of Personal Defense. As far as I am concerned, that's the McGuffey's Reader of the One Room Schoolhouse that is S&T. If you're going to really participate here, you need to read that book. ( See http://www.paladin-press.com/product/772/Other_Combat_Shooting to order.)

The chapter covering the sixth principle (Ruthlessness) starts with these words:

Anyone who willfully and maliciously attacks another without sufficient cause deserves no consideration. While both moral and legal precepts enjoin us against so-called "over-reaction," we are fully justified in valuing the life and person of an intended victim more highly than the life of a pernicious assailant. The attacker must be stopped- at once and completely. Just who he is, why he has chosen to be a criminal, his social background, his ideological or psychological motivation, and the extent of injury he incurs as a result of his acts- these may all be considered at some future date. NOW, your first concern is to stay alive. Let your attacker worry about HIS life. Don't hold back. Strike no more after he is incapable of further action, BUT SEE THAT HE IS STOPPED. The law forbids you to take revenge, but it permits you to prevent.
-end quote

And there we have it. In the short list that is my sig line here, the first thing on the list is MINDSET. The little book above is your best textbook for establishing a proper mindset, as far as I am concerned. And mindset is the foundation for everything else.

Stay Safe,

lpl

 

[DWFan]

http://newsok.com/article/3270704
speaks for itself.

 

[Habeed]

Lee Lapin : "special forces soldier goes rogue" is the plot of countless television and movie programs. I'd very much like to hear more of this story.

If the person is in prison now, why can't you name names? Surely there was a public trial or guilty plea that we could look up. Presumably in the judge's sentencing decision document there would be information on exactly what crimes this person committed, and what I really want to know : what superhuman feats did a million dollars of training make possible? Did he shoot every victim in the head with a single shot apiece, or create an improvised IED with cleaning chemicals and a model airplane kit? (to name a couple of cliches)

 

[griz]

BullfrogKen said:

There is much to learn. All we need do is ask and study.

I am curious about this. Assuming you mean in an overall sense, not as a stradegy during a crime, what sort of useful information would we hope to learn from studying the motivations behind the crimes? I can imagine a little of it, but I am interested in hearing the thoughts behind those statements.

Thanks, Griz

 

[Jim K]

People don't call criminals bad guys because they are good. And real bad guys aren't like the ones on TV who stand around discussing the philosophy of criminal behavior with the victim until the police decide to leave the donut shop and show up or the victims conveniently escape.

Bad guys just kill people, and they don't waste time doing it. I am not going to tell anyone what to do if you are armed and are confronted by an armed bad guy, but a polite invitation to a beer probably won't work. (Besides, if he is under 21, you could be arrested for contributing to delinquency.)

Jim

 

[BullfrogKen]

So, are you aware of any studies by LEO's or others that would address any of the issues raised in this discussion?

I know that at various times, various people have interviewed criminals for different reasons. Anything particularly relevant you can point us to to review?

Rob,

With all due respect to them and their job, what would the police community know about criminal pyschology?

Resources? The best book I've seen on the topic of criminal psychology is Stanton Samenow's book Inside the Criminal Mind. Skip Gochenour has given lectures for 20 years about this subject. Having interviewed in excess of 600 murderers, I give his opinion on the subect more weight than any other source I've come across. Some of his lecture topic outlines from Study Group are preserved on the NTI's website - teddytactical.com, but he does give lectures at the annual NTI event, Tom Given's Tactical Conference, and other assemblies from time to time where he's been invited to speak.

I encourage anyone interested in exploring the topic to take advantage of any of those resources. Books, articles, and lecture outlines are fine reference material, but it doesn't replace being present when the topic discussed in a live, interactive venue.

I am curious about this. Assuming you mean in an overall sense, not as a stradegy during a crime, what sort of useful information would we hope to learn from studying the motivations behind the crimes? I can imagine a little of it, but I am interested in hearing the thoughts behind those statements.

Both.

Would it be good to know if the criminal actor in front of you were motivated by personal reasons (and the using violence expressively) or if he were were motivated by material reasons (and using the violence instrumentally)? Would that be useful information to have? In which of those two situations would you think the criminal actor(s) might be amenable to forming restraining judgments? Meaning in practical terms, he says to himself, "This situation isn't worth it. I'm going to let this guy go and chose an easier victim, because this fellow here isn't an easy target."


Criminals are capable and often do make rational decisions of who they pick and why them pick them. Would that sort of information be useful to know?

We can influence how the interaction resolves. Would it be useful information to know what things we do, even unconsciously, that could make a situation worse?



Or, we could simply take this approach to every problem.

Some are genuinely psychotic. All are utterly worthless scum.

And the American Indian was a savage barbarian.


Hammers and nails.

 

[Fred Fuller]

why can't you name names?

I've pretty much said all I can afford to say on the subject here. I can't point you to any media coverage, because to the best of my knowledge there was none. There are no public records I am aware of, either.

lpl

 

[Pweller]

BullfrogKen: A lot of your writing here seems very academic in nature. I just don't think in many self-defense situations that there is time to really understand the criminal mind. Probably in most cases, you've got 30 seconds or less to take decisive action. If someone pulls a gun or threatens your life, you can't ask 'excuse me, before you do anything you might regret, what are your motivations?' because by then you are already dead!

The questions you pose are probably appropriate for a psychologist, but probably not so much for the average joe.

 

[rrruuunnn]

We had some employees confronted with a robber holding a shotgun. My employees ran away from the window and refused to unlock it. They stood far from the window. The robber kept ordering them to come back. I believe fear kept them away. I don't think that they were protecting the money. Someone said that it would have been better to just give the cash with a gun in front of their face. They decided not to and survived.

I'm not saying that there are sure answers. But in this case, they probably saved themselves.

 

[Gungnir]

BullfrogKen: A lot of your writing here seems very academic in nature. I just don't think in many self-defense situations that there is time to really understand the criminal mind. Probably in most cases, you've got 30 seconds or less to take decisive action. If someone pulls a gun or threatens your life, you can't ask 'excuse me, before you do anything you might regret, what are your motivations?' because by then you are already dead!

The questions you pose are probably appropriate for a psychologist, but probably not so much for the average joe.

He who knows the enemy and himself
Will never in a hundred battles be at risk;
He who does not know the enemy but knows himself
Will sometimes win and sometimes lose;
He who knows neither the enemy nor himself
Will be at risk in every battle.

If you only have 30 seconds to figure out your opponent from scratch then you have a serious lack of preparation. In the quote you're already "in battle".

If you can prep before hand you can "type" the bad guys, and derive strategies, then in the 30 seconds, you can compare against type and use the appropriate strategy. You can figure out the motivations through many things, hell if you feel like it go talk to someone imprisoned for violent crime.

I suggest though you go to your local library (or use the internet) and read about crimes you're concerned about from a home or personal defense perspective. For instance unless you regularly store large quantities of Columbian marching powder under your bed, it's unlikely you need to be reading about drug transactions gone bad, but you might want to look at home invasions, burglaries, etc. and read reports of what happened, the people involved, what they did and why.

I'd say that in general from home invasions these are some primary categories of criminals I've figured out

1. those that break in to steal, who will try to escape if discovered
2. those that break in to steal, who will try to escape if resisted
3. those that break in to steal, who will try to subdue if resisted, if resisted after subduing will escape
4. those that break in to steal, who will try to subdue if resisted, if resisted after subduing will commit violence against resisters up to and including murder
5. those that break in to steal, who will try to commit violence up to and including murder if resisted
6. those that break in to commit violence up to including murder

The first three are relatively easy to deal with, their prime motivation is theft, and there is no real motivation to commit violence, except in self defense.

The next two are the tricky ones, you might end up dead depending on how you respond but still their primary motivation is theft these people are most often serious professional thieves. They are there to steal frequently something highly specific and if you're an obstacle to that goal, you're going to be moved perhaps force ably out of the way. This is also the least frequent type of invasion.

The last one is a blanket for those who's primary motivation is to commit violence, but who will take stuff anyway if only to finance themselves short term. I'd also recommend breaking this out into what kind of violence they plan on committing.

Overall they all should have individual tailored strategies (including the sub points of 6 I haven't included for brevity) that you can apply depending at what stage you discover their intrusion (are they attempting to enter, already entered, performing the crime, have found you and/or your family, preparing to leave, or leaving. Also keep in mind these are dynamic categories, for instance if a thief breaks in is discovered and you block his only means of egress he may become a #5 or a #6.

I think this was what both of the mods were alluding to.

 

[Deanimator]

I never understood the rationale with killing the victim.

Did you understand the "rationale" of Cho Seung Hui at Virginia Tech? Are any of the victims less dead because nobody ever WILL?

You hold them up and get away never hurting someone, the cops will take it serious and try to catch you. You start killing folks when you rob them the cops will never rest, they will hunt you down like a dog.

Maybe if you rob a COP and kill him. Anyone else, it just depends upon that department's current priorities. Some murders go unsolved for a VERY long time, at VERY low priorities. Some go unsolved FOREVER. If you're a victim who doesn't defend himself, it doesn't matter to YOU how long it takes or if your murderer is EVER caught.

 

[alsaqr]

In late 1984 Jay Wesley Neill held up the bank in Geronimo, OK. He murdered four people and wounded two others. Neill's accomplice, Robert Grady Johnson, waited in the getaway car. This was an unusual crime by gay lovers.


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

Shortly after 1 p.m. on December 14, Neill entered the First Bank of Chattanooga in Geronimo, and forced the 3 tellers to the back room where he had them lie face down on the floor and stabbed them to death. The three employees (Kay Bruno, 42; Jerri Bowles, 19; Joyce Mullenix, 25) were stabbed a total of 75 times. Mullenix was six months pregnant.

Three customers entered the bank while Neill was attempting a decapitation of one of the tellers. The customers were taken to the back room and shot in the head. Ralph Zeller, 33, died from his wounds becoming the 4th and final murder victim. Bellen Robels, 15, and her husband Reuben Robels, 20, would recover from their head wounds. Neill attempted to shoot the couple's 14 month old daughter, Marie, but the gun was out of bullets.

 

[Corporal K]

Lee,

Come on, a US citizen is sentenced to ADX Florence or another "Supermax" and there are no public records? If he was active duty, why isn't he at Leavenworth? Are you sure you didn't "hear" about this on a forum somewhere?
Now if the guy is in a foreign prison or prosecuted by JAG, I could understand that, but this story smells like you-know-what.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Call it whatever you like. I have no more to say on the matter.

lpl