Do Criminals Sometimes Shoot Cooperative Victims to Eliminate Witnesses?

[shockwave]

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.

Having seen this recommended so many times, I ordered a copy and will give my assessment upon reading it. Here's one of the worst crimes I know of, the Wichita Horror. If there's a takeaway message, it's that the victims could have fought back and they should have. Cooperation killed them. It's the lesson of Flight 92. Cooperate only if necessary to gain an advantage and then fight back to the death.

 

[Geno]

Let me ask just one question of those who have posted thus far, and that is: how many of you have been witness/victim to such a crime as conjectured herein, such as a bank robbery?

As I have been informed by the instructors during my many Tactical Shooting and Advanced Tactical Shooting courses, most bank robberies are very fast, very slick, and completely non-violent. The perpetrator(s) is/are usually in-and-out so fast that other people therein are little are aware of what truly happened.

Most bank robberies, according to my former instructors, are not hostile take-overs. The instructors taught us that if were witness/victim to such a happening, to simply remain uninvolved and be a good witness. We were explicitly advised to remain uninvolved until such point as it was our opinion that someone was about to be injured or killed. The instructors asserted that at that point, we have a moral duty to intervene.

Now, this (my) post has a reason to it. Re-read it, but this time, read my post aloud to yourself, and time how long it takes for you to read it to the end of this paragraph. As I looped back and read it aloud to myself, it took me about 58 seconds to read aloud.

(Stop timed read here).

Please indulge me here. Those of you who post herein after my post, please add your timed-read, i.e., your aloud-read of my post took you 55 seconds, 65 seconds, 75 seconds, etc. I’ll complete my post later.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's a good point about bank robberies. Most of them have no resemblance to a Michael Mann holdup. But in that case you'll never even know it's happened so it's not your problem.

 

[waterhouse]

51 seconds

 

[Geno]

Waterhouse:

Eu's a bedder reeder then eye.

Geno

 

[griz]

Thanks for the answer Bullfrog. I can see research in to motivation being useful as a way to avoid being targeted, and for an overall philosophy of dealing with a crime in progress. I can also agree that it would be great to be able to quickly get a read on your robbers intentions. But in the context of the title of the thread, the answer seems to be a clear yes considering the "sometimes" qualifier. It seems to be another way of asking if the often heard advice of "give them what they want and you will not get hurt" is valid.

Since criminals have on occasion selected highly inappropriate victims, it obviously is impossible to always avoid fitting the victim profile. So while it is always best to avoid the conflict in the first place, once you are in the middle of it you still have to assume your robber has the potential to hurt you despite your cooperation.

 

[Deanimator]

Since criminals have on occasion selected highly inappropriate victims, it obviously is impossible to always avoid fitting the victim profile. So while it is always best to avoid the conflict in the first place, once you are in the middle of it you still have to assume your robber has the potential to hurt you despite your cooperation.

If you're a ROBBER, you've ALREADY gotten F minuses for judgment and human decency. If I take any action (or fail to) based on your judgment and human decency, I've gotten an F minus for intelligence.

 

[BullfrogKen]

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.

Too academic, huh?


Any more academic than determining AOJ - Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy; or Means, Proximity & Intent; or whatever other Justification model it was you've been exposed to?


I never suggested one should attempt a complete psychological work-up of your attacker to see whether his mother gave him enough attention as a child.


I'm suggesting we take time beforehand to consider the different motivations of different criminal actors. If any of us were to read the crime blotter for the week in our local newspaper, we'd find many more robberies, assaults and rapes than we'd find murders. Same with the published FBI statistics.

So obviously not every victim of robbery, felony assault, and rape also become murder victims. If the "word of advice" on the street to criminals is "kill your victim so he/she's not a witness", either that word's not gotten out very well, or the criminal actors aren't very successful at murder.


Knowing that many crime victims do survive violence offered to them, would it not be a good idea to explore why some aren't killed and others are? Wouldn't that be good information to have ahead of time, so when we see a situation unfolding that we know has a very good possibility of ending in our death that we need to execute our plan, or any plan, right away? Even if we're already behind the 8-ball? Would it be good to know the sorts of things we do that excalates an encounter more than it otherwise would?


Or maybe you're just going to keep your plan simple, and shoot everyone who shows any sign of twitching? Although that would be difficult to reconcile with one of the Justification models illustrated above, wouldn't it?


But, since most of us don't shoot everyone just for twitching, it's reasonable to assume we've put some thought in ahead of time to determine what sorts of things constitute the judicious use of deadly force, and what doesn't. If you can do that, you can ponder this ahead of time as well.


Look, what's missing from the scenarios that get tossed back and forth all the time in S&T is context. Just how did we get to the point where we found ourselves staring down the barrel of a gun? Beginning the discussion at that point is about as useful as discussing defensive driving when the scenario offered has us 2 seconds from driving into a bridge abutment and asking us to consider our options.


In the end, I really don't care whether you buy into the theory or not. I neither gain nor lose anything from it. It's not mine, and I don't own it to sell. But because people are complex beings I am convinced that the world is a lot more complicated than, "hell, just shoot 'em".


But what the hell do I know anyway? Go do what you want.

 

[shockwave]

But because people are complex beings I am convinced that the world is a lot more complicated than, "hell, just shoot 'em".

Well put. The killings of victims in my city are almost always caused by low SES types, and seem to pattern strongly on the "just 'cause I want to" category. Professional criminals come in all flavors, but you'd have to figure that they know that using a gun to commit a crime is a big-ticket offense, firing the gun during the crime ups it a whole bunch, and killing somebody during a crime brings down the hammer. A mugging or simple robbery won't engage much of the police force. The death of a victim winds up the homicide unit, CSI, and they won't give up looking for the killer for a long time.

Committing a homicide is such an unwise idea that mostly only the mentally ill or severely uneducated risk it. The other category, like Scott Peterson or OJ, are sociopathic and kind of in their own category.

 

[griz]

If you're a ROBBER, you've ALREADY gotten F minuses for judgment and human decency. If I take any action (or fail to) based on your judgment and human decency, I've gotten an F minus for intelligence.

I agree that the robber has already failed his good guy test. But as Bullfrog suggested, you can take action based on his motives, intent, and attitude. That is not at all the same as giving him any credit for decency.

 

[Fred Fuller]

A certain number of members here devote years of their lives to the detailed study of various martial arts.

I suppose those people are too academic as well...

lpl

 

[wishin]

..............Now, this (my) post has a reason to it. Re-read it, but this time, read my post aloud to yourself, and time how long it takes for you to read it to the end of this paragraph. As I looped back and read it aloud to myself, it took me about 58 seconds to read aloud

50 seconds. But, that was after your request. The first time was surely longer.

 

[308win]

If you are really unlucky, one day it may just suck to be you. I didn't post this to be flippant or callous but to reinforce that you need to have already went through the thought process to defend yourself before you have to make those decision because when confronted with criminals like Brown it is too late to decide how you are going to decide to act. When he walked back through the door those two shop workers had a second or two at the most to act.

Convenience-store killer executed by lethal injection
Thursday, February 4, 2010 10:10 AM
Updated: Thursday, February 4, 2010 11:28 AM
By Alan Johnson

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

ODRC
Mark Brown LUCASVILLE, Ohio -- After 16 years of litigation capped by a last-minute flurry of appeals in four courts, Mark Brown was executed this morning for gunning down a Youngstown store owner and an employee in Youngstown market.

Brown, 37, was declared dead at 10:49 a.m. at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville. Brown had no last words. He was the third person put to death in the nation using Ohio's one-drug lethal injection process.

The chemical started flowing at 10:40 a.m. At 10:41 Brown closed his eyes and yawned. He was silent and there was movement after that.

After the execution, Terri Rasul, sister of victim Isam Salman, said, "As sad as this may be, justice has been served. I hope this is a lesson learned by young people today to not do what Mark Brown did to my brother."

On the night of Jan. 28, 1994, Brown and a juvenile friend, Allen "Boonie" Thomas, were drinking wine laced with Valium and smoking cigars hollowed out and stuffed with marijuana. At one point, the two young men talked about the movie, Menace II Society, in which assailants gun down two Asian convenience store employees.

Brown said he wanted to live out the scene from the movie, Thomas recalled.

Later that evening, he got his chance.

Brown and Thomas were driven to the Midway Market, an Arab-owned small convenience store in a rough neighborhood on Youngstown's north side. The two entered the store, made their purchases, and left. Then Brown went back inside, wearing a bandana(sic) or mask, according to witnesses.

Court records say Brown robbed the store and shot Hayder Al-Turk, a clerk, and Salman, the owner, as he crouched behind the counter. Both men died on the spot.

A few days later, after his arrest, Brown admitted to police that he had shot Al-Turk, but said he didn't remember shooting Salman. He said he "just flipped out" and attributed it to the Valium, saying "They make you go off."

Brown was convicted for both murders, but was sentenced to death only for killing Salman -- a crime he and his attorneys now claim was committed by Thomas.

The courts considered and rejected last-minute litigation stretching from a state appeals court in Youngstown and the Ohio Supreme Court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brown's public defender attorneys argued that he was innocent of the charge for which he was sentenced to death. They also claimed the case was riddled with false and recanted testimony and suppressed evidence.

But neither the courts nor Gov. Ted Strickland bought Brown's final arguments. Strickland turned down Brown's clemency plea late yesterday.

Brown was the second Ohioan executed this year and the 35th in the almost 11 years since capital punishment was resumed.

 

[Geno]

Some of the posts here pre-suppose that one is readily able to identify the perp as being a perp. Too, some posts pre-suppose that one is able tactically to engage the perp, in an isolated, non-crowded area, with no back-stop concerns for bullets. I submit for your consideration, and to cause folks to reflect that a perp does not always fit the perp model.

As many here know, I have been a professionally license martial arts instructor for over 3 decades. Yes, our organization used to study convicted ("reformed") criminals via interview to learn more about their trends, etc. I will simply say that not all bad-guys wear black.

As situational awareness goes, and not to brag, I am pretty clear about who and what is going on around me. But I repeat, not all perps fit the perp model. They don't all dress in black. Some perps are durned smooth, slick and quick...zero violence...in-and-out in under 60 seconds, leaving without hardly anyone even aware that there was just a bank robbery.

Geno

 

[scoutsabout]

1. Make reasonable efforts to not become a victim of violent crime in the first place
2. Once identified, make every effort to escape or defeat a violent criminal's intent to harm you or others
3. If all else fails, you know what to do

Nowhere in this list does it allude to anything resembling compliance with a violent criminal's intent or demands. If we fight, there is a some variable chance that we will win. Only the specific circumstances, preparedness, and determination will determine the victor. If we surrender, there is zero chance to win and we are left at the mercy of those who are obviously unmerciful. The losses for us, at the hands of the unmerciful, cannot be foreseen -- but they may include things like rape, mutilation, disfigurement, and the loss of life. I've got a family to come home to and, for me, the choice seems clear.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

Motos like "Blood Before Surrender" and "Death Defore Dishonor" come from people who have stared evil, and sometimes death, in the face. Many, many of these same kinds of people have died for our right to live free. Now come on, boys and girls, who wants to see all of that torn down and disgraced by some selfish brute with no respect for life and liberty?

 

[James T Thomas]

three guesses

rrruuunnn:

Today's AOL Welcome has your answer.

Youngstown, OH -again. 80 year old woman; shot in the head, in her car, in the parking lot of St. Domenic's Catholic Church.

Apparently a robbery.

What would be the motive?

 

[Deanimator]

That is not at all the same as giving him any credit for decency.

My central presumption is that anybody unlawfully threatening me with immediate deadly force may at any instant kill me, for any reason or no reason at all. NONE of my planning takes into account the possibility that he won't. Until he either disengages or submits, my goal is to neutralize him by main force, be that by beating, stabbing, shooting or immolating him.

If you put me in reasonable, imminent fear of death or great bodily harm, I'm not going to second guess your intentions, nor my reaction to your behavior. If you don't want my every effort focused on the use of deadly force to stop the threat you pose, don't do that.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Hell yes ... every day. There are thuggies out there that will kill you for your sneakers ... you don't think they'll kill you to stop you from being a witness?

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Habeed
..."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.

These fellows aren't the one(s) Lee Lapin has in mind, but they were involved in the FBI Miami shootout of April 11, 1986.

Michael Lee Platt: 6'0" - 173 lbs.
U.S. Army (#526087944) from 27 June 1972-1 May 1979
Honorable Discharge; E-6
Airborne Ranger trained at Fort Campbell: 9/73-5/75
Also served in M.P. Unit there with Matix. Service notation includes "High Combat Proficiency."
MOS: 11B10, 11B20, 11B30

William Russell Matix: 6'1" - 147 lbs.
Marine Corps (#2578943) from 7 October 1969-7 July 1972. Honorable Discharge; E-5
U.S. Army (#2578943) from 10 August 1973-9 August 1976. Honorable Discharge; E-5
MOS: Military Police, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

 

[Oyeboten]

There have been however many 'studies' over quite a few decades now, in controlled or scientific settings, where, college students, office workers, 'average' people, were permitted to induce varying degrees of electric shock or other discomforts to a helpless human subject, distally, in a setting where total anonimnity/non-accountability was assured.


They could see the subject ( victim) but not be seen by the subject victim or their co-operatives on other stalls or cubicles.

The conclusion every time, is that if in a position to do so, many 'average' people will be more than happy to warm-up-to an accelerating interest to torture, torture to death, or kill a helpless human subject/victim, as long as there will be no public shame or embarassment of the deed being discovered or associated with them.


Given that many 'criminals' are of 'average' character/mentality/intelligence/ethics/conscience, we do well to appreciate the probable implications of helplessness when countinanced by anyone who may act annonimously in an isolated setting where no accounting, reproof or oversight is possible.


Given that some 'criminals' are cut of better cloth than than the 'average' person, we may appluad those occasions of robbery Victims being tied or bound, and, are left unharmed.

 

[Gungnir]

There have been however many 'studies' over quite a few decades now, in controlled or scientific settings, where, college students, office workers, 'average' people, were permitted to induce varying degrees of electric shock or other discomforts to a helpless human subject, distally, in a setting where total anonymity/non-accountability was assured.

I think you're referring to the Milgram experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors as to what they thought would be the results. All of the poll respondents believed that only a few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Only one participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks below the 300-volt level.

The shocks were faked, however the results are accurate, since the "teacher" who was in reality the "subject" did not know the shocks were faked. It also relied on the fact that the teacher was reassured throughout the whole experiment that there would be no negative repercussions of following an authority. However it's tenuous for connection to criminal activity, since in essence it was through obedience to authority that the "torture" occurred, not disobedience of authority.

Also in criminal activity there are always potential repercussions, the question that needs answering is whether the criminal has a binary mindset on repercussions or a scale. In binary all bets are off, because ANY repercussion is the same from capture and prosecution of petty theft to murder. If it's a scale then obviously the criminal understands that more serious offenses lead to more significant repercussions and the pursuit of the offender.

 

[billdeserthills]

Of course they do, have been since the dawn of history

 

[Pweller]

BullfrogKen: I think I see a fundamental disagreement in this thread. From reading your posts, it seems that you believe that a criminal's behavior can be predicted and influenced (at least to some degree) by studying similar situations and through the victim's actions.

I think in a long-term hostage situation that you are probably right. But, I don't think it will matter much in a short-term crime.

My life experience has been that people can be fairly unpredictable - I've seen plenty of people do idiotic things that make no rational sense to me. I personally would have no confidence in my own ability to predict or significantly influence a criminal's behavior. And this is where we disagree, I believe.

Fundamentally, I think criminals are unpredictable.

 

[Sam1911]

Pweller, I think you've captured the essence of the 'diasgreement' such as it is, very well.

But, I don't think it will matter much in a short-term crime. ... Fundamentally, I think criminals are unpredictable.

I think this is what the folks who have studied criminal behavior closely -- specifically with a view to accurately modeling criminal behavior and decision making, and developing and testing effective strategies to counter them, on the street in very short-term encounters -- would argue.

Not every 'situation' has a shooting solution. Not every criminal who accosts you can be simply shot dead. Not every situation is winnable. Not every criminal is bad enough at their job to give you fair warning before you're in a very dangerous spot. There is far more to self-defense than having a gun, or even knowing how to shoot it (very) well.

Some of these things can, maybe, be informed by an understanding of the thoughts, values, and tactics of street criminals.

Simply saying that they're unpredictable and unknowable may be ignoring vital insights.

But not everyone has the resources and the mindset to make such a study so we all have to do the best we can.

-Sam

 

[Fred Fuller]

Be careful, Sam- you're gonna start sounding like one o' them NTI fellers or something.



lpl