Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Shhhhh....!
I have these bad influences in my life...
-Sam
I have these bad influences in my life...
-Sam
Do Criminals Sometimes Shoot Cooperative Victims to Eliminate Witnesses?
- Thread starter rrruuunnn
- Start date
- Status
Geno,
I think the psychology of a bank robber is different than other robberies. A bank is insured. And the owner is not usually there. There was a tv episode of "Masterminds" where the bank robber actually believed has was a sort of robinhood.
If you surrender, you are playing russian roulette.
I think the psychology of a bank robber is different than other robberies. A bank is insured. And the owner is not usually there. There was a tv episode of "Masterminds" where the bank robber actually believed has was a sort of robinhood.
If you surrender, you are playing russian roulette.
Fetus
Member
Happens all the time here in Philadelphia (unfortunately )
308win
Member
In the end I believe you have to accept that the worst can and does have a high probability of occurring. The person(s) have already demonstrated disregard for the law, disregard for acceptable behavior, that they and their actions are self justified, a total disregard for accountability, tendency to violent acts and behavior and a demonstrated willingness to follow through on those tendencies. The criminal has the means, motive, and opportunity you have to believe he has the intent to further harm or you are being irrational.
rrruuunnn said:
Not so. Banks are open for business, and where I bank, there is no security whatsoever...cameras don't protect you. There are now protective windows for tellers, etc. Secure? One is best to try to read the criminal as one would read the tea leaves. In some cases, to intervene, one might start a gunfight where otherwise the person just wanted the cash. Not intervening is not surrendering. It is to observe, watch for potential violence, and to be prepared to take advantage of any opening for intervention if such did become necessary.
Geno
Not so. Banks are open for business, and where I bank, there is no security whatsoever...cameras don't protect you. There are now protective windows for tellers, etc. Secure? One is best to try to read the criminal as one would read the tea leaves. In some cases, to intervene, one might start a gunfight where otherwise the person just wanted the cash. Not intervening is not surrendering. It is to observe, watch for potential violence, and to be prepared to take advantage of any opening for intervention if such did become necessary.
Geno
It's a judgement call whether to comply or fight back. I like having the option of fighting back effectively. There are some behaviors that I would consider "tip offs" that the robber might not stop at taking property. Trying to move me or other victims to a different location (back room, vehicle, making them lie or kneel down etc.) shouting or verbal abuse for it's own sake rather than a compliance strategy, hitting, assaulting, undressing or attempting to degrade victims, sticking around instead of fleeing once the wallets were obtained/register empty etc. would all imply intentions darker than simple robbery.
If you CCW, your hand may be forced if a mugger/robber whatever seems about to discover your weapon. Seeing the pistol on your belt may convince him to shoot you first, and at the least he will attempt to gain control of your weapon. Something to think about. Say one BG holds you at gunpoint from a "safe" distance while his accomplice walks up behind you to rifle through your pockets - you're stuck either letting yourself get disarmed or trying to quickdraw against a weapon already trained on you. Practice that draw stroke, and shooting from retention, and pull the gun before he sees it. In a genuine self defense situation the only advantage a CCW holder might have is surprise - ie, the baddy wasn't expecting you to pull a gun.
If you CCW, your hand may be forced if a mugger/robber whatever seems about to discover your weapon. Seeing the pistol on your belt may convince him to shoot you first, and at the least he will attempt to gain control of your weapon. Something to think about. Say one BG holds you at gunpoint from a "safe" distance while his accomplice walks up behind you to rifle through your pockets - you're stuck either letting yourself get disarmed or trying to quickdraw against a weapon already trained on you. Practice that draw stroke, and shooting from retention, and pull the gun before he sees it. In a genuine self defense situation the only advantage a CCW holder might have is surprise - ie, the baddy wasn't expecting you to pull a gun.
Last edited:
Yes. Robbed at gunpoint twice, knifepoint once, various unarmed "strongarm" muggings where someone started off panhandling and tried to intimidate me into giving them money, escalating into threats, shoving, etc. Witness to a casual shooting downtown, knife assault outside a bar where I gave first aid to the victim while he lay bleeding on the sidewalk. Noone ever got any money from me, but they scared the crap out of me more than once.
A friend of mine worked evenings at a convenience store I've seen security footage of him trying to fight off a knife attack (guy lunged across the counter at him with a steak knife, he held the guy off with one hand and punched at him desperately with the other)
and footage of him co-operating with a robber who shot him three times in the head, then went on a three state crime spree that included the murder of a state trooper. Wish my friend had had a gun. Or a better job. Or both. Co-operating didn't help him one bit, nor did the idiot who shot him give a second thought to the security camera. Not slick or professional.
Sorry. I didn't time myself or read the post out loud. I'm more interested in what you have to say, and how to answer it, than my reading speed.
Last edited:
Right. It's a judgment call. How does one become better at "reading the tea leaves?" I'd rather my judgment be an informed one, right now it isn't really.
NMGonzo
Member
"strongarm' muggings happened to me twice. Once in philly and once in San Diego.
Both failed.
Both failed.
James T Thomas
Member
black tea
While intervention in a robbery can lead to a "gunfight," I would be on pins and needles if the passive robbers required everyone to "get down on the floor and place their hands over their heads -as so often occurs in these, seemingly benign robberies.
When this action is demanded by any criminals who "just want to rob and no harm will be done;" the tea leaves are showing a bad omen.
Consider. If a hidden Police stake out team were to suddenly appear, within a bank under holdup, would not a "shootout" occur?
If an off duty policeman were in the customer line, and he recognized his jeopardy, could not a "shootout" occur?
I suppose that any hidden stake out team would remain hidden, as long as the situation appeared to be going to simple robbery, but the moment it appeared to
degenerate to gunfire, they would be forced to intervene.
It is the criminal act of armed robbery that has the incurred potential for violence, and the unknown risk of outcome for this situation.
The armed citizen is passive; neutral, in going about his daily business, and
while he has the responsibility for his actions, he can also be forced, by the actions of the criminals by the restrictions they place into such a situation into just what he can and cannot do.
While intervention in a robbery can lead to a "gunfight," I would be on pins and needles if the passive robbers required everyone to "get down on the floor and place their hands over their heads -as so often occurs in these, seemingly benign robberies.
When this action is demanded by any criminals who "just want to rob and no harm will be done;" the tea leaves are showing a bad omen.
Consider. If a hidden Police stake out team were to suddenly appear, within a bank under holdup, would not a "shootout" occur?
If an off duty policeman were in the customer line, and he recognized his jeopardy, could not a "shootout" occur?
I suppose that any hidden stake out team would remain hidden, as long as the situation appeared to be going to simple robbery, but the moment it appeared to
degenerate to gunfire, they would be forced to intervene.
It is the criminal act of armed robbery that has the incurred potential for violence, and the unknown risk of outcome for this situation.
The armed citizen is passive; neutral, in going about his daily business, and
while he has the responsibility for his actions, he can also be forced, by the actions of the criminals by the restrictions they place into such a situation into just what he can and cannot do.
Last edited:
nitetrane98
Member
I suspect the "3 strikes and your out" law in may states plays into some BG thinking about killing a witness. If they've got an 0-2 count in a non-capitol punishment state they're going to prison just as long for an armed robbery as for killing somebody. All you have left to hope for is that there is a spark of decency left in the BG.
There's something to be said about sizing up the BG. But for me it has nothing to do with whether or not his intentions are to kill me. It's much easier to solve a problem operating from an assumption of a given fact.
I suppose being retired LE gives me a bit of advantage having been within bad breath proximity to hundreds of BGs. So I'm somewhat over the cultural shock. You can talk to these people.
I have held many suspects at gunpoint. At that time, all I was concerned with was their hands. Generally speaking, if I could see your hands, everything was cool. A BG will likely be ORDERING you to put your hands where he can't see them. He doesn't know for sure where you keep your wallet, cell phone or gun. He will suffer from target fixation waiting for the wallet to appear. But I digress...
Getting OT here.
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light"
Dylan Thomas
There's something to be said about sizing up the BG. But for me it has nothing to do with whether or not his intentions are to kill me. It's much easier to solve a problem operating from an assumption of a given fact.
I suppose being retired LE gives me a bit of advantage having been within bad breath proximity to hundreds of BGs. So I'm somewhat over the cultural shock. You can talk to these people.
I have held many suspects at gunpoint. At that time, all I was concerned with was their hands. Generally speaking, if I could see your hands, everything was cool. A BG will likely be ORDERING you to put your hands where he can't see them. He doesn't know for sure where you keep your wallet, cell phone or gun. He will suffer from target fixation waiting for the wallet to appear. But I digress...
Getting OT here.
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light"
Dylan Thomas
Excellent point here! All the more reason to react when the time is right since Joe Citizen has no idea that this may well be the case.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
There are risks if you surrender. There are risks if you fight back. When it comes to aggrevated robberies, whatever you do is going to involve risk. Sometimes, compliance will be your best choice. Sometimes, fighting back will be your best choice. Sometimes, running away will be your best choice. Sometimes, some combination will be your best choice. The trick is to figure out which of the possible choices poses the least risk to you.
308win
Member
That is kind of like the Supreme Court Justice's definition of pornography - something to the effect of 'I can't describe it but I know it when I see it'. Unfortunately they don't wear signs around their necks so you have to use your best judgement about being somewhere else and if you do get caught up in an incident you do the best you can.
One of my biggest concerns would be getting one of the other victims injured or killed while I was protecting myself.
One of my biggest concerns would be getting one of the other victims injured or killed while I was protecting myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Two Cold Soakers
Member
My father-in-law was shot in an armed robbery of his store. He had to have been alive to open the safe. As the robbers-come-murderers left, they shot and killed a customer who came into the store during the act.
Head shots.
22LR.
Ruger MkII.
Multiple life sentences for 2 perps.
PM me if you want news reports of the incident for verification.
Head shots.
22LR.
Ruger MkII.
Multiple life sentences for 2 perps.
PM me if you want news reports of the incident for verification.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/perpetrate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perp
To "Perpetrate" is a verb. The guy who puts a knife to your throat and tells you to give up your wallet? He is "PERPetratring" a crime. Whatever he looks like, that's what a "perp" looks like. Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff perpetrated massive fraud...that makes them "perps" as well. A perpetrator is defined by his actions, not his appearance. If his actions appear to be wrong bad and illegal, he looks like a "perp."
What a stupid word.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
I believe Geno was using the abbreviated form of the term perpetrator.
He was. I thought his original question implied that there was something prejudicial about that word and if so, I agree with him. Plus it's just sort of an ugly clunky word, I don't like it. Wasn't knocking Geno. You can't identify a perp by his appearance because anyone, regardless of how they look, is capable of perpetrating a crime. You can properly call someone a "perp" if he does something, not if he looks a certain way. Like your vests by the way.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
I agree, and I prefer the term "Criminal Actor", or "Violent Criminal Actor" as the case need be.
Geno,
What I meant about "insured". Is that the banks are FDIC. There is no victim besides the terrorized bank tellers. We've had at least several bank robberies in the last couple years. I bank at one of them. They don't have glass either. They did not have a security guard. After the robbery, they put a security guard for a few weeks and moved the front door and rearranged the cubicles.
I can't remember the ideology of the robber in the "Mastermind" episode. But he was against the system. He only did banks.
I remember one episode where the robber plead guilty only after listening to the terrorized bank tellers testify to their experience.
What I meant about "insured". Is that the banks are FDIC. There is no victim besides the terrorized bank tellers. We've had at least several bank robberies in the last couple years. I bank at one of them. They don't have glass either. They did not have a security guard. After the robbery, they put a security guard for a few weeks and moved the front door and rearranged the cubicles.
I can't remember the ideology of the robber in the "Mastermind" episode. But he was against the system. He only did banks.
I remember one episode where the robber plead guilty only after listening to the terrorized bank tellers testify to their experience.
Last edited:
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Pweller said:
You're both right, and wrong.
Right, in that we fundamentally disagree.
Wrong, in that my beliefs are based on studying just the situations. I formed much of what I believe about the criminal mind and criminal behavior on a rather in-depth study of their own descriptions of how they view the world and why they do what they chose to do. When I see or read about a scenario, those anecdotes often reinforce my beliefs.
Pweller said:
And we'll have to firmly disagree on that statement. People are who they are.
This thread began with a rather simple question, accompanied by a more complex assumption beneath it -
Do criminals sometimes shoot cooperative victims?
Yes, they do.
to eliminate witnesses?
That's the complex assumption. I disagree with it. The motive is not always to eliminate the witness. What turns a robbery, or even a rape, into a murder (or attempted murder if the shooting isn't fatal) is a complicated question. I also believe that a knowledge of those motivations can be valuable to us, just as a knowledge of what makes some people fail the interview process while others pass it and become selected as targets has value.
But the true answers are known only by the one pulling the trigger. And many times he'll tell us why he did it; but we usually have to ask him nicely.
Until I come across someone with more expertise on the subject, I'm unwilling to abandon my beliefs on the matter of the criminal mind.
But then again, what the hell do I know about it, right?
There are number of Youtube Videos from surveillence Camera footage, of Armed Robberies, where all went peaceable and easy, Robber gets the Money, then, Robber shoots compliant Clerk anyway, or while leaving, turns and shoots a peaceable customer-bystander, or shoots someone who was just walking in.
I will guess this sort of gesture is to express a combination of contempt, serendipity of 'power' for the sake of power being flaunted, and, or, a parting 'exclaimation mark' for the Robber's need to feel he can dominate others, especially when they are helpless.
This is what worries me most about late night bad neighborhood 7-11 Cigarette/Coffee forays - the fatuously ruthless 'Robber' who needs to show off.
I will guess this sort of gesture is to express a combination of contempt, serendipity of 'power' for the sake of power being flaunted, and, or, a parting 'exclaimation mark' for the Robber's need to feel he can dominate others, especially when they are helpless.
This is what worries me most about late night bad neighborhood 7-11 Cigarette/Coffee forays - the fatuously ruthless 'Robber' who needs to show off.
Gungnir
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked