How to deal with store robbery as a 3rd party CCW

[Mikhail Weiss]

What the Victims of Armed Robbery Tell Me

My experience is probably a bit different from most here, not merely because I worked behind a counter for a long time, but because I paid attention to what was going on in such businesses in the city in which I worked, as well as the various nearby others slowly melting into one large metropolitan area. There was, after all, utility in the endeavor.

What I noticed is that the majority of such robberies seemed to end with the bad guy taking the money and running. In fact, I spoke with a number of victims of such robberies to get their first hand accounts. But I also noticed that an alarming number of such robberies resulted in clerks getting shot (perhaps only alarming to those in the business). I went to school with one of three victims murdered together in a late-night robbery barely over a mile away from my own work location. I saw video of others being shot or bludgeoned despite cooperation (I posted one of those on THR a while back), read still other accounts of other clerks being assaulted within only a few miles of my workplace.

I learned a few things. Some victims of armed robbery are traumatized by it with never a shot fired. Others appear to blithely go on as if nothing happened. Others are angered by it and leave the business. Others are angered by it and take steps to prevent ever being unarmed in such a situation again. Everyone, no matter their post-robbery reaction, felt that their lives were in danger, that this was where and how their lives were going to end, and that the decision was not theirs, but in the hands of the criminal. Armed robbery depends upon convincing the victim that he will die “unless,” but the victims I spoke with did not trust that meeting the “unless” condition (...unless you give me the money) would save them. They hoped that it would, but they feared that it would not.

Armed robbery is a violent crime. The only question in the minds of casual observers is how much more violent will it get? The only question in the minds of the victims is will I survive?

The experience of others may well differ.

Should this figure into your shoot or no-shoot calculations? Is it worth considering? That's up to you.

 

[rainbowbob]

Thanks for a very interesting perspective Mikhail. It seems clear from what you say that clerks in that situation uniformly feared for their lives - as intended by the predators.

It also seems clear in most cases, one or both predators were focused entirely on the targets (i.e., clerk/money).

I have yet to see in this thread (unless I somehow missed it) ANY evidence that there is a high possibility of an assailant with a gun shooting the target after being struck by a bullet.

Kleenbore?

Lee?

Anybody?


I apologize if I overlooked the evidence presented and would be grateful if you can point me to it.

 

[uspJ]

Please don't start a gunfight with someone when their gun is pointed at me.

i would think that would go without saying...

nowhere in my posts have i said that i would shoot while the gun was trained on someone. i said if i was in a position to shoot the robber i would, in previous posts i mentioned other factors such as a clear shot and safe backstop. i don't constitute a clear shot when the target has their gun trained on another. i also mentioned that i would give verbal commands if for no other reason than to take the gunmans aim/attention off anyone else.

 

[uspJ]

The number of companies, stores, and crimes indexed in these three studies make them the largest and most comprehensive analysis of convenience store crime.

Circumstances of Homicide: Eighty percent (80%) Classified as Acquaintance-based or Random/Senseless

The Homcide study was intended to review, in detail, the circumstances of this most heinous offense. It was hoped that some common thread or pattern would emerge from the data that might lead to new prevention programs. What emerged, however, was much different. Eightly percent (80%) of all homicides studied were either random senseless in nature (65%), that is, there appeared to be no apparent reason for the murder or they occurred between people who were prior acquaintances (15%).

thank you very much for the links Lee. i found them to be very informative, and disturbing.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I have yet to see in this thread (unless I somehow missed it) ANY evidence that there is a high possibility of an assailant with a gun shooting the target after being struck by a bullet.

I wouldn't want to accuse you of being disingenuous, but I think you know that no one can offer any such assurance or evidence. It's a roll of the dice, with someone else's life or health at risk.

I have said for a long time, and it is still my opinion that in defensive situations, the stakes matter more than the odds.

Others may think differently, and the simple truth is that everyone here who is a non-felon above the age of majority and legally responsible who carries a gun will have to make those decisions for themselves as to what behavior is responsible and what constitutes recklessness. Every individual also has to bear any physical, mental and legal costs of their decisions in situations like this.

There will be consequences for not acting in the situation described in the OP.

There will be consequences for acting in the situation described in the OP as well.

That is not at question here.

The questions are, how well are you prepared to make a responsible decision if you find yourself in that situation? How good are you with your carry pistol, really, repeatably, under real pressure? How well prepared are you to deal with the aftermath of your decision?

Do you know? Have you trained with an instructor or trainer, or just 'practiced?' Have you thought about all this, made preparations to cope successfully with the various aspects of your decision? Are you ready? Really?

lpl

 

[uspJ]

The questions are, how well are you prepared to make a responsible decision if you find yourself in that situation? How good are you with your carry pistol, really, repeatably, under real pressure? How well prepared are you to deal with the aftermath of your decision?

Do you know? Have you trained with an instructor or trainer, or just 'practiced?' Have you thought about all this, made preparations to cope successfully with the various aspects of your decision? Are you ready? Really?

i agree with your comments Lee, anyone who owns/carries a gun for sd/hd needs to take these things into serious and thoughtful consideration and quality training will most likely help you survive. with that said even all the high quality training, drills, and classes may not prepare you for when the event is real, when your aiming at a person instead of a 3D target or silhouette, and the FOF encounter will be involving real guns with real bullets.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mikhail Weiss: As mentioned, once threats were made, the BG or BGs did not not look elsewhere.

You may have seen it or you may think you have seen it, but that makes little sense. Your experience notwithstanding, I find it extremely unlikely that, in a locale such as mine in which legal concealed carry is common, at least the second perp ("tailgunner") will not be scanning everyone; rare too, I think, is the robber dumb enough to be so focused on one person that he would leave himself vulnerable to being shot, struck, grabbed, or stabbed.

I point out all of the above only to say this: if you find yourself in such a situation, it's probably going to be at close range (21 feet or less), and it's very likely to be at very close range (right around a dozen feet).

Sounds reasonable.

Posted by rainbowbob: I have yet to see in this thread (unless I somehow missed it) ANY evidence that there is a high possibility of an assailant with a gun shooting the target after being struck by a bullet.

Considering the very high stakes involved, I think that most reasonable citizens knowledgeable of the multifaceted set of risks involved would require assurance that there would be a very, very, high probability that the perp, once struck could not fire.

Posted by uspJ: nowhere in my posts have i said that i would shoot while the gun was trained on someone.

Sorry, I assumed that you would.

i said if i was in a position to shoot the robber i would, in previous posts i mentioned other factors such as a clear shot and safe backstop. i don't constitute a clear shot when the target has their gun trained on another.

That's a very important clarification.

i also mentioned that i would give verbal commands if for no other reason than to take the gunmans aim/attention off anyone else.

I don't think I would, if for no other reason that I might draw the attention of one, two, or more gunmen to myself.

News reports listed more armed robberies of commercial establishments in my area between the day after Thanksgiving, 2009 and this Valentines Day than you can count on both hands--all in very desirable neighborhoods in which forcible felonies had been virtually unheard of, and all within a two mile circle. All involved two armed robbers. No one was hurt, even in the one bank robbery in which the employees were ordered into a back room.

Those worrisome reports substantiate, at least for me, the wisdom of my decision to start carrying about a year and a half ago. They also show that in those instances, not shooting would have been the right decision.

That may not always be the case, of course, but that clear backstop, a clear shot with no likelihood of someone stepping into the way, and not having the robber's gun aimed at point-blank range would be essential prerequisites.

I would still be very concerned about two things: that tail gunner I have not seen and being shot by an arriving policeman as I raise my gun.

So there's one more essential prerequisite: absolute necessity. What might indicate that would be pure conjecture---probably some indication that the robber is in fact going to start shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Lee Lapin: The questions are, how well are you prepared to make a responsible decision if you find yourself in that situation? How good are you with your carry pistol, really, repeatably, under real pressure? How well prepared are you to deal with the aftermath of your decision?

I do not know and I hope I never find out. If I do find out, I do hope that the answers are "very well", "adequately so", and "well enough", but that all remains to be seen.

Have you trained with an instructor or trainer, or just 'practiced?'

I recently participated in an all day course in high performance defensive pistol shooting. We had one-on-one attention from each of five professional trainers.

While one can continue to practice some of the skills taught by dry firing and some by practicing at the range, the only things the training had in common with range practice (and not with bulls-eye shooting) were stance, grip, sight picture, and trigger pull techniques. Speed was of the essence, and "group size" wasn't even part of the lexicon.

I have not taken the second-day course (Dynamic Pistol Shooting), which involved shooting while moving. While I have watched Rob Pincus demonstrate on television how to engage a threat in a group of people, I have never tried.

I expected to feel more prepared after the training, and maybe I really am, but I also became much more aware of my limitations.

The experience made me realize more, rather than less, that I would be unwise to draw on anyone unless it were absolutely necessary.

 

[rainbowbob]

I wouldn't want to accuse you of being disingenuous, but I think you know that no one can offer any such assurance or evidence.

Lee: I assure you I am NOT being "disingenuous" here. I'm trying to learn. That's why I ask questions - to learn. That is why I spend time here at THR. Not to pontificate. Not to impress everyone with my superior knowledge. And I wouldn't want to accuse anyone else here of doing either of those things.

I DON'T know that no one can offer evidence of instances where an assailant aiming a gun at a target has fired as a result of involuntary muscle contractions and hit his target after being struck by one or more bullets.

It seems to be common knowledge among some here that such an occurrence is a significant risk of using a firearm to end the threat of an armed robbery. I assumed this knowledge could be substantiated.

I think that most reasonable citizens knowledgeable of the multifaceted set of risks involved would require assurance that there would be a very, very, high probability that the perp, once struck could not fire.

I think I am a reasonable citizen with at least a smattering of knowledge regarding the risks involved. I am looking for information to add to that smattering.

Nonetheless, I suspect there is a "very, very high probability" that an assailant, once struck by gunfire, would NOT automatically squeeze off a round and hit his target.

That does not infer I believe a gunshot wound will instantly incapacitate the recipient of same. It does suggest I believe that said recipient will "most likely" either;

a.) turn toward the unexpected threat

b.) run away

c.) fall down

If there IS evidence of other - more likely - responses, I want to learn about them.

I would also expect "most reasonable citizens...would require assurance that there would be a very, very, high probability that the perp" - unmolested by the vicitim or bystanders - will NOT fire and hit his target.

It's a roll of the dice, with someone else's life or health at risk.

Yes it is.

Either way.

To shoot - or not to shoot - that is the question.

I'd like to inform my choice with fact-based information.

Seriously - not disingenuously.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rainbowbob: Nonetheless, I suspect there is a "very, very high probability" that an assailant, once struck by gunfire, would NOT automatically squeeze off a round and hit his target.

Are you really willing to bet human life on that suspicion and on the likelihood involved? BTW, it doesn't really matter at all whether his "squeeze" is voluntary or involuntary, does it?

That does not [imply] I believe a gunshot wound will instantly incapacitate the recipient of same.

So--you are so concerned that he may shoot the compliant clerk that you will initiate gunfire to save him, but you almost completely discount the risk that the gunman, when shot but not instantly incapacitated, will shoot the clerk....

Boy, that makes a lot of sense.

I would also expect "most reasonable citizens...would require assurance that there would be a very, very, high probability that the perp" - unmolested by the vicitim or bystanders - will NOT fire and hit his target.

I think you have the thresholds reversed. You will be arguing that you fired because it was necessary to do so.

I'd like to inform my choice with fact-based information.

Consult with training professionals, attorneys, and law enforcement officers in your area. See what police procedures would call for--and then realize that you have neither the sworn duty nor the very important protection that LEOs have.

If you have not availed yourself of professional training--including drawing from concealment and firing very, very fast with an induced high stress level--find the resource, set aside time and money, and sign up.

If there's a trial involving a shooting and a self defense claim, go and sit through it all, find another one, and repeat the process.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

contributor
You may have seen it or you may think you have seen it, but that makes little sense.

I agree that it makes little sense. Criminals don't always behave the way that we want them to, or expect them to, and this seems a case in point. That the ones I encountered behaved in such fashion remains interesting enough that I have some theories about it, which are supported, at least in part, in some of the articles that Lee Lapin included in an earlier post.

Remember that it was when the threats were made that criminal attention focused upon the clerk. The one making the threat looks because he expects to receive cash, wants quickly to grab it, and to be on his way. Secondarily, and at some distance among his worries, I suspect, is that the clerk may unpleasantly surprise him. I put this secondary worry far behind the first concern because the criminal expects a high likelihood of success. If he did not, he'd go elsewhere.

In similar fashion, the accomplice always looked when the threat was made because he was just as undisciplined in the team effort as the other, eager to get the cash and to go. It may be that one expected to keep the clerk under threat and that the other expected to do the cash grabbing, which required the attention of both. Most likely of all, I believe, is that both looked because of simple human nature. Neither really knows how the clerk will respond. Both are interested. So they look.

Also, the fellows I encountered were not sophisticated at all. They were not subtle. They wanted (with a few possible exceptions) to get what they were after with no fuss (unless they were the one or ones making it).

Those who cased the place first, however, followed much more the watchful scenario that I think you have in mind. Curiously enough, all of them also followed exactly the same casing plan.

I find it extremely unlikely that, in a locale such as mine in which legal concealed carry is common ... the second perp ... will not be scanning everyone,

This probably doesn't present much concern for criminals for many reasons. My state enacted concealed carry laws in 1995. I was engaged in this line of work before then, and for a long time after. I didn't notice any change at all among threat-makers. Your concern is legitimate. My observations don't change that at all, but merely provide an anecdotal data point.

Here's another: I suspect the chances that criminals operating in this environment may encounter armed victims is small, even considering the risk factor afflicting those who work in such businesses. Many people who own guns don't seek CCW licenses, and even among gun owners with or without such licenses, I suspect that most rarely carry, or even seriously consider that they may have to use a gun in self defense. I could be wrong about that, of course, but among the very many with whom I worked, I can think of only one other person who carried while at work. She kept a .25 semi-auto in her purse.

The overwhelming majority of victims of armed robbery with whom I spoke, whether they owned guns or not, were not carrying when robbed. The one exception shot the man who robbed him.

In other words, even among a population engaged in high risk employment, and even among those who owned guns, virtually none of them carried. This remains a puzzle to me, but I suspect that the answer is, once again, human nature.

 

[rainbowbob]

Posted by rainbowbob: Nonetheless, I suspect there is a "very, very high probability" that an assailant, once struck by gunfire, would NOT automatically squeeze off a round and hit his target.

Are you really willing to bet human life on that suspicion and on the likelihood involved?

An assailant pointing a gun at a clerk is a very real and evident threat.

The notion that the assailant will very likely shoot the clerk if fired upon by an unexpected defender is not at all evident or obvious to me, nor has it been substantiated by anyone here.

What I'm suggesting is that the chances of the assailant shooting the clerk are probably reduced - not increased - by shooting the assailant.

In a logistic regression analysis, Kleck and Miriam Delone ("Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery," Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9 [1993]: 55-82) found that robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used any other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist. This was true even when controlling for other characteristics of the robbery situation that could influence the effectiveness of defensive actions...

But I'm open to convincing evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Kleanbore:

...under the circumstance described (robber aims gun pointblank at clerk)...we are likely to cause the gun to go off, harming the clerk...

...Problem is, your shooting may cause the robber to shoot when he would not necessarily do so otherwise. That would likely seal the clerk's fate, and it might well result in others' being shot, including perhaps you...

...Your immediate use of deadly force...may cause that innocent fellow man to be killed or injured when that might not have happened but for your actions...

Specifically, I'm looking for evidence that the opinions quoted above can be substantiated by actual experience...personal, anecdotal, experimental...anything at all. This particular belief has driven much of the discussion in this thread - with absolutely no substantiation whatsoever.

BTW, it doesn't really matter at all whether his "squeeze" is voluntary or involuntary, does it?

No, it doesn't. What matters to us here is whether the risk to the clerk (and other innocents) is greater or lesser depending on the decisions made by an armed bystander.

Are you willing to bet a human life on the assailant's decision?

I would also expect "most reasonable citizens...would require assurance that there would be a very, very, high probability that the perp" - unmolested by the victim or bystanders - will NOT fire and hit his target.

I think you have the thresholds reversed. You will be arguing that you fired because it was necessary to do so.

And that argument would be based on the fact that I genuinely feared for my life or the life of another innocent person as a result of the violent acts of the predatory assailant.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I assure you I am NOT being "disingenuous" here. I'm trying to learn.

Thank you.

I've never heard anyone broach the subject of taking on an armed robber who was holding a third party at gunpoint in class or on the range. It may have been done, some sort of statistics may have been compiled, but if so I don't know about them and I have never heard them quoted. I would happily offer such material if I knew it existed or could find it.

I know of only one such incident, and that was reported some years ago in The Ayoob Files, IIRC. In this case, the manager of a supermarket shot a robber who was holding a cashier at gunpoint. There may well be other such cases, I don't know, but there certainly is not an abundance of them that I have run across in the literature or been told about in classes.

The conventional wisdom is that it's foolish to draw on someone who has the drop on you. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct, sometimes it isn't. Is it wise to draw on someone holding a third party at gunpoint? I would have to say the answer would depend on the situation. The evaluation would have to be made based on what could be observed, quantified and related later to responding officers and perhaps in court to a jury to explain exactly why I felt it necessary to kick off a gunfight where innocent uninvolved parties were present.

I'm an old phart, and have been at least part of the way around the block. I've seen convenience store surveillance tapes where the CASHIER took most of the money in a robbery. I've been told of multiple instances where the cashier was working in concert with the robber and the whole "robbery" thing was a setup. If the mind of man can figure out a con, someone is going to give it a try. It's almost as bad to be old and cynical as it is to be young and dumb... .

I literally grew up working behind the counter of a store, a little old-fashioned country store that my dad owned. Some of my early lessons in life were how to count back change properly (you start with the cost of the purchase, and count up to the amount tendered), what a "flim flam" (scam, swindle) was and how to recognize one. Watch the "birthday money" scene in the movie Paper Moon if you've never seen a flim flam in operation. In that day and age, armed robbery was not as much of a threat as it came to be in later decades, fortunately.

Those were the days when people filed down pennies to the size of dimes, to fool the old round-topped Coke machine. That was the kind of "crime" we were most often confronted with.

lpl

 

[Kleanbore]

An assailant pointing a gun at a clerk is a very real and evident threat.

Most of us agreed on that a hundred or so posts ago. The question is, what should one do? No one can never really know the right answer for all situations, but here's a start:

Consult with training professionals, attorneys, and law enforcement officers in your area. See what police procedures would call for--and then realize that you have neither the sworn duty nor the very important protection that LEOs have.

If you have not availed yourself of professional training--including drawing from concealment and firing very, very fast with an induced high stress level--find the resource, set aside time and money, and sign up.

If there's a trial involving a shooting and a self defense claim, go and sit through it all, find another one, and repeat the process.

OK?

 

[jmstevens2]

Lee: I assure you I am NOT being "disingenuous" here. I'm trying to learn. That's why I ask questions - to learn. That is why I spend time here at THR. Not to pontificate. Not to impress everyone with my superior knowledge. And I wouldn't want to accuse anyone else here of doing either of those things.

I DON'T know that no one can offer evidence of instances where an assailant aiming a gun at a target has fired as a result of involuntary muscle contractions and hit his target after being struck by one or more bullets.

It seems to be common knowledge among some here that such an occurrence is a significant risk of using a firearm to end the threat of an armed robbery. I assumed this knowledge could be substantiated.





I think I am a reasonable citizen with at least a smattering of knowledge regarding the risks involved. I am looking for information to add to that smattering.

Nonetheless, I suspect there is a "very, very high probability" that an assailant, once struck by gunfire, would NOT automatically squeeze off a round and hit his target.

That does not infer I believe a gunshot wound will instantly incapacitate the recipient of same. It does suggest I believe that said recipient will "most likely" either;

a.) turn toward the unexpected threat

b.) run away

c.) fall down

If there IS evidence of other - more likely - responses, I want to learn about them.

I would also expect "most reasonable citizens...would require assurance that there would be a very, very, high probability that the perp" - unmolested by the vicitim or bystanders - will NOT fire and hit his target.





Yes it is.

Either way.

To shoot - or not to shoot - that is the question.

I'd like to inform my choice with fact-based information.

Seriously - not disingenuously.

As a paramedic, I had a suicide run once where the person put a 1911 in his mouth. He emptied it. From the bullet holes in the ceiling I have no doubt all 7 were with the gun basically in the same position. I assure you, he succeeded with the first shot. Nerve reaction accounted for the other 6. I have to assume the Medical Examiner knows what he is talking about.

 

[Kleanbore]

rainbowbob: Specifically, I'm looking for evidence that the opinions quoted above [(that your shooting may cause the robber to shoot when he would not necessarily do so otherwise)] can be substantiated by actual experience...personal, anecdotal, experimental...anything at all. This particular belief has driven much of the discussion in this thread - with absolutely no substantiation whatsoever.

Try rereading posts 161, 163, and 164, and this time, consider what they mean in this context. You may need to read them more than once and reflect upon them. Hint: what they all say is that shooting someone in the head (for example, someone whom you believe may shoot the clerk if you do not intervene) may well not stop him from doing so. Think maybe if you shoot him he just might be a little more angry??? If he posed a serious danger when he was asking for money, why wouldn't the firing of a shot or shots that do not disable him make him more likely to shoot?

And that argument [that you fired because it was necessary to do so] would be based on the fact that I genuinely feared for my life or the life of another innocent person as a result of the violent acts of the predatory assailant.

To prevail, you will have to articulate that in such a manner that others will conclude that (1) a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm or to prevent a forcible felony ("fear" is subjective and won't count very much) and that you believed it. Should thing go south, the other side will be providing stats in abundance that indicate that the outcome was likely to have been benign, but for your action.

Do you really want to argue that your belief was based on the fact that you had not been assured that there was a not a "very very high probability" that the robber would have fired, had you not intervened? I sure wouldn't, not ever, but if you do, proceed, and good luck.

You can get better advice, maybe advice that you will take to heart, from a local attorney experienced in both the criminal and the civil aspects of self defense cases; from a professional tactical shooting trainer; and from senior local law enforcement officials. I do not want to seem rude, but I see no indication that you are benefiting very much from this discourse.

If it were only your safety and you fortune at stake here, that would be one thing, but you really need to consider the innocents involved.

 

[JDoe]

As a paramedic, I had a suicide run once where the person put a 1911 in his mouth. He emptied it. From the bullet holes in the ceiling I have no doubt all 7 were with the gun basically in the same position. I assure you, he succeeded with the first shot. Nerve reaction accounted for the other 6. I have to assume the Medical Examiner knows what he is talking about.

Interesting. I just happened to be reading "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman and in the first part of the second chapter, this is what I found...

One of the most powerful examples of the military’s success in developing conditioned reflexes through drill can be found in John Masters’s The Road Past Mandalay, where he relates the actions of a machine-gun team in combat during World War II:

The No. 1 [gunner] was 17 years old-I knew him. His No. 2 [assistant gunner] lay on the left side, beside him, head toward the enemy. a loaded magazine in his hand ready to whip onto the gun the moment the No. a said “Change” The No. 1 started firing, and a Japanese machine gun engaged them at close range. The No. 1 got the first burst through the face and neck, which killed him instantly. But he did not die where he lay, behind the gun. He rolled over to the right, away from the gun, his left hand coming up in death to tap his No. 2 on the shoulder in the signal that means Take over. The No. 2 did not have to push the corpse away from the gun, it was already clear.​

The “take over signal was drilled into the gunner to ensure that his vital weapon was never left unmanned should he ever have to leave. Its use in this circumstance is evidence of a conditioned reflex so powerful that it is completed without conscious thought as the last dying act of a soldier with a bullet through the brain.

 

[rainbowbob]

...the other side will be providing stats in abundance that indicate that the outcome was likely to have been benign, but for your action.

Which stats would those be? I haven't seen any.

I have seen stats that indicate an opposite outcome is more likely.

Do you really want to argue that your belief was based on the fact that you had not been assured that there was a not a "very very high probability" that the robber would have fired, had you not intervened?

Oh brother! The double negatives aside, I think you mean to ask if I would be willing to argue that I believed, with some assurance, there was a very high probability the robber would have fired had I not intervened.

Well...

I believe there is a high probability of injury or death when a predator points a gun at a person and states their intention to do harm "UNLESS".

So...IF I believed such was the case in a given circumstance, I'd be willing to take action IF I believed it would be effective in preventing injury or death to an innocent person, and I'd be willing to argue my conviction that my actions were motivated by those beliefs.

To prevail, you will have to articulate that in such a manner that others will conclude that (1) a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm or to prevent a forcible felony

What other than deadly force would be more effective (thus "immediately necessary") in preventing death or serious bodily harm or a forcible felony (assuming an imminent threat that can be articulated)?

Try rereading posts 161, 163, and 164... Hint: what they all say is that shooting someone in the head (for example, someone whom you believe may shoot the clerk if you do not intervene) may well not stop him from doing so.

Actually, what they say is that shooting someone anywhere (not just the head), in some instances, may not stop him from continuing to function. That may include the possibility he will shoot the clerk. But that possibility existed before he was shot, based on his actions and declarations.

Think maybe if you shoot him he just might be a little more angry???

Please. I'm not concerned about how he feels...I'm concerned about what he's doing.

If he posed a serious danger when he was asking for money, why wouldn't the firing of a shot or shots that do not disable him make him more likely to shoot?

That question is based on the supposition that a shot is not likely to disable him or otherwise discourage him from continuing his already unraveling enterprise.


There is plenty of evidence that reasonably well-placed gunshot wounds of a sufficient caliber DO seriously impair function in an overwhelming number of instances.

There is plenty of evidence that the mere presence of an opposing armed force, in the absence of any shots fired, may end the threat of violence.

You have still provided no evidence, other than your own view of "common sense", that delivering a deadly blow to the central nervous system is likely to result in an involuntary contraction of the trigger finger and the subsequent shooting of the clerk, or that a less than instantly lethal shot is likely to result in an escalation of the assailant's attack.

As a paramedic, I had a suicide run once where the person put a 1911 in his mouth. He emptied it...I assure you, he succeeded with the first shot. Nerve reaction accounted for the other 6.

Here we at last have some anecdotal evidence that it is at least POSSIBLE for a trigger finger to involuntarily contract and fire a weapon after a CNS wound. That doesn't mean such an outcome is likely.


I believe it is more likely that a determined and well-practiced defender can deliver a shot that will;

a.) kill the assailant and end the threat

b.) seriously wound the assailant and end the threat

c.) superficially wound the the assailant causing him to be less than optimally functional and end the threat

d.) convince him to to abandon a failed enterprise and end the threat.


OK?

 

[uspJ]

I don't think I would, if for no other reason that I might draw the attention of one, two, or more gunmen to myself.

i was going by the op's scenario which was one gunman. if multiple gunmen entered the store the odds have shifted entirely in their favor to the point where i would only take action as a last resort, multiple gunman would imho have complete control of the situation to the extent that a single armed person against them would have little hope of survival especially in the small cluttered confines of a convenient store.

So there's one more essential prerequisite: absolute necessity. What might indicate that would be pure conjecture---probably some indication that the robber is in fact going to start shooting.

i agree, but the fact is that often times there is no warning. i'm at work at the moment and can't access video, but there are countless videos of store robberies where a gunman/gunmen have opened fire on a fully cooperative clerk. there have been several shooting deaths of convenient store clerks in my area in the last year (at least three and i'm not counting robberies were people were shot and survived). if i could honestly, 100% know for sure that the gunman would not harm the clerk or other patrons i'd let him leave out of the store skipping and whistling while counting the cash.

 

[Kleanbore]

rainbowbob: The double negatives aside, I think you mean to ask if I would be willing to argue that I believed, with some assurance, there was a very high probability the robber would have fired had I not intervened.

The phrase was "very, very"--it was a reconstruction of one of your sentences.

I believe there is a high probability of injury or death when a predator points a gun at a person and states their intention to do harm "UNLESS".

Basis for that?

What other than deadly force would be more effective (thus "immediately necessary") in preventing death or serious bodily harm or a forcible felony (assuming an imminent threat that can be articulated)?

How about seeing if the clerk's compliance works before doing anything rash?

Of course deadly force is permissible in most jurisdictions in the event of an armed robbery that has not been concluded. However, it is not always sufficiently effective, nor is it necessarily wise. I presume that if you were being robbed you would not try to draw while the gun is aimed at you; risks here are similar.

There is plenty of evidence that reasonably well-placed gunshot wounds of a sufficient caliber DO seriously impair function in an overwhelming number of instances.

Of course. However, in this scenario, the robber has an important upper hand--gun aimed at point blank range at a victim. The questions are, how seriously, and just how "overwhelming" is that number? The instances cited in posts 161, 163, and 164 give cause for concern...

"Well placed gunshot wounds"? I'm still not sure whether a police sniper with a Model 700 would fire under the circumstances, but don't confuse the ability of a person who has to draw and fire under stress in a split second with that of a trained expert sniper with a rifle, or even a calm, skilled bulls eye shooter on the range who can breathe as he has practiced. There's a reason they teach shooting at center mass, often using steel plates with no indication of point of impact, in defensive pistol shooting training.

You have still provided no evidence, other than your own view of "common sense", that delivering a deadly blow to the central nervous system is likely to result in an involuntary contraction of the trigger finger and the subsequent shooting of the clerk, or that a less than instantly lethal shot is likely to result in an escalation of the assailant's attack.

Still counting on that shot to the appropriate part of the brain, and on the assumption that either the robber will not move his head or that a coincidental error will somehow compensate if he does?

Once again, you have the thresholds reversed. When one proceeds to put human life at risk (or at greater risk, as the case may be), the burden rests upon objectively demonstrating that his or her action or plan would be extremely likely to be effective, not that it is likely to fail.

Now, if only you are at risk of death or great bodily harm, you are free to roll the dice however you like, but at issue here is the safety of the clerk.

That's why I ask questions - to learn.

I'm sure we will all be very interested in finding out about what lawyers, trainers, and peace officers in your jurisdiction say about this.

 

[rainbowbob]

Do you really want to argue that your belief was based on the fact that you had not been assured that there was a not a "very very high probability" that the robber would have fired

The phrase was "very, very"--it was a reconstruction of one of your sentences.

The double negatives I was referring to - the ones that made your question nearly unintelligible - are highlighted above. "Very, very" isn't a double negative. But now we're arguing grammar - which is ridiculous. Clarity in writing indicates clarity of thought however.

How about seeing if the clerk's compliance works before doing anything rash?

I'm not suggesting I would start shooting in such a situation. I am, however, rejecting your notion that you would never ever shoot in such a case. In many cases, compliance has disastrous consequences.

I presume that if you were being robbed you would not try to draw while the gun is aimed at you...

That may be your presumption - and would likely be the presumption of the assailant.

I would never say never, and would draw and fire under such circumstance IF I thought I had a reasonable probability of success measured against the desperation of the particular circumstances.

"Well placed gunshot wounds"?

Yes, you read that correctly. Well-placed gunshot wounds would be those to the head and COM that could reasonably be expected to disrupt the activities of the assailant.

Still counting on that shot to the appropriate part of the brain...

No, in fact I haven't mentioned a head shot before this post in any context other than to refute your assertion that a head shot will almost certainly cause the assailant to involuntarily contract his trigger finger and shoot the clerk. An assertion for which you continue to fail to provide any shred of evidence.

You have also provided no evidence of your assertion that shooting at the assailant is likely to cause them to escalate their attack on the clerk - as opposed to the more likely reaction of turning toward the shooter, falling down, or running away.

I'm sure we will all be very interested in finding out about what lawyers, trainers, and peace officers in your jurisdiction say about this.

I suggest you don't suspend your respiratory functions waiting for me to follow your condescending instructions and then report back to you regarding my findings.

 

[Kleanbore]

Well-placed gunshot wounds would be those to the head and COM that could reasonably be expected to disrupt the activities of the assailant.

If you or a loved one is being attacked and deadly force is immediately necessary, shots that could reasonably be expected to disrupt the activities of the assailant would be the best you could hope for. Pardon the trailing preposition. Because misses won't help, you would shoot at COM and do so rapidly and repeatedly until the threat is stopped.

In the scenario under discussion, however, someone else has a gun aimed at him, and anyone thinking about intervening would want much more than a reasonable expectation.

No [(not still counting on that shot to the appropriate part of the brain)], in fact I haven't mentioned a head shot before this post...

No, you haven't, but there have been several informed opinions offered that only an effective shot that disables the CNS instantly would provide any hope of reliably accomplishing the objective of saving the clerk. I do not recall anything from you indicating that you didn't believe them, and one would therefore reasonably infer that you would be relying upon a well-placed head shot.

...in any context other than to refute your assertion that a head shot will almost certainly cause the assailant to involuntarily contract his trigger finger and shoot the clerk.

I never said that a head shot would "almost certainly" do anything--just that you can't count on it to save the clerk, and that, should the clerk sustain injury after you have fired, you can very probably count on lawyers and expert witnesses offering (1) statistics showing why inaction would have been more prudent, (2) descriptions of how your shooting likely raised the level of risk, and (3) complex explanations of how your bullet could well have caused the robber to fire, all of these in a coordinated argument that the likelihood of injury would have been lower but for your action.*

Should you lose, by the way, all of that (and, of course, your defense) will be at your expense.

I suggest you don't suspend your respiratory functions waiting for me to follow your condescending instructions and then report back to you regarding my findings.

You said you wanted to learn, and since you have argued with or disregarded every single input here that does not support your preconceived notions, I suggested some expert resources that you might find more credible and more applicable to your jurisdiction. I did not intend that to be taken as condescending. Whether you want to share your findings is entirely up to you.

______
*All of that is predicated on two assumptions: that the robber did not shoot first or say something like "now you die", and that an accomplice had not started shooting.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Once discussion becomes circular in nature, forward progress ceases. We have now reached that unfortunate conclusion, as has this thread.

Thanks for the thoughtful and constructive contributions, all.

lpl