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

[ChaoSS]

Lee Lapin, I know that guns are not death rays. However, the number of people that get shot in the head with a reasonable caliber and don't die are pretty small. I'd worry more about pulling the trigger and getting a clicking sound instead of a bang.

I'd still like to see incidences where someone got shot in the head and continued to commit or commenced with violence against others, excluding small calibers like .22 and .25.

As for those lecture notes you posted, I see them as a bit inapplicable to this situation. You may have the chance to evade, but you do not have the chance to remove everybody from danger's path without dropping the assailant. Furthermore, it's a discussion of general legal principles, but differing states have differing laws. For example, as I posted before, some states may give you the legal right to use lethal force simply to prevent the commission of a felony, (although I'm not advocating gunning people down because they are about to forge a doctor's note) while other states may require retreat even in the face of lethal danger, if at all safely possible. The laws are too varied to make any general statements about when it is legally acceptable to kill someone, except in cases that are sufficiently extreme so as to become acceptable by the laws of all states.

 

[rainbowbob]

Lee: The article you linked is an excellent one, and I understand why you would consider it required reading. I've read it several times (including just now), and learn from it every time I do.

It is, however, just one man's analysis. As such, I'm not sure I can agree with your demand that we read and understand this man's analysis - or don't post in this thread again. But hey - your the Mod - not me (thank God!).

 

[Rexster]

I might draw, and might not. I might engage, by gunfire, or might not. I would almost certainly NOT issue a verbal challenge/warning to an armed robber, who had a weapon in his hands, unless I had some distinct advantages, such as engaging him from a far distance, from behind good cover, and armed with a longer-range weapon. (Not a pocket pistol!) I would not be likely to issue such a challenge if it might result in a person being shot or taken hostage. So, if the robber has any person at gunpoint, there will be no warning or challenge.

Consider backshooters!!! (Watch your back; keep your back to something solid. Sides, too, if practicable.) The robber may have an accomplice inside the business, either hidden or acting as a customer. There may be other employees of the business, who may not know YOU are a good guy. There may be customers inside the store, armed with weapons, who may not know YOU are a good guy. Even the clerk, who may be fixated on the robber, but your gunfire may startle him into going for a weapon and engaging both the robber and YOU, thinking that your shots intended for the robber are aimed at him, the clerk, instead.

I am not saying to engage, or not engage. I am saying we should evaluate, think on our feet, consider the options, and, of course, do all of this VERY quickly. No two situations are exactly alike.

Consider the weapon. I am going to feel a lot better engaging if I have one or more of my SIG P229 duty/carry pistols with me, than if I have gotten lazy and decided to pocket an SP101 snubby. I would be even less likely to engage if I have gotten really lazy, and am only armed with a J-frame or pocket pistol.

I am no expert, no credentialed firearms or tactics instructor, but have been carrying on my badge for over 26 years, mostly in a big-city environment. I have paid for extracurricular training, out of my pocket.

Edited to add: I did not read all of the posts, mostly just the OP.

 

[zxcvbob]

What if you only have a knife (let's say a folding lockblade); the robber has fired a shot already, and you are behind him? Are there any strikes that should take the fight out of him immediately? (assume you don't have a sword where you could decapitate him ) Stab to the first vertebra / base of the skull? I know about "Knife to a gunfight", but can you end it before a fight gets started...

It's a serious question, but I realize there may not be an answer.

 

[JDoe]

All right folks, it's homework time. Before posting (or posting again) on this thread, go read http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm

OK Lee I've gone to read the referenced article again and can only see one thing that might cause me to hesitate. I am willing to change my mind on this but right now I can only see one reasonable course of action for myself.

Under the AOJ model the armed robber has the Ability and Opportunity to murder. The definition of Jeopardy given, "Jeopardy refers to the actions of the VCA that leads to the reasonable conclusion that force is necessary to interrupt an action that can realistically cause death or serious bodily injury." causes me to question myself but only because there is not a 100% guarantee that the bad guy will attempt to kill.

The best information I have (so far) results in me believing that there is a high risk that the bad guy could murder one or more people including me. But there is also a chance (as in rolling the dice) that the bad guy will take the money and run without harming anyone. The problem I have is that I won't know if the bad guy will attempt to murder anyone until his gun fires. So given a 1 out of 100 or worse chance that the bad guy will murder one or all people in the store including me what other choice is there except to preemptively shoot to stop the threat if the opportunity arises AND no other means of diffusing the situation exists at that moment.

The ADEE model - avoidance, disengagement escape and evade could be impossible to use in some small convenience stores and especially impossible if the bad guy decides to round up everyone for an execution. The other problem is that not doing anything to stop the threat means that the bad guy gains more and more control over the environment and could lead to my having zero chance of defending against an attempt to execute me or someone else.

Given an opportunity to avoid the use of lethal force I would jump at it--there is no way in the world that I would ever want to shoot someone. However I cannot imagine throwing away any advantage I might have to survive in the hope that a criminal who has the ability and opportunity and threatens the use of lethal force, won't try to kill me or another innocent person if I cooperate with him.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Some suggestions for those who would get involved in this situation without fail:

- http://www.ayoob.com/lfi1.html

- http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

- And sessions in as many handgun classes as you can manage with the various world class instructors available today. There's a partial list stickied at the top of the main S&T page.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying you shouldn't get involved. It's your call. But you need to inform your thinking as best you can before hand, and you need to have the best mindset, skillset and toolset you can manage as well.

The angel on your shoulder you'll have to find for yourself...

lpl

 

[ChaoSS]

What if you only have a knife (let's say a folding lockblade); the robber has fired a shot already, and you are behind him? Are there any strikes that should take the fight out of him immediately? (assume you don't have a sword where you could decapitate him ) Stab to the first vertebra / base of the skull? I know about "Knife to a gunfight", but can you end it before a fight gets started...

It's a serious question, but I realize there may not be an answer.

That's a whole different topic, but I'll answer it anyway.

A knife is not going to bring someone down as quickly or as safely as a gun. If you use it, you'd better be damn sure that it's necessary. The situation you gave applies. It is also not very likely that you will get that close to the back of an active shooter.

That being said, your first strike should be to the back of the head/neck. Fell the back of your head, feel the soft spot below the bump on the back of your head? That's target one.

With a knife you should be able to deliver blows faster than most shooters can accurately deliver shots after compensating for recoil. You don't stab once, you stab the head and then keep stabbing the back, go for the spine, the liver, the kidneys, whatever, until the guy goes down.

 

[Rexster]

If I have a stout blade as my best weapon, and he still has his weapon, I will probably attack the weapon hand, or at least immobilize it. I won't try to explain it here, but I have trained in such things as weapon take-aways and other empty-hand tactics against a weapon-armed attack, as well as a small amount of training in which I am using the blade. Of course, I would rather, if within grappling range, immobilize the weapon arm, and administer .357 magnum nasal spray.

Before anyone mentions bludgeoning the robber, I will say that I have seen some thugs taking amazing thumps to the grape, from 26" batons and SL20 flashlights, and continuing the fight as if hit with a wet noodle. It is quite a trick to immobilize a human with one blow.

Edited to add: I am not talking about "defanging the snake" here, when I mention immobilizing the weapon hand. I don't really want to go further OT into details of blade fighting.

 

[Kleanbore]

However, the number of people that get shot in the head with a reasonable caliber and don't die are pretty small.

I recall seeing stats indicating that while persons shot by handguns are 85-95% likely to survive, persons who sustain head wounds stand a greater than 90% chance of dying.

I'd still like to see incidences where someone got shot in the head and continued to commit or commenced with violence against others, excluding small calibers like .22 and .25.

I wouldn't!

Remember, however, that what's in question here is, "might he squeeze the trigger reflexively?". That's a different issue, I think.

So--people apparently visualize themselves getting a good head shot here. Forgetting for a moment the risk of being taken down by an accomplice, isn't anyone concerned that a deliberate hold might draw the attention of the robber, or cause someone else to exclaim? Of course, there's no chance that the robber may move his head just as the citizen takes the shot, perhaps resulting in a hit that does not disable the CNS, is there?

Furthermore, it's a discussion of general legal principles, but differing states have differing laws. For example, as I posted before, some states may give you the legal right to use lethal force simply to prevent the commission of a felony, (although I'm not advocating gunning people down because they are about to forge a doctor's note) while other states may require retreat even in the face of lethal danger, if at all safely possible. The laws are too varied to make any general statements about when it is legally acceptable to kill someone, except in cases that are sufficiently extreme so as to become acceptable by the laws of all states.

Good put, and it was suggested earlier that consulting an attorney would be a good idea.

I have been basing my comments on the assumption that shooting would be lawful under the scenario described here. That does not mean that it would be a good idea, hoevever, in that persons may be killed or injured who might otherwise have not been hurt.

That also does not mean that the shooter would not lose everything he owns as the result of his action--that's a very big risk indeed.

So, when might shooting be a good idea, in my opinion? (1) when the incident becomes an active shooter situation, or (2) when the words and actions of the robber indicate that he intends to shoot the people in the room. At that point, one would not really have a choice.

 

[hso]

Are there any strikes that should take the fight out of him immediately?

Nothing that is guaranteed to do so. It takes tens of seconds for someone with their throat cut to run out of fight. Plenty of ERs have seen people with knives, screw drivers, etc. stuck into the head walk in an ask for help. Short of near instantaneous decapitation nothing works (and even then you might have a convulsive pulling of the trigger).

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

A View From Behind the Counter

Interesting thread.

Since I was one of those guys behind the counter, I always figured that an armed robbery was a clear, direct, immediate threat to my life, and what was at stake was most certainly my life, not the cash in the register. The cash was merely a term in a negotiation, and that negotiation was for my life. My life being non-negotiable, I planned to act accordingly.

Does this have anything to do with whether or not a BG pointing a gun at me intended to shoot or not? I didn't care. Nor was I interested in finding out his intentions by someone else's standards. Gunpoint seemed the clearest indicator of intention.

Of the various threats and casing jobs, roughly half of them involved two individuals, the other half lone operators. When the BGs were in the store, they were all within a dozen feet, and all who made clear threats were stationary. Does this represent every scenario, or even the majority thereof as witnessed or suffered by others? I have no idea, but it's what I encountered.

Luckily, I never experienced an armed robbery, but at these distances, given the environment (counter height and displays, among other things), I spent a lot of time drilling head shots. Why head shots? I wanted armed bad guys shut down ASAP. Did I practice lots of other things? Absolutely.

Would I have been worried to see a CCW customer making ready to fire on the BG if said BG had the drop on me? Not really. I knew the regulars, and many of them who had CCW licenses said so. Some were IDPA guys, some were casual shooters, and some had spent “kilobucks” attending many of the high-dollar shooting schools. But whether I knew the customer or not, seeing one draw upon the BG would have been a clear signal to move if, for some reason, I had not done so already.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

What I often see in threads like this amounts to this:

Shooting the bad guy causes legal trouble. It may blow over, it may not. Not shooting the bad guy causes no legal trouble.

Most people opt for the latter. Here's why:

A dead stranger is better than your legal trouble. A dead you is worse than your legal trouble.

I suspect this is why:

I would let a criminal threaten a stranger rather than get into legal trouble.
(Because it will probably turn out all right.)

I would let a stranger suffer rather than get into legal trouble.
(Because it will probably turn out all right.)

~ I don't think a gun pointed at another is an imminent threat to life.
(Because it will probably turn out all right.)

I would let a stranger die rather than get into legal trouble.
(Because I'm interested in remaining all right.)

The latter is subject to argument, but that's why there's a tilde in front of the line before it. Sometimes the supposition is correct, sometimes not. When it is not, the consequence is just as often fatal as it is lamented by those who may have prevented it. That's why, conversely, this is the oft-seen response when the victim is personal:

I think a gun pointed at ME is an imminent threat to life.
(Because there's no guarantee how it'll turn out.)

I would likely shoot a criminal threatening me with a gun.
(Because I don't want him determining outcome.)

I don't entirely begrudge the self-preservational impulses of others, the scariest boogeyman in the US these days, under these circumstances, being the nefarious Lawyer, eager to punish good deeds, but it's painful to read. It may, after all, signal much more about culture than individuals, when the impersonal weight of one subsumes the morality of the other.

 

[rainbowbob]

Gunpoint seemed the clearest indicator of intention.

Indeed. Good post from an interesting and relevant POV.

 

[Kleanbore]

Gunpoint seemed the clearest indicator of intention.

...and that's why armed robbery is considered a forcible felony. That hasn't really been at issue here.

In many jurisdictions, one may lawfully employ deadly force, if it is immediately necessary, to stop an armed robbery. In most, one may lawfully employ deadly force under certain circumstances to defend a third party.

Those circumstances vary according to jurisdiction. More than a year ago, Marty Hayes, President of The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC posted this on the subject of intervening to defend a third party:

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.

Frankly, I haven't been thinking too much about a problem of criminality here, but upon reflection, I think everyone here should get the answer to that question as it applies in his area.

The real problem here is that, under the situation described, the likelihood that shooting the robber would prevent him from shooting the clerk is questionable at best. The above post by hso makes that pretty clear to me.

Also, as previously stated, there is even the possibility that shooting or even drawing a gun could result in the shooting of the clerk, even if that "clearest intention" had been conditional and that the real intent was to take the money and run.

Should that happen, it would be terrible even if the shooter were not liable.

Of course, liability is not at all out of the question, if experts might claim either that the shooting may well have increased the likelihood of the shooting or that a reasonable person would have realized that shooting was unlikely to protect the clerk ("Short of near instantaneous decapitation nothing works (and even then you might have a convulsive pulling of the trigger))" and was therefore not immediately necessary.

Not to mention the possibility that the shooter may hit someone else....

...all because he thought he was helping.

 

[nitetrane98]

Regarding headshots. I'm not a doctor (but I do like Dr Pepper). We were taught in the academy that a head shot that gets into the cerebral cortex, basically the eyes down around the skull, is a lights out, no twitch, DRT shot. Humans are not like snakes or chickens.

As pointed out, many scenarios may exist but if I'm afforded the luxury of a stationary target and an unobserved firing position that is the shot I will take. I feel very confident in my ability to hit a head at the distances commonly encountered in a Stop "N" Rob.

Ya gotta think on your feet sometimes.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Problem is, it isn't the whole head you're shooting at. It's something about the size of a tennis ball, buried inside all that anatomy, that you have to get a bullet into in order to reliably hit the 'off' switch. From the front, the teeth/jaws may be enough to stop or deflect a pistol bullet. Pull high from the side and you get skull. Pull left or right and you get air, or teeth. Not an easy shot to make- not impossible, but not easy.

Police snipers train for that shot, but they have a rifle to work with... not a pistol.

Train and practice, is all I can say. See if you can find someone who has one of Louis Awerbuck's Mirage systems and work some drills on it. Humans aren't still very much, and this system is a reasonable analog to a tight shot in the real world. Anyone who has gone through one of Louis' classes in the past few year has shot this target array. http://yfainc.com/mirage.html

lpl

 

[Beaux Nehr]

"Be a hero" is perhaps unnecessarily pejorative regarding motivation.
How about if I simply believe that accepting living with unchecked dirtbags and expecting the downward societal spiral to somehow be reversed by the bloated bureaucracies that got us here to "deal with it"? This will reverse the trend? I'm skeptical.
I'm not trying to be belligerent here, or especially challenge a Mod. I'm challenging myself. When do I decide my kids don't deserve to share the world with scum because "it's not my job" to stand against evil?

Well, good luck to your kids when their dad gets thrown in jail for "turning off his computer" with no warning whatsoever.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

me
Gunpoint seemed the clearest indicator of intention.

contributor
...and that's why armed robbery is considered a forcible felony. That hasn't really been at issue here.

Agreed. What's at issue is whether to act, or not, upon behalf of another.

If a man's life is in danger, do we help him, or do we not? In this thread, under the proposed circumstances, the answer is mostly not.

But why not?

The prevailing reason appears to be one of legal endangerment.

A secondary reason, and one I find most interesting, is the belief that we can reliably gauge which incidents will result in murder, and which ones won't.

To stand upon statistical grounds stating that most such occurrences are not murderous seems to ignore this: statistics are compiled after the data has been collected, and has no bearing upon individual outcomes in particular instances. During the incident, the data remains unresolved. Only at its conclusion can we categorize it.

Thus we watch the dice bounce over the lives of others, but are less inclined to do so when our own is at stake.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

contributor
...even if that "clearest intention" had been conditional...

Curious. What is “conditional” about one man threatening another with a gun? Is the life of the threatened man in danger, or is it not?

If the answer is, “That depends,” then upon what, specifically, does it depend?

If the answer is, “Upon the totality of circumstances,” or, “There are too many variables to account for and thus there is no simple answer,” or, “Each situation must be evaluated upon a case-by-case basis,” then it seems we don't have a reliable system at all for gauging outcomes during the moment. In fact, an inability to articulate even a few specific, reliable cues seems all the more indicative of the volatility of the data point. To then ask ourselves to look beyond the most obvious clue (gunpoint), and to instead decode volatile and variable others, seems to ask that we make complex something that is simple.

Note that I'm not advocating any kind of action at all in this line of inquiry, but exploring my curiosity.

 

[primetime]

In this situation. I would draw my weapon, move to better angle and an area where i would be unseen by the BG (if its possible). If i have a clear shot, and he is threatening my life or the clerks, or another person in the store, I'd most likely be compelled to neutralize the threat..

I would want someone to do the same for me if I was unarmed or the clerk...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mikhail Weiss: If a man's life is in danger, do we help him, or do we not? In this thread, under the proposed circumstances, the answer is mostly not.

But why not?

One: because under the circumstance described (robber aims gun pointblank at clerk) "we" are unlikely to be able to help him--we are likely to cause the gun to go off, harming the clerk.

Two: we may well hit innocent by-standers, perhaps seriously injuring or killing them.

Three: we do not know whether our action will cause another robber (often referred to as a "tail gunner") to start shooting.

The prevailing reason appears to be one of legal endangerment.

Well, the legal consequences can wipe out anyone I know, even if there are ultimately no adverse legal judgements, but that's just one aspect.

If one starts a shooting spree that would not otherwise have occurred, and if innocent persons (including perhaps the clerk whom we intended to "help"), are struck by bullets, that is a bad thing for everyone involved. The "legal endangerment" just makes it a whole lot worse for us and for our family.

The LEO who has this happen is indemnified (at least if he complied with department policy), but that won't help the victims physically, and he won't feel any better about it at all.

What is “conditional” about one man threatening another with a gun? Is the life of the threatened man in danger, or is it not?

Simply this: if the guy's sole intent is to rob, he threatens to shoot if he doesn't get the money.

You can't trust him to not shoot anyway, but you can make his shooting a whole lot more likely by doing something unwise.

Once he has fired, you have no alternative. If he starts ordering people into a back room, you may decide to act while you can--though in a bank robbery near here recently, the unarmed tellers were locked in the back but were not harmed.

 

[zxcvbob]

The only one who has really analyzed this properly was the guy that mentioned Game Theory, and the conclusion was (basically) "keep your powder dry." But even that assumes that the robber is acting somewhat rationally.

 

[shockwave]

An armed robber was shot and killed in an Omaha business Monday night, police said. Investigators said a customer intervened and fired on the gunman...

That is one of the most relevant examples to this discussion.

As a follow-up, here's an interview with McCullough's attorney. This gives more detail on the CCW owner's actions in the store and how he dealt with both perps.

Although he wasn't charged, ultimately, as this video makes clear, he needed a good lawyer. Another point is that a couple of guys robbing a Walgreens aren't in there to engage in gunplay. When gunfire does open up, they don't charge the citizen - they head for the door. This is something you see in lots of videos of robberies.

While we as defenders are aware of how difficult it is to "drop" an assailant, from the criminal's point of view, the moment shots ring out that aren't theirs, everything has gone off script and off plan. Time to beat an exit. He might fire at you on his way out if he can, but chances are good he'll be looking to get away fast. Although your life may be worth nothing (to him), his life will be more valuable than the $50 or whatever he was hoping to score.

A friend of my family worked in an outdoor goods store that got robbed, and she said it was terrifying. Three armed men in ski masks ordered everyone down while one got the register money. I don't remember if they robbed the customers or employees personally, but as the two who were most inside the store were exiting, the one guarding the door who had a shotgun asked, "Do we waste 'em?" and the apparent leader said, "Naw man, this ain't about that."

So nobody's saying there's any guarantee about anything, because these situations are always unique. But it's reasonable to assume that if you do choose to act, you've probably got a few bonus seconds to work with because you'll be doing something unexpected.

 

[rainbowbob]

While we as defenders are aware of how difficult it is to "drop" an assailant, from the criminal's point of view, the moment shots ring out that aren't theirs, everything has gone off script and off plan. Time to beat an exit...his life will be more valuable than the $50 or whatever he was hoping to score.

That's a good point - and probably the best outcome we can hope for.

 

[GLOOB]

If the robber is focused only on the clerk to the point of ignoring everyone else, I'd just leave or take cover.

But if in a position where I could not leave, take cover, or at least distance myself, I would hope to draw and fire at the first opportunity.

If the robber gives verbal orders (other than "get out") and/or points his gun at customers (of which I'd be one of them!), I would draw and fire if given an opportunity.

It's not that I don't value the life of the clerk. I just think you play the odds that the robber isn't going to start killing people if he remains focused on the clerk and isn't threatening anyone else.