Question on this scenario

[mugsie]

I've always wondered how to handle this. Granted, it's in my imagination and hopefully it will never happen, but it is entirely possible and I can see it happening in real life.

The scenario is I break up a robbery in a store or some other such place. I draw, tell the perp to drop his firearm, which he does. I have him step back and kick the gun away, then it have him get on his knees and place his hands behind his head.

I'm covering him with my pistol and the police are on the way. When they arrive, the first thing they see is me holding a gun on a guy prone on the floor. Knowing the mentality of the police (and I don't mean to denigrate them, but the police around here don't give a damn about protocol and would fire first without even thinking. Go ahead and flame me, but it's the truth), the first thing I could see them doing is telling me to drop my weapon. I can also see me being shot because some idiot mistakes me putting the pistol down as an aggressive move, especially if there are either dead or wounded nearby because of the perps previous actions.

So, what do you think is the proper action or actions to take in a situation such as this? If I were on a phone and talking to the dispatcher, I could be describing myself and hopefully they would brief the arriving officers, failing that, they tell me to drop the gun, the perp yells I'm trying to kill him and tells them to shoot me. How would you handle it?

Thoughts?

 

[RustyShackelford]

What if.....

I don't like the "what if" game.
There are too many factors & variables to consider in a armed citizen/use of force event.
In short, if I got the drop on a armed robber or thug, Id give him verbal commands(in what cadre like Massad Ayoob call a command voice) to drop the weapon, get flat on the ground or floor, turn around/face away from me & spread the subject's hands full out, palms up, fingers spread.
This is what I was trained to do in a felony traffic stop while in the US military(MPs).
I would not search the subject or touch him/her. I would not render aid or provide medical care. Even if the subject was wounded/hurt.
I would keep the muzzle of my weapon pointed at the subject or hold it at the low ready position. Id also scan for threats or look around for "back up" or "tail gunners". Gangs & "take down" robbers like to work in groups or crews to be safer.
If possible, Id use my cell phone or smart phone to contact 911. Id put the device on speaker so my statements/actions were recorded. Most US 911 systems have cell phone GPS services too. I'd add that if your area doesn't have www.Smart911.com Id ask your mayors/elected officials to consider it.

Id lower my firearm & show my CCW/ID to the uniformed officers/deputies who show up. I would not unload it, drop it or throw it on the ground.
Some "instructors" & police command staff advise this. I don't.

Many locations have security mirrors/CCTV cameras. Be alert & know how-where to go in a emergency. The thugs & robbers don't want any trouble or gun-play. They will either flee or get shot.

My city's PD chief shot & killed a armed robber in a chaotic incident. In 2000, he was going on a off-duty security detail & saw a gang member holding a gun in the sports bar. Following his PD's training & using speed, the cop swiftly took out the armed felon. The crook was DOS(dead on scene). The police officer was a US Army MP veteran too. He was cleared & later became chief of the department.

 

[Jim K]

I also don't like playing games and posting "scenarios" about what is a deadly serious subject. But the situation is one of the reasons most citizen carry laws specify that armed force is to be used ONLY in defense of self or family. As an armed citizen, you can do that, but you have no obligation or duty to defend society in general, show off your gun skills (or lack of them), or stop a crime that is being committed.

Obviously there are exceptions, but unless it is clear that an armed robber intends to shoot someone, the best thing an armed person, even a plainclothes cop, can do is to keep calm, do not draw and memorize the bad guy's description. Let him take the money and get away; you have no authority or duty to stop him.

While being shot by the police is a possibility, it is more likely that the robber, seeing someone draw a gun, will begin shooting, touching off a serious situation that might result in the deaths of innocent people.

Even LEOs are trained not to draw a gun or attempt to make an arrest when innocent people would be in danger.

Jim

 

[Al Thompson]

Not meaning to bag on you, but this is why we encourage training. Every training class I've been to discussed this to some degree, with Ayoob's MAG40 going into detail on how to interact with the ROs.

Essentially, don't be the guy with a gun in your hand when the police show up.

 

[Fred Fuller]

In my first EMS class several decades ago, students were always asking "But what if...?" to the paramedic instructors. It got to the point that the instant reply to a "what if" question in class was "You'll find the answer to that in the Encyclopedia Of What If, Volume 27."

In some specific ways, doing 'what if' is a good and necessary thing. You see a suspicious character on the street, you try and figure ahead ... if he does A, then I will do B. And there's an avenue of escape over there, and a better one over here. And so on.

The problem with very general, nonspecific or elaborate scenarios is that there are so many variables involved, it's impossible to predict a reasonable course of action. What you set out in the OP is, to be brutally frank, a fantasy - not a scenario. And starring in your own mental dramas can eventually get you hurt - or worse.

As for me, I'm not holding any 100% healthy and fully mobile person at gunpoint under any scenario I can imagine. There is no upside to that action for me, but a LOT of possible downsides. If someone who forces me to draw on him does whatever it takes in the split seconds involved to make me change the decision to fire that was in place when I started the draw, then the decision to fire will get re-evaluated. What happens at that point depends on the actions of the assailant, but a scenario where I stand there holding him at gunpoint is very very low on the list of possible outcomes. If the assailant wants to leave, that's fine with me. It's not my job to arrest people - in fact, there are no legal provisions here in NC for that to happen in the scenario as described.

And as has been said - answering questions like those in advance is why we train.

 

[Kleanbore]

Fred nailed it.

Posted by mugsie: I have him step back and kick the gun away, then it have him get on his knees and place his hands behind his head.

Why would you even consider trying that? What do you think you would do if he refused?

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I am a certified N.Y.S. Armed Guard Instructor and part of the mandated syllubus course is to teach them how to make an armed arrest.
I first inform them how dangerous it is and how unnecessary--it is not our job to arrest people but this is how I teach them:
#1--do you really want to get involved in this situation??
Unless an innocent is about to be killed, or being marched to the back ask yourself if getting involved is worth the risk.
Bad guys don't always do as you want--and they don't always follow commands which will lead to a lengthy prison term.
But since you asked---before drawing make sure the bad guy is alone.
Get behind some type of cover and evaluate the situation.
Perhaps the best thing you can do is to be a good witness and allow him to make his getaway.
However--you have now drawn your gun.
What do you say???
LEO's can say, "Police!! Don't Move!!!
You can't.
I would advise you to shout, "Security Officer!! Don't Move!!'
Now order him to turn away from you and to drop his weapon.
He may not and may decide to charge you--here comes your gunfight.
He may decide to run away--let him.
If he decides to comply by dropping his weapon and turning around..----
Have him take a few steps left or to the right and have him slowly drop down to his knees ( one at a time) or prone him out.
If on his knees have him interlock his fingers and have his hands behind his head and then order him to cross his ankles.
If prone have him outstretch his arms and have his hands palm up, with his head turned towards one side where he cannot see you.
Make sure you are behind him and out of his view.
Do not communicate with him any more--if he insists on talking just ignore him and stay alert for other possible accomplices--especially a get away driver looking for his partner.
Or a lookout who was posing as a customer who may now try to kill you.
Now is the time to place your gun in a pocket, where it is out of view but easily accessible.
If not already done call the police--explain that you are legally armed, holding one at gun point and describe yourself.
When the police arrive be prepared to be treated as an armed suspect until all can be figured out--let them see your empty hands and comply with all demands.
Don't cop an attitude ("Hey you dumb pigs, I am the good guy--the hero!!!")
Hopefully everything will go right--you won't be killed by the bad guy or responding police, one of you errant rounds did not kill an innocent child, etc, etc.
Either way ask yourself--is it worth it???

 

[Mainsail]

We had an incident some years back that started out like your scenario. Guy walks in an auto parts store in Tacoma and pulls a gun announcing a robbery. Another guy with a CPL pulls out his gun and shoots him. Wasn't charged either.

 

[Kleanbore]

....stay alert for other possible accomplices--especially a get away driver looking for his partner.
Or a lookout who was posing as a customer who may now try to kill you.

It might be too late for that.

The scenario contains too many dangerous assumptions:

I draw, tell the perp to drop his firearm, which he does. I have him step back and kick the gun away, then it have him get on his knees and place his hands behind his head.

I'm covering him with my pistol

We just had a thread on "tail gunners".

It was about a real scenario, in which someone intervened and died.

Why would you ever bet everything on the hope that the perp does not have at least one accomplice?

 

[MedWheeler]

On additional perpetrators:

As an on-duty LEO once, I pulled into a 7-11 store as an armed robber who had just held up the store was running out. Someone got word to me what had just taken place, and I was able to tail him on foot to a nearby getaway car. There, I took him and two accomplices down.

I called for assistance, and several other officers responded. One went back to the store (we were all in the parking lot of a nearby furniture store) to confirm what had taken place. He called me back and advised me that an armed robbery had indeed occurred.

So, we start cuffing and stuffing. As we're doing so, this other guy comes walking nonchalantly by and casually asks us what's going on. We see him and at least one of our suspects making eye contact, and asked him if he was "with these guys" (one of whom was a girl.) Sure enough, he had been, and had entered the store along with the actual robber, then waited several minutes before leaving.

So, yes, they don't all enter and exit the scene together.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Post #3.....

I disagree with #3.
Armed robbery events & crimes occur often. Many times, the robber(s) use force even if the victims or employees are compliant/non aggressive.
The "advice" or suggestions that some gang member or violent thug decides if you are safe/unharmed is wrong.

I'd go by taking a shot or using lethal force if you can get a clear shot & your not going to be over-run.
A CCW license holder in my metro area shot/killed a violent pan-handler who attacked him in a 7-11 lot. The LE agency & state prosecutors elected not to file charges.
My city's police chief killed a armed robber in a sports bar hold up when he was a patrol officer(2000). He walked into the business & shot the robber. The subject died on scene. He wasn't a "good witness" or stood by.

RS

 

[Fred Fuller]

None of us are here to tell anyone outright what they should or should not do. These are critical life and death individual decisions, with peoples' entire lives, fortunes and careers at stake. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not about to act as if I have the infinite wisdom to know what's best for any given person to do in any given situation.

The best advice I can offer is - get good training in use of force topics, which includes legal aspects as well as physical/tactical aspects, consider well and long in advance of need what your own personal lines in the sand are, and be fully prepared to back your decisions with your life, freedom, bank balance, family and everything in life you hold dear. If you don't have a good criminal defense attorney's card in your wallet right behind your CCW, and/or a membership in ACLDN, think hard about the legal consequences of using your defensive firearm well before the need presents itself.

Because you are as much at risk as your decisions might make you, and it is best not to take such decisions lightly.

 

[BLB68]

I'm going to advise you to never pull your gun on someone and give them orders, especially if they have a gun. In 2005, there was a shooter in the Tacoma mall, and a good Samaritan intervened. This is the result (from Wikipedia):

During the course of the shooting, Brendan (Dan) McKown, a legally armed citizen, intervened. McKown drew his 9mm CZ pistol and verbally commanded Maldonado to put down his gun. Maldonado's response was to fire on McKown, striking him once in the leg and four times in the torso, damaging McKown's spine and leaving him paralyzed.

Yes, this was a mass shooting incident, and yes this was a rifle vs handgun (McKown with the handgun) event. HOWEVER, the point still stands that by issuing verbal orders you are now in the position to REACT, as you wait for your order to be followed . . . or not.

Even if your initial orders are followed, you are putting yourself into a precarious situation. When's the last time you saw just one police officer arrest someone? Never. That's because it is dangerous.

IMO, if you draw your weapon, it should be only in a situation that warrants the immediate use of deadly force. In a hold up, if the robber orders everyone to the back of the store/to a secondary location, that's a bad sign. Otherwise, you'll have to use your judgment.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Not true.....

In 2011/2012, I did security work at a low end hotel property in a urban area(hookers, gang members, thugs/fugitives, etc). I had several incidents where only one police officer showed up then made a arrest. My city's PD claims they are "under-staffed" & plan to hire several new officers.
Many sheriff's deputies, police officers & state troopers/highway patrol do arrests or detain subjects alone. When possible they request other officers but that's not always a choice.

I also don't get the "carry a concealed gun, but never draw it" mindset.
Yes, you should be prudent & use caution in critical incidents, but you shouldn't be risk adverse either.

 

[BLB68]

So, you think untrained civilians should be trying to detain violent felons? Brilliant.

 

[MachIVshooter]

What you set out in the OP is, to be brutally frank, a fantasy - not a scenario. And starring in your own mental dramas can eventually get you hurt - or worse

This.

If you find yourself in a situation where you are the 3rd party and have a choice to not be involved, it is probably best that you not be involved. You will have to make a judgement call, and live with the consequences either way. Just try to make sure that you account for as many variables as possible.

I'll echo what has been said several times. Armed citizens are not police. We do not (usually) have the training, equipment and back-up force to conduct felony arrests, nor are we obligated to. You use your weapon in defense of yourself or others who are, to the best of your knowledge, in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. As Fred said, if the aggressor happens to do something that changes his threat status, then you let him-whether he's surrendering or running away. But it would be very ill advised to attempt an apprehension of a violent felon by yourself for many reasons that have been well articulated prior to my post.

 

[RustyShackelford]

No....

I never said "untrained" CCW holders should detain any felons.
Gun owners & license holders should train to be ready to hold subjects or deal with events where a subject is wounded/shot.
That is a brilliant idea.

The England incident in Oklahoma City OK is a great example. 2 young, armed thugs roll into a drug store, start a armed robbery, get shot point blank by the business owner/USAF veteran. One flees & the armed pharmacist follows him. Upon his return, he stands over the wounded felon & pumps a few more rounds into him.
The police & DA aren't real happy. They put felony charges on the gun owner. He's now a inmate in a state prison in OK.

 

[BLB68]

OK, then we agree.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RustyShackelford: I also don't get the "carry a concealed gun, but never draw it" mindset.

What?

One most certainly should draw it, very quickly, when one has reason to believe that doing so is immediately necessary, and only then.

For those who are not sworn officers, immediate necessity would and should involve the need for defending oneself, or perhaps someone else under very limited circumstances, from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, when there is no other alternative.

One would best not consider either the use or the threat of deadly force to prevent a felony under other circumstances, or to apprehend any one. The downside is far too great.

Yes, you should be prudent & use caution in critical incidents, but you shouldn't be risk adverse either.

One who is not sworn to do so really should not consider exposing oneself to the risks of getting shot, shooting an innocent person, or subjecting oneself to civil suits and/or criminal prosecution, unless there is no reasonable alternative.

Posted by MachIVshooter: Armed citizens are not police. We do not (usually) have the training, equipment and back-up force to conduct felony arrests, nor are we obligated to.

Nor will we be supported by our community, or by anyone else, when it comes to mounting our legal defense. Nor will we be compensated for injury or death.

You use your weapon in defense of yourself or others who are, to the best of your knowledge, in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Understand that, unless you have reason to believe that the third party would himself be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force for self defense under the circumstances, you would be committing a crime if you were to to intervene.

What appears to be the case may not prove consistent with the facts. In at least one state, "the best of your knowledge" will not suffice if it turns out that you were wrong.

Trying to detain a suspect is fraught with other risks, even if one has been well trained. The perp can get the upper hand. One trainer relates an account of two FBI agents who were shot and killed while trying to hold a felon.

And, of course, one may not shoot, if the perp elects to depart. This is not the pre-Chaucerian England that gave rise to the Common Law that applied on this subject hundreds of years ago. In those days, a robber or arsonist who departed from the scene was as good as gone, and the law allowed for extraordinary means to prevent his escape. Today, he can run, but he cannot hide.

When might it be a good idea to try to detain a potential suspect? The same well known trainer has suggested that on might be prudent to do that when a violent suspect is someone who was in the process of violating a restraining order while threatening the defender or a loved one, and when having him remain on the loose would pose a serious risk to his intended victim.

And then, of course, only if one has been trained.

The above should help explain the truth in Fred Fuller's words:

What you set out in the OP is, to be brutally frank, a fantasy - not a scenario. And starring in your own mental dramas can eventually get you hurt - or worse.

 

[Coyote3855]

Wise words from Kleanbore and Frank Fuller.

 

[skoro]

I'm convinced that it's almost never a good move for a concealed carrier to thrust himself into a 3rd person scenario. You don't know with certainty what's occurring and you don't know who the good and bad parties are. Without that certainty, you should not apply deadly force.

That scruffy looking guy holding someone at gunpoint just might be an undercover LEO.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You use your weapon in defense of yourself or others who are, to the best of your knowledge, in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Understand that, unless you have reason to believe that the third party would himself be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force for self defense under the circumstances, you would be committing a crime if you were to to intervene.

What appears to be the case may not prove consistent with the facts. In at least one state, "the best of your knowledge" will not suffice if it turns out that you were wrong.

Nitpicking semantics. There is no practical difference between "reasonably believe" and "to the best of one's knowledge". It's just two different ways of saying that you have reasonably extrapolated a conclusion based on the information available to you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MachIVshooter: Nitpicking semantics. There is no practical difference between "reasonably believe" and "to the best of one's knowledge". It's just two different ways of saying that you have reasonably extrapolated a conclusion based on the information available to you.

That is not the important distinction, in most jurisdictions.

The important point is that the defender must believe (and in at least one state, know) that the third party would himself be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force for self defense under the circumstances.

That goes beyond well beyond believing that the third party is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; it brings in the requirement to believe that the third party had not been involved in the commission of a crime; had not initiated the conflict; and had not been engaging in mutual combat.

Those are the things that create great potential liability for the defender.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Recent incident.....

In my metro area(not very far from where I live) a armed citizen witnessed a senior citizen being attacked by a violent robber. The citizen drew his pistol, , then held the robber at gunpoint. The felon used 2 small knives to stab the victim. Sheriff's deputies got on scene & arrested the robber.
The armed citizen was shaken up but not charged or berated for his actions.
The cops on scene even told the media the gun owner was brave & aided the victim.

You can PM me & I will send specific details of this event.
It's just a good example of license holders or private citizens using good judgement & quick thinking.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The important point is that the defender must believe (and in at least one state, know) that the third party would himself be lawfully justified in the use of deadly force for self defense under the circumstances.

That goes beyond well beyond believing that the third party is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; it brings in the requirement to believe that the third party had not been involved in the commission of a crime; had not initiated the conflict; and had not been engaging in mutual combat.

Those are the things that create great potential liability for the defender.

Which is why I said

You use your weapon in defense of yourself or others who are, to the best of your knowledge, in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

If two gang bangers are shooting it out or two drunks are fighting outside a bar, coming to the aid of a mutual combatant is not defense; it is becoming another party in a conflict.

I guess I just didn't feel the need to spell all that out in a two paragraph reply that is addressing the OP's question, not so much shoot/don't shoot situations.

Were I writing dissertations instructing people who are new to the concept of self defense, I'd certainly be more explicit. Here in ST&T, I operate under the assumption that people will seek clarification during the dialogue when needed.