Rethinking the robbery scenario strategy

[old lady new shooter]

And don't forget the fourth leg of the table: preclusion.

Could you please elaborate on that?

 

[Sam1911]

Your bad guy IS a real threat and could very well end up taking your life, but it's important to understand that, by far, the most likely outcome is that you won't die as the result of an armed robbery--even if you are in one.

This statement, however, is core to my point. Can you describe, exactly, why you believe that is it important to understand that you're unlikely to die as the result of an armed robbery?

Because if death is really imminent, throwing a hail Mary pass and grabbing for your own gun might be the most likely -- though still very unlikely -- way to try and prevent that.

If your own death isn't actually imminent, then almost any other way through the conflict is less risky to you than getting the bullets flying. If compliance seems likely to get your assailant to move on down the road without pulling the trigger of the gun he's got pointed at you, then compliance is a better choice than suddenly grabbing for your gun and forcing the issue.

"Drawing to a drawn gun" is an extremely low probability gamble. You're almost certainly going to get shot. The guy's got you dead to rights. All the theorizing about dodging, blocking, distracting the other guy, etc. seem to affect that outcome very, very little when these things are tried out. So that's something you'd only want to do if you are UTTERLY certain that you are going to die in the next second or three and you might as well try that last desperate gamble.

Maybe you really are unlikely to die, but why does this really matter?

Because how you react can dramatically change the outcome, and whether you live or you die. You may not have been about to die, but then you jumped for your gun and the surprised/startled/irate robber pressed his trigger. Your odds of survival went significantly DOWN, because you made a poor choice.

In FoF/Sims this sort of thing is tried out over and over all the time. Despite decent training (or what you see in the action movies) the guy who tries it is generally known as "the dead guy."

Are you just trying to encourage people to better evaluate the risk/reward ratio of responding?

Of responding by grabbing for their gun? YES. Exactly.

The gun is not the only tool in your toolbox, and it is pretty poor at solving a lot of problems. Your FIRST tool is always your set of "social skills" that help you communicate and observe and decide what the guy wants, what will appease him, what will trigger him to hurt you, and what might make him go away. The very best scenario-based, roleplay type training gets heavily into this to try and break the "every problem's a nail" mindset and get people to be more intelligent in their responses to danger.

Maybe the best way to re-evaluate the question is actually the simplest:

If you DIDN'T have that gun with you, how would you get through this? That's your starting point. Not the gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Could you please elaborate on that?

Read this:

https://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/​

 

[azrocks]

Several posts in this thread use the rationale that since most armed robberies (or 99.71% of armed robberies in Chicago in 2011 per JohnKSa) don't result in a murder, then you can conclude that your bad guy is probably not a real threat of killing you, or causing you great bodily harm. Give him what he wants, and you'll probably be OK. This is especially important if you're facing an already-drawn gun. Therefore, fighting an armed robber isn't reasonable.

I've heard mothers of armed robbers who have been killed by defenders make statements like: "He was a good kid...he wouldn't have hurt nobody" or "That guy with the gun shouldn't have shot my baby! HE should be locked up!".

Many of us might be repulsed by such statements. However, can we see that what they are really demanding is for victims to "play the percentages" like so many comments in this thread have suggested? Is this "play the percentages approach" really reasonable in your minds?

The rationale that civil society expects defenders to adhere to is the AOJ triad. Is Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy present....not "what's the likelihood"...?

If it's only your life at stake then by all means - do whatever you like. You want to start a gunfight with a barrel pressed to your head, go for it. I wish you the best.

The problem is that in most situations, your life isn't the only one to consider, nor is your skill with a firearm the only skill relevant. The reason I 'play the odds' is because if I turn what statistically will be a non-fatal incident into a shooting match, I've put everyone in the immediate vicinity in more danger than they were in to begin with... not just from my rounds, but from the bad guys too.

As far as AOJ goes, most CCW carriers don't have the ability to put rounds on target (and ONLY on target) during the extreme stress of a gunfight, most will not have a good opportunity to assure a clean stop without putting innocents at risk, and turning a routine robbery into a gunfight puts EVERYONE around you in jeopardy.

If I could guarantee all my rounds would only hit the bad guy and that they'd stop him/her before they could get off a shot, then yeah... I'd probably start blasting the minute I saw a gun drawn against an innocent. But real life doesn't work that way. People get shot all the time and keep on trucking just like the energizer bunny... especially from handgun wounds. Likewise - bystanders get shot frequently by 'good guys' who overestimate their abilities.

I'm 100% down to put down a threat when I actually have the Ability, Opportunity, and when a rational analysis of the situation determines fighting to be the best course. But I'm not just going to start shooting the minute I see a gun unless it's obvious action is needed immediately to prevent a deadly assault.

 

[Kleanbore]

Some years ago, I stupidly walked in on a situation involving a robbery about to happen. The robber was at a checkout counter. He was extremely nervous. He was dividing his attention between his accomplice outside in a car by the door that was pointed in the wrong direction.

The right thing do do would have been to notice the signs beforehand and to not go in. I failed on that point.

Once inside, one should look for how to get to a safe place and avoid getting involved. I did not see a way to do that.

When the would-be robber saw me looking at him and dialing my cell phone, he panicked, dropped the few things that he appeared to be buying, and ran out. I am pretty sure that he also sensed that I was ready to go for a gun. He did not have gun in hand--yet.

I had not read azrock's words at the time: "The problem is that in most situations, your life isn't the only one to consider, nor is your skill with a firearm the only skill relevant. The reason I 'play the odds' is because if I turn what statistically will be a non-fatal incident into a shooting match, I've put everyone in the immediate vicinity in more danger than they were in to begin with... not just from my rounds, but from the bad guys too".

But I was well aware of the risks. My first thought was "backstop!". Then there was the risk of innocents moving into danger "downrange", and the risk of innocents moving between me and the target.

I moved quickly to mitigate the risks and to gain the advantage. I think it likely that my movement alarmed him a lot and helped lead to his decision to flee.

Should I have just let the robbery play out? Had I thought it too dangerous to do otherwise, or if I had doubted my ability to stop him timely, I would have done just that.

By the way, my judgment was no doubt colored by the fact that I knew the employees very well/

Very, very safe neighborhood, by the way.

 

[X-Rap]

The comforting thing is that I'm less likely to be present when some cowboy decides to try to outdraw a criminal that has the drop on us all than to be shot by said criminal.
This doesn't mean you can count on your being submissive will insure safety.
Lot of dynamics involved like possible personal search by criminals, cops show before they can leave, the crime shifting due to racial or gender, or one of the victim resisting.
Best to at least consider having to deal with the worst case than believing you'll be the beneficiary of the "average" robbery.

 

[Kleanbore]

The comforting thing is that I'm less likely to be present when some cowboy decides to try to outdraw a criminal that has the drop on us all than to be shot by said criminal.

I'm afraid you have lost me.

 

[X-Rap]

Sorry, trying to point out that I have less concern of getting caught up in someone over reacting than being involved in an armed robbery. Statically it is impossible but there seems to be an irrational worry of it.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Read this:

https://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/​

Thanks, very clear and succinct.

 

[JohnKSa]

This doesn't mean you can count on your being submissive will insure safety.
...
Best to at least consider having to deal with the worst case than believing you'll be the beneficiary of the "average" robbery.

Correct. One should not assume that things are going to work themselves out and there will never be any need to result to deadly force. Just as one should not assume that deadly force is always going to be the best strategy.

Your preparation should include dealing with the worst case but should not drive you to automatically react as if every case is the worst case.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Correct. One should not assume that things are going to work themselves out and there will never be any need to result to deadly force. Just as one should not assume that deadly force is always going to be the best strategy.

Your preparation should include dealing with the worst case but should not drive you to automatically react as if every case is the worst case.

We ARE on the same page! That's great to know!

 

[luzyfuerza]

There seems to be broad agreement here that tactical decisions have to be made in the moment on the basis of the facts of each individual situation. I also think that most posters generally agree that depending on distance and available cover, drawing on a drawn gun is often not a good tactic. We’ve also said that legal justification does not require that a defender immediately use deadly force.

Can we move past these ancillary points and get back to the OP’s original question? I suggest this because am very interested in your thoughts.

Yes I agree each situation has to be assessed at the moment. The point was and is that armed robbers seem to be ramping up their aggression level, which has the potential of shifting the "what do I do?" calculus in the direction of anticipating that with a quicker response. When you see four innocent people slaughtered within one weekend in one locale it is in fact somewhat ominous.

This "what do I do" calculus is affected by 1) legal justification (at least for law-abiding individuals), 2) the perceptions of robbery participants and other members of the community regarding what is really reasonable, and 3) the details of the location and situation.

I’ll describe my thoughts on items one and two in the following posts. I sincerely apologize for the length…I just don’t know how to discuss something so important in sound bites (or simple internet posts).

 

[luzyfuerza]

How does Legal Justification Affect the "What Do I Do" Calculus?

Several here have said that legal justification is not at all related to the tactics that a victim or defender might use during an armed robbery (I think that the word “conflated” was used a couple of times). This is not correct. Legal justification can and does, in fact, constrain the menu of tactics that are available to a victim or third-party defender. Consider the following purely hypothetical scenario:

A robber walks into a bank, and gives the teller a note which says that he has a gun, that he demands money, and that no dye pack had better be included. The teller and potential third party defenders can see his hands. Is the AOJ test for justified use of deadly force by the clerk and other potential defenders met? The thief fulfills Opportunity by being physically close, but his Ability is suspect, and Jeopardy seems very low. This situation probably fails the AOJ test, and the lack of legal justification constrains the tactics that the teller and defenders can use to defend themselves. They cannot reasonably use deadly force.

Note that although the situation so far does not justify the use of deadly force by the teller or by a third-party defender, the law still considers this act to be “armed robbery”.

A moment later, the robber gets frustrated with the slow pace with which the teller is gathering up the money. He lifts his shirt to expose the butt of a handgun in his waist, and tells her to hurry up, but he keeps his hands off of the gun. What about AOJ now? Ability is heightened, Opportunity is unchanged, and Jeopardy seems to be raised a little. Is deadly force justified? Maybe, but in my mind, probably not. This might be a grey area for some. I think that lack of legal justification still probably constrains the teller’s and defenders' tactics.

A moment later, the teller tries to use some sleight of hand to slip a dye pack into the sack of money, but our robber spots this. In one swift movement, he takes the gun out of his waistband and points it at the teller’s head, and says "You @#$#%!-ing @#$#%$#%! I told you not to put in a dye pack! Now you're gonna get it!" Ability, high. Opportunity, high. Jeopardy, high. From my perspective, the AOJ test is almost certainly met. The range of tactics that are available to the teller and defenders are now less constrained by the law, and they can justifiably consider using deadly force. The law, of course, does not require that they implement this deadly force option at any time. The third party defender can act to defend the teller if he chooses to, but he is not required to. Nevertheless, the option of using deadly force is now available to both of them.

The teller sheepishly removes the dye pack, and robber then grabs his bag, turns his body and his gun toward the door, and moves that direction. From the teller’s perspective, Ability remains high. Opportunity is initially high but decreases with every step. Jeopardy appears to have decreased significantly. What about the AOJ test now, for her? In my mind, the use of deadly force by the teller would no longer be justified. Lack of legal justification constrains her tactics once again.

This might be different for a third-party defender. If the robber ends up pointing his gun and moving toward the defender as he makes his escape, then the defender’s AOJ test is still high, and maybe gets higher. If, however, the robber turns away from the defender to a different door, the defender’s AOJ test results decrease just like the teller’s.

All through the course of this robbery, the teller and defenders are continually considering and deciding what they will do. These decisions have to be made in the moment, and have to balance all factors specific to their training and abilities, their tools, and the location and situation. These are their tactics. Legal justification enters into their "calculus".

Of course, I'm not saying that this is the sequence that most, or indeed any, armed robberies follow. I present it simply to illustrate how legal justification can affect the tactics that a victim or defender can consider.

Kleanbore, we can discuss how preclusion might impact this scenario if you would like.

 

[Kleanbore]

Consider the following purely hypothetical scenario:

A robber walks into a bank, and gives the teller a note which says that he has a gun, that he demands money, and that no dye pack had better be included. The teller and potential third party defenders can see his hands. Is the AOJ test for justified use of deadly force by the clerk and other potential defenders met? The thief fulfills Opportunity by being physically close, but his Ability is suspect, and Jeopardy seems very low. This situation probably fails the AOJ test, and the lack of legal justification constrains the tactics that the teller and defenders can use to defend themselves. They cannot reasonably use deadly force.

Note that although the situation so far does not justify the use of deadly force by the teller or by a third-party defender, the law still considers this act to be “armed robbery”.

A moment later, the robber gets frustrated with the slow pace with which the teller is gathering up the money. He lifts his shirt to expose the butt of a handgun in his waist, and tells her to hurry up, but he keeps his hands off of the gun. What about AOJ now? Ability is heightened, Opportunity is unchanged, and Jeopardy seems to be raised a little. Is deadly force justified? Maybe, but in my mind, probably not. This might be a grey area for some. I think that lack of legal justification still probably constrains the teller’s and defenders' tactics.

Do you really think that defenders would be legally required to wait until an armed robber has actual started to draw his gun before employing deadly force?

I saw it, marshal! The sod-buster drew first! It was self defense!"

 

[luzyfuerza]

How Does The Perception of Reasonableness Affect the "What Do I Do" Calculus?

Is it reasonable to weigh the risk of injury during an armed robbery on the basis of perception or even real data regarding the risk of murders and other severe injuries committed during armed robberies? This has to be discussed and understood because what a reasonable, prudent person believes about the risks posed by an armed robber is part of the test that prosecutors and juries use to determine whether a self-defense shooting is acceptable to society (i.e. legally justifiable).

Any armed robber who has a firearm, or who can move and has a contact weapon and is within something like 21 feet of an innocent, fulfills, for me, the Ability and Opportunity legs of the AOJ test. In fact, for any of our fellow shoppers at Wally World, any of us walking near them with a concealed handgun or a sharp knife probably to some extent meets the Ability and Opportunity legs of this test. Jeopardy, on the other hand, is the key element; it is really what distinguishes a defender from a robber.

Except for Kleanbore in post 53, nobody in this thread has described what Jeopardy is. Intent was mentioned several times above, but Jeopardy is not Intent. None of us can say for sure what an armed robber intends to do because we can't read minds. Therefore we can't know his Intent. However, "What we all can reasonably and prudently determine is manifest intent, and that's what the jeopardy element is all about. I think the best definition of manifest intent in understanding the jeopardy factor is: 'words and/or actions which a reasonable, prudent person would construe as representing an intent to kill or cripple.'" (Deadly Force, Understanding Your Right to Self Defense, Massad Ayoob, page 85, emphasis in original)


The only reason that I have spent as much time in this thread as I have is that I initially sensed that some of you don't seem to believe that responding to a real threat during an armed robbery with deadly force would be reasonable because the percentages didn't support it. Here are two examples of this from a couple of early posts from people who I consider to generally be pretty clear thinkers:

It's hard to sustain that assertion since we KNOW that most of the time guns are pointed at someone there is no intent to kill them. In fact, if we're seeing guns pointed at someone, as an ongoing condition, then that would be at least fairly indicative that the robber isn't intending to kill them because if he was, he'd have simply done it and taken what he wanted off of the dead body.

and here

When a gun is pointed at you, legally, they have demonstrated intent to put you in fear for your life and you have the right to act in self-defense.

This has been proven numerous times, over many years and thousands of occurrences, to simply be untrue.

Post action interviews have overwhelmingly been consistent in describing that the display of guns in a robbery as usually to intimidate

Helpfully, there were a couple of opposing opinions also posted.

I would never conclude that an armed robber does not pose a serious threat of harming me, and of course that should he do so, I might die.

and

If a person is pointing a gun at a human while committing a crime, the only appropriate interpretation is that the intent is to use it to kill. What one does next must be based on that assumption. Protect that life. Protect your own life. Run and hide. Watch someone be gunned down. Be gunned down. Or perhaps be a witness and discover later it was a hood with an air soft gun.

In MY perception of what is reasonable, it is irrelevant whether the armed robber studied statistics about armed robbers in Chicago, whether he polled his fellow criminals during his last stint in prison to discover what they intended to do when they hold people up, whether his gun is loaded or not, whether he holds a real gun or something that just looks like a gun, whether most armed robbers really know how to sharpen a knife and therefore whether it’s likely that there is a really sharp edge on his blade, or anything that he was thinking before or during the attack. All I can reasonably do is quickly determine, based what he says and does, right there, in my sight or hearing, whether those actions manifest, to me, "...an intent to kill or cripple."


I really want to know what members of this community consider to be reasonable.

 

[Kleanbore]

Several here have said that legal justification is not at all related to the tactics that a victim or defender might use during an armed robbery (I think that the word “conflated” was used a couple of times). This is not correct. Legal justification can and does, in fact, constrain the menu of tactics that are available to a victim or third-party defender.

No one has implied otherwise. What has been said is that the existence of legal justification alone does not make the use of force a prudent reaction than armed robbery situation.

 

[luzyfuerza]

Do you really think that defenders would be legally required to wait until an armed robber has actual started to draw his gun before employing deadly force?

I saw it, marshal! The sod-buster drew first! It was self defense!"

For me, as long as I could see that his hands were empty, I probably wouldn't, unless there were other clues (verbal, posture, visual focus, etc.) that indicated his anger level had increased significantly. It sounds like showing the butt of the gun crossed that threshold for you. True?

 

[Kleanbore]

Is it reasonable to weigh the risk of injury during an armed robber on the basis of perception or even real data regarding the risk of murders and other severe injuries committed during armed robberies? This has to be discussed and understood because what a reasonable, prudent person believes about the risks posed by an armed robber is part of the test that prosecutors and juries use to determine whether a self-defense shooting is acceptable to society (i.e. legally justifiable).

Yes it is, if one also can make a situation-specific assessment of that oi most likely to happen.

That's because the risk of injury during a robbery is likely to be affected by the actions of the victim. A robber may be much less likely to shoot a compliant victim than to shoot one who attempts to draw a gun or one who has drawn or even fired.

I really want to know what members of this community consider to be reasonable.

Speaking for myself, it is whatever course of action seems most likely to prevent me from being seriously injured.

 

[luzyfuerza]

No one has implied otherwise. What has been said is that the existence of legal justification alone does not make the use of force a prudent reaction than armed robbery situation.

Kleanbore, this is not quite accurate.

John nailed it. There have been 2 separate issues conflated together.

When a gun is pointed at you, legally, they have demonstrated intent to put you in fear for your life and you have the right to act in self-defense.

However, from a survival standpoint, if they will be happy with your wallet and leave, give them the wallet. If they just popped a dude next to you...fight! If it is in between those 2, make your best decision as it goes and be ready to act in an instant.

Drawing on an already drawn gun is a bad deal, but how many people train gun disarms and/or to strike someone holding a gun successfully (while clearing the field of fire) or strike and draw/shoot from retention?

Legal justification and tactics are inseparably intertwined, not "2 separate issues conflated together".

 

[Sam1911]

I really want to know what members of this community consider to be reasonable.

Speaking for myself, it is whatever course of action seems most likely to prevent me from being seriously injured.

Utterly and precisely so.

I initially sensed that some of you don't seem to believe that responding to a real threat during an armed robbery with deadly force would be reasonable because the percentages didn't support it

This simply misses my actual point, which was that you cannot decide ahead of time whether responding to an armed robbery with (an attempt at!) deadly force is reasonable ahead of time. The percentages are brought up to disabuse folks of the notion (that some did raise) that if someone's pointing a gun, you must assume they intend to KILL. That is simply, and completely, wrong. Most do not. Some do. Does the guy who's pointing a gun at YOU? You can't know, and you can't make a reasonable decision about that until you see his actions and mannerisms, hear his words, assess his intents and his reactions to your responses.

In that moment, which might only be an instant, you have to decide if trying to draw and fire your own gun is the most reasonable gamble for getting out of this situation alive. It might be. It might NOT be.

This is the WHOLE point.

 

[9mmepiphany]

You've quoted my post, above in Post 65, out of context...or at least misunderstood it's intent.

It was directed at the misconception out that pointing a gun at someone implies that the intent has been formed to kill said person...that simply isn't true. However, that lack of specific intent doesn't have any impact on your selection of responses.

 

[Kleanbore]

Legal justification and tactics are inseparably intertwined, not "two separate issues conflated together".

No. The issues are separate. One's tactics may be lawful or unlawful. Legal justification is something else again. The lawful citizen will be concerned with justification and with the most effective tactic. John's point is that to try to shoot simply because one would be justified would be foolish.

 

[Kleanbore]

It is true that no one can divine the intent of another unless it has been stated. The relevant issue is one of jeopardy --does the victim have reason to believe that the aggressor is likely to use his opportunity and ability for serious harm..

 

[Sam1911]

AOJ is a concept that is most properly used in building a prosecution and/or defense case. It is, of course, related to what actually happens in violent encounters, but I persoanlly see it's inclusion in a discussion of tactics as a bit circular. I.e.: using the description applied to a thing to define the thing and sort of to constrain what it must be. (This borders on aspects of philosophy that explore the matter of ideas vs. the names for ideas, even teleology.)

AOJ is incomplete, however, in that it boils things down somewhat digitally or mechanistically and thus leaves out the fundamental aspects of risk assessment and reading of cues that will actually be required to determine if going for your gun is the RIGHT choice.

Said more simply: If we're talking about trying to shoot someone, AOJ must be a given. If AO&J are not present, this isn't a lawful shooting choice anyway. (Obviously that's all decided in fact, afterward and by others, which gets back to my first sentence.) So, having established in your own mind AO&J effectively opens the door to reaching for your weapon. But it doesn't answer that last question: "Should, MUST, I try to shoot now?"

 

[Kleanbore]

For me, as long as I could see that his hands were empty, I probably wouldn't[draw] , unless there were other clues (verbal, posture, visual focus, etc.) that indicated his anger level had increased significantly. It sounds like showing the butt of the gun crossed that threshold for you. True?

Lessee--he has demanded money unlawfully, he has displayed a firearm, and the firearm is within inches of his hands. A, O, and J are all present in spades.

The only question would be whether I thought I could draw, fire, and stop him before he could draw and fire.