Saw this on AMW last night.

[Little_Bigman]

I saw this on AMW last night. I don't know if this is how it really happened but this is how they showed it:

Guy's walking through a parking lot, girl friend right next to his left arm. Three guys block the lane in front of him, two more come out from between cars on his right and demand cash. all are armed. Under the pretext of getting his wallet the victim draws a gun and manages to get himself into a Mexican stand off. Words ensue someone fires a shot and the gunfight begins. The victim using cover & concealment manages to hold off the 5 wounding one. The girlfriend is shot in the hand or arm. That's all the information they provided.

First off, the guy survived (until they killed him later to keep him from testifying) so you can't really fault what he did. But what would you do different,

I wouldn't have done the Mexican stand off I would have shot as soon as I drew if I drew at all.

The episode also changed my view on something else, I always assumed the badguys would see no profit in pressing the attack once you started to shoot back but, if it really happened that way, these guys did

 

[rainbowbob]

My wife and I happened upon that scene while flipping channels, and I said, "See? Even with guns on you and outnumbered, you may be better off trying to fight your way out of it." Was that a re-enactment of an actual incident? I wonder how acurate it was?

I read somewhere that robbery tactics often include shooting the victims AFTER they produce their valuables - it's quicker and easier that way. So giving it up is not only no guarentee - it might actually be more dangerous than fighting back with your SD firearm.

Some studies seem to varify that you are LESS likely to be injured resisting robbery with a firearm than you are if you do nothing.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

What's a Mexican stand off?

 

[Claude Clay]

MAD -- on a personal level

and i did not see that on tv but AMW is FOS

 

[Rockwell1]

What's a Mexican stand off?

Each party has the other covered but neither is firing .

I can't see how my position would be enhanced I'd either not draw or fire immediately

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

What 5 guys would hold their fire when they see the prey pull a gun? It just doesn't make sense. And if they did, seems like they'd walk away then...not just wait until the guy defends himself.

Seems like you'd hafta shoot quickly, possibly towards the way you wish to escape, if it's blocked. But then you may hafta fire back as you run, to discourage getting shot in the back. And you've got to hurry the girl with you. Survival seems slim.

 

[Bakeneko]

I read somewhere that robbery tactics often include shooting the victims AFTER they produce their valuables - it's quicker and easier that way. So giving it up is not only no guarentee - it might actually be more dangerous than fighting back with your SD firearm.

Some studies seem to varify that you are LESS likely to be injured resisting robbery with a firearm than you are if you do nothing.

If you can get me the links or names of those sources I would appreciate it.

Because it really does not make sense to me. Police are going to go after people that kill a lot harder than folks that merely take money. If they go around killing folks after every robbery, then they will gain a lot more attention than I think they want.

This went down in a parking lot, not an isolated area. That is a factor. Killing someone there and then would be a lot harder to push under the rug and gain them a lot of attention they didn't want. If after they got the wallet they tried to get the two victims to a secondary location, that would be a pretty clear sign that their lives were in danger. But that did not happen.

In this case, if the guy had tossed his wallet to them and kept the option of drawing a firing only until the point that he had no choice, then all that would have been lost was the money in the wallet.

As it is, it seems the guy was later killed to keep him from giving testimony. It seems a bit stupid to me.

 

[outerlimit]

In this case, if the guy had tossed his wallet to them and kept the option of drawing a firing only until the point that he had no choice, then all that would have been lost was the money in the wallet.

As it is, it seems the guy was later killed to keep him from giving testimony. It seems a bit stupid to me.

So that they can go on and keep doing it to people again and again right..

 

[Bakeneko]

So that they can go on and keep doing it to people again and again right..

There is a chance they could be caught without further boodshed. Even if that is not the case, you seem to be advocating vigilante justice.

The first responsibility in this situation is to get home alive with those you love. If you want to do more to stop people like this, join the police force or military. What they do after they leave you after taking your money is best left to the professionals. Self defense is your responsibility. Other people are not your responsibility. If you feel you want to take on that responsibility, join those that follow the law in doing so as a proffesion instead of sounding almost like you want to become Batman.

 

[rainbowbob]

If you can get me the links or names of those sources I would appreciate it.

Well...this isn't a link regarding robbery tactics, but the following from "Gunfacts" supports the efficacy of fighting back. I believe their sources for this include the study done by Gary Kleck, et al.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense.

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.

In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:292

Resisting with a gun 6%

Did nothing at all 25%

Resisted with a knife 40%

Non-violent resistance 45%

 

[Bakeneko]

Well...this isn't a link regarding robbery tactics, but the following from "Gunfacts" supports the efficacy of fighting back. I believe their sources for this include the study done by Gary Kleck, et al.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...4-2-Screen.pdf

Sounds like an example of Mark Twain's saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Where in these figures would a case where someone was attacked prior to the demand for money fall into? A case could be a 'wilding' where a group of youths surround someone and suddenly attack. They pound the guy into the ground for a thrill, and then probably grab his wallet. People have died from this sort of thing, but where would it fall in the statistics you are looking at? I would say it probably would be in the 25% who are said to have done nothing, or 45% who tried non-violent resistence (attempting to cover themselves from the blows.)

It does not seem to support the idea that there is a clear trend towards injurying people after they have given over the money demanded by itself. What I think needed here is case studies. The use of case studies in situations where people have been taken to secondary locations show that you are in grave danger if you allow it to happen. That is the sort of thing you need here.

 

[expvideo]

It's hard to say, but I would probably do the same thing, minus the mexican stand off.

 

[mr.trooper]

Police are going to go after people that kill a lot harder than folks that merely take money.

YOU will probaly be the only witness; your likely to be the only one who knows what direction he came from, where he was headed, what his face looks like.

Logic says he should shoot you. Even if he doesn't kill you, with you wounded, he will have more time to escape before you call the cops.

 

[Canfield]

I don't think the Gun Facts statistics cited above say what Gun Facts claims they say. They seem to be conditioning on the victim having been injured (probably because they only observe cases where the victim was injured), which you can't do if you want to look at the probability of being injured. What those numbers probably say is that 6% of injured robbery victims fought back with a gun, 25% did nothing, etc. Given that the numbers come from the British Home Office, it's likely that only a tiny percentage (well below 6%) of robbery victims (injured or not) resisted with a gun, which would not support the claim they make.

 

[benEzra]

MAD -- on a personal level

The difference being, MAD requires that either participant can remain functional long enough after a first strike to launch their own retaliatory strike, thereby guaranteeing mutual destruction if either side breaks the standoff.

Hollywood-style mano a mano standoffs aren't that way, though. Assuming reasonable accuracy, power, and shot placement, the first shot wins.

 

[Bakeneko]

YOU will probaly be the only witness; your likely to be the only one who knows what direction he came from, where he was headed, what his face looks like.

Logic says he should shoot you. Even if he doesn't kill you, with you wounded, he will have more time to escape before you call the cops.

If that is the case, that shooting you reduces the risk on one hand to overcome the greater interest on the other, then why aren't more people being killed by robbers?

And if the guy intends to shoot you anyways, why not do it first? The wilding case is a good example of injury and then taking money. If someone intends to shoot you to prevent you from giving a statement or calling the police, then you probably would not be aware of anything until you were shot from behind.

 

[MrToad]

Don't know where it happened but sounds like gang job to me and gangs will just shoot to show off to their buddies. 5 of them shooting and can't hit anything except wound the gf that they were probably not shooting at sounds like gang work too.
When's the last time you saw a gang type at a firing range?
I think I would have started shooting as soon as I drew but hard to say, never having been there.

 

[Bakeneko]

Don't know where it happened but sounds like gang job to me and gangs will just shoot to show off to their buddies.

Oh? This sounds like a robbery gang to me. In other words, people who rob others for their living. Crips and Bloods don't seem to make a lot of money off of armed robbery.

I think I would have started shooting as soon as I drew but hard to say, never having been there.

Beware trying to say what you would have done. You admit that you have never been there, and how difficult it is to say because of it. But a lot of people seem to act like those virgins hanging outside of a 7-11 on a Saturday night giving advice about sex and dating.

In fact, sometimes discussions like this remind me of This blog on violence geeks.

Especially the following part.

After a lifetime of being bullied and belittled (or feeling that they were), these guys are just itchin' to unleash a dump truck load of hate, anger and frustration on someone. And that's what makes them dangerous. While they imagine that this orgasmic climax of violence will be on a dangerous criminal -- who traps them (and leaves them no choice but to explode into a berserk rage of violence in order to survive) -- the reality is a whole lot different.

Basically these guys have an amazing (dare we say almost magical?) ability to avoid actual situations where this kind of force would be needed -- much less justified. In other words, you're not going to find them in a war zone. Nor will you find them in such fun-filled professions as bounty hunting, bouncing or police work. Most of them have jobs that are incredibly nonviolent. A fact that keeps them safe from violence. They want to believe that obsessing, training and equipping themselves is the same as doing it. But they steadfastly avoid confronting people who do it for real.

Basically these guys are 'high centered' between their obsession with the idea violence and their pants wetting panic of actually facing it. The sad thing is they are fixated on the juvinele concept that a "REAL man" has to be violent. Despite all their attention to the subject, everything is basically framed in the concept of a high school fight on steriods. They are best understood as a bunch of betas, pretending to be alphas -- but having no clue as to what it takes to be an alpha/leader.

So understanding this, realize you're not likely to find them alone on a subway platform at 1 a.m.. Where you are likely to encounter them is on the same subway platform during your commute to and from work. And, if you get in some kind of conflict with them (e.g., say there's a bump and a drink is spilled), all of a sudden – in the violence geek's mind – YOU become that deadly threat he has prepared to battle. During the conflict, he's busy fingering whatever Wasp-like equivalent he has squirreled away. And gawd help you if you make a move that triggers him.

Of course, if it were the case that they were dealing with things not from a self defense viewpoint but from what the blog author is talking about, they themselves would not be able to see it. Robert Heinlein said, "Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." So the folks the author is talking about would immediatly get angry and deny quite hotly that they were motivated by this. Those that took the time to ask the opinions of people that knew them like family members would probably be more likely to be honestly driven by a desire to keep themselves safe.

The question might be, would it be better to not draw, toss them your wallet and keep the option of drawing later open- especially since you lured them into thinking you don't have a weapon by giving up your cash. I do not see how this option is any worse than drawing like the deceased did from the start.

 

[armoredman]

Violence geeks? Nice made up name, any statistics on how many of these non existant people there are, outside of this bloggers mind, that is? Someone is projecting, methinks.
BTW, those people who do take self defense seriously do tend to try to avoid area where it becomes imperative. Going out of your way to prove your toughness is foolish, and will land you in very hot water with the judge. A violent act like that is devastating to oneself, one's peers, family, and income. Of course, we tend to believe dying to be of a slightly greater impact.
Massad Ayoob spoke of your tactic in his excellent book, In The Gravest Extreme, of wrapping money around a matchbook, to give it weight, and toss it to the ringleader, to "buy the boys a round on me". That is to defuse a potentially vilolent episode before it escalates.
Once the thugs, as you call them, arrive with deadly force in hand, the whole equation changes, to self defense, not appeasement, like Neville Chamberlain learned the hard way.

 

[Bakeneko]

Violence geeks? Nice made up name, any statistics on how many of these non existant people there are, outside of this bloggers mind, that is? Someone is projecting, methinks.

Spend any time on a forum where lethal weapons, especially knives, are the main focus and you will run across many cases of violence geeks.

Oh, and this guy has stabbed people with knives and other sharp objects. How many people that talk about shooting someone have done the same?

BTW, those people who do take self defense seriously do tend to try to avoid area where it becomes imperative. Going out of your way to prove your toughness is foolish, and will land you in very hot water with the judge. A violent act like that is devastating to oneself, one's peers, family, and income. Of course, we tend to believe dying to be of a slightly greater impact.

Well said. But at the same time, if someone comes at you with a weapon and offers you a choice of getting into a lethal fight or giving up your cash, those with nothing to prove would probably give up their cash. It is the "violence geek" that is trying to justify their bloodlust in order to overcome past problems that seeks justification to start shooting at five to one odds rather than give over their money.

Ever hear the term "rattlesnake stupid"? A rattlesnake is a critter so stupid that is feels cornered in the middle of a desert. Taking a route of escape seems beyond it. A lot of violence geeks seem to try to justify their fantasies by saying their is no route out other than a very hypothetical case of going ninjer on someone.

Massad Ayoob spoke of your tactic in his excellent book, In The Gravest Extreme, of wrapping money around a matchbook, to give it weight, and toss it to the ringleader, to "buy the boys a round on me". That is to defuse a potentially vilolent episode before it escalates.
Once the thugs, as you call them, arrive with deadly force in hand, the whole equation changes, to self defense, not appeasement, like Neville Chamberlain learned the hard way.

Massad Ayoob is a great writer and his example of throwing money to someone rather than trying to think up a reason to fight them is well in line with everything I admire about him. But your example of Nevile Chamberlain is only valid if you have to live next to the perps. In this case, it was possibly served by giving up the cash and keeping options open for an escalation. The statistics show that people will take the money and leave rather than start shooting as it ended up. Instead, the guy got his girlfriend shot and he ended up dead.

Oh, and if you think Ayoob is a good source and knows what he is talking about, you should know that the author of the blog is named Marc MacYoung. If you still think that MacYoung is trying to project his own violence geekiness onto others, maybe you should read this testimonial by Ayoob. Here are the relevant points.

"When I first saw a book on streetfighting whose author’s name was "Marc ‘Animal’ MacYoung," my first reaction was "Oh, crap. Another phony wannabe who’s re-treading the World War II ‘give ‘em the knee’ stuff." Then I read the book. "Damn," I said. "He’s either been there or really done his homework with people who have."

This has been the collective experience of people who know what they’re doing when they read Marc’s work. I’ve absorbed everything he’s written since. It rings with authority, particularly the elements of mind-set and what goes on in your head before, during, and after a fight. I appreciate his emphasis on avoidance, which is always a mark of the professional.

I know MacYoung. I’ve worked out with him. He’s real, and his techniques are real. Don’t fall into the old parochial trap of thinking, "He hasn’t done my job, so he doesn’t know what I need." That’s a false standard of judgment. He’s not teaching you how to be a cop, and he wouldn’t presume to. He’s teaching you how to do something he has learned – in the dojo, in the gym, and most important, on the street – how to do, and it’s something that fits in with what you need to know. Read this book with an open mind. Try his techniques in a safe environment – supervision, mats, warmups, the whole nine yards.

I think you’ll be impressed. I know I was.

Don’t just read this book. Absorb this book, and what it teaches. Whether you’re a police officer or a citizen who might have to do a police officer’s job long enough to hold the line against criminal danger until a real cop gets there to take over, what’s in here can save your life and other lives, your career and other careers, your future and the futures of other good people."

 

[outerlimit]

Bakeneko,

n this case, if the guy had tossed his wallet to them and kept the option of drawing a firing only until the point that he had no choice, then all that would have been lost was the money in the wallet.

I think maybe you misinterpreted my post or I didn't say what I meant very clearly, probably the latter.

My question is at what point would you say you have no choice but to draw and fire? When they're pointing a gun at you from 15 yards? Are you going to let them walk up to you holding a gun to your chest to take your wallet? That's too close for my comfort level. On that note, so is 15 yards.

Anyways, my point: if somebody else has a gun on you and you have a gun I say draw and fire, use cover and be somewhere else as fast as possible. It's better than taking your chances with an armed felon.

 

[Bakeneko]

I think maybe you misinterpreted my post or I didn't say what I meant very clearly, probably the latter.

Taking responsibility for your words and saying that I probably do not understand because you worded it unclearly is very admirable. However, I might have had a part in not understanding and I am also reacting to what others are saying here.

My question is at what point would you say you have no choice but to draw and fire?

It depends. If you had thrown the wallet and started backing away and they start making moves to prevent you, then things just got very hairy indeed. They said they wanted the wallet, so they have no more reason to stop you if you want to run away at that point.

And anytime they say they want to take you to a second location, don't let them.

I would probably throw my wallet on the ground and start backing up. If they still come at me, even with the wallet somewhere else, it is a sign they are after something other than the wallet.

Oh, and I am better in close than most people. Their advantage is in numbers and they would be better served staying back so as to have clear fields of fire rather than risk having one of their own members get shot while aiming at me.

 

[outerlimit]

I cringe at the thought of giving someone like that my wallet and all that it contains, personal info, i.d.'s, credit/debit, ect.

 

[Bakeneko]

I cringe at the thought of giving someone like that my wallet and all that it contains, personal info, i.d.'s, credit/debit, ect.

I can understand your feelings, but it is still better than dying.

Think about the risk to your life compared to the trouble someone might cause with your wallet. It really is not worth the risk of your life. The trouble also does not justify taking someone else's life, at least in the eyes of the law.

The credit cards can be cancelled. And you can limit the amount of personal info you carry in your wallet. You might want to go through and see if there is anything you don't really need to carry.

At the same time, make a list of what you carry in your wallet. If you carry around a video rental card in it, it would be nice to let them know to cancel the card after a robbery than find out the scum bags rented every video in the place on it. I have never heard of that happening, but there is always a first time and it takes so little time to make a list.