Situational / hypothetical question - how would you handle?

[opto_isolator]

So last night I was thinking about cc'ing in public. I remembered hearing a story from when I was going to grad school for my MBA (2 years ago or so) that someone told me. He said he was at Starbucks, and someone came in with a gun and robbed the place. He robbed everyone there too - all at gunpoint.

Let me state that this is ALL hypothetical. I have never been in a situation like this myself (have any of you?). How would you handle a situation like this? Would you draw and take the guy out? I was starting to think about all of the bystanders that could get in the way, or if the round passed through the guy and hit someone else. Besides the potential ethical issues here, what about legal ramifications? I realize that every situation is different - but Starbucks is pretty close quarters....

Just wanted to get your thoughts on this.

 

[kingpin008]

The legal ramifications are going to differ greatly depending on what state this occurs in.

That said, if I'm CCWing, it's to protect the lives of me & mine. Period. I'm not a cop, and I'm in no way equipped or trained in robbery intervention. If at all possible I'd do what I could to observe and report, and keep my CCW where it was unless it was directly and immediately needed.

FWIW, this sort of thing has been discussed more than a few times in the past, mostly in the Strategies & Tactics forum. You might want to see what you can dig up with a search.

 

[M-Cameron]

i am of the belief that if someone threatens me with a weapon, that they intend to kill me....regardless of what it is they claim to want (wallet, car, ect.), actions speak louder than words, and their actions say they want me dead.

sure, they may just want my wallet....or they may want to kill everyone in the place. ide really rather not leave the decision up to them.

so if you have the time and ability to draw your weapon, do it.


if he has the drop on you, you really have no choice but to give him your wallet, and hope thats all he wants.

 

[tbutera2112]

if he has the gun out pointing it at people - he is considered deadly...i wouldnt think there would be any legal issues with shooting him

as for what i would do, i dont know exactly since im not in that situation, but if he came in and headed for the register - i wouldnt do anything...soon as he started going after individuals i think i would draw and fire on him....over penetration isnt a real big concern for me...i understand it happens, but with modern hollow points i would think theyre almost worthless if they exit the bad guy, i dont see them doing a ton more damage since theyre already expanded and lost most of their energy...i wouldnt rule it out, but over penetration wouldnt be a huge concern of mine in a situation like that

i would also have to consider whether i thought him to be an actual threat or not....if hes just robbing people and showing no intent to actually hurt anybody, i think i might give him my wallet and let him be on his way....i would have to decide whether i think he will discover my gun (is he patting people down, or just asking for stuff) and whether or not it would be cheaper to give him my wallet or deal with going to court, losing my firearm, and paying for an attorney if i shot him

so without being there, i think unless i felt i was in immediate danger or somebody else was, i dont think i would draw on him....if he is in there pistol whipping people and stuff robbing them, thats different...it all depends on the encounter...too many factors to really decide on the net.....tried to play along though lol


now - if it was one on one in an alley or something, or if someone tried to carjack me at a stop light...i wouldnt hesitate to draw on them...but in the situation you described, i dont think i would....in that particular situation i wouldnt feel threatened as much

 

[9mmepiphany]

The usually recommended course is to be a good witness unless there is an overt act that would lead a common person to believe someone was going to be mortally injured...and even then, you'd have to have a clear shot.

Consider the possible outcomes:
1. You make a good shot and he stops being a threat - good
2. You make a pretty good shot and he runs away - good
3. You make a good shot, his gun goes off and he kills someone - bad
4. You make a pretty good shot and he starts shooting everyone - bad
5. You make a bad shot, miss and he starts shooting everyone - bad
6. You make a bad shot and hit an innocent bystander - bad, plus the situation goes downhill after that

Worst case - You make a good shot and someone else who is also CCW shoots you thinking you are another bad guy

As you can see, even making a good shot isn't always a winning situation

 

[Shadow 7D]

There was a thread here a while ago about one of our member who was in a mall shooting, a few years ago, it was an estranged husband or boyfriend going after the chick at work. I do believe that he was disarmed due to the malls policy, and at one point even considered tackling the guy.

But, sadly it wasn't his fight, he was at disadvantages (his ONLY advantage would have been surprise) He decided that having supper wasn't worth playing hero.

In a robbery, discretion is the wisest option, unless you can get a clean shot, safely, it might be worth tossing your cash.

AND remember, what is legal in one state, may not be legal in another, after all, if you shoot him in a duty to retreat state....

 

[FriedRice]

Too many things could go wrong, during or after. Unless I believe it's likely I, or all of us, are going to be mowed down by gunfire, I'd be a good witness.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Unless there is an immediate and articulable threat to your life and or the life of another, why would you escalate the situation? Yes he may have a gun out, but has he fired? Singled out/selected targets?
How many bystanders? Have you identified his partner? Has he identified you as a threat? Can you reasonably draw and fire even if it is appropriate-before being fired upon? Have you cover/concealment? What kind of back stop do you have? Range? Nearby innocents?
You should be in a hyper-vigilant mode, so concentrate on remembering everything...race, skin tone, clothes, tats, hair style, hair color, direction of travel, means of travel EVERYTHING you can remember...in other words be a GOOD WITTNESS!

 

[JustinJ]

Once a perp draws a gun he is posing an imminent threat to the lifes of innocent people. For those who say my gun is for my protection is that the same if one of your loved ones were being threatened? If an opportunity opens with a high chance of success of neutralizing the gunman i think it should be taken. There have been times when armed robbers have shot people even after they complied or police have arrived during the robbery causing a hostage situation that resulted in the deaths of innocents. I'd rather not to just "hope" the perp doesnt do the same. If my mother, gf, or other loved one was the victim of such a situation i'd hope a person with the ability to help them would do so which is why i would if possible. When i see women broke down or with flats i always stop to help as i hope other men would do for the women i love so i see this as no different. Of course discretion must be used to ensure a high chance of success without harm to innocents.

 

[NMGonzo]

Unholster, aim, and make them known that you are walking away.

 

[Flfiremedic]

Justin,
You are a good guy with high ideals, but my concern is that you have gotten your information from poor sources. In 5 years as an LEO, almost all of it as a narcotics agent/plain clothes investigator, I never once heard the term perp used professionally. I say that because EVERYTHING you say post event will be noted and picked apart. Saying you would neutralize the threat if a high chance of success is found, is pretty bold. Uniformed LEOs would be hesitant to draw and fire in the circumstances you describe. I guess the best way to explain my thinking is to ask you to please articulate what the immediate threat you saw that caused you to draw a concealed weapon and fire. If the weapon is pointed at you, you would have to be FAST, if it is not will you maneuver for a safer back drop/fewer innocents between you and target? What event/phrase/movement will or combination will cause you to open fire?
Dude I'm not trying to be a jerk, just throwing some things out there...please don't take this as me picking on you.

 

[GEM]

While it is easy to proclaim you will draw your gun and take the guy out, I wonder if you have tried such in well designed FOF exercises.

You may talk the moral talk but you should try it.

Before you say that you will draw your gun and take the guy out, you have moral responsibilty to have a reasonable amount of training to act well. It's not like shooting at a stationary B-27 with the guys and chortling.

 

[JustinJ]

"I never once heard the term perp used professionally. I say that because EVERYTHING you say post event will be noted and picked apart. Saying you would neutralize the threat if a high chance of success is found, is pretty bold."

I don't follow you on the relevance of the term perp(short for perpetrator) but if i ever i were to be involved in a shooting incident the vast majority of everything i say would be with my lawyer present in person or on my cell phone.

"Uniformed LEOs would be hesitant to draw and fire in the circumstances you describe."
But i've given no description of circumstances. Obviosly drawing from a concealed holster while a gun pointed at you is NOT a high chance of success. There are millions of potential variables in the original post. Some would create a situation in which the use of a weapon would be reasonable and some would not. As i said "discretion must be used to ensure a high chance of success". If a suspect(?) had his back turned to an armed person (uniformed or not) and the suspect did not have his weapon pointed at an innocent, and a clear shot existed from within a reasonable range, i imagine most would engage in one way or another.

"Dude I'm not trying to be a jerk, just throwing some things out there...please don't take this as me picking on you."
I don't. However, my post clearly stated that discretion is key.

 

[bikerdoc]

post #8 is very good advice.

 

[Kleanbore]

This is one of the perennial scenarios discussed here, and the discussions usually start with the question of whether deadly force would be justified (ans: yes) and end with this, restated in Post #5 by 9mmepiphany:

The usually recommended course is to be a good witness unless there is an overt act that would lead a common person to believe someone was going to be mortally injured...and even then, you'd have to have a clear shot.

Post #5 continues with an analysis of possible outcomes:

1. You make a good shot and he stops being a threat - good
2. You make a pretty good shot and he runs away - good
3. You make a good shot, his gun goes off and he kills someone - bad
4. You make a pretty good shot and he starts shooting everyone - bad
5. You make a bad shot, miss and he starts shooting everyone - bad
6. You make a bad shot and hit an innocent bystander - bad, plus the situation goes downhill after that

Worst case - You make a good shot and someone else who is also CCW shoots you thinking you are another bad guy.

There is, of course, one more: the robber's "tail gunner" sees you draw and shoots you.

Those who would advocate shooting usually envision outcome #1 as the likely result of one's decision to shoot, but the possibility of the robber moving at the last moment, the fact that the person who intervenes will have to draw, aim and fire very, very quickly in a high stress situation, and the fact that handgun bullets are unlikely to have the effectiveness will that many may expect, makes that outcome less than likely--or, as Flfiremedic says in Post #11,

Saying you would neutralize the threat if a high chance of success is found, is pretty bold.

For a dose of reality, read what GEM has to say in Post #12:

While it is easy to proclaim you will draw your gun and take the guy out, I wonder if you have tried such in well designed FOF exercises.

You may talk the moral talk but you should try it.

Before you say that you will draw your gun and take the guy out, you have moral responsibilty to have a reasonable amount of training to act well. It's not like shooting at a stationary B-27 with the guys and chortling.

I suggest that after anyone has tried a well designed FoF exercise and considered the effects of real world stress, he or she will think twice about the idea of intervening. Make that three times, if one does not know for sure who and where a possible accomplice may be.

In Post #8, Flfiremedic poses several important questions to consider:

Unless there is an immediate and articulable threat to your life and or the life of another, why would you escalate the situation? Yes he may have a gun out, but has he fired? Singled out/selected targets?
How many bystanders? Have you identified his partner? Has he identified you as a threat? Can you reasonably draw and fire even if it is appropriate-before being fired upon? Have you cover/concealment? What kind of back stop do you have? Range? Nearby innocents?

Post #8 concludes with an excellent recommendation:

You should be in a hyper-vigilant mode, so concentrate on remembering everything...race, skin tone, clothes, tats, hair style, hair color, direction of travel, means of travel EVERYTHING you can remember...in other words be a GOOD WITNESS!

My opinion? Follow that advice unless (1) the robber starts shooting or (2) the robber orders everyone into a back room, either of which takes back to Post #5's reference to an overt overt act that would lead a common person to believe someone was going to be mortally injured.

 

[JustinJ]

"1. You make a good shot and he stops being a threat - good
2. You make a pretty good shot and he runs away - good
3. You make a good shot, his gun goes off and he kills someone - bad
4. You make a pretty good shot and he starts shooting everyone - bad
5. You make a bad shot, miss and he starts shooting everyone - bad
6. You make a bad shot and hit an innocent bystander - bad, plus the situation goes downhill after that


There a few possibilities being missed here.

7. You do nothing and the bad guy decides to shoot one or more people for numerous possible reasons - Bad
8. You do nothing and the police arrive resulting in a hostage situation which ultimately results in one ore more innocents being killed - Bad
9. You do nothing and the bad guy pistol whips you or somebody else causing permament braind damage -Bad

Let's forget the altruistic arguement of stoping a bad guy from potentially hurting other people. You may be the one he decides to hurt in either of the two above scenarios. In most cases the bad guy will take what he wants and leave but some people would rather not let their fate be solely decided by an armed robber. Once he starts shooting your chances of controlling or even influencing the outcome start to plummet. The majority of armed robbers end up leaving without shooting anybody before the police arrive but the majority knocking over a Starbucks aren't going to be sophisticated enough to have a buddy hidden in the crowd with a weapon either.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: There a few possibilities being missed here.

7. You do nothing and the bad guy decides to shoot one or more people for numerous possible reasons - Bad
8. You do nothing and the police arrive resulting in a hostage situation which ultimately results in one ore more innocents being killed - Bad
9. You do nothing and the bad guy pistol whips you or somebody else causing permament braind damage -Bad

And one more:

10. You do nothing and the robber leaves without harming anyone.

That is what happens in the majority of robberies. Of course, there are no guarantees, However, if you do decide to take that clear shot, and if you are not gunned down by the robber's accomplice, one of these is probably rather likely:

3. You make a good shot, his gun goes off and he kills someone - bad
4. You make a pretty good shot and he starts shooting everyone - bad
5. You make a bad shot, miss and he starts shooting everyone - bad
6. You make a bad shot and hit an innocent bystander - bad, plus the situation goes downhill after that

And that is because this is probably a long shot:

1. You make a good shot and he stops being a threat - good

And that's because of this:

... the possibility of the robber moving at the last moment, the fact that the person who intervenes will have to draw, aim and fire very, very quickly in a high stress situation, and the fact that handgun bullets are unlikely to have the effectiveness will that many may expect, makes that outcome less than likely.

And that can be shown by putting oneself in the position where the answer to this question is "yes":

While it is easy to proclaim you will draw your gun and take the guy out, I wonder if you have tried such in well designed FOF exercises.

It is not a good idea to be the one who starts the gunfight unless it is clear that someone is about to be executed. At that point, you will have no choice.

The majority of armed robbers end up leaving without shooting anybody before the police arrive...

yep.

...but the majority knocking over a Starbucks aren't going to be sophisticated enough to have a buddy hidden in the crowd with a weapon either.

Basis for that assertion? Most of the armed robberies I see in the news involve more than one robber.

Think about it. Would you want to try to over all of the customers yourself? Would you want to take the cash and keep your gun and your attention on possible defenders? Would you want to try to get away without a driver?

 

[Fred Fuller]

The majority of armed robbers end up leaving without shooting anybody before the police arrive

I'd certainly be willing to go for those odds, if all it cost me was pocket money, as opposed to me personally kicking off a gunfight in a crowded place. Starting a gunfight in a crowd is as close to a worst case scenario as I want to imagine.

but the majority knocking over a Starbucks aren't going to be sophisticated enough to have a buddy hidden in the crowd with a weapon either.

THAT is not something I'd be willing to bet my life on, however.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[JustinJ]

"but the majority knocking over a Starbucks aren't going to be sophisticated enough to have a buddy hidden in the crowd with a weapon either.

THAT is not something I'd be willing to bet my life on, however."

But you will be willing to bet your life the bad guy doesn't decide to shoot you because he's psychotic and his dog told him to, is high as a kite, accidental discharge, hostage situation gone bad, somebody else resists, wants to leave no witnesses, etc...etc....etc....?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: But you will be willing to bet your life the bad guy doesn't decide to shoot you because he's psychotic and his dog told him to, is high as a kite, accidental discharge, hostage situation gone bad, somebody else resists, wants to leave no witnesses, etc...etc....etc....?

Lee Lapin just stated very clearly that he would

..be willing to go for those odds [the majority of armed robbers end up leaving without shooting anybody before the police arrive] , if all it cost me was pocket money, as opposed to me personally kicking off a gunfight in a crowded place. Starting a gunfight in a crowd is as close to a worst case scenario as I want to imagine.

I agree wholeheartedly, based on the odds, in preference to betting that all of these will happen at once:

• the robber does not have an accomplice;
• my shots hit him efffectively and disable him instantly, before he can fire;
• I am not mistaken for his accomplice and shot by a police officer or a trigger-happy armed citizen; and
• my shots do not injure any innocent persons.

It is a simple matter of risk management.

Of course, should the situation evolve from a simple armed robbery and clearly indicate that there may be a plan to eliminate witnesses, the risk balance may change, and one may be forced to be the first to shoot.

Otherwise, you do not want to be the one to shoot first.

 

[JustinJ]

"It is a simple matter of risk management."

It is, which is why discretion is critical. Ideally one will have his back to the wall, clear view of everybody, close range to bad guy, etc. If the right conditions don't present themselves i will agree that compliance may be the best idea. But if an opportunity presents itself with a high chance of success i don't believe leaving one's life in the hands of a scum bag armed robber is the best idea.

"Otherwise, you do not want to be the one to shoot first."

At Starbucks distances shooting first is probably gona be your only chance to shoot at all.

Most firearms instructors probably will never tell someone to engage a bad guy in a room with civilians for liabilities sake. If it doesn't go well anybody shot could potnentially sue the instructor. If it goes well the instructor gets nothing out of it. But if the instructor is in the situation; "do as i say, not as i do".

 

[Old krow]

And one more:

10. You do nothing and the robber leaves without harming anyone.

That is what happens in the majority of robberies.

I'm not sure that I agree with that train of thought. If that is the case, why carry at all? Are we basing these responses off of this one incident or any random guy (or team) that stops into the same Starbuck's that I am in to rob it? If we're going by this one scenario that already has a conclusion, I'll just toss my money to the bad guy.

One thing is for sure, you still have the choice to draw all the way up until the time that you. At that point, you are committed to a decision whether it be right or wrong.

 

[9mmepiphany]

THAT is not something I'd be willing to bet my life on, however.

Neither would I.

It has been my experience that having a buddy in the crowd is not so much about sophistication as it is about cowardice. In a true armed a robbery, as opposed to a smash and grab, most folks take an extra person for bravery in numbers. Even if they are not armed, they would at the very least rise an alarm (causing the shooter to move) or might disrupt your aim.

True sophistication is a armed robbery would be an overwhelming show of force by numerous armed participants

 

[JustinJ]

"It has been my experience that having a buddy in the crowd is not so much about sophistication as it is about cowardice. In a true armed a robbery, as opposed to a smash and grab, most folks take an extra person for bravery in numbers. Even if they are not armed, they would at the very least rise an alarm (causing the shooter to move) or might disrupt your aim."

Aside from hollywood in the vast majority of armed robberies i've seen and read about there is no hidden accomplice. Either there are multiple robbers or there is only one. If a person in the crowd fled before the police arrived that would be a pretty big red flag and the robbery would be reported as involving more than one suspect. I don't know about anybody elses city but the police here are frequently putting out requests for information about a single armed robbery suspect.

"True sophistication is a armed robbery would be an overwhelming show of force by numerous armed participants"

And probably not be at a Starbucks.

 

[Fred Fuller]

JustinJ,

Please understand it is not my job here to tell you or anyone else what to do, beyond conduct on the forum itself. In real life, Big Boy Rules definitely apply.

What we have here is a mere hypothetical situation postulated by someone who wants to get some understanding of the responses members here might have to the situation posed in the OP. That's all. We're just talking about it - it's not really happening. Relax...

The outcome of any course of action a CCWer chooses to take will be borne primarily by that person. The results will be reviewed by a lot of people over a long time. And there will be consequences for someone. Probably severe consequences, depending on what the actual outcome was and how the review of 'actions on the objective' goes.

As a general rule I'm going to do the best I can in any situation to avoid having to use my weapon. If that means I hand my pocket money over to an armed robber in a public place with however many innocents around, I'd certainly do that rather than kick off a gunfight to save a few bucks or in defense of some amorphous principle or other.

If that makes me a coward or somehow inadequate as a man, or less than a hardcore defender of Truth Justice and The American Way, then frankly my dear I don't give a damn. I bought my pistol. I bought the ammo in it. I paid for the concealed carry permit, I paid for all the formal training I've ever had, if I go to court I have to pay for my lawyers, if I get sued I pay for my defense and any damages in case I lose, if I go to the hospital I pay my medical bills, and if I get buried someone else has to look after my family from then on. I'm just not going to roll the dice on all that if I have a choice not to do it and all it's likely to cost me is pocket money and a little pride. I don't know how many people realize it, but pride is actually pretty cheap in real life. It isn't worth dying over, IMHO it isn't worth killing over, nor is it worth starting a gunfight over where one probably wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

If dude was going to start shooting people at random after they complied, I'm willing to take the chance he wouldn't start with me. And if he starts shooting people then 1) it isn't just a robbery any more, and 2) chances are people will be hitting the deck and getting out of the way. Dude just made himself a target.

If dude wants to herd people into the back room, sorry, I'm not going. I'll do my best to be close to dude when the herding starts, assuming he'll be at the back of the line. If he's at the back of the line then there's no innocents left behind him, and I'm willing to chance that my action can beat his reaction. Dude just made himself a target.

If dude just says "Gimme all your money," no big deal. I'll deliver. But if dude says "empty your pockets" and goes nose to nose, counting pockets, watching his victims and making sure they comply then it's likely going to get interesting - because I pocket carry almost all the time. The one thing I will not do voluntarily is give up my gun in a situation like that. Again, I'll give it a shot that my action can beat his reaction while he's distracted with wallets, cell phones and other valuables, go for trapping his gun arm with my support hand if he's close enough to reach, draw and fire, probably at a severe downward angle for the sake of the no-shoots behind him rather than shooting from the usual retention position. If he isn't that close and wasn't likely to come within my reach, I might take a quick knee while he's busy with someone nearby (oops, dropped my wallet) and shoot at an upward angle, again to better clear any no-shoots behind him.

Thing is, I can't SAY for sure what I would do because I don't KNOW what I would do unless I was confronted by the situation IRL - it would all depend on what dude did. But I know for certain sure I'd happily give up the $150 or so I usually carry if I could avoid starting a gunfight in a public place by doing so.

YMMV of course,

lpl