Remember..the definition of self defense is "The defending of YOURSELF, or OTHERS who would be allowed that level of force". So if the badguy has a gun in the clerks face, which would justify the CLERK using deadly force, you are justified using deadly force. As to the other? Remember the 4 rules..ie.."Be certain of your target and what lays beyond". In your scenario, shooting the badguy in the back, if SAFE would be the ideal situation. Last I checked...bullets work just as well back to front as front to back. Dont let a false sense of chivalry make you think you need to give him a "chance" to engage YOU! He made his choice when he pulled his weapon in a criminal manner. And if more law abiding armed citizens took appropriate and prudent action...
Situational Theory
- Thread starter skeptiq
- Start date
- Status
GregGry
Member
In my training I was taught Weapon, intent, delivery system. In this situation: Suppose you run into Quickie Mart for a Snickers and while you are picking out your tasty treat and some dude walks in with a gun and tells everyone to get on the floor.
The gun is the weapon, and it is also the delivery system since he can use it to harm anyone in that situation. I would say you have intent, since he walked into a store with a gun and told everyone to get down. All it would take is an instant for the person to shoot someone.
Another example would be if your in a field and a man 10 feet away is armed with a knife, and says he is going to kill you, you have all 3 criteria met. However if the same situation is going on but the man is 200 yards away, you don't have a delivery system present.
The gun is the weapon, and it is also the delivery system since he can use it to harm anyone in that situation. I would say you have intent, since he walked into a store with a gun and told everyone to get down. All it would take is an instant for the person to shoot someone.
Another example would be if your in a field and a man 10 feet away is armed with a knife, and says he is going to kill you, you have all 3 criteria met. However if the same situation is going on but the man is 200 yards away, you don't have a delivery system present.
Very true, Greg. Semantics are different...(My agency "dumbed" the semantics down about a year before I left) but that is spot on. I go with the old school Ability, Opportunity, Manifest Intent/Jeopardy. Lets go with a 1911 laying on a table when you walk into a room full of people. The ABILITY is there. But we KNOW that GUNS dont kill people. The ABILITY is an ABILITY whether on the table, in your holster, in the OTHER guys holster/hand, whatever. OPPORTUNITY is being able to put the ABILITY in to play. If the gun is on the table, and a guy across the room says " You suck, I'm gonna shoot you with that Colt"...you now have ABILITY, and MANIFEST INTENT/JEOPARDY...but OPPORTUNITY is lacking, as the ABILITY is not in grasp range. All three factors must fall into place for the Deadly Force Triangle to close, and make it a SHOOT situation.
WTBguns10kOK
member
I know if I was the clerk and someone was robbing me with a gun, I'd be silently pleading for the prudent citizen with the snickers bar and handgun to aerate Mr. Robber, regardless of whether Mr. Robber appeared intent on using his weapon or not. How often do criminals lose all sense of time/life and death/consequences when the smallest thing goes wrong during the clerk's emptying of the register? If someone is desperate enough to armed rob a store, then they're certainly capable of split second irrational unjustified lethal force.
There are so many variables in an armed-robbery-in-a-store situation that one can not do too much more than generalize one's reaction.
But................
One of the most dangerous situations to arise is if the armed bad guy is demanding that everyone in the store "get face down on the floor!!" Or, as another poster said, he demands "Everyone get into that little room over there!!"
In that situation there is a very, very strong possibility that the bad guy intends to shoot "witnesses."
Then, you have to make a very serious choice. At that point, I know what I'd do.
FWIW.
L.W.
GregGry
Member
Ok cool
, its interesting to hear training with different words, yet the same meaning. I like yours better, although a lot of people now days probably wouldn't get it.punkndisorderly
Member
There are so many variables in such a stituation that whatever may seem right, might actually end very badly. For example, the young gunman turns out to be 14 and is armed with a nonfunctioning airgun or replica. No one was in actual danger, "child" is dead even though he only made a "mistake", and the potential for civil unrest goads the prosecutor into bringing charges.
Or perhaps there is an accomplice in the store who hasn't announced he is a party. You draw down on the bad guy, accomplice shoots you, and the scene turns into a bloodbath.
Or, you shoot badguy, but he has time to crank of a round or two and the storeowner or an innocent gets hit. Instead of everyone possibly walking out alive.
Lastly, perhaps you have a clear line of sight to the bad guy, miss with one or two shots which strike another clerk in the back room.
On the flip side, what if you don't take the opportunity to act and the store owner is shot or other customers are shot.
Perhaps the perps getaway driver saw a police cruiser and took off. Now the perp carjacks a lady in the parking lot to get away who is later killed by the perp or in a high speed chase.
Generally, we have to make the decision to shoot or not based on only partial information. Even if we make the best possible choice on that information, things can go terribly awry. Further, even if everything goes just as it should, you still may wind up in criminal or civil court.
Or perhaps there is an accomplice in the store who hasn't announced he is a party. You draw down on the bad guy, accomplice shoots you, and the scene turns into a bloodbath.
Or, you shoot badguy, but he has time to crank of a round or two and the storeowner or an innocent gets hit. Instead of everyone possibly walking out alive.
Lastly, perhaps you have a clear line of sight to the bad guy, miss with one or two shots which strike another clerk in the back room.
On the flip side, what if you don't take the opportunity to act and the store owner is shot or other customers are shot.
Perhaps the perps getaway driver saw a police cruiser and took off. Now the perp carjacks a lady in the parking lot to get away who is later killed by the perp or in a high speed chase.
Generally, we have to make the decision to shoot or not based on only partial information. Even if we make the best possible choice on that information, things can go terribly awry. Further, even if everything goes just as it should, you still may wind up in criminal or civil court.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
Training films and classes when I worked in banks always said to follow the instructions of the robber, do not provoke him and give him what he wants without resistence. Meaning the money is not worth the risk of injury. A work comp claim would cost more than the robber could take anyway. Set off alarms only if you can do so without endangering yourself. They didn't want anyone to try to be a hero. They showed films of actual robberies. That was an eye opener for me. There is danger in escalating a situation. The robber is apt to be nervous and pumped up. Stay calm and let him feel in control.
That usually works but we have all seen crooks that are looking to shoot someone anyway, and are not too rational. And shooting a few might be good for the general public as a deterent and elimination of a threat.
That usually works but we have all seen crooks that are looking to shoot someone anyway, and are not too rational. And shooting a few might be good for the general public as a deterent and elimination of a threat.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Depends on the state:
In some states, you may defend only YOUR life.
In some states, you may defend YOUR life AND the life of your IMMEDIATE FAMILY (spouse/son/daughter/mother/father/brother/sister).
In some states, you may defend YOUR own life and the life of any third party so threatened (here, the clerk).
In some states, you are justified to use deadly force to stop any FELONY IN PROGRESS (not a fleeing felong, but felong in progress), even if no one's life is necessarily under imminent threat.
In some states, you can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon from the scene of a felony.
You have to know your state law and what is or is not a felony. Me personally, I don't care what the law is; I'm going to come to the aid of a clerk threatened with a gun by a scumbag robber, and let the chips fall where they may, if I think I can get the drop on the bad guy and get a good shot without endangering innocents.
In some states, you may defend only YOUR life.
In some states, you may defend YOUR life AND the life of your IMMEDIATE FAMILY (spouse/son/daughter/mother/father/brother/sister).
In some states, you may defend YOUR own life and the life of any third party so threatened (here, the clerk).
In some states, you are justified to use deadly force to stop any FELONY IN PROGRESS (not a fleeing felong, but felong in progress), even if no one's life is necessarily under imminent threat.
In some states, you can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon from the scene of a felony.
You have to know your state law and what is or is not a felony. Me personally, I don't care what the law is; I'm going to come to the aid of a clerk threatened with a gun by a scumbag robber, and let the chips fall where they may, if I think I can get the drop on the bad guy and get a good shot without endangering innocents.
- Status
