The armed citizen's (CCW holder) response: At what point do you intervene?

[Mr. Doughnut]

Hypothetical:

You're browsing in a jewelry store getting Christmas gift ideas for your SO. The store is in a popular mall along with a host of others. This is no inner-city pawn shop, it's a nice suburban setting in a very low crime area. Suddenly, three guys wearing black hoodies and Halloween masks enter the store. The "leader" points a gun in your face and orders you (and all the other customers) to the floor. You comply. The other two robbers start smashing the jewelery cases and grabbing everything they can. The leader watches the clock -- and the customers/staff. The robbers are all out of there under in less than two minutes time. No shots fired and no physical injuries.

Now, please take a minute and visit this link:

http://www.wmur.com/news/29688976/detail.html

At what point -- if any -- would you intervene? Threats made? Shots fired? Wounds/death inflicted? How would YOU respond?

Mr. Doughnut

 

[mnrivrat]

Sorry but I did not follow the link . So if there is more data there I am unaware of it at this point.

My answer to your posted senerio is that I would comply, and do nothing. Stuff is not worth much of anything. Only if persons are in serious danger would I act to protect myself or others.

 

[91 whiskey]

If someone came in and started firing shots right away I feel that I would have no choice other then to return fire. Minus that scenario I probably wouldn't do anything unless they started threatening people.

 

[gspn]

Robbers calm as could be...no violence...outnumbered three to one in a crowded store...let it go.

I would have no choice but to engage if they began shooting people.

 

[JSpear]

From the way the report read, I would have stood down, they went quick and were in and out, any response would have risked more people then it would have helped. I hate to say that, but it would be the right move.

 

[JayBird]

FYI....I dont think there was anyone there that was a good guy with a gun.

Unless I am missing something, as I think the below was saying at least one of the BAD GUYS had a firearm

Investigators said three people entered the store at the Tanger Outlets and ordered everyone inside onto the ground. At least one person was armed with a handgun, police said.

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/29688976/detail.html#ixzz1d4JBpiDr

I could be wrong, but that is the way I read it.

As far as the question though....I do not think I would engage in this scenario, although it is difficult to say as I am not in the situation, and do not know if I would feel that 'my life was in danger'

 

[gspn]

Good call...I read it in a hurry and assumed there was a CCW holder there...I'll amend my post but my position is the same...no immediate threat of violence, outnumbered in a crowded spot, no action required.

 

[Black Knight]

Even if there were an armed customer there who just happened to be an off duty police officer complying would still be the best option in this situation. Unless it appears that the BGs are intent on harming people instead of stealing the product an armed customer drawing his weapon might cause more harm than good.

 

[bigfatdave]

no immediate threat of violence

that was exactly what a threat of violence is

I am not inclined to trust in the goodwill of violent criminals, but any choice like this would be made on the spot based on gut feeling. I doubt they were looking for a gunfight, an immediate overwhelmingly violent response may have sent them scattering, while lining up for execution is rarely a wise plan.

 

[rondog]

Jewelry stores are insured to the hilt and have lots of money and lawyers, how about YOU? Unless shots are being fired, do what they say and don't even look their direction.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am in the camp that doesn't trust that a criminal with a gun has some kind of line he won't cross. Seems a bit of a gamble to hope he's actually a nice guy.

If a guy pointing a gun at people isn't a threat of immediate violence then what is?

 

[lobo9er]

If a guy pointing a gun at people isn't a threat of immediate violence then what is?

right, but all made it without shots fired. everyone went home. I'm not sure if anyone was actually pointing a gun. I will go back and re read the story. good ending though in my book. If there was a CCW there and they stepped in I wouldnt disparaged the descion. Its one of those unless your there you will never know and I hope I am not in a bad situation like that. Scary stuff.

 

[gspn]

Story doesn't say a gun was pointed at anyone. In fact the entire tone of the report is that their demeanor was very calm and professional.

You can argue the definition of "immediate threat of violence" all day but the fact is you're outnumbered three to one with a lot of innocent people around you and a holdup crew that's obviously out for the merchandise and not a fight. What more is there to really talk about?

 

[bigfatdave]

but all made it without shots fired

how can you tell that ahead of time, exactly?

 

[justice06rr]

I would not engege them or intervene. They seem to have been there to rob the store only; no point in getting involved. Just be a good witness.

3 BG's and you're not certain if one of them or all 3 had firearms. You would be seriously outnumbered even if you tried to intervene. Overall, let them do what they came to do. the Jeweler is most likely insured anyway.

 

[Averageman]

I am not inclined to trust in the goodwill of violent criminals, but any choice like this would be made on the spot based on gut feeling.
If violence was the motive someone would have got smacked walking through the door. They knew what they wanted got everything except one case and they were gone in minutes.
You may not trust them, you may not even enjoy the experiance of being there; but without endangering everyone else in the store; what are you going to do?

 

[Sam1911]

There's a fine line between saving lives from a risk that seems imminent and instigating a slaughter where no shots needed to be fired.

Outnumbered, and facing one (or more) drawn guns? If I feel pushed into having to draw my own weapon, it would have to be at the point where it is obvious and unavoidable that folks are about to start dying -- or the shooting has already started.

Otherwise, wait, watch, evaluate, and prepare myself to take action if I'm forced to. And make whatever "final" preparations seem appropriate, because things aren't likely to end well for any of us.

 

[Jonah71]

There's a fine line between saving lives from a risk that seems imminent and instigating a slaughter where no shots needed to be fired.

Outnumbered, and facing one (or more) drawn guns? If I feel pushed into having to draw my own weapon, it would have to be at the point where it is obvious and unavoidable that folks are about to start dying -- or the shooting has already started.

Otherwise, wait, watch, evaluate, and prepare myself to take action if I'm forced to. And make whatever "final" preparations seem appropriate, because things aren't likely to end well for any of us.

I was going to throw my opinion out there, but you pretty much covered it Sam.

 

[ForumSurfer]

If a guy pointing a gun at people isn't a threat of immediate violence then what is?

I agree with that statement, the threat of violence is there.

There's a fine line between saving lives from a risk that seems imminent and instigating a slaughter where no shots needed to be fired.

Outnumbered, and facing one (or more) drawn guns? If I feel pushed into having to draw my own weapon, it would have to be at the point where it is obvious and unavoidable that folks are about to start dying -- or the shooting has already started.

Otherwise, wait, watch, evaluate, and prepare myself to take action if I'm forced to. And make whatever "final" preparations seem appropriate, because things aren't likely to end well for any of us.

I'm also inclined to agree with Sam on those points. Multiple opponents with multiple guns likely spread about the store with innocents between myself and them. If I wait for the innocent bystanders to get on the ground, my options for clear shots increase...but now I'm on the ground or on my knees myself. Get a shot timer, draw from concealment and see just how long it takes you to put two rounds in all three or four combatants. Then consider that these bad guys won't just fall over and may not run when presented with opposition. Now they are fighting for their lives, not just the loot. They came to get in and get out, and now you stand between them and freedom. Given their calm nature as descrisbed, I wouldn't intervene until they started executing people. If they start executing people, now they have another clear purpose and are determined. One guy versus four determined assailants...odds are that would be a last stand and I'd just be taking one, two three or all of them with me. It seems to me that in a dynamic 1 on 4 fight in a small store with no cover, everyone stands a good chance of taking hits (even those laying on the floor).

 

[Loosedhorse]

You comply

Why in the world would you do that? (Someone's gotta shake up the groupthink here! )

OP: to me the question is not about at what point do you "intervene" (as in, on someone else's behalf): YOU and you SO are being threatened with deadly force. YOU and your SO are being ordered to the ground.

When are you going to defend yourself, and her?

If you go face down on the ground, and then they start searching people, find a gun on someone else, AND SHOOT HIM IMMEDIATELY: are you going to defend yourself now?

If, as they're about to exit, they decide they need a hostage, and your SO is the most attractive option, are you going to defend her now?

Realize that in both of these cases of your belatedly deciding to defend, you are at a MUCH greater disadvantage than when they enter, when they have a million other things to pay attention to. You chances of surviving a late defense attempt are much worse than whatever slim chance you had at the beginning.

Hey, we should all do what we think will have the greatest chance of getting us out of a bad situation alive; and our judgment of that will vary (especially in the context of a hypothetical, where we each may be filling in the details in different ways).

But I think we should realize that if you are being ordered to the floor and you comply, you have essentially decided not to defend yourself no matter what they decide to do. You have placed yourself at their mercy.

You might as well not have carried a gun today. Actually, it would be better if you hadn't carried.

This is not a question of whether to intervene to save someone else's possessions, or some shop owner's life--this is a question about whether you decide at the beginning of this encounter to forclose your option of self-defense, forever.

The robbers are all out of there under in less than two minutes time. No shots fired and no physical injuries.

I've got to say: if you can know the future ahead of time, and know exactly what a set of armed robbers will do, well, that would sure simplify tactical decision-making.

 

[ForumSurfer]

When are you going to defend yourself, and her?

When I see that there is no other option. One on four isn't so much defending myself as it is going down fighting.

Realize that in both of these cases of your belatedly deciding to defend, you are at a MUCH greater disadvantage than when they enter,

They enter and brandish guns. If I start shooting before they enter and brandish...uh, hold on while I try to find some justification for shooting. These guys could have been robbers or just a group in masks (flash mob).

There are many variables here. It is hard to say what you would do as we don't know the chain of events. IF you had been eying the door like a hawk instead of the display case where you were just about to spend some serious change...and IF they had approached with guns drawn...then you may have a chance to draw and shoot as they enter into the funneling doorway. Those are some huge if's.

The robbers are all out of there under in less than two minutes time. No shots fired and no physical injuries.

I doubt that in those first 15 seconds they all stood in a neat little formation, guns drawn, announcing what was about to happen. They likely went in with overwhelming force from the start. I just find it hard to believe that I can take on 3 or 4 armed combatants with guns drawn successfully. It just seems like one of those "last ditch efforts" that you should only draw when you are certain you and everyone in the room is about to die. A dynamic fight between 4 to 5 armed people in a small little jewelry store is going to put rounds all over the place.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I just find it hard to believe that I can take on 3 or 4 armed combatants with guns drawn successfully.

That isn't really the question, IMHO. Do you think you'll be BETTER able to take them on later, if you find out you're about to be murdered or your SO is about to be taken to a secondary crime scene?

All I'm saying is we should all realize: if you're not going to take that slim chance to fight in the beginning, you have decided to remain at their mercy (or, if fighting at the beginning seemed futile, you will perhaps decide to make a ridiculously futile late effort). You won't get another chance better than right now, so realize the choice you're making--and that you really would be better off without a gun if you choose to comply.

 

[Sam1911]

This is not a question of whether to intervene to save someone else's possessions, or some shop owner's life--this is a question about whether you decide at the beginning of this encounter to forclose your option of self-defense, forever.

Like every other variable decision, it can't be quite that simple. I do see your point. It is akin to the old "they're herding us into the back room for an execution" meme. However, this isn't presented as a hostage standoff, with lots of time taken to search each hostage and securing them. It was presented as an in-and-out smash and grab store robbery with a two-minute time limit. You can't know the future, or truly understand the plans of the robbers, but certain details of body language and setting can give you cues about what might happen next. If this is the average corner-location mall jewelry store with two-sided access and very little cover, this isn't a hostage standoff. If the leader is watching the clock and his band is in a hurry, they aren't likely to spend much time dealing with searches and securing hostages -- there's no time and no need.

That's a lot of info to process in a hurry, but I think we have to trust our instincts and our observations.

Now, if you go to the ground, have you completely given up your ability to fight? Surely not! You'd have to pick your moment, and draw and engage swiftly, but that would be the same if you were on your feet facing drawn guns. Heck, shooting up from the floor gives you a clearer shot as the angle takes bystanders and shoot-throughs out of the equation.

 

[TexasRifleman]

My only problem with all this is that there is some assumption being made that you will be able to predict whether or not the bad guys will start shooting, and predict it soon enough to respond before bad things really happen.

I agree that it's not a pretty scenario, but the idea that you some how have the ability to predict and react doesn't seem realistic.

If you wait until a gun is pointed at you the odds are pretty slim that you will be able to respond. It's a horrible position to be in that's for sure.

 

[Sam1911]

If you wait until a gun is pointed at you the odds are pretty slim that you will be able to respond.

I thought that was the premise: You're made aware of a robbery when the leader points his gun at you.

...

Actually, the OP did specify that guys in masks and hoodies entered the store and THEN the leader points his gun at you. Seems odd that they'd bother with disguises, and the fair notice that disguises provide to onlookers, but conceal their weapons.

So, if a group of guys enter a jewelry store wearing masks and hoodies, but no weapons are visible ... what to do? Seems like unless they show you the means to kill, and or declare their intention to kill, your justification for drawing your own weapon is reduced.

In many states you can draw/shoot to prevent certain kinds of felonies, but that's not quite the same thing as a justification based on self-defense, due to a clear, articulable, immediate, threat to life.