Things to Not Do

[Balrog]

Yes, if others will believe after the fact that they, in similar circumstances and knowing what she knew the time, would have done the same thing. But they did not.

Yep, and important to keep in mind, determination of whether something is reasonable is subjective. I agree there are some things the lady involved could have done better, such as calling immediately and reporting the event and stating that she felt her life was in immediate danger.

One point that I have heard experts make that we have not discussed here is the difference in physical size and ability between the two persons can make in an encounter. A 100 pound woman is at a serious disadvantage against a 200 pound man. The same person that may not seem very threatening to me may be very threatening to another person. I don't know if that played into her decision or not.

 

[wayneinFL]

Yep, and important to keep in mind, determination of whether something is reasonable is subjective. I agree there are some things the lady involved could have done better, such as calling immediately and reporting the event and stating that she felt her life was in immediate danger.

One point that I have heard experts make that we have not discussed here is the difference in physical size and ability between the two persons can make in an encounter. A 100 pound woman is at a serious disadvantage against a 200 pound man. The same person that may not seem very threatening to me may be very threatening to another person. I don't know if that played into her decision or not.

Dropping the gun and calling 911 when police are already on the way or wording this a certain way is not always a get out of jail free card.

I get that reasonableness is subjective but do you think all the witnesses, the video, the cops, the prosecutor's office- everybody got it wrong here?

 

[Balrog]

Dropping the gun and calling 911 when police are already on the way or wording this a certain way is not always a get out of jail free card.

I get that reasonableness is subjective but do you think all the witnesses, the video, the cops, the prosecutor's office- everybody got it wrong here?

I wouldn't know. I would not assume the police and prosecutor got it right. My understanding was there was only one witness. Is that correct?

 

[plainsdrifter]

We are not discussing fear. The subject here is prudence.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what ST&T is all about.

How so? Would your cash have been in a less safe location inside your "seedy Motel 8" it had been when you were outside your remote ATM after hours?

Nor did you shoot anyone, nor were you killed or injured. Does that mean that the strategy was a sound one?

But according to your account, you were exposed to potential violence. It is much better to avoid it.

What makes you believe that having divested your cash gave you a "safe night's sleep"?

Every treatise on violence and self preservation that I have seen tells us to avoid places like filling stations, ATMs, and quick shops in remote areas at with.

Tom Givens describes such places as oases on the Serengeti, where predators know to look for victims. The obvious survival strategy is to avoid them.

There is a well known adage that one's brain is one's most powerful weapon. It has different meanings. One of them surely applies here.

I have to agree with Gordon. If ya gotta do a transaction at an ATM you do it. Walking around in fear because you might get jumped is ridiculous . Besides, I always am armed at an ATM anyways, even in broad daylight. Daylight ain't going to stop a criminal intent on robbing you.
I don't feel comfortable carrying that much cash either. I do have a secret spot for it I have used in hotel/motels. Pull the corner of the carpet up, remove enough padding so as to fit your stash, and put the carpet back. No one will ever think of that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Walking around in fear because you might get jumped is ridiculous

Again, "fear" has nothing to do with it. It is a simple matter of not going to stupid places and not doing stupid things.

Besides, I always am armed at an ATM anyways, even in broad daylight.

You really, really do not want to have to use that weapon.

I don't feel comfortable carrying that much cash either.

I would feel a lot more comfortable carrying it from a car to a motel room than stopping at an ATM--a known danger spot where my likely having money would be plainly obvious.

 

[Jeff White]

Before we start judging a decision someone makes we need to look at the totality of the circumstances that caused that decision to be made. Gordon posted that he was working in a rural area, had a lot of cash the company needed to make payroll and was staying in a seedy motel (I'm sure because that was what was available to him). Out here in rural America the chances of finding a modern hotel decrease exponentially with the distance from an interstate highway. Most of the lodging you will find is old designs with all of the rooms accessible from the outside. Rooms like this are some of the most unsafe places to stay because they are easy to break into and then getaway. Many jobs require hiring day labor locally. It's simply good sense to deposit the cash as soon as possible when the day laborers you hired, who you don't know and haven't been able to vet completely know you're the guy with the cash. In cases like that it's much smarter to deposit the cash as soon as you get a chance even if it's late at night. If a bad actor is following you, you are in a better position to repel an attack at the ATM where there is room to maneuver then in your motel room where the best chance to defeat a home invasion attack is to stay awake waiting to ambush them when they come through the door.

Yes, there are things we shouldn't do because they are risky, however there are times when life forces us to do them anyway. In that case one has to plan the action to minimize the known risk and be prepared to respond to the attack if it comes.

 

[Old Dog]

gain, "fear" has nothing to do with it. It is a simple matter of not going to stupid places and not doing stupid things.

So long as the ATM is not in Mosul or Mogadishu, I'm good with stopping by one if it's close or otherwise convenient, my bank's not open and I require one... Using an ATM is not always a stupid thing, nor is an ATM automatically on my stupid places list. Life happens. Sometimes we have to make a choice that's not the optimum choice. Some here may lead more sheltered lives than others of us, though.

Yet again, characterizing actions or activities that may well be normal for many of us as "stupid" is really painting with too broad a brush, as well as being disrespectful to the members who admit to having to do things such as visit an ATM after dark. Sometimes, one has to depend on situational awareness in cases where avoidance isn't always possible.

You really, really do not want to have to use that weapon

It comes down to a matter of need, not want.

And if this -- "really, really do not want to have to use that weapon" -- is the thought foremost in one's mind when going forth armed, one's mindset might not be right.

While we can hope (and maybe pray) for never having to deploy our handgun to defend ourselves or family, we must prepare to do so.

I would feel a lot more comfortable carrying it from a car to a motel room than stopping at an ATM--a known danger spot where my likely having money would be plainly obvious.

In a previous lifetime, I responded to far more crimes, particularly crimes of violence and robberies at motels, than any ATMs.

 

[Kleanbore]

So long as the ATM is not in Mosul or Mogadishu, I'm good with stopping by one if it's close or otherwise convenient, my bank's not open and I require one... Using an ATM is not always a stupid thing, nor is an ATM automatically on my stupid places list.

Can't argue with that.

The issue arises when the ATM is situated by itself, and possibly in a bad place (near housing developments, homeless camps, or bars with troublesome reputations, for example). The "after hours" bit is risky also--predators prefer to do their business absent witnesses and other people. Same WRT filling stations.

We use an ATM--one that is a busy bank and other businesses, in the daytime. We do not go alone.

Not too long ago, my wife was using an ATM that was located by itself in a parking pot next to a main thoroughfare. Broad daylight. A young man passing by in a decrepit minivan saw har, wheeled into the lot, stopped nearby, and focused his attention on her intently. I suspect that he may have been interested in the car in addition to cash. When I stepped out of the car, he took off with great vigor. We do not use that one any more.

I should have said "than stopping at a remote ATM, after hours".

 

[plainsdrifter]

Again, "fear" has nothing to do with it. It is a simple matter of not going to stupid places and not doing stupid things.

You really, really do not want to have to use that weapon.

I would feel a lot more comfortable carrying it from a car to a motel room than stopping at an ATM--a known danger spot where my likely having money would be plainly obvious.

Most any ATM's have cameras, and cameras focused on them. Least the ones my credit union has. Safer than some old run down motel in Timbuctoo.

 

[Kleanbore]

Most any ATM's have cameras, and cameras focused on them. Least the ones my credit union has

Yep.

They don't seem to serve to deter very effectively.

Safer than some old run down motel in Timbuctoo

Motel 8. Lessee--four walls and a door, plus anonymity, vs 360 degree exposure while obviously handling cash....

I know which one I'd choose.

 

[plainsdrifter]

Yep.

They don't seem to serve to deter very effectively.

Motel 8. Lessee--four walls and a door, plus anonymity, vs 360 degree exposure while obviously handling cash....

I know which one I'd choose.

Well first you have to get through the parking lot. LOL https://www.bing.com/search?EID=MBSC&form=BGGCMF&pc=U763&DPC=BG02&q=crimes+at+motel+8

 

[Kleanbore]

Well first you have to get through the parking lot. LOL https://www.bing.com/search?EID=MBSC&form=BGGCMF&pc=U763&DPC=BG02&q=crimes+at+motel+8

That's true at the ATM, at our grocery, and at the eye doctor.

 

[Shodan]

Most any ATM's have cameras, and cameras focused on them. Least the ones my credit union has. Safer than some old run down motel in Timbuctoo.

That just means that you may get featured on Active Self Protection.

 

[Jeff White]

Motel 8. Lessee--four walls and a door, plus anonymity, vs 360 degree exposure while obviously handling cash....

I know which one I'd choose.

Ok, you'd choose the four walls and a door, You will be sleeping maybe 10 feet from that door. Door is locked with the security latch engaged. It's not the same as being in your home where the break in is going to trigger an alarm and your deadbolts and properly hung doors with screws into the studs will give you sufficient warning to wake up and prepare. You might get a few seconds to prepare for the attack in that room and the attackers will be on you before you know it. I've served warrants on motel rooms, houses and mobile homes. A break in at a motel room is very fast.

Your completely ignoring the fact that you probably aren't anonymous in the situation we are discussing. When you chose your hotel room did you take a different route back to it every day when work ended, a route that you could check for a tail? How about the desk staff at the hotel, are you sure they aren't going to confirm you're staying there? Those are some of the precautions one needs to take when working in a cash business in a place you aren't familiar with.

The open space of the ATM gives you time to spot a threat before it's on top of you. The motel gives you a 12x15 foot space to fight in when they break in. I know which one I would choose in that situation.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's not the same as being in your home where the break in is going to trigger an alarm and your deadbolts and properly hung doors with screws into the studs will give you sufficient warning to wake up and prepare.

True fact.

Your completely ignoring the fact that you probably aren't anonymous in the situation we are discussing

What I meant to imply is that there is no reason for anyone to target me to obtain a large sum of money. Not so at the ATM.

The open space of the ATM gives you time to spot a threat before it's on top of you.

If you can, at night, and then you have to do something about it.

The motel gives you a 12x15 foot space to fight in when they break in.

And a small funnel for their entrance.

I do not stay in motels any more, but if I did, I would take door blocking devices.

 

[Kleanbore]

One point that I have heard experts make that we have not discussed here is the difference in physical size and ability between the two persons can make in an encounter. A 100 pound woman is at a serious disadvantage against a 200 pound man. The same person that may not seem very threatening to me may be very threatening to another person. I don't know if that played into her decision or not.

Excellent point. I don't think that would adjust the threshold for the lawful use of defensive force, but after that threshold had been met, it should influence the determination of whenever deadly force would be justified.

 

[Balrog]

Excellent point. I don't think that would adjust the threshold for the lawful use of defensive force, but after that threshold had been met, it should influence the determination of whenever deadly force would be justified.

It probably would not lower the threshold in the eyes of the law, but it seems like it might should. If a 200 pound man approached someone of equal size angrily, at least someone of equal size might have a chance if the angry man threw the first punch. Not so much if the other person was much smaller or frail.

What would happen if a 200 pound angry man came up and punched another 200 pound man in the face? Would the man who was punched have grounds to draw a weapon? The answer gets back to whether the man who was punched thought his life was in immediate danger. It is possible it might not be. But if the person who was punched in the face was 100 pounds and frail, maybe their life is in reasonable jeopardy.

What's the right answer?

 

[Old Dog]

What's the right answer

Just Google "disparity of force." Trainers and legal experts, i.e., Mas Ayoob, have written and spoken about this concept for many, many years.

We talk forever about the "jeopardy triangle," ability, opportunity and intent -- but ability does not necessarily mean that the attacker need be in possession of a deadly weapon. The Ability factor can also be constituted by something known as disparity of force. In a disparity of force situation, the attacker(s) may be ostensibly unarmed, but within the totality of the circumstances are still likely to kill or cripple or kill the other party, and don't need a deadly weaponto do so. Comparative size, disability, gender, age, weight of the intended victim, all come into play.

• Small person vs. big person.
• Male vs. female.
• Unarmed vs. armed.
• Trained vs. untrained.
• Elderly, (60-years old +) vs. younger person(s)
• Disabled vs. non-disabled person(s)
• One vs. many.

Reasons why the officer in Brown v. Ferguson was acquitted, George Zimmerman acquitted of murder (Trayvon Martin case), Ayoob and others (Branca, Hayes, Givens et al) have all documented cases of disparity of force.
https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/understanding-disparity-of-force-in-self-defense/

 

[aaaaa]

Just Google "disparity of force." Trainers and legal experts, i.e., Mas Ayoob, have written and spoken about this concept for many, many years.

We talk forever about the "jeopardy triangle," ability, opportunity and intent -- but ability does not necessarily mean that the attacker need be in possession of a deadly weapon. The Ability factor can also be constituted by something known as disparity of force. In a disparity of force situation, the attacker(s) may be ostensibly unarmed, but within the totality of the circumstances are still likely to kill or cripple or kill the other party, and don't need a deadly weaponto do so. Comparative size, disability, gender, age, weight of the intended victim, all come into play.

• Small person vs. big person.
• Male vs. female.
• Unarmed vs. armed.
• Trained vs. untrained.
• Elderly, (60-years old +) vs. younger person(s)
• Disabled vs. non-disabled person(s)
• One vs. many.

Reasons why the officer in Brown v. Ferguson was acquitted, George Zimmerman acquitted of murder (Trayvon Martin case), Ayoob and others (Branca, Hayes, Givens et al) have all documented cases of disparity of force.
https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/understanding-disparity-of-force-in-self-defense/

I get it and have read this stuff before, but what bugs me is the idea that some SOB attacks me and I have to try to play fair? IMO the fair game went out the window when he attacks me because I never agreed to the game. Still, Mas' advice must be followed because the system isn't going to see it the way I see it.

Also, trained vs untrained is a big problem because I generally won't know if the other guy was trained or not, and if he was I can't use it in court because I didn't know beforehand. Meanwhile I get beat to a pulp before I figure out he must be trained. It also is a disincentive for me to get trained to fight since it could turn the tables on me regarding disparity of force.

Unarmed vs armed? If we wait to see if he is armed we probably will get shot.

 

[Gordon]

Never thought I'd see forum members busting on one of our brothers for using an ATM late at night.

Guess life doesn't happen to those who never venture away from their computer keyboard.

Or I work in weird places at weird times because that's what I did for a living when I was not deployed. I should not have gone to North Korea to work on the Yong Bong reactor. Oh well, at least I stayed out of bars for the last few years.

 

[Old Dog]

Also, trained vs untrained is a big problem because I generally won't know if the other guy was trained or not, and if he was I can't use it in court because I didn't know beforehand. Meanwhile I get beat to a pulp before I figure out he must be trained. It also is a disincentive for me to get trained to fight since it could turn the tables on me regarding disparity of force.

Please understand that if anything goes to court, what is considered is, "What was your perception at the time (leading up to the incident)?" And how would a reasonable person, knowing only what you knew at the time, have responded in the same type of situation? You absolutely do not have to know to what level your assailant has been trained, it's all about how you perceive the threat. You're 150 pounds dripping wet, he appears to be 6'5" and looks to have 150 pounds on you -- his arms are bigger around than your thighs, he's pissed and telling you he's gonna tear your head offa yer chicken neck.

 

[Gordon]

Please understand that if anything goes to court, what is considered is, "What was your perception at the time (leading up to the incident)?" And how would a reasonable person, knowing only what you knew at the time, have responded in the same type of situation? You absolutely do not have to know to what level your assailant has been trained, it's all about how you perceive the threat. You're 150 pounds dripping wet, he appears to be 6'5" and looks to have 150 pounds on you -- his arms are bigger around than your thighs, he's pissed and telling you he's gonna tear your head offa yer chicken neck.

But Butt, there is a faction here that says we cat raise a than and yell stop when the aggressor approaches closely. Just because you see and hear that coming doesn't mean it is. He might be mad that you took his parking space, and that's his body language. Anyway, my trigger is a weapon , But if I were a woman of 100 pounds, I think such actions and no weapon would be a reasonable trigger to go to condition red. I think standing there until one gets hit or suggesting a person cannot safely do commerce in a public place belongs on MSNBC or The View. But don't take it personally .

 

[Kleanbore]

But Butt, there is a faction here that says we cat raise a than and yell stop when the aggressor approaches closely.

No--do not misunderstand. what's been said is that no one has the right to command anyone to stay at a distance unless there is an indication of aggression.

Now, if there is such indication, yelling "stop--stay away" can prove quite helpful, if only by bringing the attention of bystanders to the event timely. If all they hear is gunfire, they will not be able to describe what preceded and led to the shooting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Just Google "disparity of force." Trainers and legal experts, i.e., Mas Ayoob, have written and spoken about this concept for many, many years.

We talk forever about the "jeopardy triangle," ability, opportunity and intent -- but ability does not necessarily mean that the attacker need be in possession of a deadly weapon. The Ability factor can also be constituted by something known as disparity of force. In a disparity of force situation, the attacker(s) may be ostensibly unarmed, but within the totality of the circumstances are still likely to kill or cripple or kill the other party, and don't need a deadly weaponto do so. Comparative size, disability, gender, age, weight of the intended victim, all come into play.

• Small person vs. big person.
• Male vs. female.
• Unarmed vs. armed.
• Trained vs. untrained.
• Elderly, (60-years old +) vs. younger person(s)
• Disabled vs. non-disabled person(s)
• One vs. many.

Reasons why the officer in Brown v. Ferguson was acquitted, George Zimmerman acquitted of murder (Trayvon Martin case), Ayoob and others (Branca, Hayes, Givens et al) have all documented cases of disparity of force.
https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/understanding-disparity-of-force-in-self-defense/

Old Dog's discussion of disparity of force is very well put. Everyone should pay heed.

I will add a few more conditions:

• Recovering from surgery.
• Taking anticoagulants (one blow can result in death).
• Affected by retinal detachment.

The attacker need not know of any of these, but the defender will need to provide evidence of the pre-existence of those conditions.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the things have to do with the justification of meeting a physical and otherwise non-deadly attack with deadly force.

Should one person attack one equally able person with non-deadly physical force, the victim would be justified in defending himself with proportional non-deadly physical force.

But even then, the use of deadly force can sometimes be justified even if it turns out that the attacker had not actually possessed a weapon. What is necessary is that the defender had had a basis for reasonably believing the the aggressor possessed a weapon. That's a tougher thing to convince the triers of fact about. Simply saying "he made a furtive movement" is not likely to cut it.

 

[plainsdrifter]

Most people give others using the ATM space. It's just an unwritten rule IMO. And if they get to close I would give the person a dirty look and tell them in not so friendly terms to GTF back.