What would you do

[gym]

.Here is a link to the story
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region...investigating-armed-robbery-at-t-mobile-store
As I reviewed the tape they were all armed, and came in faster than reported on the news. They seemed to be right behind the first 2. The disturbing part of this for anyone who has had a home invasion or been in a robbery, is the lack of fear about they're being on film.This should clear up some of the questions, as the first report did not have much of this info.
I don't like the idea of being hearded in the back either, that often signifies an execution especially with no masks.
In this case it didn't, but I don't think I could have complied had I seen the gun, "I do watch everyone when in a small space. And have been in this situation with 5 men with masks and shotguns, but that is another story.

 

[2zulu1]

Don't see much on the smartphone while watching video, but it certainly establishes a timeline.

This robbery is a gut check for those who carry and each of us needs to be honest with ourselves as to our mindset and skillset capabilities. My background is different than most and my brain isn't wired to be bound and taken into a back room.

It's late and I'm not going to write a lengthy post, so I'll just leave it at that. Thanks to gym for linking to the video.

 

[leadcounsel]

I'd go out the back door!

In all seriousness, too few details. But given there are FOUR armed robbers that already have the drop on the staff/customers, I'd comply unless/until it appeared that violence was imminent (eg - they start putting people in execution positions, or their behavior otherwise indicates they intent on turning a robbery into a mass shooting) - at which time I'd fight as smartly as I could with whatever weapons I had.

After watching that video a few things come to mind.

1. Violent crime and the potential for violent crime can happen ANYWHERE at ANY TIME. These 4 men were willing to use guns to rob a cellphone store!! This is a desperate move. Armed robbery and the possibility to be shot, be forced to kill, and the high liklihood of capture and prison for a few dollars?!?! Unbelievable what people will do for a few dollars. What could they possibly hope to score. Phones they can't use. Cheap jewelry and a few dollars in some wallets??

2. Situational awareness. When you are in a store, you should always try to be aware of who is entering your space. An eye on the door would have alerted you to danger when these thugs came in, to at least be aware of them and watching them. The first sign of a robbery and you're already one step ahead, deciding whether you're going to fight or flight and pre-deciding your moves - like a game of chess. Putting some concealment between you and these guys, or heck even just exiting the store when rough people come walking in.

3. These thugs moved the customers and employees to the back room and sprayed them with OC and bound them. Nope. Not me. That's where for me it becomes fight - even if I had originally been cooperative, I have a hard line rule. I don't go with someone as a hostage, and I don't get into vehicles, and I don't go into back rooms. It becomes go time - drawing and shooting and moving as quickly and effectively as possible. Everyone here should have an idea of where they draw the line.

 

[xXxplosive]

4 to 1 are bad odds anywhere......would have not escalated and complied untill the customers were being herded to a back room or told to kneel down with threat of execution.....then it would have been.....On.

 

[JustinJ]

4 to 1 are bad odds anywhere......would have not escalated and complied untill the customers were being herded to a back room or told to kneel down with threat of execution.....then it would have been.....On.

The problem though is that all element of surprise would likely be lost if they are now focused on the customers.

This part of the story demonstrates the problem with waiting too long to act:

"The suspects were said to have gotten away with cash, a number of unused cell phones from store shelves and also personal items from victims, all items that investigators say, are traceable."

If the robbers turned their attention to the customers and began removing their belongings its too late to pull a gun and now you're likely to lose it.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Tough call.

I was once involved in a gas station quick stop robbery with three guys (long story).
It was long before legal concealed carry but I had a 1903 32 Colt.
Even though I was armed with only the little Colt I thought I could take down two of the thugs but by then the Colt wouldn't have many rounds left. I wasn't confident I could best the third guy.

Lucky for me the thugs decided to retreat before the shooting started.

 

[xXxplosive]

Well in my opinion with the odds as they were.....drawing my gun prematurelymay have gotten a lot of innocents hurt...I suggest waiting untill it was evedent what their intentions were regarding the innocents.....then act accordingly.
Would never be herded to a back room or orderd to my knees execution style.....it would be ON for sure.

 

[MedWheeler]

There are countless videos circulating about showing single armed individuals opening fire on multiple armed assailants, causing them to flee and disburse. Of course, in each case, the one armed responder had one advantage none of us did; he was there. None of us can realistically speculate on either of the two things being discussed, which are: what the most prudent response is, and what we actually would have done. These two frequently differ when it comes down to real life.

That being said, one of the reports I saw indicated that the victims were OC-sprayed during this event. Anyone else hear/see that?

 

[JustinJ]

There are countless videos circulating about showing single armed individuals opening fire on multiple armed assailants, causing them to flee and disburse. Of course, in each case, the one armed responder had one advantage none of us did; he was there. None of us can realistically speculate on either of the two things being discussed, which are: what the most prudent response is, and what we actually would have done. These two frequently differ when it comes down to real life.

The biggest advantage the armed responder had in all the tapes i've seen is the element of surprise. There is certainly something to be said for acting fast and decisively however quite a few other variables must be considered.

 

[mljdeckard]

I can't envision many scenarios that would make it a good idea to draw when the odds are 4-1.

 

[Skribs]

M2, that's why I don't carry anything with less than 10 rounds. Stats show (and due to rounding, this will add up to 101%) that attacks are about 55% 2 attackers, 25% 1 attacker, 20% 3, and 1% 4+. So there's a significant chance I need to stop at least 2 BGs if attacked, and still a statistically significant (21%) chance of 3 or more.

You guys bring up an interesting point about knowing where the line is for you. Maybe something I need to think about.

 

[mljdeckard]

I THINK, if it's a job too big for my 8+1, it's probably too big for any handgun.

 

[Skribs]

I THINK, if it's a job too big for my 8+1, it's probably too big for any handgun.

I disagree with this mentality, personally. Especially when you consider hit rates under stress and the actual "stopping power" of any pistol round, 8+1 can look pretty small even with 2 assailants.

 

[2zulu1]

I don't see this robbery as a desperate act, I see it more as a gang mentality bragging rights and their moment of fame was accomplished when their "friends" watched them on the evening news. The robbers also humiliated their victims by binding and spraying them.

The added seriousness of this crime is that violence of future crimes can, and most likely will be, an escalation of injury and/or death.

Also, should one find themselves in a similar violent situation, the odds aren't necessarily one on four, the situation could be one on two, one on one and lastly, one on one if the situation deteriorates that far.

The gut check question we all must ask ourselves is, "Do we possess the mindset, skillset and toolset to act and perform during high stress, critical situations? "

 

[9mmepiphany]

The biggest advantage the armed responder had in all the tapes i've seen is the element of surprise. There is certainly something to be said for acting fast and decisively however quite a few other variables must be considered.

Surprise is your biggest advantage. However, I'll mention that acting early isn't always the best course of action.

When robbers initiate an attack, they expect compliance (after all they are both armed and have greater numbers), but also know that their might be some resistance (someone wants to cowboy), so they are using their element of surprise to hopefully overcome that. There is a school of thought, that if you give them that first "win", they relax their guard (especially, if you cower). A cowering person naturally fades into the background, while a person tensing for action draws attention...it is the nature of stealth.

As this natural lull settles, there will be a greater chance for successful action as you take back the enhanced element of surprise.

 

[gym]

My own life circumstances have tought me that I will never allow someone to decide how I die. Having escaped death on more than one occasion, both passivelly and by using force, I decided that you only get so much luck in life.

I would have to have 'without hesitation" fired on the first two, who were grouped close together from the video on tv. That was a shot at he first guys chest, and two to the second guy, a double tap, the a return to the first guy with a follow up shot if need be. That's the way I have always trained, get the shot off and go to next guy and fire twice then return to the first. If it worked out , the two others probablly never would have followed them in. Now nothing is written in stone, but most times when a gun goes off in an enclosed area, people look for a window or a door, ratherthan a gunfight , like on TV.

I am not sying that I would have survived this, but my instincts are good and I know people and how to fire while moving giving them a harder target to hit, if the first two or three shots were fired in a second or even two, you probablly would have survived, but you have to commit fully. I carry two guns when leving home to go to a mall, or such. That is the reason, my 40 has 8 rounds in it but it's faster to pull the 26 and have 12, than wonder how many you have left and be wrong.

I am no hero by any means, and f I could have gotten out, and got my wife out, "had she been with me", I would have. But faced with armed men who are desperate enough to me unmasked knowing they are on film, I could not just let fate take it's course, and hope I came out ok.

We all know statistics, and they really don't mean much when it's you that is in the middle of a scenario like this, but usually, the last thing an armed assailent thinks is going to happen when he has a weapon, is that someone will draw and shoot him, You have about a second to make that decision, and I know I wasn't there, but have hade to make that decision, so I can say with the upmost honesty, "I would shoot". Good chance that would be it, you drop the 2 guys and hopefully don't catch a bullett in the process, but this "down on your knees, in the back of the store " just goes against everything I know is wrong.

By then it's too late. your fate has been decided, this time it worked out, maybe it was a snap decision to leave, who knows, but I can't allow someone else to make that decision for me.

I respect everyones opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer here, if you made it out alive, you made the right decision. But people have become disturbinglly vicious as of late, . We shouldn't have to live like this, when a trip to the corner store, requires being armed to the teeth, or may be your last trip It also makes me surer than ever that I need a weapon with a minimum of 8 and a second gun. As of late I have been carrying 2 guns for a total of 21 rounds without reloading. This is how we must live now, I don't think it's just Florida, or any particular state other than the less populated ones like Wyoming or Nebraska. But it's getting bad in South Florida ata a rapid pace.

 

[Skribs]

When robbers initiate an attack, they expect compliance (after all they are both armed and have greater numbers), but also know that their might be some resistance (someone wants to cowboy), so they are using their element of surprise to hopefully overcome that. There is a school of thought, that if you give them that first "win", they relax their guard (especially, if you cower). A cowering person naturally fades into the background, while a person tensing for action draws attention...it is the nature of stealth.

Yeah but if you are complying with them (usually means face down, hands up/visible) it can be hard to spot your opportunity.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I would have to have 'without hesitation" fired on the first two, who were grouped close together from the video on tv. That was a shot at he first guys chest, and two to the second guy, a double tap, the a return to the first guy with a follow up shot if need be. That's the way I have always trained, get the shot off and go to next guy and fire twice then return to the first. If it worked out , the two others probablly never would have followed them in.

Obviously, you've given this some thought.

(For those who haven't, having a plan in place is always the first step. When an incident is already in progress, isn't the time to start planning)

I'm interested in your line of reasoning behind the shot distribution of 1-2-1...what IDPA calls Tactical Sequence (as opposed to Tactical Priority).
Does the same hold true if faced with 3 assailants?
Would you precede in 1-1-2-1-1?

I ask because I've always found Tactical Sequence flawed.
1. It is based on the supposition that you'll score a telling hit with your first shot. If you don't, or completely miss, you have given him the ability to either return fire or seek cover...both of which makes returning back to him a more complicated matter.
2. If you feel you need to engage the second assailant before he can react to your action, why give him two shots and give the advantage back to the first?
3. If you believe your first shot was good enough, why would you need to come back for a second shot rather than set up for additional assailants?
4. Would it not make more sense to to put two shots on your first target (doubling your chances of at least one good hit), before putting two more on the one who is still reacting to your response (the first wouldn't react, as his first indication that he was a target should be your bullet hitting him)?

If I draw and fire my first shot in one second (I'm pretty slow) followed by the second shot a quarter (.25) second later (I'm being generous) and allowing a transition of another quarter (.25) second to the second assailant, I'm still engaging him a half (.50) second after my first shot. In that half second, the second assailant would have to located the source of the shot, recognize what was happening, decide what his response should be, swing his gun to bear and try to place an accurate shot.

Remember that I don't need to locate him or decide on a course of action, all I need to do is allow the sights, returning from recoil, to settle on him before making the final press.

 

[Skribs]

Well 9mm, one line of reasoning there could be that 1 shot MIGHT be enough to stop target 1, and so instead of verifying that it worked or not (thus wasting shots if that one shot did stop) you move on to the next target (unless he's running away).

Going with a gamer analogy here, in RTS and RPG games, you often have the choice between focus-fire and AoE (or Area of Effect) attacks. Focus fire brings down a single opponent faster, limitting the potential of the enemy groups and making sure you stop at least that one target. AoE, or simply spreading out the damage, can take down the enemy group faster overall.

Although I can understand doing that with double-taps instead of single taps, if that is what you're arguing here.

You bring up a good point, though. I don't have a plan should this happen to me. I have plans for if I'm attacked on the street and for if I'm attacked in the home, and often when going to a strange place or a strange situation, but I don't have an actual plan for what I would do in an everyday situation in public with armed robbery, multiple assailants, or an active mass shooter. I've thought about it from the perspective of a character in my book, who is WAY more capable than anyone on this forum (no offense; he's kind of a superhero), but not my own perspective. I guess I need to tone down the author mindset and focus a little on defense!

 

[9mmepiphany]

Well 9mm, one line of reasoning there could be that 1 shot MIGHT be enough to stop target 1, and so instead of verifying that it worked or not (thus wasting shots if that one shot did stop) you move on to the next target (unless he's running away).

The question then becomes, Is it worth <.25 seconds to increase by 50% the chance of a better result.

Although I can understand doing that with double-taps instead of single taps, if that is what you're arguing here.

I don't shoot double taps...if you are referring to the original Cooper definition...I see a sight picture for each shot. I can shoot faster than 4-5 shots a second, but I start giving up accuracy

 

[Skribs]

I mean boom-boom-assess instead of boom-assess-boom-assess. If that makes sense.

Like I said, I'm not talking specifically about 1-1-2-1-1 but rather the difference between T1-Assess T1-T2-Assess T2-T3-Assess T3 vs. T1-T2-T3-Assess T1-T3. In each stage, deciding whether to continue to focus your fire on T1 until he stops, vs. switching to T2 and T3 and then assessing whether they've stopped to know if you need to shoot more.

Of course, in any scenario, you are assessing the target before you fire to see if they are indeed a threat, i.e. not shooting T3 if s/he starts to run away before you get to that target in the line.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I mean boom-boom-assess instead of boom-assess-boom-assess. If that makes sense.

Like I said, I'm not talking specifically about 1-1-2-1-1 but rather the difference between T1-Assess T1-T2-Assess T2-T3-Assess T3 vs. T1-T2-T3-Assess T1-T3. In each stage, deciding whether to continue to focus your fire on T1 until he stops, vs. switching to T2 and T3 and then assessing whether they've stopped to know if you need to shoot more.

I think I understand what you are saying. I think you have too much faith in the presumptive stopping power of a handgun bullet. So my default is T1-T1-T2-T2-Assess, which I feel is better than T1-T2-T2-T1-Assess. If the other two were coming through the door, I wouldn't stop at Assess, but would go right to T3-T3-T4-T4-Reload-Assess

The difference is that my training has taught that 1 shot per assailant is really cutting it too fine...that is why common wisdom is to plan/train for 2 minimum before assessing. The only question is if each gets 2 before moving to the next or if each gets 1 before anyone gets 2...the difference between Tactical Priority or Tactical Sequence. My personal preference is that an attacker gets 3 (Failure Drill), but I'm willing to take the 50% increase with 2, when there is more that one target

 

[Jim K]

Aside from "what to do", it seems to me that a cell phone store is not a good robbery target. At least around here, they rarely handle any cash and the phones don't have SIM cards in them, so they are unusable. Even if the robbers were tech savvy enough to demand SIM cards, the company could disable the accounts in a couple of microseconds or the police could let the phones go on the air and trace them.

Jim

 

[Losov]

There's a lot more to take into account, position of eveyone present, the general vibe you get about the BGs, etc. Since you only have a moment to decide I responded without thinking about it or reading other responses.

Most likely I would do nothing other than give them my wallet and try to remember as much about them as possible. It really depends on how the situation evolves.

 

[Geneseo1911]

I wish the video had either not been cut or had the time stamp on it. It would be very interesting to know how much time elapsed between 1&2 entering, and 3&4 entering. Had 1&2 already announced the robbery by the time the other two came in? Judging solely by the video, I'm not sure I would have pegged 1&2 as a threat, and certainly wouldn't have started shooting at them. I'm not sure I even would thought to exit the store just based on them coming in. By the time they started herding folks, the other two were probably there, and it starts looking very grim indeed.

Does this mean that we should start shooting as soon as a gun is displayed? I don't think so, as it's not worth getting in a shootout over someone else's cell phones. On the other hand, being held captive IS the time to start shooting, but with four armed guys, the chances of winning are vanishingly close to zero. It kinda looks like a no win scenario.

Of course, this is all academic for me, since I live in IL, and I buy my cellphones online....