You're new at CCW and walk into a store robbery

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tirod

Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
5,290
Location
SW MO
and there is some guy with a gun yelling at the clerks to hand over the money.

We read this scenario frequently on forums, yet there is a basic assumption that isn't grounded in reality.

Who is the #1 person designated by company policy who is responsible for handling the situation. You?

No.

You are not legally designated. Not as a store employee, not as the senior company person on the site, not as the Agent for store policy. Not even.

The store clerk is. In most cases his instruction is to comply. Why? Because the Customer Is Always Right. Sounds silly, but the point is, if this guy wants the money, it's not yours, it's not the employees, it's the company's. And the employee is responsible to just hand it over. It's his official duty on the job. He's in charge - not you or anybody else.

If the guy is the store owner, even more so. Not your problem. Back off, back out. It's his decision, not yours. If he wants to hand over the days cash in the register, his problem.

I read a lot of this on the forums, but nobody 'splains it right out. The perspective is that the Gun Bearer of Righteousness and Truth Upholding Law and Order can come to the rescue, when in fact he is usurping the responsibility of the employees who are tasked to handle it.

From the git go - it's not about community responsibility or being a Good Samaritan, most of these questions about Can I Pull Out My Gun? are about control and taking charge of a bad situation. In almost every post originated on this subject I never read about the poster considering that the store employee is the one charged with the responsibility to handle it. What I do read is that there is a lot of common thinking that the store employee is a powerless underling who can't or won't stand up to thugs.

Sorry, it's time for an attitude check. If you think you have a moral responsibility to defend the weak and poor - you have to assume they are. This guy may be dealing with the third robbery of the month, there's less than $50 in the till, and he is the store owner. It's his decision. Who are you to butt in and decide for him?

Never considered or mentioned.

Now, with that in mind, is there a new understanding of why the cops and CCW instructors recommend just backing off? Aside from the very real tactical issue of escalating things, the reality is that you as a walk in customer have no legal authority to try to control things. It's not your store, your money, your policy or your legal necessity. Only protecting your life is.

I used to work a parts store next to a bank, they were robbed annually and the perps usually got away with a few thousand dollars. An employee there understood that it wasn't a chance of getting robbed, they would be robbed, and all they had to do was hand over the money. Nobody was ever shot, and all I had to do was find a different parking spot until the crime scene tape was removed. As for applications for employment, there was no shortage.

Once the money is handed over and the perp is out the door then the problem is often fixed. Now it's up to your paid public servants. Not you.

If not, then all the scenarios over Do I Pull Out My Gun? might have a higher probability, and then we get to "it depends." At that point it becomes a case of what size Depends you might need - if and only if a gun is pointed at you and there is a sense you are about to die. It would be nice if you had quietly backpedaled to avoid that. Even more that you aren't another body to ID and it's only the store clerk. They chose the job, only they analyzed the risk, and only they suffer the consequences. Don't make their choice worse by interfering.

After all, the boss told them what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Not you. No amount of moral indignation over witnessing a robbery can bring them back if you draw your gun during their interaction.

Food for thought.
 
Good points. Lethal force is usually understood to be reserved as a counter of the same directed at you or another. A simple robbery, if all comply, has a high probability of ending with no one hurt. But, once the barrel points at me, all bets are off...
 
Your basic assumption is not grounded in reality. To you, it's all about the money.

When a violent criminal is threatening to kill people, it's about a lot more than money.

Maybe all you think about is money, but some other people think about, well, people. And use of force, including lethal force, in defense of another, while it varies by state/jurisdiction of course, is what will be legally at play here...use of force in defense of a person...not use of force in defense of money.
 
Huh... for the brief time I worked in retail, the policy to comply with robbers demands had nothing to do with "The customer is always right" and more to do with risk mitigation studies that correctly or incorrectly concluded that there was less chance of injury to the staff and customers if no resistance was offered.

You make a lot of good points about why it's a bad idea to interject yourself into a robbery, but then you muddle it with silly Company Policy nonsense. Company policy has absolutely zero to do with a customer who walks into a robbery. Not once, ever, will a court consider company policy in the justification for acting in self defense. Not even if it was an employee acting. The company can at most fire the employee. The can do absolutely nothing regarding a customer, except maybe ban them from their property in the future. If I walk into a robbery and there is a man with a gun threatening people, the absolute last consideration will be company policy. Is life endangered? Valid consideration. Must immediate action be taken to prevent loss of life? Valid consideration. Is there a tactical advantage that can be acted upon to resolve the situation without making it worse for innocents? Valid consideration. Company Policy? Lol.
 
In the unlikely event that I ever even have to pull my carry piece, I'd still be doing my best to back away from the threat, and avoid firing at all. I mean I REALLY do not want to shoot anyone, partially because I don't want to deal with the legal mess, and partially........because I just don't want to shoot anybody !:D
In my mind, the only way I'd possibly get involved in a situation that wasn't directly threatening me, would be an active-shooter scenario, or maybe something like a guy beating up his girlfreind in the parking lot. But even then, firing would be a very last resort.
But if I were in the back of a convenience store, and a guy was holding up the cashier, but not shooting anyone, I'd definitely draw my pistol and assume a defensive posture, but I'd be highly unlikely to go busting up there like John Wayne !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You make a lot of good points about why it's a bad idea to interject yourself into a robbery, but then you muddle it with silly Company Policy nonsense. Is life endangered? Valid consideration. Must immediate action be taken to prevent loss of life? Valid consideration. Is there a tactical advantage that can be acted upon to resolve the situation without making it worse for innocents? Valid consideration. Company Policy? Lol.

I agree. I think there's quite a few folks out there that have this image they are going to save the world because they now CWC. But one really has to realize that the average citizen is not a cop, nor are they Rambo. One needs to scrutinize the situation and make a judgement call based on the knowledge that lives and money have different values and personally jeopardizing the loss of either has different outcomes.
 
I don't get it. If I walk up on a person pointing a gun at another person, I'm not going to do an economic analysis of what is going on. The problem with armed robbers is that they sometimes decide to shoot the witnesses even after they got the money.


That doesn't mean I'd necessarily shoot - I might make my firearm and presence known so the assailant feels motivated to run rather than shoot.


Overall, the OP is making the same argument as anyone who says you shouldn't fight any sort of armed robbery, including being mugged yourself.

But the decision to fight or comply is and has always been about the risk to life and limb - not money.
 
I also use this as a chance to take a reality check. If you are not the target, and you walk into the situation, it can be hard to tell who is actually the "bad guy". Yeah, at the convenience store counter, it might be clearer, but what about the parking lot? Side of the road? Middle of Wal-Mart? If it doesn't concern you directly, SOMETIMES the best choice you can make is to be a witness.
 
In almost any similar situation, I'm outta there. Call 911 and you need to know the address, weapons or not, injuries, suspect description, direction of travel if they left, and vehicle plate or at least description.
 
I don't get it. If I walk up on a person pointing a gun at another person, I'm not going to do an economic analysis of what is going on. The problem with armed robbers is that they sometimes decide to shoot the witnesses even after they got the money.

Yes, but stats show for the most part, that in the scenario presented by the OP, the safest thing for the clerk to do is comply, especially when there are others present. It's when clerks are alone they get taken to the back room, tied up and shot. You should not be making an economic analysis, but a strategic one. No reason to put the clerk, others in the store and you at risk over a few dollars from the cash register.

That doesn't mean I'd necessarily shoot - I might make my firearm and presence known so the assailant feels motivated to run rather than shoot.

Again, the average citizen CWCing is not a cop. You draw you gun, you intend to shoot, not wave it in the air to scare someone. The assailant already has his gun drawn with his finger on the trigger, in a tense situation. Odds are he'll shoot. If he runs, he will be shooting as he runs.

Overall, the OP is making the same argument as anyone who says you shouldn't fight any sort of armed robbery, including being mugged yourself.

But the decision to fight or comply is and has always been about the risk to life and limb - not money.

I don't believe the OP was making the argument against not fighting back against any type of robbery, just the scenario given. You are making an assumption. The decision to fight back in his scenario is about money and how it's value in this scenario is much less than the risk of unnecessarily escalating it, to the point it is about life and limb.
 
Don't forget there may be a second suspect standing by in the store. If you pull you gun and confront the suspect, you have just caused a fatal situation. Be a witness not a fatality
 
I used to work in an auto shop. We were instructed that if a robber came in and demanded the money, give it to them. Try to get a description and if possible vehicle. Call the police after the robber left. The cash in the register ain't worth dying over.

If I walked into a gas station where the robber was demanding cash, so be it. I am not going to use lethal force to save someone else's money.
 
So there's a correct basic concept in this, in that you as Joe Citizen have no duty and possibly questionable authority/justification/right to draw your weapon in a situation where your life is not being threatened, and there's some misapplied explanation, in that store policy has nothing to do with your lawful justification for doing so.

I think we can consider as agreed that in no circumstances are armed guards/persons justified in using lethal force to protect the money (goods, properties, etc.). Only taking of life itself, and felonious assaults that threaten various grievous bodily harms, arson, and kidnapping are considered lawful justifications for the employment of deadly force. And that can be such assaults on you, yourself, or on another ... sometimes.

But when using as lawful justification for use of lethal force the threat to someone else's life, there are caveats in the law. They usually say something along the lines of that you can only act so in situations where this threatened third party would be within their own rights to use exactly the same force to defend themselves.

But what about their own decision to do so? We make an assumption that every person who's ever stood in front of a weapon wielded by a bad guy and handed over their watch and wallet (or the register till) was praying to their deity for US to step into the scene and save them.

It appalls and outrages us to ever hear that someone doesn't want guns drawn or blood to be shed when some injustice is perpetrated, like an armed robbery. And yet, statistics indicate that the huge majority of armed robberies end with no injuries, so any call to conservative hesitance to introduce a second weapon and possibly trigger (lol) bloodshed actually makes quite a bit of sense. Any quicki-mart clerk who's been robbed five times before knows s/he's probably going to hand over the drawer, talk to the cops, and then and go home safe tonight. Does he or she want to roll the dice and see what happens next if you draw your gun? If you yell commands at the bad guy? If you shoot? Maybe. Maybe not.

If you step into the scene and draw your weapon, you're making the choice for him/her. You may be right. You may be wrong. It isn't store policy that should concern any of us, but whether we'd want someone ELSE to make a choice FOR US to mess with the probabilities with lethal results.

If someone's GOING to die at the hands of a violent criminal, the decision may be simple. But that's far from a foregone conclusion and one we'd be a fool to jump to without overwhelming evidence -- evidence beyond the presence of a criminal's weapon.
 
Many levels of criminality have transpired with an individual before they get to the point of armed robbery. They have stolen before. They have assaulted before. At the point that they decide to commit armed robbery, they have decided that the victim's life is a variable.
 
I don't think my comments were taken as intended:

Whether I am carrying or not, my reaction to any given situation is going to be based on what seems appropriate AND what I think I can actually do to better the situation. That is my call, and I'm aware that most armed robberies don't end with violence, so that will be part of my decision.


As far as intervening in someone else's victimization - again, it is my call. Someone who is being robbed or assaulted is not a free person able to express their needs and wishes. This is true of a mugging, or domestic violence, or child abuse. The victim is not free to act and you have a moral obligation to not just ignore what is happening.


Should I choose to violently interfere in the commission of a violent crime, it should only be in such a way that the heat is taken off the victim and shifted to me. If what I do makes the victim into a hostage, I didn't do the right thing.



This whole topic is about using your good judgement and doing the right thing - morally and logically. And you can't really game that ahead of time, aside from being aware of the issues, training yourself and trusting your own judgement.
 
There is no moral imperative requiring CCW intervention.
However- I strongly disagree with the concept of "What the hell, it's only money, and it ain't the clerk's money, so stay out of it".

I do not recommend, or even suggest, that you automatically intervene & engage.
The presence of your gun does not mean that you HAVE to use it.

But- having cleaned up enough messes during a uniformed career, I personally view it as a mistake to assume the Chamberlain attitude that in such a store robbery, just like a mugging, those poor misunderstood souls will simply go away peacefully if you just give them whatever they want.

I do not advocate in either direction.
Each situation must be evaluated individually ON SCENE.
There is no One Size Fits All Policy, generated from the safety of your computer keyboard, that does fit.

In my opinion, saying never engage, it's just money, is just as flawed as saying always engage, simply because you can.
Denis
 
I do not advocate in either direction.
Each situation must be evaluated individually ON SCENE.
There is no One Size Fits All Policy, generated from the safety of your computer keyboard, that does fit.

In my opinion, saying never engage, it's just money, is just as flawed as saying always engage, simply because you can.
Denis

I agree completely Denis. The one caveat I have is in the OP the author states "you are new at CCW".

For most folks in these modern times, that means to me, someone with very little if any practical experience with their firearm and/or that they may have not shot their gun significantly outside of the minimum training needed to obtain their CWC.
 
Spot on, Denis.

In many years of examining businesses' video of robberies, I have noted that disconcertingly often, when the gun is displayed, the subject's finger is on the trigger.

Maybe today is the day a formerly peaceful armed robber smoked, snorted or shot up just a tad too much meth ... or he's pissed at his girlfriend or just doesn't like the way the store clerk looks.

Many who start at the armed robbery game eventually, if successful for a run, do get to the point where the gun is fired, inadvertently or purposely.

As display of a firearm as a threat is typically considered a lethal force encounter (ability + opportunity + purported intent = danger), the simple belief the robber will depart peacefully after getting his money from the till may one day be a life-ending assumption.

As for being "new at concealed carry" -- I'd hope that before embarking upon a lifetime of going forth armed, one would do some research, particularly with regard to one's own state laws, and obtain at least some basic training that would have one at least considering one's response to a variety of possible scenarios (such at the one the OP depicts).
 
I carry to protect myself and my family. I'm not a cop. I never had any training of such. I'm not one who practices metered head-shots at the range in case I need to resolve a hostage situation. I'm just a guy who wants to give himself every available option to make sure his family is safe during one of those 1:1,000,000 encounters where a gun would make a difference.

If I walk into the local gas station and the clerk is being held up, I'm going to try to flee or crouch down and take a defensive position...or maybe just stand still and put my hands up if the armed suspect instructs me to do so.

That said, while I have no formal training, I don't believe that you need to be an expert in order to read the body language of the person holding up the store. There is a difference between a guy putting his weight on his foot closest to the door as to make a quick smash and grab without any problems and a guy who is menacing, controlling the situation with oppression, and forcing people into compromised positions that could be very dangerous (making them get on the ground, forcing them to the back, or being very vocal about violent intent).

If a punk wants what is in the drawer. Fine. That's what insurance and police officers are for. I'm not doing a thing to stop that.

If there seems to be more than that going on, I would assess the situation to the best of my ability and see if my firearm would rectify the situation or exacerbate trouble.
 
My 3 rules:

1. Find Cover
2. Find Cover
3. Shoot or don't shoot but shoot or don't shoot from cover.

Mike

PS. Did I mention cover?
 
As for being "new at concealed carry" -- I'd hope that before embarking upon a lifetime of going forth armed, one would do some research, particularly with regard to one's own state laws, and obtain at least some basic training that would have one at least considering one's response to a variety of possible scenarios (such at the one the OP depicts).

I would hope so too, Old Dog, but that's not what I'm seeing. In my state, when CWC first became legal, those folks applying were generally gun savvy, and had been using firearms for a long time. Lately the majority of new CWC applicants are folks either just getting into firearms, or just turning 21. I'm saying this because I help teach Hunter Safety and it's completion is compliant with the minimum training required to get a CWC permit. While half the class is 10-12 year olds getting ready for a lifetime of hunting, the other half is husband/wife with their first firearm ever. Many times the first time they shoot it is when we take them to the range for their field day. They each put a mag of ammo thru the gun and then send in for their permit. We do not teach CWC law in Hunter Safety, nor do we teach proficiency with firearms. We teach how to safely handle firearms and how to be safe in the field. Sorry, but many of those folks new to CWC scare me more than the Meth head looking for quick cash.
 
This is the first time I have ever heard about story policy being indicated as superceding actual legal code. Interesting concept, to say the least, but as Sam noted, meritless. Now, if you are a store employee and are worried about keeping your job, there may be some merit, but that is job related, not legal.
 
Devil's Advocate question: You happen across someone attempting to rape a woman. What do you do?

Run, hide and be a good witness?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top