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

[Flechette]

The rape thing is an entirely different issue.
Denis

How so?

It is the women who has the primary responsibility to defend herself.

You are not a law enforcement officer and have no legal duty to enforce the law.

If you interject yourself into the situation it might escalate and people get killed.

 

[Warp]

Devil's Advocate question: You happen across someone attempting to rape a woman. What do you do?

Run, hide and be a good witness?

That's not a devil's advocate, that's an entirely different situation.

To be an apt comparison this thread would have to be about, oh, something like the robbery stabbing the clerk as you walk in, or lunging over the counter at the clerk with a knife, or maybe trying to shoot the clerk as he dodges and weaves

 

[Warp]

How so?

It is the women who has the primary responsibility to defend herself.

You are not a law enforcement officer and have no legal duty to enforce the law.

If you interject yourself into the situation it might escalate and people get killed.

Well, on the face of it, the robber of the store is after money and though he is threatening lethal force, it might be reasonable to believe he won't hurt anybody, based on totality of circumstances and your reasonable perception as a person there first hand. Or he might injure or kill somebody. It's obviously a complicated situation and you can never know for sure what the best response is until after the fact (and even though you might not know)...

...but a person acting with the explicit and obvious goal of serious bodily harm (attempting to rape a woman) on another is a bit different.

 

[Flechette]

In most states the law reads something like 'someone is justified to use lethal force if they, or an innocent, is in reasonable danger of life or limb'.

So while I would agree that someone should refrain from shooting if they think that the robber will simply take the money and run, but many times the crook shoots someone out of spite (or for some inexplicable reason).

So in my opinion, you have to go with your gut. Do you have a reasonable suspicion that the crook will shoot?

 

[DPris]

Flech,
A rape is quite different in terms of "Just give him what he wants & he'll go away."
Regardless of whose "responsibility" it may be to provide the initial defense, women are TYPICALLY (no sexist nonsense here, just stats) less able to defend against larger males physically, and the fact that a woman chose not to carry a gun would never be any consideration whatever in me choosing to step in.

I did, in fact, years ago on the way home from work, when I encountered a woman down on the street with a sizable male looming over her with a knife in his hand.

The rape in no real way equals the original convenience store money scenario of this thread.

Different game, different rules of engagement.
Denis

 

[Flechette]

Flech,
A rape is quite different in terms of "Just give him what he wants & he'll go away."
Regardless of whose "responsibility" it may be to provide the initial defense, women are TYPICALLY (no sexist nonsense here, just stats) less able to defend against larger males physically, and the fact that a woman chose not to carry a gun would never be any consideration whatever in me choosing to step in.

I did, in fact, years ago on the way home from work, when I encountered a woman down on the street with a sizable male looming over her with a knife in his hand.

The rape in no real way equals the original convenience store money scenario of this thread.

Different game, different rules of engagement.
Denis

Complying with a criminal's demand does not mean that you will not be injured.

 

[Warp]

In most states the law reads something like 'someone is justified to use lethal force if they, or an innocent, is in reasonable danger of life or limb'.

So while I would agree that someone should refrain from shooting if they think that the robber will simply take the money and run, but many times the crook shoots someone out of spite (or for some inexplicable reason).

So in my opinion, you have to go with your gut. Do you have a reasonable suspicion that the crook will shoot?

I'm not sure that paraphrasing of the law is as good as it could be.

What seems most common (I am not a lawyer or anything close BTW) is a reasonable belief that serious bodily harm or death is imminent and that lethal force is necessary to prevent it. There is a big difference between requiring an actual danger to life/limb and reasonably believing that there is (otherwise, shooting the armed robber who had an airsoft replica that looks damn real would be a serious crime)...likewise, there is a difference between reasonably believing death or serious bodily harm is imminent and having a reasonable "suspicion", with suspicion not quite being a high enough standard.

FWIW

Complying with a criminal's demand does not mean that you will not be injured.

Absolutely correct.

In some cases it may lead to greater injury, or death, than not complying.

 

[bubba in ca]

We wouldn't be talking about this is somebody's life or health was not being threatened. An armed robbery is certainly grounds for deadly force, morally and legally. It makes me smile every time some store owner does in a thief while in the act of robbing.

However your intervention has so many ways of boomeranging on you I would suggest you do nothing, say nothing, turn and run away. Run at lest half a block away before stopping to call 911. For example. you draw or shoot and the thief panics or has an involuntary movement to shoot the gun, which is pointed at the clerk. You won, you got the bad guy, but you also caused the clerk to be shot when he might not have been.

If the thief pointed a gun at me of mine, not just a store clerk, that would be a different thing. It would be a probability thing of deciding instantly if I could take him or if I would be better off playing dumb.

Where I would draw the line is when some guy who looked squirrelly starts to herd people into a back room, In such case I would do my level best to shoot him in the face 3 times.

A funny thing about rape, One of the case studies in my ccw class was a woman running down the street in terror, clothes torn, screaming "he raped me, shoot him" about the guy following her. In the case study, of course, it was her boyfriend and they were having a spat. 10 to 1 the moment you pulled the trigger she would turn on you.

Yes, there are crimes so obvious, such as the rape of a child in a public restroom, that you would use deadly force to stop the action from proceeding, but these things are few.

 

[mjsdwash]

I used to work a job with many hours of free time during the day, and we shared a wall with a convenience store, owned by, and usually occupied by a very laid back, calm man, about 40 years old. He had owned other stores in the past, and one day after a string of robberies in the area, including his, his causal demeanor over it was neat. He just didn't care. He had been robbed enough times, that he just hands the money calmly and asks them to leave. He shows up in court if they're arrested, but doesn't let it bother him during or after. It was just part of the job. It was his own money being stolen, and the time I talked to him, it was 700$ or so. It was less than his insurance deductible, so he was being robbed. He also said they never get violent, just ask for the money.

 

[RX-79G]

Complying with a criminal's demand does not mean that you will not be injured.

Taking action does not mean your actions won't get you and the victim killed.

There is no pat answer - it is situational, and most of these situations end without violence.

 

[M1key]

Don't want to drift too far afield so I'll simply say this: If the perps start shooting people, I am then personally involved whether I want to be or not.

M

 

[vito]

There are so many variables in these scenarious that to make a decision, in advance, of what you would do makes little sense to me. And even if we plan in our heads what we think we will do, when the actual event occurs the plan is likely forgotten instantly. I would generally say don't get involved, try to ensure your safety and if possible the safety of others, and don't try to be a hero. But that could all go out the window if at the moment it appears likely that the thug will be killing some innocent person, possibly myself. There likely will not be time for consideration of various options and then an analysis of the various options. My guess is that we will react with our gut and hope we made the right decision when the smoke clears.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

What to do, what to do, what to do?

As the old saying goes, you're darned if you do and darned if you don't.

If you do take action, your every action and possible motivation, as well as some of the most intimate details of your life and history, now become subject to intense scrutiny by both the public and the legal system.

If you don't take action...your every INACTION becomes subject to much the same scrutiny, with the exception of not having to go to court over shooting someone.

People may die or be seriously injured either way.

And THAT, my friends, is part and parcel of the whole issue with carrying a firearm in the first place. It's a very SERIOUS responsibility and, quite frankly, not taken as such by a great many people who do choose to carry. This may be a willful act, or it may simply be out of naiveté.

But it IS serious, nonetheless.


The correct answer is, of course, that there IS no single "correct" answer. Many factors go into choosing a course of action, not the least of which are the precise details of each and every possible deadly encounter.

Training helps....training from knowledgeable and competent sources, that is. Thought experiments conducted in which we ask the various "what if" questions. Careful study of real-world events and how (and why) they played out the way they did in the short and long term.

And a deeper and better understanding of what the laws actually say and mean on the issue of deadly force. Far, far too many people wrap their minds around what they THINK or WANT the law to be, and to say that their beliefs are quite in opposition to reality would be putting it mildly.

 

[Cannibul]

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.

Actually in Texas you are perfectly justified in using lethal force to protect property. Especially after dark.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I'll be the first to comment that actually IS NEW to carrying (a few months now).

My firearm for 99.9999% of the time is to prevent me and mine from imminent danger. And while I don't think of myself as a cop or knight on a white horse, I like to think I'm a stand up guy and don't wish to see anyone else harmed. And the law allows this, to an extent.

I like to think I've educated myself a little on laws and quite frankly intervening is a little unsettling regarding the law. Situations vary of course, but I pretty much feel like I'd have to be witnessing violence to someone else to even consider stepping in. An example would be a pistol or knife held by a perp pointed at someone doesn't fit my requirements. However a shot to the leg or slash across the chest from the perp would meet my requirements. The obvious issue with my thinking is that it may be too late to actually help the initial victim, depending on what happens.

Then there's what the perp does after one of the situations above that would meet my personal requirements to step in. Do they take off running or stand their ground? Those are additional notations that would have an effect on whether or not I would intervene with my firearm.


I like going over theoretical's as much as the next guy, but most of us just don't know what we'd really do in a real world situation. I can only hope that if the time does ever come my judgement will prevail.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

One of my friends in high school was working a summer job at a gas station before heading to college in the fall. Captain of the football team, good student and all around nice guy.

He was murdered over $50 when some dirt bag decided it wasn't enough. Shot point blank in the head. They found him dead sitting in the lone chair in the office with his hands tied.

It's not always about the lousy $50.

 

[bearcreek]

Actually in Texas you are perfectly justified in using lethal force to protect property. Especially after dark.

It's really sad that we've gotten to the point in this country where this can't be said everywhere. Getting shot and killed by civilians should be an ever present risk and regular occurrence for armed robbers.

 

[RX-79G]

It's really sad that we've gotten to the point in this country where this can't be said everywhere. Getting shot and killed by civilians should be an ever present risk and regular occurrence for armed robbers.

And it would make getting away with murder so much easier.

 

[shootniron]

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 !
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 !

X 2

 

[bearcreek]

And it would make getting away with murder so much easier.

How would it do that?

 

[Jackal]

You walk in on a robbery in progress, you turn around, walk out and call law enforcement. No one should risk death for a few hundred stolen dollars.

 

[RX-79G]

How would it do that?

"Well officer, I caught my wife's lover stealing my iPhone. I'll bet you'll find it in his front left pocket."

 

[Warp]

It's really sad that we've gotten to the point in this country where this can't be said everywhere. Getting shot and killed by civilians should be an ever present risk and regular occurrence for armed robbers.

When people talk about using lethal force over property in Texas, especially after dark, what they are talking about isn't armed robbery. They are referring to theft, not necessarily even robbery, let alone armed robbery.

I still wouldn't ever want to test that for real. Not worth it.

You walk in on a robbery in progress, you turn around, walk out and call law enforcement. No one should risk death for a few hundred stolen dollars.

Well, as we have stated previously in this thread, it's about more than the money when an armed and violent criminal is threatening to kill people.

 

[shafter]

Unless you perceive that someone is going to get shot unless steps are taken, you're an idiot to get involved. Stand inconspicuously and observe everything. If someone is holding a gun and demanding money I won't automatically act. If they start making people get on their knees, or otherwise escalating the situation I'll reassess. I won't play hero and try to save someone else's money at the risk of other people's safety.

If it's just you and the bad guy in an alley, do whatever you like.

 

[Sam1911]

Actually in Texas you are perfectly justified in using lethal force to protect property. Especially after dark.

Oh good lord. That again?

Can we have this discussion without diving into that muddled, misunderstood, and inapt rabbit hole?

(We have lots of other threads where we've held up, inspected, battered around and dissected Texas' law that covers defense of property under certain specific circumstances and with some large caveats. Let's not bring it up here where it doesn't belong AT ALL.)