You're new at CCW and walk into a store robbery
- Thread starter Tirod
- Start date
- Status
First I like to come to someone's aid.
Second it is easier for a third party to defend someone than for them to defend themselves.
The robber is paying attention to them and is more apt to notice anything they do, like going for a gun. You they might not be paying as much attention to.
This means you often have a better opportunity to stop the robber with nobody else getting hurt than the clerk does.
Third you never know what will happen in a robbery. Many robberies go bad and the person gets shot even when they comply.
In fact the rate of being shot while complying is still a decent percentage.
Sometimes the robber gets upset at the low payout, most places are supposed to deposit bills somewhere and the clerk loses access to them after dropping them somewhere, leaving them with a low amount of money in the register. When the robber gets a much smaller payout than they expected they sometimes react badly and someone gets shot.
Other times the robber kills witnesses, it often makes them more likely to be caught because it becomes a homicide case with more resources out on it, but criminals robbing stores are generally stupid and whether they get caught later or not they still might think no witnesses sounds like a good idea.
Sometimes they become opportunistic, and with the robbery going so well can decide to abuse the clerk in other ways. Going from a robbery to a sexual assault or kidnapping.
These are all things I have seen happen in cases where full compliance is given to the robber.
Retail chains have policies in place that are not about protecting people or even because of what gets good results most of the time, but because the retail store is only liable for what their employee does, not for what the robber does.
If the employee causes some collateral damage then the store can be liable.
If the robber causes damage or kills the entire store, they are not liable. A big chain would rather every employee in that store die, they will be replaced within the month, than be on the hook for multi million dollar payouts for something an employee did.
That is why corporate lawyers will make it pretty much the policy that nobody carries in most chain stores. It is the mom and pop stores and small businesses where the owner is more likely to favor an armed employee.
So no matter what the ratio is for things going best if certain things are done, the corporate lawyers are going to advise always having the employee do nothing that could result in a lawsuit. They would rather that person die than risk paying out in a lawsuit. They hire em cheap, don't expect them to be brilliant, and don't want them making decisions the company is on the hook for.
Finally while nobody is obligated to risk anything for others, gun rights will erode when the argument that good people with guns could stop various things falls flat because nobody is willing to do anything unless it is themselves or a loved one in danger.
How can people whine that mass shootings might be different if people could carry when if 5% of the crowd was carrying they would have just tried to get away and let the professionals deal with it.
I have started to notice this becoming more common.
It reminds me of a statistic I heard not long ago about this generation being less involved in volunteer work than any previous generation.
Second it is easier for a third party to defend someone than for them to defend themselves.
The robber is paying attention to them and is more apt to notice anything they do, like going for a gun. You they might not be paying as much attention to.
This means you often have a better opportunity to stop the robber with nobody else getting hurt than the clerk does.
Third you never know what will happen in a robbery. Many robberies go bad and the person gets shot even when they comply.
In fact the rate of being shot while complying is still a decent percentage.
Sometimes the robber gets upset at the low payout, most places are supposed to deposit bills somewhere and the clerk loses access to them after dropping them somewhere, leaving them with a low amount of money in the register. When the robber gets a much smaller payout than they expected they sometimes react badly and someone gets shot.
Other times the robber kills witnesses, it often makes them more likely to be caught because it becomes a homicide case with more resources out on it, but criminals robbing stores are generally stupid and whether they get caught later or not they still might think no witnesses sounds like a good idea.
Sometimes they become opportunistic, and with the robbery going so well can decide to abuse the clerk in other ways. Going from a robbery to a sexual assault or kidnapping.
These are all things I have seen happen in cases where full compliance is given to the robber.
Retail chains have policies in place that are not about protecting people or even because of what gets good results most of the time, but because the retail store is only liable for what their employee does, not for what the robber does.
If the employee causes some collateral damage then the store can be liable.
If the robber causes damage or kills the entire store, they are not liable. A big chain would rather every employee in that store die, they will be replaced within the month, than be on the hook for multi million dollar payouts for something an employee did.
That is why corporate lawyers will make it pretty much the policy that nobody carries in most chain stores. It is the mom and pop stores and small businesses where the owner is more likely to favor an armed employee.
So no matter what the ratio is for things going best if certain things are done, the corporate lawyers are going to advise always having the employee do nothing that could result in a lawsuit. They would rather that person die than risk paying out in a lawsuit. They hire em cheap, don't expect them to be brilliant, and don't want them making decisions the company is on the hook for.
Finally while nobody is obligated to risk anything for others, gun rights will erode when the argument that good people with guns could stop various things falls flat because nobody is willing to do anything unless it is themselves or a loved one in danger.
How can people whine that mass shootings might be different if people could carry when if 5% of the crowd was carrying they would have just tried to get away and let the professionals deal with it.
I have started to notice this becoming more common.
It reminds me of a statistic I heard not long ago about this generation being less involved in volunteer work than any previous generation.
Last edited:
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Ask not "When can I shoot?"
Ask only "When must I shoot?"
If an innocent life is in immediate danger......see my sig
Ask only "When must I shoot?"
If an innocent life is in immediate danger......see my sig
I disagree.
In fact, I think it is dangerous to tell people that they ever "must" shoot, especially in the context of a situation where their gun is likely to be concealed and holstered on their person.
And it is important to know when you can and cannot legally shoot.
And it probably doesn't require a life to be in danger, either, when you get down to the specifics (as you always should)
edmo01
Member
In 1998 while going through the Alaska CCW training the instructor presented a similar what-would-you-do "scenario".
His scenario was as follows... You are walking down the street in a "seedy" part of town and turn the corner. In front of you is a man in a business suit with his hands in the air. In front of him is a rough looking man with dirty clothes and a stringy ponytail halfway down his back. This rough man is holding a handgun on the businessman committing what appears to be an armed robbery.
After several in the class gave their best "here is how I would fix this problem with my gun" replies, the instructor had a man in the back of the class stand up and come to the front. This man was rough looking with dirty clothes and a stringy ponytail halfway down his back. The man was then introduced as a sergeant in the Anchorage Police Department, currently performing undercover work.
The point was, make sure you know what is really going on before you leap to conclusions. This was an excellent teaching point for us all.
On the surface, this was "obviously" an armed robbery. In reality, it was a police officer arresting a criminal.
Edmo
His scenario was as follows... You are walking down the street in a "seedy" part of town and turn the corner. In front of you is a man in a business suit with his hands in the air. In front of him is a rough looking man with dirty clothes and a stringy ponytail halfway down his back. This rough man is holding a handgun on the businessman committing what appears to be an armed robbery.
After several in the class gave their best "here is how I would fix this problem with my gun" replies, the instructor had a man in the back of the class stand up and come to the front. This man was rough looking with dirty clothes and a stringy ponytail halfway down his back. The man was then introduced as a sergeant in the Anchorage Police Department, currently performing undercover work.
The point was, make sure you know what is really going on before you leap to conclusions. This was an excellent teaching point for us all.
On the surface, this was "obviously" an armed robbery. In reality, it was a police officer arresting a criminal.
Edmo
Those of us who have been around this kind of topic for awhile know as soon as the scenario presents two different appearances like that, on the street no less...that is exactly where it is going lol
The other popular one is a female running from a male yelling rape, and it's a prostitute fleeing detention/arrest by a non-uniform (often vice) officer.
Dog Soldier
member
What happens when a civilian accepts the responsibility of using deadly force? I see all of these sworn peace officers sued and punished by civil rights Orgs? Does anyone know?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
If you use deadly force, then you are defacto accepting responsibility for it.
How have civil rights orgs punished police officers?
Dog Soldier
member
It seems the Black Lives Matter Org., ACLU and NAACP have been attacking the police. My question is what can happen to a civilian who uses deadly force?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
There isn't really anything new about this, even in light of recent events.
Any civilian who uses deadly force is subject to intensive scrutiny...but the big difference is that the civilian doesn't have the legal buffer offered by employment to a government agency.
What can happen?
The same protests and potential riots over perceived racial issues. Look at the George Zimmerman case, for example.
Any use of deadly force will involve an investigation, to some extent. Perhaps the evidence is crystal clear and heavily weighted in favor of the person who used deadly force. Perhaps not.
Any use of deadly force may involve a criminal trial.
Any use of deadly force may involve a civil trial, whether or not a criminal trial occurred.
You mean people with a bias say silly things as a result of something somebody does? Why would that change based on LEO or private citizen (police are civilians BTW), and what does it matter since all they are is a group of bias people beating their gums?
Dog Soldier
member
It sounds like anyone using deadly force could encounter a large legal defense cost.
Well...yeah. It sounds that way because it is that way.
The same applies to other things we do, like driving a car, but yest it most certainly applies to shooting another person in defense
Most places I go, I am with my Wife. We are old people. So we two in that store, looking about, big shout "Give me all the notes in the till" And see a youth pointing a pistol at the Clerk.
He sees us two, swings the pistol our way, my Wife is going to the ground, and out of sight line (yes we have discussed this) I am shooting him, most likely a lot.
Scene two, as we are shopping, Nosing at paint and stuff.. The robbery goes down! I am easing a bit more out of the line of fire, looking for his buddy?
Watching carefully, total open mind. Idea being to do nothing violent. Go with the cash? No problem. But open mind. Threat against my Wife, my only focus, he just made an error.
He sees us two, swings the pistol our way, my Wife is going to the ground, and out of sight line (yes we have discussed this) I am shooting him, most likely a lot.
Scene two, as we are shopping, Nosing at paint and stuff.. The robbery goes down! I am easing a bit more out of the line of fire, looking for his buddy?
Watching carefully, total open mind. Idea being to do nothing violent. Go with the cash? No problem. But open mind. Threat against my Wife, my only focus, he just made an error.
Laying on the ground at your feet is probably one of the most dangerous places your wife could be. People tend to miss low, and the robber will be missing as fast as he can.
Do they?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Is it?
I know two people who have used lethal force and not spent a dime. One killed one bad guy and injured a second and the other missed.
Lethal force encounters CAN be very expensive, but it doesn't mean that they WILL be very expensive. Of course, you have to worry about the worst case scenario that they will, but that certainly isn't always the case.
You just said the exact same thing we/I said.
Please note the word could.
Well...yeah. It sounds that way because it is that way.
The same applies to other things we do, like driving a car, but yest it most certainly applies to shooting another person in defense
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I would neve tell anyone when or if they must shoot, that is a judgement call that is different in every situation. I'd also argue, when one must shoot the laws have already become irrelevant. Unless that individual is willing to die because he wasn't sure what the laws are, which I for one am not. Sure laws are important, but much more important is the guy trying to kill you.
george burns
Member
The answer is simple, Once it becomes a threat to you, and you and only you can know when that is, you take action. Unless the guy starts shooting indescriminentlly into the store, and innocent people are about to be killed, and only you get to decide when that is.
I may see things differently that the next guy, maybe he never was in a situation like this, or maybe he is a trained LEO or an off duty agent, everyone sees things differently.
I will never get on the floor face down, I don't care what he has pointed at me,I am going to make the decision as to where I die. He could have a toy gun, a rplica or no ammo, you have to decide for yourself.
I may see things differently that the next guy, maybe he never was in a situation like this, or maybe he is a trained LEO or an off duty agent, everyone sees things differently.
I will never get on the floor face down, I don't care what he has pointed at me,I am going to make the decision as to where I die. He could have a toy gun, a rplica or no ammo, you have to decide for yourself.
Last edited:
Dog Soldier
member
My quetion was from reading a very in depth report by a known suppoter of gun rights. Check the link.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
And the answer has been given. Anybody who uses lethal force could encounter a large legal defense cost.
- Status
