Another Robber wide open to counter attack

[Deaf Smith]

Video of FLA Subway Robbery

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28692081#28692081

Easy to see how hard it is for a robber to keep all avenues covered. Especially this one.

Deaf

[Guardian]

Allot of avenues to watch, but no other patrons in there. So all he has to worry about is those two. Enhance that video and you have his face plain as day though and plaster it everywhere till the little piece of crap is turned in or caught.

[arnisador]

I don't get it. Unless I missed something, they didn't resist, no one was hurt, and all they lost was the store's money. It looks like great self-defense to me.

Whose point are you arguing?

[MA-Caver]

I don't get it. Unless I missed something, they didn't resist, no one was hurt, and all they lost was the store's money. It looks like great self-defense to me.

Whose point are you arguing?
The (would be) hero who stops the robbery point.

[sgtmac_46]

I don't get it. Unless I missed something, they didn't resist, no one was hurt, and all they lost was the store's money. It looks like great self-defense to me.

Whose point are you arguing? There's that hindsight at work again......at what point were you sure he wasn't going to shoot anyone? OH yeah, after the fact!

I guess if we can watch the outcome of ALL robberies on video beforehand, we'll know how to react. ;)


The (would be) hero who stops the robbery point. And here we go with the 'hero' bs again.......it's becoming a pejorative.


“We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene.” -Col. Jeff Cooper


Perhaps you two can tell me the difference between that robbery and this one.... http://www.ketv.com/news/18398532/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news

The difference is that the robbers at one point decided to start shooting the cooperative victim on the way out!


"I can't make sense of turning around and shooting somebody who gave you what you wanted," said Belinda Davidson, who said she knew Pierce. "It doesn't make sense at all."

It makes PERFECT sense once you finally ACCEPT the fact you're dealing with criminal sociopaths!

[Meathook]

There's that hindsight at work again......at what point were you sure he wasn't going to shoot anyone? OH yeah, after the fact!

I guess if we can watch the outcome of ALL robberies on video beforehand, we'll know how to react. ;)

And here we go with the 'hero' bs again.......it's becoming a pejorative.




Perhaps you two can tell me the difference between that robbery and this one.... http://www.ketv.com/news/18398532/detail.html?rss=oma&psp=news

The difference is that the robbers at one point decided to start shooting the cooperative victim on the way out!



It makes PERFECT sense once you finally ACCEPT the fact you're dealing with criminal sociopaths!


Born to Lose! One good thing about resisting that is kind of ironic is that if you do die the one doing the deed (if caught and prosecuted) will get his fill of perfectly capable hands that can deal with his sorry ass in prison, (where he wont have access to a gun).

[sgtmac_46]

Born to Lose! One good thing about resisting that is kind of ironic is that if you do die the one doing the deed (if caught and prosecuted) will get his fill of perfectly capable hands that can deal with his sorry ass in prison, (where he wont have access to a gun). True that!

[MJS]

And this is why IMO, I often think that if the opportunity presents itself, to take advantage of it, and attempt something. Theres nothing that says that we won't get shot afterwards, as it was pointed out in the 2nd article.

For the sake of discussion, as what point in the clip, does anyone see for a chance to act?

[Brian R. VanCise]

You know every situation is going to be different and acting in one might get you killed or in another might save your life. In this instance they did not act and got to go home because of it. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Meathook]

And this is why IMO, I often think that if the opportunity presents itself, to take advantage of it, and attempt something. Theres nothing that says that we won't get shot afterwards, as it was pointed out in the 2nd article.

For the sake of discussion, as what point in the clip, does anyone see for a chance to act?


It can be difficult to address on the spot but natures indicator is very distinct. As soon as your adrenalin dumps its go time. Guns are very unnerving and personally id be filled with fear but i guess thats just the best answer i can give atm.

[MA-Caver]

Presumably we are dealing with a bunch of expert, on the spot psychologists who can guess what a criminal is or isn't going to do. Who decides that ALL criminals are going to shoot regardless of cooperation or resistance.

In the first video NO, the robber did not get close enough to anyone to effectively act. True he had his gun in and out of his pocket several times but the distance was too great to make a move towards him in an attempt to subdue him. Likewise the robber didn't turn his back enough to anyone in the store. Yeah, he was trying to watch everyplace at once but he was watching the two that were in there with him.

[arnisador]

There's that hindsight at work again......at what point were you sure he wasn't going to shoot anyone? OH yeah, after the fact!


But surely this point cuts more strongly in my favour than in yours...the people there made a decision not to resist and we know it worked. If they had resisted it might not have worked. So the non-resistance solution was proven to work here while your method still relies on foresight.

Why would you argue with success? These people properly assessed the situation (including their abilities and preparation). They were right. To insist that they should have killed the robber nonetheless is risky and, frankly, comes across as bloodthirsty. They were on the scene, had a fuller view of the situation and the robber's mental state, and they went home alive and unhurt. It really isn't necessary to execute the perpetrator every time. Some can be sent to jail.

[MJS]

After watching this again, it seems around the 12sec mark, the bad guy may have been close enough for the customer to do something. Around the 18sec mark, the bad guy again walks towards the customer, who then turns and begins to walk away towards to other end of the store. Had he not moved, that may have been another time to act. Could it have been possible, instead of walking away, to engage in conversation with the badguy? Saying something, anything, to get his mind off of that moment, and onto something else. "Don't hurt me man. What do you want, my wallet? Here man, take it easy, here it is."

What decides whether or not the badguy is going to shoot? Well, lets see...perhaps even if the worker and customer comply, they are now witnesses, who can ID this guy. There was an incident a while back in my state, that involved a home invasion/robbery. The guy shot one of the women in the residence, and took the other as hostage. Fortunately the woman that was shot lived, the one that he took...well, he took her to an isolated area, and killed her. He did make a comment that he was going to kill them, because he knew they could ID him. Fortunately this dirtbag was caught.

Perhaps not moving fast enough to meet his demands. That clerk was still making the guys sandwich long after the gun was shown. And he seemed like he strolled over to the cash register. So, one may think that by not 'jumping' when the guy says jump, just may piss him off enough to do something.

[KenpoTex]

You know every situation is going to be different and acting in one might get you killed or in another might save your life. In this instance they did not act and got to go home because of it. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

Just to nitpick your choice of words...did they go home because they did not act, or because they were just lucky? What I saw in this clip was a guy on his knees waiting to be executed. The BG just chose not to shoot him.


Presumably we are dealing with a bunch of expert, on the spot psychologists who can guess what a criminal is or isn't going to do. Who decides that ALL criminals are going to shoot regardless of cooperation or resistance. Has anyone said they they are all going to shoot regardless of the actions of the innocent people involved?


In the first video NO, the robber did not get close enough to anyone to effectively act. True he had his gun in and out of his pocket several times but the distance was too great to make a move towards him in an attempt to subdue him. Likewise the robber didn't turn his back enough to anyone in the store. Yeah, he was trying to watch everyplace at once but he was watching the two that were in there with him. He was well within pistol range... :cool:


But surely this point cuts more strongly in my favour than in yours...the people there made a decision not to resist and we know it worked. If they had resisted it might not have worked. So the non-resistance solution was proven to work here while your method still relies on foresight.

Why would you argue with success? These people properly assessed the situation (including their abilities and preparation). They were right. To insist that they should have killed the robber nonetheless is risky and, frankly, comes across as bloodthirsty. They were on the scene, had a fuller view of the situation and the robber's mental state, and they went home alive and unhurt. It really isn't necessary to execute the perpetrator every time. Some can be sent to jail.

While we obviously can't know this for sure, I don't really believe that the victims of most crimes actually go through that type of analytical process when faced with the threat of violence. Most people are nothing more than sheep who are just going to go along...even if/when it's to their deaths.

As I touched on in the other thread, I think the "sticking point" here is a result of our predisposition toward one response or the other. To some of us, the idea of being powerless in the face of a threat (submitting) is anathema. While recognizing that all situations are different and may call for different responses, we tend to gravitate toward action as opposed to inaction. Violent resistance is a first line of defense as opposed to a last resort.
The other side of the aisle seems to be those who believe that it's better to just go along in the hopes that nothing will happen. That violent resistance should be undertaken only after every other method (cooperation, negotiation, etc.) has been attempted and failed. The only problem with this position is that it places one totally at the mercy of the BG and when you finally realize things are bad enough to need to act, you may not have the time.

[Brian R. VanCise]

Lucky well yes I would say they were lucky. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif However, they were on the scene and chose not to act and got to go home because of it. (there in action in this instance created their luck) You or I would have reacted differently based on what we do and how we are outfitted. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif However we do not know for sure what would have happened if we were there. (though I believe you and I have an idea) Each situation is different and each situation cannot be cookie cuttered into a certain response. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

[arnisador]

I think the "sticking point" here is a result of our predisposition toward one response or the other. To some of us, the idea of being powerless in the face of a threat (submitting) is anathema. While recognizing that all situations are different and may call for different responses, we tend to gravitate toward action as opposed to inaction.

But taking action can take many different forms. I always emphasize "strategy" to my students: What's your strategy for this situation? If there's a shotgun in your face, compliance and persuasion are better choices than the "no can defend" crane stance from Karate Kid.

I'm not coming out in favour of cowering. I'm coming out in favour of assessing the situation, making a decision as to the best course of action, and implementing that decision. In some cases that'd mean a physical counterattack but in others it may mean letting the offender(s) get what they want and getting them out of the situation. There are a lot of living robbery victims out there. There are also ones who were killed. My point is to have and utilize a strategy, but the best response isn't always shooting back. Yes, sometimes "The best defense is a strong offense" but perhaps not when you are outnumbered, outgunned, outpositioned, or in charge of others who cannot defend themselves.


The other side of the aisle seems to be those who believe that it's better to just go along in the hopes that nothing will happen. That violent resistance should be undertaken only after every other method (cooperation, negotiation, etc.) has been attempted and failed.

Again, that's a philosophical point of view. Mine is a strategic point of view. If I can verbally manipulate the situation--or even shrink back and be unnoticed--that may be the best approach to get me home. If I think jumping the guty is my best move at the time, that's what I'll do. Dying is an occupational hazard for armed robbers, and I'm fine with that. My concern is getting me and my family home safely. As Bruce Lee said, sometimes you can win by fighting without fighting.

What's wrong with going home safely? When did that cease being self-defense?

[KenpoTex]

I may be splitting hairs here but I'm still unconvinced that most people in these situations make a conscious choice, based on an evaluation of the totality of circumstances, to not act. I think in most cases they fail to act and only survive because they were lucky.
Or maybe I'm wrong...maybe they make a choice that is not based on an evaluation of the situation, but rather on the simple fact that a violent response is not even something that they would consider.

what can I say...it's my day off, I'm bored, and it's fun to nitpick :D

[arnisador]

You may be right about the average person caught in that situation--they've never considered it. Luck, as suggested, plays a big role regardless.

But for me, it's neither a philosophical nor unconsidered act. If I'm behind the sole gunmen and have a blade on me, it's Goodnight, Irene. If I'm in front of him with my daughter and unarmed, it's a different matter.

As to the implicit suggestion in these threads that we should all be armed all the time...eh, that's a lot of chances for things to go wrong. Take the number of handgun accidents in the home and start scaling it waaaaay up..."But I only took off my holster for a minute while I was changing into my gym clothes. How could I know Mike would pick it up and start playing with it?"

[KenpoTex]

But for me, it's neither a philosophical nor unconsidered act. If I'm behind the sole gunmen and have a blade on me, it's Goodnight, Irene. If I'm in front of him with my daughter and unarmed, it's a different matter. And that's what I meant by evaluating the situation and choosing a course of action...


As to the implicit suggestion in these threads that we should all be armed all the time...eh, that's a lot of chances for things to go wrong. Take the number of handgun accidents in the home and start scaling it waaaaay up..."But I only took off my holster for a minute while I was changing into my gym clothes. How could I know Mike would pick it up and start playing with it?"

The stats don't support that...unless you have information that I don't.

[arnisador]

The interpretation of the statistics conflicts on all these things. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. When everyone has guns, every idiot has a gun. I don't think this'll scale well if the suggestion is that every McDonald's patron should be armed.

[MA-Caver]

However we do not know for sure what would have happened if we were there. (though I believe you and I have an idea) Each situation is different and each situation cannot be cookie cuttered into a certain response. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif
In my experience... no knows knows exactly what they'll do in any given moment in any given situation. It's all speculation. Training will enable us to act but we still choose to take that action. Sometimes we act without thinking calling it instinct born of years of training and experience. This would be more likely from seasoned cops than the average joe. A combat seasoned soldier that is home from duty/retired may likewise act because they've been under fire before and (again) has the training and experience.
Many of us here on MT are usually armed in one form or another. With those like sgtmac they're armed with a pistol at all times, others like me are armed with a folding knife that can be deployed rapidly if need be, still others have empty hands as weapons.
However we're armed, it is no guarantee how we will act in any given situation. There is also no guarantee of the outcome.

Personally I will act (or not act) depending upon my own judgment and based on my feelings at the moment. I've associated with enough criminals that I feel confident in reading them well enough to know that their weapon may be just an intimidation factor or a means to sate their desire to commit violence (and using a robbery as an excuse). I will ALWAYS take for granted that the robber will indeed use his weapon should he feel that he has to. Most of them, all they want is to get what they want and to get the hell out of dodge as quick as possible with little fuss (i.e. before the cops or (armed) security arrives). They're not looking to go out in a blaze of gunfire and a hail of lead. They want to survive just as badly as you do.
They are usually NOT natural born killers. But give them the slightest excuse and they will be.
No, there is no guarantee either that you are being robbed by a mere intimidator and not an actual killer.

Yes, Tex he was well within pistol range and he's watching you.

[Deaf Smith]

I don't get it. Unless I missed something, they didn't resist, no one was hurt, and all they lost was the store's money. It looks like great self-defense to me.

Whose point are you arguing?

Tell you what I'll do arnisador, I'll find a video where the patrons were murdered by the robbers and then you can say, "why they should have defended themselves"!

Ops... wait. Man Google is so GOOD!

Why they should have defended themselves arnisador, right?

Surveillance Video Shows Shocking Store Murder

http://www.myfoxutah.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6021578&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1



The interpretation of the statistics conflicts on all these things. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. When everyone has guns, every idiot has a gun. I don't think this'll scale well if the suggestion is that every McDonald's patron should be armed.

Not all are arnisador, but I sure am!

Deaf

[Meathook]

Presumably we are dealing with a bunch of expert, on the spot psychologists who can guess what a criminal is or isn't going to do. Who decides that ALL criminals are going to shoot regardless of cooperation or resistance.

In the first video NO, the robber did not get close enough to anyone to effectively act. True he had his gun in and out of his pocket several times but the distance was too great to make a move towards him in an attempt to subdue him. Likewise the robber didn't turn his back enough to anyone in the store. Yeah, he was trying to watch everyplace at once but he was watching the two that were in there with him.

To the first point, does it really take an expert psychologist to know that there is a man shoving a gun in your face? Also, having a gun pointed at you is pretty convincing evidence that someone is considering ending your existance.

To the second point, what are you an expert on judging distance? I say if theres someone in your general vicinity pointing a gun at you then you are close enough to act, its just something that needs to be done, chances are if you wait for 'the perfect opportunity' youll still be waitin at your funeral.

[arnisador]

Tell you what I'll do arnisador, I'll find a video where the patrons were murdered by the robbers and then you can say, "why they should have defended themselves"!

I didn't watch the video, but it sounds like it would have been better if they had defended themselves. The ones in this thread did fine without doing so. I'm suggesting that there's no one-size-fits-all answer, and that sometimes not fighting back is best. You seem to be insisting that there is always a single correct answer--always fight. I disagree. Always have a strategy, but don't develop tunnel-vision and say "Since I have a hammer, every problem is a nail."

From today's paper in my area:
Pizza delivery man is shot during robbery (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009901190310)


According to a report from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, Domino's driver John Cookenour, 48, Indianapolis, was delivering a pizza in the 4600 block of Hillside Avenue when two men approached. One pulled a gun, ordering Cookenour out of the vehicle.
http://www.indystar.com/graphics/go4/adlabel_horz.gif

As Cookenour began struggling with the men, two or three other men wearing black masks jumped into the vehicle, hitting and kicking him and taking his money, cell phone and keys.


During the struggle, one man shot at Cookenour twice with what was believed to be a .45-caliber pistol, striking him once in the left bicep.


Maybe he should have just gotten out of the vehicle and ran. Fighting back left him shot and wounded, which easily could have been much worse.

[Deaf Smith]

Maybe he should have just gotten out of the vehicle and ran. Fighting back left him shot and wounded, which easily could have been much worse.

Maybe he should have had a gun if he was goint to fight! Never bring a fist to a gunfight if you can help it.

The point with all the videos is one looks for a GOOD opportunity to fight back. Not just fight back as the only option. The videos I posted showed where one could see an opportunity.

Deaf

[MA-Caver]

Maybe he should have had a gun if he was goint to fight! Never bring a fist to a gunfight if you can help it.

The point with all the videos is one looks for a GOOD opportunity to fight back. Not just fight back as the only option. The videos I posted showed where one could see an opportunity.

Deaf
I think the problem is that you (and others) see the opportunity... whereas some of us do not. Ergo the clash of opinions.

[elder999]

I think the problem is that you (and others) see the opportunity... whereas some of us do not. Ergo the clash of opinions.

To be honest, I hate commenting on video like this-or ones of demonstrations, though sometimes those are obvious: obviously bad, or obviously good, but there really is so much one doesn't see. In this instance, though, the things we don't see:

Whether or not the customer "saw an opportunity."

Whether or not the customer would know an opportunity if they saw one.

WHether or not the customer had the ability to act on that opportunity if they saw it.

Whether or not the customer had experience with being robbed, and recognized the value of simply giving up what was going to be taken.

Whether or not the customer knew the assailant.

Whether or not the customer was drunk, or under the influence of drugs.

Whether or not the customer was otherwise physically handicapped, as in visually impaired, or using a prosthetic leg, or suffering from chronic, debilitating pain, or some other physical illness that might have inhibited them.

Whether or not there were other people present that the customer might have been more concerned for: other customers out of camera, employees out of camera, the person behind the counter.

Whether or not the customer was too frightened to possibly act.

Whether or not the customer was otherwise emotionally incapable of acting: developmentally disabled, schizophrenic, clinically depressed, etc.

So, rather than "spot the opportunity," which, believe me, looked very different from the vantage of the customer in real time than it does from an overhead camera with hindsight, let's play "guess why he didn't act."

[arnisador]

Maybe he should have had a gun if he was goint to fight!

Presumably his employer would not permit him to carry a weapon while at work or to use one if accosted unless it was unavoidable. That's typical.

[sgtmac_46]

And this is why IMO, I often think that if the opportunity presents itself, to take advantage of it, and attempt something. Theres nothing that says that we won't get shot afterwards, as it was pointed out in the 2nd article.

For the sake of discussion, as what point in the clip, does anyone see for a chance to act?
If you're armed, at any point during the video......the robber's attention seems pretty divided.

If you're unarmed, it's much more problematic, and perhaps running for an exit would be a better choice.

[sgtmac_46]

You know every situation is going to be different and acting in one might get you killed or in another might save your life. In this instance they did not act and got to go home because of it. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif That's true, but the question always becomes.....at what point could you TELL this was going to be one of those situations? If we're all honest about that, it's at the point at which the robber has left and is out of sight......so what does that tell us about future incidents? Not too very much, unfortunately.

[sgtmac_46]

Presumably we are dealing with a bunch of expert, on the spot psychologists who can guess what a criminal is or isn't going to do. Who decides that ALL criminals are going to shoot regardless of cooperation or resistance.

In the first video NO, the robber did not get close enough to anyone to effectively act. True he had his gun in and out of his pocket several times but the distance was too great to make a move towards him in an attempt to subdue him. Likewise the robber didn't turn his back enough to anyone in the store. Yeah, he was trying to watch everyplace at once but he was watching the two that were in there with him. Who decides that ALL criminals are NOT going to shoot regardless of cooperation or resistance? I have yet to have my question answered as to when, on the video, you were certain things were going to turn out for the best? And the only logical answer is after the guy is long gone.

So, we're back to spinning the wheel and flipping a coin.

At any rate, your assessment is based on the assumption that we're only talking unarmed defense against robbery........which, fortunately, isn't the issue for the entire country........with an armed customer, there are many opportunities to have put this goblin in the morgue pretty handily.

[sgtmac_46]

But surely this point cuts more strongly in my favour than in yours...the people there made a decision not to resist and we know it worked. If they had resisted it might not have worked. So the non-resistance solution was proven to work here while your method still relies on foresight.

Why would you argue with success? These people properly assessed the situation (including their abilities and preparation). They were right. To insist that they should have killed the robber nonetheless is risky and, frankly, comes across as bloodthirsty. They were on the scene, had a fuller view of the situation and the robber's mental state, and they went home alive and unhurt. It really isn't necessary to execute the perpetrator every time. Some can be sent to jail. It doesn't remotely cut in your favor at all.....'why would you argue with success'? Obviously you miss the point ENTIRELY! You, in this circumstance, would NOT know this was going to be success or failure until the guy was gone......until you can tell me the signs of a robbery without shooting, and a robbery with shooting BEFORE the shooting starts, you really don't have a point.

Being LUCKY isn't the same as 'being RIGHT'. ;)

And I provided many examples to you of folks who did EXACTLY THE SAME THING THESE FOLKS DID and ended up DEAD! Until you can tell me the difference WITHOUT 20/20 hindsight, you don't have a point. ;)

[sgtmac_46]

Lucky well yes I would say they were lucky. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif However, they were on the scene and chose not to act and got to go home because of it. (there in action in this instance created their luck) You or I would have reacted differently based on what we do and how we are outfitted. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif However we do not know for sure what would have happened if we were there. (though I believe you and I have an idea) Each situation is different and each situation cannot be cookie cuttered into a certain response. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

And the choice was entirely the bad guys, not theres.....so what did THEY do that prevented them from getting killed independent of the bad guy choosing not to shoot them?

Again, we're back to this.....they did NOTHING but hope and pray THIS goblin held his fire, they did NOTHING to ensure he wouldn't. ;)


I'll give you the same unanswered challenge i've given everyone else......at WHAT POINT in the video was it clear to you that the bad guy wasn't going to start shooting? What was the special 'Good Guy Robber' sign he gave, that he wasn't going to shoot anyone?

[sgtmac_46]

But taking action can take many different forms. I always emphasize "strategy" to my students: What's your strategy for this situation? If there's a shotgun in your face, compliance and persuasion are better choices than the "no can defend" crane stance from Karate Kid.

I'm not coming out in favour of cowering. I'm coming out in favour of assessing the situation, making a decision as to the best course of action, and implementing that decision. In some cases that'd mean a physical counterattack but in others it may mean letting the offender(s) get what they want and getting them out of the situation. There are a lot of living robbery victims out there. There are also ones who were killed. My point is to have and utilize a strategy, but the best response isn't always shooting back. Yes, sometimes "The best defense is a strong offense" but perhaps not when you are outnumbered, outgunned, outpositioned, or in charge of others who cannot defend themselves.



Again, that's a philosophical point of view. Mine is a strategic point of view. If I can verbally manipulate the situation--or even shrink back and be unnoticed--that may be the best approach to get me home. If I think jumping the guty is my best move at the time, that's what I'll do. Dying is an occupational hazard for armed robbers, and I'm fine with that. My concern is getting me and my family home safely. As Bruce Lee said, sometimes you can win by fighting without fighting.

What's wrong with going home safely? When did that cease being self-defense? And what makes you think you can verbally manipulate the situation? I've asked that question many times, and not gotten an answer.

You keep ACTING as though YOUR way is guaranteed to get you home safe......yet you've been provided statistics and examples of MANY situations where it's done nothing but gotten folks killed. The passengers on the flights on 9/11 were following your advice.....and we know how that turned out.

And we are still devoid of an equal number of contrary examples of resistance GETTING folks killed.....yes, they have happened.......but not NEARLY at the same rate. The numbers seem to support our position.

[sgtmac_46]

You may be right about the average person caught in that situation--they've never considered it. Luck, as suggested, plays a big role regardless.

But for me, it's neither a philosophical nor unconsidered act. If I'm behind the sole gunmen and have a blade on me, it's Goodnight, Irene. If I'm in front of him with my daughter and unarmed, it's a different matter.

As to the implicit suggestion in these threads that we should all be armed all the time...eh, that's a lot of chances for things to go wrong. Take the number of handgun accidents in the home and start scaling it waaaaay up..."But I only took off my holster for a minute while I was changing into my gym clothes. How could I know Mike would pick it up and start playing with it?" There are far more car accidents and backyard pool accidents. ;)

Hell, backyard pools kill many times more small children than handgun accidents......but for whatever reason, psychologically, we accept a backyard pool at every home without question.......it's bizarre.

I think what we have here is a prime example of 'Perception of risk' being in conflict with 'Reality of risk'.

[sgtmac_46]

The interpretation of the statistics conflicts on all these things. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. When everyone has guns, every idiot has a gun. I don't think this'll scale well if the suggestion is that every McDonald's patron should be armed. I'm more concerned with every idiot McDonald's patron having a car......a car is a vastly more complex instrument that kills many more people, and yet, we'll give every idiot a license if he can spell his own name.

As to guns, you'll agree with me that the VAST majority of folks are good decent and reasonably intelligent people......and that the morons already have guns. So the more guns, the more guns in the hands of good, decent and reasonably intelligent people.

What you are suggesting you want is a government enforced fool proof society.......but there IS NO PROOF AGAINST FOOLS!

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe he should have just gotten out of the vehicle and ran. Fighting back left him shot and wounded, which easily could have been much worse. I think I suggested running as preferable to negotiation.....I think this speaks more to my point than yours. ;)

And as we pointed out to you, the STATISTICS show that ARMED resistance to robbery has a positive outcome ABOVE unarmed resistance AND cooperation, according to studies of the DOJ statistics. ;)

So we're back to HAVING A GUN is the best defense against robbery, far in excess of 'cooperation'.

Same situation, with COOPERATION....


Pizza delivery driver murdered in robbery

BROOKLYN, N.Y.—Valery Pazdenkov, 56, a Domino's Pizza (http://www.dominos.com/) delivery driver, was shot to death during a Dec. 14 robbery.
According to Newsday, Pazdenkov had just delivered an order to a regular customer on the second floor of an apartment building, and as he exited the building, a gunman confronted him and demanded money. When the driver turned over $30, the gunman appeared enraged at the small amount and shot Pazdenkov.



http://www.pizzamarketplace.com/article.php?id=2928 I guess he should have carried more cash......I guess that could be considered 'uncooperative', I suppose......but so much for cooperation.



Same situation, but with an ARMED DELIVERY DRIVER!


LUFKIN, Texas -- A pizza delivery man who was taking an order to a house in East Texas pulled out a gun and opened fire on two would-be robbers, police said.
One of the alleged robbers was hospitalized after getting shot in the back, Lufkin police said. The Papa John’s pizza delivery man, who’s licensed to carry a handgun, wasn’t hurt.
The shooting was Tuesday night, after the delivery man walked up to a house and rang a doorbell, Lufkin police said. It turned out the house was vacant and two armed men approached him from the side of the house, The Lufkin Daily News reported Thursday. The delivery man drew a .22 caliber Derringer and fired two shots, and the assailants ran away, police said.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou081023_tnt_pizza-papa-johns-gun.13fec24cd.html

My only beef is his choice of a .22 derringer.......but it worked out anyway! ;)





So lets see.....what do we have?

Situation 1: Victim resists physically.......is shot in the arm, LIVES TO TELL ABOUT IT!
Situation 2: Victim cooperates......is shot DEAD!
Situation 3: Victim shoots suspect.....SURVIVES UNSCATHED!

So far cooperation seems to be the WORST SUGGESTION!


It would appear that the choices, in order of preference are.....

1. ARMED RESISTANCE! (MOST likely to result in a positive outcome)
2. Fleeing!
3. Unarmed Resistance!
4. Cooperation!

[sgtmac_46]

I didn't watch the video, but it sounds like it would have been better if they had defended themselves. The ones in this thread did fine without doing so. I'm suggesting that there's no one-size-fits-all answer, and that sometimes not fighting back is best. You seem to be insisting that there is always a single correct answer--always fight. I disagree. Always have a strategy, but don't develop tunnel-vision and say "Since I have a hammer, every problem is a nail."

Yet you can't tell us the difference without watching it on video and seeing the END!

[sgtmac_46]

Presumably his employer would not permit him to carry a weapon while at work or to use one if accosted unless it was unavoidable. That's typical.
Then you're making the debate one of 'being armed and armed resistance is preferable' to store policy......and that's not remotely the issue.....if the business wishes to handicap it's employees to put them in unnecessary danger for it's own bottom line, that's not really the topic of discussion.

I know a number of businesses that allow it's employees to be armed......and many more that would not.......mostly because they consider their employees of minimal value, and certainly not worth the potential liability....they can ALWAYS just hire another employee and mop the floor. ;)

[arnisador]

It doesn't remotely cut in your favor at all.....'why would you argue with success'? Obviously you miss the point ENTIRELY! You, in this circumstance, would NOT know this was going to be success or failure until the guy was gone......

...and you wouldn't know whether opening fire would be a success or failure until the guy was dead.

These people saw the whole scene and were in a much better position to 'read' the robber and know their own abilities and limitations. What they did worked. It might not on another day. But I'm not the one missing the point. In this case we know they made the right decision. In the case in this thread, it worked. This isn't another case than the one it is.

[arnisador]

Again, we're back to this.....they did NOTHING but hope and pray THIS goblin held his fire, they did NOTHING to ensure he wouldn't.

That isn't clear to me. I couldn't hear what they were saying or see what everyone was doing. You seem to equate 'not shooting' with 'not reacting'.


What was the special 'Good Guy Robber' sign he gave, that he wasn't going to shoot anyone?I don't know, but their intuition was right, no? Don't you use intuition and basic human psychology to predict others' actions?


You keep ACTING as though YOUR way is guaranteed to get you home safe......yet you've been provided statistics and examples of MANY situations where it's done nothing but gotten folks killed.

My way is to use your best judgment when deciding whether to fight or not. Your way seems to be to always fight. No approach is guaranteed to always get you back home safely. But using your judgment to determine the wisest course of action is probably a better course of action than always shooting.

I think it's been established that there are statistics (and hence examples) and experts on both sides of this. Looking at the studies, the devil is in the details. The definitions of resistance and whether the resistance 'provoked' further violence vary widely. I mentioned one and the response was to attack the author as biased rather than the study as flawed. I don't intend to keep posting studies because I do not believe it would be possible to alter your opinion by any number thereof. Until the DOJ gives an authoritative opinion, it would serve no purpose. No one's mind would be changed.


The passengers on the flights on 9/11 were following your advice.....and we know how that turned out.I'm not the original source of that advice. It came from the U.S. government. It worked well for a long time in terms of keeping deaths down. Then things changed.

Your use of 9/11 is inflammatory. But I fail to see how it helps your point...both those passengers who resisted and those who did not died in the crashes.


And we are still devoid of an equal number of contrary examples of resistance GETTING folks killed.....yes, they have happened.......but not NEARLY at the same rate. The numbers seem to support our position.If this is so, why isn't the advice to resist common from police depts., employers, etc.? Just the opposite is the case.

[arnisador]

Yet you can't tell us the difference without watching it on video and seeing the END!

But you can?

[elder999]

Yet you can't tell us the difference without watching it on video and seeing the END!

Well, since the customer clearly isn't armed, at least, not visibly enough that we can make any other determination based on the video, the first option you've posited, that of "ARMED RESISTANCE!" wasn't an option at all. Based, again, on the meager evidence of the video, the second option, "flee," probably wasn't available because the robber is between him and the door. This brings us to the third option, "unarmed resistance," which I really think has been the main theme of this discussion, and might not have taken place for any of the reasons I posted above, as well as some others-all things we can't determine from the video, though we could might make some guesses based upon the customers actions, such as his quick and ready compliance. Which brings us to the last option in your set of responses, "compliance," which appears to have worked in this case.

Getting back to "ARMED RESISTANCE," though, this still brings us back to my whole set of questions from my first post, as well as several others, such as:

If the customer were carrying, was he carrying in a way that he could readily access the weapon, or was it someplace that didn't lend itself to drawing, like an ankle holster?

If it were in an ankle holster, might his best chance of resisting have been to feign compliance, and go to the floor to facilitate drawing his weapon?

I'm sure we can think of some others. The real point to discussions like this one (for me, anyway) is not to determine what was done "wrong" or "right," or what "I would have done if I'd been in his place," but to speculate (because that's all we really can do) about those unseen things, and how they might or might not have altered the situation, and why.

You, for instance, seem to be saying that if the customer had been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed, and the robber would be shot
possibly dead, which brings up a whole category of people for whom this might not be a desirable outcome. It also raises the possibility of a shootout at close range in a public place, which brings up a whole category of people and circumstances for whom this might not be a desirable outcome.

None of which we can determine from the video evidence-again. Though we should, perhaps, discuss......

Notwithstanding, of course, that if we assume he was armed (rather than assuming that he wasn't, since that appears to be the case) and look at that list of factors I initially posted, they all still potentially apply.......

[sgtmac_46]

But you can? Nope, which is why I choose not to rely on the good will of the criminal sociopath to determine outcome, if I can at ALL avoid it...THANK YOU FOR PLAYING! ;)

Your entire position is predicated on a falsehood.....that YOU can somehow, through impressive verbal and non-verbal communication, control the decision of the robber......and you can't! He controls the entire situation so long as you grant him that control, and YOUR life is ENTIRELY in his hands should you simply acquiesce to his will.

By fleeing or shooting the robber, however, you take his control away.

Now, there may be times when has absolute control over you.......but at no point while acquiescing to his control do YOU have any measure of control......you've given it up. Cooperation is not a plan so much as a plea for the bad man not to be 'too bad', one he can choose to listen to or not.

[sgtmac_46]

...and you wouldn't know whether opening fire would be a success or failure until the guy was dead.

These people saw the whole scene and were in a much better position to 'read' the robber and know their own abilities and limitations. What they did worked. It might not on another day. But I'm not the one missing the point. In this case we know they made the right decision. In the case in this thread, it worked. This isn't another case than the one it is. These people hoped that the sociopath wouldn't kill them.....that was hope, not an action. He chose not to, which is the ONLY reason it ended the way it did.....the OUTCOME was entirely in the hands of the criminal....ENTIRELY! They are complete passive victims, entirely at his mercy, or lack thereof. That is where you're confused.

If someone SHOOTS the criminal, however, the outcome is no longer in the hands of the criminal.......they have taken control of the situation. If someone flees, likewise.

[sgtmac_46]

That isn't clear to me. I couldn't hear what they were saying or see what everyone was doing. You seem to equate 'not shooting' with 'not reacting'. That makes no difference......we're back to the assumption that you have some control with your words.......but the only control you have is the control given to you by the sociopath holding the gun. The CHOICES ARE ALL HIS!


I don't know, but their intuition was right, no? Don't you use intuition and basic human psychology to predict others' actions? They're intuition was no more right than the DEAD folks who had the same 'intuition' with a different outcome.......the deciding factor was the CRIMINAL, not them......he chose not to shoot them. They had no control because they exerted none.

Also, as an aside, one of the traits of officers killed in the line of duty, as determined by FBI studies, is those officers likely to be killed in the line of duty are those that believe they an 'read people' and 'perceive good'. Do you know what the best indicator in this scenario is? THE FACT THAT A MAN IS POINTING A GUN AT YOU! If you can't read that as bad news, there's a problem. ;)




My way is to use your best judgment when deciding whether to fight or not. Your way seems to be to always fight. No approach is guaranteed to always get you back home safely. But using your judgment to determine the wisest course of action is probably a better course of action than always shooting. You're actually creating a strawman now.....you're the one endorsing 'COOPERATION' is usually best....and i've attacked that. But the statistics show that

1) Armed Resistance has the best outcome.
2) Fleeing the second best
3) Unarmed Resistance
4) Cooperation has the WORST number of outcomes...

Facts is facts....

And you've FAILED to explain to me what 'judgement' is being used in any of these situations that separates them.......other than 'it felt this way'.


I think it's been established that there are statistics (and hence examples) and experts on both sides of this. Looking at the studies, the devil is in the details. The definitions of resistance and whether the resistance 'provoked' further violence vary widely. I mentioned one and the response was to attack the author as biased rather than the study as flawed. I don't intend to keep posting studies because I do not believe it would be possible to alter your opinion by any number thereof. Until the DOJ gives an authoritative opinion, it would serve no purpose. No one's mind would be changed. Because the facts don't support your position.


I'm not the original source of that advice. It came from the U.S. government. It worked well for a long time in terms of keeping deaths down. Then things changed. It would seem clear at this point that far more lives have been lost heeding that advice.....it was bad advice from the beginning.


Your use of 9/11 is inflammatory. But I fail to see how it helps your point...both those passengers who resisted and those who did not died in the crashes. INFLAMMATORY?! No, given that we are discussing 'Cooperating' versus 'Resisting' the issue of 9/11 is MUCH APPLICABLE!


If this is so, why isn't the advice to resist common from police depts., employers, etc.? Just the opposite is the case. Perceived liability......in the instance of EMPLOYERS it based on the notion that encouraging employees to fight back might open them to civil liability regardless of the outcome.......while encouraging cooperationg, even if it gets employees killed, doesn't........and they can ALWAYS HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES AND MOP THE FLOORS! ;)

Asking why some people give bad advice isn't really an argument in support of bad advice......a PERFECT example, if you're recall, was that POLICE DEPARTMENTS were telling folks to pull up under over-passes when confronted by tornadoes, and use them as shelter, in the wake of a very famous tornado video........we subsequently found out that over-passes act as WIND TUNNELS and INCREASE WINDSPEED! In the Oklahoma city tornodoes that advice got a NUMBER OF FOLKS KILLED!

[sgtmac_46]

Well, since the customer clearly isn't armed, at least, not visibly enough that we can make any other determination based on the video, the first option you've posited, that of "ARMED RESISTANCE!" wasn't an option at all. Based, again, on the meager evidence of the video, the second option, "flee," probably wasn't available because the robber is between him and the door. This brings us to the third option, "unarmed resistance," which I really think has been the main theme of this discussion, and might not have taken place for any of the reasons I posted above, as well as some others-all things we can't determine from the video, though we could might make some guesses based upon the customers actions, such as his quick and ready compliance. Which brings us to the last option in your set of responses, "compliance," which appears to have worked in this case.

Getting back to "ARMED RESISTANCE," though, this still brings us back to my whole set of questions from my first post, as well as several others, such as:

If the customer were carrying, was he carrying in a way that he could readily access the weapon, or was it someplace that didn't lend itself to drawing, like an ankle holster?

If it were in an ankle holster, might his best chance of resisting have been to feign compliance, and go to the floor to facilitate drawing his weapon?

I'm sure we can think of some others. The real point to discussions like this one (for me, anyway) is not to determine what was done "wrong" or "right," or what "I would have done if I'd been in his place," but to speculate (because that's all we really can do) about those unseen things, and how they might or might not have altered the situation, and why.

You, for instance, seem to be saying that if the customer had been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed, and the robber would be shot
possibly dead, which brings up a whole category of people for whom this might not be a desirable outcome. It also raises the possibility of a shootout at close range in a public place, which brings up a whole category of people and circumstances for whom this might not be a desirable outcome.

None of which we can determine from the video evidence-again. Though we should, perhaps, discuss......

Notwithstanding, of course, that if we assume he was armed (rather than assuming that he wasn't, since that appears to be the case) and look at that list of factors I initially posted, they all still potentially apply....... I'll keep the response short to avoid confusing the issue......STATISTICALLY, the most EFFECTIVE RESPONSE to armed robbery, the response MOST LIKELY to result in a positive outcome for the victim, is an ARMED RESPONSE!

Situations vary, and each situations details change......but as a WHOLE an armed response is the one most likely to insure the survival of the victim. That is my point.

COOPERATION should be the last resort, not the first. Cooperation should be the resort of last option, not as some here believe, THE FIRST!

It's counter-intuitive to many folks, I acknowledge......but putting your life ENTIRELY IN THE HANDS of bad men with guns isn't a good survival strategy. ;)

[sgtmac_46]

A question comes to mind on the subject of robbery......what would happen, in this day and age, if someone jumped up on a plane and yelled 'Hi-jacking!'......even assuming there was no Air Marshall!

We all know what would happen.......likely whoever it was would get beaten to death by a dozen passengers........why? They've conditioned themselves to the idea that, if someone tries to hi-jack the airplane, they are going to FIGHT!

Airline flights have become hardened targets, not just because of security and Air Marshalls, but because of the passengers themselves......after 9/11 they REFUSE to be passive victims of a hi-jacking.

In order for robberies and hi-jackings to be successful the victims have cooperate.

[elder999]

COOPERATION should be the last resort, not the first. Cooperation should be the resort of last option, not as some here believe, THE FIRST!


It's not at all counter-intuitive for me. We're in agreement on this. THe simple logic of it: you must decide if he's going to shoot you or not. Given the assumed unknowns (remember, we don't know if the customer knew the robber or not) you can't have any confidence in that decision either way. Therefore, the best response is to act as though he's going to shoot you.

We're also in agreement on armed response-though this isn't always an option, often for some of the reasons listed by others.

Surely, you're not advocating that everyone go armed, all the time, in anticipation of being party to events such as these, are you? :lol:

In any case, cooperation appears to have worked just fine in this instance, and, as I said, there could be a long list of reasons why resistance wasn't. More to the point, some of those reasons could be more than simply circumstantial, they could be conditional: the option for response might not be graded in terms of "statistical likelihood of positive outcome" and instead based on "individual likelihood of positive outcome." If the individual had some physical impairment: visual, physical, chronic pain, limited arm movement armed response might not be a viable first option, just as fleeing might not, just as unarmed response certainly might not. There are also a variety of emotional reasons, as well as some intellectual ones. And, not in the least, there is the variant of social conditioning: individuals will respond how they are trained. In the absence of training for an armed response, or an unarmed one, or the best way to flee, individuals are often trained to comply, and never mind statistic likelihood of success.

Bottom line: while the statistical lesson is valuable, it can't be applied to every situation, because it simply can't be applied to every individual. Not everyone will be armed. Not everyone will be capable of responding-even if they are armed. Not every situation will present itself as viable for any response other than compliance, and we can't tell from the video where on that spectrum this situation falls; there are too many unknowns.

"What if" is a valuable training tool, but it works a variety of ways-it doesn't end with "if he had a gun, he could have stopped him," and it doesn't end with,"the robber left lots of opportunity to counter attack." We have to ask ourselves to think of all the possible "whys": why didn't he counter-attack?, why wasn't he armed? We then have to ask the other "what ifs?" "What if he were armed?Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) he counter attack then?"

[MA-Caver]

A question comes to mind on the subject of robbery......what would happen, in this day and age, if someone jumped up on a plane and yelled 'Hi-jacking!'......even assuming there was no Air Marshall!

We all know what would happen.......likely whoever it was would get beaten to death by a dozen passengers........why? They've conditioned themselves to the idea that, if someone tries to hi-jack the airplane, they are going to FIGHT!

Airline flights have become hardened targets, not just because of security and Air Marshalls, but because of the passengers themselves......after 9/11 they REFUSE to be passive victims of a hi-jacking.

In order for robberies and hi-jackings to be successful the victims have cooperate.
Yes but that was before anyone came up with the (actually brilliant) idea of turning an entire jet liner full of fuel into a air to ground missile. Before you had a very good chance of getting a free ride to a foreign country and MAYBE not get blown up in the process of negotiations and then another free ride back home with stories to tell your grand-children.
Now, it's a do or die situation.
Quite different from a fast-food robbery. Unless they start blowing themselves up over here with bombs strapped to their chest like they're doing over there.

You have to admit, we are by and large a nation of sheeple. Not many of us are sheepdogs and thankfully (proportionally) a few of us are actually wolves.



Bottom line: while the statistical lesson is valuable, it can't be applied to every situation, because it simply can't be applied to every individual. Not everyone will be armed. Not everyone will be capable of responding-even if they are armed. Not every situation will present itself as viable for any response other than compliance, and we can't tell from the video where on that spectrum this situation falls; there are too many unknowns.

"What if" is a valuable training tool, but it works a variety of ways-it doesn't end with "if he had a gun, he could have stopped him," and it doesn't end with,"the robber left lots of opportunity to counter attack." We have to ask ourselves to think of all the possible "whys": why didn't he counter-attack?, why wasn't he armed? We then have to ask the other "what ifs?" "What if he were armed?Why wouldn't (or [I]shouldn't) he counter attack then?"
Agreed!

[sgtmac_46]

It's not at all counter-intuitive for me. We're in agreement on this. THe simple logic of it: you must decide if he's going to shoot you or not. Given the assumed unknowns (remember, we don't know if the customer knew the robber or not) you can't have any confidence in that decision either way. Therefore, the best response is to act as though he's going to shoot you.

We're also in agreement on armed response-though this isn't always an option, often for some of the reasons listed by others.

Surely, you're not advocating that everyone go armed, all the time, in anticipation of being party to events such as these, are you? :lol: I go armed ALL THE TIME, in anticipation of being party to events such as this......I can't speak for what others should or shouldn't do.


In any case, cooperation appears to have worked just fine in this instance, and, as I said, there could be a long list of reasons why resistance wasn't. More to the point, some of those reasons could be more than simply circumstantial, they could be conditional: the option for response might not be graded in terms of "statistical likelihood of positive outcome" and instead based on "individual likelihood of positive outcome." If the individual had some physical impairment: visual, physical, chronic pain, limited arm movement armed response might not be a viable first option, just as fleeing might not, just as unarmed response certainly might not. There are also a variety of emotional reasons, as well as some intellectual ones. And, not in the least, there is the variant of social conditioning: individuals will respond how they are trained. In the absence of training for an armed response, or an unarmed one, or the best way to flee, individuals are often trained to comply, and never mind statistic likelihood of success.

Bottom line: while the statistical lesson is valuable, it can't be applied to every situation, because it simply can't be applied to every individual. Not everyone will be armed. Not everyone will be capable of responding-even if they are armed. Not every situation will present itself as viable for any response other than compliance, and we can't tell from the video where on that spectrum this situation falls; there are too many unknowns.

"What if" is a valuable training tool, but it works a variety of ways-it doesn't end with "if he had a gun, he could have stopped him," and it doesn't end with,"the robber left lots of opportunity to counter attack." We have to ask ourselves to think of all the possible "whys": why didn't he counter-attack?, why wasn't he armed? We then have to ask the other "what ifs?" "What if he were armed?Why wouldn't (or [I]shouldn't) he counter attack then?" Yes, but all those ENDORSING this as an example of why you should cooperate....CANNOT, and HAVE NOT pointed to one single variable different here from similar incidents where the cooperative victims were shot.......EXCEPT the end of the video where no one was shot. Ergo, they can't point to a single point of difference between the two, OTHER than the unpredictable outcome. Hence, there is no lesson to be learned about when to COOPERATE as they prescribe.......so we're back at looking at statistics.

Now, if you could get robbers to join the ROBBERS Union, and force them to throw down the 'Good Guy Robber in Good Standing' card to show that they are a member in good standing, and are duty bound not to shoot anyone who cooperates, then the 'Cooperation' crowd will have a point. ;)

[sgtmac_46]

Yes but that was before anyone came up with the (actually brilliant) idea of turning an entire jet liner full of fuel into a air to ground missile. Before you had a very good chance of getting a free ride to a foreign country and MAYBE not get blown up in the process of negotiations and then another free ride back home with stories to tell your grand-children. And the enemy used that against them, didn't they? The enemy KNEW that simply yelling 'Hi-Jacking' would bring compliance, and used that as a weapon to kill thousands.

Now, hi-jacking is a thing of the past in the US......because regardless of the INTENT of the hi-jackers, they can't control the passengers......it won't happen again, because you will never again have cooperative passengers.





And actually it was Tom Clancy that came up with the idea of using a jetliner as a weapon to destroy the US Capitol building in 1994 in his book 'Debt of Honor'. ;)



Now, it's a do or die situation.
Quite different from a fast-food robbery. Unless they start blowing themselves up over here with bombs strapped to their chest like they're doing over there. It was actually always do or die, folks just were operating under some false assumptions.....now the veil has been lifted!


You have to admit, we are by and large a nation of sheeple. Not many of us are sheepdogs and thankfully (proportionally) a few of us are actually wolves.


Agreed! We are.....mostly because we are taught to be so.

[elder999]

And actually it was Tom Clancy that came up with the idea of using a jetliner as a weapon to destroy the US Capitol building in 1994 in his book 'Debt of Honor'. .

Actually, Howard Hughes supposedly came up with the idea in the 60's, and the RAND corporation did an interesting study back in the 70's and another in the 80's, with a variety of aircraft and potential targets.NORAD had several drills with jets as weapons throughout both decades and into the 90's.


Yes, but all those ENDORSING this as an example of why you should cooperate....CANNOT, and HAVE NOT pointed to one single variable different here from similar incidents where the cooperative victims were shot.......EXCEPT the end of the video where no one was shot.


Well, maybe I missed it-I'm sometimes slow like that-but I didn't see anyone "endorsing this particular instance" as an example of why "you should cooperate." All I saw was some individuals saying that in this instance it worked, and it did. Like I said, broader questions might be directed towards his quick compliance-he tosses his wallet on the floor almost immediately. Did he know the guy? While not as good as a "good guy robber union card" ( :lol: ) this might influence one's actions towards compliance-or not.



I go armed ALL THE TIME, in anticipation of being party to events such as this......I can't speak for what others should or shouldn't do.

Well, if I understand correctly, that's part of your professional duty anyway. Some of us don't have the option of going armed ALL of THE TIME, in anticipation of anything.

Some of us surely shouldn't ever go armed-at any time.

[sgtmac_46]

As to the police, and what they suggest you should do......police doctrine is constantly evolving as well.......prior to Columbine, the standard police practice in the event of an armed gunmen situation was to....

1) Set up a perimeter
2) Attempt to make communication with the gunmen
3) Negotiate....

And the result was simply to allow the gunmen more time to kill more victims....

Now we operate under the doctrine of the ACTIVE SHOOTER! Law Enforcement officers are taught to enter the building as quickly as possible, locate the shooter, and neutralize him as quickly as possible.



A similar situation has involved the civilian response to being in an active shooter situation.......much the same mindset has always been applied to dealing with that as robbery.....escape if you can, hide if you can, and if confronted, COOPERATE!

Well, the cooperate advice is guaranteed death in an active shooter situation.......so now many schools are doing the unTHINKABLE! They are teaching students that if they can't escape or hide, they should.......FIGHT!

Yes, they should fight, they should, as a group, use the SPIDER MONKEY defense........throw whatever objects they can find at the active shooter, and if several can get close enough, WRESTLE THE GUN AWAY!

Now there are some who are horrified by this suggestion......the notion that they should calmly wait their turn, head down, passively, so as not to ANGER the gunmen even more seems a better strategy to those folks.

[sgtmac_46]

Well, maybe I missed it-I'm sometimes slow like that-but I didn't see anyone "endorsing this particular instance" as an example of why "you should cooperate." All I saw was some individuals saying that in this instance it worked, and it did. Like I said, broader questions might be directed towards his quick compliance-he tosses his wallet on the floor almost immediately. Did he know the guy? While not as good as a "good guy robber union card" ( :lol: ) this might influence one's actions towards compliance-or not. If it's not an endorsement, saying it worked would be kind of stating the obvious......when someone points at something at 'working' they are usually referring to their pet theory of an action in practice. But since we can't point to anything but us already knowing the outcome as to knowing why in THIS situation it worked, it's a moot point. And actually 'It' didn't work, this robber chose not to shoot anyone......there is nothing the victims did that did or did not 'work'.......the choice was entirely that of the robber.....THAT is my point. He dictates, when you cooperate, how the situation turns out. You have no control.




Well, if I understand correctly, that's part of your professional duty anyway. Some of us don't have the option of going armed ALL of THE TIME, in anticipation of anything.

Some of us surely shouldn't ever go armed-at any time. Perhaps some of you shouldn't, but most of you should have the choice whether to walk in public armed. We live in a free society, and we see much evidence from the sections of our society more free than others, that legally armed citizens are NOT remotely a threat to public safety.....in many instances they are just the opposite.

[arnisador]

Your entire position is predicated on a falsehood.....that YOU can somehow, through impressive verbal and non-verbal communication, control the decision of the robber.

That's not what I've been saying at all. It's the position you'd like to argue against, perhaps, but it isn't mine.


That is where you're confused.


Having refactored my position into what you'd like it to be, you are now being dismissive.


You're actually creating a strawman now.....you're the one endorsing 'COOPERATION' is usually best....

No, you're the one saying that I'm saying that. I'm saying it's sometimes best...and worked fine in the case in this thread.


Asking why some people give bad advice isn't really an argument in support of bad advice......Sorry, I was too subtle. When everyone else's advice conflicts so widely with the advice you're giving, does it ever make you wonder if there's another reasonable way to view things?


COOPERATION should be the last resort, not the first.

Here's where we most clearly disagree: I don't think it's always the last choice. I think it depends on the situation.


Airline flights have become hardened targets, not just because of security and Air Marshalls, but because of the passengers themselves......after 9/11 they REFUSE to be passive victims of a hi-jacking.

It's also much harder to get bombs and guns on board now, meaning the hijackers are less likely to be well-armed and hence the passengers' unarmed response would be more likely to succeed. Of course, the situation has changed, which is my point--if someone has a bomb and wants to go to Cuba, fly him there. If someone has a boxcutter and wants to go to the Pentagon, it's a different matter. Different situations are different, and one must assess them and make a judgment as to the best course of action.

You seem to view the world through the eyes of someone who always has a firearm on his person. Good for you, but will my 14 year old daughter, now studying JKD/FMA and BJJ, be able to get a CCW permit? I've worked at DOD/DOE jobs where bringing a gun in would've gotten me arrested then fired. At one location I couldn't even have left it in the car (and they had very little sense of humour about things like this). It's not always an option.

I doubt that further discussion could be fruitful.

[elder999]

I've worked at DOD/DOE jobs where bringing a gun in would've gotten me arrested then fired. At one location I couldn't even have left it in the car (and they had very little sense of humour about things like this). It's not always an option..

Never mind those itty-bitty knives that are the only ones permitted...:lfao:

I'm always armed: Mont Blanc pen.

[sgtmac_46]

That's not what I've been saying at all. It's the position you'd like to argue against, perhaps, but it isn't mine. Please....if you can't predict how the robber is going to act before hand, then what you're plan is built around is a wild guess.....unless there's something else you haven't added.


Having refactored my position into what you'd like it to be, you are now being dismissive. Feel free to restate your position, in short. If i've misunderstood, please feel free to clarify.



No, you're the one saying that I'm saying that. I'm saying it's sometimes best...and worked fine in the case in this thread. It's what I understood you to say, if it's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.


Sorry, I was too subtle. When everyone else's advice conflicts so widely with the advice you're giving, does it ever make you wonder if there's another reasonable way to view things? 'Everyone else' isn't conflicting with my advice, you are. Please don't insult both of us by making the assumption that you speak for 'everyone'.




Here's where we most clearly disagree: I don't think it's always the last choice. I think it depends on the situation. And yet HERE AGAIN you fail to explain the difference between near identical situations where the gunman DOES shoot the victims and DOESN'T.......except to point to the video and say you know because you saw the outcome. Hardly a clarification of 'depends on the situation' since you as much admit that you don't the difference between those situations.




It's also much harder to get bombs and guns on board now, meaning the hijackers are less likely to be well-armed and hence the passengers' unarmed response would be more likely to succeed. Of course, the situation has changed, which is my point--if someone has a bomb and wants to go to Cuba, fly him there. If someone has a boxcutter and wants to go to the Pentagon, it's a different matter. Different situations are different, and one must assess them and make a judgment as to the best course of action. 9/11 was not committed with bombs and guns......it was committed with box-cutters........

........and now you're wanting to suggest passengers should attack hi-jackers or cooperate based on where the hi-jackers CLAIM they want to go?! :duh:

'Uhm.....PASSENGERS......please do not resist, we are only wanting to hi-jack you to Cuba.....yeah, that's the ticket.' ;)


You seem to view the world through the eyes of someone who always has a firearm on his person. Good for you, but will my 14 year old daughter, now studying JKD/FMA and BJJ, be able to get a CCW permit? I've worked at DOD/DOE jobs where bringing a gun in would've gotten me arrested then fired. At one location I couldn't even have left it in the car (and they had very little sense of humour about things like this). It's not always an option. No, i'm telling you what i'm going to do.....feel free to do whatever you like, but lets not pretend your way is superior in any measurable way. ;)

I'd suggest your daughter run from an armed assailant......cooperation should be her LAST RESORT!


I doubt that further discussion could be fruitful. Your decision, it doesn't matter to me.

[sgtmac_46]

Which reminds me......why do all these shootings happen in 'Gun Free Zones'?

[sgtmac_46]

I doubt that further discussion could be fruitful. Upon further reflection, it compels me to admit that in these types of discussions I can come off as a bit abrasive.....and while I fully believe every word I say on the subject matter, I should make it clear that my disagreement is actually more respectful than it might sound.

Reasonable and intelligent people DO hold conflicting opinions. So we can simply agree to respectfully disagree.

[seasoned]

In my experience... no knows knows exactly what they'll do in any given moment in any given situation. It's all speculation. Training will enable us to act but we still choose to take that action. Sometimes we act without thinking calling it instinct born of years of training and experience. This would be more likely from seasoned cops than the average joe. A combat seasoned soldier that is home from duty/retired may likewise act because they've been under fire before and (again) has the training and experience.
Many of us here on MT are usually armed in one form or another. With those like sgtmac they're armed with a pistol at all times, others like me are armed with a folding knife that can be deployed rapidly if need be, still others have empty hands as weapons.
However we're armed, it is no guarantee how we will act in any given situation. There is also no guarantee of the outcome.

Personally I will act (or not act) depending upon my own judgment and based on my feelings at the moment. I've associated with enough criminals that I feel confident in reading them well enough to know that their weapon may be just an intimidation factor or a means to sate their desire to commit violence (and using a robbery as an excuse). I will ALWAYS take for granted that the robber will indeed use his weapon should he feel that he has to. Most of them, all they want is to get what they want and to get the hell out of dodge as quick as possible with little fuss (i.e. before the cops or (armed) security arrives). They're not looking to go out in a blaze of gunfire and a hail of lead. They want to survive just as badly as you do.
They are usually NOT natural born killers. But give them the slightest excuse and they will be.
No, there is no guarantee either that you are being robbed by a mere intimidator and not an actual killer.

Yes, Tex he was well within pistol range and he's watching you.

Good point MA-Caver.

The majority of people on this site either teach or are taught how to defend against armed or unarmed situations. That makes us bias. In the one clip where the robber got the money, turned to leave, then turned back and shot, is very unfortunate indeed. On the same token impossible to read. At best, everyone in the store where the clerk was killed, did what they were suppose to do. Trained LEO, with all their weapons, are trained to seek cover first, then fire. I say, give them what they want, unless they direct you to a back room. As long as we are still at the counter, I would keep my mouth shut. All that robber wants, is money and no resistance. I have never once trained anyone to defend their wallet, only their life, and God willing, I hope I will know the difference, if or when the time ever comes.

[sgtmac_46]

Good point MA-Caver.

The majority of people on this site either teach or are taught how to defend against armed or unarmed situations. That makes us bias. In the one clip where the robber got the money, turned to leave, then turned back and shot, is very unfortunate indeed. On the same token impossible to read. At best, everyone in the store where the clerk was killed, did what they were suppose to do. Trained LEO, with all their weapons, are trained to seek cover first, then fire. I say, give them what they want, unless they direct you to a back room. As long as we are still at the counter, I would keep my mouth shut. All that robber wants, is money and no resistance. I have never once trained anyone to defend their wallet, only their life, and God willing, I hope I will know the difference, if or when the time ever comes.
But we're still back to the question of what makes you believe that's all the robber wants or will accept? Conventional wisdom?

We're assuming that armed robbers are 'reasonable'.....THAT is kind of a funny assumption when you think about it.

That advice is still potluck spinning the wheel, and I still believe it's driven as much by fear of liability on the part of the advice giver than anything else.

And since no one has YET been able to quantify the difference between the two type of robbers.......i'm still asking for someone to do so!

I posted an article about the Pizza Delivery guy who got shot to death when he turned the money over to the robber, and the robber didn't like that it was only $30.00 and shot him out of anger at it not being enough!



I don't endorse any particular action in ALL cases, but there is a certain belief on the part of many folks that 'cooperation' should be the default action......and i'm looking for a QUANTIFIABLE justification to support that notion as being better than fighting or fleeing.

Now, obviously if you're unarmed, and facing twenty armed assailants, you're pretty much at their mercy........but Kobayashi Maru scenario's aside, where there is a choice, is cooperation generally more desirable?

[MJS]

We don't know what will happen. Will they take the cash and leave, without harming anyone? Will they take the cash, and on the way out, blast a few people? Will they take the cash and on the way out, pistol whip a few in the process, because the clerk is taking too long?

IMHO, I think its foolish to assume that they will always leave without any additional violence. Speaking for myself, I really don't want to take the chance that they will just walk out. I'd be willing to bet that for every incident where they just left, there'd be one where someone got hurt.

I'd rather lean on the side that they will injure someone, so this is why I say that if there is a chance to fight back, take it!

[Deaf Smith]

And as I've said before, the robbery went 'bad' the minute the robbers came in the door. There is no crystal ball. IF you have the opportunity, skill, and means to resist, I suggest one does this. If you don't, I suggest you aquire the skill and means and then hope you never need them.

But even then, study videos of robberies and fights. Look for indicators, look for openings, look for what worked and what didn't. Learn from this and modify your SD practice to reflect it.

Deaf

[Ahriman]

Surviving robberies is luck. Some people died here a few years ago as their luck ran out. They were all shot. Not resisting and the mindset behind it allowed 9-11 to happen. Not resisting allows criminals to kill, maim and rape huge amounts of people. Resisting may lead to your death, but if you choose not to resist at all then you put your life into the hands of the criminal.
I don't want to die but when a criminal threatens mine or me I'd prefer to die while fighting to surviving due to pure luck.

And one more thing. If you can stop/kill/etc a criminal and you choose not to do so, then it will be partially YOUR responsibility if said criminal ever kills anybody.

[arnisador]

And one more thing. If you can stop/kill/etc a criminal and you choose not to do so, then it will be partially YOUR responsibility if said criminal ever kills anybody.

You might have over-learned the lesson of "Spider-Man".

[terryl965]

You might have over-learned the lesson of "Spider-Man".

I would have to agree

[sgtmac_46]

Surviving robberies is luck. Some people died here a few years ago as their luck ran out. They were all shot. Not resisting and the mindset behind it allowed 9-11 to happen. Not resisting allows criminals to kill, maim and rape huge amounts of people. Resisting may lead to your death, but if you choose not to resist at all then you put your life into the hands of the criminal.
I don't want to die but when a criminal threatens mine or me I'd prefer to die while fighting to surviving due to pure luck.

And one more thing. If you can stop/kill/etc a criminal and you choose not to do so, then it will be partially YOUR responsibility if said criminal ever kills anybody. And that's an excellent point.....to bring it back to 9/11, if ALL plane passengers resisted hi-jackings, there would never BE hi-jackings.....hi-jackers would not attempt it because it would be a hardened target.

The presumption of compliance is the key factor in the mind of a robber......the belief that he can control a situation by threat of violence.

Now, can we apply that practically to the real world? I'm not sure......many folks will not fight back, even if they had means, so there will always be incentive on the part of trolls and goblins to exploit that.

[thardey]

I think most of this conversation, though a very good one, is already behind the robber's "Decision-making loop." Mostly because that's all the video shows.

But we're overlooking the "victim interview process." In most Subways I've been in, especially the newer ones, there are windows all along the front of the store, allowing the robber to "interview" his victims from the parking lot before he decides when to attack.

From watching the first video, the main thing I noticed was the demeanor of the guy in the tie. As the robber entered, the guy didn't even look over until the robber pulled the gun. That suggests a lack of awareness to me, if I was "interviewing" him. Also, his posture doesn't lend itself to confidence -- it didn't change at all to one of "submission" during the robbery, but he acted sumbissive from even before the robbery. Also (this could be a verbal command from the robber) notice how quickly he took his eyes off the gun. Even if you're "turning away" or getting down, you can keep peripheral vision on some part of the robber, at least his feet. This guy completely submitted from the get-go.

That tells me that he wasn't prepared mentally to defend himself from before the cameras started "rolling." We can't see the person making the sandwiches, so I can't comment on their behavior, but there probably was something that encouraged the robber to pick these two as easy targets.

So, from before the beginning, while you're at the Subway, would your demeanor, awareness, etc. encourage the robber to strike while you're there? Or would he rather wait a minute or two until you're gone?

Or, even if he went in, intending to rob you, would he "cool it" and order a sandwich after you make eye contact with him and let him know you "notice" him?

*Not that I'm saying the victim deserved to get robbed -- far from it! But if what he did was less than ideal, I want to learn from that, and not be branded as a target.*

[Deaf Smith]

Surviving robberies is luck.

Make your own luck! Train hard, and train right.


And one more thing. If you can stop/kill/etc a criminal and you choose not to do so, then it will be partially YOUR responsibility if said criminal ever kills anybody.

This is true!

If you let a thief go and later they rob or kill someone, some of the blame is on you. Capture them if you can, kill them if you must, but to let them go when you could have stopped them... never.

Deaf

[sgtmac_46]

I think most of this conversation, though a very good one, is already behind the robber's "Decision-making loop." Mostly because that's all the video shows.

But we're overlooking the "victim interview process." In most Subways I've been in, especially the newer ones, there are windows all along the front of the store, allowing the robber to "interview" his victims from the parking lot before he decides when to attack.

From watching the first video, the main thing I noticed was the demeanor of the guy in the tie. As the robber entered, the guy didn't even look over until the robber pulled the gun. That suggests a lack of awareness to me, if I was "interviewing" him. Also, his posture doesn't lend itself to confidence -- it didn't change at all to one of "submission" during the robbery, but he acted sumbissive from even before the robbery. Also (this could be a verbal command from the robber) notice how quickly he took his eyes off the gun. Even if you're "turning away" or getting down, you can keep peripheral vision on some part of the robber, at least his feet. This guy completely submitted from the get-go.

That tells me that he wasn't prepared mentally to defend himself from before the cameras started "rolling." We can't see the person making the sandwiches, so I can't comment on their behavior, but there probably was something that encouraged the robber to pick these two as easy targets.

So, from before the beginning, while you're at the Subway, would your demeanor, awareness, etc. encourage the robber to strike while you're there? Or would he rather wait a minute or two until you're gone?

Or, even if he went in, intending to rob you, would he "cool it" and order a sandwich after you make eye contact with him and let him know you "notice" him?

*Not that I'm saying the victim deserved to get robbed -- far from it! But if what he did was less than ideal, I want to learn from that, and not be branded as a target.*

No, I get your meaning completely! And it's an excellent point. Many cop killers who were interviewed pointed to something about the particular officer that made them feel they could take them on......criminals, like predators in the wild DO victim profile.....and the successful ones are pretty good at it.......the unsuccessful ones pick the wrong 'victim'.

[Ahriman]

Ahem, I didn't watch Spiderman... I simply ran away from a dog years ago instead of killing it which resulted in a kid's death next day. Got to love stray dogs... responsibility for the kid's death is partially mine, shared with all those who did the same and the previous owners. Is an agressive stray dog that much different from a criminal?
...
I'll comment on the rest of this thread but now I have to go back to the workshop. :D

[sgtmac_46]

Ahem, I didn't watch Spiderman... I simply ran away from a dog years ago instead of killing it which resulted in a kid's death next day. Got to love stray dogs... responsibility for the kid's death is partially mine, shared with all those who did the same and the previous owners. Is an agressive stray dog that much different from a criminal?
...
I'll comment on the rest of this thread but now I have to go back to the workshop. :D Nope, it really isn't......

“He who does not punish evil commands it to be done.” -Leonardo da Vinci

[MA-Caver]

Ahem, I didn't watch Spiderman... I simply ran away from a dog years ago instead of killing it which resulted in a kid's death next day. Got to love stray dogs... responsibility for the kid's death is partially mine, shared with all those who did the same and the previous owners. Is an aggressive stray dog that much different from a criminal?
Yes, but a criminal like the one in Belgium that went on a rampage is no different than an aggressive stray dog. There is a difference. A stray dog really can't be held accountable and would simply be put down. Whereas a criminal has to go through the b.s. of arraignment, formal charges, pre-trial jury selection, pleading, trial, sentencing and finally incarceration.

Take the bastards out the back and shoot 'em.