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 *** 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 *** 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.

 

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

 

[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

 

[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.