Another Robber wide open to counter attack

[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.

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/page...n=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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.