As per MA-Caver's request I downloaded the video and posted it localally so it could be viewed without associated questionable web content.
MA-Caver said:
Fatal Robbery Video - *WARNING FOR VIOLENT CONTENT
- Thread starter dubljay
- Start date
DeLamar.J
3rd Black Belt
Wow!!
One thought here is that fortunately it took the officer (that recognized the shooter) only HOURS to find a match and subsquently catch him instead of DAYS, had not been for computers.
P.S. Thanks dubljay :asian:
P.S. Thanks dubljay :asian:
Give the man your money. It's not worth your life. And, if you have to fight, it would be better to bring a gun to a gun fight if you can.
My question is.... Would you trust your life to someone pointing a gun at you? To me the trust factor is already at issue, since they are pointing the gun at me and threatening my life. Why would I put my life at the mercy of someone who is demonstrating that he cannot be trusted? I don't believe in that sentiment, "just give them what they want and they leave me unharmed." There is no more assurance that I would not be harmed if I gave them what they wanted versus fighting back. Additionally, this would require faith in that they won't harm me, which they are demonstrating otherwise, so I find it rather difficult to go along with that approach.upnorthkyosa said:
That being said, there is a time to fight back, it may not necessarily be at the moment of confrontation, but it is definitely somewhere before I get harmed. I can't say when it is and I certainly cannot say when it was for those guys in the video.
Lastly, I would not put much trust in a criminal's word of not harming me or my loved ones. They have already demonstrated they cannot be trusted.
But I will reiterate, that there is a time to act and a time to comply. Give them the opening and lead them into the trap.
You have a point. I obviously wouldn't trust a person pointing a gun in my face. Yet, I think that we need to take into account that the four men escalated the situation by engaging their attacker. Now, I'm not blaming the victim or saying that these guys were hurt because they were dumb or any other type of nonsense.
I don't know the whole situation, but in general there is a time to fight and there is a time to try and calm things down. De-escalation can work and, IMHO, it should be your first response when dealing with a situation that is escalating.
I don't know the whole situation, but in general there is a time to fight and there is a time to try and calm things down. De-escalation can work and, IMHO, it should be your first response when dealing with a situation that is escalating.
still learning
Senior Master
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,749
- Reaction score
- 48
Hello, Every sitution could have turn out different...in this case..one of the defenders was killed.
Who is to say..even if you give your wallets...the robber could have shot them anyway...the robber has a past history.....Aloha
Who is to say..even if you give your wallets...the robber could have shot them anyway...the robber has a past history.....Aloha
The man with the gun is in charge, no matter how many of you there were. This is a perfect example of trying to overpower someone with the upper hand without having trained in disarming someone. I am guessing these men weren't by the looks of the video. My advice would be don't mess with the man with the gun if you are not trained to take him down quickly. In this case it didn't seem to matter that there were more of them then him. The man with the gun wasn't afraid of anything and had nothing to lose. He was trying to rob four rather big guys by himself. Makes me wonder exactly where his head was.
still learning said:
This is true, the robber may just shoot them anyway. However, he did NOT shoot them right away. He ONLY shot them AFTER they began their counter attack. Again, I'm not saying that the people MADE the robber shoot them. I don't know that.
What I am saying is that it seemed as if the robber's initial intent was just to rob them. Is it dangerous to assume an armed assailent's intent? Absolutely. It is also extremely dangerous to attack an armed assailent when you are unarmed. To many MAists forget this...
Lisa said:
Even if you are trained, taking out a person armed with a deadly weapon when you are unarmed is difficult. This person will be 100% resistive.
upnorthkyosa said:
I agree. A very difficult thing to do. Very hard to control that adrenalin that is pumping through your veins. I honestly thought, as I was watching, that this video was going to turn out differently. I thought for sure the assailant would be over powered by those four guys. Just goes to prove, nothing is for sure so you have to be careful.
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
Dark said:
Hit the right tendon and yes...he would.
One of the things that stuck out to me was the mention of the "long wrap sheet." I think most folks think that if some one commits a crime they go to jail and stay there. Guess what...they don't. It's amazing the people our Judicial System and government allow to walk the streets. Especially when one of their primary responsiblities is to the welfare of the public!
One example of something that happened locally where I live: A man that was ordered by a judge to never enter the local hospital ever again due to the fact that he routinely attacked the staff that was treating him, decided to go back one more time. This time he took a screwdriver to attack the emergency room staff with. He stabbed one nurse in the arm before one of our students that also works there as an RN took the man down and held him for the police. The police couldn't take him to jail because he was state certified nut-job. So, they took him to the mental hospital. The mental hospital refused to take him because, again..he likes to attack the staff. So...can't go to jail...can't be locked in a padded room...so where is he you may ask? He's out walking the streets with his screwdriver!!! True. If that's not a good reason to study Martial Arts I don't know what is!
Point is...there's lots of crazies out there so you really have to be aware of your surroundings at all times and the people in it as well. You never know what they'll try and pull. (no pun intended)
I would offer another opinion too. Along with the fact that the guy had the gun, none of the victims appeared to know anything about what to do. I believe that is a fine example of how bad it can get, trying to grab the weapon, which is what every one of them were trying to do. They really weren't trying to stop the robber, they were all trying to control the gun rather than the robber.
I believe though, after the fight went down, that if the robber felt he had an escape route he would have fled. It wasn't until he was near the door that he fled. The 4 guys pretty much had him hemmed up by the looks of it.
I believe though, after the fight went down, that if the robber felt he had an escape route he would have fled. It wasn't until he was near the door that he fled. The 4 guys pretty much had him hemmed up by the looks of it.
Eviscerate
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
I think these guys acted on their instincts, it happened too fast to think about the situation much and in doing that id have to say they were right on, its just unfortunate that it went the way it did...
Unfortunate yes and a clear cut showing of what NOT to do. We here on this board (most of us anyway) have that training or are at least getting the training to handle a situation as dangerous as this.
If this guy had faced four black to brown belts enroute home from a night of classes he'd been toast (or at least we would like to think). Seems that three of them were willing to cooperate (inwardly they were obviously scared/pissed) but it took one of them to make the agressive move and the rest seized the opportunty with hopes that the four together would be able to take the guy down.
Problem was they didn't control the weapon in a manner that would've spared a lot of grief. Controlling the assailant (I recall reading somewhere here on this board) is secondary to the primary of controlling the weapon. These guys all jumped him and struggled for the gun. They didn't and thus the robber had the opportunity to squeeze off a round, probably in an effort to scare the four off of him so that he may regain some sembalnce of control... or at least get the hell out fo there. One got hit and went down and three to go, made it easier for him to be able to aim his weapon and take down another and leaving two to go.
Having control of the weapon would've at least prevented him from being able to make that fatal aim/shot. It's like what we're trying to do with Iran right now... control their weapons (capabilties). The weapon put the guy in charge (for the time being) and by taking it away from him he's bound to either leave or listen.
Tragic but educational to be sure.
If this guy had faced four black to brown belts enroute home from a night of classes he'd been toast (or at least we would like to think). Seems that three of them were willing to cooperate (inwardly they were obviously scared/pissed) but it took one of them to make the agressive move and the rest seized the opportunty with hopes that the four together would be able to take the guy down.
Problem was they didn't control the weapon in a manner that would've spared a lot of grief. Controlling the assailant (I recall reading somewhere here on this board) is secondary to the primary of controlling the weapon. These guys all jumped him and struggled for the gun. They didn't and thus the robber had the opportunity to squeeze off a round, probably in an effort to scare the four off of him so that he may regain some sembalnce of control... or at least get the hell out fo there. One got hit and went down and three to go, made it easier for him to be able to aim his weapon and take down another and leaving two to go.
Having control of the weapon would've at least prevented him from being able to make that fatal aim/shot. It's like what we're trying to do with Iran right now... control their weapons (capabilties). The weapon put the guy in charge (for the time being) and by taking it away from him he's bound to either leave or listen.
Tragic but educational to be sure.
Eviscerate
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
>
MA-Caver said:
Fight like they did... yes it would seem certian to turn out badly in one way or another... but then again (most of) us on this board don't fight like they did, do we?Eviscerate said:
But I think I taking your statement out of context by saying that, when I think you really meant they "fought with the courage to stand up to an (obviously) dangerous hood and chose the will (to try )not to be victims of a crime. So fighting with the courage to do so yes it may either seem courageous to some of us and foolish to some others. Question of course which side of the fence are we on?
Eviscerate
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
MA-Caver said:
Look at it from all three perspectives, when you put 'your mind' in the shoes of the mugger as dangerous as we are all purported to be, realize that someone is going to be killed by you when you couple intent to do harm with your weapon. Challenging 4 men in close quarters is asking for it, this guy knew ahead of time he was going to be doing some damage no matter how the game played out.
