McDonalds robbery Sugar Land texas

[KenpoTex]

The way I look at it, you've got two choices: either act, or don't. If you fail to act your best case scenario is that they take what they want and leave. Worst case is that they execute you or someone else because you didn't fight back.
OTOH, you can fight back...worst case go out fighting or maybe get someone else hurt or killed because of our actions. Best case though is that we take out the bad guys.

There's no way to predict what may or may not happen no matter which course of action (or inaction) you choose. However, I tend to believe that, in general, acting is better than placing yourself totally at the mercy of the bad guy(s).

 

[sgtmac_46]

The way I look at it, you've got two choices: either act, or don't. If you fail to act your best case scenario is that they take what they want and leave. Worst case is that they execute you or someone else because you didn't fight back.
OTOH, you can fight back...worst case go out fighting or maybe get someone else hurt or killed because of our actions. Best case though is that we take out the bad guys.

There's no way to predict what may or may not happen no matter which course of action (or inaction) you choose. However, I tend to believe that, in general, acting is better than placing yourself totally at the mercy of the bad guy(s).

And add to that the fact that action is faster than reaction......which is what we're counting on by waiting to see how bad the situation is going to get before reacting.......sometimes better to pick the moment of maximum advantage and surprise to launch your own attack, than wait to see if the bad guys are going to start executing everyone and then try to react.

"On that subject of repelling boarders, we discovered recently that Ty Cobb,
the legendary baseball player and notorious curmudgeon, was once hit upon by
what today would be called a mugger in a dark alley. Cobb relieved his
assailant of his pistol and beat him up with it so badly that his face could
not be identified in the morgue. Street punks should be careful to pick on
the right people - or the wrong people, depending upon your viewpoint." -Col. Jeff Cooper

 

[hkfuie]

I have nothing against the right to bear arms. I'm all for it.

I don't have a gun or know anything about shooting a gun. It is something I would like to learn at some point.

Engage with the bg or not engage with the bg. Has anyone here read Sanford Strong's book Strong on Defense? I read it years ago and still remember the stories.

One of them was about a shooting in McDonalds in San Ysidro. The gunman came in and started shooting at people. I believe he had to stop and reload THREE TIMES and while he was reloading the people just cowered there and waited for him.

There is a third option cowering or engaging: leaving the store. Doesn't anyone here tell kids that running away is great self-defense? I stress it all the time to the kids who wants to be a cartoon action hero and wrestle a bg who outweighs him by 200 pounds.

Personally, I have never been in a situation with a gun pointing at me. If I am honest, I am not sure I could bring myself to walk towards the gun, especially if there is more than one gunman. But running away from it...that I could do. I guess I am more cowardly than the rest of y'all. But I will never know until I am in the situation. Every situation is different. I think if there is an opportunity to escape without the risk of engaging, I would choose escape.

I wonder if in that San Ysidro McDonalds, if one person had run out the door, would others have followed? Haven't you noticed situations where there is this really great deal and no one is taking it...as soon as one person says yes, a bunch of people follow?

Do you think the gunmen would have shot if these guys had taken an opportunity to leave? Having friends/family with you would definitely influence the decision to act/not act/engage/comply/run.

 

[Rich Parsons]

The only difference is that WITH a gun, I have a hand in my destiny......without one I am a passive spectator to just how human the criminal sociopath robbers feel like being........unless you can teach me how to more skillfully be a victim so as to ENSURE that the robbers really, really, really don't want to shoot me.

With a gun, I have the option of deciding to take advantage of opportunity, and it's my skill (and luck) that will save me or not, not just the good will of bad men........I don't consider HOPE a plan of action.

SGTMAC, I carry where it is legal. I believe people should have the right to carry if they choose too. I understand having an active roll in you destiny of survival. I have been in multiple situations with firearms involved. I have been in Knife situations. I have been with just about any weapon one can think of. My point was that the original poster was making absolute comments about his arguments of what if's and then you and the original poster were discrediting the others what if's. Either What if's are valid or not. My point was that What if's are not a valid argument. People get to make choices, hopefully training and luck for I have used my share to be alive today, to survive. I never stated that not having a gun was more valid than having a gun. I was arguing that the presentation of the first argument was full of errors, and that each person's what if's are just as valid as anyone else's.

 

[arnisador]

The problem here is that inaction puts your life entirely in the hands of criminal sociopaths and their good will......hope is not a plan of action.

Violence is not the only possible form of action. Talking one's way out, sneaking out, or using patience can all work.

I guess the issue could be summed up with ONE SINGLE QUESTION! At what point do you decide it's 'turning bad'? When the first person gets shot by the robbers? The second? The third? For me it's 'turning bad' when bad men with guns start pointing them in my general direction.

That doesn't mean that returning fire is always the wisest course to take to turn things better. Sometimes, yes, but not always.

No one was hurt. Why would you argue with success?

 

[arnisador]

Now that tape showed the three very unorganized. They moved all around and many times did not concentrate on those sitting at the table. There were opportunities for a person who was well trained to take action.

And there were opportunities for a person who wanted to be a hero to get everyone else in that building killed.

The only catch is it would take guts. And that's not so easy to get.

It would also take luck, skill, and brains, and those aren't always easy to get either.

And one can take on three.

That's quite a risk to take.

Certainly sgtmac_46 has a point when he says that we're benefiting from hindsight in this case. You seem to be using foresight, though. If I was in there with my kids I might not want the average McDonald's patron to decide what's in our best interests and how to keep my family safe.

No one ever knows how these things'll turn out, but there are plenty examples of both resisting and playing along working. One must interpret the term self-defense broadly.

 

[arnisador]

I fully intend to execute everyone of them, so that they wake up in hell before they even know that they've lost control of the situation!

Now you've said something that distresses me, Judge Dredd.

 

[Deaf Smith]

It is not weither one wants to be a 'hero' or not.

The origional post points out the opportunites to resist the robbery sucessfuly. While there have been cases of people being hurt or killed while resisting there are not alot of them!

I do challenge those here to post links to such failures and I'll post links where CCW carriers succeeded.. and I bet I can post an awful lot of them while very few will be posted where they failed and got others killed.

When one is in the process of being robbed they do not know if they will live or die. Robberies do not go 'bad' when someone resist. The robbery went bad from the moment the robbers walked in. I've known people who have been robbed and they have never really gotten over it.

So that is why I don't quibble if one resist or one runs or if they are passive. It's up to them. But I'm well aware of victims that have been killed after doing everything the robber wanted. Others killed cause they were to slow for the robbers viewpoint. And others killed cause they didn't have 'enough' money to satisfy the robbers! And still others killed for just the heck of it.

Now go back to the video and look again. If you did decide to resist, how and when would you do that?

Deaf

 

[MA-Caver]

It is not weither one wants to be a 'hero' or not.

The origional post points out the opportunites to resist the robbery sucessfuly. While there have been cases of people being hurt or killed while resisting there are not alot of them!

I do challenge those here to post links to such failures and I'll post links where CCW carriers succeeded.. and I bet I can post an awful lot of them while very few will be posted where they failed and got others killed.

When one is in the process of being robbed they do not know if they will live or die. Robberies do not go 'bad' when someone resist. The robbery went bad from the moment the robbers walked in. I've known people who have been robbed and they have never really gotten over it.

So that is why I don't quibble if one resist or one runs or if they are passive. It's up to them. But I'm well aware of victims that have been killed after doing everything the robber wanted. Others killed cause they were to slow for the robbers viewpoint. And others killed cause they didn't have 'enough' money to satisfy the robbers! And still others killed for just the heck of it.

Now go back to the video and look again. If you did decide to resist, how and when would you do that?

Deaf

Probably the moment the robber stuck his head in the safe.. .make his head a part of the safe ... BUT... knowing there was other robbers out there... ready to cover the other's back ... it's a HUGE risk... got three guys psyched out and armed one way or another...

 

[arnisador]

I do challenge those here to post links to such failures and I'll post links where CCW carriers succeeded.. and I bet I can post an awful lot of them while very few will be posted where they failed and got others killed.

Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime



Authors: Block, Richard1; Skogan, Wesley G.2
Source: Violence and Victims, Volume 1, Number 4, 1986 , pp. 241-253(13)
Publisher: Springer Publishing Company

Forceful resistance in potential rape incidents was related to higher risk of attack and bodily injury with no apparent reduction in risk of rape. On the other hand, victims who were able to offer nonforceful resistance reported a reduced risk of being robbed and suffered less frequent attack and injury. In rape incidents, nonforceful resistance was linked to lower risk of actual rape but was unrelated to risk of attack or other forms of injury.

 

[Archangel M]

You all go right ahead and walk down the abbitor chute like the nice men with the guns are telling you. "Arbeit macht frei" and all that.

"Judge Dredd"..please. An armed robbery in progress is all the legal reason you would need to respond with deadly force. A lead cocktail would have been well deserved by any one of them..."devoted daddy's", "studious college student" etc, etc. etc. not withstanding.

Robberies do not go 'bad' when someone resist. The robbery went bad from the moment the robbers walked in

Damn straight! I dont see it as a "maybe they wont hurt us" decision as much as it is a "can I reasonably take them all out from where I am and with what I have" decision.

I wouldnt be waiting to see if they leave...Id be waiting till I had my opportunity.

 

[KenpoTex]

Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime



Authors: Block, Richard1; Skogan, Wesley G.2
Source: Violence and Victims, Volume 1, Number 4, 1986 , pp. 241-253(13)
Publisher: Springer Publishing Company

Forceful resistance in potential rape incidents was related to higher risk of attack and bodily injury with no apparent reduction in risk of rape. On the other hand, victims who were able to offer nonforceful resistance reported a reduced risk of being robbed and suffered less frequent attack and injury. In rape incidents, nonforceful resistance was linked to lower risk of actual rape but was unrelated to risk of attack or other forms of injury.

okay...

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/self-defense.html

Rape prevention studies mainly have focused on the effects of specific resistance strategies that were used by women who were raped versus women who avoided rape. Findings are mixed; however, it seems that the majority of resistance strategy studies indicate that women who use more physical and verbal resistance are more likely to avoid the completion of a rape (Bart, 1981; Kleck & Sayles,1990; Quinsey & Upfold, 1985; Ullman, 1997; Ullman & Knight, 1993; Ullman & Knight, 1995; Zoucha- Jensen & Coyne, 1993). Furthermore, several studies indicate that less forceful types of resistance such as pleading, crying, and reasoning have either no association or even a negative association with rape avoidance (Ullman & Knight, 1993; Zoucha – Jensen & Coyne, 1993).

 

[KenpoTex]

I fully intend to execute everyone of them, so that they wake up in hell before they even know that they've lost control of the situation!

Now you've said something that distresses me, Judge Dredd.

What is it that distresses you...his choice of words, or the mindset he's exhibiting?

If it's the word choice...I really have no comment other than to say "big deal." However, if it's the mindset/attitude then I think that further discussion is merited.
I would submit that in a situation like this (multiple adversaries, armed or not) or in an active-shooter situation (VA Tech, Beslan, Mumbai) the mindset one must have is somewhat different than the one we might have when "just" defending ourselves against a mugger or whatever. In a situation like one of the above, you don't have time to "play cop" and try to get them to surrender and if you try to use "the minimum amount of force necessary," you're probably going to get whacked for not being violent enough. The only advantages you have in such a situation are the element of surprise, the fact that you are [hopefully] better trained than the BG's, and the fact that [hopefully] you have the willingess to fight unfairly--to kill them without giving them the opportunity to fight back. You are, in a very real sense, ambushing them as this is the only way you can even the odds. To quote a member of another forum, "It will be a shooting because I'm not going to invite them to a gunfight."

heh...after going back and reading the post that you snipped this quote from, I see that Sarge said much of what I said above.

heroics are the point, as if I start shooting I don't want it to REMOTELY be a fair fight.......my hope is it will look something like legal murder it will be so unfair!
...And I don't plan on 'forcing' the robbers to do anything......i'm not pulling out the Roscoe and demanding that they drop their guns....they're not going to get that chance......I fully intend to execute everyone of them, so that they wake up in hell before they even know that they've lost control of the situation!

So, what is it that you have an issue with?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Violence is not the only possible form of action. Talking one's way out, sneaking out, or using patience can all work.

Talking and patience only work if your aggressor want them to work.....the decision is still HIS not YOURS! Again, you've put your faith in the good will of an armed sociopath.....not what i'd call promising.

That doesn't mean that returning fire is always the wisest course to take to turn things better. Sometimes, yes, but not always.

No one was hurt. Why would you argue with success?

'Always' and 'Never' statements are what they are.......we can say, however, that you're odds of dying cooperating are greater than dying smartly resisting given the evidence.

Again, the 'no one was hurt' statement is based on hindsight, which can't be used to judge any situation you are CURRENTLY in........I can provide DOZENS of identical situations where individuals were hurt and killed cooperating......dozens more than ANYONE can provide to the contrary point of resisting and fighting back.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I have nothing against the right to bear arms. I'm all for it.

I don't have a gun or know anything about shooting a gun. It is something I would like to learn at some point.

Engage with the bg or not engage with the bg. Has anyone here read Sanford Strong's book Strong on Defense? I read it years ago and still remember the stories.

One of them was about a shooting in McDonalds in San Ysidro. The gunman came in and started shooting at people. I believe he had to stop and reload THREE TIMES and while he was reloading the people just cowered there and waited for him.

There is a third option cowering or engaging: leaving the store. Doesn't anyone here tell kids that running away is great self-defense? I stress it all the time to the kids who wants to be a cartoon action hero and wrestle a bg who outweighs him by 200 pounds.

Personally, I have never been in a situation with a gun pointing at me. If I am honest, I am not sure I could bring myself to walk towards the gun, especially if there is more than one gunman. But running away from it...that I could do. I guess I am more cowardly than the rest of y'all. But I will never know until I am in the situation. Every situation is different. I think if there is an opportunity to escape without the risk of engaging, I would choose escape.

I wonder if in that San Ysidro McDonalds, if one person had run out the door, would others have followed? Haven't you noticed situations where there is this really great deal and no one is taking it...as soon as one person says yes, a bunch of people follow?

Do you think the gunmen would have shot if these guys had taken an opportunity to leave? Having friends/family with you would definitely influence the decision to act/not act/engage/comply/run.

RUNNING is a perfectly justifiable response.....moving targets are harder to hit that stationary ones! I would recommend running over cooperating, I think you have a better chance simply RUNNING!

 

[sgtmac_46]

And there were opportunities for a person who wanted to be a hero to get everyone else in that building killed.

It would also take luck, skill, and brains, and those aren't always easy to get either.

That's quite a risk to take.

Certainly sgtmac_46 has a point when he says that we're benefiting from hindsight in this case. You seem to be using foresight, though. If I was in there with my kids I might not want the average McDonald's patron to decide what's in our best interests and how to keep my family safe.

No one ever knows how these things'll turn out, but there are plenty examples of both resisting and playing along working. One must interpret the term self-defense broadly.

But you're OPERATING under a huge assumption that COOPERATION is going to keep your family safe, rather than get them all killed.....and the FACTS don't support that assumption as being a safe one.

Again, it doesn't seem rational to me, but how ELSE can one explain the SHEAR STUBBORN DESIRE to cling to the notion that resisting is WRONG and BAD, even in the face of mounting evidence that it's COOPERATION that is most likely to get you hurt or killed?!

Certainly 9/11 would tend to disprove the value of cooperation.


I have a sneaking suspicion that in general (I don't suggest this is the case for your personally) that many folks have the idea in their mind that it's BETTER to get killed cooperating, than resisting......as if it would be less their 'fault' if they died cooperating.......it's a bizarre idea to me, but the more folks I talk to, the more I believe there is some merit in the notion.


Again, this whole 'Being a hero' statement is a non sequitur.........i'm not going to attempt to be a 'hero', that's not my goal at ALL! Call it cowardice if you like, I don't want to die, and I am willing to kill ALL THREE of those thugs with extreme prejudice to make sure I don't!

If I could do it legally after the fact, i'd disappear to avoid having my name or face anywhere connected to the event.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You all go right ahead and walk down the abbitor chute like the nice men with the guns are telling you. "Arbeit macht frei" and all that.

"Judge Dredd"..please. An armed robbery in progress is all the legal reason you would need to respond with deadly force. A lead cocktail would have been well deserved by any one of them..."devoted daddy's", "studious college student" etc, etc. etc. not withstanding.



Damn straight! I dont see it as a "maybe they wont hurt us" decision as much as it is a "can I reasonably take them all out from where I am and with what I have" decision.

I wouldnt be waiting to see if they leave...Id be waiting till I had my opportunity.

That's an awesome quote!

And the difference is PRO-ACTIVE response, versus hoping and preying for the armed sociopaths to be humane enough not to murder us!

It's a lot like trying to PRAY that it's not cancer, rather than going to the doctor to do something about it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Now you've said something that distresses me, Judge Dredd.

I knew someone would be distressed by my word imagery!

It was intentional, to make a point......I don't want a fair fight with armed sociopaths.....If I can shoot them before they know there's a gunfight, I fully intend to......and the ROE on armed robbers is exactly that!

And Judge Dredd has JACK to do with it......if they dropped their guns and surrendered and I executed them, THEN you could call me Judge Dredd......shooting an armed gunman stone cold dead while he's not paying attention is just SMART!

The whole POINT in using the emotionally loaded term 'Executed' is to STRESS JUST EXACTLY WHAT KIND VIOLENT SITUATION YOU ARE REALLY IN with three armed robbers pointing guns, and the kind of thought process that one MUST apply in order to deal effectively with it.......EXTREME aggression in response to EXTREME aggression..........or beg and pray, if you prefer..........but there have been many folks who died praying than died shooting back.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime



Authors: Block, Richard1; Skogan, Wesley G.2
Source: Violence and Victims, Volume 1, Number 4, 1986 , pp. 241-253(13)
Publisher: Springer Publishing Company

All that study from 1986 said is that if you physically get in a fist fight with robbery suspects you've got a greater chance of being in a fist fight with robbery suspects......DUH!

Care to provide statistics on ARMED resistance to robbery?

Allow me.....

a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/guns_against_rape1.htm

The choices of potential victims and of criminals with respect to weapons were analyzed in an economic game framework. It was found, using National Crime Victimization Study data, that victims who have and use guns have both lower losses and lesser injury rates from violent crime. It was also found that the victim's choice of having a gun is not independent of the criminal's choice. Based on these findings, the consequences of having a greater portion of the potential victims being armed were analyzed. It was found that this would reduce both losses and injuries from crime as well as both the criminals' incentives to commit violent crimes and to be armed. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V75-41S4T49-2/2/778bb61e00776f3ad7f99afe5c0887d2

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helv]"'Raw data from the Justice Department’s annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a 'stranger rape' with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1% and of victim injury 0.1%, compared to 31% and 40% respectively, for all stranger rapes. Woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.' (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)" ... http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/display_day_archive.asp?d=2/7/2005

[/FONT]

 

[MA-Caver]

I knew someone would be distressed by my word imagery!

It was intentional, to make a point......I don't want a fair fight with armed sociopaths.....If I can shoot them before they know there's a gunfight, I fully intend to......and the ROE on armed robbers is exactly that!

And Judge Dredd has JACK to do with it......if they dropped their guns and surrendered and I executed them, THEN you could call me Judge Dredd......shooting an armed gunman stone cold dead while he's not paying attention is just SMART!

The whole POINT in using the emotionally loaded term 'Executed' is to STRESS JUST EXACTLY WHAT KIND VIOLENT SITUATION YOU ARE REALLY IN with three armed robbers pointing guns, and the kind of thought process that one MUST apply in order to deal effectively with it.......EXTREME aggression in response to EXTREME aggression..........or beg and pray, if you prefer..........but there have been many folks who died praying than died shooting back.

I understand what you meant with it all... but shooting someone when they're not looking ... no you don't want a fair "take 10 steps and draw mister" type of fight duh you got to think on this...
How is a jury and a shark in the courtroom going to look at it.
An officer of the law can get away with it I think, after IA investigation and all that... but an everyday ordinary average citizen ... they'll be looking at manslaughter or murder charges. You got 12 people to convince that you were in danger of being shot and killed and not JUST robbed.
If the guy shoots at you and you shoot back that's self defense. A guy walking into a place and waving a gun around demanding money is a robbery.
Catching one guy unaware and blasting his head off is good... catching the next guy (who'll hear the gunshot and probably see his partner go down) is not... you're either going to make the guy very angry or worse very scared. Now they grab an employee that was crouched down by the grill or sandwich board just hoping it will all be over and use them for a human shield, the other robber probably does likewise with the store manager or another employee, or even worse... they're out in the lobby and grab a kid. Either way now you're in a hostage situation.
Way to go ...
Are you gonna "shoot the hostage, go for the good wound and take them out of the equation?"