# McDonalds robbery Sugar Land texas



## Deaf Smith (Jan 14, 2009)

McDonalds robbery. Notice the opportunites to resist. Especially if you have a gun.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid823433113/bctid7227372001


Deaf


----------



## arnisador (Jan 14, 2009)

No one was hurt...it's not clear that resistance is the best self-defense move there.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 14, 2009)

arnisador,

Unless you have a crystal ball there is no way you could have guaranteed no one would be hurt. One has no idea if the robbers are just after money or will take you into the back room and shoot you. 

You could have easly seen the same video where all of them were murdered on the floor at the end.

And that is why it's up to the victim to decide if they will resist or not. There is no right or wrong as to if the victims submit or fight back cause as I said, one has no crystal ball to tell the future.

Deaf


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2009)

In that case... watching... resistance would've been futile. No, seriously it would've... they were armed... the employees and customers (??) were not. Not a bright idea to go up against multiple armed assailants. Besides policy at the restaurant (nation wide) is DO NOT RESIST... if so then immediate termination... even if successful. 
Even from this non-LEO's POV ... everyone did the right thing... nobody got hurt. 
There is a time and a place... had it been ONE guy... maybe.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 14, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> arnisador,
> 
> Unless you have a crystal ball there is no way you could have guaranteed no one would be hurt. One has no idea if the robbers are just after money or will take you into the back room and shoot you.
> 
> ...


 

Deaf,

I think people should Carry with proper training.

I think those that choose to do so, should have the right.


But your arguement of crystal ball goes either both ways and does not hold water.

One could as easily argue that if you pulled a gun and shot then the woman with a child was shot and killed. There could be a billion what if's. 


It does nothing for the arguement to carry, when you present it like this.

You do nothing but anger those who are opposed and close their minds.

You do nothing but anger those on the fence to not listen to why it is a right protected by the US Constitution.

A well placed arguement is great for a point.

A bad arguement for a point could be worse than no arguement.



Thanks


----------



## arnisador (Jan 14, 2009)

If I was in there, I certainly would have wanted to have a gun...but might not have used it if things played out like this. Would I want _everyone _in there to have a gun? The odds of an innocent bystander being struck could be very high that way.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 14, 2009)

arnisador said:


> If I was in there, I certainly would have wanted to have a gun...but might not have used it if things played out like this. Would I want _everyone _in there to have a gun? The odds of an innocent bystander being struck could be very high that way.


Aye, were I legal to carry and if I were there and packing, I too would have not drawn until I felt circumstances required me to. If a shot had been fired then yes, I would've drawn and moved myself to a place where others would be out of the line of fire and try to place myself with something in between me and the robbers. If the robbers were worked up in a huff enough to start shooting then yes, again I'd draw and move to cover and direct everyone else to the floor and defend myself accordingly. 
But carrying does not *ALWAYS* demand that you draw ... even in incidents like this. The police, yes because it is what they're trained to do, where as the average citizen is not. They're just trained to shoot and defend themselves. Cops are trained to shoot and defend themselves and everyone else. They have the law on their side. So do you but well... you should know the difference by now... don't you? 
Judgment and keeping a cool head goes a long way vs accuracy and speed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

arnisador said:


> No one was hurt...it's not clear that resistance is the best self-defense move there.


 I guess if you're psychic you can predict no one will be hurt.....which martial arts teaches that?

What is the difference between a man pointing at you and NOT shooting versus a man pointing it at you and shooting?  Hint, it's only discernible in HIND SIGHT!  

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.


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.




> &#8220;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.&#8221; -Col. Jeff Cooper


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> In that case... watching... resistance would've been futile. No, seriously it would've... they were armed... the employees and customers (??) were not. Not a bright idea to go up against multiple armed assailants. Besides policy at the restaurant (nation wide) is DO NOT RESIST... if so then immediate termination... even if successful.
> Even from this non-LEO's POV ... everyone did the right thing... nobody got hurt.
> There is a time and a place... had it been ONE guy... maybe.


 What about when they start herding folks in to the coolers?  Is it time to resist then?  Or cooperate and 'hope' for the best?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Aye, were I legal to carry and if I were there and packing, I too would have not drawn until I felt circumstances required me to. If a shot had been fired then yes, I would've drawn and moved myself to a place where others would be out of the line of fire and try to place myself with something in between me and the robbers. If the robbers were worked up in a huff enough to start shooting then yes, again I'd draw and move to cover and direct everyone else to the floor and defend myself accordingly.
> But carrying does not *ALWAYS* demand that you draw ... even in incidents like this. The police, yes because it is what they're trained to do, where as the average citizen is not. They're just trained to shoot and defend themselves. Cops are trained to shoot and defend themselves and everyone else. They have the law on their side. So do you but well... you should know the difference by now... don't you?
> Judgment and keeping a cool head goes a long way vs accuracy and speed.


  Does a criminal sociopath have to work himself 'up in a huff' before shooting?  And you're going to wait until 'shots are fired'?  So at least one person has to be shot before we take the threat seriously?

Where does this notion come from that we imagine we will predict the moment before an armed robbery turns in to murder?  Apparently i've not had that training.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2009)

The FACT is that no matter what you do in this situation......ACT, and risk making the badmen mad, or simply submit and hope for the best, you may end up dead because of it, and no statistics will support that simply submitting is the best course of action.......as there are graveyards full of cooperative armed robbery victims.

Not to belabor the issue......but you guys are only really saying what should be done in this situation because you happen to know how it turned out......and that's the funny thing about hindsight......it doesn't tell us anything about the FUTURE!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 15, 2009)

sgtmac pretty much says it all.

Guys, I'm not demanding everyone whip out their roscoe and blaze away without any thought. It's up to each person to decide when, how, and what they would do. But in the video shown, there were opportunities to stop the robbers.

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

And one can take on three. In NY a female cop drew her 5 shot .38 snub (of all guns!) when three armed bank robbers burst in (and one had a .45 auto) and she shot all three! No one else was hurt but those three she plugged.

I know a little about this subject as I've held one burgler at gunpoint and I've (with another man) chased down a purse snatcher and held him for police.

It can be done and done well. But it takes some guts to be willing to risk getting hurt.

Deaf


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The FACT is that no matter what you do in this situation......ACT, and risk making the badmen mad, or simply submit and hope for the best, you may end up dead because of it, and no statistics will support that simply submitting is the best course of action.......as there are graveyards full of cooperative armed robbery victims.
> 
> Not to belabor the issue......but you guys are only really saying what should be done in this situation because you happen to know how it turned out......and that's the funny thing about hindsight......it doesn't tell us anything about the FUTURE!


 
I thought that is what I was trying to say.

It is bad for someone to assume that anything will happen.

With A gun and without a gun.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jan 15, 2009)

There are also graveyards full of people who think that they are heroes and got themselves shot.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that carrying is fine for those who are properly trained.  Although part of that training should be discretion.  There is a point when you have no choice and it is true that the decision is a personal one that can ONLY be made in the moment.  It is the same to say that you WOULD have acted in hindsight as to say that you would not have.  

My feeling is that if you don't resist, true, you are placing yourself at the hands of the attacker.  But if you do resist, you are giving them no choice and escalating the situation.  In essence, you are forcing the attacker to up the ante.  Most robberies go down with no resistance and no deaths - sometimes they are caught sometimes they aren't.  As long as no one dies, it is a good thing.  In most cases, the ones where someone dies, it happens because someone tried to resist, did something to aggravate the guys with the guns or tried to be a hero.  

I'm not saying that no one should ever do anything, but knowing where the line is between needlessly putting yourself and others at risk to be a hero and just letting the robbery happen is one that you will never know until you're in the situation in question.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> There are also graveyards full of people who think that they are heroes and got themselves shot.
> 
> Personally, I'm of the opinion that carrying is fine for those who are properly trained.  Although part of that training should be discretion.  There is a point when you have no choice and it is true that the decision is a personal one that can ONLY be made in the moment.  It is the same to say that you WOULD have acted in hindsight as to say that you would not have.
> 
> ...


 That's true, but if we were to go about collecting anecdotal evidence of folks who were shot RESISTING armed robberies while armed, and those shot unarmed, and cooperating, i'm betting cash money my pile of dead cooperative folks would be MUCH LARGER than yours of those killed while resisting robbery with their own weapons.

In fact, i'd be willing to bet the list of those killed cooperating will vastly exceed those killed as a result of fighting back period, even unarmed, not even COUNTING those armed themselves with CCW's.


And 'being a hero' has JACK to do with it.....you're ALREADY needlessly at risk by virtue of some criminal sociopaths showing up pointing guns at you!  Being a hero is not my intent......not waiting to see if the good will of our good friends with guns will prevent them from shooting the witnesses is my intent.........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!  

The ONLY difference between you guys and me......is I don't put so much faith in the humanity of armed robbers to merely want the money.



MBuzzy said:


> My feeling is that if you don't resist, true, you are placing yourself at the hands of the attacker. But if you do resist, you are giving them no choice and escalating the situation. In essence, you are forcing the attacker to up the ante. Most robberies go down with no resistance and no deaths - sometimes they are caught sometimes they aren't. As long as no one dies, it is a good thing. In most cases, the ones where someone dies, it happens because someone tried to resist, did something to aggravate the guys with the guns or tried to be a hero.



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!

As to your pronouncement that most folks die in robberies because they resist, I think you've been watching too much TV......I think you'll find, if you actually research it, that MOST folks who die in robberies DIE COOPERATING!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 16, 2009)

If we are going to talk anecdotal..most of the robberies where someone fought back that I have seen ended with the BG running away. Granted some DID trade shots, but I havent seen one situation where they stuck around to win a gunfight and then complete the robbery.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> I thought that is what I was trying to say.
> 
> It is bad for someone to assume that anything will happen.
> 
> With A gun and without a gun.


 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_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If we are going to talk anecdotal..most of the robberies where someone fought back that I have seen ended with the BG running away. Granted some DID trade shots, but I havent seen one situation where they stuck around to win a gunfight and then complete the robbery.


 Bingo!

And we can find dozens of examples of clerks and by-standers who cooperated 100%......only to get executed for their troubles.

The truth is, the 'hero who gets everyone killed' is a product of the movies......how many times do we see that acted out on the TV screen?  So much that it's become perceived reality.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> sgtmac pretty much says it all.
> 
> Guys, I'm not demanding everyone whip out their roscoe and blaze away without any thought. It's up to each person to decide when, how, and what they would do. But in the video shown, there were opportunities to stop the robbers.
> 
> ...


 Exactly!  I'm not telling anyone else what to do......but it's not my plan to sit and wait for them to decide whether to shoot all of us.

Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action.....taking the offensive.  Often times violence and aggression will save you when caution will not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2009)

It doesn't take long googling robberies involving shootings to notice the shear number of shootings involving cooperative victims......i've yet to find one finding one shot resisting with a weapon.  While i'm sure there may be a couple, the shear number of cooperatives is staggering. 



> CHICAGO (Thomson Financial) - A gunman shot dead five women in a robbery that went awry at a shopping mall in a Chicago suburb, police said.
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/02/03/afx4607847.html





> A 7-Eleven store clerk is in critical condition at Kern Medical Center after an overnight robbery. It's a crime that's shocked customers, and police said it's particularly senseless violence.
> 
> Bakersfield police are looking for two unidentified suspects who allegedly shot 24-year-old Gurpeet Singh Brar in the stomach after robbing the 7-Eleven store on Pacheco Road just after midnight Wednesday morning.
> 
> ...





> A clerk at a Ventura convenience store was shot and killed early this morning during an attempted robbery, police said. The security tape shows two men enter the store, one approaching the counter and one watching the door. The silent footage shows the gunman raise a large firearm and point it off camera at the clerk.
> 
> The initial investigation into the killing indicated Odle was killed without provocation, police said.  http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/dec/26/no-headline---nxxfchomicide27/





> *COLUMBUS, Ohio *&#8212;Two days after Christmas, an armed robbery suspect shot a local merchant, sending a community into outrage.
> According to police, on Dec. 27 at about 5 p.m. an armed man entered the Clintonville Market, with the apparent motive of robbery, *NBC 4*&#8216;s Mike Jackson reported.
> But the man waved his gun around, pointing the weapon at customers before shooting the clerk, 73-year-old Faiq Haboul, known throughout the community as Mo.
> &#8220;For some reason, apparently the clerk didn&#8217;t move fast enough for the robber and the robber shot him in the upper body then fled,&#8220; said Columbus Police Det. Gerald Milner.
> ...





> Chester Yeom was filling in for a friend March 4, 2007, at Belmont Market on Southeast Belmont Street, when Jimmy Massaki Kashi shot Yeom in the neck while attempting to rob the store. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison for the shooting.  http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/08/belmont_grocery_victim_dies_1.html






Need I remind everyone of what we used to tell HI-JACKING victims to do.....COOPERATE!  Until 9/11 taught us the folly of THAT piece of advice.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 16, 2009)

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 (Jan 16, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> 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
> ...


----------



## hkfuie (Jan 16, 2009)

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 (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2009)

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 (Jan 16, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> 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!
> 
> ...


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 (Jan 16, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> *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 (Jan 16, 2009)

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 (Jan 16, 2009)

arnisador said:


> * Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
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 (Jan 16, 2009)

sgtmac 46 said:
			
		

> 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!





arnisador said:


> 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. 


			
				sgtmac 46 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> 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.





arnisador said:


> 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 (Jan 17, 2009)

hkfuie said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 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 (Jan 17, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 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 (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> 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 (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> * Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 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&#8217;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 (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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!
> 
> ...


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?"


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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.



I don't think the facts support either side. If someone has an authoritative statement from the DOJ based on a comprehensive analysis of cases, I'd like to see it. I'm not coming out for fighting nor for resisting, but for using one's own best judgment.

In the case of someone pulling a gun on you to force you into a van, I think the statistics are very clear: _Don't let them take you to a remote location. _This isn't nearly as clear. We could play dueling examples all day. There are too many examples on both sides to be able to say "You should do this" especially when that advice has to cover the whole populace--the old, the inform, and, frankly, the fearful and hesitant.



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



Disprove? Cooperation worked for a long time because the hijackers wanted to land safely and survive. It was clearly good, practical advice. Things have changed, but every case is different.

Are you suggesting that cooperation is _never _a good idea?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 17, 2009)

I dont think anybody is saying you should ALWAYS fight back ALL THE TIME. I think that we are saying that resisting should be at the TOP of the list, not co-operation. If more BG's knew that they were going to be shot at you would find fewer armed robberies...as anybody from Texas would tell you.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 17, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> 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...


 
Two were armed with guns. The other a club. IF, after using the safe door as a weapon, the manager either uses a gun he had or the robbers, that would only leave ONE robber with a gun (never bring a knife to a gunfight is just as valid with a club.)

This would all depend on if the manager was well trained with fiirearms.

If he was, I bet he would have his own, like a 12 guage riot gun.

Deaf


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> * Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
arnisador,

Professor John Lott has many studies on guns .vs crime to with titles such as "More Guns, Less Crime". Hint hint.

Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz also has a study on frequency of defensive gun uses (2 million a year!)  

Hemenway has his own study were it's more like 100,000 per year.. and that's still alot!

The problem with "Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime" is it does not take into accout the skill of the defender nor their weapons (if any used.) If only trained defenders were polled, I bet the outcomes would be alot more favorable. And after all, I posted the video here cause many people here are skilled at self defense (or so I think that's the case.)

Deaf


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 17, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Two were armed with guns. The other a club. IF, after using the safe door as a weapon, the manager either uses a gun he had or the robbers, that would only leave ONE robber with a gun (never bring a knife to a gunfight is just as valid with a club.)
> 
> This would all depend on if the manager was well trained with fiirearms.
> 
> ...


Having spent 11 months working at McDonalds, I can tell you that firearms are *strictly prohibited* by *ANY* employee on the premises at any time, even in the employee's car. This is and has been Corporate policy for a long time. So the Manager can be a master sharpshooter and STILL cannot have a weapon on him or anywhere on the property. So that concept is well and beyond moot. 

So shooting even one assailant with one weapon and leaving the other with another weapon... what's to say that the third won't pick up the first's gun? Now you're back up to two guns. 
Behind the counter, in nearly all Micky D's restaurants is a LOT of cover, for a guy with a gun and virtually NONE in the lobby except the bench chairs (depending upon how the restaurant is set up). You can get a clear shot from behind the shake machine, the refrigerator that holds the salads and parfaits, the overhead storage for the meats , the huge coffee pots and just about anywhere past the fry area a person can hide behind a lot of metal and take a shot at anyone coming towards them with minimal risk to themselves. I played it out one day just for kicks (boredom) at the one I worked at. 

You'd better be DAMN good at shooting and that your weapon is strong enough to go through at least 3 layers of stainless steel.
And again, I bring in a possible hostage situation you've created by shooting the first robber with the second one using an employee as a human shield. A smart or desperate robber just may do that after hearing the first shot and seeing his partner go down.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 17, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Having spent 11 months working at McDonalds, I can tell you that firearms are *strictly prohibited* by *ANY* employee on the premises at any time, even in the employee's car. This is and has been Corporate policy for a long time. So the Manager can be a master sharpshooter and STILL cannot have a weapon on him or anywhere on the property. So that concept is well and beyond moot.
> 
> So shooting even one assailant with one weapon and leaving the other with another weapon... what's to say that the third won't pick up the first's gun? Now you're back up to two guns.
> Behind the counter, in nearly all Micky D's restaurants is a LOT of cover, for a guy with a gun and virtually NONE in the lobby except the bench chairs (depending upon how the restaurant is set up). You can get a clear shot from behind the shake machine, the refrigerator that holds the salads and parfaits, the overhead storage for the meats , the huge coffee pots and just about anywhere past the fry area a person can hide behind a lot of metal and take a shot at anyone coming towards them with minimal risk to themselves. I played it out one day just for kicks (boredom) at the one I worked at.
> ...


A lot of that stuff is concealment, not cover.  Just like a car.  (The difference is that cover will stop bullets, concealment just hides you.)

I'll grant that maybe the shake machine and a few others have enough stuff in there that will slow a bullet down, at least until they leak out -- but most of that stuff only has a thin sheet of metal, which will barely slow a bullet.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 17, 2009)

Depends on what they're using, and it could well affect its trajectory. But I think the point is that it's a complicated bit of terrain. Someone could exit the back and re-enter via either side or possibly even the front in many cases. It isn't an open field.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Depends on what they're using, and it could well affect its trajectory. But I think the point is that it's a complicated bit of terrain. Someone could exit the back and re-enter via either side or possibly even the front in many cases. It isn't an open field.


 Well if they do exit the back without turning off the alarm... it's possible if forcing the manager to do it and IF they stay calm/cool enough in light of one of their own is down on the floor somewhere shot and possibly dead, to think about it... the back door (only one) has a VERY loud alarm so the game is up right there.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 17, 2009)

Im telling ya, these mooks would in all likelihood just beat feet (possibly launching a few shots on the way out) if someone started shooting at them. All this "they would pick up fallen guns and continue the battle" is TV land talking. Not that it would NEVER happen, but lightening could arc through the place and hit one of the BS's too.


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Jan 17, 2009)

My question is were the robbers ever caught by the police? I think they got a pretty good likeness of them on tape so they could be caught.


----------



## Brian King (Jan 17, 2009)

Deciding to resist and how one is going to resist will depend on temperament training and opportunity for most people. Some of the considerations that may be considered are weighing danger to oneself, along with the possible danger to bystanders and possible repercussions legal and civil not to mention possible payback from family and associates of the bad guys against you and your family. Not all will weigh the possibilities and come out with the same answer. Not all are warriors, not all feel or understand or accept the responsibility that citizenship demands the same as the next guy, even amongst those that decide to go armed. Not all will give prior thought to the many what if situations that one can face by simply going in for a cheeseburger or paying for a tank of gas at the local stop and rob convenience store.

Reading this thread it seems that many people may be confused about consequences and who is at fault. I am not an attorney so I can only give my thoughts based on research and interviews with attorneys, researching events that have happened in the past and common sense. If a guy or three guys or however many commit a crime and somebody gets hurt in the commission of that crime, THEY ARE at fault. The person would not have been injured or killed if the bad guys had not decided to rob pillage or cause mayhem. If they cause an automobile accident they can and likely will be charged for that crime even if it was somebody else that crashed into some other car and the bad guy did not directly make contact with the crashed vehicle. The same thing applies if fighting breaks out. If innocent bystanders are injured it is the result of the bad guys decisions. Other peoples decisions can influence but the ultimate responsibility goes to those that caused the incident. 

A person that goes armed (and I consider knowledge of martial arts/street smarts/prior experiences as being armed) should give thought to when they would intervene, when they would exit the situation, what they should do after the situation has been resolved. If you walk into a 7-11 store for coffee and there is a guy at the counter robbing the place, you are in the back isle deciding what beer to purchase and you see the store being robbed up front, you are at the register paying for your purchase and the guy(s) behind you start to rob the place or the guy in front of you starts to rob the place. Can you flee? What if your family is with you? If you flee and call the police with good description of the bad guy(s) but then find out that the little girl by the ice cream section was kidnapped and has not been found or was found dead, you flee and find out the clerk was then beaten to death, you flee and give good descriptions and bad guy was apprehended with nobody injured. You cannot predict precisely how anything can turn out, but, you can predict and know what decisions you are willing to live with regardless of second guessing and replaying what ifs. 

One last thought. It does not matter if you have been in similar circumstances yourself, no matter the statistics available at your fingertips, no matter the public outcry or peer pressures. There is a danger to second guessing or judging a bystanders action(s). You limit your future actions possibly limit your neighbors future actions and perhaps set yourself up for failure or being forced into a presubscribed action that might be the right action at the wrong time or the wrong action at the right time. Even if you are in the midst of life or death struggle and a person next to you is frozen you should in my opinion resets the urge to blame and/or judge them for their reactions the same way that if the person next to you becomes involved resisting a crime that you think is excessive or poorly timed. Considering someone a coward or considering someone reckless does not contribute to your well being and chances of survival and limits your ability to deal with the circumstances before you. This mindset is developed and needs to be practiced and one way of practicing and developing the mind set is thru discussions such as this, trying to picture what you might do and seeing possible the results honestly and starting now to learn to live with the consequences and preparing your support prior to being caught in this type of event. Picture yourself in this situation but HONESTLY see yourself responding multiple ways, honestly see yourself freezing, honestly see yourself exiting via back door or smashing thru a window, see yourself being attacked and stomped while other people only watch, see yourself using your firearm/their firearm or an improvised weapon of some sort totally successfully or partially successfully. In other words, facing the situation in as many different circumstances with as many different outcomes as you can imagine (including how others will see your actions) mentally preparing yourself now while you have time on your side and chances to prepare yourself and your family just makes good sense. Seeing yourself react only one way is destructive and frankly in my opinion unrealistic and unproductive. Your mileage may vary and that is OK.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 17, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im telling ya, these mooks would in all likelihood just beat feet (possibly launching a few shots on the way out) if someone started shooting at them. All this "they would pick up fallen guns and continue the battle" is TV land talking. Not that it would NEVER happen, but lightening could arc through the place and hit one of the BS's too.


 WOW! Thank you... _seriously_! Thanks! 
This thread needed the cold splash of reality. :asian:

And thank you Brian! :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im telling ya, these mooks would in all likelihood just beat feet (possibly launching a few shots on the way out) if someone started shooting at them. All this "they would pick up fallen guns and continue the battle" is TV land talking. Not that it would NEVER happen, but lightening could arc through the place and hit one of the BS's too.


 
To expand a bit on my post. Where you will typically see hostage situations is when the cops pull up outside and the BG's have nowhere else to go.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> 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.
> ...


 How is your wife and children going to look at your bullet riddled corpse when you decided to 'play fair' and get their attention before open firing? 

I can justify and defend my actions in court.....even in my policy manual it only requires a warning be given 'when feasible'. 




> 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.


 WRONG!  A guy pointing a gun around is an IMMINENT THREAT!  Do we have to retread the oft discussed 'Wait to they shoot at you first before you're justified' silliness again?



> 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.


  Oh, we wouldn't want to make him 'angry'!  Really, how long do you think this gunfight is going to last?  How long do you think it takes me to put 3 rounds on one target, and move to another?  Do you think it's 5 or 10 seconds?!  I think you have a poor understanding of how long these things are going to last once the shooting starts......it'll all be over, for better or worse, in less than 5 seconds......he won't have time to grab a hostage, and unless he's REALLY paying attention, I bet he doesn't get a shot off.

OODA.....Observe Orient Decide and Act........you're assuming criminals are different than all other human beings in that they have to go through the OODA process in order to act like everyone else.....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I don't think the facts support either side. If someone has an authoritative statement from the DOJ based on a comprehensive analysis of cases, I'd like to see it. I'm not coming out for fighting nor for resisting, but for using one's own best judgment.
> 
> In the case of someone pulling a gun on you to force you into a van, I think the statistics are very clear: _Don't let them take you to a remote location. _This isn't nearly as clear. We could play dueling examples all day. There are too many examples on both sides to be able to say "You should do this" especially when that advice has to cover the whole populace--the old, the inform, and, frankly, the fearful and hesitant.


 I'm not telling you what to do, i'm telling you what I intend to do....you're free to remain seated if you like.......but don't pretend you're making a better decision, or make disparaging comments about 'being a hero' and 'getting people killed' as you're quite as likely to do that doing what you suggest.

And I provided DOJ supported studies.....re-read my post. 




> Quote:
> 
> 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_Am...inst_rape1.htm
> 
> ...






arnisador said:


> Disprove? Cooperation worked for a long time because the hijackers wanted to land safely and survive. It was clearly good, practical advice. Things have changed, but every case is different.
> 
> Are you suggesting that cooperation is _never _a good idea?


 And yet 3,000 dead really doesn't show that original advice to be that great........more to the point, the ASSUMPTION of cooperation ENCOURAGES hostage taking.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Having spent 11 months working at McDonalds, I can tell you that firearms are *strictly prohibited* by *ANY* employee on the premises at any time, even in the employee's car. This is and has been Corporate policy for a long time. So the Manager can be a master sharpshooter and STILL cannot have a weapon on him or anywhere on the property. So that concept is well and beyond moot.
> 
> So shooting even one assailant with one weapon and leaving the other with another weapon... what's to say that the third won't pick up the first's gun? Now you're back up to two guns.
> Behind the counter, in nearly all Micky D's restaurants is a LOT of cover, for a guy with a gun and virtually NONE in the lobby except the bench chairs (depending upon how the restaurant is set up). You can get a clear shot from behind the shake machine, the refrigerator that holds the salads and parfaits, the overhead storage for the meats , the huge coffee pots and just about anywhere past the fry area a person can hide behind a lot of metal and take a shot at anyone coming towards them with minimal risk to themselves. I played it out one day just for kicks (boredom) at the one I worked at.
> ...



I'm not talking as an employee......i'm talking as an armed customer who always brings his gun to McDonald's. 

And you won't last long enough to grab a hostage.....you might get a shot off, but I doubt it......i'm going to be done firing in less than 2 seconds. 

In real gunfights you don't shoot one guy, wait 20 seconds, and then shoot the other one....REALLY, you don't.......the REAL reaction if you don't hit one of the other bad guys is that they'll run like hell......that's what similar incidents show us......if they don't get dropped, they RUN!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im telling ya, these mooks would in all likelihood just beat feet (possibly launching a few shots on the way out) if someone started shooting at them. All this "they would pick up fallen guns and continue the battle" is TV land talking. Not that it would NEVER happen, but lightening could arc through the place and hit one of the BS's too.


 Exactly!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

Brian said:


> honestly see yourself freezing,
> Regards
> Brian King


 I can agree with much else.....except this.  I wouldn't suggest you visualize yourself freezing.......visualization is powerful, and if you believe it, you'll do it.

We teach cops that NEGATIVE visualization is bad.....seeing yourself freezing, seeing yourself dying......that's about the best way to make sure it really happens when the crap hits the fan.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 18, 2009)

http://criminalsforguncontrol.com/

I'd like to add that I respect all the opinions given so far, and understand that even those I disagree are well thought out positions......what I take exception to mostly is the idea that acting in the face of an armed threat is somehow 'more dangerous' or 'endangering everyone else' more than inaction.........and NO EVIDENCE has shown that to be the case......in fact, to the contrary, action of SOME sort, running, shooting, physically resisting, has been shown to be more effective that passive cooperation in many circumstances.

In short, my decision is built around the idea that i'd rather trust my own skill than trust the good will of armed sociopaths not to WANT to hurt me if they decide to.......the first is a plan of action, even if it doesn't succeed.........the second his putting my faith in individuals who have PROVEN you shouldn't have any faith in them but to be sociopathic killers!


----------



## Brian King (Jan 18, 2009)

*sgtmac_46 wrote;*



> I can agree with much else.....except this. I wouldn't suggest you visualize yourself freezing.......visualization is powerful, and if you believe it, you'll do it.
> 
> We teach cops that NEGATIVE visualization is bad.....seeing yourself freezing, seeing yourself dying......that's about the best way to make sure it really happens when the crap hits the fan.


 
If that works for you and that is what you have been taught I cannot tell you that you are wrong or what you have been taught is unhealthy. For the sake of conversation and admitting that I do not know you and am not talking about you personally I continue this conversation.

For myself what I believe and what I have experienced says otherwise. By only visualizing the positive you already limit yourself to some lessons that can be learned while training, forcing yourself to possibly having to learn them during and after TSHF moments. I can freely admit that I am human. I can freely admit that I have failed in the past and will fail in the future. Admitting this gives me strength and is not a weakness to be feared. Freezing is an action, neither negative nor positive. It depends entirely on the situation. Fear and terror so absolute so overwhelming can freeze a person so that they cannot even take a breath let alone respond to the situation. The fear of injury or of failure can cause freezing and delayed responses. This fear can cause one to over react or to freeze and do nothing, it is a fine line between the two. Learning how to deal with fear can give a person the chance to combat these natural responses. Visualization is one way of learning how to cope with the fear and to keep the fear from making your decisions for you. Learning to recognize that fear building before it gets control is a very good skill to have and one way to get good at that recognition is to practice feeling the fear and then overcoming it thru visualization. Another way is training with honest stress inoculations. I am not saying to dwell on the negative but I am saying to taste them. Feel it happening and then be able to counter them. To deny that the fear is possible denies a chance to learn to overcome it. Being able to visualize negative outcomes helps to reinforce the traits or actions needed for positive outcomes. While visualizing the negative being able to change the action into a positive allows one to do the same in real life. Seeing the boots being put to you, feeling the pain, seeing your family before your eyes then seeing yourself overcoming and surviving can be powerful in my experience. It helps to keep the shock of it happening to you causing a brain loop in the observation orientation actions of the OODA loop. How many witnesses and victims have said I could not believe it was happening Get over it, it is happening now deal with it. Prior visualizing helps in my opinion. 

Some wear their courage like armor. A shield that has no doubt no cracks no chink no dent no rust. To me this armor is brittle and can be prone to shatter. It is shiny sparkly and new and never tested. This is one reason many may brace their armor and its invincibility with alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, narcotics, false and loud bravado, or other forms of self medication. Fear of letting down their buddies, fear of being found wanting or less in the eyes of their comrades has lead many to glory and the fulfillment of their duty but then lead them to tragedy of self destruction and suicides later as they could not live up to the standard in their own minds. It is better to face danger and fulfill ones duty in spite of the fear rather than because of the fear in my opinion. Learning to recognize it and to overcome it rather than the denying of it or ignoring the possibility of it or rationalizing and making excuses and justifications for it seems healthier long term. Denying, ignoring, rationalization, justifying, making other excuse limits the ability to learn and almost guarantees physically repeating the action at a later time not to mention the countless guilty replays many play over and over in their minds. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. 

Regards
Brian King

For the record I believe that in almost all situations action any action usually gets better results than inaction. The action does not have to be large and heroic. It can be as little as sitting in an uncomfortable position so that inertia is more easily overcome when the time to move comes. It can be the active locating of exits, fire alarms, and electrical panels, light switches etc. It can be estimating the number of steps to get to an exit. Actively listening for and gathering useful intelligence for later use. It can be the gathering/making an improvised weapon for use when the fighting time comes. It can be the filling of your hand and others hands with cold steel and gathering allies for the fight.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I'm not talking as an employee......i'm talking as an armed customer who always brings his gun to McDonald's.
> 
> And you won't last long enough to grab a hostage.....you might get a shot off, but I doubt it......i'm going to be done firing in less than 2 seconds.
> 
> In real gunfights you don't shoot one guy, wait 20 seconds, and then shoot the other one....REALLY, you don't.......the REAL reaction if you don't hit one of the other bad guys is that they'll run like hell......that's what similar incidents show us......if they don't get dropped, they RUN!


Sarge, I was trying to help you out by giving you a tactical layout of the typical restaurant beyond where most _customers_ are _not allowed_  and where the _robbers_ would more than _likely be_ and what their cover/concealment would be like.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 18, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> http://criminalsforguncontrol.com/
> 
> I'd like to add that I respect all the opinions given so far, and understand that even those I disagree are well thought out positions......what I take exception to mostly is the idea that acting in the face of an armed threat is somehow 'more dangerous' or 'endangering everyone else' more than inaction.........and NO EVIDENCE has shown that to be the case......in fact, to the contrary, action of SOME sort, running, shooting, physically resisting, has been shown to be more effective that passive cooperation in many circumstances.
> 
> In short, my decision is built around the idea that i'd rather trust my own skill than trust the good will of armed sociopaths not to WANT to hurt me if they decide to.......the first is a plan of action, even if it doesn't succeed.........the second his putting my faith in individuals who have PROVEN you shouldn't have any faith in them but to be sociopathic killers!



 I agree which is where I started in this thread.  The What If's are just that. What If. Each one has its own validity and would depend upon the billion upon billions of input that could change the situation.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 18, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> So the Manager can be a master sharpshooter and STILL cannot have a weapon on him or anywhere on the property. So that concept is well and beyond moot.


 
Not all managers 'obey' rules a company gives to them. After all, they are the managers. Sure they will get fired, read the papers and you will see now and then a Domino's driver gets fired for defending himself with a gun (it's happened here a few times in Texas.) But the drivers decided their life was worth more than 'rules'.



MA-Caver said:


> You'd better be DAMN good at shooting and that your weapon is strong enough to go through at least 3 layers of stainless steel..


 
Yep, and there are DAMN good shots other there, I can say for a fact. Again, that's why I posted this in a martial arts forum and not a dear abby one. And the steel thing. Why that works both ways. It can be your cover to.

Here are seveal where the store owners or customers did shoot it out.

Store Robbery Leads To Shoot-Out
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/5846283/detail.html?rss=bal&psp=news

Pawn Shop Owner Opens Fire On 3 Armed Robbers
http://www.click2houston.com/news/8628368/detail.html?rss=hou&psp=news

Gunfire exchanged during wine and spirits
http://www.truveo.com/Gunfire-exchanged-during-wine-and-spirits-store/id/3845140738

CONVENIENCE STORE SHOOTOUT: Manager kills suspect 
Customers call man hero in robbery scare
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-06-Sat-2007/news/11822416.html

County Attorney: Shop Owner Fired In Self-Defense
No Charges To Be Filed Against Man Who Shot 3 People Tuesday
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28698231/

Armed robbery goes awry
Convenience store owner pulls weapon on gunman 
http://www.theitem.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090117/ITNEWS01/701179966

Clerk shoots would-be robber in Halifax County
http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=9666561&nav=s6ak

Robbery suspect shot, killed in East Atlanta
Potential victim &#8216;got the jump on him,&#8217; fires 5 or 6 times
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/me...ta_shooting.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

And with Google I can get lots lots more of these. I mean I can rain this things down on this thread. There at lots of them. More than most people think! *Note that these happend recently!!!*

Now... MA-Caver, find me a bunch were it went bad and innocents killed.

Deaf


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 18, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Not all managers 'obey' rules a company gives to them. After all, they are the managers. Sure they will get fired, read the papers and you will see now and then a Domino's driver gets fired for defending himself with a gun (it's happened here a few times in Texas.) But the drivers decided their life was worth more than 'rules'.


 Well, I guess they, and you, can afford to lose their jobs and ruin careers for doing the right thing. Some folks probably can't. Also as you well know there are a number of anti-gun folks (not like us :wink2: ) out there. The ones that I worked for certainly were. 


Deaf Smith said:


> Now... MA-Caver, find me a bunch were it went bad and innocents killed.
> Deaf


I will not, despite that it probably has happened and I'm guessing a few of the LEO's here would probably attest to. 
There's a bunch of "what-if's" with each of them offering over at least a million different variations, and it can go on and on and still end up being moot because nothing will ever evolve in real life as it will here. 

I was never against the idea of taking on armed assailants, only the rash judgment of doing so arbitrarily . Seems that there are some who are a shoot first and hypothesize later and I guess that's alright for them. Me, having been shot at, been in gunfights and having my life threatened with firearms (even loaded ones) I'm still of mind to assess the situation as best as possible according to my own experiences and judgment. Hell, I can't carry a gun because of some stupid **** I did when I was younger but I won't hesitate to use one should it arise that I have one for some reason or another and my life and others were threatened. And yes, it will be me who will have to face the repercussions of taking another life... should that ever happen.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Brian said:


> *sgtmac_46 wrote;*
> 
> 
> If that works for you and that is what you have been taught I cannot tell you that you are wrong or what you have been taught is unhealthy. For the sake of conversation and admitting that I do not know you and am not talking about you personally I continue this conversation.
> ...



Why don't you ask professional athletes and combat soldiers if visualizing failure is a POSITIVE or a NEGATIVE!  I think the consensus will be on my side of the aisle.

The 'If/Then' thinking you describe is not the same as the negative outcome self-talk you were referring to earlier.......I do wish everyone would get this 'Heroic BS' out of their mind......there's nothing heroic about shooting another man in the head......I'd do it out of fear.





> "Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death." -Myamoto Musashi


 What that means, literally, is that the overwhelming fear of death in the moment of truth is more likely to bring it about than resolute acceptance and effective action......fear to the point of inaction actually creates that which you fear.



> "Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely - lay your life before him." -Bruce Lee



There's that concept that thinking of losing can actually bring it about.....the 'No Mind' that is referred to is quieting the inner voice and allowing the action to occur independent of thought.


Want to test that out?  Shoot a basket off the cuff without thinking about it.....then, shoot one for $100.00 bet.......think about the basket for a while, dwell on it, visualize missing it repeatedly......and see how you do.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Sarge, I was trying to help you out by giving you a tactical layout of the typical restaurant beyond where most _customers_ are _not allowed_  and where the _robbers_ would more than _likely be_ and what their cover/concealment would be like.


 I saw where the robbers were on the video......your help is irrelevant as they will be standing where they are standing when the shooting starts, and unless they can teleport to cover, why would I start shooting unless they were all in advantageous positions?

Choose your killing ground and the moment to attack.....THAT is how you gain an advantage.  

And there is a momentary advantage gained by the first shots fired......human brains do not instantaneously adjust and respond to a changed situation.......action is faster than reaction.  All human beings go through a process of decision making and action.

A good description of that process is Boyd's Cycle, or the OODA loop........Observation, Orientation, Decision and Action.

First the bad guy has to observe that the situation has changed.....THEN he has to orient himself to the new situation.....THEN he has to decide what course of action to take......THEN he has to actually ACT!

Once he hear's the first shots, the first suspect is already struck several times.....the other two are still in the observing stage, trying to actually see what is going on........they'll start by looking around and trying to fix on where the shooting is coming from, if it was from each other, from someone else......by then the second robber is being engaged.

As the third was only armed with a club, a bat.....he has a more difficult time counter-attacking......so even if he DOES begin acting, it'll take time......time he doesn't have.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I will not, despite that it probably has happened and I'm guessing a few of the LEO's here would probably attest to.
> There's a bunch of "what-if's" with each of them offering over at least a million different variations, and it can go on and on and still end up being moot because nothing will ever evolve in real life as it will here.
> 
> I was never against the idea of taking on armed assailants, only the rash judgment of doing so arbitrarily . Seems that there are some who are a shoot first and hypothesize later and I guess that's alright for them. Me, having been shot at, been in gunfights and having my life threatened with firearms (even loaded ones) I'm still of mind to assess the situation as best as possible according to my own experiences and judgment. Hell, I can't carry a gun because of some stupid **** I did when I was younger but I won't hesitate to use one should it arise that I have one for some reason or another and my life and others were threatened. And yes, it will be me who will have to face the repercussions of taking another life... should that ever happen.


 I can attest to the fact that the situation you describe where a 'hero' (there's that pejorative again) gets folks shot happens a LOT.....ON TELEVISION!

In the really real world it happens FAR LESS than robbers decide to start shooting cooperative victims.....and far MORE often when armed victims respond, it's the ROBBERS who die!



By the way.....being in the middle of a robbery is not the time to start 'Hypothesizing'.......whatever you decide to do, you had better start figuring it out now.......as when the robbery happens it'll be reactive time, meaning whatever you've committed to is probably what you'll do, circumstances provided of course.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2009)

I must agree w/Sgtmac on the visualization. You train to adapt to a situation...dealing with wounds, one hand shooting/reloading etc. But you never train yourself or your subordinates to fail.

That used to be an "old school" trainig method, the student could never win, the teacher would "kill" everybody and the lesson was "see you do that and you get killed". Modern methods have the student "win" as long as they do as they were taught. And if they dont they may get "shot", but you train them to fight on until they win.


----------



## Brian King (Jan 19, 2009)

*Sgtmac_46 wrote*



> Why don't you ask professional athletes and combat soldiers if visualizing failure is a POSITIVE or a NEGATIVE! I think the consensus will be on my side of the aisle


 
We will have to agree to disagree for now sir. I will go by my experiences and my many conversations and training experiences with soldiers from many different armies and professional athletes from various disciplines (American and foreign) I try to keep an open mind and one thing I do is to test those things I take as gospel and those things that others take as gospel and repeatedly come back and test the results. I have been doing this for years. It helps keep things fresh and to test what others take as gospel but never take the time to test or explore as well as test my truths and see if they still hold water. I am sure that you will agree that training methods change as theories come and go both for those that chase the gold ring of athletics and for those that face combative conditions. For instance there are some that think firearms training means standing at the range punching holes in paper and others that are rediscovering instinctive/point shooting and still others that are adding movement to the skills. We can take for gospel what todays experts are teaching or we can take for gospel what the experts of yesterday were teaching or we can learn from both and then go do the work and see what works for us, and then be willing to test that result over and over. 

Yawn, not sure what that has to do with the topic of thread so sorry for the drift. It is late and has been a long weekend. 





> "I'd do it out of fear"


 

Good luck to you sir and here is hoping that we never have to face the situation from fear or otherwise. For me I try to never make decisions or to act out of fear and do all I can to prevent doing so. My faith demands it. I do what is necessary because it is necessary, hopefully no more and no less.

*Archangel M wrote;*



> I must agree w/Sgtmac on the visualization. You train to adapt to a situation


 
I wonder if we so not agree more than disagree. I wonder how you train to adapt to a situation if you can never see yourself losing. Why train shooting with both hands if you only visualize youre making the basket and winning the hundred bucks? If you only visualize shooting like the cowboys in the movies never missing and never being hit I wonder if you do not set yourself up for a shock when the situation turns out differently than you have visualized in the past. 




> But you never train yourself or your subordinates to fail.


 
Again, I AM not saying to continually dwell on the losing but I am saying to ignore the possibility is foolish and unhealthy in my opinion and experiences. Far better I have found to start at the losing and teach how to adapt and overcome and turn the losing to winning. To start from the winning and end at the winning seems limiting to me. Your mileage may vary and I can live with that.

*What I wrote in the other post in this thread;* 



> _I am not saying to dwell on the negative but I am saying to taste them. Feel it happening and then be able to counter them. To deny that the fear is possible denies a chance to learn to overcome it. Being able to visualize negative outcomes helps to reinforce the traits or actions needed for positive outcomes. While visualizing the negative being able to change the action into a positive allows one to do the same in real life._


 
*Archangel M continued with;*



> But you never train yourself or your subordinates to fail.
> 
> That used to be an "old school" trainig method, the student could never win, the teacher would "kill" everybody and the lesson was "see you do that and you get killed".


 
I remember the shooting in NY that guy in the dark stairwell that was reaching for his wallet and ended up shot like 40 times (even into the bottom of his foot). I remember reading the officer interviews and how frightened they were even having one shooting while falling down the stairs. I remember reading how that fright could be traced to their last exercise in the academy when they would do a shoot no shoot exercise that ended up with them all being repeatedly killed. This exercise stayed with them so that when the victim reached for his wallet the officers acted from extreme fear and over reacted killing the unarmed man. That IS NOT the kind of training/visualization I am talking about. But I am talking about being able to visualize being shot and what that can mean, why it happened, what can be learned from it and then how to survive it and overcome it. It motivates learning to shoot off handed; it motivates to have that will written out, it motivates to spend a little more time training honestly. 



Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King (Jan 19, 2009)

Not related to much at all but I was curious as I didn't see what the issue was with the word hero in my first reading of the thread.

A quick search reveled 12 posts where the word &#8220;hero&#8217; was used in this thread. Not counting this single post of mine where I used the word hero seven times in one post.

Not counting quoting somebody in the post

Mbuzzy used the word hero two times in one post
Sgtmac_46 used the word hero seven times in six posts
Hkfuie used the word hero once in one post
Arnisador used the word hero once in one post
Deaf Smith used the word hero two times (but once it was in the title of a link he was posting to) in two posts

Funny how a word can go by almost unnoticed by one and absolutly push the button of another. Curious. :idunno:

gah, I shouldn't post when tired.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2009)

I think we just may have a communications difference. If by visualization you mean rehearsing one hand shooting, prone shooting, close retention shooting while being hit..thats fine. If you mean actually rehearshing a shootout and imagining "loosing"..i.e. getting hit and dwelling on the fear and pain...I would say that thats not what I would advise.

We use simunitions..it hurts when you get hit. We train officers to keep on going no matter how many times they are hit, we take a hand or legs away and make them continue. Thats the "visualization" we allow them. We dont want them to mentally dwell on "failure" we want them to react to getting hit and having to perform "limited". The way we look at it "failure" is when you are dead and cant fight any more. As long as you can keep going we want them in the "win" mindset.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I must agree w/Sgtmac on the visualization. You train to adapt to a situation...dealing with wounds, one hand shooting/reloading etc. But you never train yourself or your subordinates to fail.
> 
> That used to be an "old school" trainig method, the student could never win, the teacher would "kill" everybody and the lesson was "see you do that and you get killed". Modern methods have the student "win" as long as they do as they were taught. And if they dont they may get "shot", but you train them to fight on until they win.



Exactly!  We've found that training officers that if they got hit by rounds 'They were dead'.....taught them to BE dead if they got hit by rounds for real.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Brian said:


> I wonder if we so not agree more than disagree. I wonder how you train to adapt to a situation if you can never see yourself &#8216;losing&#8217;. Why train shooting with both hands if you only visualize you&#8217;re making the basket and winning the hundred bucks? If you only visualize shooting like the cowboys in the movies never missing and never being hit I wonder if you do not set yourself up for a shock when the situation turns out differently than you have visualized in the past.


 To 'LOSE' is to fail.....what you're talking about, as I already pointed out is 'IF/THEN' training for contingencies, Plan B training.....and entirely different concept from visualizing 'LOSING'.  The outcome is that I always have to win, no matter what adversity is in between.....visualizing losing is the first step to losing.





Brian said:


> Again, I AM not saying to continually dwell on the losing but I am saying to ignore the possibility is foolish and unhealthy in my opinion and experiences. Far better I have found to start at the losing and teach how to adapt and overcome and turn the losing to winning. To start from the winning and end at the winning seems limiting to me. Your mileage may vary and I can live with that.


 Unhealthy?  Really?  Because if you get unlucky and die you won't be as surprised if you imagined it before hand? 





Brian said:


> I remember the shooting in NY that guy in the dark stairwell that was reaching for his wallet and ended up shot like 40 times (even into the bottom of his foot). I remember reading the officer interviews and how frightened they were even having one shooting while falling down the stairs. I remember reading how that fright could be traced to their last exercise in the academy when they would do a shoot no shoot exercise that ended up with them all being repeatedly killed. This exercise stayed with them so that when the victim reached for his wallet the officers acted from extreme fear and over reacted killing the unarmed man. That IS NOT the kind of training/visualization I am talking about. But I am talking about being able to visualize being shot and what that can mean, why it happened, what can be learned from it and then how to survive it and overcome it. It motivates learning to shoot off handed; it motivates to have that will written out, it motivates to spend a little more time training honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 It's a nice canard, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion......that incident has JACK to do with visualizing failure.......in fact, all it has to do with is failing recognize and object.  How visualizing failure would have correctly allowed the officers to recognize a wallet from a gun only you apparently know. 


Visualizing failure is the first toward failing.......every loser visualizes losing, every loser will tell you he figured he was going to lose from the outset.  Consistent winners will tell you that they never imagine losing.  Fighters will tell you if they imagined losing to their opponent, they wouldn't enter the ring.  

Visualizing losing isn't a plan of action and success, it's a reflex many people do to brace themselves for FAILURE!



Again, if you have an example of how visualizing true FAILURE (as opposed to, say the gun jamming, and you SUCCESSFULLY clearing it) is of benefit, i'm all ears!

Most of the time I hear it along the lines of 'There's always someone bigger and badder', but that statements always been a justification of fear, not a plan of action.......some of us don't have the luxury of the fearful 'there's always someone bigger and badder' mindset.....I don't care if he's bigger and badder, I plan on CHEATING!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2009)

Brian said:


> Not related to much at all but I was curious as I didn't see what the issue was with the word hero in my first reading of the thread.
> 
> A quick search reveled 12 posts where the word &#8220;hero&#8217; was used in this thread. Not counting this single post of mine where I used the word hero seven times in one post.
> 
> ...


 Allow me to explain, then.....the word 'Hero' as it has been thrown around was MEANT to be a pejorative by those who initiated it's use in this thread, as in 'Getting everyone killed trying to be a hero'........it PUSHED the buttons it was intended to push as a back-handed pejorative insult.



MBuzzy said:


> There are also graveyards full of people who think that they are heroes and got themselves shot.




And as far as i'm concerned, shooting it out with the suspects I place that on the same level as running away......it's at least a plan of action that puts your life in your own hands, rather than surrendering it to the presumed good graces of armed sociopaths.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 19, 2009)

A good resource on this issue:

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol14/table.htm


----------



## Brian King (Jan 19, 2009)

*Archangel M wrote:*



> I think we just may have a communications difference.


 
Roger that, When training with military units you have to use the language that they are used to using and understand. When training with police officers and units you have to use the language that they use and understand same as when working with medical units and professionals. It is more difficult when web posting as the target audience is wider and unspecific. 




> If by visualization you mean rehearsing one hand shooting, prone shooting, close retention shooting while being hit..thats fine.


 
That is a part of it sir, but not just shooting off handed or otherwise limited being limited, but understanding and feeling why you are doing so. How many officers do you see sir shooting one handed with their other hand curled into a fist and placed on their chest? If trying to train to stay in the fight despite the wounds then the wounds have to at least be acknowledged in my opinion and counted for. If you are limiting mobility for instance because of a simulated leg wound it does little good for the trainee to be able to run around with out even a limp. Depending on the wound being simulated put a couple of thumb tacks into the bottom of their foot for a hour or two, short chain a large kettlebell to their lower leg for a few drills, tie one or both legs bent up so their foot or feet is now stuck up near their backside and let them continue the drill(s). They need to feel the limitation (visualization of working while limited helps i.e visualize the blood dripping and the limb not working properly) and to experience dealing with the limitation and coming up with a solution despite the limitation. Often the solution ends up being a good one whether limited or completely 100% good to go. 




> If you mean actually rehearshing a shootout and imagining "loosing"..i.e. getting hit and dwelling on the fear and pain...I would say that thats not what I would advise.


 
Every single class that I teach we incorporate fear and pain and learning how to accept it understand it and keep going and how to use it for our benefit. I was at a combat Hapkido seminar in Colorado and the pressure point master was having a difficult time getting the proper reaction from me (both he and the grand master) and he being familiar with the type of training that we do made the comment that I have beat the pain out, beat the sensation of pain out. It was a misunderstanding on his part. We do not become desensitized as in the pain is not felt or even that it is ignored, we in fact become more aware of it and simply understand that it is just pain and accept it. There is a difference. So no we do not IGNORE the fear and the pain like it is something bad to be avoided but rather accept it as a teaching/learning tool. Poznai Sebia. This is regardless of the type of work being learned. A for instance, we have been having very foggy days and nights here (I am very near the water) so last Saturdays class in the morning I decided to work on some sensitivity drills. One set of drills was to have the students pair up and student A would snap their fingers and the other student of the pair would listen closely. I then had student A walk across the field for anywhere between 29 and 63 meters or so. Their job was to observe and to snap their fingers once every three seconds. Partner B was able to watch Partner A walking off (All partner As were directed to walk in the same direction) and get a general idea of where they were heading. I then had partner B shut their eyes and find their partner. If they found the wrong partner then they and their partner had push-ups. The repeats of the drill had partner B watching but when the eyes were closed I had them spin quickly in tight circles 4/5 times and do a couple of back rolls (all with eyes closed) then find their partner. The final couple had the spins and rolls but then I added that they had very limited time (started at 30 seconds and decreased to 15 at the end but with a bit closer distances) so that they did not only have to listen for their particular partners snap and had to cover the distance blinded but now had to do it running. Our training area for these drills was rolling cleared land that has large bushes and a lot of blackberry and other thorny spiked things growing about in the tall grass. The drills worked sensitivity, fear, tension management, competition and awareness and yes some bleeding and bruising.




> We use simunitions..it hurts when you get hit.


 
As I posted much earlier in this thread post number 60 Another way is training with honest stress inoculations. We cannot afford simunitions even if we could get them; they are too expensive along with the modifications that you need for your firearm for those that must pay for their own training. We use good quality gas operated air soft handguns. We and our students wear long sleeve t-shirts or short sleeve t-shirts and long pants or cut offs, safety glasses and some wear a mouth guard, No other protection is advised. For stress inoculation to be effective there must be pain or the fear of pain at the minimum in my opinion. You can tell that it is good training when the students have a difficult time loading reloading their magazines as their bodies deal with the stress and tension. 




> We train officers to keep on going no matter how many times they are hit, we take a hand or legs away and make them continue.


 
Here is maybe where we have a difference in training sir. Our students already know that it isnt over until it is over and almost all of our training reinforces this. For instance during hand to hand work or weapons take away/retention work a new student might stop when they goof up whatever they were trying to do and want to do a start over rather than continuing and making it work. This do over/ start over is discouraged. For force on force work depending on the purpose of the drill we often have the student that was hit take a knee and figure out why they were hit and what they might have been able to do differently. They then have to articulate the reason they think they were hit and the person that shot them has to articulate why they got the hit and the people observing have to articulate why the hit occurred. Then the drill is ran againand againand again if need be. On some drills they have to take a moment to acknowledge the hit (and the lesson that the hit allows) then drive on but with limitations sometimes severe limitations. Depends on the purpose of the particular drill and what attributes we are trying to build with it. 




> We train officers to keep on going no matter how many times they are hit


 
It is a good mindset to develop and not particularly difficult to develop with a bunch of meat eater type As officers. But there is also a danger to it. *war story time LOL* I remember this one guy. We were doing some field exercises one unit attacking a dug in position. They were supposed to be practicing leap frog type of maneuvers and teamwork to over run a position. We had blanks so no way of registering or acknowledging hits. This one guy would take off running; ignore cover, run for extended periods of time with out even shifting directions or pace. He was quickly nicknamed superman. He learned a lesson by taking a hit from something that knocked him butt over heels, bruising his chest and putting him out of commission for a few hours. A side note with the blank adaptor removed a weapon will still fire a blank (on semi but not auto) but there is a danger that gas will project the wadding from the blank for a distance also note that a small tootsie roll candy fits into a M-60 machine gun.




> The way we look at it "failure" is when you are dead and cant fight any more.


 
I CAN understand that sir but one of the reasons of training force on force in my opinion is to learn. To be able to make mistakes (and die) while training when it only hurts and to be able to explore and practice those methods and movements that better your chance of survival if faced with the fight for real. Not to feed the ego, fuel the bravado and develop a sense of invulnerability. Confidence yes but thru awareness and practice.

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol14/table.htm  

Thanks for the link sir. I read that years ago but my google fu is weak so have not been able to reread it in as long. I have this time saved a copy

Warmest Regards
Brian King 

Frankly I debated about posting this as I do think we agree more than disagree. But heck I key slowly and this took time, might as well post it.


----------



## Brian King (Jan 19, 2009)

*Sgtmac_46 wrote*




> It's a nice canard, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion......that incident has JACK to do with visualizing failure.......in fact, all it has to do with is failing recognize and object. How visualizing failure would have correctly allowed the officers to recognize a wallet from a gun only you apparently know.


 
Ummm A canard perhaps but what I wrote was in response to Archangel M writing That used to be an "old school" trainig method, the student could never win, the teacher would "kill" everybody and the lesson was "see you do that and you get killed". The incident I wrote about that you called canard was the incident that prompted the change in training theories. Sorry that my writing skills are so inept that you were lost in the conversation and could not follow where I was going and who I was responding to. I thought the use of the quote function sufficient along with the posting of Archangel Ms name bolded but obviously I was mistaken.


As far as the rest of your posting goes sir I feel like I am in one of those movies where the American is overseas and cannot be understood by the locals so the conversation gets louder as if the foreigner is stupid and cannot understand or is deaf and cannot hear. I think that is what is happening here or something similar.

I will own the failure of unclear communication. Trying to be as clear as possible here sgtmac_46 I understand what you are saying perfectly, I understand where you are coming from clearly I just do not agree with your conclusions or methods. For further clarification I am going to guess that you understand perfectly what I am saying and where I am coming from but you do not agree with my conclusions or methods. To continue to belabor the points does not make much sense to me and I can see no profit coming from doing so. Since winning and losing is so important to you I will admit you win and I lose and fail for the sake of this thread. For me I agree to disagree still. Good luck to you

Warmest Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian King (Jan 19, 2009)

*sgtmac_46 posted this link*

http://criminalsforguncontrol.com/


> http://criminalsforguncontrol.com/


 
No that was f'n funny

Warmest regards
Brian King


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2009)

Brian said:


> *sgtmac_46 posted this link*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 We'll have to agree to disagree on the visualization.......but that WAS pretty funny wasn't it! :uhyeah:


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 20, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on the visualization.......but that WAS pretty funny wasn't it! :uhyeah:



Same-Same.


----------

