# CCW holder stops robber in Burger King



## Deaf Smith (Mar 24, 2009)

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/965735.html

*1 dead, one injured in Miami Burger King shooting*

*By ROBERT SAMUELS AND JENNIFER LEBOVICH*

*jlebovich@MiamiHerald.com*

One man was killed and another seriously wounded in a shootout inside a Miami Burger King on Tuesday, officials said.
Police said a man wearing a ski mask walked into the store at Biscayne Boulevard and 54th Street and demanded money from a clerk.
A customer, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled a gun, said Officer Jeff Giordano, a Miami police spokesman. 
The customer and robber exchanged fire.
The robber was shot dead at the scene.
*The customer, who had several gunshot wounds, was taken to Ryder Trauma Center in serious but stable condition*, said Lt. Ignatius Carroll, a Miami Fire Rescue spokesman.
At about 4 p.m., officials got several 911 calls reporting people shot inside the Burger King.

-----
I hope the brave man lives. What he did took courage. But, I want everyone here to see that bullets go both ways. 

I carry a gun very very often, and I know I could get sucked into something like this. 

Sometimes the good guys get hurt to and it's something to consider when you carry a weapon.

Deaf


----------



## Omar B (Mar 24, 2009)

Best of luck to him.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 24, 2009)

Sorry to hear of his injury, glad to see there are still those who understand that not living in fear of scumbags is WORTh the risk.( After all, "No witnesses" is the way the new strain of scumbag rolls nowadays)

Here's to a speedy recovery and no charges filed. Well Done, Sir.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Sorry to hear of his injury, glad to see there are still those who understand that not living in fear of scumbags is WORTh the risk.( After all, "No witnesses" is the way the new strain of scumbag rolls nowadays)
> 
> Here's to a speedy recovery and no charges filed. Well Done, Sir.



I'm glad the bad guy is dead.  I'm glad the customer is going to live.  And since I don't know what all the circumstances were, I hope that the shooting was justified.

It may well be 'worth the risk' to put one's own life on the line - if that's your choice.  And what would you be saying if he had missed and shot another customer?  What would you be saying if you were that customer he shot?

As to the age of 'no witnesses', you have some stats on that?  Every thug that robs a fast food restaurant kills all the customers?

I'm interested in finding out more about this situation.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 25, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And since I don't know what all the circumstances were, I hope that the shooting was justified.


The statement issued by the police said that a CCW holder killed a man who was committing armed robbery...sounds justified to me.  Considering that this happened in Fla. I doubt the guy is going to have any legal problems.

I too am curious as to the particulars of the event.  I'm wondering if he tried to order the BG to drop his gun...

Anyway, I hope he pulls through...sounds like he did the city of Miami a favor.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> The statement issued by the police said that a CCW holder killed a man who was committing armed robbery...sounds justified to me.  Considering that this happened in Fla. I doubt the guy is going to have any legal problems.
> 
> I too am curious as to the particulars of the event.  I'm wondering if he tried to order the BG to drop his gun...
> 
> Anyway, I hope he pulls through...sounds like he did the city of Miami a favor.



I'm sure we'll hear more on the story, and yes, I tend to doubt he will be charged with any crime.  But I would like to hear more about the circumstances.

I shudder to think what the outcome would be if the man's bullet had overpenetrated and shot someone else - or just gone wild, ricocheted, etc and injured someone else.  Still justified?  Tragic but acceptable?  Not sure how the police, public, etc, would consider it.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 25, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> .
> 
> It may well be 'worth the risk' to put one's own life on the line - if that's your choice.


 
Exactly. It is true that no one can say what they'd do till they're in it, but I'm glad every time someone does stand up.




> And what would you be saying if he had missed and shot another customer?


 
Probably ***** and moan about how he'd forgotten *R*ule *N*umber *F*our and how his amateur mistake made the rest of us look bad.



> What would you be saying if you were that customer he shot?
> 
> .


 
Assuming I've lived?

"Five things, buddy. 1) Go back to school on your 4 rules, especially number 4. 2) Go back to the range and get your grip and sights issues sorted till you learn how to hit center mass.3) Get yourself a lasergrip so you can still do it under adrenaline stress 4) Ditch whatever you were using and get yourself a .45  4) Pray I never see you again".


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 25, 2009)

I am not suprised it is Biscayne Blvd this type of stuff happens every day there.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sure we'll hear more on the story, and yes, I tend to doubt he will be charged with any crime.  But I would like to hear more about the circumstances.
> 
> I shudder to think what the outcome would be if the man's bullet had overpenetrated and shot someone else - or just gone wild, ricocheted, etc and injured someone else.  Still justified?  Tragic but acceptable?  Not sure how the police, public, etc, would consider it.


The 'what if game' is a fun one to play.....such as 

What if he had not pulled out his gun and the robber shot one of the customers or employees in the head?  

What if no one else had been armed, and he herded everyone else in the back and executed them, ala the Lane Bryant massacre/robbery? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332606,00.html

At the end of the day, you pays your money and you takes your chances......but being ARMED at least puts your destiny in your own hands.......rather than being entirely a passive observer of your own fate, and entirely reliant upon an armed criminals good graces.......and SOMETIMES having the ability to choose is the best you can ask for out of the situation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> At the end of the day, you pays your money and you takes your chances......but being ARMED at least puts your destiny in your own hands.......rather than being entirely a passive observer of your own fate, and entirely reliant upon an armed criminals good graces.......and SOMETIMES having the ability to choose is the best you can ask for out of the situation.



When you go about armed, you pays your money and you take everybody's chances.  The people at risk were not given the opportunity to decide if they wanted to be involved in a gun battle between a good guy and a bad guy.

This is exactly the kind of nightmare scenario that gun-grabbers fantasize about when they go on and on about CCW - a shooting gallery full of citizens trapped between a bad guy and a good guy who has decided to blaze it out with each other.

That scenario did not materialize - which is a good thing.  But was that due to skill, luck, or some other attribute of the encounter that we don't know about yet?

I am a pro-gun person.  I am in favor of armed citizens.  I also fear that the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens are booger-eatin' morons who don't know the first thing about gun safety or when they can or should engage in self-defense with a firearm.

Did this man save the restaurant's patrons from certain execution?  No, he did not.  Some here want to characterize the average restaurant hold up as a prelude to guaranteed mass murder - to avoid witnesses.  But this is clearly very rare.  He *might* have saved the restaurant's patrons, or his actions may have endangered further.  And the patrons did not get to make that choice, he made it for them.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 26, 2009)

No.

The scumbag took EVERYONE's "choice" to be uninvolved away when he committed to violence in the first place.

You asked me earlier if I had statistics to back up the no witnesses claim.
I have been looking, haven't been ignoring you, but there are several instances posted right here on MT where it happened, and only ONCE is enough to ensure that *I* will ALWAYS assume this. 

Statistics matter for nothing when you are the 1%.

You then posted below that "Clearly this is very rare", but again, I could ask the same question of sources from you, but I think at this point it wouldn't much matter since we've both made our choices where we stand anyway.

I'm not going to wait to find out what the scumbag's intentions are.

The longer you allow them to stay in control the worse your chances get.


".......For if they once may win the bridge, what hope to save the town?"


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 26, 2009)

On the news they kept saying he had a permit. I think everyone is suprised that someone in Biscayne actually has a gun permit I know I was.

It is a sad thing at least here in Miami that robberies are happening more frequent in fast food settings. There was one report were shots were fired because the driver didn't get BBQ sauce.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

I have used this news story before as what I consider to be an exemplar for the proper use of CCW and deadly force.  I would ask the astute reader to compare and contrast.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/



> A 71-year-old former Marine One helicopter pilot broke up an armed robbery at a Plantation, Fla., Subway restaurant last week, killing one alleged robber and hospitalizing another.
> While John Lovell was finishing up his sandwich around 11:15 p.m. last Wednesday, two masked men armed with guns barged into the restaurant, according to a statement from the Plantation police. After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said.
> As the two tried to force Lovell into the ladies room where he thought he would be killed, the former Marine reached behind his back to grab his .45-caliber handgun, which he fired seven times at the two men, according to the police statement.



He was armed.  He did not jump up and draw his weapon and begin to blaze away the moment the men announced a holdup.  He even turned over his wallet on demand (not in this story, but I've read may news accounts of it).  When the robbers demanded that the customers go into the back room, he made the judgment that he and his fellow customers were about to be murdered, and he acted.  He did not draw his weapon and demand that they surrender.  He did not wave it about like a magic wand that cures all ills and terrifies all bad guys.  He drew, aimed, and shot both men in the chest immediately.

Textbook.

People without an understanding of why and how these two situations were different should reconsider their decision to go about armed - they may have a gun, but they haven't a clue.  Of the two, I'd prefer they keep their minds with them at all times.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Mar 26, 2009)

Ya Subway I remember that one. I remember hearing of Dunkin doughnuts being robbed thru the drive thru!!

Plantation isn't as bad as Biscayne. A long time ago inside a mall called Dadeland mall was a huge cartel shootout in broad daylight.

http://deansguide.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/miami-dadeland-massacre-1979-the-war-on-drugs-begins/

If you see the part on the video called KING'S COURT thats right next to me. AT 5:31 On the video


----------



## MJS (Mar 26, 2009)

Interesting points on both sides here.  I suppose this is no different than if someone was unarmed and involved themselves in a dispute between 2 people.  I see the point that Bill is making....what if the good guy, during the shooting, shot an innocent bystander.  Of course, the flip side and I'm sure some may be thinking...well, what if the cops shot an innocent bystander?  

Now, involving myself in a situation with people I don't know, vs. being in an establishment, something happens, well, I'm in that building, so yes, in that case, I'm involved.  

My hat goes off to the good guy and I hope that he recovers from his injuries.  The bad guy...well, he chose this path, and he got what he deserved, because I'm sure we all know that he's probably a repeat offender, and even if given jail time, would most likely go out and do it again.  This time though, he won't.

As always, anytime I find myself in these types of threads, I say the same thing....I'm not anti-gun.  I have no issues with someone owning or carrying.  However, if that is what you choose to do, then make sure that you can handle yourself in situations like we see here.  To think that an occasional trip to the range, where its just you and the paper target that doesnt shoot back, with nobody else around, with pleanty of light and no stress, well, I think those folks are kidding themselves and the risk of playing hero runs higher than if you did nothing at all.  Bottom line...be safe, use your head, and if you decide to act, make damn sure you know what you're doing.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Mar 26, 2009)

Praying for a speedy recovery for the customer.  And may God have mercy on the soul of the robber.

Daniel


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have used this news story before as what I consider to be an exemplar for the proper use of CCW and deadly force. I would ask the astute reader to compare and contrast.
> 
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/
> 
> ...


 
On this point we are in absolute agreement that the man in your situation had his head about him in the way one who goes armed ought to.

We don't know yet about this other fellow's particulars.

I think we agree on more than we disagree, our only diverging point seems to be how long we'd wait or how ugly we'd allow it to get before action. But again, this is a text forum. Something may be lost that isn't translating over.


----------



## chinto (Mar 27, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The 'what if game' is a fun one to play.....such as
> 
> What if he had not pulled out his gun and the robber shot one of the customers or employees in the head?
> 
> ...



yep at least if you are armed you have the option of engaging the enemy with a weapon yourself.  no one says you have to do so, but it gives you the choice and the control of your life in a situation like that.  would I have drawn my weapon and engaged the robber? dont know. but if you fight, armed or unarmed please REMEMBER THIS:

IF YOU FIGHT YOU MAY DIE!   that is true weather there are weapons involved or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2009)

chinto said:


> IF YOU FIGHT YOU MAY DIE!   that is true weather there are weapons involved or not.



If there are weapons involved, it is also good to remember that if you fight, other people may die, too.  And not necessarily you or the bad guy.  Just a thought.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am a pro-gun person. I am in favor of armed citizens. I also fear that the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens are booger-eatin' morons who don't know the first thing about gun safety or when they can or should engage in self-defense with a firearm.





> When you go about armed, you pays your money and you take everybody's chances.



Bill,

Thanks for your insights.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 27, 2009)

More on the shooting here:

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI116328/

"Authorities said a man with a ski mask went into the store and a customer tried to stop him, which led to a shootout between the customer and the subject. "This individual was armed, he pulled out a gun. It was a Good Samaritan that was inside of the Burger King that has a concealed weapons permit. He confronted the robbery suspect, at which time shots were fired. The robbery suspect is confirmed dead," Miami Police Officer Jeff Giordano said. 



Authorities transported the customer to Jackson Memorial Hospital with multiple bullet wounds. He is in stable condition.


Police said a possible second subject fled the scene in a black four-door sedan that may be a Toyota."

------
Thing is, he had a ski mask on. You don't know if he is a nut or robber. Only you have this scarry guy with a gun come in who has his face hidden.

The decision is up to you!

Deaf


----------



## Wishbone (Mar 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When you go about armed, you pays your money and you take everybody's chances.  The people at risk were not given the opportunity to decide if they wanted to be involved in a gun battle between a good guy and a bad guy.



True, but it's just part of the risks of life.  When someone driving next to me on the highway pulling a trailer is staring at their phone texting away they're taking chances that affect me.  People take chances that affect our lives in possibly tragic ways everyday.  It's just the nature of the game.  Only most of them aren't as stigmatized as shoot-outs.  Although I daresay more people's lives are affected by road-side negligence than good guy vs bad guy gun fire.

Doesn't stop me from driving, riding bicycles near roads or walking/running near them either.  Nor does the fear of being shot from a good guy or a bad guy.  Either way, both are taking chances with my life, but at least the good guy has good intentions and won't go steal my wallet afterwards if I suffer a hit


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 27, 2009)

Well it's like old Bilbo Baggins used to say:

"Dreadfully dangerous business, going out your door".


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 27, 2009)

Bit more info.

Press is reporting the GG had a 9mm and the BG had a .380. 

So maybe they swapped lead back and forth cause nether was getting a good hit (but the GG finaly tagged him right.)

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 27, 2009)

Yeah, I know, I know, it *is* true that shot placement matters most, but i'm still not particularly comfortable, if fight i must, doing so with a sidearm the caliber of which does not begin with "4", and not just because of bullet diameter.

Apart from its long standing performance as a man stopper regardless of bullet type, there's something else that recommends the old, but trusty, .45 ACP:

Bill brought up valid concerns concerning the risk of overpenetration into innocents.

One of the .45 ACP round's interesting characteristics is that it's somewhat larger diameter , slightly heavier bullet and comparatively slow speeds of 8-900fps make it inherently unlikely to overpenetrate even if no hollowpoint is used.

I don't know the particulars of the ammo used in the 9mm, but if it was 9mm ball, that round is well known for risk of overpenetration. Just a thought to consider.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 27, 2009)

yay! another caliber debate (groan...)

If we're honest, there are probably very few incidents where using a different "service" caliber would have had any significant impact on the outcome of a shooting.  The people that died would have probably died even if shot with a smaller caliber, and the people that lived probably would have lived even if shot with a larger caliber.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 27, 2009)

All of them will work most of the time and all of them will fail some of the time.

What I meant to address was the overpenetration thing more than stopping power although that did creep in there.

I mean yeah, I've carried 9's before but they've always been stoked with +P JHPs.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When you go about armed, you pays your money and you take everybody's chances.  The people at risk were not given the opportunity to decide if they wanted to be involved in a gun battle between a good guy and a bad guy.


 And in doing nothing you take everybody's chances as well......at what point did we start teaching folks that they are not as responsible for inaction as much as they are action?  Inaction IS an action, you have made a choice by doing nothing at all.  The universe does not suddenly say 'Oooppss.....conscientious objector, we best leave him out of the consequences of this situation'.



Bill Mattocks said:


> This is exactly the kind of nightmare scenario that gun-grabbers fantasize about when they go on and on about CCW - a shooting gallery full of citizens trapped between a bad guy and a good guy who has decided to blaze it out with each other.


 You mean a citizen having the ability to defend themselves against an armed attacker is a nightmare scenario?  Hmmmmmmm......




Bill Mattocks said:


> That scenario did not materialize - which is a good thing.  But was that due to skill, luck, or some other attribute of the encounter that we don't know about yet?


 That's the funny thing about the real world......you don't generally know until well after the fact, if then.




Bill Mattocks said:


> I am a pro-gun person.  I am in favor of armed citizens.  I also fear that the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens are booger-eatin' morons who don't know the first thing about gun safety or when they can or should engage in self-defense with a firearm.


 That's the funny thing about freedom, isn't it......we accept the reality that some folks may make bad choices........of course freedom beats the alternative......which is a bunch of moron bureaucrats even DUMBER than the public deciding what you SHOULD do in every situation, which is 'baaaaaaaa' politely.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Did this man save the restaurant's patrons from certain execution?  No, he did not.  Some here want to characterize the average restaurant hold up as a prelude to guaranteed mass murder - to avoid witnesses.  But this is clearly very rare.  He *might* have saved the restaurant's patrons, or his actions may have endangered further.  And the patrons did not get to make that choice, he made it for them.


 That is an ASSumption you are making, that is unsupported by the facts.....you assume you know what the robber had in mind......and how exactly do you know that?  Can you teach that amazing ability?

In reality armed robbers DO kill their victims quite often, they do it even without obvious provocation......or did some 'booger eating moron' at Lane Bryants pull out her piece and precipitate the execution of 5 innocent people?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 28, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have used this news story before as what I consider to be an exemplar for the proper use of CCW and deadly force.  I would ask the astute reader to compare and contrast.
> 
> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/
> 
> ...


 There is no 'textbook' because all robbers do not follow the text book or the script. 

If you think EVERY robber is going to give the 'everyone in the back' code word before opening fire, I believe you are operating under a set of dangerous preconceived notions. 

These robbers didn't read your 'text book'. 



> A subway token clerk reporting for work at an isolated Manhattan station early yesterday was ambushed and shot dead by a gunman who seized the momentary advantage of an unlocked token booth and, with an accomplice, escaped with more than $11,000 in cash and tokens. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/09/nyregion/gunman-kills-token-clerk-in-harlem-subway-ambush.html





> A robber jumped through a window into the cashier&#8217;s cage of a southwest Atlanta convenience store Sunday night and shot and killed the clerk, authorities said.  http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/03/23/fatal_west_end_robbery.html





> Columbus police said Perez was shot behind the counter about 9 a.m. by an armed robber who entered the store at 3851 E. Livingston Ave. Perez was taken to Grant Medical Center and died there at 10:10 a.m.
> 
> Whatever interaction the robber had with Perez, it didn't last long. Weiner said the robber was in the store only about 15 seconds. Perez's killer remained at large last night. http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/03/25/ashoot.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101


 (So much for WAITING to see what happens.....15 seconds)



> *LAKE CITY, Fla. -- *A 59-year-old store clerk was shot and killed Tuesday night during a robbery of a convenience store just of Interstate 10.Linda Raulerson was shot about 9 p.m. as she was closing the Joy America grocery store at the U.S. Highway 441 exit of I-10, according to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office.Sheriff Bill Gootee said surveillance video showed that the robber shot Raulerson after she emptied the cash drawer, handed over the money and stepped out of the way. http://www.news4jax.com/news/16963933/detail.html



I could go on like this all night.......but folks get the point.......you applaud the former marine in your example because you know the outcome......and because the outcome was good, you assume that his actions were 'textbook'........that 'textbook' being that anyone armed should wait for the 'everybody in the back' cue from the robbers that they are going to begin shooting before they act.......as I illustrated, though, the one GLARING problem with your 'theory' is that many robbers don't seem to abide by the rules. 

But the REALITY is that the former marine in your example IS to be commended......not because he waited for the UNIVERSAL CLUE of execution to pull his gun and go to work.......but because he appraised his particular UNIQUE situation and decided it was time to go, not because he read the text book.......but because he was writing it as he went along.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 28, 2009)

chinto said:


> yep at least if you are armed you have the option of engaging the enemy with a weapon yourself.  no one says you have to do so, but it gives you the choice and the control of your life in a situation like that.  would I have drawn my weapon and engaged the robber? dont know. but if you fight, armed or unarmed please REMEMBER THIS:
> 
> IF YOU FIGHT YOU MAY DIE!   that is true weather there are weapons involved or not.


ABSOLUTELY!  And if you do nothing you may die.......however, here's what really confuses me......at what point did we as a society decide that it's somehow BETTER if you die doing nothing than if you die doing something?  That mindset confuses me to no end, but it seems endemic........somewhere we decided that INACTION is a virtue.

Action and inaction are choices that we make based on the unique situation you are in........one time action will save you, and inaction will get you killed, then in another it may be totally the opposite.  Some folks, however, have the erroneous idea that inaction is somehow superior.......that even if you DO get killed, it's better to have not been doing anything about it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> More on the shooting here:
> 
> http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI116328/
> 
> ...


 Well........he COULD have been a nice robber, we don't know.


----------



## Guardian (Mar 28, 2009)

I agree to do something is better then nothing, it's the something that matters.  Bill, you brought up some good points and so have the others.

Just because someone has a CCP does not mean they have the training that goes along with it (tactical training) that is, they passed a test, took their weapon and fired a few times at a stationary target a few yards away.  That sure doesn't give me them training or even common sense in most cases.

I'll give him credit, he did something and I hope he is ok and recovers quickly.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 28, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> ABSOLUTELY! And if you do nothing you may die.......however, here's what really confuses me......at what point did we as a society decide that it's somehow BETTER if you die doing nothing than if you die doing something? That mindset confuses me to no end, but it seems endemic........somewhere we decided that INACTION is a virtue.


 
I suspect most decadent societies died from that very thing. Their love of life became more like a fear of death and that fear paralyzed them. 

For you see we all will die one day. The only real question is, will we live or just exist till that day we die?

And I assure you, a lion truely lives.

Or as Robert Heinlein said, "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier".

Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I suspect most decadent societies died from that very thing. Their love of life became more like a fear of death and that fear paralyzed them.
> 
> For you see we all will die one day. The only real question is, will we live or just exist till that day we die?
> 
> ...



Macho posing.  The eternal chest thump of the internet tough guy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Macho posing.  The eternal chest thump of the internet tough guy.


 As opposed to the internet pseudo-adult, who assumes the high ground by insinuating that anyone he disagrees with is just trying to be a 'macho tough guy'........when in reality it's you who's engaging in the kind of ad hominen retort that signals a lost argument.......because deaf wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular in his post, he was referring to an idea.......where as you decided in your retort to make it an attack on Deaf, and aspersion to his character by dismissing him as an 'Macho posing, internet tough guy'.......the high ground, therefore DOES NOT belong to you.  



See, we can all just ridicule each other, call each other 'macho tough guys' and 'ignorant twits' and whatever nice little epithets we decide to come up with......but when it comes to attacking each other personally, that just means WE'VE LOST!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 29, 2009)

Guardian said:


> I agree to do something is better then nothing, it's the something that matters.  Bill, you brought up some good points and so have the others.
> 
> Just because someone has a CCP does not mean they have the training that goes along with it (tactical training) that is, they passed a test, took their weapon and fired a few times at a stationary target a few yards away.  That sure doesn't give me them training or even common sense in most cases.
> 
> I'll give him credit, he did something and I hope he is ok and recovers quickly.


 An excellent post!  And that's just it.....we can't say universally 'THIS is what you should ALWAYS do' because no two robbers, and hence no two robberies, turn out the same.

We do know that robbers often just want the money......but we also know that a NOT insignificant minority of the time they also shoot their victims, without provocation.

Keeping that in mind, every person must make that decision for themselves......now Bill, whether he'll say it outright or not, has insinuated that he believes that you should assume that the robber is there to just get the money.....UNLESS he gives an obvious telegraph letter of intent that he's going to shoot you before he shoots you (Like saying 'I'm about to shoot you!')

For my part, my disagreement with Bill is that robbers in the REALLY real world are that remotely obvious in their intent......each situation must be judged under it's own merits BY the people who are currently experiencing them......some folks want a BUREAUCRAT to decide what is the right thing to do in such situations (i.e. NOTHING!) and want that reinforced by making sure everyone is no legally armed.  Personally, not trusting in the intellectual power of a bureaucrat not to drown in a rainstorm, I think that decision is BETTER made by the folks thrust in to it.........to shoot or not to shoot, based on the individual situation at hand.

Obviously if you're going to take on the responsibility of being armed, you should ensure that you have a good fundamental foundation of training.......i've never been the victim of a robbery, never had someone thrust a gun in to my face, and i'm betting Bill hasn't been the victim of one either.  I think saying what someone SHOULD DEFINITELY do under those circumstances is a bit arrogant......I prefer that folks be given the OPTION and allow them to decide what to do when confronted by that extraordinary circumstance.......to cooperate, to flee, to resist.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 29, 2009)

The question of whether to act or not, or to assume the BG is there just for the money, etc. was beaten to death in this thread a while back...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71830


----------



## MJS (Mar 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Macho posing. The eternal chest thump of the internet tough guy.


 
So, is anyone who feels that they don't wish to bow down to the bad guys, an internet tough guy?

For the record, I'm not a tough guy.  Personally, as I've said in another thread of a similar nature, I don't like to fight, and I don't look for trouble.  However, if trouble comes to me, I'm going to stand up for myself.  However, I need to deal with it, I'm going to.....verbally or physically.  I mind my own business.  I don't feel that I should cowtow to some scumbag.

If that makes me sound like a macho, 'net tough guy....so be it.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Macho posing. The eternal chest thump of the internet tough guy.


 

Mmm. Bad form, old chap. You're a better man than this.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 30, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> The question of whether to act or not, or to assume the BG is there just for the money, etc. was beaten to death in this thread a while back...
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71830


 It's the eternal debate! :deadhorse


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 30, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It's the eternal debate! :deadhorse


Oh I know, I just thought I'd mention the other thread since we did this whole song and dance not too long ago...


----------



## dnovice (Mar 30, 2009)

It pains me when anyone at all loses their lives. There's good in everyone, albeit less in some. But when one must act one should without holding back. In that case, one can't just pull out a gun the moment one sees another gun. There must be a high probability of imminent death (this can be ascertained from the body language and behaviour of the robber.) Bill Mattocks definitely raises some good points.


----------



## dnovice (Mar 30, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I suspect most decadent societies died from that very thing. Their love of life became more like a fear of death and that fear paralyzed them.
> 
> For you see we all will die one day. The only real question is, will we live or just exist till that day we die?
> 
> ...


 
Valid point deaf. But that is one extreme. "with great power comes great responsibility." This is why we hold our police officers accountable (although in my opinion people take it too far sometimes.) The thing that separates us from lions or other animals is that we reason and calibrate our situation. So ideally, one must see if there is really an imminent danger other than a stealing money. 

I wasn't there so i can't pass judgement on the shooter. He did what he considered was right. He didn't hit any innocents so it ended ok. 

But for us in general we need to have a little restraint.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 30, 2009)

dnovice said:


> It pains me when anyone at all loses their lives. There's good in everyone, albeit less in some. But when one must act one should without holding back. *In that case, one can't just pull out a gun the moment one sees another gun. There must be a high probability of imminent death *(this can be ascertained from the body language and behaviour of the robber.) Bill Mattocks definitely raises some good points.



You certainly can...

The fact that the robber is holding a weapon means that he is threatening the unlawful use of deadly force if his orders are not obeyed.



			
				dnovice said:
			
		

> So ideally, one must see if there is really an imminent danger other than a stealing money.
> 
> But for us in general we need to have a little restraint.



Again...bad guy with gun=deadly threat.  He is threatening us with deadly force, there is no reason to believe that he will not use it for any reason (or none at all).



			
				dnovice said:
			
		

> But for us in general we need to have a little restraint.


Restraint in this scenario would be _not_ performing a coup de grâce on him after he is on the ground and the weapon has fallen from his hand...dumping as many rounds into his face as it takes to put him in that condition does not indicate lack of restraint.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 31, 2009)

dnovice said:


> It pains me when anyone at all loses their lives. There's good in everyone, albeit less in some. But when one must act one should without holding back. In that case, one can't just pull out a gun the moment one sees another gun. There must be a high probability of imminent death (this can be ascertained from the body language and behaviour of the robber.) Bill Mattocks definitely raises some good points.



So......OTHER than pulling out a gun and pointing it at you, WHAT, per chance, BODY LANGUAGE, tells you that he's going to use it?

I think there are some folks around here who have NEVER had a gun pointed at them in anger......that have some PRETTY DARNED unrealistic ideas of what they would do/know in those situations.....REALITY trumps THEORY every time.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 31, 2009)

dnovice said:


> Valid point deaf. But that is one extreme. "with great power comes great responsibility." This is why we hold our police officers accountable (although in my opinion people take it too far sometimes.) The thing that separates us from lions or other animals is that we reason and calibrate our situation. So ideally, one must see if there is really an imminent danger other than a stealing money.


 Having a gun pointed in your direction is about as IMMINENT AS IT GETS!

This other imaginary 'You'll know if his left eye twitches if he's serious' crap is exactly that...CRAP!

The difference between a man POINTING a gun at you and SHOOTING you isn't in some imaginary 'Body Language'.....it's in FRACTIONS of SECONDS!  

According to the logic of some, you can't REALLY be 'sure' there is an 'imminent danger' until he starts shooting.....and standard some folks have tried to apply to police officers, but the ROE's for imminent danger for Police Officers is much simpler.....


1) There must be a weapon
2) There must be intent (illustrated by him pulling out the weapon)
3) There must be a delivery system (His weapon must be able to reach you)

If all three of these things are in play, you ARE IN IMMINENT DANGER, and hence, lethal force is justified.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 31, 2009)

Dnovice,
I can understand restraint if the attacker is not using lethal force nor threatening to use it. But, you have only split seconds to make that decision as to how much &#8216;restraint&#8217; to use. 
As Chief Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife." 

Bill,
Macho posing? As I&#8217;ve posted before, I&#8217;ve already one held a burglar at gun point and chased down a purse snatcher (there were two of us doing the chasing). 

Lion? I hope so. I hope as I grow older I actually get bolder (and that&#8217;s kind of hard as &#8216;there are old soldiers and bold soldiers but few old and bold soldiers&#8217; so to speak.) 

What I know I won't do is cower. I won't board up my house and be afraid to leave it for fear of being robbed (and in Texas there is lots I can do to fix their little red wagon if they try.)

No, here in Texas we don't have so much to worry about the 'officials' wagging their finger if we protect ourselves. Vigilantes? No. 

Take the law into our own hands? The law GIVES US THAT RIGHT AT LEAST FOR SELF DEFENSE!

And yes, it is easier to be a Lion, cause you don't have to look over your shoulder all the time.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> What I know I won't do is cower. I won't board up my house and be afraid to leave it for fear of being robbed (and in Texas there is lots I can do to fix their little red wagon if they try.)
> 
> No, here in Texas we don't have so much to worry about the 'officials' wagging their finger if we protect ourselves. Vigilantes? No.
> 
> ...


 

I'm gonna like Texas .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> What I know I won't do is cower. I won't board up my house and be afraid to leave it for fear of being robbed (and in Texas there is lots I can do to fix their little red wagon if they try.)



What you imply, have implied, and continue to imply, is that anyone who does not instantly fill his hand and blast away at any and all threats is a coward and lives in fear.  Either you rush out and confront all bad guys with guns blazing, or you must be a coward.  Balderdash, sir.  Bullpucky.

That, sir, is _macho posing_.

I don't cower, and I don't live in fear.  I also don't puff out my chest and point out what a big, brave, he-man I am at every opportunity.  I've gotten dust on my boots, and that's all anyone needs to know.

I grew up in Colorado.  I've met plenty of Texans.  They passed me on one-lane switchbacks on the way up into the high country, they shot farmer's cows thinking they were elk, and when they skied, they came down the slope in three parts - skis, hat, and Texan, going _"Hep me, hep me."_

Try to keep in mind that some of us actually know Texans and manage to still not be as overly impressed with ya'll as ya'll are with yourselves.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 1, 2009)

Are you guys done?...seriously


----------



## MJS (Apr 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What you imply, have implied, and continue to imply, is that anyone who does not instantly fill his hand and blast away at any and all threats is a coward and lives in fear. Either you rush out and confront all bad guys with guns blazing, or you must be a coward. Balderdash, sir. Bullpucky.
> 
> That, sir, is _macho posing_.
> 
> ...


 
Here is my take on the differences.

Person A: They're confronted with a mugger at the ATM.  The badguy has a knife.  He asks the victim for $500, to which the victim complies.  Badguy leaves, victim is left with a bad memory of the event and a loss of cash.

Person B: Same as A, but badguy tells victim to go with him behind the bank.  Victim really starts fearing for his well being, so he then acts.

Person C: Same as A, but instead of complying, he relentlessly attacks the badguy, and gets the hell out of there, with his life and his cash.

I think the majority here, myself included, fall into the C category.  As I said, if that is macho posting, I really don't care.  I'm minding my own business, and some **** bag wants to rob me?  **** him!  Whatever happens to him, he brought on himself, as soon as he attempted to rob, mug, or whatever.

I mind my own business.  I don't look for trouble, I stay out of bad areas, places such as bars/clubs which have the high potential for trouble, if I'm forced to go to a bad area, I take the necessary precautions, and so far, this has worked for me.  I don't brag about my martial arts, training, and frankly, I really hate to talk about it to anyone for obvious reasons.  But, I don't feel that when we're faced with a situation, that we should always turn the other cheek, and back off, especially if I know I did nothing wrong.  

I think back to that day I was walking thru my condo complex with my dog, and a car with 2 guys passed by slowly.  I exchanged glances with the passenger, and honestly thought that he may have been someone I knew, but didn't recognize right away.  I kept walking but apparently my look pissed him off, so he gets out and asks me if I have a ****ing problem.  I didn't cower, I didn't apologize, because I didn't do anything wrong...I was minding my own business.  So I stood my ground, replied "No" to him, and continued to look at him.  He then went on his way.  However, if he had started walking towards me, I would not have ran away or begged for forgiveness.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 1, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What you imply, have implied, and continue to imply, is that anyone who does not instantly fill his hand and blast away at any and all threats is a coward and lives in fear. Either you rush out and confront all bad guys with guns blazing, or you must be a coward. Balderdash, sir. Bullpucky.


 
Imply?

If you have read alot of my post on what the laws of Texas are then you know this 'blasting away' is not true. Rush out? Again, I've pointed out you don't have to retreat in Texas, but I've also pointed out you cannot start an argument or provoke it.

And Bill, I've also pointed out bullets can go both ways. In fact, in this very thread, in the very first post I pointed that out. I also pointed out that one must weigh the consequences of what you do (like getting shot to pieces.)

What I do say, though, is if you are in fear of your life or the lives of others, and you are capable of action, and you decide to intervene, then do so. And it's a decision I would not do Monday morning quarterbacking on. Its a decision I would applaud, wither you refrained and just became a good witness or if you took bold action to stop them.

I do say though, if you decide to be a lion, then you should become a very capable lion!

Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Imply?



Yes, imply.



> Its a decision I would applaud, wither you refrained and just became a good witness or if you took bold action to stop them.



No sir, you don't.

You say _"...if he had started walking towards me, I would not have ran away or begged for forgiveness."_  You say things like that over and over.  The implication (thus, my use of the term 'imply') is that if one doesn't take immediate and violent action, one is a coward (run away) or one lives in fear (beg for forgiveness).  

You say you have no bad feelings towards those who do not act and think like you do, but you describe them as cowards and people who live in fear.

My statement stands.  Your words put the truth in them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You say _"...if he had started walking towards me, I would not have ran away or begged for forgiveness."_  You say things like that over and over.  The implication (thus, my use of the term 'imply') is that if one doesn't take immediate and violent action, one is a coward (run away) or one lives in fear (beg for forgiveness).
> 
> You say you have no bad feelings towards those who do not act and think like you do, but you describe them as cowards and people who live in fear.
> 
> My statement stands.  Your words put the truth in them.



For my part, i'll put this way.......IF you have a fundamental moral and ethical commitment against violence, even in self-defense.......I don't agree with that, but I can respect it......and it takes tremendous courage to die for your beliefs.  No coward in that respect.

IF, however, someone believes, not as the result of some moral and ethical view against violence, but because of an erroneous set of ideas, that not resisting violence is the best course of action to survive violence, that isn't cowardice either......it IS the wrong idea.

In fact.....now that I think about it, cowardice doesn't enter in to the equation at all.......I really wouldn't consider it particularly brave shooting someone who's armed while they are momentarily distracted, simply because I believe that is the best chance I have of continuing to breath air......in some ways it might even be more cowardly than the pacifist.......but if that's so, doggone it i'm a COWARD!


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, imply.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Umm...for clarification Bill, the bold part is what I said in my post.  See, YOU Bill, are ASSUMING that I would have KO'd the guy.  YOU are reading too much into things and twisting things to suit YOUR needs.  Please stop!

Lets look again, at exactly what I said!

"I mind my own business. I don't look for trouble, I stay out of bad areas, places such as bars/clubs which have the high potential for trouble, if I'm forced to go to a bad area, I take the necessary precautions, and so far, this has worked for me. I don't brag about my martial arts, training, and frankly, I really hate to talk about it to anyone for obvious reasons. But, I don't feel that when we're faced with a situation, that we should always turn the other cheek, and back off, especially if I know I did nothing wrong. 

I think back to that day I was walking thru my condo complex with my dog, and a car with 2 guys passed by slowly. I exchanged glances with the passenger, and honestly thought that he may have been someone I knew, but didn't recognize right away. I kept walking but apparently my look pissed him off, so he gets out and asks me if I have a ****ing problem. I didn't cower, I didn't apologize, because I didn't do anything wrong...I was minding my own business. So I stood my ground, replied "No" to him, and continued to look at him. He then went on his way. However, if he had started walking towards me, I would not have ran away or begged for forgiveness."

So show me Bill, where exactly I said I would KO the guy or hit the guy.  Show me please.  See, you won't see it, but again, if it doesnt match YOUR ideas, its wrong.  IIRC, I called you on this in another thread.  Its a bad habit YOU have by thinking that YOU have the market cornered on anything self defense wise.  Sorry to burst your bubble Bill, but YOU don't!  

I said I'd stand my ground.  NOTHING says I have to apologize to this jerk.  Afterall, he looked at me as well.  I really did think that it was someone I knew, but didn't recognize at the moment, thus me continuing to look at him.  He thought he could get a rise out of me, by acting all tough, but he didnt get what he intended.  Of course, when he saw my dog, an 85lb German Shepherd mix, glaring back at him, Mr. Tough Guy probably had second thoughts.  So badguy thinks, "Hmm....I'm acting like a dick, this guy who I thought I could scare is still standing there, and I really don't wanna get bit, soooo......."

Sorry Bill. I did NOTHING wrong.  I was minding my own business, I replied back "NO' when he asked if I had the ****ing problem.  But I was NOT required to say anything else, despite what YOU, Mr. Almighty, I have the market cornered on SD, may think.  I owed him NO apology, and didn't feel I should have explained myself.  Its a free country and I can look where I want.  Was I supposed to walk with my head down??  Was I supposed to cower in fear and let this guy see that I'm afraid?  He was a 20 something punk who gets off on intimidation, and I wasn't phased at all.  

So in closing, I'll say it again...I'm not a tough guy despite what YOU think.  I don't look for trouble despite what YOu think.  I mind my own business, but if I do nothing wrong, and someone starts yelling, accusing me of something, whatever, and I know I did nothing wrong, I'm standing up for what I know is right.

Really Bill, I think that you need to read what you post and get off your high horse.  You think that if someone disagrees with you, that they're wrong.  Not the case.  You throw around your LEO background to give credit to what YOU believe, to make it sound like YOU are the only one right and everyone else is wrong.  Just because an opinion doesnt meet YOUR ideas, does NOT make it wrong!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 2, 2009)

Bill,

I guess you would have us do this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5998930.ece

*Fire kills child, 3, and parents as police prevent neighbours from trying to rescue them*

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 2, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Bill,
> 
> I guess you would have us do this:
> 
> ...


 
Well, first of all, I must raise my glass to the memory of those who perished.

Next, I must say that, no, I don't think this is what Bill's after. I think a text only medium has had a field day with getting our wires crossed over one difference of opinion that diverges only on one part of the subject, but is magnified by our choices of words without our inflection behind it or the opportunity to see each other's faces/ask for clarification that a face to face talk would allow.

That's all that started this, and I think it is sad that it hasn't been realized before it got to this point. I'm not pointing specific fingers, it's a general observation.

Now let's ALL of us go up to the bar and lemme get you something, round's on me.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 2, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> ABSOLUTELY!  And if you do nothing you may die.......however, here's what really confuses me......at what point did we as a society decide that it's somehow BETTER if you die doing nothing than if you die doing something?  That mindset confuses me to no end, but it seems endemic........somewhere we decided that INACTION is a virtue.


It comes down to risk vs reward. A guy robs a Burger King register, he's in and out and makes off with say, $120. BK's got insurance etc. 

Getting yourself and possibly others shot over just that is relatively pointless. On top of that, the businesses actively fire employees who confront robbers. So doing nothing becomes perceived as the defacto response.


----------



## Carol (Apr 2, 2009)

Marginal said:


> It comes down to risk vs reward. A guy robs a Burger King register, he's in and out and makes off with say, $120. BK's got insurance etc.
> 
> Getting yourself and possibly others shot over just that is relatively pointless. On top of that, the businesses actively fire employees who confront robbers. So doing nothing becomes perceived as the defacto response.



The defacto response is not without issue though.

Being covered with a muzzle by an armed assailant is never "relatively pointless".  It is a specific threat of extreme violence.  Perhaps the violence could result in death.  Perhaps the violence could result in permanent disability and injuries that lead to a lifetime of pain and rehab. 

Plus, BGs can (and will) harm the original victim, or others, even if they do get they want.  Handing over the cash drawer should not belittle the violence of the event, nor should it be seen as a guarantee that the perps will suddenly play nice.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 2, 2009)

Ok Andy, maybe this is what Bill is talking about.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012009/news/regionalnews/subway_rapist_victims_shock_162317.htm

SUBWAY RAPIST VICTIM'S SHOCK
LOSES SUIT VS. 'NO HELP' CREW

"A conductor saw the rape from the window on his train, and a station agent in the booth witnessed a screaming woman being dragged down a staircase inside the desolate 21st Street station of the G line. But neither one left the safety of their assigned posts to help her. Instead, conductor Harmodio Cruz and agent John Koort called the command center to summon cops. 

Justice Kevin Kerrigan ruled the two workers had taken "*prompt and decisive action in obtaining police help*," according to the decision handed down in Queens Supreme Court. The help came far too late for the victim, who was raped on the platform. "

------

Well they were 'good citizens' for calling the cops. But just how it was 'decisive' is beyond me.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 2, 2009)

*sigh* Let the record show I tried.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 2, 2009)

Marginal said:


> It comes down to risk vs reward. A guy robs a Burger King register, he's in and out and makes off with say, $120. BK's got insurance etc.
> 
> Getting yourself and possibly others shot over just that is relatively pointless. On top of that, the businesses actively fire employees who confront robbers. So doing nothing becomes perceived as the defacto response.


 Again, the assumption that you can read the mind of an armed robber, or predict the future rears it's head.......unfortunately too often armed robbers don't read the script, as incident after incident after incident where cooperative victims were shot during armed robberies can attest.

What we have, given that erroneous belief, is a false choice.......simply give up the money or fight.  The money is moot.......as the choices aren't just cooperate and simply lose the money or fight.......the alternative very often is cooperate and die!  

And, unfortunately unlike Hollywood movies, there isn't usually conveniently obvious foreshadowing and signs to illustrate at what point he's going to start shooting........they don't always follow the script and conveniently laugh maniacally before saying 'And NOW Mr. Bond....you will DIE!'


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Again, the assumption that you can read the mind of an armed robber, or predict the future rears it's head.......unfortunately too often armed robbers don't read the script, as incident after incident after incident where cooperative victims were shot during armed robberies can attest.
> 
> What we have, given that erroneous belief, is a false choice.......simply give up the money or fight. The money is moot.......as the choices aren't just cooperate and simply lose the money or fight.......the alternative very often is cooperate and die!
> 
> And, unfortunately unlike Hollywood movies, there isn't usually conveniently obvious foreshadowing and signs to illustrate at what point he's going to start shooting........they don't always follow the script and conveniently laugh maniacally before saying 'And NOW Mr. Bond....you will DIE!'


 
What amazes me, is that this is the 2nd thread, in which we see the 'the bad guy will do this' mentality.  I agree 100% with what you're saying here.  I'm also amazed at why someone would want to wait until their life is really in danger instead of acting sooner.  Some, again, going on the assumption that the bad guy will respond in a certain way, would rather comply and then, and only then, if the badguy appears he's going to do away with the victim, will they react.

One of my old teachers used to have a saying, that he'd say usually during sparring class....."You wait too long, you wait wrong."  IMHO, that applies to many things in life, especially in situations like we're discussing now.  If an opening presents itself during the initial phase of the robbery, take it!  

I also have, in that other thread, pointed to cases, in which the badguy, once the robbery is done, kills the vicimt(s) because he's afraid he'll be ID'd.  Again, this shows that the badguy didn't read the script.  

I guess there are some schools out there that teach mind reading in addition to the martial arts. *shrug*


----------



## zDom (Apr 3, 2009)

ANOTHER thing to consider:

It has occurred to me that few, if any, bad guys take the time to go through a gun safety course before they start waving those Glocks around.

That means that they are probably 


&#8226; NOT being careful to only point their weapon in a safe direction

(in fact, it is reasonable to assume they are, in fact, _*intentionally pointing*_ it at people with complete disregard for their safety)


&#8226; and are NOT "indexing" &#8212; that is to say, they probably have their finger ON the trigger the entire time.


What I am getting at is, we don't NEED to know what their intentions are as far as shooting/not shooting people during the robbery.

That fact is, there is the possibility they may ACCIDENTLY shoot someone. 

Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury.

If they are running out of the store with the bag of money &#8212; nobody should be shooting at them.

If they are pointing a firearm at people demanding money, they may very well end up killing someone. Happens often enough, doesn't it? 

How many times have we heard the "accidently shot them during a robbery/robbery attempt" line?


----------



## MJS (Apr 3, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well, first of all, I must raise my glass to the memory of those who perished.
> 
> Next, I must say that, no, I don't think this is what Bill's after. I think a text only medium has had a field day with getting our wires crossed over one difference of opinion that diverges only on one part of the subject, but is magnified by our choices of words without our inflection behind it or the opportunity to see each other's faces/ask for clarification that a face to face talk would allow.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I will start off by saying that yes, I agree with what you said regarding things on the net.  I've said it before myself, that many times its hard to interpret what everyone is saying.

However....I still stand by my analogy a few posts down with Persons A, B and C.  Hey, I suppose if someone wants to wait, thats what they have their heart set on, fine.  But, IMHO, thats kinda like driving in heavy traffic.  You see the traffic slow in front of you, so you start slowing down when you're still way back, vs. waiting until you're 10ft. from the car in front of you and then say, hmm...maybe I should stop. LOL!  Either way works, but in the 2nd case, you just may crash.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 3, 2009)

Another very good string of posts coming from positions of experience and knowledge, gentlemen :tup:.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 4, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Again, the assumption that you can read the mind of an armed robber, or predict the future rears it's head.......unfortunately too often armed robbers don't read the script, as incident after incident after incident where cooperative victims were shot during armed robberies can attest.
> 
> What we have, given that erroneous belief, is a false choice.......simply give up the money or fight.  The money is moot.......as the choices aren't just cooperate and simply lose the money or fight.......the alternative very often is cooperate and die!


Yes, and I don't necessarily agree with the thinking I outlined. I do believe that it's the thinking that gives the do nothings inertia however.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 4, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Yes, and I don't necessarily agree with the thinking I outlined. I do believe that it's the thinking that gives the do nothings inertia however.


 Agreed....you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 4, 2009)

MJS said:


> What amazes me, is that this is the 2nd thread, in which we see the 'the bad guy will do this' mentality.  I agree 100% with what you're saying here.  I'm also amazed at why someone would want to wait until their life is really in danger instead of acting sooner.  Some, again, going on the assumption that the bad guy will respond in a certain way, would rather comply and then, and only then, if the badguy appears he's going to do away with the victim, will they react.
> 
> One of my old teachers used to have a saying, that he'd say usually during sparring class....."You wait too long, you wait wrong."  IMHO, that applies to many things in life, especially in situations like we're discussing now.  If an opening presents itself during the initial phase of the robbery, take it!
> 
> ...


Maybe they teach it along with the 'No Touch Knockout'............ i'm also not aware of a martial art that teaches one how to dodge/deflect/catch bullets traveling 960ft/s.


----------

