How Not to Deal with a Threat

[Bill Mattocks]

In the never-ending saga of 'this is self-defense' versus 'the right to self-defense ends when the threat ends'...

http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/12756

Man Bothered by Group with Large Sticks & Pipes Draws Loaded Handgun
...
Banks explained he had the gun in his possession because he had been confronted by several subjects outside of his residence who were cursing and being disrespectful. Banks stated the subjects approached him in aggressive manner and one of the subjects had a large stick. Banks retrieved the handgun from his residence and went back outside to confront them. When the subjects approached again Banks pulled the handgun from his waistband. Banks reported the subjects fled but returned several minutes later with large sticks and pipes.
...
Banks was arrested and charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a violent crime, and carrying a handgun on his person.

 

[Flea]

Shee.

There was a case several years ago where a man attempted to rape the wrong woman in a back alley. She beat him into submission and then kept going, even after the police got there and had to pry her off him. He spent several months in a coma and woke up with permanent major brain damage.

One would argue that he was already "damaged" as a serial rapist. Even his friends freely admitted to his Nasty Habit at her trial. Still, she got the maximum sentence for assault. I understand the verdict but I think it's kind of a shame in this context. I just have no sympathy for someone who would do that, although I understand the judge and jury have a specific job to do.

 

[MA-Caver]

Banks exemplified exactly on what NOT to do.
He should've stayed indoors (personal domain)
He should've then called the police and waited for their arrival.
He would've had the right to have the gun IN his house at least.
If he had a camera he could've taken pictures of the group wielding their sticks and pipes (they'd toss 'em as soon as police arrive) as proof that they were armed against him. Also to help identify individuals.

A reason to get a CWP, a reason to own a firearm. By doing both by the book would've helped him not hurt him.

50 years ago this wouldn't have turned out with him arrested. Hell 20 years ago it wouldn't have turned out this way.

 

[Grenadier]

Banks exemplified exactly on what NOT to do.
He should've stayed indoors (personal domain)
He should've then called the police and waited for their arrival.
He would've had the right to have the gun IN his house at least.
If he had a camera he could've taken pictures of the group wielding their sticks and pipes (they'd toss 'em as soon as police arrive) as proof that they were armed against him. Also to help identify individuals.

All very valid indeed, but when adrenaline is rushing through you, it's not that easy to think of all of the logical possibilities.

A reason to get a CWP, a reason to own a firearm. By doing both by the book would've helped him not hurt him.

Unfortunately, unless your last name is Sarbanes, Mikulski, or some other powerful liberal political family, you're most likely going to be denied a concealed carry permit in the state of Maryland, unless things have changed?

 

[Tez3]

Shee.

There was a case several years ago where a man attempted to rape the wrong woman in a back alley. She beat him into submission and then kept going, even after the police got there and had to pry her off him. He spent several months in a coma and woke up with permanent major brain damage.

One would argue that he was already "damaged" as a serial rapist. Even his friends freely admitted to his Nasty Habit at her trial. Still, she got the maximum sentence for assault. I understand the verdict but I think it's kind of a shame in this context. I just have no sympathy for someone who would do that, although I understand the judge and jury have a specific job to do.

What would have been justice there is that she was found guilty and given the maximum sentence as she clearly went over the line but then the sentence should have been suspended for X number of years as she clearly wasn't a danger to the public. I assume you have suspended sentences in the US? It's often a very good sentence to give when people have done something wrong, are clearly not guilty for various reasons but have broken the law if you see what I mean! Such as a battered woman killing the attacker not in self defence as such ie during an attack but at another time such as when he was sleeping. It's clearly a life taken illegally but there were reasons why it was done that way. A suspended sentence satisfies the law and gives the convicted person their freedom, they aren't criminal so won't offend again.

 

[Grenadier]

What would have been justice there is that she was found guilty and given the maximum sentence as she clearly went over the line but then the sentence should have been suspended for X number of years as she clearly wasn't a danger to the public. I assume you have suspended sentences in the US?

A suspended sentence satisfies the law and gives the convicted person their freedom, they aren't criminal so won't offend again.

We do have conditional and unconditional suspended sentences here, but usually probation is more commonly issued, since conditional suspended sentences are pretty much the same thing.

Under such a sentence, though, she would have a felony conviction on her record. Only if she completes the sentence, would the felony record be sealed.

 

[CoryKS]

When the subjects approached again Banks pulled the handgun from his waistband. Banks reported the subjects fled but returned several minutes later with large sticks and pipes.

Guy pulls out a handgun and they came to the conclusion that they needed more sticks? WTF?

Obviously the guy should have stayed in the house. It seems, however, that one could also argue that, in coming back to the house where the man with the gun lived, these guys did not feel that they were in danger of harm. Which might help with the assault charge (IANAL). Not sure where the 'commission of a violent crime' comes in unless it's the brandishing of the weapon itself, in which case the charge becomes self-referential.

 

[MA-Caver]

All very valid indeed, but when adrenaline is rushing through you, it's not that easy to think of all of the logical possibilities.

Which is why I'm a firm believer in a thing called Brain Training. While true, the real thing moment is radically different than everything that you could possibly think of and then some... the training in your mind to deal with situations that you read about ("what would I do?") and realistically as far as your present knowledge/experience will take you can help.
I read stuff like this and ask myself that question and honestly ask myself (answering honestly) what would I do.
Granted emotions would probably play a major factor in actually pulling off everything that you might have thought of and could skew the actual results. The thought process is conditioned to follow whatever sequence you have trained yourself to think in.
It's worked for me for rescue scenarios... it should work for confrontations.

Unfortunately, unless your last name is Sarbanes, Mikulski, or some other powerful liberal political family, you're most likely going to be denied a concealed carry permit in the state of Maryland, unless things have changed?

A load of B.S. in MD... sheesh.

 

[MJS]

Interesting that the article mentions nothing of the people who initiated this whole thing. It also doesnt say, but I have to wonder if this gun was legal and if Mr. Banks had a permit.

IMO, he'd have been better off just dealing with them without the gun. It states:

"Banks stated the subjects approached him in aggressive manner and one of the subjects had a large stick"

For me, thats enough. I'm minding my own business and these pieces of **** come looking for trouble. However, him doing what he did, is no different than if he did defend himself without a gun, went back into the house and pumped a few rounds into the guy, or got in his car and ran him over.

Notice how the suspects state:

"The victims stated they were loud and disrespectful"

Of course, I love how it gets twisted and the BADGUYS are suddenly the victims. Go figure. Hmm...am I missing something here or is there suddenly no mention of weapons from the badguys? Did they tell the cops that they had weapons?

There are some key pieces of this puzzle missing, but going on what is said in the article, I would not use this as an example of why we should not defend ourselves. As I said earlier, I am very interested to know if this guy Banks had the proper paperwork for the gun, because I'm guessing that if he did things may have been different.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is the key paragraph, I think:

"Banks stated the subjects approached him in aggressive manner and one of the subjects had a large stick."

As you pointed out, that's grounds for self-defense right there.

However, he did not have the gun at that point. Had he defended himself physically, I doubt he'd have faced any charges.

"Banks retrieved the handgun from his residence and went back outside to confront them."

Bam. Right there, it changes. He went back outside to confront them. That's not a self-defense scenario. You can't claim self-defense if you intentionally put yourself into that situation.

"When the subjects approached again Banks pulled the handgun from his waistband."

Now at this point, I agree that there is something missing. Armed and on his own property would be different, I think, than armed and roaming the streets looking for these guys or armed and down some alley when they reappeared.

"Banks reported the subjects fled but returned several minutes later with large sticks and pipes."

And this makes it sound like he waved his gun around, they left, but thought better of it and came back - and he waited while this happened. Again, this is not self-defense. He had plenty of opportunity to leave, go inside his house and call the police, etc. Had they come into his house, no problem with popping them.

I'd be willing to bet a lot that if you asked him, he had no intentions of shooting anyone. He is one of the many who believe in the magic power of guns to cure all ills - just wave it around and things get better. As he found out, things do not get better.

There are some key pieces of this puzzle missing, but going on what is said in the article, I would not use this as an example of why we should not defend ourselves. As I said earlier, I am very interested to know if this guy Banks had the proper paperwork for the gun, because I'm guessing that if he did things may have been different.

I agree that there some interesting facts missing - but to me, I see quite clearly why Banks was arrested and what he did wrong.

Whether or not he had paperwork on the gun is irrelevant. It is how he used it, not the legal status of the gun in this case, that matters.

And I did not post this as an example of "why we should not defend ourselves." I posted it to show that this is an example of a person who does not know what self-defense is. It would have been self-defense if he had defended himself at the get-go. Going into his house and coming back out with a gun - no longer self-defense. Not that he should not defend himself, but at that point, he wasn't defending himself - he was hunting for bad guys. The law frowns on that.

 

[Carol]

He is being charged with "carrying a handgun on his person" among other crimes.

I do not believe that this is a crime if one has the proper carry permit. The other charges would likely still apply whether or not the carry was legal.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

He is being charged with "carrying a handgun on his person" among other crimes.

I do not believe that this is a crime if one has the proper carry permit. The other charges would likely still apply whether or not the carry was legal.

Generally speaking, carry permits allow concealed carry. That means that the gun in question must be concealed. If it is not concealed, the person is committing a crime unless they are specifically authorized to draw the weapon.

Remembering that he put himself into this situation voluntarily from the moment he exited his house, I think the charges are appropriate given the circumstances.

I do not know if he had a carry permit, but from the thread, I gather that Maryland is loathe to issue same.

http://www.marylandshallissue.org/fact.html

Apparently, Maryland is not a 'shall issue' state for CCW.

The problem with Banks' behavior is based on two things. First, he retreated from danger into his house (good) but then he armed himself and decided to 'confront' the bad guys (bad). Second, he brandished, clearly hoping the sight of the firearm would dissuade the bad guys. One draws a firearm when one is about to use it to defend one's life. If it is draw and not fired, good. But one draws it with the intent to defend one's life with deadly force. Banks was neither authorized nor ready to do that, IMHO.

And this is the point. If people are going to go about armed, they need to understand first what self-defense is and is not. He clearly does not get that. Second, they need to understand when they can and cannot employ deadly force in defense of their lives or that of another - and Banks doesn't get that, either.

 

[Carol]

Generally speaking, carry permits allow concealed carry. That means that the gun in question must be concealed.

And the article implies that it was concealed, with the description of how Banks pulled the gun from under his waistband.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And the article implies that it was concealed, with the description of how Banks pulled the gun from under his waistband.

Right. That's when it stopped being concealed and started being 'brandishing'. Then the question becomes not whether or not he had a permit to carry, but whether the situation justified brandishing - generally meaning that he had the right to defend himself with deadly force. Since he retreated from the threat, armed himself, and then went out to re-engage the little monsters, I think he's going to have a hard time proving he was engaging in legitimate self-defense.

It's like the movie 'Deathwish'. You can't go looking for a fight, find it, and then claim self-defense.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Since when is carrying a gun on your property, though outside, illegal. That I find interesting.

Another question is was there anyone else inside of his house. I have a wife and 5 month old daughter. Do you really believe that I am going to wait until several armed subjects get inside before I confront them. Hell no! I'm gonna take the battle to the ground of my choosing where the least amount of collateral damage can occur.

In California, the law says that you must have intent to commit a criminal battery. This guy had not intent. He was defending himself. Where is is written that I have to cower inside of my house until the bad guy(s) leaves? Sure, it may be smarter, but this is just making it so that the good guys must cower in fear until the police get there, hopefully in time.

And mind you, this is coming from the perspective of a police officer who has responded to a call of a homicide in progress, where the suspects had time to almost decapitate two people in a building full of people, and still have time to make an escape.

And people wonder why no one wants to depend on others for their safety.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Since when is carrying a gun on your property, though outside, illegal. That I find interesting.

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Another question is was there anyone else inside of his house. I have a wife and 5 month old daughter. Do you really believe that I am going to wait until several armed subjects get inside before I confront them. Hell no! I'm gonna take the battle to the ground of my choosing where the least amount of collateral damage can occur.

The 'Castle Doctrine' does not cover your idea of self-defense in any state that I am aware of.

In California, the law says that you must have intent to commit a criminal battery. This guy had not intent.

He was charged with assault, not battery. Different crimes. And I'm not entirely sure you're right on the mens rea, either. But in either case, he was charged with assault. Remember what is required for battery, you took con law classes. Mens rea, actus rea, and harm. Assault occurs when the actor performs an action that puts another in fear of harm - like pointing a gun at them.

He was defending himself.

The police felt differently. I'm going to guess the jury will too, presuming he does not cop a plea. He would have been defending himself up until the time when he re-emerged from his house, with a weapon, looking to continue the altercation. That is in no way self-defense. You cannot pick a fight and then claim self-defense.

Where is is written that I have to cower inside of my house until the bad guy(s) leaves?

Again with the 'cowering'. If a person retreats to their house, calls the police, and remains inside until the threat leaves, they must be a coward.

Well, call it what you like, but the laws in many jurisdictions say you have a duty to retreat if you can before you can engage in self-defense. And even in states that have a 'stand your ground' law, none of them cover going to a safe place, arming yourself, and then demanding a rematch so you can claim self-defense. It just doesn't work like that.

Sure, it may be smarter, but this is just making it so that the good guys must cower in fear until the police get there, hopefully in time.

Why must it be cowering in fear?

If the man had stayed in his house, and called the police, and the punks had broken in to get him, he would have been well within his rights to blast them. There was no reason on earth for him to come out again, unless they set fire to the joint.

And mind you, this is coming from the perspective of a police officer who has responded to a call of a homicide in progress, where the suspects had time to almost decapitate two people in a building full of people, and still have time to make an escape.

You should have a better understanding of the law, officer.

And people wonder why no one wants to depend on others for their safety.

And people wonder why anti-gunners are terrified of idiots with guns. My take on it is that if you choose to go about armed, you should know what self-defense is, when you can employ deadly force in self-defense, and you must be prepared to use deadly force if the situation calls for it. This man had none of those properties - he was (until disarmed), a menace to society. He's as dangerous as the punks who threatened him with sticks and pipes - more, even.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Depends on the jurisdiction.

True.

The 'Castle Doctrine' does not cover your idea of self-defense in any state that I am aware of.

Really. Then I guess this information is all wrong:

Source: Wikipedia

Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that; the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be. Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."

The man had a lawful right to be in his front yard, didn't he. He had a right to get into his car, didn't he? So, when being aggressed by people with sticks and pipes, he doesn't have the right to get a weapon to adequately protect himself. Then, when aggressed for a second time, pull out a firearm and brandish it to keep from getting the crap beaten out of it.

As for a specific state, I suggest that you look up the case of Mr. Joe Horn in Texas. A simple google search should suffice. He killed two people burglarizing his neighbor's home, and the grand jury did not indict him.

He was charged with assault, not battery. Different crimes. And I'm not entirely sure you're right on the mens rea, either. But in either case, he was charged with assault. Remember what is required for battery, you took con law classes. Mens rea, actus rea, and harm. Assault occurs when the actor performs an action that puts another in fear of harm - like pointing a gun at them.

Maryland Criminal Law section 3-201:

§3–201.
(a) In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.
(b) “Assault” means the crimes of assault, battery, and assault and battery, which retain their judicially determined meanings.

So, until they specifically state what they mean by assault..... And no, I am not a Maryland legal expert, nor do I play one on tv.

The police felt differently. I'm going to guess the jury will too, presuming he does not cop a plea. He would have been defending himself up until the time when he re-emerged from his house, with a weapon, looking to continue the altercation. That is in no way self-defense. You cannot pick a fight and then claim self-defense.

I won't be so cocky as to say whether it is definitively self-defense or not. I will say that the media's statement of "went back outside to confront them", leaves a lot to be desired. This is especially considering the fact that when he went outside, he had the firearm concealed. If his intent was to assualt them, why conceal the firearm? Just brandish it outright.

I would have to say that your definition of continuing the altercation and mine may be a bit different. Telling someone (I'm just guessing here, as the article does not say) to remove themselves from your property, is not continuing an altercation. It is exherting your rights to control who is on your property.

This is what I will say to the effect that I may agree with you about this not being self-defence. The article is thin. Why would a random group of strangers approach this man's house when he is merely on his way. It happens, to be sure, but not often in my experience. I would suggest to you that he was arrested, not merely for the things the article states, but rather the volumes left unsaid.

Again with the 'cowering'. If a person retreats to their house, calls the police, and remains inside until the threat leaves, they must be a coward.

To my mind, when you abdicate your own self-preservation for a simple fear of being injured, yes, that is cowardly. However, since I was talking in the context of myself, given a specific situation, it directly applies.

Well, call it what you like, but the laws in many jurisdictions say you have a duty to retreat if you can before you can engage in self-defense. And even in states that have a 'stand your ground' law, none of them cover going to a safe place, arming yourself, and then demanding a rematch so you can claim self-defense. It just doesn't work like that.

And, as my research has shown, Maryland does have a duty to retreat clause, which is probably why he was arrested. Makes no sence to me, but to each state their own. I for one will not live in Maryland.

The stand your ground laws state that you do not have to give ground, period. They state nothing specific as to regarding a particular case. The only one that I know about is the Castle Doctrine case regarding the aformentioned Mr. Horn.

Gee, don't you find it at least a little arrogant that, based on a very detail-less article, that you imply he "demanded a rematch".

If the man had stayed in his house, and called the police, and the punks had broken in to get him, he would have been well within his rights to blast them. There was no reason on earth for him to come out again, unless they set fire to the joint.

How do you know? Are you so prescient that you could, with this one statement, give the only reason why a person would need to confront an attacker at their own place of residence?

Again, let us suppose a person had family, small children among them, that he was defending. You would not get into my house, to the point that if it is tactically sound, I will exit the house to get at you. Based on your scenario, I would be in jail, facing conviction, for defending them.

Again, I am not saying that it might not have been better for him to stay inside and call the police. But to say that should be his only option is arrogant and condecending. We should not be forced to place our sole measure of safety into the hands of others, trained though they may be.

You should have a better understanding of the law, officer.

Wow, so now we are going to start with the ad hominem attacks. Normally, that would make me disregard everything that you say, but I have matured since my younger days.

BTW, its Sergeant. You know, the one who has been extensively tested on law, including case law. Oh, and I got a 90% on that test as well. So please, question my credentials certainly, but don't be an a** about it.

And people wonder why anti-gunners are terrified of idiots with guns.

Hell, I'm just as terrified of idiots with guns. I'm the one who has to confront them.

But we should not be terrifed of a person or people, if the single act of "violence" that they commit in their lives is to merely point a gun at a group of people armed with deadly weapons on his residence. (That being said with not knowing the guys criminal history.)

My take on it is that if you choose to go about armed, you should know what self-defense is, when you can employ deadly force in self-defense, and you must be prepared to use deadly force if the situation calls for it. This man had none of those properties - he was (until disarmed), a menace to society. He's as dangerous as the punks who threatened him with sticks and pipes - more, even.

Of course you should. But remember, these laws are made in a sterile environment by legislators who have no idea what an actual street confrontation is about. To assume that they could make a law covering every aspect of a lethal force encounter would be foolish.

So a man, defending his property, on his property, but not in a way that you see fit, is as much of a threat to you as people armed with deadly weapons. No, not as much of one, but more so. And this, even when he leaves to location and calls the police himself to inform them of the situation.

Uh, ok.....

 

[Archangel M]

There could just as easily be "another side of the story" regarding why the police charged this guy too....

 

[MJS]

This is the key paragraph, I think:

"Banks stated the subjects approached him in aggressive manner and one of the subjects had a large stick."

As you pointed out, that's grounds for self-defense right there.

However, he did not have the gun at that point. Had he defended himself physically, I doubt he'd have faced any charges.

"Banks retrieved the handgun from his residence and went back outside to confront them."

Bam. Right there, it changes. He went back outside to confront them. That's not a self-defense scenario. You can't claim self-defense if you intentionally put yourself into that situation.

"When the subjects approached again Banks pulled the handgun from his waistband."

Now at this point, I agree that there is something missing. Armed and on his own property would be different, I think, than armed and roaming the streets looking for these guys or armed and down some alley when they reappeared.

"Banks reported the subjects fled but returned several minutes later with large sticks and pipes."

And this makes it sound like he waved his gun around, they left, but thought better of it and came back - and he waited while this happened. Again, this is not self-defense. He had plenty of opportunity to leave, go inside his house and call the police, etc. Had they come into his house, no problem with popping them.

I'd be willing to bet a lot that if you asked him, he had no intentions of shooting anyone. He is one of the many who believe in the magic power of guns to cure all ills - just wave it around and things get better. As he found out, things do not get better.



I agree that there some interesting facts missing - but to me, I see quite clearly why Banks was arrested and what he did wrong.

Whether or not he had paperwork on the gun is irrelevant. It is how he used it, not the legal status of the gun in this case, that matters.

And I did not post this as an example of "why we should not defend ourselves." I posted it to show that this is an example of a person who does not know what self-defense is. It would have been self-defense if he had defended himself at the get-go. Going into his house and coming back out with a gun - no longer self-defense. Not that he should not defend himself, but at that point, he wasn't defending himself - he was hunting for bad guys. The law frowns on that.

Good points and I agree. In my post, I had said, that doing what he did is no different than dealing with the situation and coming back to finish the job. Had he had the gun on him already, well, maybe that would've been a different story. Like I said, he should've just dealt with the situation without the gun.

Now, you mention:

Whether or not he had paperwork on the gun is irrelevant. It is how he used it, not the legal status of the gun in this case, that matters.

From the article, I didn't get the impression that he was waving it around, just that he pulled it from his waistband. Now, had he already had it on him, as I said above, I'm betting that it would have been a different story. I mean, it would be no different than if I had a CCW permit, was the victim of a mugging, and as I reached for my wallet, I pulled the gun. IMO, the difference lies in the fact that he went to get it, vs already having it with him.

I mentioned the paperwork, because it seems to me, and this is only a guess, that this guy probably lives in a bad area. He is probably the victim of harrassment, vandalism, you name it, got fed up with the punks, and probably got this gun illegally. Even if he had it on him already instead of getting it from the house, he still would have been in trouble due to it possibly not being registered.

 

[MJS]

Hmm....regarding the duty to retreat. I get the impression from the article that Banks was on his property and the punks came towards him. Therefore, there is no need to retreat. Why should he? I mean, thats no different than me in a roadrage incident, and using my car to put between me and the badguy. How long are we going to entertain chasing each other around the car? Why should I have to lock myself in my car, so this guy can start beating on my car?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

Im sorry, but if I'm on MY property, and someone comes onto it...well, let me ask again...whos property is it again? Oh yeah, mine. I did not invite anyone onto it, they have no business being there, and I'll be damned if I'm going to run back into the house. You're coming onto my property, making threats of violence, and I'm going to back down. Sorry.

If I'm in a bar, and someone starts a fight with me and pulls a knife, sure, you can bet, I'm probably going to grab what I can ie: a bottle, a glass, a chair, etc., and use it to aid in my defense. I think the difference here, is that he didn't have a weapon readily available. This seems to be the new debate. He retreated to his house, got the gun and came back out. He was rechallenging the aggressors. Then again, how many times have we heard about fights in which one person does just what Banks did? Guy goes to his vehicle and gets a bat, a gun, etc.

I think that we're also assuming that if we were to retreat to our house, that the situation is over. So, now while we're waiting for the cops to come, they start breaking windows, trying to kick in my door. I recall a call I took a few years ago. I was on the phone with a female, who was stating that there were a group of kids outside who wanted to fight her daughter. They were yelling at each other threw open windows, however, it wasn't long before I heard the sound of glass breaking. She stated to me that they were breaking her windows to get in.

So, that tells me that even if you do retreat, just like if you were to hand over your cash to the BG and hope..er..assume that all will be well, that it may not.