McDonalds robbery Sugar Land texas

[arnisador]

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

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

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

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

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

Are you suggesting that cooperation is never a good idea?

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[Deaf Smith]

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

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

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

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

Deaf

 

[Deaf Smith]

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



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

arnisador,

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

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

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

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

Deaf

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

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

Deaf

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

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

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

 

[jks9199]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[arnisador]

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[Karatedrifter7]

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

 

[Brian King]

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

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

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

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

Regards
Brian King

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

And thank you Brian! :asian:

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

If the guy shoots at you and you shoot back that's self defense. A guy walking into a place and waving a gun around demanding money is a robbery.

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

Catching one guy unaware and blasting his head off is good ... catching the next guy (who'll hear the gunshot and probably see his partner go down) is not... you're either going to make the guy very angry or worse very scared.

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

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

Quote:

a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy. http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Am...inst_rape1.htm

Quote:
The choices of potential victims and of criminals with respect to weapons were analyzed in an economic game framework. It was found, using National Crime Victimization Study data, that victims who have and use guns have both lower losses and lesser injury rates from violent crime. It was also found that the victim's choice of having a gun is not independent of the criminal's choice. Based on these findings, the consequences of having a greater portion of the potential victims being armed were analyzed. It was found that this would reduce both losses and injuries from crime as well as both the criminals' incentives to commit violent crimes and to be armed. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f99afe5c0887d2

Quote:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helv]"'Raw data from the Justice Department’s annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a 'stranger rape' with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1% and of victim injury 0.1%, compared to 31% and 40% respectively, for all stranger rapes. Woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.' (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)" ... http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/...d=2%2F7%2F2005 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helv]
The NCVS is part of the DOJ research.[/FONT]

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

Are you suggesting that cooperation is never a good idea?

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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

Exactly!

 

[sgtmac_46]

honestly see yourself freezing,
Regards
Brian King

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

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://criminalsforguncontrol.com/

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

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

 

[Brian King]

sgtmac_46 wrote;

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Brian King

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