Engage or not?

[37hotrod]

Simple fact...you are not a LEO. A lifetime of putting holes in paper targets in a controlled environment is not sufficient training to engage in a combat shooting situation. The current training model for civilians faced with an active shooter scenario is "run-hide-fight". There are two big hurdles in getting buy-in from people. The first is convincing them that there is no shame in self-preservation. Running or hiding are viable options. Live to be a good witness. The second hurdle is convincing them that if they are out of options and are forced to fight, they have to go balls to the wall, and be willing to finish the fight. This runs counter to the way that most civilized people think. Police officers train for these situations every day. Every time they draw their weapon from the holster, they are prepared to put enough holes in a human being to stop the threat. Unless you are trained and prepared to do the same thing, you are likely to make things worse. Act according to your level of training, and what your conscience will allow.

 

[Rivoak01]

Unless the perp makes it clear he is going to start killing people stay out of it. If you can get to a good defensive position, move there. Even if you are justified, if you fire the first shot, you will be explaining everything while you defend yourself from criminal charges. You will be looking at a trip to jail for some period of time, lost work and lawyers fees. Then probably a lawsuit from the perps family, and some possibility of retribution for your actions from the perps wacko family or friends. Even if you are totally justified don't think that witness accounts will necessarily be consistent with what you perceived happening at the time.

 

[jokerl90]

South Carolina Law:

Under the law of self-defense, the defendant may take another's life in the defense of others. The right to intervene to protect another person is subject to the same rights and limitations as the right of self-defense.

The defendant may take the life of person who assaults a friend, relative, or bystander if that friend, relative, or bystander would have had the right of self-defense.

To show that the person being defended had the right of self-defense, it must first be shown that the person begin defended and the defendant were both without fault in bringing on the difficulty. If the conduct of the person defended or the defendant was the type which was reasonably calculated to, and did, provoke a deadly assault, the person would be at fault in bringing on the difficulty and would not have the right of self-defense. Therefore, the defendant would not have the right to use deadly force in defending that person.

The defense of another person is excusable if the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith did believe, that the person being defended was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from the victim.

That's some tricky stuff there! Don't say anything bad about somebody's Momma in the S.C.
South Carolina and Georgia don't reciprocate on carry permits, wondered why.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

It's always nice to hear that a citizen stopped a robbery, and if a guilty party is injured or killed in that process, that's just how it is. However, the person who is deciding whether to try to stop that robbery should consider the following.

Do you know for sure that the apparent robber is the only member of the team? What if he has a "seeded backup" who was already in the store before either you or he entered? It is not unheard of that that will be the case. If it is, your attempt to stop him may result in your being shot in the back.

Are you sure that your pulling a gun will result in control of the situation? You may turn a simple armed robbery with no bodily harm and a few hundred dollars' loss into a hostage situation. Those can end all different ways.

The last dilemma can maybe be avoided if you are sure there are no backups and you shoot without warning. Is this what you want to do? How will the newspapers and the local DA treat you if you do that? Not saying that you would be wrong, or arguing against it, just asking whether you are prepared to pay the LOCAL price for your choice.

Best to try to figure these things out beforehand, yet still not hesitate to do what is necessary to preserve your own life or the lives of other innocent people whose lives are actually threatened.

As the Essex would say,easier said than done.

 

[RalphMP9FS]

I'm not sure if this video was posted on this forum:



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQQYvClGws&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

 

[SaintsDad]

As a retired LEO, I suggest you heed the advice given. Get a good description, hopefully a license plate number and direction of travel. ONLY draw and fire if it appears that the perp is going to shoot. Keep in mind if he shoots the clerk, he will probably shoot any other witness, which means YOU! As a retired attorney and judge, I remind you that self-defense (including the defense of another) is an affirmative defense. That means that AFTER you have been criminally charged, you get the opportunity to prove to the jury (or judge if you elected to have a bench trial) that you shot the so-and-so as the only practical way to save your life or the life of another. That means that you were criminally charged, either posted a bond or stayed in jail, got a lawyer or were assigned and overworked Public Defender, and went through the hassel (and expense) of the publicity and the trial. Your primary job is to go home to your family at the end of the day.
All that said, if you believe he intends to shoot someone, it is always better to be tried by 12 than carried by six. Hopefully, you will never be in that situation, but if you are, you will have to make the decision right now, with no help, and perhaps 3 years from now 9 old men and women will deliberate for 6 months and decide 5 to 4 whether or not you were right.
DO NOT LET THAT REALITY INFLUENCE YOU! Make the call on the best way to stay alive.

Wise and sage advice RetiredChief. Basically exactly the same thing we learned in CCW class. We spent quite a bit of time on what happens *after*. They even brought in a local defense attorney who specializes in this and also carries. Scared the bejeezes out of me. It forces you to really think. And I mean *think* about what your responsibilities are when you decide to carry. It's a change in your lifestyle and how you deal with conflict.

 

[SaintsDad]

Simple fact...you are not a LEO. A lifetime of putting holes in paper targets in a controlled environment is not sufficient training to engage in a combat shooting situation. The current training model for civilians faced with an active shooter scenario is "run-hide-fight". There are two big hurdles in getting buy-in from people. The first is convincing them that there is no shame in self-preservation. Running or hiding are viable options. Live to be a good witness. The second hurdle is convincing them that if they are out of options and are forced to fight, they have to go balls to the wall, and be willing to finish the fight. This runs counter to the way that most civilized people think. Police officers train for these situations every day. Every time they draw their weapon from the holster, they are prepared to put enough holes in a human being to stop the threat. Unless you are trained and prepared to do the same thing, you are likely to make things worse. Act according to your level of training, and what your conscience will allow.

Can I hear an Amen!

 

[fedoff]

As long as you or another are not in immediate danger I would suggest you take no action. Even as law enforcement officers, engaging in a shoot out is a traumatic experience. We practice constantly for these situations and even then it seems like it is not enough. Try to get a good description of the perpetrators and what ever else may be helpful for the police.

 

[Biggfoot44]

It depends. Thanks for the various State Statutes, but an Armed Robbery with firearm pretty much inherently involves gun pointed at at least one person with felonious intent, so not a question of could, but when is Wise to take action.

I Have recieved very similar viewpoints independently from people who have participated in multiple armed robbery events ( as intended robee's).

If the robber seems coherent and somewhat rational, give the money, let them leave.

IF they hurt/ attempt/ seem particularly about to hurt anyone, OK Corral time.

Any attempt to herd employees or customers into back room is to be treated impending executions of all witness. OK Corral time.

 

[Whitwabit]

Have a question that has been bothering me about an incident like this .. being at a store that is being robbed ..

Several have said if a CC holder shoots someone that they will go to jail .. but then a blogger referenced a couple of shootings by CC holders and neither article says anything about the conceal carry holder being arrested and going to jail .. there were two shootings of robbers one in Chicago and one in Indiana this past week .. both at mobile phone stores I believe the robbers in both cases died .. nothing about those CC holders going to jail either .. I have looked on the web and couldn't find an article that said they were jailed ..

So how many times does the Conceal Carry holder that gets involved and shoots the robber really go to jail ?? I'm sure you might be taken to the police station and questioned but would you be jailed and made to post bond ?? Any LEO's out there that have investigated cases like this that could enlighten us ??

I'm only speaking of robberies in a shop and go type store or a gas station .. or small restaurants like the waffle house etc. ..

Many say they will but I am unable to find where that is the case ..

I have read Massad Ayoob comment where he testified in a couple of shootings where the shooter is in jail but they weren't robberies ..

 

[rwsmith]

Except in Biloxi.......

That scenario has played out twice recently at Waffle House restaurants in South Carolina. Turned out bad for the perps.

Robber shot, killed in Spartanburg Waffle House, second suspect - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather

Would-be Waffle House robber dies after having been shot by customer - Post and Courier

On the other hand, a female working at a local Walmart was stabbed to death in front of a large crowd at the cash registers. My CWP instructor is a Deputy Sheriff, and said seven of the witnesses interviewed were CWP holders with weapons, and did nothing.

Shopping Continues After Woman Is Killed In Walmart | WYFF Home - WYFF Home

In SC, you are legally protected if you intervene, but have no obligation to.

It's good to live in SC. But in Biloxi MS a waitress told a man he couldn't smoke and he shot and killed her.

 

[caleb4387]

A lotvdepends on state. In florida o would have no problem engaging but hete in ohio? No way. We arent protected and they are rough on 3rd party defense

 

[Kronos]

This is going to sound cruel but this is how I see it:

Unless something happens right in front of me I ain't hanging around,I pay attention to ways to make a quick and timely exit and if the S hits the fan that's what I'll be doing.

If something happens in front of me I'll just stay back and hope they are pleased with whatever they take and split real quick-ONLY if they shoot,stab,try to kill the clerk will I respond with gunfire.

Why? blame our society and it's habit of loving laws and rules and making simple things as difficult as possible,I know if I'm not directly threatened then I have pretty much zero reason to intervene as most laws I've looked at make it clear my gun is for SELFdefense so I take that to mean it's to use for myself and a very select few others.

Once they pop the clerk I have a reasonable argument that I was in fear for my life as the guy was killing/trying to kill people in front of me so they are crazy and dangerous.

That's the ugly truth in my opinion.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

I'm not sure of the best course of action in the following scenario.

I'm in a store and someone armed with a firearm comes in to rob it.
My first thought is, as long as it doesn't appear he is going to hurt anyone, just let him go. Don't start a gunfight where there is none.
On the other hand, he could hurt someone there at any moment, also he could hurt someone at his next robbery if not stopped.
Opinions? Especially from any LEO's.
Thanks

These two statements are mutually exclusive. If he's not a threat tell the beggar to leave. If he is a threat he's fair game.

Given the opportunity it is better to for the gunfight to go loud at your discretion rather than for it to go loud at the time of the bad guy's choosing. The specifics of the situation can vary wildly, so it's not possible to offer a generally definitive answer. Though some things, like moving the victims to a secondary crime scene, are always a "GO" signal.

 

[K-framer]

You do NOT have the obligations of an LEO.....NOR do you have the AUTHORITY of one. Your authorization to use your carry weapon extends ONLY to situations in which YOU are DIRECTLY threatened with death or serious harm - NOT others, except in the case of your family (or certain others) in certain situations (such as defending the interior spaces of your home).

Being a bystander in a store does NOT qualify - in ANY jurisdiction in this country - unless the perp acts in threat to you, directly. If he/she were to make overt threats with a deadly weapon to you, then light him up. If not, you would seriously risk prosecution.

Being a CC license holder does NOT make you an LEO (or any facsimile thereof) - PERIOD.

(There was just recently a case, exactly like this hypothetical scenario, in the news. Bystander in a store chases perp from the store, shoots at him as he is running away, chases him to his car, then shoots at the car as the guy is driving away. The bystander is in jail, charged with a number of serious crimes.)

I never understand the confusion on this some people seem to display. It's not that hard.

 

[Muss Muggins]

You do NOT have the obligations of an LEO.....NOR do you have the AUTHORITY of one. Your authorization to use your carry weapon extends ONLY to situations in which YOU are DIRECTLY threatened with death or serious harm - NOT others, except in the case of your family (or certain others) in certain situations (such as defending the interior spaces of your home).

Being a bystander in a store does NOT qualify - in ANY jurisdiction in this country - unless the perp acts in threat to you, directly. If he/she were to make overt threats with a deadly weapon to you, then light him up. If not, you would seriously risk prosecution.

Being a CC license holder does NOT make you an LEO (or any facsimile thereof) - PERIOD.

I never understand the confusion on this some people seem to display. It's not that hard.

Well, if you read the excerpts of South Carolina and Illinois self defense law posted here, you'll see that CCW holders are authorized to protect third parties. Some states do not authorize that, but the trend in the nation is towards allowing defense of others. Interestingly enough, several appellate cases have ruled that even LEO's have no absolute duty to protect others from death or serious bodily injury. When they choose to do so, however, they have a little more leeway than the average citizen. Thankfully, they choose to do so regularly.

As I posted earlier, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. That is for each to decide in their own manner.

 

[Hotshot9]

Wow... Thats a lot to think about. Shoot or not to shoot. Jail or no Jail. Save a life or not to save a life. I guess you'll know the answer to these questions when your in that situation. And I hope you are never in one as mentioned.

 

[OldeTSgt]

As long as you or another are not in immediate danger I would suggest you take no action. Even as law enforcement officers, engaging in a shoot out is a traumatic experience. We practice constantly for these situations and even then it seems like it is not enough. Try to get a good description of the perpetrators and what ever else may be helpful for the police.

You are assuming that those of us that conceal carry do not have the same training as an LEO - I know a bunch of people that do in my circle of friends. Including LEO and military training. We have no obligation to intervene and that is fine but someone pointing a gun at some one is an inherent danger to me - in the blink of an eye.

In my circle of friends there are multiple CCW holders - including an ex Deputy Station Chief in the CIA, retired LEO's and current LEO's

 

[bigwheelzip]

Have a question that has been bothering me about an incident like this .. being at a store that is being robbed ..

Several have said if a CC holder shoots someone that they will go to jail .. but then a blogger referenced a couple of shootings by CC holders and neither article says anything about the conceal carry holder being arrested and going to jail ..

I have been curious also about the immediate implications to an intervening CWP holder, and have searched for news regarding an initial arrest and charges against one of these citizens. I can't find any evidence of CWP's arrest in these recent high-profile cases, where witnesses backed up the story, here in South Carolina. This appears to reflect the law here:

...... A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

 

[Blackshirt]

I'm reminded of the fellow in Oregon who was armed, but did not engage the Umpqua Community College killer because he was afraid that the police would mistake him for a bad guy. He must now live with the fact that he might have made a difference, but did not. To quote Colonel Grossman:

"Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth."

Just carrying your firearm and knowing how to use it is not enough. You must make a number of moral decisions before your "moment of truth" and reconcile them in advance if you wish to emotionally survive a deadly force encounter. You must decide if your personal survival is your only priority, or if the protection of others is also part of your plan. It is a really tough decision that only you can make and either choice will determine how you arm yourself and when/how you will act. This is the part of "the firearms issue" that the government should be addressing if they are truly concerned about gun violence. This is the area that many gun owners have not addressed in their training. The first rule of gun fighting is to have a gun...but it is not the only rule. Educate yourself about the law and learn about "use of force continuums." If we are going to make ourselves self-reliant, we must undertake our responsibilities from the moral high ground. Otherwise, we are only a little better than those we would seek to stop.

Sorry about the high horse...