Engage or not?

J

jokerl90

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
34
Reaction score
26
Location
North Georgia, USA
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
 
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
Last edited:
You are not a cop. Given the option, avoid using your gun. If you have the option to avoid, it is not your life or death moment. If you interfere, you can cause a gun fight to start. That would make you responsible for any injuries. You're duty is to get home.
Most businesses have a policy of giving up the money. It's usually not much, and it is theirs. I personally have no intention of dying for somebody else petty cash.
The gun does not protect you. It is not armor. You engage, you could die. Some bad buys know how to shoot and just don't care.
 
Last edited:
Check state and local laws where you live; some places will call you a hero if you open up, others will prosecute you.

Personally, I think it comes down to instincts, which can become incredibly acute under those circumstances -- if you sense the robber wants only money and to flee, let them and give a good statement to the police; if you sense imminent violence irrespective of cooperation with the "cash transaction", defend yourself and others.

Obviously, if they state an intention to commit violence despite cooperation, or initiate it, time to work -- but as a rule I'd argue drawing and firing should be avoided even in this kind of situation unless and until the robber moves from cash-and-run to something worse.

Alas, there's no hard and fast rule for these situations, and no hypothetical or after-the-fact description can adequately account for making a decision based on what's experienced during an actual incident.
 
As others have stated, the gold standard for self defense with a firearm is having reasonable belief you or another innocent party is at imminent risk of death or serious injury.

Your call, as there are so many potential variables that a straight answer is impossible. Most armed robbery suspects grab their loot, and run. Some, for no reason, start shooting people.....

What I will say, is always be observant of your surroundings. Before I enter a stop and rob, I always look in thru the door first. Anything look strange? Always pay attention to what other "customers" are doing. Keep an exit / escape / hide strategy in your head. Playing different scenario's in your head may help someday when something bad happens, and you don't have time to think it thru. Call it mental muscle memory.

If you are unseen, stay out of it, and be a good witness. If some nut starts shooting people, then it is really up to your conscious what you do.

Larry
 
snuffy51 said:
Deadly force can only be used if you are in fear of death or great harm from an attacker. We can only use a weapon to stop an attack, not enforce the law or stop someone fleeing a crime.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
bigwheelzip said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tennessee law reads bout' the same, OP just stated a robbery in progress, no mention of a weapon in use.
 
Too often now days you hear about armed robbers not leaving any witnesses. If you believe they only want the money or whatever, let them take it. It's not worth any risk. However, any time a perp points a gun at an innocent person, the perp has placed that innocent person under real threat of immediate death or great bodily harm. Engagement would be justifiable even if not always advisable. Again, no way to predict any real life scenarios.
 
jokerl90 said:
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
Click to expand...

I determine if the fella' with the gun and bad intentions is a threat to me or mine. If so, I engage. If not, I try to evade, escape, and become a very good witness. I have no obligation, legal or moral, to defend third parties. If you're not prepared to defend yourself and yours, that is on you . . .
 
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.
 
I have thought of this issue many times, at first I thought I would just wait it out and try to be a good, credible witness..... but, if you wait too long it could cost some innocent their life or you could find yourself under the gun and no longer have the same chance to draw your weapon as before you were covered. I think this is just one of many problems, we as weapon(s) carriers will just have to game out in our head.... and trust we will, when/if, the time comes be able to make the call in time to advert bodily harm to ourselves or others. The last of my worries is a judge and or jury.
 
What the Illinois law says :

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)
 
IMHO, there is no clear right or wrong answer to the question. So much will depend on many variables such as cover - hard and soft, number of innocent people in the store and exactly where they are positioned in relation to the BG, and if you are alone or with your wife or children.

Much will also depend on your level of training, and what real life experiences you may have had with being faced with a potential life and death situation.

It's very easy to sit at the computer and type out what you should or shouldn't do without the adrenaline dump of being faced with a potential life and death scenario.

What may be the correct course of action for one person could be the worst course of action for another, depending on their different level of training and life experiences.
 
snuffy51 said:
Deadly force can only be used if you are in fear of death or great harm from an attacker. We can only use a weapon to stop an attack, not enforce the law or stop someone fleeing a crime.
Click to expand...

If I'm in a store that's getting robbed at gunpoint I am in fear of my life and will do something while calling 911.

I won't go further into detail b/c I don't want to get banned again...
 
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.
 
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.
 
bigwheelzip said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's some tricky stuff there! Don't say anything bad about somebody's Momma in the S.C.:eek:
South Carolina and Georgia don't reciprocate on carry permits, wondered why.
 
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.
 
I'm not sure if this video was posted on this forum:



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQQYvClGws&feature=youtu.be[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Retired Chief said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
37hotrod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can I hear an Amen!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
One of my latest Rugers…
Replies
4
Views
366
Grayfox
Grayfox
Dump1567
  • Locked
The unavoidable gun fight. Are you confident with your handgun choice?
7 8 9
Replies
262
Views
12K
Tom S.
Tom S.
MigKiller
Chief James E. Boggs
Replies
20
Views
877
Crazywader
C
B
32-20 ship date query for great-grandfather's revolver
Replies
24
Views
1K
bumgarb
B
Dino44
New 686-7 Mountain Gun
Replies
14
Views
1K
The Norseman
The Norseman

Latest posts

Back
Top