What do you do?

I like the way you stated your feelings. I just want to remind you that drills, movement and such do not go as your drills do. There are always other factors that come up and your drill targets are not shooting at you.

Tossing this out for your consideration, suppose the robber has a non visual accomplice that is already in the store to cover his back. You shoot the main actor, the accomplice begins to shoot you and others. Then your drills just went out the door and you got yourself or others hurt or killed. Robbers seldom act alone. Sometimes the accomplice is the getaway driver, front man or cover. Are you prepared for that?



I believe I am as prepared as I can be. I do realize there can be a " back up bad guy", and take that in to my practice. as many self defense instructors may teach not to get "tunnel vision", and sweep what or who is around you(with your eyes). Your right when confronted your drills may go out the window. Although I believe it is not a bad idea to practice these drills. To get your mind set right.

Isn't this the reason Firemen and LEO's have training and practice drills? To be informed and prepared? I do not believe you can be prepared for every situation. Having practice and a clear mind set will give you the ability to adapt and overcome most situations.
 
Chudd-thanks, but it isn't always a matter of a decision to be selfless, but of course it often is. When I speak of personality type, I am refering to a clinical category that each of us belongs to that is discovered through testing-and excuse me, but I'm not talking about the "womens' magazine" variety. Those are "fun" as far as they go, but do not address the real issues of what our likely reactions might be in given situations, as well as our general approach to life, not just deadly force confrontations, etc. I believe this whole fighting dog-sheep dog-sheep thing is a gross simplification of that thought process. I have had the benefit of a very good education that centers around these kinds of things (but not much on spelling!) and one of the most enlightening things I received was the whole role of personality type. I took a course at The college of Central Florida, Ocala, Fl. taught by a gentleman named Henri Benlolo PHD. (he is a vet). You may be able to contact him, or someone in the testing dept if he has left (?) Certyainly, The Lord 's presence in my life is THE major thing, but He also made me to be the individual I am, and that I am becoming. Thanks for your thoughts. Flapjack.
 
I am not a police officer. My carry gun is a Model 60. I am not going to go against an armed adversary with that gun unless I am absolutely forced to. Under certain last-ditch circumstances I might intervene, but probably not.

Every civilian who legally carries a weapon should read Evan Marshall's caution against intervention at least once a month.
Commentary by Evan Marshall
When I'm not carrying a full sized revolver or auto, my carry gun is a Model 36. I feel perfectly adequately armed with that gun. I'm not expecting to run into the Quds Force.

As I've said elsewhere, if the criminals are on the way out without hurting anybody, I'll dial 911. I'm not a cop, nor do want to "apprehend" anybody. On the other hand, if I see some innocent person about to be murdered, I'm not really inclined to let that happen. If I have to shoot somebody to save a life, there will be no warnings, nor indeed any words exchanged.

Regarding Evan Marshall, my personal interactions with him contraindicate him as someone whose advice I take seriously or follow.
 
This thread is not about a Pharmacist in OKC but it is about what may happen during or after a shooting, be it righteous or flawed.

A DA goes forward with his case. Just as a Grand Jury only hears the prosecution side, the DA will always have his side, even when it is in conflict with eye witness testimony. In the case of the pharmacist, the witnesses had one version and the DA had another and said the witnesses were partial, which they may have been.

Either way, a DA will make a person's life miserable. Especially so if he is anti gun or is seeking fame. The shooter may just be the person whose case elevates a DA to a Judge.
 
This thread is not about a Pharmacist in OKC but it is about what may happen during or after a shooting, be it righteous or flawed.

A DA goes forward with his case. Just as a Grand Jury only hears the prosecution side, the DA will always have his side, even when it is in conflict with eye witness testimony. In the case of the pharmacist, the witnesses had one version and the DA had another and said the witnesses were partial, which they may have been.

Either way, a DA will make a person's life miserable. Especially so if he is anti gun or is seeking fame. The shooter may just be the person whose case elevates a DA to a Judge.

Oldman, you are right, but those who have not seen decent people ground under by an over zealous DA or cop don't get it.

In fairness to the civilians posting on here, those that have never dealt with the "Justice System" think it's about justice, common sense and it's fair. It's not, it's about politics, the attitudes of the investigators and the DA. There are those in the system who think civilians should not have guns, much less use them, thus anytime you get in a shooting they are looking to find the slightest reason to make an example of you. Even the appearance of an error is enough to get the indictment they want so they can put on their show.

The other thing being missed is, at least in NC, LEO's are required to intervene, therefore there are protections in the statues for them to do so, there are none for civilians except a good Samaritan law. The City/County/State whoever picks up the legal costs for defense, lawsuits etc for LEO's. Civilians do not have this safety net.

Now, be sure you guys consider this, this is legal fact and not subject to debate. Since you are not required to intervene, you do so under strict liability. That means you are assuming all risk, anyone hurt/killed, property damaged etc, you are on the hook for all of it, you have no legal defense. Your attorney can tell the story, but the Judge's instructions to the jury will be to consider the law only, not the story.

I am not trying to tell anyone what to do and I genuinely respect your desire to help others. You all have to do what you and hopefully the Lord, feel led to do. Just realize what you are getting yourself into.
 
Oldman, you are right, but those who have not seen decent people ground under by an over zealous DA or cop don't get it.

In fairness to the civilians posting on here, those that have never dealt with the "Justice System" think it's about justice, common sense and it's fair. It's not, it's about politics, the attitudes of the investigators and the DA. There are those in the system who think civilians should not have guns, much less use them, thus anytime you get in a shooting they are looking to find the slightest reason to make an example of you. Even the appearance of an error is enough to get the indictment they want so they can put on their show.

The other thing being missed is, at least in NC, LEO's are required to intervene, therefore there are protections in the statues for them to do so, there are none for civilians except a good Samaritan law. The City/County/State whoever picks up the legal costs for defense, lawsuits etc for LEO's. Civilians do not have this safety net.

Now, be sure you guys consider this, this is legal fact and not subject to debate. Since you are not required to intervene, you do so under strict liability. That means you are assuming all risk, anyone hurt/killed, property damaged etc, you are on the hook for all of it, you have no legal defense. Your attorney can tell the story, but the Judge's instructions to the jury will be to consider the law only, not the story.

I am not trying to tell anyone what to do and I genuinely respect your desire to help others. You all have to do what you and hopefully the Lord, feel led to do. Just realize what you are getting yourself into.

I don't want you to interpret my reply as arguing with your premise. I basically agree with your point above that said: ..."In fairness to the civilians posting on here, those that have never dealt with the "Justice System" think it's about justice, common sense and it's fair. It's not, it's about politics, the attitudes of the investigators and the DA.".....

However, I would like to point out that laws regarding a private citizen's use of force in defense of others, and more importantly, the protections/exemptions those laws provide to that citizen from criminal/civil liability, can vary quite a bit from one state to the next. For example, we have some very strong statutory protections written into our laws here in MO because of lessons learned by watching cases of people in other states without those protections, and we lobbied long and hard to see those protections written into law. Additionally, jury instructions are not always congruent with the letter of the law, as we've seen here in MO in some cases.

What it amounts to, IMHO, is that when a you fire a gun at another human being even when entirely justified, there is always the possibility for a long, expensive, and stressful aftermath. And even when the law is "on your side", there is still potential for unforeseeable consequences to a persons private life and well being. This is never something that should be approached with a cavalier attitude.
 
Excellent advice, excellent article. Getting into the situation is asking for trouble, avoid it if at all possible. It's not going to end up like a movie.

Marshall gives sensible advice in that article.We could call it the Marshall Plan. If the time comes to intervene,you will know it.Then,if necessary......shoot them to the ground.
 
I don't want you to interpret my reply as arguing with your premise. I basically agree with your point above that said: ..."In fairness to the civilians posting on here, those that have never dealt with the "Justice System" think it's about justice, common sense and it's fair. It's not, it's about politics, the attitudes of the investigators and the DA.".....

However, I would like to point out that laws regarding a private citizen's use of force in defense of others, and more importantly, the protections/exemptions those laws provide to that citizen from criminal/civil liability, can vary quite a bit from one state to the next. For example, we have some very strong statutory protections written into our laws here in MO because of lessons learned by watching cases of people in other states without those protections, and we lobbied long and hard to see those protections written into law. Additionally, jury instructions are not always congruent with the letter of the law, as we've seen here in MO in some cases.

What it amounts to, IMHO, is that when a you fire a gun at another human being even when entirely justified, there is always the possibility for a long, expensive, and stressful aftermath. And even when the law is "on your side", there is still potential for unforeseeable consequences to a persons private life and well being. This is never something that should be approached with a cavalier attitude.

This is certainly one of your better postings I agree with. Yet as one that is in court often and investigating serious accidents and crimes daily, I can say you were a little lax on one area.

The "letter of the law" and the "intent of the law" can be different. Jurist often do not understand or get the two confused. Judges are often found to be in error as well. Decisions are routinely overturned.

While there are a lot of people appearing to want to shoot someone or become an instant media hero, the cost of such is often more than one can afford. It is ideal to avoid a shooting.
 
What it amounts to, IMHO, is that when a you fire a gun at another human being even when entirely justified, there is always the possibility for a long, expensive, and stressful aftermath. And even when the law is "on your side", there is still potential for unforeseeable consequences to a persons private life and well being. This is never something that should be approached with a cavalier attitude.


iagree.gif
Excellent point.
 
Stay out of it. There are too many things that can happen and most are not good.

It can become a hostage situation.
It can turn a robbery into a shooting.
It can get innocent people hurt.

There is no need to try being a hero. Be the best witness possible. Know the description, color & type shirt, what type pants, shoes, hair and anything else.

Let the police handle it.

The problem of permitees trying to become police comes up every now and then. For the most part, a permitee is allowed to carry for their personal safety and not that as a body guard for the public.

Just saying.

First, let me say I understand your reasoning as a LEO, but, when help is needed NOW, the police are only minutes away.
 
I don't want you to interpret my reply as arguing with your premise. I basically agree with your point above that said: ..."In fairness to the civilians posting on here, those that have never dealt with the "Justice System" think it's about justice, common sense and it's fair. It's not, it's about politics, the attitudes of the investigators and the DA.".....

However, I would like to point out that laws regarding a private citizen's use of force in defense of others, and more importantly, the protections/exemptions those laws provide to that citizen from criminal/civil liability, can vary quite a bit from one state to the next. For example, we have some very strong statutory protections written into our laws here in MO because of lessons learned by watching cases of people in other states without those protections, and we lobbied long and hard to see those protections written into law. Additionally, jury instructions are not always congruent with the letter of the law, as we've seen here in MO in some cases.

What it amounts to, IMHO, is that when a you fire a gun at another human being even when entirely justified, there is always the possibility for a long, expensive, and stressful aftermath. And even when the law is "on your side", there is still potential for unforeseeable consequences to a persons private life and well being. This is never something that should be approached with a cavalier attitude.

Informed dissent does not bother me at all, stupidity or attempting to be a jerk is what bothers me. You are neither of those. You are right, I don't know the laws for all 50 states, it's impossible. It also sounds like you've taken the time to educate yourself, which is what I think most of us are saying when it comes down to it and that is, know what you are getting yourself into and the risks you are taking. Don't naively assume trying to help others gives you a pass on a bad outcome or that common sense determines what is a good or bad outcome. You have the facts, what you do is between you and God. Knowing your states laws, as it appears you do, is a crucial part of that decision.

Have a good one and I appreciate the well thought out response.
 
First, let me say I understand your reasoning as a LEO, but, when help is needed NOW, the police are only minutes away.

Help is speculative.

If you are in a store, under the current example, and not being accosted yourself, then YOU do not need the help. Stay out of it. Let the police deal with it. Many a person has been killed for getting involved in something they should have kept out of. The last thing you need is to begin a shootout in a business.
 
Like others have said it depends on many factors, especially where you live. A point my instructors made is that just because we can carry doesn't make us the police and laws widely vary. Bottom line..... if you or your loved ones are in immediate danger and you know the situation then act accordingly.
 
Before you wade into a firefight, consider this: It seems like a common assumption that the good guy, with his training, license, and good intentions, will always prevail.
Some of these bad guys may be able to outshoot you. They are not always using poor quality weapons nor poor tactics. Some have been trained by the finest military trainers and have front line combat experience. Some BGs are even wearing body armor when working. Some work in teams. Somebody outside as backup.

I am getting old, my wife has financial security, my kids are independent,and I have no military training, but I do hope to watch my grandkids grow up. If pushed, I'll fight dirty, but I would rather not fight.
You grab a hold of a BG, it might not be too easy to let go. Even the cops lose once in a while.
 
Every time I read a thread like this it reminds me of an article I read in one of my pilot magazines back in the late 70's. It was something along the lines of "every private pilot's secret fantasy", and it was to be on a commercial flight and have the stewardess or somebody announce - "Ladies and Gentleman - is there anybody with a pilot's license on board?" whereupon said private pilot goes to the cockpit where both pilots have been incapacitated by food poisoning or whatever, then of course takes over, succesfully lands the airliner, get a hero's wlecome, and goes to bed with the stewardess. :)
I often think that many new CCW holders have a similair type of secret fantasy: they are in a (insert favorite location here) when an armed robbery goes down. When the bad guy starts to hurt or kill the customers, CCW holder engages him in a firefight, and while dodging a hail of bullets (and maybe even getting a "flesh wound" in the process!), puts the bad guy down, is interviewed on TV by local news agencies, goes home with the hot chick in the store that he saved, and is presented with an award for valor by the city mayor, etc.
In reality, most of us would probably be so surprised to realize that something like this was actually happening right in front of us that it would be over with before we could decide what to do, and then we would need to do a tactical reload - not of our firearm's magazine but more likely of our tighty whities. . . . :)
I've actually been in one of these robberies (as a clerk), and it went down and was over with so fast that it seemed more like a bad dream than reality. As far as standing there determining that yes, deadly force was authorized, the ice cream freezer will be a good bullet stopper, drawing a weapon and then finding a good angle to engage without endangering a customer, it just happened too fast to do any of that.
It seems to me that this would need to be something that you had trained for this exact scenario for so much that you could do it instinctively without having to think about the different steps involved, or you would be much more likely to make a bad choice somewhere in the process.
So- what would I do? Impossible for me to answer until I was actually in the situation - sorry.
 
Before you wade into a firefight, consider this: It seems like a common assumption that the good guy, with his training, license, and good intentions, will always prevail.
Some of these bad guys may be able to outshoot you. They are not always using poor quality weapons nor poor tactics. Some have been trained by the finest military trainers and have front line combat experience. Some BGs are even wearing body armor when working. Some work in teams. Somebody outside as backup.

I am getting old, my wife has financial security, my kids are independent,and I have no military training, but I do hope to watch my grandkids grow up. If pushed, I'll fight dirty, but I would rather not fight.
You grab a hold of a BG, it might not be too easy to let go. Even the cops lose once in a while.

I agree, this is reality. There's no doubt that some BGs are getting more organized and better prepared because they know it may/will go down. Notice I said some because some of the BGs are spur of the moment events and may lose.
 
Legalities aren't the only this you have to think of, as Oldman says above, these creeps rarely work alone, they could have a sleeper already in place, waiting to take out the responding police or YOU.

Worse yet, look at what happened to the off duty Secret Service agent on Long Island a few months ago - off duty, armed w/ a service pistol, he chased an armed robber out of a drug store and exchanged fire, striking the robber. Hearing the gunshots, the owner of a neighboring store (a retired cop) and one of his customers (a local off duty cop), ran to the scene and saw the Secret Service agent shoot the bad guy.

They drew and fired at the guy THEY saw shooting, and killed the Secret Service agent. If I recall the press accounts correctly, the ballistics showed the retired cop fired the fatal shot.

Imagine living with that.
 
Interesting thread.
But there are aklways to many "what ifs to answer a question like this without being in each situation where a shooting might go down.
Like others stated =
1. What if there is another bg out of sight in the store?
2.How good of a shot are you when the target is bobbing around ?
3.What if a costumer is behind the badguy?(COUNT ON ALL BYSTANDERS TO BE ***HOLES)
4.What if ,you miss or only wound the bad guy and he starts just shooting wild?
5.What if,,the bad guy has a buddy waiting in the get-a-way car behind YOU when you decide to shoot!
6. What if you have your family with you? Would you still engage ?
7.What if,, YOU were pumping gas into your car and a bg pulled a gun on you.Would you want someone inside the station to start shooting to stop the hold up?If you were in the line of fire , or your family were sitting in the car?
Naw!
Best thing to do is let the bad guy take the money and run.
.
.
.
.

Now if you ARE the one with the gun being pointed at you or someone starts firing around you then by all means pull and fire!!
 
Back
Top