Question to Ponder

[BikerRN]

Howdy all.

I was discussing a scenario with a friend the other day and wanted to get the varied opinions this forum is sure to produce. I will thank you all in advance, so please consider yourself so thanked if you contribute to this thread.

You're eating in a fast food restaurant when three armed robbers come in and proceed to do a take-down robbery. They are demanding wallets and cell phones from the customers and the cash from the register. One robber is by the door, so that he can act as a lookout and assist the other two as needed. One is at the cash register and the third proceeds into the dining area voicing his demands.

You have on your person, besides your gun, something you are unwilling to part with, as it is a medical device. Said medical device often gets mistaken for a cell phone, and is in fact carried in a cell phone holder. The baloon has gone up and you fire and score a solid hit on the one demanding the wallets and cell phones from the paying customers.

To get to some semblance of cover you have to close distance and also engage the "lookout" by the door. To do so you have to step over the body of the one you just shot, thus having an armed combatant behind you.

All three are actively engaged in the commision of an armed robbery, which is a crime that you can use deadly force to stop in the jurisdiction that this takes place in. By closing the distance you have gained some cover from the one acting as a lookout and eliminated the one at the cash register from being able to fire at you effectively until he moves to a better position, thus buying you some precious time.

Here's the $50,000 Question:

Eventhough the first one is down, you cannot guarantee he is out of the fight. Do you put a bullet in his head as you step over him to get to that precious cover that you so desperately need?

Think of things with an eye to tactics and legalities, as the legalities will play a big part if your tactics are right.

Biker

 

[Dwight55]

Biker, . . . as pretty much a rule, . . . my training centers pretty much around the Mozambique drill, . . . and unless some SERIOUS situation altered that, . . . #1 would be on the floor in that condition.

We would go from there.

Also, . . . and I'll get flamed to Timbuctoo for this statement, . . . but I know my own assets and weaknesses, . . . moving is not an asset for me. Having already found and used a solid shooting position, . . . any more shots would also come from there.

I know the old saw about movement being your friend, . . . but movement also makes you have to then re-aquire a shooting position, . . . I've already got one that has worked, . . . so I'm gonna be there for probably the duration.

That's what happens when you get old

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[Deputy Dog]

I would probably try to find a way, not have one bg behind me. If I had to move tables and or use trash cans for concealment then I would. If you are going to engage the immediate threat, which is the one closest to you, then a triple tap (2 = chest 1 = head) after the one to the bean, then and only then would I let a BG be behind me. The other two would be engaged on the move, like posted before me, moving is your friend. Thats why I practice with shooting on the move. With proper instruction and a range that will allow you to execute these drill's is vital to increasing your odds of surviving an encounter like this. Shooting on the move is not easy and if you havent been trained on how to do so, please get some before you start practicing.

DD

 

[Skans]

First, I'm not going to execute someone who is down and is no longer an immediate threat by "putting a bullet in his head".

Second, this scenario is too complex with too many specific details. Why not just ask "what would you do if you were an armed patron at Wendy's while three thugs commit an armed robbery?" Most fast food places have lots of cover. In fact, I run through this drill in my mind when I'm eating alone in a fast food restaurant. Somethings you may not realize about most fast food restaurants:

1. they all have at least two doors to the outside where customers eat and at least one other door in the rear of the kitchen

2. most have plenty of walls, tables, booths to duck and hide behind.

3. they all have large tempered glass windows.

4. they all have bathrooms - which can be used for cover (not first choice, obviously)

If you are generally aware of what is going on around you and you know how to think, you should have plenty of time to a) escape, b) get your gun out and take cover, c) duck and hide, d) call 911.

If there are 3 of them, they are all armed, one is robbing the registers, one is being a look-out and the other is going around to patrons, I'm going to sprint for the door that isn't covered when I can - whether I attempt to shoot any BG's will depend on how close they are too me. Maybe I'd shoot out a window or two and escape that way. Lots of options.

 

[Retired15T]

What medical device is it? How long can you survive if it were taken from you?

Without knowing that, I wouldn't care to comment. Because if I can live for more than 30 minutes without the thing, I'm going to give it up if the guy doesn't let me tell him what it is.

 

[coldpointcrossing]

Well, my tactic would be to comply and give up the item.

I realize that in this play, you described the item as a medical device and I assume it is very necessary for me, as the main character to have but I can't see how that can justify being killed over it. Or taking the chance that another patron might for that matter.

This, to me, is a lose/lose situation. Just how badly I lose seems dependent upon whether I comply or try to be a "hero".

 

[DanThaMan1776]

I imagine you're talking about an insulin pump. Which means you can probably survive for thirty minutes without it, unless you're blood levels where askew as the robbery was happening and you needed the insulin at that moment.

Regardless though, I would probably triple tap the nearest threat and then seek cover and go from there. It's always hard to tell if someone can re-enter a fight, so instead of shooting them once and them having to worry about them or make a follow up "execution" shot, Id go for immediate incapacitation with the first barrage of shots.

 

[CWPinSC]

How do you people think up this stuff?

You're eating in a fast food restaurant when three armed robbers come in and proceed to do a take-down robbery. They are demanding wallets and cell phones from the customers and the cash from the register. One robber is by the door, so that he can act as a lookout and assist the other two as needed. One is at the cash register and the third proceeds into the dining area voicing his demands.

They sound very organized and rehearsed. They've done this before, obviously.

The baloon has gone up and you fire and score a solid hit on the one demanding the wallets and cell phones from the paying customers.

Why did "the balloon go up"? Did someone not comply with their requests?

To get to some semblance of cover

Unless there's a brick wall in the place, you have no cover. You have concealment.

you have to close distance and also engage the "lookout" by the door. To do so you have to step over the body of the one you just shot, thus having an armed combatant behind you.

And while you are doing all this, the other robbers are NOT shooting at you? You shot but did not negate the first threat? You shot BEFORE going to "cover"? From the open against 3 armed robbers?

All three are actively engaged in the commision of an armed robbery, which is a crime that you can use deadly force to stop in the jurisdiction that this takes place in.

Oh? In what state is it legal for you to use deadly force to stop a BG from robbing someone else unless you feel your life has been placed in jeopardy by that robbery? By what lawful right did you fire that first shot? Were other shots fired before yours? You don't say.

By closing the distance you have gained some cover from the one acting as a lookout and eliminated the one at the cash register from being able to fire at you effectively until he moves to a better position, thus buying you some precious time.

Buying time for you or him? Frankly, it sounds like you're running around playing Rambo, moving tactically and popping off successful (?) shots at exposed, frozen by fear (I guess, you don't say they are firing back) multiple BGs.

Too much fantasy and left-out facts (?) here to render an accurate response.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Eventhough the first one is down, you cannot guarantee he is out of the fight. Do you put a bullet in his head as you step over him to get to that precious cover that you so desperately need?

Simple....


Ask the Oklahoma City pharmacist about the results....


Really, this is a no-brainer. You can't shoot someone who's not a threat at THAT VERY INSTANT. It doesn't matter if he was a threat 2 seconds ago, or might be in 2 more seconds. No threat equals no shoot.

And, yes, this scenario is a little too "Rambo" for reality. Your bad guys die too quickly and shoot too slowly, you shoot too quickly, too accurately and move too fast and too far. Real life is different.

 

[ClayInTx]

Comply.

They’re after money.

Give it to them because one with a gun in holster against three with guns unlimbered makes the odds about 27 to 0.

Cell phone? Who wants a cell phone if they’re after money?

Medical device? If you’re able to walk around and go into a restaurant you can probably live without it until getting another. Also, an explanation of what it is will probably let you keep it.

The only thing I can think of to keep hidden is your gun, and even as they’re running out the door keep it hidden.

You ain’t a cop, don’t play one.

And shooting someone who’s down? "Hello, Warden, may I have a cell with a view?"

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by peetzakilla: Your bad guys die too quickly and shoot too slowly, you shoot too quickly, too accurately and move too fast and too far. Real life is different.

That's great!

It's the theme of many if not most of the "I'd shoot him to save the clerk", "I'd pull my gun and shoot the robber (who already has his gun in hand) because you do not know that he will not start shooting" and other such keyboard tales.

Classic.

 

[BikerRN]

As to the medical device, I've already made up my mind that I'm not giving it up. It does get mistaken for a cell phone a lot, even when going through the court house metal detector, and no, I don't take it off their either.

Thank you all for your responses.

My wife and I discussed this exact scenario, as it is based on an increasing crime trend in our area, or was at the time of our discussion. My response to her were the words, "Get small. You're looking at a dead man. I will come up shooting, and you can go to my funeral and collect on the insurance."Her response to me was, "That's one of the only times I've ever heard you say you will shoot in public."

Why do I plan to shoot here, and not in many of the various other scenarios? There are various reasons, and I'll try to lay them out here for you all.

This was a specific crime trend in my area and violence had been escalating significantly over the course of the robberies. Thus it was only a matter of time until someone was killed by this team.

Second, said medical device is not being given up, along with my second wallet, which contains my work ID. Last, I already believe I'm dead and if by some miricle I happen to survive I will deal with the court system at a later date. If I do in fact deal with the court system that means I have survived against impossible odds.

I refuse to leave an attacker at my back and I will plan to shoot him as I step over him. Once I have put a bullet in the first one, that is no guarantee that he is out of the fight. Safety of self and others dictates that I make sure he ceases to be a threat as I move forward. My only cover is forward, thus I must move forward. My Mommy didn't raise me to be a bullet sponge and I will do everything in my power to survive that I can.

I have to be alive to deal with the court system. If by some small miracle I did in fact survive, some lawyer would get rich defending my actions. As I said, I already believe I am dead, so my actions are based on staying alive long enough to ensure the safety of my wife and other patrons. To do that one must unleash violence like they have never unleashed, most likely, before.

Since a specific restaurant was targeted during this crime spree of felonious monetary acquisition we did the simple thing and stopped eating at that name brand establishment. I'm an advocate of not getting involved unless you involve me or mine. This involves me and mine. Thus, I will attempt to ensure the safety of me and mine, and the world be damned. The other patrons get the benefit of falling under my umbrella, not so much because I wish to save or help them, but because they are there and I'm involved.

All this talk of sheepdogs and wolves, and the resulting sheep can be a good analogy here folks, as much as I hate the term sheepdog. If you've never seen the violence of a sheepdog protecting the flock against a wolf or other animal, I have some news for you, the sheepdog has to be able to be as violent as the wolf and for a split second in time cannot be distinquished from the wolf. The difference is that once the need for violence ceases the sheepdog reverts back to it's lovable nature.

I'm still interested in opinions, and your thoughts on this second post as well.

Biker

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Now you're talking about blatantly and intentionally breaking the law.... such is not well tolerated on TFL, and rightly so, and will be the soon end of this thread.

 

[DanThaMan1776]

If you've never seen the violence of a sheepdog protecting the flock against a wolf or other animal, I have some news for you, the sheepdog has to be able to be as violent as the wolf and for a split second in time cannot be distinquished from the wolf. The difference is that once the need for violence ceases the sheepdog reverts back to it's lovable nature.

Can you say romanticized?

 

[Edward429451]

I can say good point.

It seems to me that to be effective at self defense, one would have to go on the offense mentally, even if just for a few seconds. But that is not who we are (most of us).

To answer the question, I can see shooting the perp until he is down off his feet and no longer a threat...but shoot him in the head again as you step over his body? Eh, that sounds a little bit too far Tom Cruisish...Prolly get in trouble too. Stayin put sounded like a good idea after the first round of shots.

 

[BikerRN]

Now you're talking about blatantly and intentionally breaking the law.... such is not well tolerated on TFL, and rightly so, and will be the soon end of this thread.

No, what I'm talking about is survival.

Even justified acts of self defense are sometimes tried in court. I've run this scenario by quite a few people, and most, those that would sit likely on a jury, seem to think it's a justified use of force. Lots of gun owners that are familiar with the law, and tactics, seem to think otherwise. This shows a real disconnect, to me, between the two sides.

Nowhere does the law say I have to comply with an armed aggressor. Sometimes going forward, and taking the fight to the badguy is the safest thing to do and the best defensive manuver. Like the old saying, "A good defense is a strong offense."

Biker

 

[booker_t]

Try stuffing the first bad guy's mouth with french fries, while squirting a mustard distraction out in the opposite direction and tactical low-crawl under the Clown-head toy display to acquire your second target.

For effect, you can pop off a second shot that sends straws and coffee stirrers flying. In the USMC we called that effective use of obscurant in the natural environment.

Then use the soda dispenser to make the floor really slick to slow down the "lookout" and make it harder for him to launch an RPG. Try Sprite or Sierra Mist, they won't even see it. Speaking of which, you might try to get behind the smoothie machine, I've read that the the cold slushie material helps disrupt a shaped charge jet.

Then get on your SAT-phone and alert the boys at Langley.

Or just read this http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270787

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

No, what I'm talking about is survival.

Even justified acts of self defense are sometimes tried in court. I've run this scenario by quite a few people, and most, those that would sit likely on a jury, seem to think it's a justified use of force. Lots of gun owners that are familiar with the law, and tactics, seem to think otherwise. This shows a real disconnect, to me, between the two sides.

You're not talking about justified self-defense. That's my point. You're talking about shooting a man, in cold blood, because he MIGHT be a threat in the unknown future, based on the fact that he WAS a threat in the past but based on NO CURRENT threat... aka Oklahoma Pharmacist.

It's not defense. It's murder.

 

[divil]

OK, here's what you do...

When he comes to get your wallet etc., put it in the bag, no questions asked. Then when he asks for the device, you tell, him "sorry, I'd give you this if I could but I really can't". Don't try to tell him what it is.

He gets mad, says he's gonna shoot you. So you give in and hand it over - but at that moment, he's so mesmerized by this mysterious device that he looses concentration, and you get the drop on him. You grab his gun hand and train your gun on him.

His buddies freak out about how they're gonna kill you, but you persuade them all to calm down, like a couple of Fonzies, you say.

Now you give him that whole lecture about the sheep etc. Tell him you're not sure which one you are, but you're trying real hard to be the shepherd...

Now you tell him to reach into the bag and take our your wallet. If he's not sure which one is yours...it's the one that says "Bad Motherf*&k1r" on it.

Take out the money and give it to him - that's his, he can keep that.

You keep the medical device and send a distraught and confused but very grateful robber on his merry way.

Credits roll, que surf guitar etc.

Sorry, couldn't resist (please gnore me!)

 

[Capt. Charlie]

There are so many reasons to close this one.

Tone, civility, public image, snarky replies.

Hmm,... which one to use....

Hell, I'll use all of 'em .

Closed.