Robbery caught on tape.. real sawed off scattergun [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Robbery caught on tape.. real sawed off scattergun


Deaf Smith
06-04-2010, 15:58
Now this guy had a REAL sawed off shotgun.

But notice how he handles it. I feel there were many opportunities to either draw on him or take it away from him H2H.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12590134

Watch the 37 second version. No commercials or anything.



Deaf

degoodman
06-04-2010, 21:32
If you were set on fighting the guy, there were certainly a few opportunities to do so. But to my eyes, there was never an opportunity to draw, without going hands on the shotgun first. Especially if you were right handed, any belt level draw was going to get seen, and interrupted with a shotgun blast at contact distance.

But if you were going to do that, you had better be ready to go all the way. the clerk was fish in a barrel if the BG started shooting. If you were going to fight, you had to control the muzzle of that shotgun, or go for an outright disarm, either as part of, or preceeding your draw. If you didn't gain control of the shotty first, I see you as body bag filler in that situation.

The other observation is that the BG in this case was a pro. He was calm cool and collected all the way through the incident. Getting inside the OODA loop of someone that's "on his game" is that much tougher. That video was :37 long, and that BG was in and out in less than 30, with a couple packs of smokes taboot. I don't see this one as a no-win situation by a damn sight, but the window you'd have to get through to come out on top isn't all that big here either.

Deaf Smith
06-04-2010, 21:47
Well degoodman, it said today the 'pro' was arrested. 20 year old guy.

Glad he is of the street.

Deaf

Gallium
06-04-2010, 22:00
I was gonna bet some $$ that he had an association with the place. Either a relative who works/ed there, or he hangs out there a bit, or worked there, etc...


'Drew

degoodman
06-04-2010, 22:59
Well degoodman, it said today the 'pro' was arrested. 20 year old guy.

Glad he is of the street.

Deaf

I didn't read the rest of it, but 20 is plenty old to be a criminal pro. Its not like you need to be 15 years old and have a work permit to start.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, if the courts follow through and actually stick this guy with some time.

Andrewsky
06-05-2010, 00:23
Isn't that Joran Van Der Sloot?

MTPD
06-05-2010, 00:29
There was one good opportunity to draw from a pocket and shoot while the BG was behind the counter as the BG looked away briefly to take some cigarettes. Then again as the BG was walking away, and a 3rd time when the BG was walking towards the door with his back turned.

I may be wrong, but it didn't look like the BG had his finger on the trigger most of the time, plus he switched hands. Regardless, he could have been taken out by a victim who was armed and knew what he was doing. It was my impression that the BG didn't handle the gun like an experienced "gunman", nor did he look "ready" for armed resistance.

Deaf Smith
06-05-2010, 07:29
You guys notice he carried the gun by the receiver part of the time and not with his hand on the grip? Hard to fire the gun that way.. and that gives you time.

Bit of a post script...


http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=12595893

UPDATE 04:15 PM 06/04/10 - Longview Police Detectives have made an arrest in the June 3rd robbery of the EZ Mart convenience store at 1501 Pine Tree Road.

Joshua Todd Murray, 20, of Longview, was arrested early Thursday afternoon pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by Judge David Brabham of the 188th District Court.

As of this time, Murray has not been charged with the second EZ Mart robbery at the same location that occurred on June 4th, but additional charges are likely.

Murray's birthday is in five days, June 9th.

***

And if the shotgun IS a real one and IS sawed off, that's a Federal Crime!

And we can say, "happy birthday" to him in jail for years to come!

Deaf

Jim S.
06-05-2010, 10:04
I might be looking at this wrong but it didn't seem like the guy was threatening the store clerk. Never pointed the shotgun at him.
Seemed fairly relaxed.
If it were me behind the counter I would have offered him some smokes or chewing gum on his way out and would have been glad he didn't kill me or me kill him.
I think this is one of those times when give him the money and don't do any heroics would make sense.

glock37gap
06-05-2010, 18:12
just a question from a noob. the bg appeared very calm and did not appear to want to shoot the clerk. with this being the case wouldn't it be better to do was the clerk did and just give the bg the money rather than risk trying to draw with a shooty being so close?

MTPD
06-06-2010, 10:13
just a question from a noob. the bg appeared very calm and did not appear to want to shoot the clerk. with this being the case wouldn't it be better to do was the clerk did and just give the bg the money rather than risk trying to draw with a shooty being so close?

This is just my opinion, based on several civilian incidents where I was almost murdered, and numerous felony robbery-murder investigations & arrests as a cop: When confronted by armed felons there is no way to know if they are going to murder you or not until it's too late. That being the case, it's my personal opinion that armed felons should be taken out at the first good opportunity.

David Armstrong
06-06-2010, 10:13
just a question from a noob. the bg appeared very calm and did not appear to want to shoot the clerk. with this being the case wouldn't it be better to do was the clerk did and just give the bg the money rather than risk trying to draw with a shooty being so close?
Yes. And read Jim S. post above yours. No need to start a gunfight here. The BG is the typical armed robber, using the weapon as a threat to gain compliance. That is why the standard default to an armed robbery, according to virtually all the experts and research in the field, should be to comply unless/until there are indications that the BG is a killer instead of a robber. Watch what is going on, try not to make it worse than it already is.

MTPD
06-06-2010, 22:47
Yes. And read Jim S. post above yours. No need to start a gunfight here. The BG is the typical armed robber, using the weapon as a threat to gain compliance. That is why the standard default to an armed robbery, according to virtually all the experts and research in the field, should be to comply unless/until there are indications that the BG is a killer instead of a robber. Watch what is going on, try not to make it worse than it already is.

There you go again, advising people to meekly hand over their money and hope for the best (which I call the pink rabbit's foot syndrome).

And SURPRISE!!! that's exactly what you have been saying you never do. :upeyes: :rofl: :upeyes:

Let me explain this for others, since I know you are beyond understanding. There is no way to know ahead of time if an armed robber is intending to murder you (the witness) or not. That being the case, it's my opinion that all armed robbers should be considered potential murderers and treated accordingly.

Armed robbers, while probably not geniuses, aren't totally stupid. They aren't going to warn you ahead of time that they are going to kill you. And once they start the killing it will most likely be too late to do anything but die. That's why my advice (which is specifically for those who refuse to be victims) is to take out armed robbers at the first good opportunity.

David, on the other hand, being a book & statistics guy instead of a street guy, mistakenly thinks you are always going to get some kind of real obvious murder-warning ahead of time. And more than that, he thinks that after issuing the warning the murderer is going be stupid enough to drop his guard and give you the time and opportunity to resist. Experienced high-crime-area street cops know better, book guys don't.

My first encounter with armed felons taught me an unforgetable lesson since they turned out to be a gang of rapist-murderers. I resisted and my date and I survived uninjured. Their previous victims did the David-thing (didn't resist) and they didn't survive uninjured. In fact, the girl didn't survive at all and the guy just barely did with multiple knife wounds.

But if you want to trust in dumb luck (instead of your gun and shooting ability) for survival, go ahead and do it David's way. It's your life you are risking.

David Armstrong
06-07-2010, 09:14
There you go again, advising people to meekly hand over their money and hope for the best (which I call the pink rabbit's foot syndrome).
And there you go again, confusing a default position that has been shown to be the best for most situations like this with hoping for the best. Anyone with any sense is going to do what they hope is the best. Anything else is rather questionable. But the default position of initial compliance is not "meekly hand over their money."
And SURPRISE!!! that's exactly what you have been saying you never do.
And sadly, it's no surprise that you have again mis-stated my position, in spite of numerous corrections by myself and others over quite a long period of time. That you continue to do so is pretty clear evidence of a problem on your part.
There is no way to know ahead of time if an armed robber is intending to murder you (the witness) or not. That being the case, it's my opinion that all armed robbers should be considered potential murderers and treated accordingly.
And your solution seems to be since we don't know what small fraction of a percent will try to murder us we should engage in a course of action that starts a gunfight whether it is needed or not. Just doesn't seem very smart, which is probably why virtually every LE organization, every trade group, most research, and so on says initial compliance is the best alternative. Strange how all those folks with verified history and background in the field say one thing, but you say something totally opposite.
David, on the other hand, being a book & statistics guy instead of a street guy...
Let's remember that David's street experience has been pretty well verified, while your claims have been pretty much rejected by most all the LEOs on this forum, AFAIK.
...mistakenly thinks you are always going to get some kind of real obvious murder-warning ahead of time. And more than that, he thinks that after issuing the warning the murderer is going be stupid enough to drop his guard and give you the time and opportunity to resist.
And once again we see that you have to make up a position rather than deal with the facts. David has not said that and does not think that. More MTPDFantasyland.

MTPD
06-07-2010, 16:08
Well, there you go again, David, admitting that your "default position" is compliance. Unfortunately, if your armed robber turns out to be a murderer, you aren't going to get to my default position except by dumb luck, because you will have foolishly passed up all the good opportunities to drop the BG until it's too late.

To clarify my default position, it's to drop armed robbers (and all other armed felons) at the first good opportunity.

ubersoldat
06-07-2010, 16:44
this is just my opinion, based on several civilian incidents where i was almost murdered, and numerous felony robbery-murder investigations & arrests as a cop: When confronted by armed felons there is no way to know if they are going to murder you or not until it's too late. That being the case, it's my personal opinion that armed felons should be taken out at the first good opportunity.


+10000000

beatcop
06-07-2010, 18:48
C'mon, as Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again!"

We've beaten this to a bloody pulp before...talked about the "tells" that indicate violence is imminent, the "averages", the lack of knowledge of the offender's "training and experience"...and so on.

Yeah, if you can stomp a cockroach with safety, go for it. However the dynamics of an armed encounter are often a little deeper than first glance.

If you have no training & experience (police,.mil, real experience, etc), shooting ability (actually verified through competition, combat, or a recognized qualification course), don't be a hero and escalate a situation that appears to be playing out "as usual".

Guys who have never caught a robber, fought a "real" criminal (no, not an escaping 15 yr old shoplifter), pointed a gun at someone, or "actually" fired a shot, sometimes talk a big game that diminishes under pressure. They have never seen "as usual".

MTPD- these threads sometimes turn into personal attacks, but the guys who have verified experience are calling your advice into question. Your prob a good dude, but there are tons of folks reading this stuff thay take advice to heart...they haven't seen the little tricks, techniques, and tactics that are common place in the criminal mileau and may get caught in some sucker moves. Let's face it, anyone with any sense who is LE is going to advise a more conservative approach...they are liable for every round flying around and do not want someone living in their house (lawsuit).

If you aren't sworn, your duty is to protect you @-- and love ones, beat a retreat...you'll live longer. Pride kills.

Just my .02

snevel
06-07-2010, 23:40
The other observation is that the BG in this case was a pro. He was calm cool and collected all the way through the incident. Getting inside the OODA loop of someone that's "on his game" is that much tougher. That video was :37 long, and that BG was in and out in less than 30, with a couple packs of smokes taboot. I don't see this one as a no-win situation by a damn sight, but the window you'd have to get through to come out on top isn't all that big here either.

And why on earth would a clerk in a 7-11 style store making barely minimum wage want to risk his life for maybe a couple hundred bucks an some smokes that aren't even his?

Knowing how these corporations operate, if the clerk had actually managed to get a weapon into play (his own or one taken from the BG) he almost certainly would be fired for his trouble.

Simeon

David Armstrong
06-08-2010, 01:02
Well, there you go again, David, admitting that your "default position" is compliance.
Yes. My default position is compliance. It is not "meekly hand over money", it is not "hope for the best", it is not any of the usual distortions you bring up. It is intial compliance, just like is advised by all the professionals in the field. There is a reason for that.
To clarify my default position, it's to drop armed robbers (and all other armed felons) at the first good opportunity.
So your default position is to start a gunfight every time you get a good opportunity and hope it works out. Strange how that advice is rejected by most everyone else.

WilyCoyote
06-08-2010, 02:21
Snevel, I don't think anyone reading this thread would say smokes and a few bills is worth the gunfight. The issue at hand is whether compliance will ultimately get you killed.

That being said, the default advice that anyone in a position of expertise to the general public will be to comply simply because your audience is made up people with varying, mostly weak capabilities, i.e. sheeple. If the advice to the general public was to fight, I feel that would be a recipe for disaster. With this utilitarian advice, some vicitms/witnesses will be murdered here and there, but overall more lives will be saved.

Now, if you have the training, the tools, and the timing, it's my belief that armed resistance is the way to go.

Refuse to be a victim and know how not to be one.

W

MTPD
06-08-2010, 08:35
Yes. My default position is compliance.

So your default position is to start a gunfight every time you get a good opportunity and hope it works out. Strange how that advice is rejected by most everyone else.

I recently polled all my olde police buddies, most retired with 25-40 years on the job in high-crime-area agencies, and all but two have been involved in one or more shooting situations.

100% of these highly experienced officers stated that they would drop an armed robber at the first good opportunity rather than risk the posibility of summary execution. So either you are hanging out with sheeple, quoting advice from those who train and advise incompetents or you are making up your stats again?

dgg9
06-08-2010, 08:41
I recently polled all my olde police buddies,

I just polled Dick Tracy, Kojak, and Dudley DoRight and they disagree. My fictitious support trumps yours.

MTPD
06-08-2010, 08:41
... The issue at hand is whether compliance will ultimately get you killed.

Now, if you have the training, the tools, and the timing, it's my belief that armed resistance is the way to go.

Refuse to be a victim and know how not to be one.

W

Well said. Give that man a Ceegar!

WilyCoyote
06-08-2010, 13:57
Now that I've had more thought on the matter, I can't help but think about other areas of violence on which the general public advice IS resistance:

How about an airline hijacking? Should the general public just sit and comply post 9/11?

What do we tell our toddlers to do when someone is trying to take them, comply?

Do we tell our teenage daughters to comply if someone is trying to rape them?

Even after being a victim of whatever, how many have heard, from experts, that you never let a perpitrator take you to a second crime scene? That's advocating for resistance isn't it? At least at some point.

These are just a few examples, but I wonder why the general advice is different for armed robbery.

:dunno:

dgg9
06-08-2010, 14:32
Now that I've had more thought on the matter, I can't help but think about other areas of violence on which the general public advice IS resistance:

How about an airline hijacking? Should the general public just sit and comply post 9/11?

What do we tell our toddlers to do when someone is trying to take them, comply?

Do we tell our teenage daughters to comply if someone is trying to rape them?

Even after being a victim of whatever, how many have heard, from experts, that you never let a perpitrator take you to a second crime scene? That's advocating for resistance isn't it? At least at some point.

These are just a few examples, but I wonder why the general advice is different for armed robbery.

In the vast majority of armed robberies, the robber wants money and will leave as soon as he gets it. That's why people say the INITIAL response is not to resist. This is especially true if you're a bystander. Yes, of course, it might escalate, and so you stay cognizant of signs that's happening, and escalate accordingly.

With rape, the whole point IS violence. That's why the initial response is to resist.

betes
06-08-2010, 14:55
My point of view on these situations changed when a local 7-11 was robbed and the clerk was killed as the robber left the store. This happened after the clerk complied with all demands.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/22863138/detail.html

dgg9
06-08-2010, 15:56
My point of view on these situations changed when a local 7-11 was robbed and the clerk was killed as the robber left the store. This happened after the clerk complied with all demands.

That happens. Yes, there's risk in initial compliance, that you might not read the signs that the robbery will turn deadly. But here's the thing. It's not risk-free for you to escalate the robbery into a gunfight either. You have to weigh the two risks. You take a chance either way.

degoodman
06-08-2010, 16:14
Now that I've had more thought on the matter, I can't help but think about other areas of violence on which the general public advice IS resistance:

How about an airline hijacking? Should the general public just sit and comply post 9/11?

What do we tell our toddlers to do when someone is trying to take them, comply?

Do we tell our teenage daughters to comply if someone is trying to rape them?

Even after being a victim of whatever, how many have heard, from experts, that you never let a perpitrator take you to a second crime scene? That's advocating for resistance isn't it? At least at some point.

These are just a few examples, but I wonder why the general advice is different for armed robbery.

:dunno:

Yes, the default response in the situations you're describing are different from armed robbery. and yes, the default position is for active resistance with violent force in most of those circumstances. I know everybody hates statistics, but that's the reason for the difference. When you're dealing with forcable rape in progress, the odds are 100% that there is serious bodily injury occuring. When you're dealing with kidnapping, and not kidnapping of a child by a non-custodial parent and all the other things that get lumped in under kidnapping, actual kidnapping, the odds of serious bodily harm or death are better than 50%. if you're within the lethal radius of a suicide attacker the odds of getting hurt or killed are similarly damn near 100%.

The odds of getting killed in an armed robbery are less than 1 in 1000, and the odds of getting hurt or killed increase the longer the robber is at the scene of the crime. So the response that is most likely to minimize the chances of you getting hurt is different from kidnapping or rape.

Any crime that involves kidnapping immediately calls for violent resistance. This is one where the odds of being seriously hurt or killed skyrocket compared to other crimes without the addition of the kidnapping element. Likewise any time you're talking about the kidnapping of children. Don't get taken to a secondary crime scene.

Rape is another crime that justifies immediate, violent resistance including lethal force. Now here I'm confining that statement to forcable rape. Our society currently has a real problem, in my opinion, with classifying sex offenses, and we throw things in the rape bucket that don't belong there. Forcable rape is one thing, consent withdrawn during a previously consentual act or after the fact is something else. And I'll leave that at that.

Airline hijackings, and other acts of terrorism are a different beast altogether. Stopping a suicide attack is extremely challenging, mainly because the perpetrators of those attacks already expect to die, and may not give overt signs of what they are about to do as a result. There have been two attempted acts of terror that were stopped in the air, but they were stopped as much by the ineptitude of the perpetrators of the attack as they were by defensive action. I guess that doesn't mean don't resist, but the problem is that more often than not there's nothing to resist before the deed is done.

WilyCoyote
06-08-2010, 16:34
In the vast majority of armed robberies, the robber wants money and will leave as soon as he gets it. That's why people say the INITIAL response is not to resist. This is especially true if you're a bystander. Yes, of course, it might escalate, and so you stay cognizant of signs that's happening, and escalate accordingly.

With rape, the whole point IS violence. That's why the initial response is to resist.

To say that the point of armed robbery ISN'T violence is ludicrous. Sticking a gun in someone's face IS violent. Taking the example of rape, the motive is clear and I think therin lies the reason there are two camps on this issue. The intent of an armed robbery is unclear.

Sometimes, most of the time, the motive is simply money. Other times, the motive can be money and then killing any potential witnesses. Or the motive can change mid act to other crimes of opportunity like rape. Some robberies are gang activites/intitiations, in which the point isn't money at all, but to show your homies how ruthless and brutal you are.

The question then is: Does the presumption of what the intent is take a back seat to the potential for brutal violence? In the clip that dgg9 provided for us, maybe it should have. Given the odds of this kind of murderous violence during an armed robbery being relatively low, I can see how the advice to the general public IS compliance, but its SHOULD BE resistance along with all the other violent acts, such as rape, hijacking, and kidnapping because the potential outcome is cold and permanent.

Taking into account that not every victim has the capacity to resist an armed robber is irrelevant. I can see no difference in telling the sheeple to resist an armed robbery when our own advice to our young and weak children is to fight and scream and kick at a potential kidnapper. And who says resisting an armed robbery has to be a force on force issue? How about locking yourself in a back room or running out the back door?

Why don't you hear the people in the compliance camp saying that passengers of an airliner shouldn't resist hijackers because the vast majority of hijack victims survive and that the motives for hijacking are usually political. But I'll bet you a million dollars that despite those odds, post 9/11 people WILL resist, as well they should because the POTENTIAL of being murdered is there.

This is a new day and age. Criminals are more ruthless and the potential victims should be advised to take steps to save their own lives, even in the case of an armed robbery.

Wily

dgg9
06-08-2010, 16:43
To say that the point of armed robbery ISN'T violence is ludicrous.

Huh? The point of robbery is to procure money or goods. The POINT isn't violence; the means is the THREAT of violence. Violence vs threat of violence are very different. Do you see someone pointing a gun at you and demanding money as IDENTICAL to someone simply shooting you with no preliminaries?

Sometimes, most of the time, the motive is simply money. Other times, the motive can be money and then killing any potential witnesses. Or the motive can change mid act to other crimes of opportunity like rape. Some robberies are gang activites/intitiations, in which the point isn't money at all, but to show your homies how ruthless and brutal you are.

And yet murder as a result of robbery is rare.

The question then is: Does the presumption of what the intent is take a back seat to the potential for brutal violence?

I suggest that's not the question. The robbery issue is this:

If you do nothing initially, and then fail to read the signs of escalation, there's some small chance you might get killed.

If you choose to escalate the robbery into a gunfight yourself, there's a significant chance you or a bystander gets shot and/or killed.

People make it sound as if escalating the robbery is free of risk. It isn't. What you have to decide is what the smarter course is.

And who says resisting an armed robbery has to be a force on force issue? How about locking yourself in a back room or running out the back door?

Because "resist" means resist. "Resist" necessarily implies force. Resist doesn't mean escape. Obviously escape is preferable to any other solution.

dgg9
06-08-2010, 16:46
Why don't you hear the people in the compliance camp saying that passengers of an airliner shouldn't resist hijackers because the vast majority of hijack victims survive and that the motives for hijacking are usually political. But I'll bet you a million dollars that despite those odds, post 9/11 people WILL resist, as well they should because the POTENTIAL of being murdered is there.

You've answered your own question. It used to be true that the vast majority of hijack victims survive and that the motives for hijacking are usually political. After 9/11, that can't be assumed. The reason that your default reaction would change is because observed reality has changed -- the "POTENTIAL of being murdered" has now changed. It's not that either resistance OR compliance is inherently safer. What's safer is to have a grasp on what's likely to happen, and what your chances of resistance are.

WilyCoyote
06-08-2010, 17:42
It used to be true that the vast majority of hijack victims survive and that the motives for hijacking are usually political. After 9/11, that can't be assumed. The reason that your default reaction would change is because observed reality has changed -- the "POTENTIAL of being murdered" has now changed. It's not that either resistance OR compliance is inherently safer. What's safer is to have a grasp on what's likely to happen, and what your chances of resistance are.

So then why say that for hijacking, but not armed robbery? Are you saying the potential to be murdered during an armed robbery has not increased over time?

beatcop
06-08-2010, 17:53
Why don't you hear the people in the compliance camp saying that passengers of an airliner shouldn't resist hijackers because the vast majority of hijack victims survive and that the motives for hijacking are usually political. But I'll bet you a million dollars that despite those odds, post 9/11 people WILL resist, as well they should because the POTENTIAL of being murdered is there.


Hijacking = Suicide attack
Robbery = Attack for money

Which one is CERTAIN death? Ok, that's why the training/advice has changed...you have nothing to lose by trying, you're already dead...anything will be an improvement.

A robbery is a different animal, generally the crook wants the money, that's it.


We've beaten this before...too many variables, to many overconfident fools, too many 13 yr olds posting.


A solo crook runs into a crowded bank and demands money from the teller.
-are you really going to be shot?
-do you start a gunfight? Someone will be getting shot...who?

Guy runs into the gas station & demands money.
-he will be gone in 10 seconds.

Do you make prolonged eye contact? Does he see you blading, reaching, target glancing? Do you look like a cop? Are you being told to kneel? searched? Walked in the freezer? OK, YOU MAY WANT TO ACT.

dgg9
06-08-2010, 19:36
So then why say that for hijacking, but not armed robbery? Are you saying the potential to be murdered during an armed robbery has not increased over time?

Do you think it has? What's your source? The most recent figures were something like 1 chance in 450 (roughly). Of the 4 hijacked jets at 9/11, the chance of death was 100%.

WilyCoyote
06-08-2010, 21:01
Do you think it has? What's your source? The most recent figures were something like 1 chance in 450 (roughly). Of the 4 hijacked jets at 9/11, the chance of death was 100%.

I completely disagree with what you're saying here. You take recent figures, for a large group of robberies, at least 450 (roughly) then compare to the chance of death for only the 9/11 hijack victims.

An accurate representation of your comparison would be to also observe the number of Hijack victims killed for A LARGE GROUP of hijackings.

That's like only taking the stats from where robbery victims were murdered and saying the chance of death for robbery victims was 100%.

W

WilyCoyote
06-08-2010, 21:17
Huh? The point of robbery is to procure money or goods. The POINT isn't violence; the means is the THREAT of violence. Violence vs threat of violence are very different. Do you see someone pointing a gun at you and demanding money as IDENTICAL to someone simply shooting you with no preliminaries?

Are you saying armed robbery is not a violent act? An no, of course they are not identical, but they are next door to each other.

And yet murder as a result of robbery is rare.

Yes, it is rare.

I suggest that's not the question. The robbery issue is this:

If you do nothing initially, and then fail to read the signs of escalation, there's some small chance you might get killed.

If you choose to escalate the robbery into a gunfight yourself, there's a significant chance you or a bystander gets shot and/or killed.

People make it sound as if escalating the robbery is free of risk. It isn't. What you have to decide is what the smarter course is.

It is absoloutely not free of risk. It's the classic risk vs benefit analysis

Because "resist" means resist. "Resist" necessarily implies force. Resist doesn't mean escape. Obviously escape is preferable to any other solution.

Obviously, but what I meant by "resist" was take action to get out of a given situation. I think you got the gist of what I was trying to say.



And to beatcop...Hijacking does not always equal suicide attack.

Generally the crook does want money and generally, so do hijackers.

We may have beaten this before, but not all of us, and some factors change the conversation. New stats, new instances of violence, etc. Saying that it's been discussed before is turning a blind eye to new mitigating factors.

You say:

A solo crook runs into a crowded bank and demands money from the teller.
-are you really going to be shot?
-do you start a gunfight? Someone will be getting shot...who?

Guy runs into the gas station & demands money.
-he will be gone in 10 seconds.

Do you make prolonged eye contact? Does he see you blading, reaching, target glancing? Do you look like a cop? Are you being told to kneel? searched? Walked in the freezer? OK, YOU MAY WANT TO ACT.

All of these are probable scenarios, but how far behind the power curve are you letting youself get before you decide you must fight back and have to gain all that ground back?

dgg9
06-09-2010, 05:21
An accurate representation of your comparison would be to also observe the number of Hijack victims killed for A LARGE GROUP of hijackings.

It was YOUR request that we use post-9/11 information. How many other hijackings of US jets have there been since 9/11? How many safe hijackings would there have to be such that the average of death would be less than 1 in 450? You do the math.

dgg9
06-09-2010, 05:24
All of these are probable scenarios, but how far behind the power curve are you letting youself get before you decide you must fight back and have to gain all that ground back?

This also has been discussed before. You seem to be misunderstanding what people mean when they say that compliance is the safest INITIAL response to armed robbery. That doesn't mean you never change your strategy or never resist. It's just a default initial plan for as long as it seems purely a crime for cash. There are many indications the robber would give off if matters are going to escalate. You look for them, THEN decide to forcibly resist.

MTPD
06-09-2010, 07:16
My "RESIST AT THE FIRST GOOD OPPORTUNITY!" default has nothing to do with "the odds" or any other mathmatical formula. Rather, it reflects my personal decision to always refuse to be a victim. Period. Playing the odds is for people who haven't made a decision ahead of time to resist and are just looking for a nice sounding excuse to do nothing.

dgg9
06-09-2010, 07:30
My "RESIST AT THE FIRST GOOD OPPORTUNITY!" default has nothing to do with "the odds" or any other mathmatical formula.

Exactly. It's woofing and mindless Internet posturing in lieu of thought.

Rather, it reflects my personal decision to always refuse to be a victim. Period.

I wonder if the bystanders who get shot when you escalate a 7/11 robbery into a shootout will be consoled by this.

TACC GLOCK
06-09-2010, 07:41
I recently polled all my olde police buddies, most retired with 25-40 years on the job in high-crime-area agencies, and all but two have been involved in one or more shooting situations.

100% of these highly experienced officers stated that they would drop an armed robber at the first good opportunity rather than risk the posibility of summary execution. So either you are hanging out with sheeple, quoting advice from those who train and advise incompetents or you are making up your stats again?


MTPD,

I have watched this video numerous times by now and am not disagreeing with your philosophy, but if you were the clerk in this video and you were carrying either in a pocket or IWB holster at what point(s) do you see a clear enough opening to draw and drop this armed robber.

MTPD
06-09-2010, 11:06
MTPD,

I have watched this video numerous times by now and am not disagreeing with your philosophy, but if you were the clerk in this video and you were carrying either in a pocket or IWB holster at what point(s) do you see a clear enough opening to draw and drop this armed robber.

I personally favor, and carry, a pocket pistol (KAHR 9mm with CT laser, loaded with +P+ JHP's) in my strong side front pocket. Because I do, I only buy pants with big easy-to-draw-from pockets. This type of carry allows a draw that probably isn't going to alarm an assailant beause it's the same motion you make when handing over your cash, car keys, etc. So I have a slight built-in SURPRISE! advantage to begin with.

The first clear opening to draw and shoot the robber (original robbery video) is when he reaches up to steal some cigarettes. Then again when he turns his back on the clerk and starts to walk away while still behind the counter. Both would offer a "sure thing" first-shot advantage to an experienced combat shooter.

The second robbery video is different. There was only one time when an experienced shooter "might" have been able to take out the robber. That's when the robber looked away from the victim and towards the door for a second. However, it would have been a lot more "iffy" thing than in the first robbery. But...........the clerk got murdered anyway, so the "iffy" draw into the drop would have been warranted.

I've long been blessed with the ability to instantly distinguish real shooters from bluffers, and in the second robbery case probably would have somehow "sensed" that the guy was a killer and would have "known" that I had to draw and shoot no matter what the risk. I'm also experienced at getting out of the line of fire ASAP, so probably wouldn't have been just standing there with a gun pointed at me. Especially since the counter was between us for concealment.

The other thing is that anyone wearing a hooded sweatshirt and sun-glasses (or similar) would immediately get my attention, since so many armed robbers wear them. So I would have been on high alert, with my pistol already in hand but still concealed in my pocket, the second I saw him walk in. (Which is another reason for pocket carry, i.e. you can have your pistol already in your hand at the first sign of trouble, without alerting anyone to that fact. And, as we all know, the fastest draw is to already have your gun in hand when the SHTF!)

David Armstrong
06-09-2010, 12:44
I recently polled all my olde police buddies, most retired with 25-40 years on the job in high-crime-area agencies, and all but two have been involved in one or more shooting situations.
those the same imaginary friends that were there when you got your imaginary Officer of the Year award?
I've long been blessed with the ability to instantly distinguish real shooters from bluffers, and in the second robbery case probably would have somehow "sensed" that the guy was a killer and would have "known" that I had to draw and shoot no matter what the risk.
LOL!!! The great secret is out...MTPD has the ability infallibly read minds!:rofl:

David Armstrong
06-09-2010, 12:49
These are just a few examples, but I wonder why the general advice is different for armed robbery.
Twofold: one, because the purpose of armed robbery is to get money, and Two, in most cases killing someone increases the effort authorities will use to catch you.

David Armstrong
06-09-2010, 13:03
To say that the point of armed robbery ISN'T violence is ludicrous.
No, it is accurate. If the point of an armed robbery was violence the robberies would have a lot more violence. Violence may occur but it is not the point, and it is usually the result of noon-compliance.
The question then is: Does the presumption of what the intent is take a back seat to the potential for brutal violence?
I would disagree. To me, the question is what actions are most likely to result in the smallest loss of resources. Overwhelmingly that has shown to be compliance, so that should be the default response.
..but its SHOULD BE resistance along with all the other violent acts, such as rape, hijacking, and kidnapping because the potential outcome is cold and permanent.

But you seem to be missing a key point, which is that resistance is not risk free and also has the potential outcome of "cold and permanent."
Why don't you hear the people in the compliance camp saying that passengers of an airliner shouldn't resist hijackers because the vast majority of hijack victims survive and that the motives for hijacking are usually political. But I'll bet you a million dollars that despite those odds, post 9/11 people WILL resist, as well they should because the POTENTIAL of being murdered is there.
Well, if you look at the facts, for a long time we did recommend passengers not resist because that was the best response. The world has changed and hijackings now are acts of violence rather than political and economic acts, so the recommendations change.
This is a new day and age. Criminals are more ruthless and the potential victims should be advised to take steps to save their own lives, even in the case of an armed robbery.
No, criminals are not more ruthless. In fact nationally criminal violence is at its lowest point in decades. And the initial compliance/not resist step IS the most likely to save lives.
Are you saying the potential to be murdered during an armed robbery has not increased over time?
That is what the Uniform Crime Reports say. Both murders and robberies have been going down for a while now.

WilyCoyote
06-09-2010, 13:56
You make some interesting points, David and dgg9. There is starting to be too much point and counterpoint to continue, though I could. I see the logic behind your opinions and I respect it and respectfully disagree on certain points. I remain firm on:

1. Armed Robbery is a violent act

2. If hijackers should be resisted (based on overall stats since the 70's) then armed robbers should be resisted as well

3. Resistance is not risk free, but worth the risk IF you know what you're doing.

4. Resistance should be based on risk vs benefit given ea individual scenario.

In any case, outright resistance of every armed robbery by every victim would likely change the tactics of armed robbers and have them just shoot you at the first opportunity to reduce the potential of being resisted. IFarmed robbery progresses to the point where more people are just outright murdered, even if they cooperated, then naturally, the expert's advice to the general public would be to resist at the first opportunity anyway, as with rape and kidnapping.

IMHO :)

beatcop
06-09-2010, 16:59
And to beatcop...Hijacking does not always equal suicide attack.

I realize that, but in light of the hijackings that occurred in the US or targeted the US, it's safe to say that death is the goal....theirs and ours. The days of people hijacking a plane to get a free ride are OVER.

Generally the crook does want money and generally, so do hijackers.

I disagree

We may have beaten this before, but not all of us, and some factors change the conversation. New stats, new instances of violence, etc. Saying that it's been discussed before is turning a blind eye to new mitigating factors.

The crooks have tried a few new things, but from the ACTUAL calls I've gone to, one resulted in clerk death, a few clerks suffered mild whacks with a pistol, and the vast majority resulted in no injury sustained. There were NO customers injured. Granted, that's based on my area, but it's reported to the FBI so they can generate the real stats.

You say:

A solo crook runs into a crowded bank and demands money from the teller.
-are you really going to be shot?
-do you start a gunfight? Someone will be getting shot...who?

Guy runs into the gas station & demands money.
-he will be gone in 10 seconds.

Do you make prolonged eye contact? Does he see you blading, reaching, target glancing? Do you look like a cop? Are you being told to kneel? searched? Walked in the freezer? OK, YOU MAY WANT TO ACT.


All of these are probable scenarios, but how far behind the power curve are you letting youself get before you decide you must fight back and have to gain all that ground back?

OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act that's how stuff happens. You can get into the loop and act against an attacker, but we're not talking about Airforce dog-fight training here, you aren't necessarily a target if you are merely in a particular location that's being robbed....you may not have to do anything.

I understand MTPD's point fully, however this stuff is soooooo scenario driven that ONE reaction isn't the universal answer to every situation.

No one is staying to comply EVERY SINGLE TIME, even when it looks like you're toast.

We're saying to put the brain in gear and observe what the heck is going on....I can shoot a lot of crooks, but do I really have to? Get it?

Deaf Smith
06-09-2010, 17:31
We're saying to put the brain in gear and observe what the heck is going on....I can shoot a lot of crooks, but do I really have to? Get it?

Hence, watch the videos and learn to spot openings (or when it's to dangerous for that matter.)

Part of the OODA loop has to do with your 'Orientation'. That includes your training/skills/education/heritage/etc... Where all this allows you to digest what is going on and formulate a plan.

The more you train, study, seek out information, the more your skills increase and more options are available for you have and it becomes easier to spot openings for you to attack (or run or hide or evade for that matter.)

Watch the videos of real robberies and attacks. There is much to learn from them.

Deaf

beatcop
06-09-2010, 17:54
^ Most of us rarely experience anything like the vids, so we pick up a few scraps from the vids. Nothing wrong with that.

The thing that anyone with seasoning sees is the standard responses, "I would have done this...." "I would have shot him" blah, blah...

The reality is that people who actually go after crooks often fail to engage and usually justify it with a thin reason. Most people just go along "for the ride".

There was some documentary that interviewed ww2 vets and determined that most troops who spotted the enemy failed to initiate fire. The number that actively sought out and engaged the enemy was very very small. I'm talking about a the situations that were not "self defense", but rather opportunities where the US troops had an option to fire or not.

I prob watch my fair share of war & Clint Eastwood movies, but I realize it's FAKE. 99.99% of the time there's no robbery, no assault, nada, nothing...don't kid yourself into thinking you'll react like Rambo. If you've never had a real stress inocculation, you'll likely go through the same steps as everyone else.

If you have seen some **** you may be able to keep a cooler head and work up a few options. Initiating one of them is a whole nother matter!

I guess you can't quantify a thought process, mindset, or common sense in here...You do what ya gotta do...if you have to do it.

WilyCoyote
06-09-2010, 20:33
^ Well spoken. There is how we think we react vs how we actually do react. I'd like to think the former is as close to the latter as possible, based on my own training and experience, but if that were the case we wouldn't have a whole nomenclature for bravado.

snevel
06-09-2010, 20:53
I'd like to take this thread in a slightly different direction if I may.

What are the indicators to watch for to see if the current armed robber is simply after the bucks and can be "safely" complied with or is more of a predator who is dangerous and should be engaged if possible?

Simeon

MTPD
06-10-2010, 02:08
SeeNo, there aren't always clear-cut murder "indicators" like some suggest. And even when there are, they often don't appear until it's too late to resist successfully.

I know Armstrong goes on and on about not resisting until the armed robber somehow "outs" himself as a murderer. Well watch this robbery-murder video again and look for Armstrong's alleged "indicators". Chances are you won't see any, which is why Armstrong's "don't resist" until you see an "indicator" advice is suicidal nonsense.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/22863138/detail.html

MTPD
06-10-2010, 02:34
^ Well spoken. There is how we think we react vs how we actually do react. I'd like to think the former is as close to the latter as possible, based on my own training and experience, but if that were the case we wouldn't have a whole nomenclature for bravado.

The vastly differing opinions on this thread are largely due to the fact that a few of us have actually been involved in multiple armed confrontations with dangerous felons while others haven't. So we know for sure what it's like and how we will react, and our reactions have nothing to do with "bravado". I've faced killers and know what it takes to survive, so that's what I recommend and what I actually have done, and will continue to do, myself. That's not bravery, it's refusing to be a victim.

David, DGG and their kind don't see armed robbers as potential killers like I do. Why not? Probably because they are book & statistic guys with little or no street experience in combat zones. Armstrong, for example, recently described armed robbers as just ordinary "folks" like everybody else, which is the most street-ignorant thing I've ever heard an ex-cop say.

Experienced high-crime-area cops know that your life is in danger any time an armed felon selects you as a victim, so we don't take chances and treat them all as the potential murderers they really are.

MTPD
06-10-2010, 03:31
those the same imaginary friends that were there when you got your imaginary Officer of the Year award?

LOL!!! The great secret is out...MTPD has the ability infallibly read minds!:rofl:

No, the Officer of the Year banquet was a black tie affair and the cops were out on the street working. But the Governor and the Chief were there. :supergrin:

That you think recognizing dangerous felons is "mind reading" shows just how inexperienced you are. It also explains why you constantly refer to books & statistics instead of street experience. :faint:

dgg9
06-10-2010, 05:33
Chances are you won't see any, which is why Armstrong's "don't resist" until you see an "indicator" advice is suicidal nonsense.


As opposed to the asinine Internet-machismo of "always escalate a robbery into a gunfight; bystanders' lives be damned" suicidal nonsense.

dgg9
06-10-2010, 05:39
The vastly differing opinions on this thread are largely due to the fact that a few of us have actually been involved in multiple armed confrontations with dangerous felons while others haven't.

And the ones who haven't, like you, should listen more respectfully to the ones who have.

David, DGG and their kind don't see armed robbers as potential killers like I do.

This is a flat-out lie on your part. There's no other word for it. In thread after thread after thread, many people have said the same thing: yes, all robberies have the potential for murder, but the intelligent thing is not to start with that as your default plan of action, the way you would if it were rape or assault.

Did you really think you could get away with a lie like that? But then, for you to studiously not register the fact that virtually every vetted cop on this board knows you're a phony and a poseur must take a lot of Doublethink.

After all, the only reason you're on this board is so, in almost every post, you can posture about being

Experienced high-crime-area cop

...which absolutely no one believes you were.

Bado
06-10-2010, 06:50
As opposed to the asinine Internet-machismo of "always escalate a robbery into a gunfight; bystanders' lives be damned" suicidal nonsense.


Serious question: What is the stat on bystanders getting shot during an armed robbery?

I would think minuscule since we rarely hear about it from the Liberal Media. There was that one grandmother in the last week or two but have not seen any others since.

dgg9
06-10-2010, 07:09
Serious question: What is the stat on bystanders getting shot during an armed robbery?

There aren't that many occurrences of a CCW holder intervening in a store robbery to begin with.

If the risk of bystanders getting shot was insignificant, then the police would train their officers to engage a robber in the store. But isn't police MO to wait for robbers to leave the store before engaging?

Again, the point is not to escalate or not escalate. The main point is to understand there is a danger to you and the bystanders EACH way.

MTPD
06-10-2010, 08:52
Serious question: What is the stat on bystanders getting shot during an armed robbery?

I would think minuscule since we rarely hear about it from the Liberal Media. There was that one grandmother in the last week or two but have not seen any others since.

Bystanders were never hit in my city, even though the number of police vs BG shootings was so high that the FBI finally stepped in and "encouraged" the Chief to change the shooting policy. We did have a number of buildings, windows & parked cars hit, but never an innocent.

During this same time period we had a fair amount of robbery-murders, rape-murders and robbery-rape-murders. So judging just by my limited one-city viewpoint, the "odds" of being murdered by an armed felon is considerably higher than being hit by "friendly fire".

gtrcivic
06-10-2010, 11:25
over $$ and pack of smokes, i probably wouldnt do anything. Guess its 50/50 and you roll the dice hoping that you don't get shot.

Most of the time the robber just want the $$$ and leave.

Bado
06-10-2010, 16:36
There aren't that many occurrences of a CCW holder intervening in a store robbery to begin with.

If the risk of bystanders getting shot was insignificant, then the police would train their officers to engage a robber in the store. But isn't police MO to wait for robbers to leave the store before engaging?

Again, the point is not to escalate or not escalate. The main point is to understand there is a danger to you and the bystanders EACH way.

I think it must be a very insignificant chance for a bystanders to get shot during an armed robbery in a store as far as stats go or it would be on the news and the libs would be citing the stat in every interview.

And I think store clerks engaging the robber then dieing must be low as well. Just about every video on the net and news article in the paper shows that when the clerks go on the offensive they prevail in a shootout. All you have to do is read the news here on GT to see that.

I'm not sure where you have been but what is even more rare is any LE organization saying it is good to defend yourself. They always say after a clerk shooting the bg "he did well, but we encourage everyone to comply with the robbers demands and not take any chances".

turbobrian
06-10-2010, 16:44
Best case senario is what happened in the video. Let him take what he wants and don't make the situation any worse. If it were me I would have kept as close to the suspect as possible and if I thought he was going to raise the shotgun up to me to shoot I would have at least tried to disarm him. He wasn't that big of a guy and could be easily brought to the ground. The other case would be when he moved around the counter to leave you could have drawn your weapon and shot him right in the back. I really could care less if he wasn't going to shoot me and leave but he could have always changed his mind while heading out the door.

beatcop
06-10-2010, 18:30
As opposed to the asinine Internet-machismo of "always escalate a robbery into a gunfight; bystanders' lives be damned" suicidal nonsense.

Good summary, nice to see that some folks know the deal.

beatcop
06-10-2010, 19:32
It looks like it's time
http://dsp.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pDSP1-7370177t130.jpg

David Armstrong
06-10-2010, 23:00
I know Armstrong goes on and on about not resisting until the armed robber somehow "outs" himself as a murderer.
Once again you apparently need to make stuff up instead of deal with what is really said. Armstrong has not and does not say do not resist until the armed robber somehow outs himself as a murderer. That is more of that MTPDfantasyland stuff.
The vastly differing opinions on this thread are largely due to the fact that a few of us have actually been involved in multiple armed confrontations with dangerous felons while others haven't.
There aren't vastly differing opinions. There are the proven suggestions of the professionals and then there is is your nonsense.
David, DGG and their kind don't see armed robbers as potential killers like I do. Why not?
As dgg9 pointed out, that is a blatant lie on your part. Everybody recognizes the potential. Those with sense and tactical understanding balance "potential" against "probability".
Probably because they are book & statistic guys with little or no street experience in combat zones.
Ummm, hate to point this out to you for about the hundredth time, but all of your self-described street experience in combat zones has been pretty well denied by virtually every vetted LEO that has commented on it. My LE experience and creds have been verified, yours are the ones most folks laugh at.
That you think recognizing dangerous felons is "mind reading" shows just how inexperienced you are.
That you claim the ability to instantly distinguish real shooters from bluffers, or that you would somehow sense that the guy was a killer show just how wildly out of touch with reality you are. Again, anytime you can prove any of this alleged "experience" you keep claiming, feel free. So far most all of your claims have been shown to be fake.

David Armstrong
06-10-2010, 23:06
I'd like to take this thread in a slightly different direction if I may.
What are the indicators to watch for to see if the current armed robber is simply after the bucks and can be "safely" complied with or is more of a predator who is dangerous and should be engaged if possible?
Simeon
I think that is the key right there. They are all dangerous, so why increase the danger? Don't engage if possible, engage if you feel that you are in immediate danger of loss of life. Some people have some pre-established setpoints. Armed robbers are pretty much like most other people, and you can tell if they are escalating the issue. If they haven't killed anyone to start things out there is a very low probability of them deciding to kill someone later without something changing.

David Armstrong
06-10-2010, 23:11
from bado:
I'm not sure where you have been but what is even more rare is any LE organization saying it is good to defend yourself. They always say after a clerk shooting the bg "he did well, but we encourage everyone to comply with the robbers demands and not take any chances".
And they recommend that because it is the option that works the best. The research is almost unanimous on that issue.

MTPD
06-11-2010, 05:26
I think it must be a very insignificant chance for a bystanders to get shot during an armed robbery in a store as far as stats go or it would be on the news and the libs would be citing the stat in every interview.

And I think store clerks engaging the robber then dieing must be low as well. Just about every video on the net and news article in the paper shows that when the clerks go on the offensive they prevail in a shootout. All you have to do is read the news here on GT to see that.

I'm not sure where you have been but what is even more rare is any LE organization saying it is good to defend yourself. They always say after a clerk shooting the bg "he did well, but we encourage everyone to comply with the robbers demands and not take any chances".

Bado, Of all the shooting situations in my city where armed robbers were resisted by armed victims, only one civilian got hit and it was only a slight flesh wound. And he killed the armed robber.

Official police advice to the public is, and must be, politically correct. Otherwise the media would be jumping on the PD accusing them of inciting violence. However, the officers themselves don't follow the PC BS when confronted by armed felons. If the PC advice to not resist is so good, I wonder why the officers themselves don't follow it? :upeyes::dunno::upeyes:

David Armstrong
06-11-2010, 09:39
If the PC advice to not resist is so good, I wonder why the officers themselves don't follow it?
Actually they do, which is just more evidence of how little you know about real police work. It is fairly common to find officers are frequently advised that if they get into something like this. that whenever possible the best response is to wait until the BG is out of the store before attempting to do anything.

WilyCoyote
06-11-2010, 16:29
Armed robbers are pretty much like most other people, and you can tell if they are escalating the issue. If they haven't killed anyone to start things out there is a very low probability of them deciding to kill someone later without something changing.

I can't say I agree with you there David. I don't think anyone would reliably be able to read a person's intentions, based on their demeanor. In fact, based on FBI studies of serious assaults and murders of officers, a large number of the victims believed they could reliably "read" someone.

An officer has a better capacity to read someone than a civilian does, especially when it comes to intentions, but it certainly isn't an exact or reliable science and certainly nothing to stake your life on.

I still think resistance is the best policy. How about compliance until the first available opportunity to take action from a position of advantage instead of compliance until things appear as if they are going to go bad for you.

j-glock22
06-11-2010, 16:53
Seems like the clerk got caught by suprise at gunpoint. Even if he was carrying, if he's already at gunpoint, there's no way he would be able to draw his own weapon and fend for himself. Thankfully the situation was calm and nobody got hurt. Heck even an LE (God forbid) get caught at gunpoint by suprise he would probably have backup on the way before he would draw his weapon yes?
Seems like the BG was counting more on the mere presence of the shotty to intimidate the clerk into compliance rather than his ability to effectifly handle it.
Glad he got caught.

MTPD
06-11-2010, 17:17
Actually they do, which is just more evidence of how little you know about real police work. It is fairly common to find officers are frequently advised that if they get into something like this. that whenever possible the best response is to wait until the BG is out of the store before attempting to do anything.


I never heard that kind of advice given to officers on my department. I was in charge of multiple armed robbery stake-outs, including one where the officer I had just placed in a liquor store shot and killed an armed robber right in front of the clerk. My standard advice to my stake-out guys was to drop the BG's if they didn't surrender instantly. Why? Because I didn't want any cops or innocent civilians killed or injured by the robbers. If anybody was going down, it was going to be the BG's.

Cirillo's highly successful NYC robbery stake-out crew didn't wait until the BG's left the premises to take them out either. Not surprisingly, Cirillo's SOP was the same as mine, namely to drop armed robbers if they didn't surrender instantly, which he explains in detail in his book.

The problem with the cops waiting for the BG's to leave is that the armed robbers might kill the clerk or other innocent while the cops are on the premises but not doing anything to stop them, then what? Which is exactly what would have happened in the video on this thread where the armed robber shoots the clerk for no reason and with no warning.

David Armstrong
06-11-2010, 22:57
I can't say I agree with you there David. I don't think anyone would reliably be able to read a person's intentions, based on their demeanor.
I'm not saying anyone could (except perhaps the mindreading MTPD here!). Demeanor is only one small part of the process. What they say, how they say it, what are their actions, how do the actions change, what signals do we get and do those signals indicate a change in what he wants to do, and so on.
How about compliance until the first available opportunity to take action from a position of advantage instead of compliance until things appear as if they are going to go bad for you.
Why? Again, the odds are very high that things are going to work out OK. The one sure-fire way to reduce those odds is to increase the force level yourself. Starting a gunfight is rarely a good idea given the fact that gunfights are unpredictable. Even from a position of advantage there is a good chance you will miss your shot, or that if you hit him it will not disable him. If you hit him and disable him, do you know who else in the store may be working with him? Or does he have two friends with shotguns just outside the door where you can't see them? The most common type of armed robber given the traditional typology is the opportunist, and the opportunist frequently works with an accomplice or as part of a group.

As I understand what you are saying, your position of advantage is the result of compliance up to that point. So why mess with something that is working? When it is not working is when one needs to change the program, IMO. Like beatcop said a while back, "I can shoot a lot of crooks, but do I really have to?"

David Armstrong
06-11-2010, 23:09
I never heard that kind of advice given to officers on my department.
Given that virtually every vetted LEO around here has pointed out that your advice is regularly contrary to good LE practices, that would not surprise me.
Cirillo's highly successful NYC robbery stake-out crew didn't wait until the BG's left the premises to take them out either.
Since you don't understand how this stuff works, a planned stakeout takedown of a BG is not at all similar to being surprised by an armed robbery. Also, since you don't seem to understand the difference, the stakeout squad targeted criminals who were already known for being particularly violent, not the normal armed robbers.
Not surprisingly, Cirillo's SOP was the same as mine.
No, it wasn't. Cirillo's was real. BTW, here is that SOP: "Volpato (acting commander of the Stake-Out Squad) was keenly aware of the squad’s undeserved image as ruthless gunmen who cut down armed robbers without mercy. He explained to me earnestly that always,always, the men of the unit issued the standard challenge, “Police! Drop your weapons!” He insisted that they only opened fire after the gunmen they interdicted turned on them with weapons in hand."
The problem with the cops waiting is that the armed robbers might kill the clerk or other innocent while the cops are on the premises but not doing anything to stop them, then what?
And they might kill the clerk or other innocents because the cops are trying to stop them. Then what?
You must have been a cop on some dinky little department where there wasn't any serious crime,....
As opposed to your imaginary "ghetto beat in the most dangerous city in America" mantra? LOL!! But I guess you got me. My last department only had 900 sworn officers. Poor dinky little us.

Glocked-N-Loaded
06-12-2010, 07:52
100% of these highly experienced officers stated that they would drop an armed robber at the first good opportunity rather than risk the posibility of summary execution. So either you are hanging out with sheeple, quoting advice from those who train and advise incompetents or you are making up your stats again?

MTPD, I understand where you are coming from, I do, having worked in law enforcement myself. Do keep in mind however, that the majority of the audience here are not law enforcement or former law enforcement. They likely do not possess the skills learned over a 25-40 year career. For the majority, who are recreational shooters and CC as a means to protect themselves, the best course of action may be to be a great witness and be prepared to react if necessary. YMMV but understand others may as well.

beatcop
06-12-2010, 09:45
You must have been a cop on some dinky little department where there wasn't any serious crime, because you sure don't have a clue about how to handle armed and dangerous felons.


With all due respect, I can google "David Armstrong", how 'bout it? What police Dept are you claiming credible service as a LEO at?

ORI, Class #, PBA location, union, what years were you on?.....anything?

Or was your service deep cover, john doe in the academy, no picture on graduation due to assignment with Treadstone?

MTPD
06-12-2010, 10:24
MTPD, I understand where you are coming from, I do, having worked in law enforcement myself. Do keep in mind however, that the majority of the audience here are not law enforcement or former law enforcement. They likely do not possess the skills learned over a 25-40 year career. For the majority, who are recreational shooters and CC as a means to protect themselves, the best course of action may be to be a great witness and be prepared to react if necessary. YMMV but understand others may as well.

You are right, my advice is for, (1) experienced combat shooters, and (2) those who refuse to be victims.

By the way, participating in combat-style pistol matches is a good way for the inexperienced to learn combat shooting and increase their self-confidence.

MTPD
06-12-2010, 10:31
Armstrong, go to the section of Cirillo's book where one of his new stake-out guys complains that shooting armed robbers the instant they don't surrender is murder. A short time later that same guy is almost killed by an armed robber due to hesitating to shoot first (saved by his vest, if memory serves me correctly) and afterwards admits that he was wrong and Cirillo's "shoot first" advice was right. Then he quits the squad because even after almost being murdered he still wasn't a "shoot first" kind of guy. And, let's face it, some people aren't, even in life/death situations, and I've repeatedly explained that my advice isn't for them.

Cirillo and I operated during the same era, and although we didn't know each other we utilized the same SOP and gave the same advice. Maybe it's a "good olde days" or "combat zone" kind of police thing?

Come to think about it, most of my heroes (Cirillo, Askins, Cooper, etc.) were gunmen from the Olde days.

steveksux
06-12-2010, 11:41
I've long been blessed with the ability to instantly distinguish real shooters from bluffers, and in the second robbery case probably would have somehow "sensed" that the guy was a killer and would have "known" that I had to draw and shoot no matter what the risk. !)Ah, I recognize this advice from prior posts.

Isn't this your patented "Hiding behind a wall of bull****?

Randy

David Armstrong
06-12-2010, 11:47
Armstrong, go to the section of Cirillo's book ....
MTPD, go to Cirillo's book, read it, and then tell us what, if anything, it has to do with responding to the typical armed robbery when you are not doing stakeout squad work. Stakeout squads of this type target a very specific tyoe of criminal and set things up ahead of time to give themselves the advantage and minimize danger, even to the point of modifying the store layout. I know this stuff is foreign to you, but real cops know that when you are in a store, off duty or plainclothes, you don't whip out your gun and start shooting BGs just because you can.

dgg9
06-12-2010, 14:54
I think it must be a very insignificant chance for a bystanders to get shot during an armed robbery in a store as far as stats go or it would be on the news and the libs would be citing the stat in every interview.

I wasn't talking about bystanders shot by the robber when no one intervened; I meant bystanders shot because some MTPD-mall-ninja type escalated the 7/11 robbery into a gunfight.

I suspect the total number of store robberies thwarted by a CCW holders is not a lot, so you don't have useful stats.

dgg9
06-12-2010, 14:59
Bado, Of all the shooting situations in my city where armed robbers were resisted by armed victims, only one civilian got hit and it was only a slight flesh wound. And the guy that got nicked killed the armed robber.

It's amusing how, without fail, MTPD can invent a statistoid -- "EVERY cop who did X prevailed...almost every citizen who did Y prevailed" -- to back up his invented position du jour.

Of course none of it is vetted. Yet MTPD continues the Cliff Claven approach.

Deaf Smith
06-12-2010, 17:54
typical armed robbery

What's that?

Deaf

MTPD
06-13-2010, 06:10
For Dgg, Armstrong, etc., I keep repeating (vainly?) that if refusing to be a victim and shooting first isn't your kind of thing, then my advice isn't for you. Sheep should get their "feel-good" advice from other sheep, and I've never been one.

So if in your heart of hearts you know you are really a sheep, leave your gun at home and trust in the good intentions of armed felons for survival.

MTPD
06-13-2010, 06:16
What's that? [typical armed robbery]

Deaf

Deaf, let me paraphrase Armstrong: a "typical armed robbery" is where good "folks" (that are just like everyone else and have absolutely no intention of shooting anyone) come in with guns drawn demanding money, sex, loot, etc, or your life. :faint::upeyes::faint:

dgg9
06-13-2010, 06:44
For Dgg, Armstrong, etc., I keep repeating (vainly?) that if refusing to be a victim, or shooting first, isn't your kind of thing, then my advice isn't for you.

Actually, if the asinine Internet-machismo of "always escalate a robbery into a gunfight; bystanders' lives be damned" suicidal nonsense isn't your kind of thing, then his advice isn't for you.

Or maybe not. Maybe putting one's fate and the fate of bystanders at risk because one took advice from a posturing wannabe with no vetted background is a solid bet.

Decisions, decisions.

MTPD
06-13-2010, 07:15
Actually, if the asinine Internet-machismo of "always escalate a robbery into a gunfight; bystanders' lives be damned" suicidal nonsense isn't your kind of thing, then his advice isn't for you.

Or maybe not. Maybe putting one's fate and the fate of bystanders at risk because one took advice from a posturing wannabe with no vetted background is a solid bet.

Decisions, decisions.

Your "little people" lies notwithstanding, the truth is that I advocate, "Taking out the BG's at the first "good opportunity". And I usually preface that advice with the admonition that's it's only for competent shooters who refuse to be victims. In other words, it's not advice for incompetents or sheep.

Perhaps I need to explain to the inexperienced (and the sheep) what a "good opportunity" is?

It's when the BG is distracted, looking away, turns his back, puts his gun away or sets it down, changes gun hands, etc. Basically it's a momentary screw-up on the part of the felon allowing the victim the opportunity to draw and shoot, with very little chance of return fire.

Performed correctly by a competent shooter who waits for a "good opportunity", there is very little chance of a "gunfight".

The usual result of a competent shooter taking out the BG at the first good opportunity is that the situation is instantly defused, not escalated. The imaginary "escalation" allegations are result of learned-helplessness, otherwise known as sheep-think.

dgg9
06-13-2010, 08:10
The usual result of a competent shooter taking out the BG at the first good opportunity is that the situation is instantly defused, not escalated.

And your evidence for this claim is ....?

Any attempt on your part to present your usual invented-on-the-spot anecdotes is rejected in advance.

David Armstrong
06-13-2010, 10:44
What's that?
Deaf
You know, it always amazes me when folks talk about a subject, but then have to ask a question about what are some of the most basic issues involving that subject, such as what the normal parameters of that subject would include. And actually, deaf, that jsut goes to prove what I have said many times, that it is useless to provide cites for informtion to you. I've probably offered Rossi and Wrights's "Armed robbers in Action" a half-dozen times or more as a source for learning about robberies. But it is obvious you have never read it, as there is an in-depth discussion of the typical armed robbery on page 10 of the first chapter. So from now on, kindly refrain from asking for citations, as it is obvious you do it only to waste time.

David Armstrong
06-13-2010, 10:47
from MTPD:
So if in your heart of hearts you know you are really a sheep, leave your gun at home and trust in the good intentions of armed felons for survival, like Armstrong advises.
Once again you make up stuff that has never been said. I guess that is because you don't have an intelligent reply to what has actually been said, so you have to make stuff up. Armstrong does not and has not advised leave your gun at home or trust in the good intentions of armed felons for survival. Once again you have confused MTPDfantasyland with reality.
It's when the BG is distracted, looking away, turns his back, puts his gun away or sets it down, changes gun hands, etc. Basically it's a momentary screw-up on the part of the felon allowing the victim the opportunity to draw and shoot, with very little chance of return fire.
So, as I understand it, your "good opportunity" involves a combination of either shooting somebody when they are no longer a threat (puts gun away or sets it down), hoping that you have guessed right regarding his attenion (distraction, looking away), assuming he is ignoring you because he doesn't think you are a threat (turns his back), getting at least a full second, probably two, where you can get your gun out, aim, and take a shot without being noticed (opportunity to draw and shoot) and/or making a low probability shot that instantly incapacitates the BG (little chance of return fire). Of course you also have to include the possibility of multiple BGs, panicked bystanders, and so on.
Performed correctly by a competent shooter who waits for a "good opportunity", there is very little chance of a "gunfight".

Gosh, then I guess all that talk about the NYPD stakeout squad seems rather hollow, given the number of gunfights they were involved in.

MTPD
06-13-2010, 10:47
You know, it always amazes me when folks talk about a subject, but then have to ask a question about what are some of the most basic issues involving that subject, such as what the normal parameters of that subject would include.

Deaf's point, in case you missed it, is that there is no such thing as "a typical armed robbery". :dunno::upeyes::dunno:

David Armstrong
06-13-2010, 11:32
Deaf's point, in case you missed it, is that there is no such thing as "a typical armed robbery".
And my point, since you apparently did miss it, is that there is a typical armed robbery, just as there is a typical for most other events that occur on a regular basis. And anyone who does not understand what is typical for an event probably should refrain from talking about what to do in that event, since it is clear they don't really understand it.

Deaf Smith
06-13-2010, 16:41
Why I admit there is so much I don't understand about these leave-it-to-beaver 'typical armed robberies'. Do these robbers carry average guns? Or are they of average height? Are they 'average joes'?

I guess it's sort of like the '1.5 shots fired' (or is it 2.5 shots fired, or 6 or..) in defensive shootings. Do we only carry 1.5 rounds, or 3 or 6... take your pick, so as to make the average?

Do we plan on that 'typical armed robbery' being the one WE are involved in (and carry only the average amount of ammo) or ASSUME it will turn out the 'average' way?

You see guys, it is so confusing!

Deaf

dgg9
06-13-2010, 20:19
Do these robbers carry average guns? Or are they of average height? Are they 'average joes'?

Does this really matter? In terms of escalation to murder, we have reasonably sound numbers.

I guess it's sort of like the '1.5 shots fired' (or is it 2.5 shots fired, or 6 or..) in defensive shootings. Do we only carry 1.5 rounds, or 3 or 6... take your pick, so as to make the average?

But not really the best comparison. You only pay a small penalty for carrying more ammo. But when you escalate a robbery into a gunfight, that's a huge decision to make. You're essentially deciding for everyone else in the store that you believe that the odds of everyone surviving the gunfight you started are better than the roughly 1 in 450 odds that the BG will escalate to murder on his own. The trade-off is people could die if you do X and they could die if you do Y. Doesn't it seem obvious you want to know how likely certain events are?

Think about it. If EVERY store robbery turned into murder, then you'd always escalate. If NO store robbery turned into murder, and there are bystanders, it would hard to justify choosing to escalate. Of course, the real number is somewhere between the two extremes. Isn't it important to have some idea?

MTPD
06-14-2010, 06:40
And my point, since you apparently did miss it, is that there is a typical armed robbery, just as there is a typical for most other events that occur on a regular basis. And anyone who does not understand what is typical for an event probably should refrain from talking about what to do in that event, since it is clear they don't really understand it.

Do I hear the sound of one hand clapping? :dunno:

MTPD
06-14-2010, 06:42
Dgg,

Escalate! Escalate! All you talk about is escalation. Fact is, "typical" dead armed robbers don't escalate anything.

dgg9
06-14-2010, 07:48
Dgg,

Escalate! Escalate! All you talk about is escalation. Fact is, "typical" dead armed robbers don't escalate anything.

Handgun rounds are notoriously poor stoppers. Oh, that's right -- to support your Walter Mitty fantasies about thwarting 7/11 robberies, you needed to invent fantasies that handgun rounds are instant incapacitaters.

And your evidence for this claim is ....?

Any attempt on your part to present your usual invented-on-the-spot anecdotes is rejected in advance.

Glocked-N-Loaded
06-14-2010, 07:49
MTPD, just please do us all a favor and post your qualifications and credentials, perhaps some references, so as to validate your advice. Why would you not post this information when requested? It would serve to shut up anyone who is questioning your advice.

David Armstrong
06-14-2010, 09:15
Why I admit there is so much I don't understand about these leave-it-to-beaver 'typical armed robberies'. Do these robbers carry average guns? Or are they of average height? Are they 'average joes'?I guess it's sort of like the '1.5 shots fired' (or is it 2.5 shots fired, or 6 or..) in defensive shootings. Do we only carry 1.5 rounds, or 3 or 6... take your pick, so as to make the average?
Just like there is a typical work day for most, and a typical commute, and a typical dining experience (within categories), and a typical grocery shopping trip, and so on, there is a typical armed robbery. And no, you don't "take your pick, so as to make the average." You use the average as a tool to help determine what the norms are so you can develop a plan based on reality instead of fantasy.
You see guys, it is so confusing!
Not really, unless one wishes to make it so. It actually seems very simple for most folks, IME.

Deaf Smith
06-14-2010, 17:05
And you know guys, some of those "typical armed robbers" do get shot...

Clayton Cramer has a pretty interesting list of 'em.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/


And if these 'typical armed robbers' are so typicaly out only for a bit of lunch money then why 'typical armed VERY WELL TRAINED citizens' should not stop them?

See if one's 'plan' is based on reality, then part of that reality is factoring in one’s own skills and training as well as those of the 'typical armed robbers'.

Amazing thing is, from Cramer's work, sure seems alot of 'typical armed robbers' don't do so well.

Deaf

David Armstrong
06-15-2010, 15:25
And you know guys, some of those "typical armed robbers" do get shot.
So what? As nobody has ever suggested otherwise, that seems fairly irrelevant to the discussion.
And if these 'typical armed robbers' are so typicaly out only for a bit of lunch money then why 'typical armed VERY WELL TRAINED citizens' should not stop them?

Once again, as nobody has suggested that armed robbers are typically out only for a bit of lunch money, one has to wonder why you would bring it up. Not only does it seem irrelevant, it is also factually incorrect. As for the citizens, well, one can start with the idea that relatively few typical armed citizens have had much, if any, training in stopping armed robberies. Being well trained in how to shoot a target does not automatically translate into being well trained in getting through a gunfight. The growth of FoF has helped in that regard somewhat, but even with that we have seen instances, such as we just saw here, where a supposedly well trained individual didn't even know what was involved in the typical armed robbery.
Amazing thing is, from Cramer's work, sure seems alot of 'typical armed robbers' don't do so well.
Given that the site is based on successful DGUs it isn't amazing at all.

Deaf Smith
06-15-2010, 20:28
Wonder if these are 'typical' robbers who got shot by 'typical' clerks, pawnshop oweners and civilans? Sure are alot of them if you just Google ‘store robber shot’.

Why in fact I have a much harder time finding where the shootouts turn bad (and considering the bias of the press, that IS an indicator.) Many of the news articles where the robber shoots someone it turns out no one resisted!

I wonder how many of these citizens were 'trained'....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pawnbroker-shoots-20100608,0,6719263.story

Man shot, killed during robbery attempt, police say
Authorities say a pawnshop owner opened fire on three men who were trying to rob his store

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/liquor.store.robber.2.1442650.html
Liquor Store Robber Shot And Killed By Clerk

http://www.examiner.com/x-18149-SelfDefense-Examiner~y2010m4d30-Antiques-store-robber-shot-by-armed-manager

Antiques store robber shot by armed manager

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2010/04/12/san-angelo-tx-jewely-store-robber-shot-by-armed-employee/

San Angelo, TX Jewely Store Robber Shot by Armed Employee

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/2373606,pawnshop-robbery-suspect-shot-060910.article

Suspected robber shot, killed at Northwest Side pawnshop

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/grand_rapids/Man-gets-shot-after-robbing-party-store

Convenience store robber shot by clerk

MTPD
06-16-2010, 06:47
MTPD, just please do us all a favor and post your qualifications and credentials, perhaps some references, so as to validate your advice. Why would you not post this information when requested? It would serve to shut up anyone who is questioning your advice.


GNL, nothing will shut up disingenuous nay-sayers. :supergrin:

Perhaps you've noticed that almost no one posts their personal info on GT. However, if you would like to post yours, go right ahead.

It's been my observation that "good advice" will be recognized by those who are looking for it, and doesn't need any outside validation. However, I also understand that what's good advice for those who refuse to be victims might not be good advice for the "sheep-think" crowd, and vice-versa. Which is why my advice appeals to people with vastly different mind-sets than Armstrong's does.

dgg9
06-16-2010, 07:46
Perhaps you've noticed that almost no one posts their personal info on GT.

You'll also notice that almost no one, except you, bases 100% of his argument on claimed personal anecdotes. Since your bizarre claims have absolutely no basis other than your say-so, don't be too surprised people want evidence.

It's been my observation that "good advice" will be recognized by those who are looking for it, and doesn't need any outside validation.

The problem here is that virtually every vetted cop and in fact virtually every sane T&T poster knows you're completely FOS, and your advice runs 100% counter to their advice.

dgg9
06-16-2010, 07:48
Wonder if these are 'typical' robbers who got shot by 'typical' clerks, pawnshop oweners and civilans? Sure are alot of them if you just Google ‘store robber shot’.

"A lot?" You posted a half dozen or so. Do you know how many armed robberies there are in the US each year?

MTPD
06-16-2010, 08:51
"GNL, nothing will shut up disingenuous nay-sayers."

dgg9
06-16-2010, 09:04
Read dgg's posts and see what I mean.

Yes, read them, then read what every cop on GT says about MTPD. Also read MTPD's posts and see if he ever, at any time, offers anything to support his positions other than invented-on-the-spot anecdotes.

Then ask yourself if any of the truly BTDT types you know spend all their time bragging and posturing about their exploits.

My prediction is that most rational people will conclude that MTPD is a poseur, here simply to preen and grandstand.

MTPD
06-16-2010, 09:59
Any time you wish to publish your "expert" credentials, feel free to do so. I have, many times.

dgg9
06-16-2010, 10:29
Dgg, if you haven't got anything of value to contribute,

Exposing frauds and charlatans is extremely valuable.

Oh, and any time you wish to publish your "expert" credentials, feel free to do so. I have, many times.

You have extruded a totally unvetted set of claims, but you have NEVER supported those claims. You seem to think "publish expert credentials" = make up a background.

I have never claimed expert credentials, but then, none of my positions comes from special claims about my background.

MTPD
06-16-2010, 10:51
Exposing frauds and charlatans is extremely valuable.



You have extruded a totally unvetted set of claims, but you have NEVER supported those claims. You seem to think "publish expert credentials" = make up a background.

I have never claimed expert credentials, but then, none of my positions comes from special claims about my background.

You're not an expert and don't want to post your credentials? What a surprise! :rofl::faint::rofl:

dgg9
06-16-2010, 10:56
You're not an expert and don't want to post your credentials? What a surprise! :rofl::faint::rofl:

You're not an expert and you haven't posted vetted credentials.

The only difference is, I'm not lying about my background.

Glocked-N-Loaded
06-16-2010, 12:45
It seems Mr. Ayoob posts on GT correct? In the GATE section? His credentials are never questioned and rightfully so, perhaps we should ask him about this ehh? No one is saying post your name and street address MTPD. What departments have you worked with and during what time periods and with what divisions or special assignments?

David Armstrong
06-16-2010, 14:51
Wonder if these are 'typical' robbers who got shot by 'typical' clerks, pawnshop oweners and civilans? Sure are alot of them if you just Google ‘store robber shot’.

No, there are not a lot of them. Again, if you wold take the time to check out the facts instead of basing responses on anecdote and uninformed opinion things will go a little better. literally, by definition, if a shooting occurs ON EITHER SIDE the robbery is not typical. It becomes one of the rare exceptions.

David Armstrong
06-16-2010, 15:01
from MTPD:
GNL, nothing will shut up disingenuous nay-sayers.
Of course, if you confuse "figure out what is the best response for each situation" the equivalent of nay-saying, that is a big part of the problem.
Perhaps you've noticed that almost no one posts their personal info on GT.
But many do post their personal info, or at least pertinent parts of it. More importantly, many of those who do not post personal info do post advice and information that leads others to recognize them as "the real thing." Others, however, hide behind the internet and make many claims about their background, but those who are vetted almost unanimously say nobody with that claimed backgound would say certain things or make certain mistakes.
It's been my observation that "good advice" will be recognized by those who are looking for it, and doesn't need any outside validation.
And as your "advice" has been rejected by almost all the recognized BTDT people here, that should tell you something.
Which is why my advice appeals to people with vastly different mind-sets than Armstrong's does.
I would hope so. My advice is that one consider all aspects of a situation and respond in a way that minimizes the loss, escalating where needed based on good tactics and understanding. Yours seems to be shoot whenever you can and create as many problems as you can.
Oh, and any time you wish to publish your "expert" credentials, feel free to do so. I have, many times.
Correction: You have CLAIMED expert credentials, but so far all the evidence indicates that your creds are a fignment of your imagination, made up out of whole cloth. Several of your claims have been found to be false by known officers:
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1215573&highlight=MTPD

talon
06-16-2010, 15:02
"A lot?" You posted a half dozen or so. Do you know how many armed robberies there are in the US each year?

Actually it "seems" like alot to me also. 10 years ago I "never" read about the goodguys resisting and winning. Now it seems like I read about one every day.

i.e saw this one today

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/15/2266462/2-dead-in-robbery-attempt-at-mesquite.html

dgg9
06-16-2010, 15:43
Actually it "seems" like alot to me also. 10 years ago I "never" read about the goodguys resisting and winning. Now it seems like I read about one every day.

People have defended themselves against armed attackers all along. You can read such accounts in many places.

What the ongoing debate has been is: does one, as a bystander, escalate a store robbery as a FIRST option?

Bado
06-16-2010, 15:52
The thread is about a store clerk not a bystander.

Now this guy had a REAL sawed off shotgun.

But notice how he handles it. I feel there were many opportunities to either draw on him or take it away from him H2H.

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12590134

Watch the 37 second version. No commercials or anything.



Deaf

dgg9
06-16-2010, 16:13
The thread is about a store clerk not a bystander.

Fair enough. But the ongoing T&T meta-debate, across many threads over many months, is MTPD's insistence that bystanders in store robberies must always start a gunfight as soon as possible.

But even for the direct victim, as opposed to bystander, the basic facts are the same: most robberies do not end in murder, so you have to intelligently weigh the totality of the event.

Deaf Smith
06-16-2010, 17:40
"A lot?" You posted a half dozen or so. Do you know how many armed robberies there are in the US each year?

Well dgg9, if I had to cut-n-paste as many as I find this would be an awful long post! Google did find an awful lot, and so did Bing!

Plus these are the ones that RESISTED, see some do resist, some don't....

I'm finding a quite surprising number of store owners, clerks, and bystanders do resist, and most seem to be successful. And I doubt many are highly trained, so just imagine if they were highly trained!

Now I’m not saying to resist is everyone’s top best option, but it seems they win far more often than they lose.

And thus the more you study what happens in a robbery, as shown on videos, the better you are prepared if you come across such a situation.

Deaf

dgg9
06-16-2010, 17:44
I'm finding a quite surprising number of store owners, clerks, and bystanders do resist, and most seem to be successful.

....

Now I’m not saying to resist is everyone’s top best option, but it seems they win far more often than they lose.


And you know this ...how? Please don't tell me you're drawing conclusions about the thousands and thousands of robberies each year based on the anecdotes the press has released.

the more you study what happens in a robbery, as shown on videos, the better you are prepared if you come across such a situation.

That's useful information, sure. But a small sample of the kind of events that get taped isn't the complete picture.

snevel
06-16-2010, 19:31
But even for the direct victim, as opposed to bystander, the basic facts are the same: most robberies do not end in murder, so you have to intelligently weigh the totality of the event.

I really, REALLY wish someone would actually address those aspects of the "totality of the event" that an informed person can observe to determine when armed resistance is warranted.

I for one am getting really tired of all the bickering on this thread and am really hungry for some information I can actually use.

Simeon

dgg9
06-16-2010, 20:21
I really, REALLY wish someone would actually address those aspects of the "totality of the event" that an informed person can observe to determine when armed resistance is warranted.

This has been explored in many threads in this T&T forum. Search engine would be most beneficial.

MTPD
06-16-2010, 23:05
snevel, the problem is that what you are asking for isn't possible. There isn't any way for those who have "been there" to teach others how know when it is time to draw and shoot in a short post. It's more of an innate mindset and street-smarts kind of thing in the mind of the targeted victim, rather than some kind of exterior "indicator" displayed by the felon. Basically, you either have it and know what to do, or you don't. Which is why "Sheep-Think" people like Armstrong & dgg don't understand it.

However, having said that, I think it's possible to acquire the proper mindset. Jeff Cooper's short but excellent book, Principles of Personal Defense is a good place to start the learning process.

dgg9
06-17-2010, 05:15
snevel, the problem is that what you are asking for isn't possible. There isn't any way for those who have "been there" to teach others how know when it is time to draw and shoot in a short post. It's more of an innate mindset and street-smarts kind of thing in the mind of the targeted victim, rather than some kind of exterior "indicator" displayed by the felon. Basically, you either have it and know what to do, or you don't. Which is why "Sheep-Think" people like Armstrong & dgg don't understand it.

However, having said that, I think it's possible to acquire the proper mindset. Jeff Cooper's short but excellent book, Principles of Personal Defense is a good place to start the learning process.

snevel -- PoPD is indeed a good read, but a quicker read is this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1215573&highlight=MTPD

....which will tell you all you need to know about the value of MTPD's advice.

MTPD
06-17-2010, 07:29
snevel -- PoPD is indeed a good read...

I must be really screwing up if the #1 Character Assassinator & Nay-Sayer on GT agrees with me on something!!! :faint::supergrin::faint:

dgg9
06-17-2010, 07:33
the #1 Character Assassinator & Nay-Sayer on GT

You forgot "exposer of frauds and charlatans."

David Armstrong
06-17-2010, 09:57
I'm finding a quite surprising number of store owners, clerks, and bystanders do resist, and most seem to be successful.
Gosh, I guess that sums it up. The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong and somebody on GT who read some stories on the internet is right. Hard to argue with that!

David Armstrong
06-17-2010, 10:08
I really, REALLY wish someone would actually address those aspects of the "totality of the event" that an informed person can observe to determine when armed resistance is warranted.
I for one am getting really tired of all the bickering on this thread and am really hungry for some information I can actually use.
Simeon
You should have already gotten some information you can use. You should have gotten information that there is no specific "totality of the event" that determines when armed resistance is warranted. You should have got the information that this is a fairly complex issue, unless you want to adopt the "I'm going to start a gunfight any chance I get whether it is needed or not" MTPD school of tactical thought. You should have got the information that there is a lot of research out there to look at that will help you learn how robberies go down and how to respond. You should have got the information that most professionals suggest compliance with the armed robber as the response least likely to lead to injury.

Bado
06-17-2010, 20:32
Gosh, I guess that sums it up. The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong and somebody on GT who read some stories on the internet is right. Hard to argue with that!


I have never seen a stat on successful/unsuccessful resistance with a firearm by a store clerk or patron for that matter. Seems like it would be a good idea to have statistics on that. Is there one?

If all we have to go on is video of in store robberies on security cams and news articles then it make the successful resistance number high with nothing to dispute it.

Deaf Smith
06-17-2010, 21:39
Gosh, I guess that sums it up. The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong and somebody on GT who read some stories on the internet is right. Hard to argue with that!

Yea david, so you are saying the FBI has stats that show those that resist with firearms in robberies do badly? YES or NO?

And these 'stories' were not some internet gosip, but news paper articles david, you do know the difference, right?

Deaf

Deaf Smith
06-17-2010, 21:44
And you know this ...how? Please don't tell me you're drawing conclusions about the thousands and thousands of robberies each year based on the anecdotes the press has released.

No, just those that have people resist the robberies dgg9. Especially those resisting with gunfire.


That's useful information, sure. But a small sample of the kind of events that get taped isn't the complete picture.

I doubt every incident of victims resisting is taped (or even all robberies.)

And yes it is useful information. Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, has had something like 54 students in gun fights and ALL have succeeded. And that is useful information to!

Deaf

MTPD
06-18-2010, 04:14
Gosh, I guess that sums it up. The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong and somebody on GT who read some stories on the internet is right. Hard to argue with that!

And we are supposed to believe your opinion of alleged stats that we not only haven't seen, but haven't investigated the motives or methodology involved? :upeyes::rofl::upeyes:

MTPD
06-18-2010, 04:17
In my experience, those who continuously rely on stats (real or mythical) are at a loss for what to do when involved in real-world life/death situations. Why? Because statistics are the last refuge of those who refuse, or are psychologically unable, to confront reality!

That being the case, I avoid statistic-based survival advice like the plague.

MTPD
06-18-2010, 05:07
(1) Once again you make up stuff... Armstrong does not and has not advised...trust in the good intentions of armed felons for survival.

(2)...Gosh, then I guess all that talk about the NYPD stakeout squad seems rather hollow, given the number of gunfights they were involved in.

(1) Sure you have, lots of times. But maybe you don't understand what your advice really means?

(2) I define a "gunfight" as both sides giving and taking fire. In Cirillo's book (about his NYC stake-out activities) I only remember two "gunfights" described. I think what you call "gunfights" were really just "shooting situations" where the officers dropped the BG's without the BG's being able to shoot back (which is the right way to do it, IMO). According to my recolection, the NYC stake-out squad was in a lot of "shooting situations", but very few "gunfights". And there is a BIG difference between the two.

dgg9
06-18-2010, 05:31
No, just those that have people resist the robberies dgg9. Especially those resisting with gunfire.

So that's a "yes" that you're drawing sweeping conclusions from your self-selected articles (you didn't even try to find unsuccessful cases). You looked for only those scenarios which confirm your worldview and left it at that.

dgg9
06-18-2010, 05:32
In my experience,

And of course any MTPD post that uses that phrase is instantly dismissed as worthless.

MTPD
06-18-2010, 06:43
So that's a "yes" that you're drawing sweeping conclusions from your self-selected articles (you didn't even try to find unsuccessful cases). You looked for only those scenarios which confirm your worldview and left it at that.

All of the people who resisted armed robbers in my city were successful = 100% success rate. Of those that didn't resist, quite a few were raped, raped & murdered, or just plain executed for no apparent reason.

But dgg, if you want to be a sheep, go right ahead. My only question is why you feel called upon to drag others into sheepdom with you?

It it one of those "Cowardice loves company" kind of things? :dunno:

dgg9
06-18-2010, 06:45
All of the people who resisted armed robbers in my city were successful = 100% success rate.

You can't even be bothered making up a decent lie anymore. But then, since no one believes your fabrications anyway, why bother with a plausible anecdote?

David Armstrong
06-18-2010, 10:00
I have never seen a stat on successful/unsuccessful resistance with a firearm by a store clerk or patron for that matter. Seems like it would be a good idea to have statistics on that. Is there one?
On that particular statistic? Not that I'm aware of. What we do have are numerous studies that show most armed robberies do not lead to injury, that most injuries are the result of non-compliance, and that most armed robbers prefer not to injure their victims.

David Armstrong
06-18-2010, 10:07
Yea david, so you are saying the FBI has stats that show those that resist with firearms in robberies do badly? YES or NO?
No, I am not saying that, and have not said that.
And these 'stories' were not some internet gosip, but news paper articles david, you do know the difference, right?
Yes, I do, and never said otherwise. I said "read some stories on the internet". You do understand what "read some stories on the internet" means, right?

David Armstrong
06-18-2010, 10:10
And we are supposed to believe your opinion of alleged stats that we not only haven't seen, but haven't investigated the motives or methodology involved? :upeyes::rofl::upeyes:
Well, if you would have done the slightest bit of research on this issue to find out the facts, you would know that information. Given that you don't, that pretty much shows us that you have not the slightest bit of knowledge concerning the facts of armed robbery and the research that has gone into it.

(1) Sure you have, lots of times. But maybe you don't understand what your advice really means?
Given that you consistently and regularly misstate not only what I have said but also what it means, and given your penchant for making things up, I think we can pretty well ignore any such statements from you.

David Armstrong
06-18-2010, 10:12
In my experience, those who continuously rely on stats (real or mythical) are at a loss for what to do when involved in real-world life/death situations. Why? Because statistics are the last refuge of those who refuse, or are psychologically unable, to confront reality!

That being the case, I avoid statistic-based survival advice like the plague.

Given the quality of your tactical advice, which has been regularly and routinely rejected by most vetted LEOs here, it is not a surprise that you do not know how to analyze and understand how stats inform us of what reality is.

MTPD
06-18-2010, 10:26
Given the quality of your tactical advice, which has been regularly and routinely rejected by most vetted LEOs here, it is not a surprise that you do not know how to analyze and understand how stats inform us of what reality is.

I've got a question. Do the armed robbers & killers read the same statistics you do? And if not, how in the world do they know what to do? I mean, if a smart guy like you doesn't know what to do without the aid of statistics, how are dumb-as-rocks criminals supposed to know? :dunno:

David Armstrong
06-18-2010, 10:45
I've got a question. Do the armed robbers & killers read the same statistics you do? And if not, how in the world do they know what to do? I mean, if a smart guy like you doesn't know what to do without the aid of statistics, how are dumb-as-rocks criminals supposed to know? :dunno:

And once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the role and use of research and statistics in the study of crime and criminal events (and other things)!

MTPD
06-19-2010, 04:59
And once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the role and use of research and statistics in the study of crime and criminal events (and other things)!

Perhaps you have finally stumbled on the answer to why we disagree. You are talking about a broad "study of crime", while I'm talking about taking out one particular armed felon at the first good opportunity (namely, the one who is in the act of victimizing me & mine).

You are talking Ivory Tower classroom theory, I'm talking up close and personal street reality. Two different things.

Deaf Smith
06-19-2010, 07:23
Perhaps you have finally stumbled on the answer to why we disagree. You are talking about a broad "study of crime", while I'm talking about taking out one particular armed felon at the first good opportunity (namely, the one who is in the act of victimizing me & mine).

You are talking Ivory Tower classroom theory, I'm talking up close and personal street reality. Two different things.

MTPD,

david is a learned man! Go by the stats! It will save your life. DON'T resist if the robber is a 'typical' one like this one!!

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/06/18/man_attempts_to_hold_up_gas_st.html

Man attempts to hold up gas station with caulk gun

Deaf

MTPD
06-19-2010, 07:45
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, the olde caulking gun trick!

David Armstrong
06-19-2010, 11:25
You are talking Ivory Tower classroom theory, I'm talking up close and personal street reality.
No, I'm talking about advice given by virtually every recognized profesional in the field, LE organizations, security consultants, researchers, etc. You are talking about something you have made up.