Clerk was apparently not charged according to 19-page discussion here.
Swift,decisive and violent action will do the trick and this guy has the skills. Nice shootin', champ.
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:24 am
by Testiculese
Should have walked outside and kicked him in the balls too.
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:54 am
by Zuruck
What kind of reaction time did the robber have if he showed the man his gun and didn't get off a round before the clerk went under the desk and pulled out a gun? What's the point here anyways? Nearly all places of business have to be insured for monetary loss, now what's the point of putting yourself in danger? The man wants the money? Give it to him, next time the man might not be so lucky and get a round in the skull.
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:11 am
by Will Robinson
Zuruck wrote:What kind of reaction time did the robber have if he showed the man his gun and didn't get off a round before the clerk went under the desk and pulled out a gun? What's the point here anyways? Nearly all places of business have to be insured for monetary loss, now what's the point of putting yourself in danger? The man wants the money? Give it to him, next time the man might not be so lucky and get a round in the skull.
My buddies and I used to play a game where we'd load a .44 mag with a case that only had a primer in it..basically a blank (still very dangerous if you get too close to the end of the muzzle). We'd start out by aiming it at one of us in the classic Hands up position. Then the goal is to disarm the gumman without being 'shot'...
You'd be surprised how many times we were able to get a hand on the barrel and shove it aside to avoid being shot'. Almost everytime the first person to move wins the race. And that was with the gunman ready to fire as soon as he saw movement!
Now imagine the gunman purposely mentally hesitating to allow the victim to rumage around in a drawer thinking he was going to retrieve some money for him, not allowed to shoot until he determined if the victim produced a gun or the money. I bet I'd win that one everytime....
**(DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!!! IT'S DANGEROUS!!)**
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:16 pm
by Fusion pimp
Nearly all places of business have to be insured for monetary loss, now what's the point of putting yourself in danger? The man wants the money? Give it to him, next time the man might not be so lucky and get a round in the skull.
Z,
in some cases I would say giving him the money would be the best option, it's only money.
In any instance where I have the opportunity to defend myself, I will. He came in with a firearm demanding money. Is the gun a prop, or does he intend to use it? I'm not leaving it up to him.
Basically, you're suggesting I lay my life in someone elses hands(the criminals) by being able to defend myself and not doing so. No chance!
It's sort of interesting how, over the years we've been indoctrinated to believe that if we give them what they want, we won't get hurt. What if he wants to hurt us too? He's already displayed verbal force(precursor to physical violence)and has attempted to take control by emotional attack by way of non-verbal threats of physical harm and/or death by presenting a firearm.
Comes in from the dark
in a mask to hide his identity
aggressive posture
Gains control
demands money
presents a firearm
Am I supposed to assume he's going to respect my will to live? Remember, i've already suffered the indignity of his assault. Will he respect that imaginary line that separates an armed robber from a murderer? Does he really *just* want money? At what pointy will this assault stop?
I'm not leaving it up to him.
It would be nice if every criminal who threatened physical harm to manipulate would really never follow through with physical harm. But then they wouldn't be very effective, would they?
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:29 pm
by Birdseye
I agree with you in principal fusionpimp, but in practice I think statistically when someone fights back an intruder with a gun or other force, they have a higher probability of being injured or killed than just giving the money.
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:20 pm
by Cuda68
Birdseye wrote:I agree with you in principal fusionpimp, but in practice I think statistically when someone fights back an intruder with a gun or other force, they have a higher probability of being injured or killed than just giving the money.
We have been trained to roll over and give crooks whatever they want. This to me is wrong. It only provides an easy way out for people who are in financial trouble vrs them getting a second job, cutting back on expenses and just plain sucking it up and doing the right thing. I firmly agree people should fight back and use deadly force if they are armed.
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:04 pm
by CUDA
Cuda68 wrote:
Birdseye wrote:I agree with you in principal fusionpimp, but in practice I think statistically when someone fights back an intruder with a gun or other force, they have a higher probability of being injured or killed than just giving the money.
We have been trained to roll over and give crooks whatever they want. This to me is wrong. It only provides an easy way out for people who are in financial trouble vrs them getting a second job, cutting back on expenses and just plain sucking it up and doing the right thing. I firmly agree people should fight back and use deadly force if they are armed.
X2 Must be the name thing
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:05 pm
by Fusion pimp
I agree with you in principal fusionpimp, but in practice I think statistically when someone fights back an intruder with a gun or other force, they have a higher probability of being injured or killed than just giving the money.
I believe they have a higher probability simply because violence enters the equation.How's that for stating the obvious?
Let's assume there's a 20% chance that he's going to harm you after you give him the loot. Is 20% comfy? if not, what % is comfy? The answer to me is- 0.The purpose of this excercise is who has the best chance of survival not knowing what the other guy is thinking. I appreciate it when my life is at risk(his obviously was) and the odds are in my favor. The only way to make it in my favor is to take control of the outcome by striking first, hard and fast. Cruel? maybe.
Will is exactly right.
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:53 pm
by WillyP
Shoot first... answer questions later...
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:29 pm
by Nirvana
He shoulda finished him off.
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:35 pm
by Genghis
Birdseye wrote:I agree with you in principal fusionpimp, but in practice I think statistically when someone fights back an intruder with a gun or other force, they have a higher probability of being injured or killed than just giving the money.
You can't talk statistics to us, Birds. Statistics are for the dumb masses but the CCW holders on this board are all extremely competent, well-trained, and safe. Stats don't apply to us.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:21 am
by Fusion pimp
I didn't want to say it that way for fear of sounding overconfident, but G is right.
He's so right that I would venture to say that the odds are in our favor since most CCW holders take thier responsibility seriously and train. That criminal really stood no chance once he hesitated, they're almost always untrained.
Something I forgot- The shooter was well trained and held a combat masters cert and was a firearms safety instructor.
The criminal got 7 years by way of plea-bargin, but made it clear to the court that he intended to kill them.
You can go to ar15.com and read all 23 pages if you're interested.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:22 pm
by Zuruck
I was playing Buckhunter last night at the bar, I had multiple perfect sites and was very accurate in the bonus rounds. Criminals don't stand a chance.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:08 pm
by Birdseye
OK, so stats don't apply but:
\"I believe they have a higher probability simply because violence enters the equation.How's that for stating the obvious?\"
So... ?
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:46 pm
by Fusion pimp
lol@ Zuruck- I hope you don't think people like us practice on video games. That won't do you a lick of good.
Bird,
uhhh, that was sort of my point. What you said was so obvious. Of course they have a higher probability of being injured if they chose to fight back, violence enters the equation. How could you possibly be injured if there was no violence? That doesn't mean we should roll over with our pants down and *assume* we're not going to get screwed.
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:08 pm
by Behemoth
All 3 shots fired hit the bad guy so im sure it was not luck z.
I applaud the fact that the man did not let the would be thief take advantage of the fact there was a mother and child standing right next to him.
Re:
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:26 pm
by Testiculese
Nirvana wrote:He shoulda finished him off.
Knowing Nirvy's style, I don't want that image!
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:38 pm
by Fusion pimp
Moth, you have to understand that Zuruck has no understanding of firearms or the value of training. See, in his world people lay over and hope(not pray, mind you) the criminal is nice enough to let him live.
In his world, nobody is qualified 'cept law enforecement to even own, let alone carry a firearm.
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:55 pm
by Ferno
Z, the rules change completely when you have a gun shoved in your face.
your mind goes from nice mode to 'I hope I survive the next ten seconds' mode.
home invasions do that to ya.
\"I was playing Buckhunter last night at the bar, I had multiple perfect sites and was very accurate in the bonus rounds. Criminals don't stand a chance.\"
Try doing that with adrenaline pumping through you.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:36 am
by Suncho
I think guns should explode and kill you when you try to fire them. That'll teach people not to use guns. ;)
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:11 pm
by Gooberman
Sarcasm is golden.
Re:
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:04 pm
by Behemoth
Gooberman wrote:Sarcasm is golden.
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:39 pm
by Zuruck
I'm down with guns, I'm just not down with internet junkies with nothing better to do buying thirty guns and acting like they're Delta Force, which is the idea I get from the way most of you post. I'm reminded of the scene in Boogie Nights where Cheadle is going to get his pregnant wife a dougnut and a man holds up the place. Well hillbilly Ted decides to pull out the .45 and three people end up dying, when the money could have been given and most likely, not a single death. Instead, two bystanders and the perp are blown away...Hollywood? Maybe, but real life as well.
Re:
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:44 pm
by Ferno
Zuruck wrote:I'm down with guns, I'm just not down with internet junkies with nothing better to do buying thirty guns and acting like they're Delta Force, which is the idea I get from the way most of you post. I'm reminded of the scene in Boogie Nights where Cheadle is going to get his pregnant wife a dougnut and a man holds up the place. Well hillbilly Ted decides to pull out the .45 and three people end up dying, when the money could have been given and most likely, not a single death. Instead, two bystanders and the perp are blown away...Hollywood? Maybe, but real life as well.
LOL
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:46 pm
by Birdseye
ok, I guess I would just stick with the statistics and try not to get hurt... just me though, I'd rather stay in one piece.
Re:
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:00 pm
by fliptw
Birdseye wrote:ok, I guess I would just stick with the statistics and try not to get hurt... just me though, I'd rather stay in one piece.
statistics intreptations require assumptions, and you're general assumption that your saftey is ensured by complying with the perp - not a good assumption. If you ever get in a situation like the one were are discussing, you are automatically a witness, and a liabilty to the perp.
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:11 pm
by DCrazy
Though I'm pretty sure it's been shown that victims of armed robbery who comply with the perp, on average, survive more often. The logical argument is that the perp doesn't really want to shoot you as much as s/he wants the money and a quick exit.
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:45 pm
by RoBoT
Any crook that holds up any place with any gun only wants to take teh cash and run; he's not expecting anybody to make it any harder for him to do either. The \"good\" robbers watch the people around them, make sure no one tries anything.
If somebody held up a store I was in, I would:
A: Mess my britches.
B: Hit the deck.
C: Stay there until he leaves.
D: Hope I can get a shot at the license plates on his getaway vehicle. (As in seeing, not shooting )
If I were in a video game, I'd:
A: Use an invincibility cheat,
B: follow it up with an all/infinite-weapons cheat,
C: Arm the biggest gun I've got,
D: Pull back on R1.
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:10 pm
by Fusion pimp
I'm down with guns, I'm just not down with internet junkies with nothing better to do buying thirty guns and acting like they're Delta Force, which is the idea I get from the way most of you post.
Firearms are a hobby just like anything else. How many firearms a person has has nothing to do with the person thinking they're Delta Force. I laugh every time I post a firearm topic because I know you'll soon follow with some anti-firearm/anti-protect yourself comment.
Zuruck, lie to yourself, but don't lie to me.. you're totally anti-firearm. Being anti-firearm isn't a bad thing so don't take it that way. But, because you are not familiar with how effective a **trained**person can be with a firearm you can't assume that we're all Barney Fiff.
If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, Delta force, etc. is only effective because they train- something any civilian with a desire can do.
Instruction and repetition produce results in anyone with a desire.
They're not hybrid-super humans, don't make it sound so magical.
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:31 pm
by Cuda68
Here is what happens when you just hand over the loot.
Although it says it is rare that this happens, it does happen even though you offer no resistance. The other intersting point it mentions, is that roberies are up %39 from last year. I think its only going to get worse if the economy does not improve
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:33 pm
by Fusion pimp
Though I'm pretty sure it's been shown that victims of armed robbery who comply with the perp, on average, survive more often. The logical argument is that the perp doesn't really want to shoot you as much as s/he wants the money and a quick exit.
Statistically, you're most likely correct. Then again, tell that to the minority who became a statistic..
My job as an instructor is to properly arm and educate people on firearm safety and how to effectively defend yourself. Of course I'm going to suggest purchasing and training with your weapon so that if the stats every shift against you, you can stay in one piece. Why risk playing roulette with your life when a small purchase and some time can save it. I'd rather have it and not need it than be without and wish I had it.
At the minimum, take a hand-to-hand or edged weapon course. Your life is more valuable than the cost of a truck load of firearms. Cheap insurance.
x2 what DCrazy said. Robbers are usually that, robbers. I'm sure if you looked at the stats, with exceptions in mind, robbers do not turn into murderers unless there is some sort of revolt against them which of course is going to get someone killed. My point is this, you're not as gung ho and \"trained\" as you think you are. My thoughts, you've never been in a combat zone, neither have I. My brother has, he said it's quite a bit different than playing guns in the backyard, which I used to do quite a bit.
Who in here carries a seperate gun in the glove compartment? If so, what good is the gas pedal, it works better imo.
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:56 am
by Zuruck
As I sit here trying to work, I'm watching a report on tv about an Ohio man who put two shotgun slugs into a teenaged boy who was \"bothering\" him.
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:17 am
by MD-2389
Zuruck wrote:As I sit here trying to work, I'm watching a report on tv about an Ohio man who put two shotgun slugs into a teenaged boy who was "bothering" him.
And just what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:26 am
by Zuruck
You haven't added anything to this conversation so I'm not even responding to you MD.
Let's change it a bit here Barry, what if a man held you up, you capped him, then, you check his gun and realize it wasn't loaded, all he wanted was some money. Would you feel bad or feel as if justic has been done?
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:43 am
by Will Robinson
Zuruck wrote:You haven't added anything to this conversation so I'm not even responding to you MD.
Let's change it a bit here Barry, what if a man held you up, you capped him, then, you check his gun and realize it wasn't loaded, all he wanted was some money. Would you feel bad or feel as if justic has been done?
While you wait for Barry's response lets play the same game:
Suppose a mugger pulls a gun on Barry and demands money, Barry refuses to pull his own weapon because the mugger might have an unloaded gun.
The mugger takes his money and shoots Barry...
Would you say "Gee, that's real unfortunate but it was the right thing to do since Barry had a responsibility to avoid shooting a mugger who might be using an unloaded gun."?!?!
You fail to assign the proper responsibility to the participants in your scenario. A mugger who pulls a gun on someone is the one responsible for creating a dangerous situation and a victim of someone doing that is not expected to then risk his life to provide the mugger every possible chance to not carry out his threat!
What if a mugger pulled an unloaded gun on you and you panicked, turned to run and in the process you ran right in front of a bus and were killed. Should we then say "Gee, that's unfortunate but the mugger's gun was unloaded and he only wanted money so he's not really at fault for causing Zuruck to die under the wheels of the bus."?!?!
Re:
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:09 pm
by MD-2389
Zuruck wrote:You haven't added anything to this conversation so I'm not even responding to you MD.
So in other words, you won't even attempt to justify your post. Way to go troll. I bet you're just the type that actually believes those lame Brinks ads too.
You're just as likely to get plugged by just rolling over as pulling out a gun and trying to plug the SOB first. By being the target, you are a WITNESS to the crime! A liability that the robber can't afford to squeal his/her idenity. Oh wait, fliptw said pretty much the same thing, and you ignored it.
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:36 pm
by Kilarin
Zuruck wrote:what if a man held you up, you capped him, then, you check his gun and realize it wasn't loaded, all he wanted was some money. Would you feel bad or feel as if justic has been done?
Both. Same as I'd feel if I killed him and the gun HAD been loaded.
I'm terribly sorry, but if you point a gun at someone you shouldn't feel surprised when they treat you as if it was loaded. A line from Niven and Pournel comes to mind...
)
I bet you're just the type that actually believes those lame Brinks ads too.