It just might be confusing enough to reset their OODA loop
Your example is the exception and not the norm, I’m going from memory but if I recall correctly the FBI crime stats for 2011 showed a extremely low occurrence of gun fire during a occupied commercial robbery.
Now lets say while this robber was leaving the store are “hero” jumped in escalating the situation and are robber decides too shoot his way out. The resulting exchange of gun fire kills a innocent person in the store. Was it still a good call? What right does this hero have to voluntarily endanger others in the store? Like I said this guy was full of false courage because he had a firearm and wanted to play cops and robbers.
Edited to add,
Now I would have no problem if are hero waited outside on the cell phone with 911, heard a gun shot and decide enter to engage a active shooter. But it is always better if your not directly endangered to allow events to unfold without introducing another accelerant to the situation. Its just common sense to go with the greater odds that shots will not be fired especially after are hero was already safe outside the building.
Always assume the worst, it’s easier to be wrong that way.
And we can play “what if” all day long. What if this guy was gonna call in 6 buddies and they were gonna rape and kill everyone and Devin scared off the point man.
It looks like the guy acted in good faith and put himself at risk to protect people he cared about. We need more people like Devin and less people like the guy robbing the place.
Bottom line is you weren’t there, you don’t know anyone involved and are simply making assumptions.
So you are supposed to wait until the person you care about is shot BEFORE you take action to prevent it? Is that really what you are saying?
Christ sake if ever I’m in trouble please send a different cop to help me.
I’m not sure if that’s what he was saying, but I had to post that.
From Larry Mudget’s “Why Surrender is never an option”
“Handing over your life by surrendering to someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime against you is a form of suicide. Some survive but many do not. The monster gets to decide for you.
We have heard brutalized victims say, “The robber said that he would not hurt us if we cooperated.” Why would you believe anything that someone who is committing a crime against you says? He will be lying if he speaks. As we say in law enforcement, “If a criminal’s lips are moving while he is speaking, he is lying.” Criminals by definition are dishonest and should never be trusted or believed.
You have no doubt heard friends say, I would not resist a criminal, after all why would he kill me? This is stupid and naive. In law enforcement, we call these people “Victims by Choice” (VBC). There could be a long list of reasons why a criminal would kill you despite your cooperation.”
http://www.downrange.tv/blog/why-surrender-is-never-an-option/12837/
In the city I work for there have been two store robberies that ended in execution style murders of the store employees. The first was a small sporting good store that was robbed as it was closing early one Thanksgiving Eve. In short the store employees (mostly high school and college kids) were taken to the back store room and tied up on the floor with tape. They all thought they would be freed once the robbers left with the loot and the police arrived. Wrong, one of the robbers began executing the employees one at a time by slashing their throats from ear to ear. The only survivor played dead due to her throat not completely being severed. One of the suspects was shot fleeing the scene as he attempted to run over one of our officers with the get-a-way vehicle. The other two subjects both got a needle in the arm. The blood from those kids was high as the base boards in that store room. It was a horrific scene.
On one Christmas Eve several years back we had a check cashing place robbed where again the robbers tied the employee up in a back room thinking they were only there for the money, she was a mother of three and even though she was not a threat once they bound her they executed her with a gun shot to the back of the head. They are on death row to this day.
For those who have never heard of the case, read up on the Hi-Fi Murders.
This is an outstanging read as well. One I direct people to read often.
Totally.
If I must die at the hands of a lowlife, it’ll be on my feet rushing at the fuckhead with everything I’ve got. I won’t put any faith in their good graces.
I’m not against people having a CCW to protect themselves at work but that doesn’t make you even mall security. At work you don’t have the same ability to avoid people, warn them off or run away like you do when you are not working and going about your life. A low life walks into your store you have to say “Hello sir!”.
The logic and probabilities have been explained to you guys about this case and the guy acted incorrectly- there is no possible other conclusion that you can come to.
Would a lone police officer even barge into the store alone with a robbery in process?
You want to fight crime, get a badge or a cape. I don’t want any of the general CCWers I’ve met, most of the people I have shot competitions with or any but a few of the people I know here doing a one man SWAT assault with my loved ones in the way over less than $250.
The chance that a retail robbery turns into a mass murder versus the chances of a tackleberry turning Autozone into a Tarantino movie set. You seriously think the first is far more likely?
I carry to reduce the probability of bad outcomes, not increase them.
I think if he perceived people’s lives were in danger he should have shot him upon going back into the store.
As to your first quote,
We have the direct TV interview and the following news articles which give account of the event. This robber has been highly publicized for 30 prior robberies in the area and has never fired a shot from what I was able to research. Also this same bad guy robbed this same auto store in the past were no shots were fired so I’m placing my assumption on actual facts and not “What If” or “Maybe this would happen” to justify a stupid act which escalated a already bad situation.
As to your second quote,
Rushing in recklessly to a very volatile situation and forcing a armed encounter is never, ever the best option especially when your at a tactical disadvantage having to make a entry. So how is this helping any body? How is this improving the situation. No one was being shot at the time and the hero was safe outside the store so “NO” immediate action by are “Untrained” hero was required other then calling 911.
As to your last statement “Christ sake if ever I’m in trouble please send a different cop to help me” this is nothing more then your ignorance and lack of common sense in a adult conversion.
You must be in admin. I’m an officer, and have been for a while. There’s no way you’re a half decent ground pounder and have an attitude like that, hence you must be a gold badge. I wouldn’t want anybody on my shift with a submissive, “maybe the guy with the gun won’t hurt me” attitude. There were a couple of officers that were driven out to an onion field one day that had that kind of perspective. As for the store robbery scenario, we have a murdered store manager in my AO that I’m sure wished that one of his employees would have returned to the store with a gun. If you want to risk lives, including yours, on statistics, then I definitely don’t want you backing me up. I won’t ever sit back and say “you know statistically speaking, this guy pointing a deadly weapon at me won’t shoot me, so I’m good. I’ll just hang out and be safe knowing that I have a better than 90% chance that the bad man won’t hurt me.” You really need to read the article posted by Larry Mudgett about never surrendering. You say that the intervening employee had “false courage,” I say that is the definition of courage. I’d rather have a guy with the balls to face an armed felon, than one who hides under a car and hopes the mean man goes away. I’d much rather see someone get hurt fighting back, than have to show up and see a store full of people shot execution style as they lay on the floor.
I am not a cop and cannot comment directly. However, one problem in our country is that no one stands up to the criminals.
Read “A Nation of Cowards” to get better perspective.
Someone enters brandishing a gun you HAVE to assume the worst and take appropriate action based on that.
You don’t have time to Google the “beard bandit” (or whatever) and look up his history or anything.
–
If you are going to WAIT UNTIL I’VE BEEN SHOT to take preventative action then my comment is anything but ignorance. Please send anyone else who might be willing to be a little more proactive, especially if we are now talking about LEOs.
Its blissful to be young and inexperienced and I have seen many junior officers such as your self with this same mentality commit stupid, reckless acts and survive only but the grace of god.
The actions of this “Hero” was just dumb and reckless, plain and simple and I hope others who read your comments are not fooled into thinking this armed response was in any way a responsible and tactically sound act.
I have over 20 years in tactical response in a major Urban city and never made a bad call in which a innocent was harmed, So most likely I have more training a lone on this very subject then you have on the job.
So in closing I understand everyone will have a different opinion on how this event should have been handled and we will disagree but when you make assertions of another’s life long career only to be cynical it only goes to show the immaturity and lack of judgment the author has.
Its seems your locked into you narrow line of thinking so I will not debate the issue any further as I doubt doing so will improve your errors in judgment.
I should actually thank you for this.
It is once again a reminder that “some” officers will NOT attempt to directly intercede even if they are responding to a “man with a gun” call involving innocent people.
It is a reminder that even if you call 911 and even if the cops arrive you still “may” be on your own to deal with any armed criminal who decides to become violent.
And that is why it should be no surprise to LEOs, especially those who hold these views, that some citizens may feel the need to engage in acts of direct intervention.
And for their efforts they will be criticized for endangering others, playing cop, exhibiting false courage or playing hero.
It will make no difference that in this instance there was also “no innocents harmed” despite that being the yardstick measure of success for non intervention.
They will say the “armed citizen” got lucky, they will never consider that the policy of “non intervention” also depends on luck quite a bit. They will use statistics as justification and that is all well and good unless you or somebody you care about happens to be a statistic from the other column on the page.
The reality again, for those who somehow missed it, is that ANYTHING you do can get you or somebody else killed, and this includes doing nothing. And for this reason, combined with the fact that everyone may likely find themselves “on their own”, each person must be willing to make a judgement call and act accordingly.
I think it is reasonable that nobody wants to be in a gunfight if they can avoid it. If I don’t have to challenge a person with a gun, I won’t and neither will most other people. But if you “believe” you or others are in imminent danger a “man with a gun” certainly qualifies as a valid enough threat to support the use of deadly force in defense of ones self or others. And that seems to be what happened here and once the “threat” ran the situation resolved itself.
And finally, his actions were entirely lawful and that is why he wasn’t arrested. And if any officers don’t like that, they should take the advice they often give and “try and get the laws changed.”
Silly foolish me hoping that a responding officer might intervene without me having to be shot first.
:sarcastic:
I’m confused. If a bad guy has the drop on me I shouldn’t fight back cause statistically speaking I won’t get killed and I’ll be worse off escalating the situation. If I’m at work I shouldn’t consider a guy waving a gun about as a threat to life or limb cause statistically speaking they aren’t going to shoot anyone. So if all this is true why do I even need a gun??? Statistically speaking nobody ever gets shot, raped or killed so we are all just safe as can be. WTF.
In sorry but a man entering a store and waving a gun about is a definite threat and needs to be dealt with as such. Treating them as anything but that is idiotic at best. There are plenty of robberies that turn into executions, just ask the parents of a couple of teenage girls working a yogurt shop a while back. I’m sure they thought that if they handed over the cash and didn’t do anything to escalate the situation they’d go home safe. Must suck to be the statistical outlier.