How might you have handled this robbery?

[Monkeyleg]

Charby, that's where the element of chance comes into play. You have three guys who apparently have guns pointed at you and, statistically, you have a one in three chance of being shot, stabbed or beaten once you've handed over your valuables. Those aren't odds I'd like.

[K Frame]

"They just want a quick buck and not my life."

How do you know they don't want your life?

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases over the years where a victim has willing complied with every one of his/her attacker's demands, only to die anyway.

Someone makes an oblique or overt threat of having a gun and being willing to shoot me, all bets are then off. I consider that (and so does the law in a lot of states) a threat of deadly force against me, which can and perhaps should be countered with deadly force.

[Marvin Dao]

Charby, that's where the element of chance comes into play. You have three guys who apparently have guns pointed at you and, statistically, you have a one in three chance of being shot, stabbed or beaten once you've handed over your valuables. Those aren't odds I'd like.

You really have to divide it out injury rates by response since odds of harm greatly varies between response types. From Kleck's research (chart attached below), cooperation with the VCA is really one of the best options for preservation of self. Only attacking the VCA with a gun ranks lower on the injury scale, and not by much. Really, the only good options seem to be cooperation and firearms use. Anything else greatly increases the risk of injury.

[vaskidmark]

vaskidmark, using the tenant for cover? That's cold, man.

I misunderstood the situation with the tenant. He went to the check cashing place but forgot his ID. He was going back to his apartment to get ID when the gangstahs caught up with him. So all they got from him was a check that, if they try to cash it, will get them caught. Same thing with the cell phone.

No, Monkeyleg, that's sarcasm along witrh a twisted sense of humor.  Per my "Are you an Aspie" chart there is only a 68% chance that I would actually use the tenant for cover, and then only if he were a "problem tenant." [/sarcasm, continue twisted sense of humor]

And BTW, the term  "pragmatic" is preferred over the use of "cold" when describing my thought processes.  Its letting emotions get you all tangled up that results in folks' thinking being described as "hot" or "cold."  Me and Bogie (twapid) are the "go-to" guys when it comes to eliminating the emotional when looking for solutions.

With the additional info, it seems the only valuables the BGs in hoodies are going to get are what your BIL has in his pocketrs/on his wrist.  My earlier post suggested intentionally limiting that loot to the bare minimum, thus easing the pain of complying with the demand for valuables and making it somewhat easier to determine of the BGs are going to be satisfied with what little they got.

This time without sarcasm -- I'm still thinking that a sprint down the walkway and around the corner, ducking and dodging to the nearest door that can be slammed shut behind me, might be a viable option, depending on where the tenant is standing in relation to the BIL & the BGs.  If the tenant can be turned into an obstacle, he might serve to cover the escape without <now initiating sarcasm mode> getting a choke hold on him and dragging him along as a human shield <now disabling sarcasm mode>.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Lee]

A tenant had gone across the street to one of those check cashing places to cash a check to pay his rent. He didn't notice when he left that three gangstah types were following him. When he got midway toward the rear of the building, where my brother-in-law was, they made their presence known.

I'd go kick the tenant's ass and throw him out, since he likely set the whole thing up.
One of those surplus fake hand grenades might be a handy thing to carry in the pocket in the inner city.  You all goin down hahahahahha 

[Monkeyleg]

Marvin dao, I'm 57 years old, 6'1" and weigh about 163 pounds. My arms are like toothpicks. I'm not going to duke it out with the guys, that's for sure. There's few options for me.

Vaskidmark, sorry, but your sarcasm went right over (under?) me. Now it's funny.

As for ducking down a hallways or something, this was all outside. Depending upon the way the guys were placed in relation to my BIL, any attempt for him to flee might have resulted in him being shot.

Given that the guys were young, and at least one or two visibly nervous, my guess is that this was a gang initiation. By next year these punks will be seasoned pro's, maybe even seasoned killers.

[gunsmith]

He said that they looked young and seemed very nervous

The most dangerous type, I've been mugged a zillion times ( I was in a dangerous biz in my troubled youth in NYC )
In yer BIL case, hand it over and pray.

In your case (in mine too ) , cooperation means giving the banger a chance to get  your gun.
I opt for filling them full of lead, but I see that kind of trouble coming a mile away and stay clear.

[KD5NRH]

This exactly, except I'd have reached for my "wallet" and fired the SP101 through the coat pocket.

That would be my response; they want something that's in my pocket, and they're within distance to hand it over, so they're close enough to hit one, move, probably even hit the second before pulling the gun out.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

since he likely set the whole thing up.

i wondered if i was the only one who thought that.


hand it over and pray.


that would be my plan too.  maybe pray out loud  very sincerely  young ones are crazy

[charby]

Charby, that's where the element of chance comes into play. You have three guys who apparently have guns pointed at you and, statistically, you have a one in three chance of being shot, stabbed or beaten once you've handed over your valuables. Those aren't odds I'd like.

Dick

When you spelled out the situation it appeared as told by your BIL that they just wanted money I gave my reasoning. Granted I have never been robbed at gun point so I don't have experience to relate. I have had three folks when I was younger surround me and ask me to empty my pockets, being a teenager I only had a couple dollars on me and that satisfied them and they went away.

Like I said I'd comply with robbery requests with a gun pointed at me unless the situation changed. I'm not a wimp or anything but I really don't think going to jail for the rest of my life is worth the contents in my pocket and billfold. If I sensed that things were different I'd handle it differently.

-C

[Monkeyleg]

I'm not a wimp or anything but I really don't think going to jail for the rest of my life is worth the contents in my pocket and billfold.

Nobody's calling you a wimp. There's no heroes in these situations, just winners or losers.

As for going to jail, IIRC that pretending to have a gun in order to rob someone is still armed robbery. Also, I can't imagine any DA in his right mind trying to convict a victim for shooting what he thought were armed robbers. The public gets upset about DA's who side with criminals over victims.

[ShelleyB.]

Now if their intent was to harm me, that would be a different outcome.

And how do you propose to discover their intent, ask them? The fact that they are pointing weapons from their pockets (or pretending to do the same) clearly indicate intent.

That's what wrong with the whole criminal picture - we have to wait like sitting ducks for the BG to do something before we can react without fear of legal retribution. They'll get their free defense no matter what happens.

Situational awareness might have thwarted this incident. If not, when threatened, shoot to defend yourself.

[Manedwolf]

"They just want a quick buck and not my life."

How do you know they don't want your life?

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases over the years where a victim has willing complied with every one of his/her attacker's demands, only to die anyway.

Someone makes an oblique or overt threat of having a gun and being willing to shoot me, all bets are then off. I consider that (and so does the law in a lot of states) a threat of deadly force against me, which can and perhaps should be countered with deadly force.

There was an interview a few years ago with a convicted murderer who killed several people in muggings. He said he didn't do it for the money, he did it because he liked seeing the fear in his victim's eyes.

Others do it for gang cred. Others are so hopped up on meth that they might stab at lightning speed in a twitch reflex, like a rabid animal.

And others might not want a witness.

There are MANY cases where the victim fully complied, and the attacker shot or stabbed or beat them to death regardless.

[Manedwolf]

As for going to jail, IIRC that pretending to have a gun in order to rob someone is still armed robbery. Also, I can't imagine any DA in his right mind trying to convict a victim for shooting what he thought were armed robbers. The public gets upset about DA's who side with criminals over victims.

In the state just to the south of me, if the attackers were black and the victim was white, and he shot one of more of them, the DA would Bernie Goetz the guy, and HE would be tried for homicide in the form of a hate crime, probably. Because the survivors would swear that he just walked up, shouted a racial slur and shot them, I would be willing to bet on that.

Oh, and the media would crucify the victim, and show lots of video clips of the perps' family swearing they were good boys who were turning their lives around.

This is the unfortunate reality in many places. A white person cannot defend themselves from an attacker of a minority group without facing absolutely unfair scrutiny and additional charges from the legal system, the media, and society in general.

[MikePGS]

If it happened to me, I would have handed over my wallet, car keys, cell phone or whatever they wanted. They just want a quick buck and not my life. All that can be replaced. Now if their intent was to harm me, that would be a different outcome.

:nod: thats exactly what I would do to. Again it comes down to situational awareness. Hopefully you will be able to avoid such situations, but if you to end up in a similar situation, i doubt its legally defensible anywhere to just start blasting if someone's trying to take your wallet (which is a shame, but that's how it is) without sufficient evidence that they are trying to do more than that.

[Manedwolf]

Actually, if someone says "Gimme your wallet or I'll f you up", is that not a form of assault? You don't need to immediately shoot them. If they're a distance off yet, (30 feet) and walking towards you, one can always draw and cover them, with a command voice while backing away in a zigzag. If they're not armed, and not totally up on drugs, they're likely to flee. Even their slow wits often pick up that they've just made a serious error in the victim selection process, and they now have a train tunnel of a barrel staring at them. Just be ready to fire without hesitation if they appear to go for a weapon or rush you.

The finger in the pocket looking like a gun is not so much of a threat if you're moving. They can either shoot badly from the hip, or if they draw, you can fire while they're still drawing. I believe it was found that most thugs who do the finger thing really don't have a gun at all?

But if you see them off that way, if they flee, you IMMEDIATELY call the cops, because you don't, they will and report that you attacked them. You have to call first.

Of course, I also carry a 30-foot-range twoshot OC device. (Kimber put their brand on it, it's flat, and wow, does it have range, it's more like a chemical reaction rocket blast than an aerosol...just be aware of wind direction!) If someone is drunk and belligerent, they'd just get that. Nonlethal.

[Uncle Bubba]

There was an interview a few years ago with a convicted murderer who killed several people in muggings. He said he didn't do it for the money, he did it because he liked seeing the fear in his victim's eyes.

In face-to-face and electronic discussions on the subject, I've told people that we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force because there are people in this world who will shoot or stick you just to see the expression in your eyes change as you die. It amazes me how many people don't, or worse won't, believe it.

[Tallpine]

i doubt its legally defensible anywhere to just start blasting if someone's trying to take your wallet (which is a shame, but that's how it is) without sufficient evidence that they are trying to do more than that

That's a forcible felony which warrants/justifies deadly force in Montana.

[zahc]

Which is one of the 4.3*10^12 reasons why MT is awesome and I want to move back there some day.

[grampster]

"If someone is drunk and belligerent, they'd just get that. Nonlethal."

Eh....I wouldn't stake my health on it working.  The tactic with civilian mace, imho, would be to spray and then run fast in the other direction immediately.

 When I was in LE, probably around 1966 or thereabout, we were issued Mace.  The good effective stuff.  It was supposed to replace the nightstick and other non lethal implements.  All that stuff ever did with drunk or crazy or drunk and crazy people was to ramp up their anger.  Generally if there were two officers, the non spraying officer would be on the ground with burning eyes and copious amount of snot emanating from the nose while the sprayer threw down the mace and whacked the assaultive miscreant with the nightstick.
 
Legal pepper sprays for serfs civilians is probably pretty ineffective.  Just sayin'.

[Manedwolf]

"If someone is drunk and belligerent, they'd just get that. Nonlethal."

Eh....I wouldn't stake my health on it working.  The tactic with civilian mace, imho, would be to spray and then run fast in the other direction immediately.

 When I was in LE, probably around 1966 or thereabout, we were issued Mace.  The good effective stuff.  It was supposed to replace the nightstick and other non lethal implements.  All that stuff ever did with drunk or crazy or drunk and crazy people was to ramp up their anger.  Generally if there were two officers, the non spraying officer would be on the ground with burning eyes and copious amount of snot emanating from the nose while the sprayer threw down the mace and whacked the assaultive miscreant with the nightstick.
 
Legal pepper sprays for serfs civilians is probably pretty ineffective.  Just sayin'.

If you buy most cheap brands? Yes, it is.

Fox Labs OC is the same Fox Labs OC the cops get. And it's EVIL stuff. The Kimber LifeAct apparently has the same formulation.

Fox Labs apparently feels like you just put your head into a fry machine set on full boil. The last time I'd heard of it being used here, a lady sprayed a would-be rapist. The cops later found him a block away, screaming and pushing his face in the snow.

[Monkeyleg]

i doubt its legally defensible anywhere to just start blasting if someone's trying to take your wallet (which is a shame, but that's how it is) without sufficient evidence that they are trying to do more than that.

In Wisconsin, as in most states, use of deadly force is justified if you have reasonable fear for your life or great bodily  harm, or that of another. If a pickpocket is trying to take your wallet, you can't shoot him. If someone has his hand in his pocket and implies that he has a gun, it's armed robbery, and you can shoot.

I've seen a lot of citizens walk for shootings that were far from being righteous. A convenience store owner who chased the robber out into the parking lot and shot him, for example. The DA had every reason to prosecute the store owner, but public opinion would have done him in come election time.

As for criminals shooting victims after the loot was handed over, the most disgusting one around here happened several years ago at a chicken place on the north side of Milwaukee. (Google "Popeye's Chicken shooting Milwaukee"). A woman and her daughter were coming out of the restaurant. Some punks demanded money. She gave it to them, and they then made her kneel on the asphalt. They splattered her brains all over with a shotgun, right in front of her young daughter. They did it for kicks.    The reason they chose her was because she was white, and probably wouldn't have a gun, unlike most black people in the area.

[KD5NRH]

i doubt its legally defensible anywhere to just start blasting if someone's trying to take your wallet

You have invoked the obligatory "how it's done in Texas" post.

Texas Penal Code:
9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

29.02.  ROBBERY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(2)  intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

1.07.  DEFINITIONS.  (a)  In this code:
( 8 )  "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

So it boils down to whether you reasonably believe (actually, whether he tries to make you reasonably believe) he will cause you any pain if you fail to comply.

[Azrael256]

I didn't take statistics in college, so I'll go with empirical data, namely: if you point a gun at me, I assume you mean to kill me.  I will respond to this threat with any force at my disposal.  If all I have is a lawn tool, it's going through the nearest soft tissue of the nearest BG.  If I have my pistol, which is far more likely, I'll try to move evasively and shoot until I no longer feel a threat.

If the miscreants turn and run at the sight of my weapon, I will let them run.  The police can find them from my description.

And I wonder if anybody considered this: Should I survive the encounter having killed one of them, I will likely outlive them all.  If I have to kill one to survive, the others are guilty of his murder.

And I was going for the "here in Texas" post, but I see I was beaten to it.  You'll be hard pressed to find a jurisdiction that doesn't consider armed robbery a killin' offense.  Btw, KD5NRH, I think this one is actually aggravated robbery under Texas law because of the threat of a weapon.

[Manedwolf]

Shame there isn't any way to solve the court of the leftist media, though.

Gangsta threatens person with an airsoft gun painted black, person shoots gangsta becomes:

"John Smith, of 1234 This Street, today shot and killed a boy who pointed a toy gun at him."

*cue interview with John Smith's neighbors*

"Well, he seemed like a quiet sort, I'm shocked he would own something like a gun, and now that child is dead."

etc, etc...