Binkley's in Broad Ripple-Armed Robbery-What Would You Do?

[OutdoorDad]

Shouldn't that be "Larger Shooters"?

i think he has a "human shield" tactic that involves grabbing others by the collar.
Smaller shooters are quicker to replace one they are full of your opponents bullets.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Unless personally threatened with bodily harm, me or others, ride it out.. I'm a chemist not a hero...but I do have a certain set of skills. Skills I've acquired over a lifetime..etc..

I think somebody pointing a gun at people would be considered being threatened. I guess I never learned the skill to cower down.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Shouldn't that be "Larger Shooters"?

Nope smaller shooters. You have to stack behind them. Smallest shooter up front, then next largest, then next largest, etc. That way everyone (except the smallest) gets some cover but you can maximize round count from your position, and also focus maximum terminal energy in the densest shooting configuration of tacticalness.

 

[T.Lex]

Nope smaller shooters. You have to stack behind them. Smallest shooter up front, then next largest, then next largest, etc. That way everyone (except the smallest) gets some cover but you can maximize round count from your position, and also focus maximum terminal energy in the densest shooting configuration of tacticalness.

Isn't that called the Matryoshka Technique, after the Spetnaz operator who invented it?

 

[LP1]

If this doesn't work, shoot the tires.

Or shoot the gun out of his hand.

 

[LP1]

I dine at Binkley's fairly frequently.

When this sort of situation occurs I subscribe to Col. Jeff Cooper's (with whom I served for a number of years on the NRA Board) philosophy: The only proper response to being attacked is instantaneous, explosive counter-attack.

The accounts that I've read of the incident make it seem to me that the suspects could have been taken out fairly easily.

1) Chances of clear shots without risking innocents who are beyond the target? I'm guessing not, but wasn't there. And it depends on where one is sitting relative to the action.
2) Willing to fight the legal battles (about which the poster is well familiar) unless your own life (or a loved one's) is threatened? Not judging - but it's a question that needs to be considered.
3) Make those decisions in a few seconds.

My Monday-morning quarterbacking is to take cover, draw, and wait and see if they take money and leave, or...

 

[Rookie]

I figure you have two choices...

1. Mag dump
2. Colon dump.

I will not divulge my tactics on an open forum...

 

[dusty88]

On a related note.... the story on the Papa Roux robbery says the robber kept his hands in his pocket but claimed he had a gun.

What's the precedent for a case like that? Is your life (legally) in danger by the person's claim of having a gun? If you wait for it to come out of the pocket, you may be too late.

 

[Twangbanger]

It's hard to say what you'd do, but with three armed, moving thugs inside a place with so many innocents around? Wow, that's a lot of moving parts. And going down on the floor is a crummy deal any way you play it. You are absolutely not in control of anything.

To make matters even worse, I'd have to think the number of people in such an establishment who will sue the pants off you, if they get a nick from a "gunfight that you initiated," could be significant. A surprising number of folks genuinely empathize with thugs, believe in the honor of criminals, and would blame any negative outcome on the larry-holder if the first shot uncorked were his. There's a million ways for that person to become the "Bernie Goetz Bad Guy." They would say he needlessly "escalated" the situation, and many would agree and hold him responsible for everything that happened after that first shot went off.

Now of course...(put on your purple glasses if it makes this easier for you)...if you're one of these 5-shot LCR folks...you have an additional layer of complexity, don't you? I sure hope all those crusty S&W six-shooter guys (and gals) from the other thread who think "multiple assailants doesn't happen" are watching this topic. I've heard it said that "all perps turn into track stars when the pistol goes off," but, these seem like some pretty brazen people here. If any of them had a few more swigs of "courage enhancer" before going in, this could have turned out differently.

 

[Thor]

Warning shots to the head and chest. I wouldn't want anyone but the perps being hurt by my warning shots.

If I'm there with family, I'd be defending them. If I'm there with a weapon then giving it up in a robbery to be used on someone else I consider unacceptable. They came in with masks on and guns drawn, they deserve to go out with blood drawn.

 

[yepthatsme]

This is the way that I view this situation. The three perps definately have the advantage with the element of surprise. Whether they realize it or not, they picked the perfect situation by robbing an establishment with plenty of customers because it is unlikely that an armed individual would pull their weapon with the possiblity of endangering innocent lives. So, the situation is in their favor and more than likely, everyone would comply with their demands.

Now, if I were to choose to try to draw on them, I would do so knowing full well that I would most likely not get out of the situation unharmed. With that in mind, I would try to turn the situation around to my favor by pulling some money out of my pocket and accidently drop it on the floor. Doing this lets the robber know that I am willing to comply and while his attention is on picking up the money, that's when I would draw and try to take him by surprise. As long as there is a clear shot. Hopefully, the robber would be close enough that I wouldn't have to worry about missing and hitting an innocent person. Then concentrate on the others.

If I'm unable to turn the situation in my favor, I know that it would be a slugging match and both of us would be seriously hurt, if not killed. It's a very tough call. However, if the perps began killing or shooting, I would have no choice at all. I would have to engage them regardless of the consequences.

I hope that I will never be in a situation like that and have to make that hard decision to act or comply. (I really hate to comply.)

This is all much easier said then done.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

1) Chances of clear shots without risking innocents who are beyond the target? I'm guessing not, but wasn't there. And it depends on where one is sitting relative to the action.
2) Willing to fight the legal battles (about which the poster is well familiar) unless your own life (or a loved one's) is threatened? Not judging - but it's a question that needs to be considered.
3) Make those decisions in a few seconds.


My Monday-morning quarterbacking is to take cover, draw, and wait and see if they take money and leave, or...

If someone enters an establishment with gun in hand and announces a robbery, you and everyone else there is in mortal danger. Killing the suspect(s) without warning involves no legal jeopardy.

 

[dusty88]

This is all much easier said then done.

Amen.

After the fact, you'll be the subject of those of us who have the benefit of hindsight and plenty of time to think and rethink before we type on our keyboard. And that's just the folks with good intentions trying to learn from your mistakes, slow action, less-than-superhero-performance.

Then there are the ones anxious to sue you, criticize you, get advertisers on their news story, blame you for having a gun, etc.

 

[Thor]

Then there are the ones anxious to sue you, criticize you, get advertisers on their news story, blame you for having a gun, etc.

But would that consideration keep your weapon holstered when family members are being ordered to get on the ground by armed thugs?

I personally could not wait to see how bad things were going to get, maybe they'd just start asking for your money or maybe they'd starting asking who was a Christian and drilling them in the head as they stood up.

 

[LP1]

If someone enters an establishment with gun in hand and announces a robbery, you and everyone else there is in mortal danger. Killing the suspect(s) without warning involves no legal jeopardy.

Big talk from someone who spent a lot of time (and probably money) defending himself after firing a warning shot at some menacing dogs.

No legal jeopardy? Let's ask the Kroger manager who shot a robber a couple of years back. Ultimately, he didn't face charges, but his life was turned upside down and he had to find other employment. It's likely he spent a lot of money defending himself.

And then there's the inevitable civil suit. Lots of stress and financial pain. As others have mentioned, the likelihood of shooting an innocent bystander is high, as is the risk that someone else could sue claiming that your actions endangered them.

I'm not saying that shooting in that situation (or the others I've mentioned) is the wrong choice. But to suggest that it's an open-and-shut case and you go home and live happily ever after is ignoring reality.

We don't know if any of the customers were armed, but nobody took a shot, and all of the customers went home that night.

 

[Thor]

So we're back to the question. If it is you and your family being forced onto the floor by armed thugs...do you bow down or do you fight back? Is the prospect of a civil suit going to make you bow?

 

[dusty88]

But would that consideration keep your weapon holstered when family members are being ordered to get on the ground by armed thugs?

I personally could not wait to see how bad things were going to get, maybe they'd just start asking for your money or maybe they'd starting asking who was a Christian and drilling them in the head as they stood up.

I don't disagree with taking actions, if the situation at the time appears to allow it, or if you simply deem it as the best possible choice.

I'm just agreeing with the "easier said than done".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just completed my look into 19 cases of citizens vs criminals. Resistance against single attacker had a 80% success rate. Multiple attackers dipped to 50% success rate. Average rounds fired actually dropped, due to citizen running out of time before ammo.

In real life, no one was hurt in this incident. Evaluate before you escalate, and perhaps have a realistic understanding of your abilities.

 

[Lil Bob]

Situation - three armed men, restaurant full of innocents, and one armed civilian (me). As long as the situation does not escalate the choice is to comply. If all they do is take my money or belongings I will comply. My stuff is replaceable. There being a room full of innocent people and three armed men more than likely in different locations in the room/building the odds are against me taking out all three without an innocent person getting hurt or killed. The odds are stacked against me to win. In this situation you only join the fight if there is no other alternative to survive.

 

[Thor]

By the time you wait until there is no other alternative there will likely be no opportunity. If you choose to wait, that is your choice. Like Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."