Have you read about the Middletown shooting over a pair of Nikes?

[Bubba]

Here is a link to the incident:  http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/crime-law/would-be-teen-robber-shot-to-death/njYqM/#__federated=1

 

Disclaimer:  I don't currently hold a CCW license.  I am signed up for handgun training classes at Point Blank here in Cinti and am considering continuing with CCW training.

 

Most importantly, I really don't want this to devolve into a black-v-white racial discussion.

 

Just trying to gain some perspective from anyone who currently carries, preferably someone who has law enforcement or military background, or at least has years of carry experience and significant formal training.  What I'm trying to come to grips with is how to reconcile the right to carry with the knowledge that if you DO carry, you have to be willing to use your gun and lethal force in such a situation where a threat is made.  Second guessing isn't something I often do, and of course the clarity of 20:20 hindsight is easy to come by….

 

So, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the obvious challenge of whether it's rightful to shoot someone who is engaged in trying to rob you of your $200 shoes.  I understand that the reports are the teen was using a handgun to rob the shooter.  How does an average person walk around a midwest suburban shopping mall in broad daylight while carrying and have the mental preparation to be willing to use lethal force to prevent a robbery?  Obviously, if you put the gun in your hand (draw) you MUST be willing to pull the trigger, but I can't ever picture myself as having the mental state of mind where my FIRST REACTION would be to pull my gun--honestly, I would simply give the shoes up first, under the assumption the "transaction" would end there.

 

Of course, the other fly in the ointment here is that the mall has a policy that prohibits concealed carry, so it sounds likely that the shooter will at least be charged with some type of violation, whatever that entails.  I presume it's private property, but I have no clue as to whether the shooter could face felony charges or a simple misdemeanor, or whether the mall owners would have to bring the charges….

 

I'm not trying to stir up a shit-storm with this question, and I think the final answer to my question--for me--will be "If I can't draw and fire, then don't carry" but that seems too simplistic.  Are there degrees of judgement/varying options with the privilege to carry?  Or is it totally a shoot-or-be-shot world?  Does the right to carry also subject you to the burden of "kill upon first provocation" as the only solution?

 

Please no flaming in this thread.  Reasoned answers would be appreciated.

 

Thanks--Bubba

Edited December 26, 2014 by Bubba

[cOoTeR]

Nothing says you have to shoot your gun just because you are carrying. You can always choose not to shoot. Just because you give a bad guy what they want does not garauntee they won't shot you anyways. Your most likely the best person to ID them later. If you point a gun at someone you take upon the risk that their reaction could be deadly for you. But the basic idea is there are three things needed to justify using deadly force, means/ability, opportunity and intent. Is the person presenting the threat to you able to cause serious physical harm or death using their abilities or weapons they have? Are they in a position where they can carry out a threat of serious physical harm or death? Do they in your (the person about to respond in defense) opinion intend to cause death to whomever they are threatening? If the three answers are not yes than the use of deadly force is not justified.

[Tigerpaw]

1)Dayton Mall...didn't a member's wife get robbed there a few years ago?  We rarely went before, now we will never go there again.

 

2)This incident...robber was no angel(prior theft & disorderly charges).  Now CCW holder has to deal with the guilt over this.  All over shoes they had the money to buy.

 

3)On one hand I will give any material possession in this world over to a robber before shooting.  On the other hand, if you point a gun at me or my family, I will most likely feel life is threatened and do what I need to.  It is a case by case basis.  Never a first resort.  But, there aren't varying degrees between unholstering and shooting.  If you pull it...it is to shoot.

 

As far as being mentally prepared...handguns aren't necessarily a part of human nature, but fight or flight is.  

 

**My views may not mirror other CCW holders**

[Steve Butters]

I got mugged at gun point once by 3 guys, fully cooperated and handed over my cash... Still got my ass beat afterwards. Won't take that chance again. If someone pulls a gun on me, I'm not going to just assume and hope they will leave me alone after they're done robbing me. The whole incident had potential to go in a very bad direction and I'd definitely be more prepared the second time around

I lost $400... But if I had a firearm on me and used it, I wouldn't have shot them over $400, I would have shot them over fearing for my life while they're pointing a weapon at me.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Steve Butters

[Bubba]

Nothing says you have to shoot your gun just because you are carrying. You can always choose not to shoot.

 

On one hand I will give any material possession in this world over to a robber before shooting.  On the other hand, if you point a gun at me or my family, I will most likely feel life is threatened and do what I need to.  It is a case by case basis.  Never a first resort.  But, there aren't varying degrees between unholstering and shooting.  If you pull it...it is to shoot.

 

If someone pulls a gun on me, I'm not going to just assume and hope they will leave me alone after they're done robbing me...

I lost $400... But if I had a firearm on me and used it, I wouldn't have shot them over $400, I would have shot them over fearing for my life while they're pointing a weapon at me.

 

A follow-up question for any of the posters:  It seems to me that the decision to shoot would have to be made immediately when the threat was imminent where the attackers are actually invading your personal space.  To me, this means not closer than 3-4 feet.  Each of you has stated you wouldn't shoot merely to protect a material possession, and yet once faced with a gun and three attackers (as reported in the link above) you have only an instant to make the decision whether to hand over the shoes/your wallet/whatever, or draw and fire.  This was made painfully evident in the Cleveland shooting, possibly in both the MO shootings, and in the Middletown case. I realize every situation is gonna play out differently, but what bothers me is….if it's that difficult for a highly trained professional LEO to make a reasoned and justified split second decision, how are average citizens supposed to perform carefully and sanely under the same stress?

Edited December 25, 2014 by Bubba

[Tigerpaw]

I think the decision should be much easier than an LEO.

 

Is my life(or family's) in un-relenting mortal danger?

[MeefZah]

Bubba,

 

I'm not on here much, but since you sent me a specific question re: this, I felt I should pop in and offer my thoughts.

 

I had composed a fairly long post, but after re-reading it I opted to not post it.  It didn't directly address your post / questions.  I trimmed it down substantially:

 

I suppose you have to assess what is important to you and how far you are willing to go to protect what is important.  Even if you opt to not carry a gun, you need to have a plan in place for a critical event that might require you to surrender your wallet, run, fight, hide, usher others to safety, observe and recall details, etc.  For some people, lawfully carrying a gun is a component of that plan, but under no circmstances is it the only plan.  Note that 'critical event' in my mind includes civil emergencies like a fire, crash, etc., not only criminal acts.

 

In addition to a plan, you need a goal that the plan is helping you move toward.  The goal in a situation such as this should always be survival of yourself and your loved ones at any cost.

 

So the plan; to that end, you should always be aware of your surroundings, be scoping out people who look unsavory or who are alpha dogging you, who are walking right at you, who are brandishing a weapon, talking boorishly, acting disorderly, obviously drunk or drugged, etc. You should have a basic plan in place for most contingencies anyway, but you can start to tailor it to situationally specific events as they begin to unfold and as you take note of a threat. If the threat doesn't materialize, great. If it does, you should already have a good grasp on what you are going to do and be well on your way to implementation.

 

In this situation, with the caveat that of course every situation and every person are going to be different, as this particular scenario was presented through media accounts, what would your 'plan' have been?  My plan would be to act totally compliant and subservient, begin to surrender the merchandise, and at a moment of distraction, shoot the kid with the gun at least 3-4 times chest moving to head; then assess the other two and immediately shoot them in order of proximity to me 3-4 times each chest moving to head if they make no attempt to flee or don't immediately raise their arms and display their unarmed intent to surrender.   If they flee, I'd get as good a description as I could for police.  If they surrender, I'd prone them out at gunpoint and issue them clear orders to lie on the pavement with hands outstretched and secure the obvious gun from the downed criminal but would make no attempt to close in on them or search them or secure them.  We'd then wait for police.

 

Could you / I surrender the shoes and go buy a new pair?  Sure, assuming we don't get shot for sport anyway.  Could you / I turn tail and run?  Sure, assuming we don't get a bullet in the back or get run down by someone 1/3 our age and beaten severely, or get hit by a car, or have a heart attack.  Could you / I do one of 100 other things, each with a presumably different and unknown reaction?  Absolutely, but I would prefer to take the offensive and stop the problem in what I see as the most efficient, safest manner possible; which would involve deploying my gun ("suprise, motherfucker!") and defending myself.

 

You also ask about the ethical implications of killing someone over a pair of shoes.   In theory this guy could have pulled a gun and demanded one 41 cent (or whatever a stamp is now) stamp.  Would it be 'right' to kill him over 41 cents?  Maybe the better question is would it be 'right' for you to be killed over 41 cents?  Even having posed that quetion, I would say that ethical considerations like that have no place in an action plan. That's a small part of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that you are being threatened with death if you fail to comply with this person's demands. The underlying issue of value of sneakers, stamps, etc., is immaterial.  In every situation like this, you are responding to the aggressive actions of someone else; they put both themselves and you in the situation, ergo, they should be prepared to reap the ramifications of that situation, including death if that ends up being the unfortunate outcome.

 

In regards to your second post, about "difficulty in assessing a situation in a split second", and referencing the police shootings in MO, CLE, etc., I would say this: none of those officers made a poor decision, none failed the "split second" test.  I believe most people, when put in that situation, and with some training, self confidence, and an action plan; would do the same thing in the same time allotted.  Those officers are getting the media and race crucifixtion but they also have the advantage of still being here to suffer through it.   And that - as noted above - is the ultimate goal.  Wilson lost his job, ultimately (his choice, but a wise one) but he is alive.  The Cleveland officer will be in the hotseat for a while and probably get sued and have Holder up his ass for a while, but he is alive. 

Edited December 25, 2014 by MeefZah

[snot]

As a girl, I hope I don't hesitate to protect my life or my families. I think it is difficult to give anyone reasonable doubt, whether they mean physical harm.

I am seriously considering martial arts (my brother is a teacher in American jujutsu). I think this would give me another option other than immediate deadly force.

But if faced with a gun I think you are left no other options than to assume they mean physical harm.

*** this is only my opinion right now, it is subject to change and not be used by others***

[cOoTeR]

A follow-up question for any of the posters:  It seems to me that the decision to shoot would have to be made immediately when the threat was imminent where the attackers are actually invading your personal space.  To me, this means not closer than 3-4 feet.  Each of you has stated you wouldn't shoot merely to protect a material possession, and yet once faced with a gun and three attackers (as reported in the link above) you have only an instant to make the decision whether to hand over the shoes/your wallet/whatever, or draw and fire.  This was made painfully evident in the Cleveland shooting, possibly in both the MO shootings, and in the Middletown case. I realize every situation is gonna play out differently, but what bothers me is….if it's that difficult for a highly trained professional LEO to make a reasoned and justified split second decision, how are average citizens supposed to perform carefully and sanely under the same stress?

That's a risk that is necessary to carrying a gun. But when your life is on the line it is a burden and risk worth undertaking. Luckily the Graham VS Connor decision outlines use of force for police officers but it can also be used for self defense cases by citizens. The big part is that any analysis of the use of force must be considered and viewed from the officer/person using force's perspective based on the facts present to that person at the time.

"c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation."

I carrying a gun with me almost every time I leave the house. I accept the risk that I may need to use my gun because although I don't want to use my gun I will if it protects me or an innocent person. I'd rather be alive at the end of the day.

[Bubba]

You also ask about the ethical implications of killing someone over a pair of shoes.   In theory this guy could have pulled a gun and demanded one 41 cent (or whatever a stamp is now) stamp.  Would it be 'right' to kill him over 41 cents?  Maybe the better question is would it be 'right' for you to be killed over 41 cents?  Even having posed that quetion, I would say that ethical considerations like that have no place in an action plan. That's a small part of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that you are being threatened with death if you fail to comply with this person's demands. The underlying issue of value of sneakers, stamps, etc., is immaterial.  In every situation like this, you are responding to the aggressive actions of someone else; they put both themselves and you in the situation, ergo, they should be prepared to reap the ramifications of that situation, including death if that ends up being the unfortunate outcome.

 

In regards to your second post, about "difficulty in assessing a situation in a split second", and referencing the police shootings in MO, CLE, etc., I would say this: none of those officers made a poor decision, none failed the "split second" test.  I believe most people, when put in that situation, and with some training, self confidence, and an action plan; would do the same thing in the same time allotted.  Those officers are getting the media and race crucifixtion but they also have the advantage of still being here to suffer through it.   And that - as noted above - is the ultimate goal.  Wilson lost his job, ultimately (his choice, but a wise one) but he is alive.  The Cleveland officer will be in the hotseat for a while and probably get sued and have Holder up his ass for a while, but he is alive. 

 

Meef:  Thanks for the response.  Appreciate the insight.

 

With respect to your first para, the obvious flaw is that I'm applying the typical moral-view-of-the-world thought process where a contract is written and followed by both parties.  This is obviously NOT THE CASE in a bad guy confrontation.  No guarantee that the contract will be honored once the transaction--the surrender of the valuable(s)--has been completed.  That comes from me having lived a long time and not being placed in a situation as described.

 

And to your second para, you can see my previous posts on the Brown and the Cleveland shootings.  I'm firmly on the side of the officer/shooter in both the MO cases, based on the information revealed so far.  As for the Cleveland case, I agree that the officer/shooter was left with little response time or escape options as a result of his partner driving the car to within 5-10 feet of the suspect.  Something that was terribly unfortunate and perhaps avoidable with a different approach to the situation unfolding.  Again, easier to judge and assess with the wisdom of 20:20 hindsight.

 

It's with an eye to the above cases that I asked my initial question.  Not sure how I would respond….something I guess I better explore as I go forward with my training. Thanks!

[MeefZah]

Yep.  Sure thing.

 

Since you mentioned "contracts", I do think there is a social contract at play here.  Any person of sound mind and who is physically capable, and who meets criteria to lawfully carry a concealed handgun; owes it to themselves, their family, and society to be armed and to act in a situation compelling that they do so. 

[aforrest4]

I have to admit, this is the most thought out and informative thread I have red on this topic.

 

I'm impressed. And I agree with most all of the comments.

 

Bubba, don't get caught up in the... Will I be able to live with the fact that I killed someone over a $200 pair of shoes, or your wallet.

 

That has nothing to do with it. The robber has chosen to put you in a situation where you have to decide if your, or other's life is in jeopardy. 

 

It is now up to you, to assess if they mean business or not.

 

Truthfully, for me, if they have gotten to the point of threatening you for something, they are already past normal reasoning and are a honest & true threat. 

 

Drugs today have pushed what used to be normal thoughtful people and converted them into desperate irrational individuals with no respect for life, at that point in time.

 

Also, Never assume if you comply, it will end there. As Steve mentioned above, some people will perceive you as week if you do and will take joy in hurting you for it.

 

That is part of the assessing the situation. If they are polite about the robbery, then complying may be an option, if they seem comfortable with putting you in this situation, you are most likely up the creek if you comply or not. 

 

Either way, if you choose to add a CCW to your choice, additional training will help you with how to assess a situation, and how to act if you were ever put into a situation.

 

Good luck!

[Helmutt]

Either way, if you choose to add a CCW to your choice, additional training will help you with how to assess a situation, and how to act if you were ever put into a situation.

I believe this should be a key element to the responsibility of pursuing a CHL. Someday it may eventually be deemed a requirement in obtaining a CHL ( I truly hope so ) since further training can never hurt, no matter how experienced a shooter feels they are.

As for the Dayton Mall scenario, it's absolutely ridiculous that ANYONE should rob another at gunpoint for a pair of fucking shoes, much less anything else, but I guess I just cant rationalize a criminal mentality. Definitely a worthless waste of a life, and over nothing but a material posession that could be ordered/bought elsewhere/gone without. Silly to think that shoes can mean enough as to be willing to take a life over them, and what's likely even more ironic is that he probably had on decent shoes when he was attempting to rob the shooter of his new Jordans. Easier to get my head around it had the robber been homeless, or at least broke and shoeless.

I understand the tentative thoughts behind whether or not carrying is a good idea since there could be coping issues after needing it for self defense......BUT, I would personally rather need some psychiatric care while still being alive to share time with loved ones instead of feeling comfortable with not having to decide between brandishing/shooting because I dont carry at all.

[Anden]

After this event at the mall I've decided to get my CCW and that my wife will be also. My general thinking was to not put myself in a position to need a gun. And with a family member that works security at the Dayton Mall I now know all the things you don't want to know about a public place.

As for the OP no it is not right to shoot anyone over any material possesion or belief. Now if your going to bring violence or a threat and make me fear for my family's, my own, or another inoccent person's life. Yes if you have the ability to step up and protect please do.

[Bubba]

After this event at the mall I've decided to get my CCW and that my wife will be also. My general thinking was to not put myself in a position to need a gun. And with a family member that works security at the Dayton Mall I now know all the things you don't want to know about a public place.

 

 

Funny, but when I think about Dayton Mall (I've only been there a few times and it was quite a few years ago) I envision a typical middle-class, small town suburban environment.  Guess things change quickly.  My daughter and family lived in Springboro--and now in Lebanon--and she said that ever since Dayton Metro put in a bus stop close to the mall, things have dramatically changed in terms of security.  She basically said she'll no longer go shopping there after dark.  I can't understand how the owners/management of a high-dollar investment like a mega-mall can allow their customer base to dwindle over an issue like parking lot security.

[Tigerpaw]

That exact bus stop was on the news.  Idiots were claiming it wasn't close enough to the actual mall entrance, for those with disabilities.  Now they want someone to pay for the stop to be moved.  

 

Since when does the ADA enforce proximity to a particular privately owned business.  There is tons of shopping in that area.  I don't understand how being closer to one business, and not another, is some sort of injustice.

[smccrory]

Fascination and informed discussion. Subscribed.

[Anden]

Funny, but when I think about Dayton Mall (I've only been there a few times and it was quite a few years ago) I envision a typical middle-class, small town suburban environment. Guess things change quickly. My daughter and family lived in Springboro--and now in Lebanon--and she said that ever since Dayton Metro put in a bus stop close to the mall, things have dramatically changed in terms of security. She basically said she'll no longer go shopping there after dark. I can't understand how the owners/management of a high-dollar investment like a mega-mall can allow their customer base to dwindle over an issue like parking lot security.

I envisioned the mall the same way, nice and middle class. It will probably die the same death that the Salem Mall did.

My Mom worked at the National City by the mall. Words of caution were get the fuck out a there before last bus runs. Although I don't think RTA connects to Middletown.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Anden

[Bubba]

One of the other questions I need answered--prolly a pretty simple answer for those that have a CCW license--is what laws apply to carry, either open or concealed, when you're riding?

 

I don't have any secure, lockable storage on my bike--soft luggage only--so my assumption is that the ONLY LEGAL OPTION TO CARRY ON A BIKE is with a CCW license.  Without the license, I can't picture how a rider could comply with the regulations that apply to transporting firearms in a vehicle.  Any informed advice would be welcome.

[Bad324]

I haven't been to Dayton mall since Ohio riders was a car forum and it was less than desireable back then due to all the damn Middletownians

[blue03636]

One of the other questions I need answered--prolly a pretty simple answer for those that have a CCW license--is what laws apply to carry, either open or concealed, when you're riding?

 

I don't have any secure, lockable storage on my bike--soft luggage only--so my assumption is that the ONLY LEGAL OPTION TO CARRY ON A BIKE is with a CCW license.  Without the license, I can't picture how a rider could comply with the regulations that apply to transporting firearms in a vehicle.  Any informed advice would be welcome.

 

There is no open carry on a bike. One your on it it's the same as driving a car.

[cOoTeR]

Carrying a loaded gun on a bike requires a ccw license whether it's concealed or not. But I think if you transport it unloaded in separate un-accessible storage in saddle bags is the same as in a car.