The Gas Station Clerk (A response)

*I posted the article below on my Facebook page a couple days ago. I got a lot of feedback and the post generated a massive amount of commentary. Several people asked me to expand upon my original post and turn it into an article on my site for those who don’t follow Facebook.

That’s what I’ve done. The original post is first and then I answer a couple reader questions at the end.

While I was at the Rangemaster Tactical Conference last weekend, I attended a class called “Surviving Extreme Events” taught by John Holschen. I’ve taken several of John’s classes over the years. I really appreciate his experience and perspective on the issues he discusses. He’s one of the best tactical instructors in the business.

This particular class focused on strategies that the armed citizen might use to successfully survive an active killer attack or terrorist bombing. His entire presentation was phenomenal but one particular concept stands out in my mind, John related an analogy that was so good I feel compelled to share it with a broader audience.

I’m going to paraphrase John’s story. I’ll probably screw something up, but you’ll get the point at the end. My apologies in advance to John if I mutilate the point he was trying to convey.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that you stop into the same gas station every morning for a cup of coffee on your way to work. The same register clerk (let’s call her Tina) is working each day. You develop a friendly rapport with Tina as you buy your daily coffee. You guys don’t hang out, but you know each other’s names and recognize each other on sight. In other words, Tina is just a casual acquaintance.

One day you enter the gas station and see that Tina looks extremely sad. You ask her what’s wrong. She tells you that she has a medical condition that requires a $50,000 surgery. She has no health insurance or the means to pay the large bill. Tina tells you that she will die if she does not have the operation.

Would you give Tina (a casual acquaintance) $50,000 out of your own bank account in order for her to have lifesaving surgery?

Unless you are incredibly well off and philanthropic, most of us would answer that question with a very certain “no.”

We might try to organize a GoFundMe page for Tina. We might contribute a little cash towards the cause. We may help Tina get in touch with additional resources that may be able to assist her. But give someone with whom you have only a passing acquaintance $50,000? Not many of us would write that check. Our resources are better directed taking care of ourselves, our family members, and close friends.

When you walk into the gas station today, you see that Tina is being held at gunpoint by an armed robber. The robber appears agitated. You think he might actually shoot Tina in the face as she fumbles to open the cash register drawer.

The robber does not see you. You are armed and close enough to the robber that you can hit him with your CCW gun very easily. Tina’s life is very clearly being threatened by a crazed robber armed with a deadly weapon.

I’m betting that a lot more of my readers would answer “yes” to the shooting question than would write Tina a $50,000 check for her medical procedure.

Yet if you shoot someone, you risk being arrested and sentenced to a long prison term. You risk lawsuits from the person you shot, the business where the shooting occurred, and any innocent bystanders who were “traumatized” by your actions. Your legal expenses and bail money will very easily surpass the $50,000 mark

Why are you more likely to shoot to defend the life of an innocent acquaintance than you are to pay for her surgery when both actions cost the same?

Do you truly understand the potential downsides of shooting a criminal assailant? Are you willing to write that $50,000 check? Are you sure you really want to engage this potential threat?

If you pack a pistol you need to make that decision well in advance of the actual incident. Be very prudent when stepping into other folks’ problems.

I want to thank John Holschen for providing such thought-provoking fare and an excellent class.

Lots of folks got spun up about this simple scenario. They said it was an inaccurate comparison. People commented how both life saving surgery and legal costs could exceed $50K. All those folks missed the point of the analogy. Regardless of the true costs, it’s a simple question. Why are you more likely to do one thing than another when both have the same outcomes and the same costs? That’s what you should be focusing on.

You should also recognize that risks may not be solely financial. Say you shoot the robber in this scenario and your rounds are not immediately effective. What if he shoots back and you get killed by the robber? Even worse, what if he shoots back and paralyzes you for life? If either of those outcomes were likely, would you make the same decision to engage?

Several folks wrote about not being able to live with themselves if they willingly let another person be killed when they had the ability to stop the killer. Those folks should also look at an alternate possibility. What if the robber wasn’t actually planning on shooting Tina, but when you fire upon him he changes his mind? Before he finds you, he dumps a couple rounds into Tina’s head. There is regret for not acting, but there is also the risk of regret for acting and making the wrong choice. Both are possible and they need to be balanced against one another.

Please note that I did not advise anyone to never intervene during a crime in progress. The point was to get you to think about what you are willing to risk for a relative stranger. You have to make your own decisions about that.

One reader asked about my specific strategy in terms of responding to an active killer attack if I was off duty and not working at my cop job. This is what I’ve planned to do:

If I’m not on duty when the active killer attack takes place, my primary goal is to get my family/friends out alive. If I don’t see the shooter, I’m generally not going to go hunting. Instead, I’m going to get myself and family members/friends to safety outside.

One exception is if I am separated from my companions when the shooting starts. If my loved ones are near where the shooting is happening, I’m going hunting until I can either stop the shooter or rescue my loved ones.

If during our escape we encounter the killer and he threatens me or my group, I’ll take him out.

If during our escape I stumble upon the shooter without his noting my presence, I’d probably take him out if I thought I could do it safely without endangering my companions.

The bottom line is that “my people” are depending on me. I can’t take care of them if I’m dead. Off duty, I’m not going to take any unnecessary risks that might jeopardize my loved ones’ future lives.

All of those innocent victims had the same opportunity I had with regard to choosing to get quality training and carry a gun. For whatever reason, they chose not to purse those avenues. Decisions have consequences. If you choose to outsource your protection to the police, then you’ll have to wait for the police to arrive to solve your problem. That’s on you, not me.

With that said, there are certain populations that are unable to protect themselves. If this active killer event was happening at an elementary school, I might be more likely to take the offensive and engage the killer. A bunch of third graders can’t be tasked with their own protection. Someone has to do it for them. Each situation is different. If there are a large number of victims incapable of protecting themselves and a relatively long police response, I might consider offensively engaging the killer once my loved ones are safe.

The bottom line is that it’s not my job to protect a stranger (assuming I’m not working my cop job) when doing so causes a potential loss for the people I actually love.

One can make the argument that I’m not legally obligated (per Supreme Court case law) to protect any individual or group even as an on-duty police officer. That may be factually true, but if I’ve taken a job and am collecting money to keep people safe, I consider it a moral duty to respond. If I’m working, I’m going to quickly find the killer and take care of business. If I’m not at work, I’m likely to get my people to safety and let the on duty coppers respond to kill the shooter.

Another reader asked about optimal strategies if one decides not to intervene in the gas station robbery. If you choose not to shoot, you should do the following:

– Try to ID robber’s getaway driver and be sure you are protected from him as well. Take a picture of the car if you can do so without further endangering yourself.

– Get on the phone with 911, report crime, robber description, vehicle description, and direction of travel.

That’s my take on intervening during crimes in progress. You don’t have to like my response or agree with my decisions. Regardless of how you feel about my plan, you should definitely come up with a plan of your own before you are thrust into the chaos of a lethal force threat.

I will be posting more articles on the Rangemaster conference next week. Stay tuned if you are interested.

I found this article interesting and wanted to respond to it on that website. However, since his comments are closed, I plan to eventually write and post my response to Greg here in this thread.

I think there is so much more to responding to the Gas Station clerk's medical condition versus responding to a crime in progress to include a significant number of nuanced realities of life that we all take for granted every day.

More to come...

JoMa

Why are you more likely to do one thing than another when both have the same outcomes and the same costs? That’s what you should be focusing on.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The first scenario (illness) is about alleviating a random (if albeit tragic) situation, but has no moral dimension to it. It's like if a neighbor said that a meteor had destroyed his car, and could you spare $50,000. People contract cancer or die from other random occurrences every day. EVERYONE will die eventually.

In the second scenario (hold-up), it's about correcting a MORAL WRONG. Serving justice. Making a small contribution (you are, after all, at best preventing only a SINGLE robbery from taking place) to maintaining societal order, and preventing an injustice.

Cute attempt to "frame the question" so as to mislead and downplay the MORAL aspects of the two situations.

Regards,

Great reply and along the lines of the more “nuanced” items I was going to reply with. There is also the function of the immediate reality of the “potential”, pending death (in the next few seconds) versus the ability to use medical science, with time on our side, to save the person.

Additionally, the disease is only affecting the clerk. It will not affect you, assuming it is not a contagious disease. The firearm aimed at the clerk could as easily be turned and aimed at you in the next second.

These are just two of the items that are missed in the writer’s rudimentary response. And I have many more...

JoMa

Excellent story. I would recommend ‘Violence of Mind’ by Varg Freeborn, his writings follow this same thought. Most court cases do not end in ‘jury’ trials unless you have lots of money for your defense. The saying “judged by twelve rather than carried by six” is the most poorly contrived thought process out there today in the real world. Know your mission and stick to it which should be getting home to your family everyday.

At a local clinic of a large local hospital where I stop occasionally I see posters, prominently placed, stating that if you need medical services and cannot afford them, that medical establishment is bound by law to provide it for you, despite your inability to pay. Tina can get her surgery for free. The government demands it.

My preoccupation is with the possibility that the meteor hits the cancer sufferer just as one draws one's weapon.

Does one still, as the author of this article suggest, attempt to take a picture of the perpetrator's getaway driver's vehicle?

Should it matter that a picture of a meteor strike might sell for in excess of $50,000, all of which one could keep now that the gas station attendant is a former gas station attendant?

And, in this scenario, does one re-holster the weapon in order to draw one's smart-phone or camera, thereby possibly wasting valuable split-seconds?

“My preoccupation is with the possibility that the meteor hits the cancer sufferer...”

I would rather the meteor strike the robber, thus saving the clerk...and relieving you of the necessity of getting involved. Not to mention, if you’re quick enough on the draw, you pull out your camera and get a shot of the meteor strike. That would be worth it’s weight in gold...which you could share with the clerk for her operation.

There was a guy in Seattle that worked in a mall. Heard shots being fired by a shooter. Went to help - he had a pistol. He saw the shooter and told him to stop.

The good guy was shot and paralyzed. BUT - the shooter then ran into a storage room, stopping his shooting and later arrested.

In my mind, the only thing the good guy did wrong was to announce himself to the bad guy. An armed guy shooting up a mall? Just kill him. I know the arguments of surviving in order to be there for the ones you love - and that love you.

Would I be able to live with running away and leaving others to die or be injured? Of course. But probably not without second-guessing myself all the time. And what sort of life would that be?

Agreed though - one needs to know beforehand what circumstances they might use deadly force. A violent argument? So who is fighting in defense of themselves - and who is the aggressor?

Theft of an expensive item? Legal shoot in my state - but no - the punk can have the big-screen TV.

Some guy has a gun out and waving it at the cashier? Bang. Bang. Bang. (If I think I have the drop on the guy.)

You have to know your own abilities and limitations.

The perp does see you, you're confident of your training and ability at that distance.

I've got U.S. Law Shield coverage.

I take the shot, neutralize the threat, holster the weapon, ensure clerk is ok, call 911, then USLS.

As pointed out above, the original analogy is all wrong.

Tina will not die on the spot if you do not give her $50,000.

As pointed out, she has time to find financial help.

A better analogy would be if the robber had the gun pointed at her head and told you that if you do not give him $50,000, he will shoot her.

Of course you don't carry that kind of money, but if you had it on you would you?

I will bet that you would. You really don't want to see her brains all over the floor.

A better analogy would be a demand that you give him the key to your brand new $60,000 Mercedes.

But all of that said, in my mind it misses the point.

If the company Tina works for does not care enough for her to provide her with security and the store is robbed, why should you be expected to furnish security for them at no charge to them but with the potential for ruining your life and the lives of your family?

The store owner could have let Tina carry, could have had private security, could have had the place covered in security equipment...but instead chose the cheap.

And what if the cop walks in the door the instant you draw and shoots you before he gets the picture? It has happened even to plain clothes cops.

Not my pony, not my circus.

Don't bet on it. I speak from experience when I say that medical care is like many other things. You get what you pay for.

However, when taking out the bad guy, I think the author is injecting a bunch of "would/could happen" scenarios as if they are guaranteed. In being sued for your actions, I think that depends upon many issues. In particular, the state and city you live in.

This whole scenario compares apples to oranges.The first scenario is a decision while the second induces a major component of pure adrenaline. (See also: "armchair quarterback")

Let's try a real event. (Granted,this happened in the early "70"s before society had become the rotting corpse it is today.)
Out in rural West Texas some deer hunters sat at a roadside park watching a DPS officer making a routine traffic stop. They witnessed the motorist shoot the DPS officer. One of the hunters grabbed his rifle and killed the motorist.

Would you have taken the shot?

Would you give Tina (a casual acquaintance) $50,000 out of your own bank account in order for her to have lifesaving surgery? Unless you are incredibly well off and philanthropic, most of us would answer that question with a very certain “no.”

And this is where the false analogy the author uses in his long-winded excuse for cowardice breaks down. If I was the only person in the world who could pay for the surgery, I would try to do so. In the same way, if I was the only one who could save the clerk in the robbery, I would try to do so. The only remaining argument the author has is that the defender is more likely to make things worse even in the hypothetically perfect defensive shooting scenario he described. If that is the case, the author shouldn't bother carrying at all. The only thing more nauseating than cowardice are the strained excuses cowards use to justify how pathetic they are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.