The Gas Station Clerk (A response)

activeresponsetraining.net ^ | March 21, 2019 | Greg Ellifritz

[joma89]

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

[alexander_busek]

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,

[joma89]

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

[Envisioning]

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.

[Tucker39]

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.

[mad_as_he$$]

The best gun fight is the one you never have.

[golux]

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?

[wastoute]

He ignores a major point. Shooting a robber DOES benefit me. It guarantees that robber will never be a threat to me or mine.

[ExGeeEye]

If FR had a “like” function, your post would get it.

[moovova]

“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.

[21twelve]

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.)

[G Larry]

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.

[old curmudgeon]

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.

[eastexsteve]

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.

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.

[Louis Foxwell]

Shooting is not killing, nor is it necessarily stopping. Sometimes shooting makes a bad situation worse. I must agree, however, confronting and returning fire at a killer shooting children is always the right choice.

[Uncle Miltie]

Shoot the bastard.

Because dissuasion of that perp and MANY OTHER FUTURE PERPS is the point. Civilization has to start somewhere, with good people setting an example of behavior and consequences.

[Mr.Unique]

The robbery decision is easy: two birds with one stone.

[G Larry]

"The perp does see you"

grrrrrr.......

does NOT see you!!!!

[SanchoP]

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?

[Ronaldus Magnus]

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.