Victim Disarms Armed Robber

Do you work on gun disarms in your empty-handed skills training at all? I think an important part of Active Self Protection is knowing how to win a fight when you’re not the one who has a firearm out. This guy did that with aplomb!

Original video of the armed robber being disarmed: https://get-asp.com/x916 (WARNING: this site is very, very NSFW and filled with adult content…strongest warning possible…I get videos from it when I can’t find it anywhere else but do NOT endorse anything about it)

 

What does this intended victim teach us about beating an armed robber?

 

 

  1. The Five Ds are a tool that we use at ASP to organize our training and preparation for defending ourselves against an armed attacker when we are not armed ourselves. (or if we are armed but outdrawn such that we must deal with the problem with our hands) Deflect, Dominate, Distract, Disarm, Disable. We pursue them from first to last, in order, to give us the best chance of successfully defending ourselves against an armed opponent. Deflect their force multiplier, Dominate as much as possible (best is the whole person, second is the arm with the tool, last is the tool itself), Distract the attacker (usually using pain, redirection, movement, etc.), Disarm the attacker, and Disable the attacker. This armed robber wilted when the victim put the Five Ds to work in taking action!

 

  1. In the moment an armed robber attacks you, you must look for your opportunity to protect yourself. It is strongly possible that the moment of the attack is not that moment. You want to wait for the time that the armed robber is not focusing on you to act with decisiveness to protect yourself.

 

  1. The root word of gunfight is “fight,” not “gun.” Whether you carry a firearm or not, recognize that you need to know how to fight and protect yourself against an attacker! Even if you do carry a firearm, you need empty-handed skills to be able to fight your way to your gun or defend yourself before you get the opportunity to draw. To think otherwise is madness.

 

  1. If you don’t have a force multiplier in the fight but the attacker does, to defend yourself you must know how to close the distance to get your hands into the fight. A firearm has significant distance advantage, and a smart attacker will keep it out of range from your hands. If you do choose to fight back, you MUST close the distance to get the gun out of the fight before he can use it against you. That usually will involve feigned compliance and redirection as well as waiting for the right opportunity to move.

 

  1. Remember, at the end of a defensive encounter your goal is to get to safety and end the threat against you and your loved ones. Pursuing a fleeing bad guy for whatever reason is unwise because they very well may counter-ambush you or hurt you to make their escape. Once the threat ends, let the threat go and take action to make yourself safer.

 

  1. One of the five pillars of lawful, moral self-defense is “imminence,” (get a nutshell here: http://get-asp.com/wbbp or the whole concept here: http://get-asp.com/1fqe ). Imminence means the threat is happening RIGHT NOW, that it’s neither too late nor too early for you to defend yourself! The standard of imminence is seen as a triad of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy (also known as the AOJ triad, which is explained here: http://get-asp.com/pm3k in some detail). In light of that, was this victim right to take the shot at the armed (now disarmed) robber? At that point, the robber had disengaged, but the action was still singular and the fight was still on. What we saw on camera probably wouldn’t cause him legal problems in most states. If he continued to pursue the robber and shoot at him after it is clear that he was fleeing, then it could cause him significant problems.

 

Attitude. Skills. Plan.

 

(music in the intro and outro courtesy of Bensound at http://www.bensound.com)

 

 

1 reply
  1. Joe
    Joe says:

    I think the shot is something a lot of people would do naturally once they got the upper hand, but I’m not sure a jury would see it that way. He probably should have destroyed the video evidence and just used testimony. 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *