“If you go to guns you failed,” Steve Tarani writes in American Handgunner. That “means that you failed multiple opportunities to take preventive measures in ensuring your personal security and that of those who you are responsible to protect.”
The guy has an impressive CV. He’s a subject matter expert, an educator, and an author “specializing in awareness-based training” with decades of experience in both public (CIA, DOE, National Security Institute) and private (Gunsite Academy, Sig Arms Academy) sectors. So, at the risk of ignorantly challenging the professor in a class I have no business even attending without passing some advanced prerequisites, I’m going to call BS on the example he uses to illustrate his point.
I won’t argue with the reality that going to the guns should be a last resort and that situational awareness can prevent encounters from occurring in the first place. Those are self-evident truths that go hand-in-hand with avoiding sketchy people, areas, and situations when we can.
But sometimes, the best-laid plans don’t work out, and we find ourselves in a fight-or-flight situation—or, as Tarani recounts, fight or surrender.
He tells the story of one of his students who was mugged, admitting, “it was a situation that warranted firearm response and it would have been a justifiable shoot.” Instead, the student didn’t act and instead mulled over the legal and financial ramifications of doing so:
“He therefore reluctantly kept his readily accessible weapon in his holster and handed over his wallet. Luckily, his phone wasn’t on his person at that time and he later cancelled any cards after the perp vacated the area getting away with about $100 for his troubles. Looking back on the situation he said it was the best decision of his life.”
How fortunate for him that he still has a life he’s able to look back on. Because it wasn’t the wallet the perp was threatening, it was the robbery victim’s life. And while that priceless life was being threatened, he was worrying about liability and calculating attorney fees…?
As we’ve seen before, just giving predators what they want is no guarantee that a violent, sociopathic moron twisted enough to threaten strangers over chump change can be counted on to respond rationally. Consider these headlines:
- GRAPHIC WARNING Hotel Manager Fully Complies With Armed Robber, But He Murders Her Anyway
- Roxbury store clerk shot during robbery dies after nearly two months on life support
- Mesa QT clerk killed over cigarettes
Consider the “Wendy’s Massacre,” where the robbers “took the seven employees into the restaurant’s freezer, bound and gagged them at gunpoint, put plastic bags over their heads, and then shot each of them in the head.”
Just give them what they want? What if, after you bare your throat and cede all decision-making to remorseless reptiles, you find out what they want is you?
It’s a little late to act at that point.
Sorry, Mr. Tarani, I’m not trying to start a public fight with you, I’m just saying too many real-life reports don’t have such happy endings, and when confronted with an immediate existential threat, internal second guessing and hesitation only work to an attacker’s advantage.
Face it. Your guy got lucky.
Most defensive gun uses end without a shot being fired– that’s the choice he could have made once he had determined that he’d stopped the threat. Instead, he left all choices to his attacker.
Admitting there’s no one size fits all approach, and each situation is different, I hope if ever confronted with such physical intimidation I have the presence of mind to respond less like your student and more like Sonia Sotomayor’s security guys. As for the legal liabilities, the $150,000 in attorney fees, and other considerations you cite, at least I may be around to pay them — true, I may not, but I can count on my judgment and experience to guide my choices and actions more than on the “mercy” of some desperate and evil piece of human excrement who forces them on me with the threat of death.
Like the saying goes, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. And like the poem advocates, “Do not go gentle into that good night.”
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Having over 4 decades LEO instructing experience.
One incident should not be used to make policy.
It can be used as training information.
But as a blanket statement for policy. It is a bad idea.
There’s insufficient information here, did the mugger have a weapon, if so, what? IMOA, the guy was fortunate that the mugger didn’t pat him down and find the gun.
Presumably there was sufficient disparity of force that lethal defense would be justified. If a 200 lb unarmed man attacks a 90 lb 80 year old woman – does she not have a right to protect herself? What tools would you suggest which even come close to effectiveness of a firearm? I presume victim did not hand over his wallet simply due to a firm verbal request. Thus I think specifics of how mugger was armed, or claimed to be armed, are kind of irrelevant.
Whole heartedly agree that victim was extremely luck mugger did not find the gun.
We’re being told a story that the guy could have used deadly force but didn’t. No one can answer what would you do in this situation because of insufficient information. Was he held at gunpoint, finger gun, knifepoint, stick, baseball bat, multiple muggers, etc.?
Finally, you said something good.
Based on the information presented in the article, we have to presume the mugger presented a threat of death or grave bodily harm. Otherwise, it would not have been “a situation that warranted firearm response and it would have been a justifiable shoot.”
This guy has a lot of three letter agencies attached to his name, but is he credible because he wears instantly credible pants?
Was he a pencil pusher? Or does he have the the been there, done that t-shirt complete with embedded lead fragments?
No one will know for sure, as he is not permitted to talk about it.
I’ll stick with my grain of salt.
I’ve taken several courses from Mr. Tarani. He was most certainly not a pencil pusher. He shares stories, at least ones he is allowed to share as he still has contracts with multiple 3-letter agencies. He shares pictures of previous executive protection details, including being lead for Trump during his first campaign before the USSS took over.
i understand the rational in his article but sometimes you have no choice, you can never trust what an animal will do, two or four-legged.
being proactive is always better than being reactive, playing catch-up. situational awareness has to constantly be used to prevent a reactive situation.
out is society is no place to be unaware of your surroundings, face buried in a screen, with earbuds blasting.
getting hit by suv as they walk in street
insert Jeff Cooper’s quote here about the criminal doesn’t fear the police or legal system. To get criminals to stop attacking citizens, then the the criminals must learn to fear their potential victims.
Sounds like Mr. Tarani needs to go back to Gunsite for further education.
“He therefore reluctantly kept his readily accessible weapon in his holster and handed over his wallet. Luckily, his phone wasn’t on his person at that time”
He is lucky the mugger didn’t take the gun. It was probably worth far more than the wallet or the phone.
It’s always easy to second guess someone else’s decision, but it sounds as though this student hadn’t given the decision to carry a weapon as much thought as he should have. Since the Great 2020 Democrat Summer of Lawlessness, in addition to the examples that Mr. Codrea cited, I can recall security videos of several more that made a profound impression on me. A man walking his dog in Philadelphia around 10 PM (nuts) was rolled up on by two assailants. Despite offering no resistance and complying completely, they shot and killed him afterwards. In another, a Midwestern C-store clerk was nothing but helpful… Read more »
Here is the simple truth of the matter. Culture has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. Restraint by moral or practical motives has eroded over decades. Drug use has certainly contributed. If you have ever dealt with long-term coke, meth or speed addicts you know what I mean. Their brain wiring gets crossed over time and they become unpredictable. Out here in meth country, cartel country you do not ever trust the motives of a criminal. Never. There are other influences at work. MS-13 practices Santaria. In that twisted mess of Aztec and Catholic liturgy human sacrifice is a… Read more »
Nrringlee,
A junkie, and meth head, will both steal your stuff, but the meth head will come back, and help you look for it!!!
Tarani is trying to get us killed, to make a higher statistical count to prove the anti-gunners right!! No one should EVER follow this person…to the toilet.
Disagree. While I don’t agree with Tarani’s premise in that case, he has a lot of wisdom to share from his experiences in the field.
If anyone agrees with 100% of what someone else says, then they probably aren’t thinking enough. Even with nearly 8 billion people on the planet, we won’t find anyone who agrees with us on every point every time.
And don’t be snookered by “shooting insurance” either. Once you open fire, no leftist insurance co. is going to pay anybody anyway.
Have an “attorney on retainer” to represent you. That way, when you call the hotline, everything you say is protected versus calling an insurance company or membership organization.
I live by simple guide ,they attack I kill them then god can figure it out
Tarani’s flawed basic assumption is that one always has complete knowledge of and control of the situation and therefore can always avoid a dangerous event. This assumption is obviously flawed because no matter how careful you are or how aware you ar,e bad people can do bad things even if you could not have foreseen it. This flawed assumption is extremely self-serving for Tarani since he makes his living selling and teaching situational awareness. Is situational awareness very important? You bet but it is not the cure all that he presents it as. Accept the fact that he is selling… Read more »
Tarani’s statement, “If you go to guns you failed…multiple opportunities to take preventive measures in ensuring your personal security and that of those who you are responsible to protect,” is true in some cases. But to put out such a blanket statement is insupportable and displays an arrogance of belief that “my actions can control another’s actions simply because ‘I am that good.'” Everyone’s situational awareness fails them because humans are incapable of perfect situational awareness. We focus our attention on what is important to us right now. Only when our attention is ripped away from what we are attending… Read more »
Good article as usual Mr Codrea! Regarding the article in American Handgunner, my only reaction is “WTF?” Has AH started hiring the likes of that guy that used to write regular pieces on AmmoLand? I forget his name, but he regularly shared ideas that did not sound as if they came from a real “gun person”. I haven’t read an American Handgunner in years. In fact, I bought my first gun magazine (the paper kind) in years, just last week, because an article listed on the front grabbed my attention. If this is what a magazine that formerly featured the… Read more »
No, no, no. Tom McHale puts out a terrific magazine each month, and has the following excellent authors in the American Handgunner stable:
Roy Huntington, Duke Venturino, Tank Hoover, John Taffin, Mark Hampton, Pat Covert, Greg Derr, Alan Korwin, Will Dabbs, Dave Anderson, and of course Massed Ayoob!
It is improbable that we all agree, all the time, so if you don’t like Steve Tarani … well … read one of the other authors.
Thanks for the info, Wild Bill! Like I said, it has been a few years. In the internet age, I just don’t buy or subscribe to gun mags as I once did.
Sadly, Duke Venturino recently passed, per a YouTube short by Mr Huntington. I always hate to see those old guys pass on. I miss Elmer Keith, Jeff Cooper, Skeeter Skelton, and so many more who entertained and educated us with their writings over the decades.
Many of these guys (and some gals) write for multiple magazines and online publications. That’s part of the business. Many also teach regularly and/or consult in private industry or with government contracts.
Regardless, there are things that each expert can share that we may disagree with. There are also situations where points are made without enough evidence because of space limitations (especially in print publications).
I believe you’re thinking of Harold Hutchinson. Very rarely did he have anything worthwhile to contribute. Without knowing the authors name, many here could guess it was him just by the article.
There’s four main scenarios that we all will be in on daily basis
1) normal day nothing of interest to impede your normal day
2) you see something you want to avoid so you go right instead of left
3) you get into a situation between you and a perp
4) you see an incident between others, your Patriotic duties kick in
Being prepared for any of them is a must. #1 is preferred.
In numerous instances a single punch has been shown to kill. The threat of force to get me to comply to a demand is sufficient for me to use the amount of force necessary to end that threat. As a former Leo I know of numerous instances in which an ambush type tactic was used to initiate a crime. Rushing from bushes, quickly cutting your vehicle off and surrounding it with multiple assailants. Rushing your door as you open it to let a pet or family member in. The use of a firearm in such instances may be the only… Read more »
Perhaps this was the first “mugging” in history where the perpetrator’s threat was “Give me what I want or I’ll speak harshly to you”?
WTF is a “mugging” anyway? Isn’t it really an armed robbery?
Legal.com (https://legal.com/glossary/m/mugging) defines it this way- “Mugging is a crime involving an attack on an individual in a public place with the intent to rob them. It typically involves physical assault or the threat of violence to coerce the victim into surrendering their possessions.”
Huh, “physical assault or the threat of violence”. Imagine that.
Any attacker not taken out of the gene pool is one left to attack someone else. There is a strong possibility their actions will escalate until it’s too late for that someone.
Seems like the FIRST decision Mr. Tarini’s student should have made, but didn’t, was insurance coverage for carrying a firearm. Then, the student can move on to considering strategies to avoid the need to use a weapon, and if unavoidable, the tactics the student would use in different foreseeable situations. Sad, but true, we make our best decisions based on our training and forethought… when not under severe pressure in a novel situation. FWIW, some homeowner policies may also provide some liability coverage should a weapon be used for self defense under some circumstances. The student should check homeowner insurance… Read more »
Insurance is not the answer. While there is a likelihood that the individual would be covered, there have been a number of recent high profile cases where legitimate cases (in the opinion of the judge, defense counsel and potential expert witnesses) where a defendant should have been covered but was not. Speak with an attorney. As little as $25 or $35 per month will allow you to have one on retainer.
What the victim allowed permitted the perp to commit another robbery (and many more?). The criminal doesn’t deserve to live. If you are right to defend your life and property, and know you are right, you should act accordingly. You can further protect yourself by purchasing legal representation, such as US LawShield.