Bad Decision!

B

BfloBill

New member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk&NR=1


I found this video and it disgusted me. If you read the captions it says he pushed his coworker out of the way before engaging the BG, and stepped to the side so the mom and kid were out of the line of fire. What I saw was the coworker getting out of the way on her own and the mom and kid still way to close to the line of fire for this moron to start exchanging rounds with the BG.

Was the money on the premises worth that little girl's life? It may be the camera angle, but it looks like he is barely clear of her before he opens up.

Sorry for the rant, but it ticked me off and I needed to vent.:mad:
 
Yes, the girl was dangerously close to the line of fire. IMHO he shouldn't have fired the last two shots. But I can understand how the stress would have prevented this rational thought. We have to give him that he appears to be a good shooter. Fast draw + shots on target.
 
Not a bad Decision

I watched this thing five times then showed it to a Deputy Sheriff. According to him the shooter was safe in all ways of firring the weapon but that the video does not give a clear indication as to the distance of the innocents and that the shooter was in complete control of the firearm and Little if any danger existed from the shooter more likely if the bad guy shot back with the exception that he could not since he was running away and hit. The Sheriff also stated that the shooter had what looks like extensive hand gun training identical to a Law enforcement Officer. Note that he did not chase the bad guy outside but stayed inside and kept on guard for someone to return.
In my opinion and my friend the Deputy this guy did everything correct.

Mace
 
Was the money on the premises worth that little girl's life? It may be the camera angle, but it looks like he is barely clear of her before he opens up.
Click to expand...

To the dirt bag robber it was. Seeing as they were there when he decided to rob the place. That would be robber put that family's life up for grabs as it was and they were in far less risk from the worker considering the robber was the only person he'd be interested in shooting at.
 
It's too easy to Monday Quarterback something that happens so suddenly. Hard to argue with success. I'd say good job.
 
The what if line!

The only shooting error I spotted, he had no follow through on his last shot, and it was most likely a miss.

When a person, with a gun, walks in to a business, any business, to rob it, you, or even in some cases, said robber, have no clue as to what they are going to do.

These instances have happened many times,

1/ Find the money handed over is not enough, they then shoot person.

2/ With no reason that can be seen, they shoot whoever!

Once a person is in front of you, with a gun, a threat, to you and the people in your care, and you can shoot well (he demonstrated that) you shoot them, it is impossible to predicate the criminals actions, but you can predict yours, he did.

The manager produced his pistol secretly, all he had to do was establish a two handed hold (something he has done many times) step out of cover (meaning he was temporary covered from view) go to eye level, use sights, and shoot.

Which he did, quite well. The visual trainee robber was introduced too, .40 cal muzzle blast, flash, and then impact of projectiles, caused exit stage left! His left! Quite predictable.

End result, criminal in custody, all innocents OK (a little hearing loss?) I would imagine the local Police were happy.
 
It is frequently and vigorously debated when to fire in an armed robbery. Do we assume all armed robbers will fire? They usually don't. Do we then assume that no armed robbers will fire? They sometimes do. My own decision is, if ever in such a situation, to make my decision on whether to fire or not based on my best judgement of whether the situation will end without bloodshed. That judgement is very likely to depend on cues that do not show up in the posted video - chiefly the attitude, expressions, and words of the robber.

I personally would not fire over money or other material possessions, but I know that others disagree with that ethic and I respect their beliefs. It is undeniable that an armed robber is the creator of a dangerous situation and by endangering others to one degree or another, forfeits any right or claim to safety.

The OP still has a valid point that the gunfire by the defender may have increased the risk of the situation, but if and only if he expected the incident to otherwise end with the departure of the robber with cash and no gunfire. If on the other hand he had reason to expect gunfire, he was entirely correct in taking the offensive to end the situation on his own terms. You just can't tell from silent videos with a limited field of view. (To clarify, it appears to me that the defensive gunman was in good control of his firearm and his line of fire; the increased risk I am referring to is the undisciplined return fire of the robber. The good guys should always be cognizant of the fact that this is likely to occur.)

Fortunately, any debate that takes place is engaged in light of the knowledge that the incident ended favorably.
 
I did not see him move anyone out of the way. Good shooting, but I think it was a little to close for comfort. JMHO.
 
It's too easy to Monday Quarterback something that happens so suddenly. Hard to argue with success. I'd say good job.
Click to expand...

I watched the video three times, I appeared to me as if the employee with the gun went behind the female employee as she was moving to her left I clearly saw the other employee push her to their left. The woman and child also moved to the employees left their right out of the line of fire. THis might not have been ideal events but all in all it went down good.

No real shooting event ever goes as planned for more than 2 seconds, training and reflex's kick in.
I will suggest, with all do respect, that those of you who have never been in a real world shootout limit your comments until you have been there done that.

Added: There is a reasonable debate if shooting an armed robber is ever justified. I firmly believe that the average armed robber is a homicide waiting for a place to happen, so extreme events may well call for extreme actions.
 
Last edited:
It is frequently and vigorously debated when to fire in an armed robbery.
Click to expand...

Where is the debate? If the gun (or knife) comes out then it is time for yours to come out.

I see things about the same as Marko Kloos.
It’s mind-boggling to me that there are people who perpetuate the dangerous myth that you can rely on the humanity and reason of a person who is already threatening to kill you over the contents of your wallet, an entirely inhumane and unreasonable act in itself.
Click to expand...

The clerk didn't have much room for error. Luckily he didn't make a single error. A man came in with a gun and tried to rob the place. He was using the threat of death to force compliance. The clerk responded in kind to save the lives of others. It wasn't about protecting money. It was about not being able to predict the future and reacting. By attempting an armed robbery he implied he was willing to kill or cause serious bodily injury. That is all the law requires to act in like kind.

If I see a kid running out of my shed with my weed eater, I won't shoot. If the same kid kicks in my door waving a gun and saying, "give me all your money." He is going to get shot as many times as it takes to make him stop being a threat. How many it takes is up to him and God.
 
The clerk didn't have much room for error. Luckily he didn't make a single error. A man came in with a gun and tried to rob the place. He was using the threat of death to force compliance. The clerk responded in kind to save the lives of others. It wasn't about protecting money. It was about not being able to predict the future and reacting. By attempting an armed robbery he implied he was willing to kill or cause serious bodily injury. That is all the law requires to act in like kind.
Click to expand...

This.

Great post.

The clerk didn't decide that the conflict was "worth that little girl's life." The attacker did!

When the criminal threatened to kill innocent people, he made the most important choice of the day: he decided someone was going to get hurt or killed. He decided the conflict was worth a human life. That wasn't a choice the good guy made. That was a choice the criminal made.

After the criminal made that decision to threaten innocent lives, literally the only choice left for anyone else in the situation was whether they would allow their lives to be taken at the criminal's whim -- or whether they would instead stop the attacker before he could complete his threat to kill the innocent.

pax
 
Was the money on the premises worth that little girl's life? It may be the camera angle, but it looks like he is barely clear of her before he opens up.
Click to expand...

I am not sure you understand what transpired. The robber threatened to kill people. The clerk was not protecting the money, but the people.

Over and over I hear in gun classes and read on the internet how folks are not willing to die for their wallets. I am not either. However, the problem is that when somebody is demanding a wallet, money, valuables, car, etc., they generally threaten to take your life in the process. That is what I will be protecting, life.

Don't get me wrong. I think compliance has its place and the clerks complied so long as it was advantageous to their position. However, compliance does not necessarily mean safety. Can you trust the man robbing you to not kill you just because he says he won't? If he is already robbing you, just how much trust do you have in him?

Good shooting, but I think it was a little to close for comfort. JMHO.
Click to expand...

In life or death situations, comfort usually isn't a salient consideration. Being threatened at the muzzle of a gun by a bad guy isn't very comfortable either. Think about it.
 
I saw this video a long time ago and thought it should have been executed a little differently.
He was calm and deliberate in his preparing for action. He obviously (seemingly) assessed the situation, thought out what he was going to do, and then acted.
I have no problem with his decision to shoot, but that was extremely close to that mother and child.
I think he should have made more of an effort to be clear of all innocents.
If she (the mom) would have not moved in the direction she did, either by freezing in place, or by moving the other direction, things could have turned out very differently.
I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as hell don't want bullets whizzing by my head on their way to a bad guy.
I would also really have a hard time living with the fact that I accidentally killed a little kid while trying to stop a robbery.
 
What I saw was the coworker getting out of the way on her own and the mom and kid still way to close to the line of fire for this moron to start exchanging rounds with the BG.
Click to expand...

Actually, when the fight started the mom and kid were 90 degrees to the left of the shooter. In less than a second, the robber moved from facing the clerk to out the door and off to the left side.

It seems to me the clerk did fairly well. His muzzle never covers anyone but the robber. We could always wish that the mother and child were more removed from the line of fire; but given that a gunfight was in progress and they weren't actually in the line of fire, I don't see what else the clerk was supposed to do. Stop firing at the robber and hope all went well?

By the counter on the video, the entire incident, from the clerk presenting the pistol to the robber lying on the ground outside the door happened in 1 second. Not a lot of time to make decisions in - and its hard to argue with success as the result.
 
To move to a better position? The criminal would have seen the gun in Managers hand that much sooner! more time elapsed.

Up and fire, correct decision.

A 9mm recoils less, 147g non +p Ranger T, at least an extra round, same time frame, me? Head shots, but I was not there, he did just fine. He started to breath again! 30 seconds? I guess. BP 200/95 pulse? 140 bpm, we at least know his heart works!
 
I 110% agree with PAX.

The robber has initiated the potential use of deadly force against everyone in the room, including the baby. (I think PAX agrees with this in his post)


Yes everyone in the room had risk and IMHO (I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion not legal advice) it rose to the level in my state that I would have found it met the legal requirements for the application of deadly force to stop the attack.

We teach and rightly so that no one should ever be in front of the muzzle of a gun and you are justified in being concerned but there was no way to quickly and decisively end the attack without engaging despite others being forward but not in front of the barrel. The BG could have opened fire and the very fact that he was in such an act shows conclusively that he had at that moment in time he had little or no regard for human life. Any other action the CCW holder might have taken to delay the engagement would have probably delayed the amount of time until the unlawful attack was stopped and may have resulted in the death of innocents by the attacker.

Ultimately we must train to be able to fire with people forward of the barrel and we need to have the confidence and skill to be able to engage BGs without injuring or harming innocents in order that we can stop the unlawful attack threatening life. Some gun courses allow for students to be forward of the firing line even while live fire is ongoing and I believe rightly or wrongly it is for this very reason.

For myself my suggestion would be to seek to hone your skills to a very high degree and seek out one of these courses. (With well-known and well qualified instructors)
 
Last edited:
Isn't there any other legal concerns?. I mean, it looks like the clerk shoots three times, but shoots when the bad guy is already on the run, or at least it so looks to me...
 
Does anyone else think the original tape must have been edited a bit? The action seems quite smooth, then there's a jerk, and the would-be robber sort of materializes out of thin air... so it's not clear to me that we can tell at what point the clerk started shooting, either.

And it seems to me that the camera angle makes it appear that the mother and child are closer to the line of fire than they actually are.

I'm not automatically in favor of resisting, as opposed to compliance, in these situations; but in this case, with a mother and baby right in front of the BG, in a perfect position to be grabbed and taken hostage if the clerk had hesitated or if anything had gone wrong... I have to say it was the right call, and well done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top