Bank Shooting On Tape

Why do some criticize making the video? It was a surveillance camera. I don't know how it got on the web. I doubt it was the shooter's decision, but maybe.

It was a motel. The shooter was an NRA instructor.

I won't judge him because I wasn't in the situation, but it looks like all three shots are with the BG retreating. Not the best decision IF you are in a gun-phobic locality.

K
 
Why do some criticize making the video?
Click to expand...

You're joking, right?

Yes, it's a standard security camera - however I highly doubt that the surveillance company added the music for aesthetic resons...
Using your own "gun-phobic locality" logic against you - how well do you think that video would help the guy in civil court? There are only so many people that would have had access to that surveillance footage, and putting it on the internet was most irresponsible, period. Even if the shooter didn't do it, it still reflects poorly on him..
 
This one was discussed in another closed thread with the typical paradigmatic debate about cowardly caution vs. reckless heroics. :D

One can look for it.
 
after some investigating and some correcting i found this is a hotel/motel desk. i was also told that this wasn't tunnel vision but that the 2 d nature of the camera didn't properly show that the mom and baby were actually a couple to a few feet to the clerks left.

i am happy to see his level head ness in drawing concealed then engaging. my only concern was possible tunnel vision. i only mention this not for a put down but so the rest of us can learn. none of us are trying to screw this guy were picking it apart to learn and be better trained and more prepared.

no tunnel vision and i learned he supposedly connected on 3 of the rounds fired. that would be exceptional under stress marksmanship and much better than the norm in like situations.
 
In the links I provided above it provides you many answers to the questions you guys have asked.
The shooter on the tape did add the music to the video and included a picture of himself holding a gun at the end of the "original" I posted above.
 
I'm with Kentak the guy was trying to leave with the lady and a baby that close i would have not taken the shot the baby my have earing problems later. No amount of money is worth shooting a bystandard. The bad guy fired after the guy pulled his weapon.
 
The victim turned shooter acted correctly in my opinion. It seems according to other sources that the BG was armed and had made previous threats. The mother & child were close, but in this case they were close enough that they were not in the line of fire unless this guy shoots 4-5 foot groups at 2 yards. Looking again at the video it looks as the shooter ducks down prior to shooting, wonder if he was shot at first:confused: For those that think he should not of fired as the BG was running away, well let me say that growing up in a violent city and actually witnessing numerous shootouts, bad guys often shoot back while moving/running away. In the few seconds that this incident took place he did not have time to analize the situation as we do. If that was my wife and child I would be personally thanking him for possibly saving them from harm or death. The BG would be the one that would have be afraid of me. Blame the criminal, not the armed citizen, I'm sure the gun grabbers will take care of that.
 
Talk all you want, good shoot.

Bad guy got hit, no one injured but the BG.

Bank, Hotel whatever. I know now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the BG...LOL

It could have been a hostage situation, it could have been a lot worse, sorry about the noise and the baby and mother 5 feet away. I have seen um shot 6" away and the women cry and thanking the shooter.

You guys need some real life excitment, besides the web.:barf:

HQ
 
Naaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Way too risky, I mean it had the "Typical" woman with the baby scenario. I would have let him take the money and leave, Im no coward but the weight of having a mother AND/OR baby killed because I wanted the money more would kill my concience for the rest of my life.
If this were a 1on1 scenario I'd say go for it, but this guys a coward, he hid behind the woman behind the counter and shot with the woman and the baby in the middle of it. I dont care how "funny" the camera angle is, a motel check in AINT that big.:mad:
 
its right it might be worst if he doesnt shoot the guy immediately. it might be hard to handle a hostage situation. if that instances happened in my country it will be a very long story.:D :p
 
You sure you are from Texas, LOL

Last guys I was hunting with in Texas, were shoot um first, then ask questions.

If the guy was a coward he would not have done what he did.
I still say he did the right thing. If it would of gone bad then I might say different.

He just was a very good strategist, played his cards a little close but... Caught the guy off guard and he won the fight.
Matt Dillion he was not, more like 'Doc' or Wyatt. Sun Tzu would be proud.

Look at the big picture here, no hostages, no prisoners just a shot BG.

The old saying, any landing you walk away from, is a good one. (airplane talk)

HQ:cool:
 
nefshooter said:
No amount of money is worth shooting a bystandard.
Click to expand...

He didn't shoot a bystandard. He was shooting to save all their lives.
The robber was packing a .45 Colt.
See the chance to take out the threat take it.
Don't wait around for him to pop one as he runs out.
Happens way too often.

TexiCali Slim said:
Im no coward but the weight of having a mother AND/OR baby killed because I wanted the money more would kill my concience for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...

How would your conscience feel if you had the chance to take him out and you let him pop someone on the way out?

What if the next night he robbed a Circle K and killed the clerk there because he couldn't open the register fast enough?

The clerk found a time to catch the criminal off guard and he took it, successfully I might add.

I have seen too many videos of people getting shot in robberies for no reason. I wouldn't have let him control the situation either.
 
as for shooting as the guy ran. the perp already committed a crime that allows the use of deadly force in response. end of story. as long as he has gun in hand and is in the same room he gets shot at till one he dropps the gun or lays down and quit.
 
To look at the issue without posturing about morality - the issue is the best outcome.

What is the best outcome?

1. To stop the thief?
2. To make sure every good person doesn't get hurt?

Most banks suggest stopping the thief is NOT a goal. The goal is to make sure folks are safe. You can rant about philosophy if you want but risking other folks skin for your chest pounding is not really acceptable to me.

Thus, was lethal force called for to protect the lives of the people in the bank?

The guy was armed and could shoot even if you cooperate. These situations are tense and BGs can act in a manner which seems irrational. He could shoot back even when he was getting clean away.

On the other hand, if the BG was evaluated as fleeing, engaging him could cause him to stop fleeing and engage the fight more. Thus, more shots fired.

That's a hard call.

Then there is the baby - someone said that the baby was not in a typical range of fire. If you shoot a lot in stress situations, you do see shots go very wild.

At a recent high end class, I was in - I was standing behind the line watching the shooters with my partner. Another set of guys were shooting at the target.

The targets were 1,2 and 3. We had 3 and were waiting for our turn.

As the 2 group was shooting, I saw a hole appear on our 3 about 6 feet away. The shooting distance was about 5 yards.

I have also seen simmunitions hits on good guys several times in FOF with very skilled shooters. Not through mistaken identity but a round going wide because of stress.

While the baby wasn't hit, it is a risk to consider.

The current incident isn't a yes/no. The shooter took considerable risk. It worked out. Does that mean it was a reasonable decision? You really can't tell. You can't determine the odds with one shooting.

I said in the other thread - if the guy looked like he was going full blast out the door, I would have held him the sights and let him go.

Is there a risk to that - sure. However, my goal state would be to get the best possible outcome in terms of no injury as compared to stopping a robbery of money.
 
Well Glenn, you are just no fun, what would all the wannabe "Dirty Harry's" do if they can't dream about using their gun on someone? Settle it with common sense, that doesn't get the gun out and the heart pumping. Listening to what you wrote would preclude any gunplay, isn't that the point of having a gun??:cool:

Tongue firmly in cheek.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top