Clerk vs. armed robber. Comments, critiques?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by David13: That thing moved fast and there was no time to plan it out "according to the book".

Most self defense confrontations develop extremely quickly. One important thing is to have the proper training; one will almost always default to his or her training when faced with violence.

Such training must necessarily address the skills necessary to react extremely quickly. Such skills include drawing, presenting, and firing a weapon very quickly, from retention position if necessary; retaining one's firearm, should someone try to take it; doing something, if possible, to keep the attacker from drawing and shooting first; moving to the side, putting something between oneself and the attacker, seeking cover or concealment, etc., if possible.

The Marionville incident happened to end with the best possible outcome: no one was hurt. But as Double Naught Spy has pointed out,

The clerk faced a less-than-determined robber and as a result, came out unscathed. So for the situation, he did well, but not because of good tactics. People often win with poor tactics, but often get slaughtered as well. So just because it worked this time does not indicate that this what should be learned by others for the future to try to repeat in similar situations.

To point out the shortcomings of the clerk's actions may seem unnecessarily critical and non productive, but the video does provide us with useful material for contemplation and training. One can either characterize it in terms of a demonstration of what not to do or as a demonstration of what to do better; it doesn't really matter.

One can start with JohnKSa's comments:

For one thing, not many experts would advise holding a gun out one-handed toward an opponent at bad breath distance.

... there's value in understanding what he could have done better. For example, one slight modification to his response would have been to grab and control the shooter's hand with his left hand (as he did) and then draw his gun to a one-handed retention position instead of holding it out to the attacker. It would have controlled the situation effectively while keeping his gun much more secure from the criminal.

Another questionable move was to relinquish control of the attacker's gun hand while it still held the gun. That gun was a deadly threat as long as it remained in the attacker's hand and there's no way he could predict with any level of certainty, that when he released the man's hand that the man would choose to retreat instead of choosing to shoot.

One other thing: we have discussed whether or not the clerk would have been able to shoot quickly enough had the robber "raised his gun." It occurs to me that some people may have in mind the idea that the robber would bring his gun up to eye level, as in gun range shooting. Keep in mind that at the distance involved, all the robber would have had to do is rotate his wrist very slightly and open up from the hip. The clerk was potentially in extreme danger from the moment the robber came in with the gun until the man had left the store. As John has mentioned,

...there's no way he could predict with any level of certainty, that when he released the man's hand that the man would choose to retreat instead of choosing to shoot.

None of us would reasonably have hoped for the robber to be injured, but it is clear that the clerk was uninjured only because of the inaction of the robber. A more prudent defender, having made the decision to resist rather than to comply, most certainly would have fired, unless perchance he had been able to gain control of the robber's firearm, or unless the robber had dropped it very quickly.

 

[OldMarksman]

The Robber

...has been identified, apprehended in Arizona, and charged.

It is reported that Arvin Smith was under the influence; alcohol, methamphetamines, synthetic marijuana, and prescription dugs are mentioned in the article.

According to the report, he was armed with a small gas or air powered pistol.

That would not lessen the charges, but it may well explain why he did not shoot when faced with a firearm.

 

[MLeake]

Looks like Old Marksman, JohnKsa, and I all see this in very much the same way, and across the board.

Double Naught Spy, too, quite possibly.

Some others seem to either believe that ends not only justify but exalt means, or that critiquing is just not nice.

 

[MLeake]

OM, I had wondered if he might have had an unloaded or fake weapon. That explains quite a bit, but begs the question as to how the robber might have acted had his gun been loaded and real.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by MLeake: That [the fake weapon] explains quite a bit, but begs the question as to how the robber might have acted had his gun been loaded and real.

It does indeed.

LEO friends tell me that meth heads are often extremely violent and cannot be reasoned with.

 

[RetiredMajor]

RetiredMajor, there is a big difference between saying the clerk made choices that reputable trainers would not recommend, and being a keyboard commando / tactical ninja who thinks they could do better, as you put it.

[...]

Just because a tactic works in a given instance, that is no reason to think it is generally sound.

Example: an ex survived a high speed car wreck because she was not wearing a seat belt. Passenger side of the Camaro she rode in was completely crushed; she flew out of the car and had her impact softened by a hedgerow, and only shattered some leg bones and had her foot torn around backwards (all surgically repaired, with multiple pins).

Because not wearing a seat belt resulted in her survival in that instance, is not wearing a seat belt "good tactics?"

I never said his tactics would work in EVERY situation, why would anyone ever say that? Real world confrontations are dynamic. This one was close, fast and left little time for thought. The clerk's INSTINCTS were right on and his actions served him well. If you want to play scenarios all day, you'll have to excuse me from that, I consider most of it a waste of time. [...]

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Saw this on Fox News. The robber was lucky. The clerk had every right to send him to meet his maker.

If the robber had raised his firearm, it likely would have ended bad. Also seemed like the criminal would have had the drop on him.

 

[pax]

<Moderator Hat on>

Some very thought-provoking posts here. Would love to see everyone stay on topic and not get dragged into off topic arguments or snarkfests.

Thanks!

pax

 

[Onward Allusion]

Anytime a "no-shots-fired" ends a bad scenario is a good thing. No doubt in my mind that the clerk would have stopped the BG should it have escalated.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by RetiredMajor: The clerk's INSTINCTS were right on and his actions served him well.

I don't know about his instincts, but his judgement was that he would be able to effectively stop the robber had the robber aimed his gun at him. Most of us question that judgement.

We now know that the clerk was never in any real danger. But he did not know that at the time.

The clerk is very fortunate that he did not harm anyone. Had the robber had a real firearm, one or both persons may well have been killed or seriously injured.

Posted by Onward Allusion: No doubt in my mind that the clerk would have stopped the BG should it have escalated.

I do not share your confidence.

If by "should it have escalated" you mean that, had the robber had a real firearm and had he decided to shoot, consider that all he would have to do is fire from the hip. The defender would have had to detect a slight change in the way the gun was pointed, react to it, and shoot.

Undoubtedly he would fail to get off the first shot, and even if he did, it is likely that the robber would have been able to fire anyway.

There is an easy and inexpensive way to test everything but that last point: Airsoft guns.

The question is, had he possessed a real firearm, would the robber have fired? No one can know, but LEO friends of mine have told me that meth heads usually have no fear and no ability to reason, and that they seldom surrender. I have spoken to officers who have chased and shot them. In one instance, a perp opened fire on his family when they asked him to give up. One did give up--a red laser in his eye convinced him.

We live among five counties with numerous meth labs. I don't know anything about the situation in Marionville.

We have spoken of the clerk's luck. Turns out that much it had to do with the fact that the robber was not really armed.

 

[colbad]

I would have also liked to have heard the audio to better assess the threat. However, if he felt his life was threatened then he acted appropriately. Also, had not the clerk engaged the aggressor, the aggressor would most likely have taken the clerk's FA as well. I believe his initial actions were appropriate.

From my 22 years LE experience I would say that tactically the clerk erred by giving up the tactical advantage. He nicely delayed the aggressor's FA coming on target opposed to trying to "out draw" him, but should not have given up the tactical advantage. Once the clerk had the drop on the aggressor he could order him to release and drop the gun or shoot him. Based upon the circumstances shooting him without warning would have been appropriate. Allowing the aggressor to back off with the FA gave up the tactical advantage and presented an opportunity to the aggressor to re-engage at any point. This opportunity could have forced a gunfight with an uncertain outcome or jeopardize bystanders caught in an unnecessary gunfight.

The deflection of the FA was nice and smooth as was the draw. I wonder if there was a round in the chamber or the safety came off with the draw? These are all important considerations that need to tactically happen at the same time. I am always bewildered by people who do not carry a round in the chamber. One other point, is that a contact shot to the head often results in significant blowback of bone, brain, blood which can jam a semi-auto. Of course the one contact shot would have done the job, it potentially could put the FA out of service if it was needed to engage a second aggressor. The last point is that anyone who has ever trained for a FA "take away" knows you need to be close. Although some distance would have been more ideal I am not sure it would have permitted the clerk to deflect the draw of the aggressor.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by colbad: Once the clerk had the drop on the aggressor he could order him to release and drop the gun or shoot him. Once the clerk had the drop on the aggressor he could order him to release and drop the gun or shoot him.

Yes, but while he is waiting for the robber to decide....

Based upon the circumstances shooting him without warning would have been appropriate.

Yes, as brutal as that sounds, based on what we understand the clerk to have known at the time, that is true.

Based on what we know now, everyone is fortunate that he did not.

Also, had not the clerk engaged the aggressor, the aggressor would most likely have taken the clerk's FA as well.

That's a good point. It is usually recommended that clerks comply with the demands of armed robbers, but the presence of the openly carried firearm, while it helped with the speed of the draw and while one would have expected it to deter most robbers, made that an iffy strategy at best.

But persons under the influence of methamphetamine do not reason clearly.

Had the robber been armed and high, and had he ignored the deterrence of the gun in the clerk's holster, drawing and firing as quickly as possible would probably have been indicated.

I do not think that sticking the gun in the robber's face was a good idea.

 

[MLeake]

IMO, the clerk could (and should) have kept his weapon in a more advantageous position by keeping it in a retention/shooting position and not thrusting it at the BG, as opposed to trying to open up physical distance.

This would have aided retention, had it proven necessary, and minimized chances of fouling (as described by colbad) or being knocked out of battery, if he had needed to fire.

I also wonder if the clerk thought to keep an eye open for possible accomplices.

 

[Theohazard]

IMO, the clerk could (and should) have kept his weapon in a more advantageous position by keeping it in a retention/shooting position and not thrusting it at the BG, as opposed to trying to open up physical distance.

I agree. And the fact that the gun used by the criminal in this case turned out to be fake just reinforces my impression that the clerk is very lucky to be alive. Things may have turned out very differently had the criminal been armed with a real gun. The clerk grabs the robber's gun at first but the robber pulled it away from him as the clerk drew his weapon. At that point the criminal could have raised his gun and started firing and I don't know if the clerk could have reacted quickly enough to avoid being shot.

When I first saw this video a few days ago I remember noticing that the robber gave up very quickly after the clerk's gun was drawn; even though he had regained control of his weapon he gave up and went away. Since the robber turned out to be high on drugs at the time, I wonder if he wouldn't have given up so easily if he had had a real gun?

This is by no means a criticism of the clerk; I can only hope I would be as level-headed as he appears to be if I were put in the same situation. That said, there's nothing wrong with analyzing his tactics and attempting to learn from them.

I am always bewildered by people who do not carry a round in the chamber.

I am too. This is a perfect example of a situation where you may need to draw and fire with one hand. Carrying without a round chambered basically renders your firearm useless in many situations, especially close-range encounters where you might need your other hand to fend off an attacker.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Given that the clerk NEVER controlled the robber's gun, I would have to agree that had the gun been loaded, then the clerk likely would have been in a world of hurt.

As I noted, the clerk did well against a non-determined robber who apparently wasn't determined, in part, because he knew he didn't have anything to shoot with. It was bluff.

I also wonder if the clerk thought to keep an eye open for possible accomplices.

This is not reflected by the video. He appears to track the robber exclusively the entire time of the video.

 

[LIBERTY]

My "training" would have kicked in immediately and the robber would have been shot repeatedly until my gun was empty!!!! Nothing to think about nothing to ponder just defend myself the best way possible and the best way in this situation was to shoot the bad guy. The clerk is a very lucky person.

 

[Theohazard]

My "training" would have kicked in immediately and the robber would have been shot repeatedly until my gun was empty!!!!

Just out of curiosity, what kind of training advises you to empty your entire magazine (or cylinder) at the threat? Say you're like me and you usually carry a Glock 19: Would your training tell you to shoot 16 rounds at your attacker, even if he was down and incapacitated after the first shot?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Good discussion, but it looks like the subject has been well covered.