Good guy 1, Bad guy 0, CCW in action unedited

Some might disagree with me but IMO it looks of a reckless shoot and he is very very lucky he did hit the child.
Click to expand...

Well, that is probably because you have only seen the video and not read the accounts of the shooter anywhere.

Bottom line is that a guy came into the hotel waving a pistol. He got shot, survived and went to jail for 7 years.

Angle of the cam makes the woman and child look much closer than they were.

Cops were happy, and I would guess the DA was also becasude nothing happened to the shooter.

gunsnet.net, an AK 47 board still has some threads on it.

Here is one, but in true AK47 fasion it veers and gets profanes in parts. But it does have some of what happened that night straight from the horses mouth.

http://gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?t=260037&highlight=rooftop+voter+video+shooting

bob
 
I wonder if the kid suffered any hearing damage, that had to be VERY loud that close. Still it's good to see that scum be thwarted.
 
Ok, I read the accounts from as far as we know is the shooter. From what he says the angle of the camera makes it hard to see he is not very close to the baby. Also, the gunman can not be seen when he points his gun at the shooter. I guess I spoke before I has any good info. My bad.

As for the question about hearing loss, the shooter says he didnt notice the noise from his gun, a G27.
 
A noted point

Strange what you notice... on his third, and last shot, no follow through, he (the good guy shooter) abruptly pulled the pistol back to his chest, quite possibly affecting that last shots accuracy, a habit a few of my students have picked up.

Bulls eye shooters develop follow through, the good ones.

The above was what you notice from the eye of a fellow shooter/instructor.

His tactics, well executed, lock up and focus real good, and what can not speak, can not lie, THREE SHOTS-THREE HITS! And no hits on the other individuals in the office.

When a person is holding a gun in this instance, they are a instant target, instant! You have no control of their hand or brain! None, turn wrist, press trigger, bullet leaves gun... a second, half a second?

Your only recourse, the control factor you have, fire rapid aimed shots, which he did, and bad guy down, bad guy in jail, good results.

Shot in the back? nose? or big toe? Who cares, at any time a criminal is holding a gun, he can fire it! Solution, like our night employee did, shoot quick accurate shots. Two hands, two eyes, all hits.
 
Shot in the back? nose? or big toe? Who cares, at any time a criminal is holding a gun, he can fire it! Solution, like our night employee did, shoot quick accurate shots. Two hands, two eyes, all hits.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

= good shoot.
 
WOW! that is really scary. No matter how close or far away that little girl is it is a painful thing to deal with.

The shooter is a responsible trained CCW owner. The bad guy is a reckless, dangerous BG with a deadly weapon on who knows what committing a felony right next to a mother and child. Forget about the money. The shooter was protecting innocent life. I bet he knew that.

A ricochet could have killed the child, the mother, the female clerk, the shooter, a guy across the street, or a person asleep in one of the rooms. If the clerk did not open fire or have a gun the BG could have killed whoever he wanted however he wanted.
 
Well, assuming the angle isn't as bad as it looks, the only other thing I might complain about there is that it looks like he put a whole bunch of rounds through the glass. It might have been less than pleasant to be in that parking lot...
 
Legally:
Pretty sure that would be legal in my jurisdiction and in fact all of Ohio with very little question. I also question what happened to the baby's hearing, and the mothers. They were certainly in a location where the muzzle report would be very loud and they likely would not have "tunneled" like the shooter did, as they were likely unaware of what was going on.

Safety:
I have scanned through the links provided and have seen nowhere that the robber shot before the hotel employee, although some have claimed to see dust falling from the ceiling prior to the employee opening fire. If the robber did open fire, even into the ceiling I have absolutely no problem with the hotel employees actions.
Otherwise:
There was recently a video posted here with an instructor standing between two silhouettes taking pictures as his students did a live fire drill, a somewhat controlled circumstance. I would say he was as far from the vector of those shots as the baby was in this video. His behavior was universally condemned as being unsafe and generally idiotic.
In SD the need to shoot obviously far exceeds the need to shoot in a live fire exercise, but so do the preponderance of variables. What if the woman holding the baby, who I will assume has no training or experience, or at least any known to the shooter, had moved the wrong direction. Maybe they were "old buddies from Nam" and the shooter knew she had BTDT and would react correctly. Without the baby I would feel very comfortable with the way that unfolded. If he had moved to his right more drastically as he fired I would feel more comfortable, although this obviously introduces tripping and is going to make his shooting platform less stable.
I disagree with some others in that i believe that in a robbery such as this the perpetrator holding a gun does not necessarily mean you should take action. There are many cases where the robber has no intent to use the gun and there is no real reason in my mind to escalate it when there is a third party in between you and the shooter. Without the hotel employee firing in this case I very seriously doubt anyone would have been hurt and there would have been much less risk to the woman and baby, who I assume are his customers.

I find it very possible I would have done the some(or attempted to) in the same situation, but I probably would have thought, "wow, that was really dumb later." Split second decision his choices were certainly within the spectrum of reasonable and responsible. Like most things, he pulled it off, so he gets a pass on the shoot. I find some of the supposed shooters posts after the fact to be a little tasteless, especially his post with a link to the edited video, and for that I will judge him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top