OH Drive-Thru Store Owner Shoots Robber (Video)

So this moving and shooting at the same time stuff might not always be the best idea.
Click to expand...

Don't think he was doing that. He was making for the door and just popped of a shot (don't know how many) as he was completely focused on escape. I think moving and shooting can be effective as long as you don't forget to focus on the shooting part.:cool:

At one time moving while shooting was all the rage in shooting courses. Not so much now.

I do have to admit that Gabe Suarez does an impressive job shooting on the move, but he's moving laterally. With a little practice, you can keep the gun on target before you go buy it, while you're going by, and after you've gone by. Two hands from left to right, and one handed right to left.

Moving right at the target can be very aggressive and extremely intimidating. It might have it's applications, though moving toward incoming fire isn't one of them!:D
 
Last edited:
it is bothersome also if this nitwit isn't charged with attempted murder! we all know what would've happened if that 'soda' shot had terminated the life of the good guy...
Click to expand...

"But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was just trying to get out the door and was being shot at. He fired to protect his life."

Anybody else see that one coming?:cool:
 
No one talked about the tactics of the robber Michael Ozier. Rushing at his opponent gun blazing didn't seem to work out too well for him.

I'm definately glad that the clerk and the store owner Wes Hahn were uninjured. Aside from putting his hands up and surrendering, it probably would have been better for Ozier to try to seek concealment from which to fire from. Maybe there really isn't any cover in a narrow store like that. It seems to me that the bullets were going to zip right through coolers, six packs of beer and displays of beef jerky. But charging right at Hahn didn't work so well, he's lucky to be alive.

Is Hahn standing in the doorway to his back office?

Maybe another tactic would have been to not completly leave his office, he would have at least have had a door jam to be partially behind.
 
Don't think he was doing that. He was making for the door and just popped of a shot (don't know how many) as he was completely focused on escape. I think moving and shooting can be effective as long as you don't forget to focus on the shooting part.
Click to expand...

In my opinion and/or take of the video, it seemed that the bad guy purposely took a shot as he was directly passing the good guy while in very close proximity.
 
needs to work on shot placement...there is no reason you should hit a guy 4 times and none of them are incapacitating...
Click to expand...

Not only did he score 4 hits on a moving target, but they were decent hits. I think he did quite well.


Not to mention....
You never know what, exactly, will be incapacitating.
Based on my experience with big game, small game, upland game, and any other living creatures I've shot; I can tell you that every animal is different. By "every animal", I mean each individual, not just each species.

Sometimes, the refusal to die is due to physiology. Other times, it's just that that particular individual has an incredible amount of fight left in them.

There is no guarantee that ANY shot will be effective.
Even head shots can fail.
Center of Mass? Hah! That's like shooting at the general area of the front end of a car, and thinking that a single shot can stop the engine instantly. You might get lucky; but, generally, it just doesn't happen.
 
I heartily agree with the above poster. I have noticed that when someone is shoot who is not expecting it they seem to become incapacitated much faster than someone who is expecting it, or amped up for some other reason.

4 for 4 on a moving target is as good as it gets. We would all like the bad guy to stop as soon as possible but that might be the best you can hope for.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Roberts,

It was not a zero deflection shot. It was a 70 to 90 degree deflection (right angles) shot.
Click to expand...

The robber was charging down a long aisle towards the store owner standing at the side on the end of the aisle. Initially, that is going to be a very low deflection shot, meaning that movement won't help you much. As he gets closer, the deflection increases but the distance decreases. As moving and shooting goes, I think there was probably more useful choices the robber could have made tactically.

However, if I had decided I was going to run right at and then past the storeowner towards that exit while he shot at me, I would definitely be moving and shooting.
 
Frank has it right. My son shot two deer this year with a 30.06 and hit both of them in exactly the same spot. Both weighed within 5 lbs of each other were the same weight and age. One ran 20 feet and the other ran 400 yards.
 
This is reality. It doesn't always work out the way it does at IDPA when lives aren't at stake and no one is shooting back.
 
I think moving and shooting can be effective as long as you don't forget to focus on the shooting part.
Click to expand...

Hard to focus on shooting after being shot in leg, abdomen, and chest.

And that's the main part. FOF uses simulation guns (and I've been in TWO FOF classes were we used them.) But simulation guns don't feel like 9mm slugs. Do note, while I've been shot with simulation guns and airspofts, I've never been shot with a 9mm! but I still would rather be shot with the simulations!!!

I have no doubt the accurate incoming fire made a big difference in the bad guys return fire.


This is reality. It doesn't always work out the way it does at IDPA when lives aren't at stake and no one is shooting back.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Or in FOF.

Deaf
 
The store owner did better than most LEO in a a shootout. IMO he did well under the circumstances. He may not have done everything perfect tactically. However, he survived; the employee survived; and the owner had a very good hit ratio. When you take into account that both thugs were arrested, it is even better.

I agree there should be laws to protect innocent victims like this from a civil lawsuit. Common sense should prevail, but it would be better if a civil lawsuit was not even allowed. The thug did not have to go for the front door. How about using the emergency exit or the door in which they broke into the store?
 
Two thoughts for consideration

Yelling "freeze" is bad tactics.

There's no reason to be yelling "Freeze" or "Drop it!" But especially not so in this case, Ozier already fired a shot at the clerk before the owner emerged from the back room.
Click to expand...

First, Yelling "FREEZE!" or just a simple command like "STOP!" at the beginning of an engagement may not be tactically significant but it is superb legal strategy. Clint Smith teaches this a Thunder Ranch, and some people think he's a pretty smart guy. Such a tactic costs nothing in time or energy if one is engaging and potentially could save one from becoming an innocent victim of the legal system.

Second, it appears that the store owner ceased fire when it became clear that the BG was departing. Maybe he was out of ammo, or just ducking, but he didn't try to nail the guy as he was exiting. Smart.

Overall the store owner shot well and otherwise behaved like a responsible citizen who expected his every action to appear on video. So should we all.

Video surveillance is everywhere and every grammar school child has a cell phone that takes videos.;)

It would be highly instructive to learn what training/experience the store owner had.

IMO, if a prior robbery motivated me to upgrade the video surveillance, it would also motivate me to get a shotgun and a bullet-proof vest and keep them in the back room.
Click to expand...

The shotgun is a very good idea, as long as it is instantly available and secure from unauthorized hands. The vest in the back room? If it isn't already on your body when the poop arcs toward the blower it's wasted money.
 
The vest in the back room? If it isn't already on your body when the poop arcs toward the blower it's wasted money.
Click to expand...

The owner took some time watching the robbery unfold and he called 911 before he emerged from the back office, that's more than enough time to throw a vest on.

If you have the advantage of being concealed but are able to view the assailants, that's a huge advantage, especially in terms of time to prepare, mental attitude, advantage of surprise....

If i had a backroom with video, i'd definately have a vest back there too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top