Good guy 1 Bad guy 0. CCW in action.

[TRAYSTi]

Justice is served...

 

[sparked1]

Obviously "most:" didn't feel that way as they (the police in the governing jurisdiction) didn't charge him with anything. The thing about a gun fight is that it will seldom happen in a place where conditions are ideal. In a case as this, the armed citizen has to decide if the armed intruder is a threat (personally I consider anyone that is pointing a weapon at me as a threat, and in most cases the backs that up) to him and/or the other people in the room or if the robber is bluffing and has no intention of using his weapon (which is fairly high stakes poker, considering that you are putting your life and the lives of others on the table).

The area does look close, but you are watching a silent video too. We don't know what was said, or have a feel for the atmosphere in room at the time that the clerk chose to react. What we do know is that that he reacting quickly, and smoothly. He placed three shots, and in the end could have shaved the lives of the people in that room. Yes, he could have chosen the other alternative and left his weapon holstered and given the money to the robber, but could he have lived with his self with robber had not have been satisfied with the "take" and decided to take the lady or the kid as "insurance" or "game?"

This is the reason that I stress training so much. You train and train, and then train some more, if you don't train you won't be ready. Know this........ most people shot from a handgun does not fall over dead immediately. Anytime that you engage someone, there is a chance of you getting shot and a possibility of others (in the area) of getting hit. If you are only going to use your weapon in an ideal situation, you might as well leave it at home, because the chances of having an ideal situation is about the same as having a plane fall out of the sky on you.

Luke

I didn't say he did anything illegal or that he should be prosecuted. I agree that since we weren't there and couldn't assess the situation like he could, so perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing. However, I've never heard law enforcement tell someone to fire on a robber when patrons are involved, especially if it can be avoided.

 

[Luke]

I didn't say he did anything illegal or that he should be prosecuted. I agree that since we weren't there and couldn't assess the situation like he could, so perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing. However, I've never heard law enforcement tell someone to fire on a robber when patrons are involved, especially if it can be avoided.

If the police had felt that he acted recklessly, then there are charges that could apply. You will never hear LE tell anyone to fire on anyone, and there are two good reasons for it. To give the instruction to fire upon someone assumes much liability, and departments don't like to assume liability. I know as an instructor, we have to be very careful how we word instruction because the last anyone needs is for a citizen to take a stand and state that "he was instructed by so and so to shoot or kill someone." Secondly, most LEOs believe that they are the only ones capable of being "defenders." The fact is, while there are some gun enthusiast among LEOs if you were to attend a yearly qualification of your local department, it would probably scare you to death. Obtaining a badge, does not make a "Marksman." I would venture to say, that you would be surprised at how many officers never see the range, until qualification time.

I currently work in the LE field, and have been involved in training for over twenty years and if you have read any of my post, you know that I caution people to use good judgment and to train relentlessly, but unless you have been in a gun fight (and I have, quite a few, taken a total of seven rounds over the years) then you know that when the threat enters the room, you have to make a decision. You have to decide if you are going to assume that the threat is there to harm you, or if you are going to gamble that they are only there to take the money. The problem with the latter is that if you pass up the initial opportunity to react, you may not have a second opportunity, or by the time that you see that the perp has other intentions, someone may already be hurt or dead.

This clerk done was I was trained to do and what have I have trained countless other to do. The only part of the clerk's weapon that the bad guy seen was the muzzle flash. Since the prep managed to get a few shots off, it goes to show you that the clerk was more properly trained. Since we don't know what was actually said, we don't know if it could have been avoided without injury to someone inside that room.

Luke

 

[sparked1]

If the police had felt that he acted recklessly, then there are charges that could apply. You will never hear LE tell anyone to fire on anyone, and there are two good reasons for it. To give the instruction to fire upon someone assumes much liability, and departments don't like to assume liability. I know as an instructor, we have to be very careful how we word instruction because the last anyone needs is for a citizen to take a stand and state that "he was instructed by so and so to shoot or kill someone." Secondly, most LEOs believe that they are the only ones capable of being "defenders." The fact is, while there are some gun enthusiast among LEOs if you were to attend a yearly qualification of your local department, it would probably scare you to death. Obtaining a badge, does not make a "Marksman." I would venture to say, that you would be surprised at how many officers never see the range, until qualification time.

I currently work in the LE field, and have been involved in training for over twenty years and if you have read any of my post, you know that I caution people to use good judgment and to train relentlessly, but unless you have been in a gun fight (and I have, quite a few, taken a total of seven rounds over the years) then you know that when the threat enters the room, you have to make a decision. You have to decide if you are going to assume that the threat is there to harm you, or if you are going to gamble that they are only there to take the money. The problem with the latter is that if you pass up the initial opportunity to react, you may not have a second opportunity, or by the time that you see that the perp has other intentions, someone may already be hurt or dead.

This clerk done was I was trained to do and what have I have trained countless other to do. The only part of the clerk's weapon that the bad guy seen was the muzzle flash. Since the prep managed to get a few shots off, it goes to show you that the clerk was more properly trained. Since we don't know what was actually said, we don't know if it could have been avoided without injury to someone inside that room.

Luke

I guess it boils down to training then. Seems like he had plenty of it, so I would then say he made the right call. It's hard to say that in general though because what if it was just a clerk with a gun and no training? Anyhow, I'm looking at it from the perspective of my wife and kid being in the lobby and me sitting in the car in front of that glass window. Just kind of makes you think.

 

[Luke]

I guess it boils down to training then. Seems like he had plenty of it, so I would then say he made the right call. It's hard to say that in general though because what if it was just a clerk with a gun and no training? Anyhow, I'm looking at it from the perspective of my wife and kid being in the lobby and me sitting in the car in front of that glass window. Just kind of makes you think.

In that light, I can understand your sentiment. During one of our "what if" discussions, I talked about the armed citizen in Burger King down in Miami a few years ago that stood up and yelled "freeze" during a robbery. A gun fight ensued, he put everyone in the restaurant in danger, and I made the statement that in his case, I may have been tempted to shoot him (the armed citizen, would be hero) myself.

On the other end of the coin, if you had been sitting outside in the car and the offenders intentions would have been to hurt your kid or your wife, maybe use them as a hostage, wouldn't you be so joyful in your soul when you curled up in bed with them that night, because that clerk risk his own life to protect them? Judging from the casual nature that they were standing in there, and the way the other clerk called them around the counter, I wondered if they weren't related to one of the employees. Suppose the man was the manager and had just stopped by to address something on his way back home from having dinner with his family and that was his wife and child standing there........ We don't know what prompted him to respond as he did, but I am glad for all of all that they got to go home that night.

We all (whether we carry or not) need be running "what if" scenarios in our mind, all the time.

Luke

 

[protective measures]

I believe there was a good chance that the "good guy" was very fixated (tunnel vision) on the perp. & his weapon and felt like he had a clean field of fire & therefore reacted instinctively.
I also agree that he probably has had some kind of formal training. Sure, while watching the video from the comfort of my home with a resting pulse rate of about 64 b.p.m. I would have liked to see a couple things done differently, I wasn't there & the important thing is that he got the job done w/ no collateral damage & no charges against himself.
Apparently he survived the shooting & the aftermath.

It's easy for us all to say this or that but as I've said several times, & many experienced L.E./Mil.guys on this forum have agreed, during a deadly encounter we don't typically "rise to the occasion" but rather "fall back" to our lowest level of training. You will fight as you have trained... PERIOD.

A forum member (upcoming student in this weekend's class) recently asked me about the last few shots that were fired by the "good guy".
The last few shots seemed to have been fired after he briefly lost sight of the perp. as he (good guy) ducked below cover (or actually concealment... not really cover)
while he was firing pretty quickly. Although the last few shots were fired as the perp. was running away the shooting happened very quickly & was started while the good guy reasonably still felt in danger.
Many cases that have been won in court have set precedents that the good guys were shooting so quickly that although they continued shooting after the perp. turned away, they were determined to be justified due to a lack of malicious intent insofar that the good guy was not intentionally shooting at a fleeing suspect (which is unlawful). Mas Ayoob has written some really good articles on this subject that I highly recommend.
There are no guarantees with juries but most of the time (at least in the South) as long as the bad guy was the one who initiated the violence & put the good guy in fear of his life, or those close to him, they will do the right thing if the bad guy is the only one who gets shot... but again, there are no guarantees with juries.