Defending Yourself: Robbery Car Jacking, and Use of Force

[T2C]

I agree that the shooter in the gas station should have handled things differently. I think using an impact weapon (whiskey bottle, metal rack, mop, broom, etc.) is something people need to consider when training to respond to a self defense scenario against an unarmed assailant. Skipping several steps in the use of force continuum and going directly to a firearm shows the firearm is the primary or only focus of training.

Officer Wilson on the other hand had a job to do and had no duty to retreat.

[26 Inf]

Thanks for a nice discussion.

[jjackson@tierthreetac]

In scenario # 1, I have no problem with the courts siding with the man who shot his attacker, but the courts or grand jury could have easily ruled the other way.

1) If the instructor was aware the subject was being at least verbally aggressive, I don't understand why he approached the cash register in the first place.

2) When the instructor approached the register, he exposed an open carry firearm to the aggressive subject and the situation could have easily devolved into a physical conflict for weapon retention. When he moved to the rear of the subject, he could have stepped further away from the aggressor and removed himself from the situation.

3) Following the subject outside the store to make a mental note of the vehicle registration may not have been necessary. Surveillance cameras likely had the information as the cameras definitely recorded the subject and vehicle description.

4) When the subject followed the instructor back into the store, I did not see anything that would warrant presenting his pistol. Perhaps the instructor heard verbal threats that we could not review on the video, which would justify deadly force.

5) The instructor continued to retreat which weighs in his favor, but if he intended to push and apply other physical force having the pistol holstered probably would have been a better idea. It's difficult to apply less than lethal force with a pistol occupying one hand.

6) Once the instructor backed into an area with no avenue of escape, he was surrounded by impact weapons he could have used to apply force. I would not criticize his moving into that particular area in the store, because he may not have been familiar with the store layout or stress interfered with his remembering the store layout.

7) When the instructor made the decision to discharge his pistol, it appeared he was not aware of the location of the store clerk. Even if a projectile would not pass through the subject, people miss at close distance and someone else could have been hit.

I don't understand what this situation has to do with the attack on a uniform police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Maybe 26inf can elaborate.

This is a great video for teaching situational awareness, a class could assess the instructor's actions and offer different/better courses of action. I would like to see more of the video to see how the people in the store controlled the aggressive man after he was hit by gunfire. What did the shooter do with his firearm after he disengaged? Where were people staged in preparation for the arrival of police and EMS? Did the store clerk lock the doors?

All of this. Its good to see the exchange you guys are having. I think it highlights that reasonable people can have differing interpretations of what the correct actions are. I tend to think that just because you are legally allowed to do a thing doesn't mean you should. In the end the instructor was extending the situation and the other guy should have probably been knocked out.