Armed Robber Makes Mistake

[glocktogo]

Every training I've ever taken (military and civilian) is telling me that this guy was wrong and he should have shot the guy as soon as a firearm was brandished against him.

Who's to say the dumbass robber had nothing to lose and wasn't going to pull the gun on the clerk again as he was backing away?

Am I the only one that feels this way?

No...but...I always say "trust your instincts". The clerk was in the thick of things and perhaps his reptilian hind brain told him "this robber isn't committed to his course of action".

I find it very difficult to MMQB anyone who walks away without a scratch.

[nml]

Took awhile to calm his wife down. “But I got all kinds of lovin’ when she came home.”

[sboza]

Yes. You'll note he kept his gun trained on the perp the entire way out. A trigger pull is much easier and faster than lifting an arm, so the idea that there was a real risk he'd be shot first frankly isn't well-founded.

But the bigger picture you seem to be missing is the reality that shooting people generates an outrageous amount of personal turmoil (look at the recent Zimmerman trial as an example). All the time, energy, and cost of explaining yourself, representing yourself, and establishing your justification in the aftermath of a shooting is not something to be taken lightly, and obviously not something this gentleman was willing to incur just on the off-chance the guy who tried to rob him might be Superman.

I seem to recall over the time you've been a member of this forum you've detailed a couple incidents where you yourself felt the need to draw your weapon. In both those incidents, were you as eager to drop the hammer as you seem to be on this man's behalf?

A lot of fail in this comment. A lot of good folks have died due to this kind of armchair crap. Action beats reaction. Thinking that a bad guy holding a gun not pointed at you gives you the advantage when you have yours on the threat is a big ****ing mistake. Again, action beats reaction! I don't have time to write a long post so others may fill you in on all the literature out there supporting this. Start with Grossman, study the OODA loop, etc... And stop giving advice you are clearly not qualified to give.

Second, it is of the utmost importance that anyone that carries a gun is not walking around with all the "what if ..." baggage that comes from an overly litigious and political system. Zimmerman or or any other example should not be a reason to shoot or not shoot. The numbers show that an overwhelming number of officer don't shoot under circumstances on which they legally could have. Most of these officers live to fight another day because the bg choose not to kill or attempt to kill the officer. The choice should never be the bg's! This all comes down to training proper mindset. This is an uphill challenge because we do not like to kill and the legal/political atmosphere in which we love. All ended well for this man so it's one in the win column. BUT, sound tactics aren't devised based on giving the bg the choice of surrendering when your life is in jeopardy.

Wish I had time to write more an proofread but hopefully my point comes across.

[SteyrAUG]

If I had to give a grade this would be an A+.

Lots and lots and lots of ways you can **** up that situation. The main thing that stands out to me is "calm under pressure."

[Frailer]

A lot of fail in this comment. A lot of good folks have died due to this kind of armchair crap. Action beats reaction. Thinking that a bad guy holding a gun not pointed at you gives you the advantage when you have yours on the threat is a big ****ing mistake. Again, action beats reaction! I don't have time to write a long post so others may fill you in on all the literature out there supporting this. Start with Grossman, study the OODA loop, etc... And stop giving advice you are clearly not qualified to give...

Speaking of "armchair crap..."

By your logic nobody is qualified to comment, as none of us was there.

Whether the bad guy has gun or where said gun was or was not pointed is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in such an encounter is whether the good guy believes he is in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. *Apparently* the good guy in this encounter didn't believe this was the case.

I'm not going to second-guess anybody who walks away from such a situation unscathed.

BTW, your "action beats reaction" is misapplied here.

[Mac5.56]

If I had to give a grade this would be an A+.

Lots and lots and lots of ways you can **** up that situation. The main thing that stands out to me is "calm under pressure."

That's what I was talking about. Thank you SteyrAUG for constantly being a voice of reason.

[sboza]

Speaking of "armchair crap..."

By your logic nobody is qualified to comment, as none of us was there.

Whether the bad guy has gun or where said gun was or was not pointed is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in such an encounter is whether the good guy believes he is in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. *Apparently* the good guy in this encounter didn't believe this was the case.

I'm not going to second-guess anybody who walks away from such a situation unscathed.

BTW, your "action beats reaction" is misapplied here.

As for the armchair comment you are trying to throw back at me, I did not critize the citizen who defeated the bg. But I see what you are trying to do. I hate that I allow myself to get sucked into the lowest common denominator area of this otherwise wonderful forum.

Regarding action defeating reaction, I did not, and do not have time right now to fully lay out my argument but it is far from misapplied. Even in simunition exercises, I can get a com hit with my gun down by my side vs a gun pointed at me (inside 5 yards) by simply canting my wrists and firing. I achieve a first hit every time. I may die but I'm taking out the good guy also. A typical bg doesn't have a high level of training and may not be able to achive this but I guarantee that there Is a high likelihood that he will be able to get a shot off first and then it's up to fate. So I do not believe that it is wise to treat a threat with a gun out as anything less than a deadly threat (barring effective cover possibly). That said, I am talking about a tactic, I never said the guy should have shot the bg nor did I criticize him in any way. Especially since I, nor anyone else here, have all the facts.

It is important for folks who carry a gun to understand this. I wish I had more time to go into further detail an sources but it's no big secret that many folks don't shoot even when they perceive a deadly threat an every individual wil have a different threshold as to when they feel that level has been reached. But knowledge, in this case the knowledge that an individual with a gun at his side can kill you even if your muzzle is pointed between his eyes, can help individuals fine tone their threat assessment.

Thee is nothing revolutionary in my comment so before you get your heels dug in, as is customers in GD, do some research and read through my, albeit hasty, comments again.

The mentality of "it worked so it must be a good tactic," is counterproductive and what leads to institutional inbreeding. If we can spread more knowledge through successful operations, we won't have to wait for more folks to die to reshape out TTP's.

[Safetyhit]

And stop giving advice you are clearly not qualified to give.

You might be well served to follow your own suggestion. Nothing better describes an "armchair commando" than one who can't say enough negative things about a well versed ex-serviceman who successfully thwarted an armed robber with not a shot fired.

[SeriousStudent]

Breathe, everybody, breathe......

[Frailer]

As for the armchair comment you are trying to throw back at me, I did not critize the citizen who defeated the bg. But I see what you are trying to do. I hate that I allow myself to get sucked into the lowest common denominator area of this otherwise wonderful forum.

Regarding action defeating reaction, I did not, and do not have time right now to fully lay out my argument but it is far from misapplied. Even in simunition exercises, I can get a com hit with my gun down by my side vs a gun pointed at me (inside 5 yards) by simply canting my wrists and firing. I achieve a first hit every time. I may die but I'm taking out the good guy also. A typical bg doesn't have a high level of training and may not be able to achive this but I guarantee that there Is a high likelihood that he will be able to get a shot off first and then it's up to fate. So I do not believe that it is wise to treat a threat with a gun out as anything less than a deadly threat (barring effective cover possibly). That said, I am talking about a tactic, I never said the guy should have shot the bg nor did I criticize him in any way. Especially since I, nor anyone else here, have all the facts.

It is important for folks who carry a gun to understand this. I wish I had more time to go into further detail an sources but it's no big secret that many folks don't shoot even when they perceive a deadly threat an every individual wil have a different threshold as to when they feel that level has been reached. But knowledge, in this case the knowledge that an individual with a gun at his side can kill you even if your muzzle is pointed between his eyes, can help individuals fine tone their threat assessment.

Thee is nothing revolutionary in my comment so before you get your heels dug in, as is customers in GD, do some research and read through my, albeit hasty, comments again.

The mentality of "it worked so it must be a good tactic," is counterproductive and what leads to institutional inbreeding. If we can spread more knowledge through successful operations, we won't have to wait for more folks to die to reshape out TTP's.

You didn't seem to understand "what I was trying to do" at all.

With an appreciation for your lack of time and space to elaborate fully, here's a clear question that shouldn't take much time to answer, nor does it require you to cite any of your sources: Should the good guy have shot the bad guy or not?

There are three possible answers:

A) Yes.

B) No.

C) I don't know.

If your answer is "C" then all we can do is judge his actions by their results. Anything else is "armchairing."