• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

What do you think of this clerks reaction in this shooting?

Anyone threatening bodily harm is a danger to the community, and needs to be removed promptly. Its too bad his removal wasn't permanent.

IIRC:
BG comes in with gun demanding money.
GG conceals his draw behind other associate.
Shoots BG 3 times in the back.
BG lives[frown]
 
FunYun said:
Anyone threatening bodily harm is a danger to the community, and needs to be removed promptly. Its too bad his removal wasn't permanent.

IIRC:
BG comes in with gun demanding money.
GG conceals his draw behind other associate.
Shoots BG 3 times in the back.
BG lives[frown]
Click to expand...

+1

You gotta do what you gotta do.
 
While I'm glad the BG was unsuccessful and agree he's scum, he probably didn't deserve to die for that and hopefully he'll rot in prison for a very, very long time. Though I wouldn't have any issue at all if he was fatally shot.

Good work by the GG.
 
Mike-Mike said:
Worked out ok. I think it was too close to the kid. The little guy is probably still saying "what? huh? "
Click to expand...


When the result of not taking action is getting shot by the BG, whats "too close"?

Also, the baby was actually never between the BG and GG, and was probably farther to the side then guy standing next to you at the range usually is.

In any confrontation, the only 'known' outcome is the one you force to occur.
 
Kalahari said:
While I'm glad the BG was unsuccessful and agree he's scum, he probably didn't deserve to die for that and hopefully he'll rot in prison for a very, very long time. Though I wouldn't have any issue at all if he was fatally shot.

Good work by the GG.
Click to expand...

[rolleyes]

Of course he deserves to be shot and killed. He actively and directly threatend the lives of 4 innocent people and anyone else in the area. What you are saying akin to playing in traffic and expecting not to get run over.

Whats the expected reaction to threatening peoples lives? The removal of the threat as soon as possible. What quicker way to remove a threat than to shoot it dead?
 
FunYun said:
[rolleyes]

Of course he deserves to be shot and killed. He actively and directly threatend the lives of 4 innocent people and anyone else in the area. What you are saying akin to playing in traffic and expecting not to get run over.

Whats the expected reaction to threatening peoples lives? The removal of the threat as soon as possible. What quicker way to remove a threat than to shoot it dead?
Click to expand...

+1 If you use a gun to commit a crime you better be ready to pay the ultimate price and I'm not talking jail time.
 
FunYun said:
When the result of not taking action is getting shot by the BG, whats "too close"?

Also, the baby was actually never between the BG and GG, and was probably farther to the side then guy standing next to you at the range usually is.

In any confrontation, the only 'known' outcome is the one you force to occur.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think the shot was good, and not necessarily "unsafe" for that kid. I was more referring to the permanent damage to that kids ears. I think everything has a trade off. This ended well.
 
So, the guy came in with a gun? I didn't see that... the video was too dark for me to see that...

Then good for the Clerk for having the balls to stand up and fire. You wonder how many people can actually do that without freezing.
 
It looks like the BG shot first then ran. You see everyone flinch before what looks like the GGs first shot. Reading the text of the video poster '3 shots fired, all 3 hit the bad guy, gun was a glock 23, 40cal with 165g Gold dots', If this is true, the flinch was caused by the BGs shot. You can count the GGs shots.

IMHO the GG had some sort of training. From concealing his draw, his grip on the gun, to locking the door. He atleast thought through that scenario before.

Either way, alive or dead, the BG won't be doing that again.
 
That's been around the net and there's been a post by the GG describing his actions. IIRC, he states that the the camera angle makes the bystander look closer than she actually was.

Bystanders seem to do stupid things by their very nature, but she really should have moved her arse without the other clerking having to shoo her along.
 
Another_David said:
That's been around the net and there's been a post by the GG describing his actions. IIRC, he states that the the camera angle makes the bystander look closer than she actually was.

Bystanders seem to do stupid things by their very nature, but she really should have moved her arse without the other clerking having to shoo her along.
Click to expand...

I suspect bystander with child was too shocked at what was going on that there was a big time delay in her thought process. GG should have yelled to get down but he was too busy and I don't blame him.
 
Another_David said:
That's been around the net and there's been a post by the GG describing his actions. IIRC, he states that the the camera angle makes the bystander look closer than she actually was.
Click to expand...


that's correct. the good guy is a member at GlockTalk and THR. when this video first came out he discussed in detail the distance of the kid and woman. The camera angle makes it seem much closer due to being 2 dimensional.

I liked how he used the other clerk as "cover" so he could draw without being seen
 
The first round may have been justified. The two fired at the bad guy's back as he's fleeing are not. And unsound is following the dude out the door with your pistol.
 
RKG said:
The first round may have been justified. The two fired at the bad guy's back as he's fleeing are not. And unsound is following the dude out the door with your pistol.
Click to expand...

Nothing like a Monday morning QB on what was a split second decision. The BG got put down, everyone else went home. IMO it doesn't get much better than that.
 
06LemansC6 said:
Nothing like a Monday morning QB on what was a split second decision. The BG got put down, everyone else went home. IMO it doesn't get much better than that.
Click to expand...

While I agree that post-hoc criticism can have its flaws if it ignores the exigencies of the moment, the fact of the matter is that if you don't know enough to stop shooting once the aggressor begins to flee, you'll spend Monday morning in the clink. This should be a major element of any self-defense training curriculum.
 
Last edited:
RKG said:
The first round may have been justified. The two fired at the bad guy's back as he's fleeing are not. And unsound is following the dude out the door with your pistol.
Click to expand...

Does this rule apply to the robbers too--they can't shoot their victims in the back?

Seriously though, how would the good guy know the difference between the robber fleeing and the bad guy moving to cover for return fire?
 
RKG said:
While I agree that post-hoc criticism can have its flaws if it ignores the exigencies of the moment, the fact of the matter is that if you don't know enough to stop shooting once the agressor begins to flee, you'll spend Monday morning in the clink. This should be a major element of any self-defense training curriculum.
Click to expand...

You have been living in MA far too long.
 
A little close, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

You're perfect self-defense scenario might not pan out the way you plan it. This is clearly one of those instances.
 
RKG said:
The first round may have been justified. The two fired at the bad guy's back as he's fleeing are not. And unsound is following the dude out the door with your pistol.
Click to expand...

You follow through until the threat has been eliminated. Eliminated can manifest into evasion, death, surrendering, etc.
 
06LemansC6 said:
You have been living in MA far too long.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't how long one has lived in Massachusetts, but rather whether one intends to continue living in Massachusetts, or one of the other 49 states, all of which have pretty much the same rule on this point. Neither is the issue whether one agrees or disagrees with the rule or feel that it denies one the opportunity to achieve true "justice."

The reality, rather, is that in this state (and virtually all others), the privilege of using deadly force is limited to the necessity of self-defense and the necessity of self-defense ends when the bad guy turns tail and runs. The next shot you fire is not for defense but retribution, and retribution will land you in jail. Fact of life, and just about as important to learn as tap-rack-bang.
 
Another_David said:
Does this rule apply to the robbers too--they can't shoot their victims in the back?

Seriously though, how would the good guy know the difference between the robber fleeing and the bad guy moving to cover for return fire?
Click to expand...

You don't unless and until he does (begin turning again to return fire), and until that happens, you're defense of self-defense will not protect you.

Now, let's understand something. This isn't a political discussion, where folks get up and spout off about how they think things ought to be. It is, I had thought, a discussion where one observe's a scenario and then analyzes it to see if the shooter's conduct fits within the rules of self-defense -- sort of important to those who carry -- ultimately for the purpose of informing ourselves and others about what we can do and what we can't do (at least without getting indicted ourselves).

Suggesting to folks who may not know better, and who may take your advice seriously, that you can legally keep popping away at a bad guy who is beating feet away from the scene is not a helplful (or nice) thing to do.
 
RKG said:
The first round may have been justified. The two fired at the bad guy's back as he's fleeing are not. And unsound is following the dude out the door with your pistol.
Click to expand...

Bullship. If someone threatens you with death, the law should allow 3 years to hunt him down and kill him.
 
I'm with RKG.

As much as I may want to kill the bastard, I'm not going to get myself incarcerated for a "revenge" shot. It isn't worth it.
 

Similar threads

I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
673
chris_1001
chris_1001
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
473
LittleCalm
L
Help me ID this bit of ammo
Replies
10
Views
377
straightshooterjake
S
what do you all think about plastering your vehicle with pro-gun stickers?
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
2K
Sterg
Sterg
  • Locked
Navy scrubbed this photo can you see why?
Replies
17
Views
714
Mountain
Mountain
Back
Top Bottom