Originally Posted by walker2713
Decedent's pistol:
It's just like the movie "Survivors"!
Decedent's pistol:
It's just like the movie "Survivors"!
Everything turned out okay, but you bring up a valid consideration on morality and using others as a meat shield without their consent.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
"You shot my gun goddammit!"
This is my main concern about people with CWPs. If they take any action their default setting is 'gunfight'. With three people at already under the BG's gun, this guy decides it's time for a shootout. The possible bad outcomes include the BG opening up at point blank range and hitting all three employees, or an employing zigging into the pharmacist's lane and taking friendly fire to the back of the dome.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
I get what you are saying and there is always something to learn in hindsight, but if we are going to start listing possible bad outcomes, how about the pharmacist does nothing and the BG shoots everyone? The guy took decisive action when it was needed and the best result was achieved. I say kudos to him.
This is my own subjective interpretation of the video;
No one but the armed Pharmacist perceives any potential threat based on the BG's masked appearance and body language, and the exiting customer even appears to casually engage him as he is leaving. When the Pharmacist steps to the register area he appears to challenge the BG by gesturing with his left hand, just as the BG is making his move.
Simultaneously, he simply takes advantage of the position of the other two employees to block the BG's view of his draw but he doesn't present the gun until the other employees start to move away from the BG's muzzle at which point he steps clear of them and engages by choice or necessity. I've seen the exact same tactic used several times on surveillance tapes.
It's pretty obvious the BG doesn't perceive anything the Pharmacist is doing as a threat until it's too late so that's about as good as it's likely to get under the circumstances.
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
The two employees were in the line of fire no matter whose side you look at it from.
The situation seen in the video is always going to cause consternation about when or if the pharmacist should have taken action. However compliance doesn't guarantee a successful outcome.
There is no audio but the report from the day of the shooting said the pharmacist asked him if he was "going to rob us or something?"
It could be the video angle and there may be more room than we can tell but it certainly looks like the employees are just inches from his line of fire.
It gets real easy to air chair quarterback the situation after the fact. For all we know had the pharmacist not acted how and when he did the outcome could have been much worse or fatal for some in the store.
In situations like this one it is surprise, decisiveness and violence of action that wins the battle. What if the pharmacist decided to wait for that 'perfect moment' and it never materialized?
The outcome was good for all on the side of the angels. The perpetrator sealed his own fate by choosing the wrong victim. A Fatal error in victim selection!
Last edited by JohnO; 02-21-2015 at 03:24 PM.
Maybe I'm out of my lane here, but I have to agree with the above statement. Perhaps the pharmacist was aware of his employees and made the best of a sh*t sandwich. He concealed his draw, got position, initiative, surprise and turned the tables. It even looks like the only one the perp muzzled was the pharmacist just as the perp was getting shot.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Reply With Quote