I don't think Hambo's concern is unfounded, but it doesn't prevail to me in considering the video and reported events.
A few things:
Looks to me like the pharmacist got himself to the correct side of the other employees. It looks like the open space through which the other employees could seek egress was to the right, and that is in fact where they did end up moving. It is quite correct to note that the employee closest to the robber could still have zigged left closer to the line of fire. I can't quite see from the video whether he was far enough forward of the pharmacist's gun that he might have stepped in front of it. I think the pharmacist would have done better to close distance another two feet and help prevent that employee from getting in front of his gun.
I agree with the view that there is a lot of 'could have happened here' in terms of a bad outcome involving the pharmacist's decision to take action, but also in terms of rolling the dice by waiting for other opportunities that may or may not have materialized, depending on the robber's actions.
The other thing that I think the pharmacist could have done to improve the safety and effectiveness of his response is to shoot the robber in the CNS and decisively stop him with less shots fired by all parties. Though I don't think the pharmacist looks very practiced as I can see he put his support hand thumb behind the slide. Looks like he got away with it for a couple of shots (yay, high bore axis! Just joking.) I also wonder if maybe he got bit by the slide when his support hand came off the gun? Or maybe it was something else. Hard to see.
I think he did well, and I think 'Who dares, wins' is a motto for a reason.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Now let's look at this from a tactical marksmanship angle:
The pharmacist makes his decision to engage and that's been discussed as to whether it was right, good, moral, etc. Not going to address that.
But...., we have some good luck here for our hero, because his shooting was not very good! Note a very poor thumbs over grip on the pistol. Note that he stomps on the trigger when he's shooting. That could produce huge misses, even at close range, that would endanger others in the location. Next, note that he doesn't follow through from shot to shot, but drops the gun and then comes up for re-engagement shots each time. Glad he won, just like I'm glad lots of other good guys win fights, but this shows several ways of how not to do the job.
Regional Government Sales Manager for Aimpoint, Inc. USA
Co-owner Hardwired Tactical Shooting (HiTS)
Would you attribute that to limited time only punching paper with no training? I've seen a number of friends over the last few years, who have "shot all their lives", that consistently fire and then look over the barrel with no follow through. And yes, they too have had no formal training and shirk off any of my suggestions b/c "tactically they'd do X."
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
What Wayne said.
In the same spot I think many of us would have dropped dude in his tracks with a CNS hit, thus negating the worry about him strafing the other employees (which is a valid concern IMHO).
Dude looked like Mr Armed Robbery In-Progress right from the get-go, note how few people picked up on that, including the customer who didn't react until well after shots were fired.
I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
www.agiletactical.com