Florida Concealed Carry banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I just ran into this video in You Tube.


I am concerned if the guy was not unreasonably endangering the kid and the mother when he opened fire on the BG. Happily everything ended as it should but it kind of makes me uneasy to see him firing with the BG so close to the kid.

Can anyone that acutally knows about the subject critique this please.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Check this out

Read this and it might help you get a better feel for the scenario. I can't say that little kid did not suffer some emotional trauma from this; however the kid was not killed, crippled, kidnapped, etc.

If you watch the clerk following the defensive shooting, you might get an idea of how one of us might act after such a confrontation. He certainly protected the entry in case of a return visit, but he was jumping around like a cat. (No offense to his behavior as it is just an observation)


http://www.gunatics.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-356.html
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
653 Posts
I have seen this one before. I have to admit that from the camera angle it seemed that the mother and child were much too close to open fire. It might be ok from where he was standing though. I can imagine the adrenaline rush he had at the moment which might explain the jumping around. I guess the situation turned out ok so as long as everyone is safe then its a good outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
Read this and it might help you get a better feel for the scenario. I can't say that little kid did not suffer some emotional trauma from this; however the kid was not killed, crippled, kidnapped, etc.

If you watch the clerk following the defensive shooting, you might get an idea of how one of us might act after such a confrontation. He certainly protected the entry in case of a return visit, but he was jumping around like a cat. (No offense to his behavior as it is just an observation)


http://www.gunatics.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-356.html
Thanks for posting the link.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
Due to the action being off camera that started the altercation in the first place, I am going to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and say that the "Bad Guy" must have drawn a weapon or something, for the "Good Guy" to react as he did.

With that being said, the first shot would be justified IF it was necessary to prevent a "Forcible Felony". Even though the child may have been close to the shooting, the action is justified if it is necessary to save lives.

Shots number 2, 3, and 4 where the bad guy was fleeing AWAY from the shooter should not be considered recommendable. Once the threat has ceased, shooting at a fleeing suspect is not even justifiable for LEO's.

All in all, the "Good Guy" achieved his goal of stopping a "Forcible Felony", and the co-worker, the mother, and the baby were not harmed.

Good reaction on the part of the "Good Guy".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Argue your position?

Shots number 2, 3, and 4 where the bad guy was fleeing AWAY from the shooter should not be considered recommendable. Once the threat has ceased, shooting at a fleeing suspect is not even justifiable for LEO's.

I would argue that statement as the bad guy was still armed and within feet of everyone else. I do not think the threat was stopped until he could not fire back. If he had simply flailed away with the weapon or pulled the trigger randomly and fired on his way out the door, he could have killed anyone in the office. (Perhaps he did fire? I don't know)

Good guy had every right to continue firing until the BG dropped, dropped his gun, or ran straight away with no opportunity to fire his weapon any more.

Just another opinion, but I felt the threat was still very real even while the BG was pushing against the door. Glad he dropped him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
Thats a good point, just because he is running away does not mean the threat is over, once he gets to the door he could have turned and just "wild fired" on his way out the door, or even once he got outside the door he could hav turned and fired through the windows and doors. To me the threat is not over until he drops the gun or he drops, one of the two. JMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,171 Posts
At the :15 mark, the BG appears on the video image wearing what appears to be a ski mask (then the image inexplicably freezes for the next 9 seconds); IMO no further justification is necessary to draw a weapon at that point. The clerk appears to fire his first shot at the BG at about the :32 mark; presumably the BG has a weapon also, but it is difficult to tell when he's off camera. At this point, the woman and baby are at about the clerk's 10:00 position; perhaps not ideal, but IMO an acceptable margin of safety for a real world life-or-death situation. And the female continues to back away, maintaining at least some margin of safety. BTW, I thought the male clerk was pretty slick about the way he feigned compliance while drawing his weapon.

It is unrealistic to think that there won't be anybody forward of your own 180 if and when it is necessary to defend yourself with a firearm. The most important thing is to make sure there's nobody in your line of fire that you don't intend to shoot.

As far as the multiple shots, I think that's defensible and I can think of at least one expert witness that would probably agree. The clerk fired for less than 2 seconds at a target that (presumably) initiated a deadly force encounter; at any point during that 2 seconds the BG could have fired at the clerk and thus was a threat for as long as he was visible.

Personally, I think the clerk's actions were spot on and he appears to have at least some experience handling a weapon. Just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
Shots number 2, 3, and 4 where the bad guy was fleeing AWAY from the shooter should not be considered recommendable. Once the threat has ceased, shooting at a fleeing suspect is not even justifiable for LEO's.

I would argue that statement as the bad guy was still armed and within feet of everyone else. I do not think the threat was stopped until he could not fire back. If he had simply flailed away with the weapon or pulled the trigger randomly and fired on his way out the door, he could have killed anyone in the office. (Perhaps he did fire? I don't know)

Good guy had every right to continue firing until the BG dropped, dropped his gun, or ran straight away with no opportunity to fire his weapon any more.

Just another opinion, but I felt the threat was still very real even while the BG was pushing against the door. Glad he dropped him.
You can do what you would like, BUT, I would NOT reccomend shooting someone in the back, as they are fleeing.

The key words in the Justifiable Use of Force in Defense of Others are "prevent or terminate" and "prevent the imminent commission".

Once the "Good Guy" fired, and the "Bad Guy" turned and fled, the "prevent, terminate and prevent imminent commision" has been accomplished, and the right to use Justifiable Force has ended.

The "Good Guy" going to the door and making sure that the "Bad Guy" was not able to return to repeat or continue the crime was the proper move.

Last Summer a St. Petersburg LEO fired on a suspect that was armed and firing as he was turning away.

The officer hit the suspect in the back and was facing possible criminal charges until it was confirmed that the suspect was still firing on the officer as he turned away. Otherwise the officer could have been charged with the suspects death.

The right to carry and shoot is for DEFENSE only. If you shoot someone in the back as they are fleeing, you better have a really good lawyer.

http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC031.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0776->Section%20031#0776.031

The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,949 Posts
TampaSsgt I completely understand your point on this one however how easy is it to restrain yourself in he few seconds it takes to fire three shots. One can only guess. I can just imagine the adrenaline flowing which causes you to fire the way you were trained, double tap or triple tap.

I took this from the link posted. Here is the shooters account of what happened.

My Justified shooting expieriance.
I put this in the Home defense section because this seemed like the most appropriate section. I was involved in a shooting at my work at a Super 8 motel off brice rd in Columbus Oh. This happend on the sixth of last month. I didn't want to post anything untill things had cooled down and I got a feel for what the law enforcement officals thought. I am pleased to say that the Columbus Police department, were very professional about the whole situation, and even when they had to do there usual routine, never made me feel like a criminal, and they kept me well hidden from the media. I was expecting the worst from the police from all the negative things I've heard people say happen to them after a shooting, so I was very relieved. The officers that I was with did their best to make sure that I was ok, and made me as comfortable as they could. Anyway, I'd like to address some of the things that I learned from this confrontation, and also re-address some things that most of us in the ccw world already know.

A confrontation will be extremely quick and extremely violent: I teach this in my concealed carry class, but never really thought about it. From the time that the Robber walked in and pulled his gun, to the point where he was lying on the pavement was 13 seconds. The shooting portion from when my gun cleared the holster to him on the ground was under 3 seconds (I got these times from the time recorder on the security camera video)

You must remain alert, ALWAYS: I was unprepared for this, I must admit. When he walked into the lobby, I tottaly didn't even notice him. I was busy checking a guest in on my computer that I didn't even look up. It wasn't untill the other desk clerk started acting frantic, and the kid came behind the counter that I looked up and saw him wearing a mask and a gun in his hands.

Holster options: I now know that I don't want any type of retention strap on my firearm. I had one during this incident and realise had I not had the other desk clerk there to conceal my actions of drawing, I don't think I would have been quick enough. When I practice drawing, I always practice undoing the strap at the same time to make it quick, but you MAY loose your fine motor skills, which makes it just a little more difficult, especially for me because I was using a Glock 27, which is a little difficult to get a grip on to begin with, because I can't use my back fingers on it because it is so small. I was using a cheapie nylon, but will now be upgrading to a Galco retention style. In my opinion, just pay the money to get a good holster. Also, I know for sure that an ankle rig would have been almost useless. I think they are good for just BUGs.

Point shooting: As I stated before, everything happend so fast. I didn't use the sights. I used muscle memmory and point shooting. I believe it is imperitive to get yourself trained to shoot quickly(double and triple tap drills)and to get your mucles used to your relative point of aim. More than likely you will never use your sights. It will all be point shooting.

Never say anything: You will probably want to talk about this expieriance, especially with the police. DON'T DO IT!! Anything you have to say right after the shooting you will have to say the next day. No matter how cool calm and collected you think you will be or feel, you still need to calm down. I didn't realise I was wound so tight, untill I loosened up. Anything you have to say, can come through a lawyer. I gave no statement that night, and looked for a lawyer the next day just in case. I had other witnesses who gave statements, so I never even needed to give one, and haven't yet. Why bother if it's not needed. It could only hurt you to give a statement that night, waiting to give a statement through a lawyer never hurt anybody.

These are just some things I thought I should share. I may post a few more things later, but for right now this is it. If you would like to read a little more about the shooting, you can yahoo search it. Type in "shooting at 2055 brice rd" or you can look it up on the civialian self defense blog.

Thanks, and stay safe, Ramsey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Wow, I've never seen that video before. from the camera angle that little girl looked like she was almost in the line of fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,083 Posts
Wow, I've never seen that video before. from the camera angle that little girl looked like she was almost in the line of fire.
I can't remember where I read it, but supposedly, the woman holding the child was interviewed somewhere and stated that neither she nor her child were in the line of fire, and she was very grateful that there was someone there who was able to protect them.

If she had sued, the MSM would've had a field day with it.

-JT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,140 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I have seen this one before. I have to admit that from the camera angle it seemed that the mother and child were much too close to open fire. It might be ok from where he was standing though. I can imagine the adrenaline rush he had at the moment which might explain the jumping around. I guess the situation turned out ok so as long as everyone is safe then its a good outcome.


what's the point of carrying a weapon if you aren't going to use it in time of need? everyone in the room, regardless of where they were, was too close to open fire. i'd rather have a good guy shooting next to me than a bad guy shooting at me.

in all seriousness though- their ears must have been RIIINNNGGGING!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Due to the action being off camera that started the altercation in the first place, I am going to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and say that the "Bad Guy" must have drawn a weapon or something, for the "Good Guy" to react as he did.

With that being said, the first shot would be justified IF it was necessary to prevent a "Forcible Felony". Even though the child may have been close to the shooting, the action is justified if it is necessary to save lives.

Shots number 2, 3, and 4 where the bad guy was fleeing AWAY from the shooter should not be considered recommendable. Once the threat has ceased, shooting at a fleeing suspect is not even justifiable for LEO's.

All in all, the "Good Guy" achieved his goal of stopping a "Forcible Felony", and the co-worker, the mother, and the baby were not harmed.

Good reaction on the part of the "Good Guy".



umm- did you watch the video? did you see the ceiling flakes falling down behind the hotel worker? the BG obviously fired at him thus warranting a return of fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
Originally Posted by TampaSsgt
Due to the action being off camera that started the altercation in the first place, I am going to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and say that the "Bad Guy" must have drawn a weapon or something, for the "Good Guy" to react as he did.

With that being said, the first shot would be justified IF it was necessary to prevent a "Forcible Felony". Even though the child may have been close to the shooting, the action is justified if it is necessary to save lives.

Shots number 2, 3, and 4 where the bad guy was fleeing AWAY from the shooter should not be considered recommendable. Once the threat has ceased, shooting at a fleeing suspect is not even justifiable for LEO's.

All in all, the "Good Guy" achieved his goal of stopping a "Forcible Felony", and the co-worker, the mother, and the baby were not harmed.

Good reaction on the part of the "Good Guy".
umm- did you watch the video? did you see the ceiling flakes falling down behind the hotel worker? the BG obviously fired at him thus warranting a return of fire.
Umm, yes I did watch the video, and all I saw were small bits of "something" floating in front of the camera.

There is no way you can determine that they were "ceiling flakes falling down" or that "the BG obviously fired at him thus warranting a return of fire".

You are making assumptions. When it comes to using deadly force with a handgun, you must be sure of the facts before you pull your weapon and fire it at a human being. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a game, it is for real and for keeps.

One who carrys a concealed weapon cannot make assumptions. If you make the wrong assumption, you may find yourself in prison rather than the bad guy.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top