[colbad]

I would have also liked to have heard the audio to better assess the threat. However, if he felt his life was threatened then he acted appropriately. Also, had not the clerk engaged the aggressor, the aggressor would most likely have taken the clerk's FA as well. I believe his initial actions were appropriate.

From my 22 years LE experience I would say that tactically the clerk erred by giving up the tactical advantage. He nicely delayed the aggressor's FA coming on target opposed to trying to "out draw" him, but should not have given up the tactical advantage. Once the clerk had the drop on the aggressor he could order him to release and drop the gun or shoot him. Based upon the circumstances shooting him without warning would have been appropriate. Allowing the aggressor to back off with the FA gave up the tactical advantage and presented an opportunity to the aggressor to re-engage at any point. This opportunity could have forced a gunfight with an uncertain outcome or jeopardize bystanders caught in an unnecessary gunfight.

The deflection of the FA was nice and smooth as was the draw. I wonder if there was a round in the chamber or the safety came off with the draw? These are all important considerations that need to tactically happen at the same time. I am always bewildered by people who do not carry a round in the chamber. One other point, is that a contact shot to the head often results in significant blowback of bone, brain, blood which can jam a semi-auto. Of course the one contact shot would have done the job, it potentially could put the FA out of service if it was needed to engage a second aggressor. The last point is that anyone who has ever trained for a FA "take away" knows you need to be close. Although some distance would have been more ideal I am not sure it would have permitted the clerk to deflect the draw of the aggressor.