Bank Shooting On Tape - Page 2

nefshooter · April 26, 2006, 11:50 AM

I'm with Kentak the guy was trying to leave with the lady and a baby that close i would have not taken the shot the baby my have earing problems later. No amount of money is worth shooting a bystandard. The bad guy fired after the guy pulled his weapon.

drifts1 · April 26, 2006, 07:40 PM

The victim turned shooter acted correctly in my opinion. It seems according to other sources that the BG was armed and had made previous threats. The mother & child were close, but in this case they were close enough that they were not in the line of fire unless this guy shoots 4-5 foot groups at 2 yards. Looking again at the video it looks as the shooter ducks down prior to shooting, wonder if he was shot at first

For those that think he should not of fired as the BG was running away, well let me say that growing up in a violent city and actually witnessing numerous shootouts, bad guys often shoot back while moving/running away. In the few seconds that this incident took place he did not have time to analize the situation as we do. If that was my wife and child I would be personally thanking him for possibly saving them from harm or death. The BG would be the one that would have be afraid of me. Blame the criminal, not the armed citizen, I'm sure the gun grabbers will take care of that.

Harley Quinn · April 26, 2006, 08:10 PM

Bad guy got hit, no one injured but the BG.

Bank, Hotel whatever. I know now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the BG...LOL

It could have been a hostage situation, it could have been a lot worse, sorry about the noise and the baby and mother 5 feet away. I have seen um shot 6" away and the women cry and thanking the shooter.

You guys need some real life excitment, besides the web.:barf:

HQ

TexiCali Slim · April 26, 2006, 08:22 PM

Way too risky, I mean it had the "Typical" woman with the baby scenario. I would have let him take the money and leave, Im no coward but the weight of having a mother AND/OR baby killed because I wanted the money more would kill my concience for the rest of my life.
If this were a 1on1 scenario I'd say go for it, but this guys a coward, he hid behind the woman behind the counter and shot with the woman and the baby in the middle of it. I dont care how "funny" the camera angle is, a motel check in AINT that big.

valsj · April 26, 2006, 09:09 PM

its right it might be worst if he doesnt shoot the guy immediately. it might be hard to handle a hostage situation. if that instances happened in my country it will be a very long story.

miscusi · April 26, 2006, 09:13 PM

wasnt that "limp wristing" ? the gun shook in his hand like a bartender making a martini.

Harley Quinn · April 26, 2006, 09:19 PM

Last guys I was hunting with in Texas, were shoot um first, then ask questions.

If the guy was a coward he would not have done what he did.
I still say he did the right thing. If it would of gone bad then I might say different.

He just was a very good strategist, played his cards a little close but... Caught the guy off guard and he won the fight.
Matt Dillion he was not, more like 'Doc' or Wyatt. Sun Tzu would be proud.

Look at the big picture here, no hostages, no prisoners just a shot BG.

The old saying, any landing you walk away from, is a good one. (airplane talk)

HQ

TCman · April 26, 2006, 10:11 PM

Did anyone else notice the first round that hit the celing?

westphoenix · April 27, 2006, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nefshooter

No amount of money is worth shooting a bystandard.

He didn't shoot a bystandard. He was shooting to save all their lives.
The robber was packing a .45 Colt.
See the chance to take out the threat take it.
Don't wait around for him to pop one as he runs out.
Happens way too often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexiCali Slim

Im no coward but the weight of having a mother AND/OR baby killed because I wanted the money more would kill my concience for the rest of my life.

How would your conscience feel if you had the chance to take him out and you let him pop someone on the way out?

What if the next night he robbed a Circle K and killed the clerk there because he couldn't open the register fast enough?

The clerk found a time to catch the criminal off guard and he took it, successfully I might add.

I have seen too many videos of people getting shot in robberies for no reason. I wouldn't have let him control the situation either.

wun_8_seven · April 27, 2006, 05:32 AM

[QUOTE][Did anyone else notice the first round that hit the celing?/QUOTE]

he fired three rounds they all hit the bg. not sure what you saw. the police report shows three rounds fired all hits.

chrisandclauida2 · April 27, 2006, 09:27 AM

as for shooting as the guy ran. the perp already committed a crime that allows the use of deadly force in response. end of story. as long as he has gun in hand and is in the same room he gets shot at till one he dropps the gun or lays down and quit.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 27, 2006, 09:49 AM

To look at the issue without posturing about morality - the issue is the best outcome.

What is the best outcome?

1. To stop the thief?
2. To make sure every good person doesn't get hurt?

Most banks suggest stopping the thief is NOT a goal. The goal is to make sure folks are safe. You can rant about philosophy if you want but risking other folks skin for your chest pounding is not really acceptable to me.

Thus, was lethal force called for to protect the lives of the people in the bank?

The guy was armed and could shoot even if you cooperate. These situations are tense and BGs can act in a manner which seems irrational. He could shoot back even when he was getting clean away.

On the other hand, if the BG was evaluated as fleeing, engaging him could cause him to stop fleeing and engage the fight more. Thus, more shots fired.

That's a hard call.

Then there is the baby - someone said that the baby was not in a typical range of fire. If you shoot a lot in stress situations, you do see shots go very wild.

At a recent high end class, I was in - I was standing behind the line watching the shooters with my partner. Another set of guys were shooting at the target.

The targets were 1,2 and 3. We had 3 and were waiting for our turn.

As the 2 group was shooting, I saw a hole appear on our 3 about 6 feet away. The shooting distance was about 5 yards.

I have also seen simmunitions hits on good guys several times in FOF with very skilled shooters. Not through mistaken identity but a round going wide because of stress.

While the baby wasn't hit, it is a risk to consider.

The current incident isn't a yes/no. The shooter took considerable risk. It worked out. Does that mean it was a reasonable decision? You really can't tell. You can't determine the odds with one shooting.

I said in the other thread - if the guy looked like he was going full blast out the door, I would have held him the sights and let him go.

Is there a risk to that - sure. However, my goal state would be to get the best possible outcome in terms of no injury as compared to stopping a robbery of money.

Maddog_Enigma · April 27, 2006, 10:07 AM

It Was Not A Bank...it Was A Motel.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 27, 2006, 10:11 AM

That makes all the difference. Shooting a baby in a motel is just fine?

PythonGuy · April 27, 2006, 10:13 AM

Well Glenn, you are just no fun, what would all the wannabe "Dirty Harry's" do if they can't dream about using their gun on someone? Settle it with common sense, that doesn't get the gun out and the heart pumping. Listening to what you wrote would preclude any gunplay, isn't that the point of having a gun??

Tongue firmly in cheek.....

isa268 · April 27, 2006, 11:08 AM

what i want to know is that most criminals use a glock. why did the BG use a .45LC revolver in this case?? that's a unique gun for a BG.

DunedinDragon · April 27, 2006, 12:36 PM

HEY!!!! Here's a story about person that was armed but decided not to use his weapon with an armed bad guy....I wonder how he feels about his decision now?

Armed but decided not to shoot

PythonGuy · April 27, 2006, 12:41 PM

ISA, how or why would that make a difference? Don't you think a criminal would just use whatever gun he can get his hands on? Do you think criminals come on this forum and ask which round would be better for robbing motels with? Although with some of the questions on here, who knows.......

PythonGuy · April 27, 2006, 12:45 PM

It amazes me how some people are surprised that other's can't just dispassionately shoot and kill someone, even in a life or death situation. From behind the keyboard you can take on the whole world, but one on one in a real shooting situation, you just never really know.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 27, 2006, 02:25 PM

The Mall guy screwed up as his evaluation of the tactical situation was flawed. However, his screw up doesn't necessarily imply that all situations are the same and are shoot situations.

Surface level cliches are the bane of the gun world. My analysis, again grasshoppers, is that you are quite able to use lethal force and you do if it gives you the best outcome. Mall guy was incorrect in his analysis.

Doug.38PR · April 27, 2006, 02:48 PM

Everything happened so quick. The shots did look AWFULLY close to that lady and her child. But that was from an angle. From the good guy with the gun's angle it might have been in fact a little different. Not too sure what the bad guy was doing out of view to cause himself to be fired at.

In short, too little information from a loud music (?) video of a short video shot at an angle

threegun · April 27, 2006, 03:24 PM

Glenn, According to info on another forum the bad guy was a disgruntled hotel guest that threatened to kill the manager before being kicked out. This might explain why the manager acted despite the risks. It would change everything for me.

slow944 · April 27, 2006, 03:50 PM

I've looked at this video for a month or so now and to me it looks like the BG gets off the first shot towards the camera at the Motel 6 or whichever chain it was. The clerk was asked about the mom and baby being so close and from what the clerk said it was about 6ft between him and them when the shooting started. But all 3 of his shots scored a hit and the BG was arrested.

Glenn E. Meyer · April 27, 2006, 03:53 PM

What does it really influence? I see two issues.

1. I ignore my odds of shooting a baby because the man threatened me previously. That lowers my responsibility to shoot in a manner threatening to others? No, I don't think so.

2. He may not just be fleeing for good and unlikely to return. He may be likely to regroup and continue the fight as we have information of that threat. Thus, I need to remove the threat as he may come back. The fight is still on. That might have some validity. He is still in your presence and armed. While in your presence, my opinion (worth what you paid for it) is that it is justified to shoot at him. If I thought the fight wouldn't be over as he is heading for the sun set - then I have no problem shooting at him (with all other caveats not preventing a shot - like baby in the possible range of fire).

Thus, if he is in the room and armed shooting at him is justified, given that you think the risk continues. Once he is outside, one assumes a defensive posture. Chasing him would seem foolish as already discussed. The legality of such would also be debatable.

pickpocket · April 27, 2006, 04:40 PM

Is this still going back and forth?

Come on guys - let's let this one die already.

April 26, 2006, 08:10 PM	#28
Harley Quinn Junior member Join Date: August 30, 2005 Location: State of KALI Posts: 1,531	Talk all you want, good shoot. Bad guy got hit, no one injured but the BG. Bank, Hotel whatever. I know now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the BG...LOL It could have been a hostage situation, it could have been a lot worse, sorry about the noise and the baby and mother 5 feet away. I have seen um shot 6" away and the women cry and thanking the shooter. You guys need some real life excitment, besides the web.:barf: HQ

April 26, 2006, 08:22 PM	#29
TexiCali Slim Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2006 Location: H-E-B Tejas Posts: 175	Naaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwww Way too risky, I mean it had the "Typical" woman with the baby scenario. I would have let him take the money and leave, Im no coward but the weight of having a mother AND/OR baby killed because I wanted the money more would kill my concience for the rest of my life. If this were a 1on1 scenario I'd say go for it, but this guys a coward, he hid behind the woman behind the counter and shot with the woman and the baby in the middle of it. I dont care how "funny" the camera angle is, a motel check in AINT that big.

April 26, 2006, 09:19 PM	#32
Harley Quinn Junior member Join Date: August 30, 2005 Location: State of KALI Posts: 1,531	You sure you are from Texas, LOL Last guys I was hunting with in Texas, were shoot um first, then ask questions. If the guy was a coward he would not have done what he did. I still say he did the right thing. If it would of gone bad then I might say different. He just was a very good strategist, played his cards a little close but... Caught the guy off guard and he won the fight. Matt Dillion he was not, more like 'Doc' or Wyatt. Sun Tzu would be proud. Look at the big picture here, no hostages, no prisoners just a shot BG. The old saying, any landing you walk away from, is a good one. (airplane talk) HQ

April 27, 2006, 09:49 AM	#37
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	To look at the issue without posturing about morality - the issue is the best outcome. What is the best outcome? 1. To stop the thief? 2. To make sure every good person doesn't get hurt? Most banks suggest stopping the thief is NOT a goal. The goal is to make sure folks are safe. You can rant about philosophy if you want but risking other folks skin for your chest pounding is not really acceptable to me. Thus, was lethal force called for to protect the lives of the people in the bank? The guy was armed and could shoot even if you cooperate. These situations are tense and BGs can act in a manner which seems irrational. He could shoot back even when he was getting clean away. On the other hand, if the BG was evaluated as fleeing, engaging him could cause him to stop fleeing and engage the fight more. Thus, more shots fired. That's a hard call. Then there is the baby - someone said that the baby was not in a typical range of fire. If you shoot a lot in stress situations, you do see shots go very wild. At a recent high end class, I was in - I was standing behind the line watching the shooters with my partner. Another set of guys were shooting at the target. The targets were 1,2 and 3. We had 3 and were waiting for our turn. As the 2 group was shooting, I saw a hole appear on our 3 about 6 feet away. The shooting distance was about 5 yards. I have also seen simmunitions hits on good guys several times in FOF with very skilled shooters. Not through mistaken identity but a round going wide because of stress. While the baby wasn't hit, it is a risk to consider. The current incident isn't a yes/no. The shooter took considerable risk. It worked out. Does that mean it was a reasonable decision? You really can't tell. You can't determine the odds with one shooting. I said in the other thread - if the guy looked like he was going full blast out the door, I would have held him the sights and let him go. Is there a risk to that - sure. However, my goal state would be to get the best possible outcome in terms of no injury as compared to stopping a robbery of money. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 27, 2006, 10:11 AM	#39
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	That makes all the difference. Shooting a baby in a motel is just fine? __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 26, 2006, 11:50 AM	#26
nefshooter Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Posts: 46	I'm with Kentak the guy was trying to leave with the lady and a baby that close i would have not taken the shot the baby my have earing problems later. No amount of money is worth shooting a bystandard. The bad guy fired after the guy pulled his weapon.

April 26, 2006, 07:40 PM	#27
drifts1 Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2005 Posts: 136	The victim turned shooter acted correctly in my opinion. It seems according to other sources that the BG was armed and had made previous threats. The mother & child were close, but in this case they were close enough that they were not in the line of fire unless this guy shoots 4-5 foot groups at 2 yards. Looking again at the video it looks as the shooter ducks down prior to shooting, wonder if he was shot at first For those that think he should not of fired as the BG was running away, well let me say that growing up in a violent city and actually witnessing numerous shootouts, bad guys often shoot back while moving/running away. In the few seconds that this incident took place he did not have time to analize the situation as we do. If that was my wife and child I would be personally thanking him for possibly saving them from harm or death. The BG would be the one that would have be afraid of me. Blame the criminal, not the armed citizen, I'm sure the gun grabbers will take care of that.

April 26, 2006, 09:09 PM	#30
valsj Junior Member Join Date: April 23, 2006 Location: manila,phillipines Posts: 3	its right it might be worst if he doesnt shoot the guy immediately. it might be hard to handle a hostage situation. if that instances happened in my country it will be a very long story.

April 26, 2006, 09:13 PM	#31
miscusi Junior member Join Date: April 2, 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 217	wasnt that "limp wristing" ? the gun shook in his hand like a bartender making a martini.

April 26, 2006, 10:11 PM	#33
TCman Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 514	Did anyone else notice the first round that hit the celing?

April 27, 2006, 05:32 AM	#35
wun_8_seven Senior Member Join Date: September 17, 2002 Posts: 195	[QUOTE][Did anyone else notice the first round that hit the celing?/QUOTE] he fired three rounds they all hit the bg. not sure what you saw. the police report shows three rounds fired all hits.

April 27, 2006, 09:27 AM	#36
chrisandclauida2 Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2005 Posts: 312	as for shooting as the guy ran. the perp already committed a crime that allows the use of deadly force in response. end of story. as long as he has gun in hand and is in the same room he gets shot at till one he dropps the gun or lays down and quit.

April 27, 2006, 10:07 AM	#38
Maddog_Enigma Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2005 Posts: 154	It Was Not A Bank...it Was A Motel.

April 27, 2006, 10:13 AM	#40
PythonGuy Junior member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 456	Well Glenn, you are just no fun, what would all the wannabe "Dirty Harry's" do if they can't dream about using their gun on someone? Settle it with common sense, that doesn't get the gun out and the heart pumping. Listening to what you wrote would preclude any gunplay, isn't that the point of having a gun?? Tongue firmly in cheek.....

April 27, 2006, 11:08 AM	#41
isa268 Member Join Date: May 9, 2005 Posts: 66	what i want to know is that most criminals use a glock. why did the BG use a .45LC revolver in this case?? that's a unique gun for a BG.

April 27, 2006, 12:36 PM	#42
DunedinDragon Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2006 Posts: 198	HEY!!!! Here's a story about person that was armed but decided not to use his weapon with an armed bad guy....I wonder how he feels about his decision now? Armed but decided not to shoot

April 27, 2006, 12:41 PM	#43
PythonGuy Junior member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 456	ISA, how or why would that make a difference? Don't you think a criminal would just use whatever gun he can get his hands on? Do you think criminals come on this forum and ask which round would be better for robbing motels with? Although with some of the questions on here, who knows....... Last edited by PythonGuy; April 27, 2006 at 07:28 PM.

April 27, 2006, 12:45 PM	#44
PythonGuy Junior member Join Date: November 4, 2004 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 456	It amazes me how some people are surprised that other's can't just dispassionately shoot and kill someone, even in a life or death situation. From behind the keyboard you can take on the whole world, but one on one in a real shooting situation, you just never really know.

April 27, 2006, 02:25 PM	#45
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	The Mall guy screwed up as his evaluation of the tactical situation was flawed. However, his screw up doesn't necessarily imply that all situations are the same and are shoot situations. Surface level cliches are the bane of the gun world. My analysis, again grasshoppers, is that you are quite able to use lethal force and you do if it gives you the best outcome. Mall guy was incorrect in his analysis. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 27, 2006, 02:48 PM	#46
Doug.38PR Junior member Join Date: January 18, 2005 Posts: 3,298	Everything happened so quick. The shots did look AWFULLY close to that lady and her child. But that was from an angle. From the good guy with the gun's angle it might have been in fact a little different. Not too sure what the bad guy was doing out of view to cause himself to be fired at. In short, too little information from a loud music (?) video of a short video shot at an angle

April 27, 2006, 03:24 PM	#47
threegun Junior member Join Date: March 1, 2006 Location: Tampa,Fl Posts: 4,000	Glenn, According to info on another forum the bad guy was a disgruntled hotel guest that threatened to kill the manager before being kicked out. This might explain why the manager acted despite the risks. It would change everything for me.

April 27, 2006, 03:50 PM	#48
slow944 Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2006 Location: DFW,TX Posts: 406	I've looked at this video for a month or so now and to me it looks like the BG gets off the first shot towards the camera at the Motel 6 or whichever chain it was. The clerk was asked about the mom and baby being so close and from what the clerk said it was about 6ft between him and them when the shooting started. But all 3 of his shots scored a hit and the BG was arrested.

April 27, 2006, 03:53 PM	#49
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	What does it really influence? I see two issues. 1. I ignore my odds of shooting a baby because the man threatened me previously. That lowers my responsibility to shoot in a manner threatening to others? No, I don't think so. 2. He may not just be fleeing for good and unlikely to return. He may be likely to regroup and continue the fight as we have information of that threat. Thus, I need to remove the threat as he may come back. The fight is still on. That might have some validity. He is still in your presence and armed. While in your presence, my opinion (worth what you paid for it) is that it is justified to shoot at him. If I thought the fight wouldn't be over as he is heading for the sun set - then I have no problem shooting at him (with all other caveats not preventing a shot - like baby in the possible range of fire). Thus, if he is in the room and armed shooting at him is justified, given that you think the risk continues. Once he is outside, one assumes a defensive posture. Chasing him would seem foolish as already discussed. The legality of such would also be debatable. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

April 27, 2006, 04:40 PM	#50
pickpocket Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 570	Is this still going back and forth? Come on guys - let's let this one die already. __________________ Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān"