Interesting video of a robbery ended by an armed defender.

**JohnKSa** · February 13, 2020, 02:45 AM

Violence Advisory: A person is killed in this video.

There was a church shooting not long ago where the perpetrator was shot in the head from several yards away. There's always a probabilistic component when shooting at a small moving target, but it's clear that there was skill required.

To help understand why the shot was so impressive, here's a counterpoint video that helps puts things into perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWWoNuBY10

The defender shoots three times. The first shot was taken at the longest distance--estimated muzzle to cranium distance is between 2 and 3 feet. Based on the attacker's reactions and other cues in the video, the first shot seems to hit the attacker in the hood of his jacket but does not significantly impact the attacker's head nor does it cause any apparent impairment.

I don't see how the second shot could have missed the attacker completely, based on his position and the position of the gun at the moment of firing, but it doesn't appear to have hit the attacker in the head (or at least not in the brain) as his body is still clearly under voluntary control after the second shot. The robber does not appear to be significantly impaired/injured by this shot. The second shot was taken at a muzzle to cranium distance of about 2 feet.

The third shot does the trick. It is fired at a muzzle to cranium distance of perhaps 3 to 6 inches. It quite obviously hits the attacker in the brain and things get calm very quickly.

Mr. Wilson, who took down the TX church shooter obviously had a skill set which does not come easily or automatically. He fired once at about 10 yards at a moving target and scored a brain shot which ended the encounter.

The defender in this video fired at a person standing next to him and didn't score a brain shot until the third shot -- fired with the muzzle just a few inches from the robber's head.

Both defenders got the job done, but the differences in the two scenarios made me ask myself two questions, each with two parts.

Question 1: Part 1: Based on the practice and training I have received and continue to engage in and based on the skill level I have achieved and work to maintain, which of the two defenders' performance am I most likely to be able to match? Part 2: If I don't like the answer, am I willing to do anything about it?

Question 2: Watch the shooting sequence a couple of times, carefully noting the robber's head movement. Watch how the orientation of his head and the hood's size combine to make the initial shot miss. Watch how the robber's movements result in the second shot missing at even closer range. Part 1: Was the defender wise to choose the head as his target? Part 2: Having seen this video is that what I would do in the defender's place?

One more question occurs to me. The defender expended 3 rounds neutralizing an attacker who was at arms length distance and who never fired on him. He appears to have scored a 33% hit rate at point blank range. This has interesting implications when it comes to capacity considerations, especially in situations where the marksmanship requirements are more stressing and/or there are multiple attackers.

URIT · February 13, 2020, 06:50 AM

A good video that we should all watch and answer the questions you posed for ourselves. Thanks for sharing it with us.

It demonstrates to me the need for more point-of-aim training and less sighted training. Also, the importance of having both hands free.

The draw shows the importance of a good holster positioned correctly so you can get a good grip on your gun from the beginning and not have your muzzle cross your own body.

I believe the shooter was wise to go for the head. Bad guys wear bulletproof vests too and the hoody would hide one well.

TunnelRat · February 13, 2020, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by URIT

A good video that we should all watch and answer the questions you posed for ourselves. Thanks for sharing it with us.

It demonstrates to me the need for more point-of-aim training and less sighted training. Also, the importance of having both hands free.

The draw shows the importance of a good holster positioned correctly so you can get a good grip on your gun from the beginning and not have your muzzle cross your own body.

I believe the shooter was wise to go for the head. Bad guys wear bulletproof vests too and the hoody would hide one well.

To the last point, I think failure to stop drills are worth mentioning. To me start shooting at something you have a much higher likelihood of hitting, then move to the head if that proves ineffective. Certainly bad guys can wear armor, but repeated misses to try to address an unconfirmed possibility may not be the best call, imo.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USNRet93 · February 13, 2020, 09:16 AM

Watched the video a while ago..I subscribe to John's youtube channel....BUT, I have a question..the gent to the BG's right was not threatened..he pulled out his HG and killed him..if in the US, would this be described as a 'good shoot'?

A few months ago, I asked about the same sort of thing here. I walk into my bank and there's is a guy holding one of the tellers at gunpoint..I walk up and put one behind his ear...'good shoot'??

**Aguila Blanca** · February 13, 2020, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USNRet93

..if in the US, would this be described as a 'good shoot'?

I'm inclined to think that in most U.S. jurisdictions it would be considered a "good shoot." There are probably some places where a prosecutor might send it to a grand jury, or possibly directly to an arrest and trial. If it results in an arrest and charges, then only the jury can decide whether or not it was a "good shoot."

Quote:

Originally Posted by USNRet93

A few months ago, I asked about the same sort of thing here. I walk into my bank and there's is a guy holding one of the tellers at gunpoint..I walk up and put one behind his ear...'good shoot'??

See above.

2damnold4this · February 13, 2020, 05:49 PM

I'm not sure the defender in the video missed any of his shots.

**JohnKSa** · February 14, 2020, 02:12 AM

He certainly didn't hit the guy in the brain or the guy wouldn't have stayed on his feet and making voluntary movements.

The first shot does appear to have hit the hood of the robber's jacket and may have touched meat under the hood, but had to have missed the brain.

The second shot may have touched meat too, but again, it missed the brain because the man stayed on his feet and his body remained under voluntary control.

The immediate reaction when the third shot connects makes it pretty obvious that the brain was hit.

TBM900 · February 14, 2020, 05:16 AM

Just to be a bit technical...
The term "brain" is used to describe a complex of structures that work together but are in fact separate.
And there are certain parts (most of it) that can be damaged and not necessarily immediately incapacitate.

The largest portion of the brain, the cerebrum, can be severely damaged and not immediately incapacitate the individual its attached to (just look at your typical liberal for proof). In fact there have been more than a few examples of people who have been shot in the head, the bullet fully penetrating their cerebrum, and didn't even realize what had happened.

Surprising to many, there are only a few small areas in the brain structure that when damaged, guarantee an immediate incapacitation of the person, the cerebellum, medulla, and brain stem. This is why police/military snipers often aim for a very specific portion of the brain in certain situations, not just the head or the largest portion of the brain. If those critical areas are not damaged, the person could potentially react or even function in a reasonable capacity after being struck.

My point being is that in the video, the first shot(s) may not have missed the brain.
They may have just missed the critical portions of it.

[OCD-OFF]

Ed4032 · February 14, 2020, 09:33 AM

He may have missed the first shot but the BG hearing was totally gone for sure. It did not seem to confuse the BG at all. It took three rounds.

JERRYS. · February 14, 2020, 09:36 AM

use of lethal force is justified in every state of the union to prevent the serious harm or death or immediate threat of serious harm or death or prevent any forcible felony against one's self or an innocent third party.

in this case the innocent third party is the cashier, and having a gun pointed at them during a robbery is both a forcible felony and an immediate threat of serious harm or death.

on face value this was a justified use of lethal force. a bench trial if arrest was pushed by a liberal D.A. would probably be the best choice for the defendant.

**JohnKSa** · February 14, 2020, 09:44 AM

Let me think about this thread for awhile and maybe I'll try again with very slightly different wording so people can focus on the actual lesson (a skilled shooter who places an emphasis on training uses excellent technique to take down a threat at around 10 yards with one shot through the head vs a shooter who fires one-handed and requires 3 shots to perform the same task from only a couple of feet away) vs. becoming completely distracted by the use of the term "brain".

February 13, 2020, 02:45 AM	#1
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,986	Interesting video of a robbery ended by an armed defender. Violence Advisory: A person is killed in this video. There was a church shooting not long ago where the perpetrator was shot in the head from several yards away. There's always a probabilistic component when shooting at a small moving target, but it's clear that there was skill required. To help understand why the shot was so impressive, here's a counterpoint video that helps puts things into perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hWWoNuBY10 The defender shoots three times. The first shot was taken at the longest distance--estimated muzzle to cranium distance is between 2 and 3 feet. Based on the attacker's reactions and other cues in the video, the first shot seems to hit the attacker in the hood of his jacket but does not significantly impact the attacker's head nor does it cause any apparent impairment. I don't see how the second shot could have missed the attacker completely, based on his position and the position of the gun at the moment of firing, but it doesn't appear to have hit the attacker in the head (or at least not in the brain) as his body is still clearly under voluntary control after the second shot. The robber does not appear to be significantly impaired/injured by this shot. The second shot was taken at a muzzle to cranium distance of about 2 feet. The third shot does the trick. It is fired at a muzzle to cranium distance of perhaps 3 to 6 inches. It quite obviously hits the attacker in the brain and things get calm very quickly. Mr. Wilson, who took down the TX church shooter obviously had a skill set which does not come easily or automatically. He fired once at about 10 yards at a moving target and scored a brain shot which ended the encounter. The defender in this video fired at a person standing next to him and didn't score a brain shot until the third shot -- fired with the muzzle just a few inches from the robber's head. Both defenders got the job done, but the differences in the two scenarios made me ask myself two questions, each with two parts. Question 1: Part 1: Based on the practice and training I have received and continue to engage in and based on the skill level I have achieved and work to maintain, which of the two defenders' performance am I most likely to be able to match? Part 2: If I don't like the answer, am I willing to do anything about it? Question 2: Watch the shooting sequence a couple of times, carefully noting the robber's head movement. Watch how the orientation of his head and the hood's size combine to make the initial shot miss. Watch how the robber's movements result in the second shot missing at even closer range. Part 1: Was the defender wise to choose the head as his target? Part 2: Having seen this video is that what I would do in the defender's place? One more question occurs to me. The defender expended 3 rounds neutralizing an attacker who was at arms length distance and who never fired on him. He appears to have scored a 33% hit rate at point blank range. This has interesting implications when it comes to capacity considerations, especially in situations where the marksmanship requirements are more stressing and/or there are multiple attackers. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

February 13, 2020, 09:16 AM	#4
USNRet93 Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2018 Location: Republic of Boulder, USA Posts: 1,475	Watched the video a while ago..I subscribe to John's youtube channel....BUT, I have a question..the gent to the BG's right was not threatened..he pulled out his HG and killed him..if in the US, would this be described as a 'good shoot'? A few months ago, I asked about the same sort of thing here. I walk into my bank and there's is a guy holding one of the tellers at gunpoint..I walk up and put one behind his ear...'good shoot'?? __________________ PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies”

February 14, 2020, 02:12 AM	#7
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,986	He certainly didn't hit the guy in the brain or the guy wouldn't have stayed on his feet and making voluntary movements. The first shot does appear to have hit the hood of the robber's jacket and may have touched meat under the hood, but had to have missed the brain. The second shot may have touched meat too, but again, it missed the brain because the man stayed on his feet and his body remained under voluntary control. The immediate reaction when the third shot connects makes it pretty obvious that the brain was hit. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

February 14, 2020, 05:16 AM	#8
TBM900 Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2015 Posts: 777	Just to be a bit technical... The term "brain" is used to describe a complex of structures that work together but are in fact separate. And there are certain parts (most of it) that can be damaged and not necessarily immediately incapacitate. The largest portion of the brain, the cerebrum, can be severely damaged and not immediately incapacitate the individual its attached to (just look at your typical liberal for proof). In fact there have been more than a few examples of people who have been shot in the head, the bullet fully penetrating their cerebrum, and didn't even realize what had happened. Surprising to many, there are only a few small areas in the brain structure that when damaged, guarantee an immediate incapacitation of the person, the cerebellum, medulla, and brain stem. This is why police/military snipers often aim for a very specific portion of the brain in certain situations, not just the head or the largest portion of the brain. If those critical areas are not damaged, the person could potentially react or even function in a reasonable capacity after being struck. My point being is that in the video, the first shot(s) may not have missed the brain. They may have just missed the critical portions of it. [OCD-OFF] __________________ Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit

February 14, 2020, 09:33 AM	#9
Ed4032 Senior Member Join Date: January 13, 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 306	He may have missed the first shot but the BG hearing was totally gone for sure. It did not seem to confuse the BG at all. It took three rounds. __________________ Gun control is like stopping drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to drive.

February 13, 2020, 06:50 AM	#2
URIT Member Join Date: February 7, 2020 Location: Coastal North Carolina Posts: 52	A good video that we should all watch and answer the questions you posed for ourselves. Thanks for sharing it with us. It demonstrates to me the need for more point-of-aim training and less sighted training. Also, the importance of having both hands free. The draw shows the importance of a good holster positioned correctly so you can get a good grip on your gun from the beginning and not have your muzzle cross your own body. I believe the shooter was wise to go for the head. Bad guys wear bulletproof vests too and the hoody would hide one well.

February 13, 2020, 05:49 PM	#6
2damnold4this Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2009 Location: Athens, Georgia Posts: 2,526	I'm not sure the defender in the video missed any of his shots.

February 14, 2020, 09:36 AM	#10
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,968	use of lethal force is justified in every state of the union to prevent the serious harm or death or immediate threat of serious harm or death or prevent any forcible felony against one's self or an innocent third party. in this case the innocent third party is the cashier, and having a gun pointed at them during a robbery is both a forcible felony and an immediate threat of serious harm or death. on face value this was a justified use of lethal force. a bench trial if arrest was pushed by a liberal D.A. would probably be the best choice for the defendant.

February 14, 2020, 09:44 AM	#11
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,986	Let me think about this thread for awhile and maybe I'll try again with very slightly different wording so people can focus on the actual lesson (a skilled shooter who places an emphasis on training uses excellent technique to take down a threat at around 10 yards with one shot through the head vs a shooter who fires one-handed and requires 3 shots to perform the same task from only a couple of feet away) vs. becoming completely distracted by the use of the term "brain". __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?