Would-Be Armed Robber Ends Up With A Loaded Gun In His Face

[grter]

You all sound like you want him to blow this guys head off. The clerk felt he didn't have to and I give him credit for his judgment.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I think the clerk handled the situation very well. If things go wrong it's going to be a shootout whether or not he did this or that or this.

He kept his cool and totally controlled the situation the best it could.

Everybody wants to give the professonal advice on how to do their work. This type of stuff is what he does, it's his living, how he puts bread on his table.

Thank you! This is one thing I hate about discussions of this kind of story. If the robber is shot one side is up in arms about the loss of life, if he is not another side is up in arms about the unacceptable risk. Whether it was luck or skill is really a moot point. There was no robbery and no blood. Could have, should have, would have are always past tense and usually by someone else. Unfortunately, the only only opinion that would count in tactics in this case just isn't available, that would Mr Alexander.

 

[GBExpat]

I just watched it 3 times ... but did not read the 50 posts, so far, in this thread.

IMO, that clerk is a very lucky man.

 

[Al Thompson]

Everybody wants to give the professonal advice on how to do their work. This type of stuff is what he does, it's his living, how he puts bread on his table.

Not sure what your referring to, but the clerk's actions were not professional and his "qualifications" are very suspect.

The clerk felt he didn't have to and I give him credit for his judgment.

Judgement? Really? Give him credit for being lucky, but his actions are completely unsuitable for emulation. And that is the point here, which is why this thread is in this sub-forum.

 

[allaroundhunter]

That's kind of the point he didn't control the situation on any level.

At the point that the robber saw the gun in his face, the clerk was in control. At that pony the river instantly became submissive and left. Even if the clerk's actions were not 'tactically sound', he did gain compliance from the bad guy and he was in control.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

At the point that the robber saw the gun in his face, the clerk was in control. At that pony the river instantly became submissive and left. Even if the clerk's actions were not 'tactically sound', he did gain compliance from the bad guy and he was in control.

Control:3. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.

In exactly what way was the clerk in "control" of the robber's gun?

If the clerk was controlling the situation then the robber had no option but to comply this was not the case, The robber was completely free and absolutely in a postion to retaliate.

I don't even think the clerk covered him as he backed out the door. (on edit the clerk did cover the robber but made no atempt to order him to drop his gun)

At the point the gun comes out it would have only gone one of three ways for me

1. Robber shoots first and I try to stay in the fight until he's no longer a threat or I'm unable to continue

2. I shoot as soon as my firearm clears the holster and comes level (step 3 of a 4 part draw) I continue to shoot as long as the robber is a threat.

3. the robber drops his firearm (no other course of action is acceptable) immediately as my gun clears the holster and surrenders.

There is no way I'm going to let an armed man who just tried to rob me back up still armed either he drops the gun or I continue to shoot.

There isn't a professional trainer or a cop in this country that would tell you any different

 

[allaroundhunter]

So trunk, by your definition, unless the robber was dead or unconscious then the clerk was not in control. Because unless the bad guy falls into one of those categories then he could always choose to resist.

Even if the clerk had control of his gun, he could have fought with his bare hands.

As long as the clerk has compliance, he has control. As soon as the clerk presented his gun, the bad guy was compliant.


And if you shoot in step 3 of a 4 part draw then you are going to get caught with the slide (if you are shooting a semi automatic). Either shoot as step 2 or 4. No qualified instructor will ever teach shooting at step 3. You shoot from retention at step 2, or you acquire sights and fire from step 4.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by grter: I think the clerk handled the situation very well.

Most knowledgeable people would not describe drawing on a man with gun in hand, staying in front of the robber, putting the gun within reach of the robber, and not firing after having drawn as having "handled the situation very well".

If things go wrong it's going to be a shootout whether or not he did this or that or this.

Actually, how a robbery victim reacts can have lot to do with whether things go wrong. The clerk's actions were not calculated to reduce the likelihood of a "shootout". By drawing, he most certainly raised that likelihood measurably.

He kept his cool and totally controlled the situation the best it could.

I don't know how cool he was, but I see no indication that he ever controlled anything.

Everybody wants to give the professonal advice on how to do their work. This type of stuff is what he does, it's his living, how he puts bread on his table.

He is a store clerk. Sometimes such people are robbed. Sometimes thay are killed or injured.

Most are advised to comply with robbers unless there is a strong indication not to.

No one here will give him advice on how to make change, but his reaction to the robbery leaves a lot to be desired.

He says he has a service record and a resume that might pertain to handing criminals, but the video gives the lie to any claim of relevant professional competence.

In an armed robbery, one either complies or chooses to go for broke. Had the clerk survived the draw and had the robber dropped the gun, one could argue that the clerk took a calculated risk that worked for him, whether it would have been prudent or not.

But he didn't do that, He reached for the robber's gun without success, drew his own, put it out where it could be taken, and stood directly in front of a man who had a gun in hand--and did not fire. He says he would have, but he had lost the opportunity to save himself by that time. One can only say that he was lucky.

I see two possibilities here: the clerk did not know what he was doing but was incredibly lucky, or things were not what we have been told.

That guy walked into the wrong store and I sincerely belive he is really really lucky to leave that store without his head ventilated.

Both men are lucky.

As for being able to push a gun away from your face as taught in martial arts, I would strongly advise that you better know if that firearm is in single action mode or double...

Watch the video.

I know of no competent trainer anywhere who advises sticking a gun into an attacker's reach.

Either the robber or the clerk would be better served by keeping the gun held close.

This does underscore the importance of getting some really good defensive pistol training, including, if possible, some FoF training using simunitions.

The later would demonstrate convincingly that a victim of an armed robbery should do something very different from what is shown in the video.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by allaroundhunter: As soon as the clerk presented his gun, the bad guy was compliant.

I think that's an unsupportable assumption.

Had he dropped his gun, he would have been "compliant".

But the fact that he had not yet fired is no indication of compliance.

 

[Cosmoline]

You all sound like you want him to blow this guys head off. The clerk felt he didn't have to and I give him credit for his judgment.

It isn't about feelings or desires. The criminal was armed and presenting an imminent, unlawful threat of deadly force. The clerk's firearm is not a magic bullet shield. Once he backed off and the clerk no longer pushed his pistol out of the way, he criminal could have shot him in a fraction of a second, far faster than the clerk could have pulled the trigger to stop him. In those situations, you either trust the bad guy not to kill you or you shoot. He opted to trust the bad guy, based on whatever gut feeling he had. Turned out the bad guy wasn't going to shoot him. That's good, but hardly worth gambling your life on.

I think that's an unsupportable assumption.

I agree, and in any case the situation was way beyond compliance. This isn't an LEO arresting someone, it's a clerk with a gun coming up into his face. That's IMMINENT PERIL. You either act right then by shooting first or you take your chances.

 

[allaroundhunter]

I think that's an unsupportable assumption.

Had he dropped his gun, he would have been "compliant".

But the fact that he had not yet fired is no indication of compliance.

If the clerk had said, "drop it", and the bad guy kept the gun at his side then that would be non-compliant. However, the clerk never mentions that he said such a thing.

What he did do is push the gun out of the way. The bad guy never attempted to either lift it back up or otherwise aim it at the clerk. That is a compliant action based on the clerk's physical orders.

Should the clerk have attempted to force him to be further compliant? Yes. But there are many things he could have done differently.


I will pull a definition in here:

Control: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over.

Once the gun (dominating influence) was in his face, the bad guy was submissive. Synonym to submissive? Controlled.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

So trunk, by your definition, unless the robber was dead or unconscious then the clerk was not in control.

Nope, by my definition as long as the crook has full freedom of movement and is armed and is only not shooting by choice then the clerk was not in control.

There is no set of circumstance where I’m OK with a robber in full control of his firearm being free to move around my space. Either he drops it completely out of his hand or I shoot it’s only gonna go one of those two ways

 

[Cosmoline]

If the clerk had said, "drop it", and the bad guy kept the gun at his side then that would be non-compliant. However, the clerk never mentions that he said such a thing.

The clerk is not an LEO and this was not an arrest. You're thinking in terms of getting a suspect to comply, then putting cuffs on him. None of that applies here. It's far, far simpler. If there is imminent, unlawful deadly peril (which it appears there most certainly WAS), then you shoot or risk imminent death. By failing to shoot, the clerk risked imminent death. Compliance, orders, etc. have nothing to do with anything here. If the bad guy had dropped his firearm, the issue is NOT repeat NOT that he "complied" with instructions, but that he no longer presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the clerk. So the clerk cannot shoot. It has nothing to do with whether the bad guy is complying with specific orders or not. It has to do with whether he presents an imminent, unlawful threat of deadly force.

For me this highlights the need to stop training like an LEO, stop shouting orders and focus instead on whether your life is in imminent unlawful peril.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by allaroundhunter: The bad guy never attempted to either lift it back up or otherwise aim it at the clerk.

Had he decided to do so, he could have shot the clerk in an interval far shorter than the clerk's reaction time.

That is a compliant action based on the clerk's physical orders.

It was not up to the robber to "comply" with anything; his lawful choice was to drop the gun and flee, or to drop the gun and choose to "comply" with an unenforceable order to remain on the scene, had he been given one.

Nor was it up to the clerk to "exercise authoritative or dominating influence over" anyone. His task was to save himself, either through betting on the robber's good will (which is what he did, and it worked, this time), or by disarming or disabling the robber, which may or may not have worked. Usually, one who decides upon the former strategy will not draw a firearm in plain view, because of the likelihood that such an action will precipitate a shooting that might not otherwise occur.

The clerk goofed big time and he happened to get away with it.

This is an excellent example for us in ST&T.

 

[Cornbred]

From what I saw it wasn't perfect but fairly effective. He quick reaction to the robber pulling his weapon prevented him from gaining a point of aim on the clerk, and abled the clerk to pull his own weapon. Reaching for the firearm also caused the robber to put the weapon behind his back and bow up to the counter at which time the clerk had his weapon in the robbers face. Once he realized he had the gun in his face he backs out and leaves. Clerk holds the weapon on him till he is out of the building. Winner he lives.

I disagree that putting the weapon in his face was wrong. It was a calculated risk. He decided to maintain the close proximity to to robber in attempt to keep the robbers weapon pointed away from him. This close proximity does not allow for many other options.

As for he should have shot him because he was still armed and not under control. First he not a cop so he is not going to order him to drop the weapon, order him to the ground to "control" him nor is he going to arrest him. Second, he decided that in this situation he did not feel like dealing with the legal system if he did not have to.

As for him taking risks that you ain't willing to take...Great. People with different life experience, training, and raising will ultimately have different levels of risks willing to take.

 

[Al Thompson]

First he not a cop so he is not going to order him to drop the weapon

I bet you didn't think that one over before posting. Giving folks orders has zilch to do with being a cop or not, it has to do with creating a safe(r) environment. You really want to let the bad guy retain his weapon and a weapon that can kill at a distance to boot?

The clerk got lucky and is almost completely devoid of any evidence of training.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Cornbred: I disagree that putting the weapon in his face was wrong. It was a calculated risk. He decided to maintain the close proximity to to robber in attempt to keep the robbers weapon pointed away from him. This close proximity does not allow for many other options.

Some FoF simulations would settle that one.

As for he should have shot him because he was still armed and not under control. First he not a cop so he is not going to order him to drop the weapon, order him to the ground to "control" him nor is he going to arrest him.

The reason to shoot has to do only with the need to neutralize the immediate threat to the clerk's personal safety. IOW, self defense.

A "cop" does not shoot to effect an arrest.

Second, he decided that in this situation he did not feel like dealing with the legal system if he did not have to.

Unavoidable, once he had drawn.

 

[Mainsail]

Wow. Seriously, my post got completely deleted?

There are some strange standards around here.

 

[REDMASTA]

He should of round house kicked him, then done a front flip over the counter (while drawing his weapon at the same time) and promptly disarmed him. Least that's what I would of done.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

This is fascinating. In previous discussions on THR concerning armed robbery, many advocate that victims should “read” a perpetrator to determine if, (a) a perpetrator will escalate the violence and, (b) if the victim should respond with his own gun.

Now that we're faced with video of a victim responding with his own gun, and apparently “reading” the perpetrator to determine subsequent action, “reading” is now considered bad.

I'm curious as to why those who hold the position that one should “read” a criminal in the first instance believe that one should not in the latter.

 

[stressed]

"A veteran of four tours in Iraq. A 30-year military man. A former prison guard, private investigator, professional extraditor of federal prisoners"

4 tours in Iraq, 30 years in the military and now working at a liquor store?

Yeah right...

Regardless, he handled the situation well and I am glad it ended like it did.

 

[GBExpat]

He should of round house kicked him, then done a front flip over the counter (while drawing his weapon at the same time) and promptly disarmed him. Least that's what I would of done.

Thanks for the smile to start my day.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

4 tours in Iraq, 30 years in the military and now working at a liquor store?

Yeah right

Off topic but I will say again that after 30 years of service his pension is likely equal to my wage. I work with several military retirees who are just looking for a low stress way to supplement their retirement income. That’s all he’s probably after as well

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mikhail Weiss: In previous discussions on THR concerning armed robbery, many advocate that victims should “read” a perpetrator to determine if, (a) a perpetrator will escalate the violence and, (b) if the victim should respond with his own gun.

Yes--try to judge whether the robber is likely to shoot even in the victim complies, and if no, comply, and if yes, try to resist as well as possible when the opportunity presents itself.

Now that we're faced with video of a victim responding with his own gun, and apparently “reading” the perpetrator to determine subsequent action, “reading” is now considered bad.

No. We have a video showing a man drawing his firearm on an alleged robber holding a gun, putting his gun out at arms length, and failing to fire while the robber remains an imminent threat.

...all happening very quickly, with no time to "read" anything except to notice that the victim could not see the bore for an instant.

I'm curious as to why those who hold the position that one should “read” a criminal in the first instance believe that one should not in the latter.

???

"Reading" is something one does before doing anything that is likely to precipitate gunfire.

 

[beatledog7]

The more times I view that video, the more choreographed it looks. I'm not talking about the cell phone shot of the security camera playback--I'm talking about the actions and demeanors of the two people. Their movements are just too smooth and practiced--each appears to know beforehand what the other is going to do. Like I said--choreographed.

It looks like it was made for a training video--a very bad training video. The whole story smells bad.

When I follow up on this supposed robbery, I find this:

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/video-store-clerk-in-marionville-pulls-gun-on-would-be-robber/d/story/IkBY25vbt0OsBK3WUo6NnQ

In this article, we read:

"Had a gentleman come in the door there smoking a cigarette and I asked him to take his cigarette back outside," recalls Alexander. "He pulled a gun out from behind him and said, 'you need to give me all your money.'"

But the would-be thief learned quickly he picked the wrong guy -- a former military police officer packing heat.

"I pulled my weapon up and told him, 'you need to get out of here before I blow your head off.' Backed right on out the door."

So, the clerk pulled his gun and made a direct deadly threat to the robber, but then allowed that robber to walk away, gun in hand. Smells bad.

The same media outlet that posted the OP's link has a follow-up article saying that now the "robber" has been identified, but no arrest so far. Will we see an arrest? I hope so, but I rather doubt it.

What we are seeing is that this clerk is now a local celebrity.

At the end of the original article, it is noted that the clerk "plans to get the footage to the NRA." Why would he want to do that? Because he wants the NRA to have a great PR film on why we should all carry (which this is not)? Or because he's looking for additional publicity?

I don't know the answer, but I guess you can tell what my suspicions are telling me.

I hope my suspicions are wrong.