Masters think tactics and a bottle of booze

I carry all the time. As such, I have been confronted with these situations many times while carrying. Long ago I purged my thought processes of this "sheepdog" concept. I am not a sheepdog. I do not carry a gun to protect the "sheep" and certainly not to intervene in a shoplifting incident. I assume that the sheep would have no problem seeing me lose my RKBA and I know they aren't going to intervene on my behalf. Now, if I see another human at risk of being killed or gravely injured, that's another story and thankfully, I've not been in that situation and I hope I never am. Regarding the J frame. The only time in my life that I ever needed to pull a gun to defend myself, I was carrying a J frame. There were three of them. As my wife and I were leaving that scene, a very short time later as we listened to some pro-2A guns and ammo channel on the radio, the host was interviewing someone and the subject of ammo capacity came up and the person being interviewed said something that I never forgot: "no person in a gun fight has ever wished they had a smaller handgun with fewer rounds in it". It was kind of like a lightning bolt hit me. So I took all of this as the universe teaching me a lesson about ammo capacity. I carry a Glock 9mm these days.

Also, rather sounds like the suspect 'read' the CCW carrier and decided to wait outside to attempt to ambush him and steal his weapon, since he obviously didn't have one of his own. He probably saw the opportunity to obtain one and was willing to make the attempt.

Sadly, it might've easily been avoided if the deceased victim hadn't decided to intervene in a situation involving only a petty theft of a store's property, acting as if he were the store's security.

While the old bromide involving tiered comparisons of thinking related to gear, technique, tactics and strategy have been bruited about in various forms, in this case I'd see it as more of a failure in the 'strategy' part of thinking. More's the pity, in this case. The penchant for 'sheepdog' thinking can easily fall in that group.

GEM said:

It doesn't matter what you carry, if you have no idea of what you are doing.

Click to expand...

It probably doesn't matter if you're carrying at all. In some cases, like the one linked in the OP, carrying is a detriment.

If possessing a weapon creates a heightened sense of bravery for someone to intervene when they otherwise wouldn't, they shouldn't be carrying.

I've heard mentioned a couple of times "I wish I had my gun..." Or "If I would have had my gun..."
If having or not having is the only deciding factor, there's been a significant failure long before now.

Very sad story. Hopefully people will learn from his mistakes.

My goodness this very unfortunate person did everything wrong.
I will even take the whole "anti-sheepdog stance" a step further.
Do not intervene unless you personally know everyone involved.

See a filthy dirtbag disarm an immaculately-dressed man and menacingly hover over him?
Good thing you didn't intervene between the undercover officer and the millionaire drug kingpin.
Just fade into the background. Observe, make notes in your head, yet do not engage. Stay alive.

Talking equipment is fun.

Talking tactics is a complete waste of time. Why teach a class that nobody wants? Especially if the audiences technique is sloppy.

So judging people by what they want to talk about, is a bit misleading.

Now this guy,obviously, is a complete moron. White knighting for a bottle of vodka. No amount of tactics rants, can turn a potato into a physics major.

Lol. Hope it was worth it.

This incident strikes me as more about common sense than about tactics. No "masters" involved here, anyway.

Tragic ending, but it did get me wondering about what brand of vodka was being stolen...

This all goes back to the most important thing that I learned in my CCW class, "Don't be a hero."

GEM said:

Amateurs think (or talk) equipment,
Students think techniques,
Masters think tactics!

Click to expand...

If “Masters” only think tactics it’s because they have already decided on or are stuck with given equipment and techniques for a given scenario. That said, true masters of disciplines are continuously evaluating every aspect to take advantage of any new developments that come around.

If they didn’t you would be posting in some rock forum about how one just needs to learn tactics of using a small rock more effective and only amateurs would use a firearm…

That said, I bet most of us would call the deceased’s decisions into question. Draw a gun on someone suspected of stealing a bottle of vodka from a store you just happen to be in? Leave before Police arrive? What, you want others tell them about some guy that drew a gun in the store, on someone who was unarmed?

If your looking for trouble, you are likely to find it.

JohnKSa said:

He would have been fine carrying if he had made good decisions. Just carrying, in and of itself, is almost never a detriment. Having a gun and being stupid is often a detriment. Like the guy who unintentionally discharged his gun at church showing it to someone--injuring his wife and himself. Like the guy in this story who thought he would like to do some LE work at no charge and with no training and got killed. Like a guy I know who killed someone while playing with his loaded carry gun.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. It should never be a detriment, but easily can be if the decision is made to act heroically because they're carrying.

Just think what would happen if overnight the anti 2A states become shall issue.

GEM said:

Our guy in the story would not have gotten into trouble if he had trained with any of the fine trainers we have today.

Click to expand...

Once the thug informed him that he had a gun and then proceeded to rummage through his pack to retrieve it, I think most cops would have just shot him (maybe after some obligatory yelling and screaming) and I don't think they would be found guilty of any crime and I would have to take the LEO's side in that situation. Any reasonable person would, at that point, have certain cause to fear imminent death or grave bodily injury. A civilian might be held to a different standard however. That being the case, it could be argued that pulling your own gun out to deter him from producing his own weapon, though potentially criminal brandishing, was the minimum level of force required to stop the threat. We know that a large number of DGUs are of this nature, where the mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a would be victim stops the threat and no shots are ever fired. Each individual has to make the choice based on their own circumstances of whether or not to pull the trigger. this individual chose not to and perhaps he should not be faulted for that. Or perhaps he should have just pulled the trigger.

He should not have intervened in a simple misdemeanor shoplifting incident in the first place however and that act certainly would have complicated any court case that would have evolved after he shot the man and I would guess that he was aware of that. What's more, from the article, it appears that he and the man went outside together and that's a problem for the law as well as this would suggest mutual combat which would have further complicated any self defense argument. Going outside with the man was a bigger mistake than intervening in the shoplifting IMO especially after a gun had been pulled. At that point, the police just need to be called and you need to not pursue the other person in any way shape or form. That was his most fatal error. That was extremely foolish.
In hind sight however, he clearly should have shot him when he announced that he had a gun and was attempting to produce it. As they say, it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6 and carried by 6 is what he got and he would have had a fair chance in court. If he had not intervened in the shoplifting incident, he would have almost certainly been absolved of any wrong doing under Minnesota SD laws. Retreat probably would have put him in more danger i.e. shot in the back. He wouldn't have had to defend any aggressive behavior, and the belief that death or grave bodily injury was imminent would have been considered reasonable.

Sort of Kinda like the Michael Drejka case in Florida

He felt he needed to harass people parking in Handicap spots. Got in an argument. Then the persons boyfriend came out of the store and shoved him. Drejka shot him dead, The the courts found him guilty so off the prison he goes. One man dead, the other in prison all over what? Nothing! a parking spot!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50005833
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...rking-lot-shooting-unarmed-black-man-n1045966

The liquor stores in my state are run by the state, with very few private shops. Last thing I am going to do is stick my neck out so they don't have to cover the loss of a bottle of vodka.

In our area of residence, we have a weekly newspaper that usually has a section for the Counties Sherrif Dept report and the one major population center Police Dept report. From reading those reports you may somewhat ascertain the level and type of illicit activities that are taking place. In 26Yrs of residence you witness trends that develop in illicit behavior. Drugs are a problem more so than most people realize followed by (let's call it tourism) as we have a major attraction that draws a diverse population. Basically, good people but then there are also the low life nettlesome troublemakers.

Zerodefect said:

Talking tactics is a complete waste of time. Why teach a class that nobody wants? Especially if the audiences technique is sloppy.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ on all three of those sentences. John Murphy's (FPF Training) Street skills class is all about training in tactics, to include when to act, when not to act, how to act, and which level of response to use (e.g. voice, retreat, pepper spray, physical action, firearm). Hard to say nobody wants the training, given how full his classes are. And you can be sure most of the audience (students) are there because we know our techniques re sloppy.

Think you missed the point. Lol.

I agree with you.