Ok now heres where you might become confused..

I think what that guy did was wrong BUT im not saying i wouldnt do it myself.

We can talk law all day long but my emotions dont follow laws.. they just happen , and im just being blunt.. The guy in this video did some things wrong, and i likely would do just as many "wrong" things.. the problem is he put innocent people's lives in danger , whereas that where i draw the line..

It may not be legal , but ill shoot a guy for taking chewing gum from my car if i caught him

they wertent in HIS line of fire , they were certainly in the ROBBERS line of fire

Yeah I agree he did put the mother and child in danger. Had they not been there, then fire away. Im not saying I wouldnt have, because I know dam well Id be popping caps at a robber too.

Maybe it's the mother's fault also for not taking better action. Look at how she doesnt even turn her back, she just side steps slowely.

If you dont want to get yer ass shot off, don't rob people.

The shopkeeper did a great job.

1. He used the female shopkeeper as cover to get his weapon drawn.
(Surprise the bad guy = Excellent tactics)

2. He moved to the right and toward the robber to AVOID the mother and child.
(Obtain a clear line of fire = Excellent tactics)

3. He fired until the robber had left the building protecting everyone without pursuit.

This guy was not a gun nut or a wannabe hero. He was protecting his business and the lives of three people.

lol great idea , hide behind someone unarmed

great tactic if you know exactly where the other guys gun is going to be shot , but of course this is impossible..
the guy was running away he shot him in the back and the guy fell just outside the door , he wasnt protecting anything. It isnt hard to defend yourself when someone is running away

That must explain the picture of him looking like an idiot pointing a glock at a camera

I think the NRA guy did a great job. He had to use his discretion and it worked. When a robber is threatening your life for some money, and you have a way of protecting yourself and an opportunity to do so, you do it.

I've seen enough of things going the other way around. Robber gets his money, decides to shoot the victims execution style anyway for the fun of it.

Robbers beware.

Boom boom boom!

OK time for me to speak on this one...as an NRA certified expert in handguns ( yes I can testify) and someone who has taught over 5000 people how to shoot handguns I can say the shooting that the victum did was good shooting and was thought out I can also say that in my expert opnion the little girl was not in danger of any cf*.. "however" do I think he was justified in his shooting?.. no and I will tell you why... most robbers are what law enforcement calls... note passers... you know the guy at the bank who passes the note and then leaves.. well money is insured I dunno where he was or what if it were me personally I would have let it be and just givin the guy the money.. and belive me I am a true gun nut anybody who knows me knows I always roll with at least 2 guns on me at all times.. sometimes 3 with at least 150 rounds of ammo and yes we all do dream of using our gun.. I have many times but it has to be the right situiation.. all of my usage was during combat conditions in afghan.... at no point during that robery did I see his life in any imideate danger nor the other victums in that case... ok no on to legal issues... I don't know what state he was in.. all states are different in what is justified... somes states have what is called a retreat law.. you must prove that you tried everything in your best effort to get away before you deicided to use deadly force... one thing that is true to all states is you can not under any circumstance shoot anybody over property... like I said I don't know all the facts during this.. and there is no audio.. if the suspect even verbally threatened the vic then it is justified in any state... so thats my 2 cents.. now I am high as a kite and I am going to go clean my new MP5 have fun guys.. god bless america and god bless the dirty sluts

wow high as a kite and guns, thats a great combo...............

robbers shooting the victims after a succesfull robbery is about as likely as getting strucvk by lightning, it happens in the movies , in real life it doesnt usually happen that way.. and i have never heard of a robber shooting a baby , EVER , i have heard of babies getting hit by stray fire from a store owner/police , many times , but never from a robber..

You dont know the robber threatned anyones life.. all we see is a guy in a ski mask , for all we know he asked " do you sell ski masks ? " or " does this ski mask fit right ? If the guy was threatning the clerk , why would the woman and the baby not even move to the side. the baby doesnt look frightened in any way until after gung-ho guy starts shooting buddy in the back as he tried to flee.

The NRA instructor should have his license taken. He caused a bad situation to be worse, and more dangerous than it should have been. And if the state laws in Ohio are what they used to be, he would be headed to jail.

Everyone would have been a LOT safer if the perpetrator wasn't BREAKING THE LAW to begin with. Fuck, people... is it really that hard to comprehend? Don't break the law and you won't get shot! It's not rocket science, really.

hahah yeah, I'm sure that line of reasoning is gonna hold up in court :1orglaugh The perp lost. He's in jail now. Get over it. :1orglaugh

nobody is saying the robber doesnt deserve to get shot.

They are saying the jock who shot him put innocent people's lives at risk.. its not hard to comprehend if you read the full thread.

If the shop owner had a rocket launcher , should he use it because the robber broke the lawe and thats what you get for breaking the law ? doesn't make much sense does it ?

They have laws for what force you allowed to use to stop a crime.. shooting people in the back as they flee apparantly unarmed , isnt legal in any place i have been

i didnt give any reasoning , you must be quoting the wrong person . you quoted me stating FACTS..

FACT its more likely to get hit by lighting than shot in a store robbery by a robber

FACT i have never heard of a baby shot by a robber , but i have heard of babies being shot by cops/victims stray bullets..

Those facts have nothing to do with a court or a law , those are called facts , so im not sure why you would think FACTS = reasoning , and why they would be in court. what does the fact that lightning hits people more often than robbers shoot people have anything to do with court ?

It doesn't

The guy deserves to be in jail , and you seem to think that what i said somehow conflicts with that , well it doesnt . i still think the robber deserves jail , and he deserves to be shot in the head as far as im concerned. That has nothing to do with th irresponsobility of the store owner ..

He did precisely what any police officer would have done.

I'm not sure where you were going with this one, but.. cool. :thumbsup

I think every shopkeeper should immediately fire upon anyone committing armed robbery.

not a trained police officer. maybe a hick moronic cop who doesnt care about the public..

If a police officer did that here he would be in jail.

I dont doubt most police officers would have done the same thing, that doesnt make it right , it makes most cops idiots...

Its not rocket science.. if you pull a gun out with intent to shoot it around a baby , when the other person has no intentions or possibly not even a weapon.. YOUR AN IDIOT , plain and simple.

We dont see a weapon we dont hear a threat. all we see is a guy blasting another guy in the back several times as he tries to get away.

i think that kid wont be able to listen any more... thanks mr crazy gun holder...

GO FUCK YOUR SELF

I think we should drop nukes on people who use handicap spots :1orglaugh

we dont even know this guy was armed , lets not get ahead of ourselves

Obviously things arent as cut and dry as that..

If a crackhead walked into a packed daycare with a shotgun asking for $5 , you think the owners should open fire ? get real

In Texas?

I usually aggree with your posts but you obviously dont know many cops or much about volatile situations like this one. The instructer acted perfectly. He neutralized the threat when it presented itself in the safest possible manner. He deserves a pat on the back; and I bet you the woman and child had no complaints on how it turned out.

Yeah, but you can infer from the verdict that the shopkeep was justified in the shooting. And if the perp was just an average joe customer who wasn't doing anything wrong, why is he in jail? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the judge and laywers are of sound mind and were privey to all kinds of information that we didn't get from the video.

Note the kid barely flinches; a 9mm going off in a room like that is barely as loud as a black cat... It could only be worse.

i totally agree with you there , i was speaking from our perspective watching the video..

Chances are he DID have a gun and he DID threaten the person with bodily hard BEFORE the guy shot the robber

I was sort of taking the devils advocate roll from what we KNOW from the video.. we dont see a weapon , the audio is cut out , and the beginning seems to skip out as he enters..

we have differing opinions then , it happens

The woman has no complaints because she is obviously an idiot not protecting her child in any way , the child isnt old enough to talk most likely so she wont be thanking anyone .

The guy did NOT act perfectly , he continued to pursue the robber before he worried about the safety of the customers. He shot an apparently unarmed uncobative man in the back as he tried to run away.. if thats a perfect shooting then yes we disagree..

again i must state , HE ISNT A COP , im not a cop im not trained to handle those situations and im sure neither is he , so i'm not trying to say i wouldn't have done THE EXACT SAME THING

Its easy to play arm chair robbery , but not so easy when your in the situation..

Hopefully i would have been able to handle it BETTER, but realistically i wouldnt have..

No........ if that was the case, the NRA guy would be in jail.

Sounded like he was armed to me.

From the original post:
the guy who shot back was an NRA firearms instructor.

he said that the perp raise his gun towards him when he seen the NRA guy start to draw down on him, thats when he fired at the robber.

You're right about this. But when you're in a situation like the one we see on the film, you're less concerned about the statistics and more concerned about fending off somebody who is threatening your life. Even if 0.01% of robbers shoot their victims, you don't want to be in that 0.01% statistic.

to me its just simple math

How many times do robbers walk into a place and shoot unarmed shopkeepers and/or their customers.. ?

Ok now how many times do robbers get in a gunfight with the store owner and someone gets shot .. hmmmmmmmm

Its not hard math.. your chances DECREASE at an alarming rate as soon as you pull a weapon out.

So without anything else , as soon as he pulled his weapon out he just DECREASED the chances of him and his customers of leaving the store alive..

Thats called simple math. :)

Thats what you would think wouldn't you.. :1orglaugh

and oj is innocent.. , just because your in jail doesn't make you guilty , just as being free doesn't make you innocent..

when was the last time you had someone put a loaded gun in your face? You can only assume they mean you harm... it's alot more than simple math; that's why it's a judgement call.

edit: it seems to me that best judgement was used

i have had it happen on a few dozen occasion.. a few by cops.. prob would have at least a half dozen kills on my record if i shot someone everytime they pointed a gun at me..

I agree obviously a judgement call is needed in any situation , im going only by the facts from the video.

If the guy was a repeat serial killer who murdered shopkeepers and said im here to rape and kill you all and take the money , your still statistcally more likely to get shot once you pull out your weapon but realistically , your dead if you dont.. :)

Here's what's right and wrong about this entire scenario.

1.) The fucking counter top is NOT a baby seat. The establishment exchanges money and a baby on top of the counter, whether held by it's mother or not is WRONG.

2.) The NRA guy who is armed is sitting down BEHIND and BELOW his defensive and offensive field of view and platform. He's on a computer and he can't see the perpetrator enter. Note that the perpetrator is wearing all black and a ski mask and is well inside the door before action is begun.

3.) The counter girl is smart. She doesn't hesitate and goes to give the money immediately. Money is insured but it ain't worth dying for.

4.) The counter girl is to the right of the NRA guy. His field of view and defensive platform are compromised by her presence and girth. She's no small fry woman and he has to step around her in order to draw his weapon. He does so and clearly telegraphs his moves. I'm surprised he and the counter girl weren't shot.

5.) As the perp makes a hasty retreat while the NRA guy's weapon is being discharged he is still able to make it to the door. No. The first round should have dropped his ass to the ground. He was still moving with weapon in hand. No. Weapon in hand means one shot, one kill.

6.) The NRA guy stands there posing with weapon in hand INSIDE the store while the baby and mother are still within the action platform! It 'looks' as though the perp is down outside but where's the weapon? Does the NRA guy go and disarm him to make sure? Does anyone order the mother and baby to go behind the counter to safety? Were ricochet solutions considered?

7.) Shooting him in the back is NOT an act of cowardice. He was moving AND still had a weapon. As long as he had that weapon OR the NRA guy reasonably believed he may have had a second weapon, his option was to stop his ass cold. A gun is the manifestation of one statement: "I said stop NOW!".

This could have turned into a worse case scenario. The mother and establishment were at fault with the baby on the shelf in the first place. Luckily the NRA guy is a good enough shot and the perpetrator an asshole or all could have been lost.

If you're carrying a firearm as defense of an establishment you drill, drill, drill and maximize all field control options. Not, jump up and draw your gun slower than a Star Wars Stormtrooper.

It's a scary moment in a gunfight but cool heads and sharp wits will prevail. 9 times out of 10 a robber will not shoot if things go as smoothly. Yet you never know and it's a case by case basis on what to do. In this case the robber is lucky his ass is alive.

so tired of people that cant read. NOBODY is sticking up for the "crackhead".. nobody said the crackhead is the VICTIM. grab a clue..

:thumbsup :thumbsup great assesment.

all 3 rounds struck the robber..... do not think that there is such a thing as "one sot one kill" that is sniper & movie talk...

80% of people shot with a handgun live, even after being hit multiple times.

ther is no such thing as "one shot one kill" certainty.... that is sniper talk & too many movie lines.

80% of all people shot with a handgun survive, even if hit multiple times...