Yes it is but doing an after action is how we learn to do things better.

 

Seemed like he did a lot of things right too.

 

 

Seemed like he did a lot of things right too.

 

You need to reread my posts here. I said it worked out okay. It worked out because the bad guys chose not to fight, because they decided to run, and a bunch of others reasons. If some want to just pat the good guy on the back and high five him without looking at what was done wrong and not mention how it could have been done better, fine. If you do this those mistakes are bound to bite you in the a** some day. The agency I worked for used to do business like this until an agent wound up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life due to a series of mistakes that could have been avoided with proper planning and execution.

 

So yeah I "Monday morning quaterback" but I've actually been there, done that, and been responsible for peoples well being.

FWIW the good guy made at least three good moves:

 

1. He had a gun.

2. He waited until the BG had his back turned to make his move.

3. He didn't take a lot of time to make a decision and once he did he didn't back down.

FWIW the good guy made at least three good moves:

 

1. He had a gun.

2. He waited until the BG had his back turned to make his move.

3. He didn't take a lot of time to make a decision and once he did he didn't back down.

 

I don't want to re-read because I agree with what you are saying.

 

I'll add that what he did really well was realize there was no cover and closed the distance, ready to fire.

However, he COULD have walked right up to the guy a put the pistol to his head, based on how close he got in the first place.

 

The shots looked very well thought out - unbelieavebly well actually - and continued closing gave him better hit probablity.

However, with the .380 he had very little in the way of stopping power, so closing faster and shooting more might have been better.

 

He never lost the initiative after he took it.

On the other hand, the guy he shot said that his pistol didn't work. If it did, seeing how the one guy was hit twice and I couldn't tell one way or another, that would have been really bad if i it did.

 

The other guy had a bat.

 

He either relized that, took stock and acted or;

He shot at them because he thought he should and never thought twice about engaging two guys with guns.

 

 

Lastly, I find it interesting that no bystanders thought to hit the deck. I am not completly surprised by that, but seriolsy, some old lady stood there holding her ears. Strange.

 

As I was taught, the best way out of an ambush is to rush. This looked like the same idea, but civilian.

Every time I think some of my faith in humanity is restored, I lose it again.

 

From another forum on the same subject, this is what someone said.

 

 

What DID happen was an idiot opened fire in a crowded place. The old man should go to prison for the rest of his life.

Where is the face palm meme or smilie?

There were several ways this could have turned into crap quickly. The video has been removed so I'm relying on memory in this response.

 

1. Can't remember if the timing allowed this but the good guy should have just shot the bad guy in the back. There is no reason to give him a chance to surrender. There is no reason to "fight fair". There. is only fighting to eliminate the threat in the situation that was presented.

 

2. I don't think getting up and closing the distance was necessary and may have been detrimental to the good guys advantage of surprise. Although we are not sure of the distance remember most surveillance cameras use wide angle lenses to cover more area. These will make things look farther apart than they really are. The distance between the good guy and the bad guy would actually be much shorter than it appears. The movement of the good guy getting up (a much larger image) gave the bad guy something easier to detect in his peripheral vision than just drawing. That 380 bullet at maybe 850 fps can close that distance faster than any of us can move.

 

3. Someone said if the good guy had a lightweight 45 it would have had more effect on the target. May be so. Or maybe he would not have bothered to carry it because it was too big. While his hit ratio was pretty good his accuracy wasn't. Keep in mind that this isn't unusual for civilians or LEOs for that matter. NYPD conducted studies comparing shooting reports to qualification records and found there is little, if any, relationship between how well one shoots on the range and how they do in a gunfight. Jeff Cooper and others have discussed and proven that gunfighting is about 95% mental and shooting skill accounts for only 5% of solving the problem. More than one gunfight has been won by someone with an inferior weapon because they were mentally prepared and, as. Wyatt Earp said, took their time in a hurry.

 

4. Being that the good guy had already engaged bad guy #1, he was not only right but totally justified in his engagement of #2, armed with a bat. A bat is a dangerous weapon easily capable of killing someone. Bad guy #2 also may have taken a hostage if he hadn't been engaged. The good guy didn't give a chance to. I believe he was also correct in maintaining his engagement until the bad guys went out the door. They were on the floor but they hadn't given up. There was no assurance they didn't have any other weapons. Once they were out the door he stopped. Threat was gone.

 

5. The major reason this incident didn't go all to hell was the bad guy's gun didn't work and bat man didn't have a gun. That's all. Call it a superior being looking out for these people or dumb luck, whatever you want.

 

6. Many compare gunfighting in the civilian world with the military. I feel I'm somewhat qualified to opine on this having spent a bit of time with the military and as a LEO. There are some similarties but generally they are two different things. The military destroys targets while you can only legally stop them in the civilian world. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot a fleeing enemy soldier in the back. If you're in a vehicle and ambushed the best tactic in both worlds is to get out of the kill zone. If you're dismounted and get ambushed in the military the best thing is to attack the ambush as it gets you out of the kill zone and turn the enemy's attack into a defense. I wouldn't equate what happened in FL to a military ambush. It was more like you were sitting in the mess hall eating lunch and an enemy soldier shows up ready to kill you.

 

The best thing that happened in this incident is its a perfect example of crime does not pay...and you may get shot in the a** by a guy who's 50 years your senior.