CHL Instructor Shoots Aggressor at Gas Station

[Solaris]

However all we have is the non-audio tape, so that is all we can comment on, and for whatever reason nobody really wants to talk about tactics right/wrong, but on just some how justifying a shooting none of us will ever have all the facts to.

There's your problem; you can't talk tactics validly from just a video with no audio and without other info. Any talk about what he did or didn't do is pure speculation. All we DO KNOW is that he was justified in the shooting from the investigation done by the DA and police. Trying to armchair quarterback the shooting and say what he did right or wring from just that video is no bueno.

Well that is the entire topic of this thread, and it sure looks like I am not the only one commenting on his tactics now, I see several more joining in. Some even seem to be taking my side on some of the tactics.

There is no incident in life where all the facts are known. WWII history books were written for 25 years about how we won the war. People got PhDs for the work, Books, Movies you name it were done. Then in 1972 a relatively unknown F.W. Winterbotham (and others) wrote a book showing for 25 years, everyone was wrong about how we won WWII. EVERYONE.

So let's get back to the tactics based on the facts we know, we can revisit when new facts come to light. There is a whole lot more info on this if anyone wants to google it that answers some questions asked in this thread.

[mojo84]

Since you say you have been in a similar situation, can you provide a video so we can critique your tactics or learn how to perfectly handle a similar situation?

Yes there is video on YouTube. You have probably seen it. You do not have to critique my tactics, my supervisors did that for me in spades. I had no problem hearing it either, I knew I could have done better, I wanted to improve, and they had no problem telling me. I learned from it, worked on improving, and it never happened again. But enough about me, let's return to discussing this incident, which seems to be back on track.

I take it you aren't willing to let us armchair qb's critique it also as being done with this video of an armed citizen that was trying to assist someone voluntarily. Seems what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

[Solaris]

One point I have not seen mentioned. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The shooter only had a gun. He did not appear to have any other less lethal options. Cops carry batons, pepper spray, taser, flashlight, kubaton, etc., not for the added weight, but to have more options other than kill or be killed.

Less lethal tools, something to think about having in addition to your gun.

And yes I have critiqued the shooters tactics, but I have tremendous sympathy for him. It was not his fight, he got involved and now he owns it, and when it went really bad, NOBODY else was there help him. NOBODY. The guy was pushing him, and NOBODY else was there to help stop the guy - tackle, clunk him on head with bottle, broom to face, push him over (he was drunk), whatever. So I feel for him on that. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

[mojo84]

I detected a recurring theme. http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1076877

[rotor]

One point I have not seen mentioned. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The shooter only had a gun. He did not appear to have any other less lethal options. Cops carry batons, pepper spray, taser, flashlight, kubaton, etc., not for the added weight, but to have more options other than kill or be killed.

Less lethal tools, something to think about having in addition to your gun.

And yes I have critiqued the shooters tactics, but I have tremendous sympathy for him. It was not his fight, he got involved and now he owns it, and when it went really bad, NOBODY else was there help him. NOBODY. The guy was pushing him, and NOBODY else was there to help stop the guy - tackle, clunk him on head with bottle, broom to face, push him over (he was drunk), whatever. So I feel for him on that. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

Time to end this post don't you think? People have expressed their opinion and minds are not being changed. I agree with the law authorities on this. And true, nobody else was there to help quell things and if there was someone else the advice you gave was to not get involved. I certainly wouldn't tackle that big guy.

[Solaris]

I detected a recurring theme. http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1076877

Since you have decided to make me the topic of this thread, I will not run away.

Yes, that is a recurring theme. I do not like to see people get in over their head and die. I am funny that way. I am also VFD, I will also criticize anyone who runs into a burning building without proper knowledge, training or equipment too.

And that brings us to the next point I want to make about shooting. Getting involved. We hear it a lot on gun forums, "do something", "at least he got involved."

From the Hippocratic Oath - "First do no harm"

Despite quotes taken out of context from Teddy Roosevelt, getting involved does no good if you make the situation worse. So before getting involved, ask yourself, 1) Do I have the skills to improve the situation? 2) I am I the best one on the scene to take action?

Knowing when NOT to take action is more important than taking action. Years ago when I was in my 20s, my younger sister and I happened on a car crash, we were first there. First guy was dead, second was alive, stable but impaled, third had cuts, broken bones, some bleeding. Sister went to work on guy #3. I called in 911 giving directions and details.

Others stopped "to help". They decided to remove the dead guy from car, and then remove the impaled guy. I saw this before they did it, I forcefully told them to leave him alone. They did, They thought it was their duty to "get involved". They wanted to be Good Samaritans. They did not understand rule #1 as they did not have the skills to make the situation better, only worse, they almost killed the impaled guy. They fail at rule #2, they had no training and my sister was a ER attending physician. She was most qualified on the scene. She had already triaged the scene and was working on the guy who while not having the most injuries, needed the most help. She knew impaled guy would bleed out in seconds if pulled from car, wait for EMT who have the proper tools.

What does this have to do with shooting? Clerk probably sees several drunk customers a day, knows how to handle them. He was most likely best person to solve the problem and had the skills, as well as knowing the house rules. Despite good intentions, shooter unfortunately turned a non-violent verbal encounter into a deadly shooting. So before being a Good Samaritan, know rules #1 & #2 and "First Do No Harm".

[Pariah3j]

So I thought I'd throw my .02 cents in here for what its worth(may not be worth much considering inflation )

Several have suggested the clerk should have locked the door until the police arrived. I worked at a fuel desk for a truck stop/gas station for several years during college - had 2-3 of these situations arise. I wasn't able to lock the door after the confrontation. Assuming this man wasn't the manager/store owner - he probably did not of have the keys to do this either.

I've seen some suggest H2H as an option - that isn't always a good option for someone who is irate and in my opinion is even worst with someone who's drunk and irate (which is the assumption I'm going with because of the way the man walked and some of his mannerisms)- they won't feel it, you will most likely have to KO/TKO them. H2H will always be a last ditch effort for me, I would like to believe if it comes to it I'll walk out on top because I have a will to survive but then again, I won't be useing subdue techniques - they will be deadly and to stop the threat. So with that in mind, why not use the fire arm if I'm just as legally justified to do so ?

Next I see alot of comments on the defender's tactics. I went back and watched the video - I don't see much he did wrong. Guy gets irate with the clerk and he(the defender) is standing, gun exposed to him, so he swaps sides. Then after the guy throws stuff at the clerk, he steps out and appears to glances at the guys plate(in LA only back plates are required if I remember correctly). Maybe that was a mistake, but not one I think he could have known at the time. As others have suggested he was trying to be a good witness. He proceeds to return to the store. There is a loss of what happened after he walked away from the back of the vehicle to the store entrance so unsure what escalated the issue. When they come into view in the store, pistol is drawn and words are being exchanged. But this doesn't seem to deter the drunk man. The drunk man is already laying hands on the defender and he appears to be trying to back up. I suspect because he was trying to avoid using the gun. He finds a narrow isle, I suspect he was trying to create a barrier or distance. At this point the drunk seems to be trying to either get his gun from him or pull him off balance. Its not until he forces him into a corner that I believe he uses the gun - hard to say when he started firing because I couldn't see it fire w/ the 2-3 seconds between frames.

This is the perfect example I use with one my military buddies who think carrying daily is overkill/unnecessary. a problem arises quick and very few of us can predict when. He seems to think when that moment comes his military training will make him into John Wick.

For those questioning this man's tactics and choices ? Please tell me what you would have done differently ? Nothing is not really an answer - You could choose to do nothing, that's fine, but this man did do something. I believe evil happens when good men do nothing. I feel like he tried to make a difference, be a 'good Samaritan' and help the clerk/police by being a witness.

[Pawpaw]

[Pariah3j]

I can't see the picture

[mojo84]

I detected a recurring theme. http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1076877

Since you have decided to make me the topic of this thread, I will not run away.

Yes, that is a recurring theme. I do not like to see people get in over their head and die. I am funny that way. I am also VFD, I will also criticize anyone who runs into a burning building without proper knowledge, training or equipment too.

And that brings us to the next point I want to make about shooting. Getting involved. We hear it a lot on gun forums, "do something", "at least he got involved."

From the Hippocratic Oath - "First do no harm"

Despite quotes taken out of context from Teddy Roosevelt, getting involved does no good if you make the situation worse. So before getting involved, ask yourself, 1) Do I have the skills to improve the situation? 2) I am I the best one on the scene to take action?

Knowing when NOT to take action is more important than taking action. Years ago when I was in my 20s, my younger sister and I happened on a car crash, we were first there. First guy was dead, second was alive, stable but impaled, third had cuts, broken bones, some bleeding. Sister went to work on guy #3. I called in 911 giving directions and details.

Others stopped "to help". They decided to remove the dead guy from car, and then remove the impaled guy. I saw this before they did it, I forcefully told them to leave him alone. They did, They thought it was their duty to "get involved". They wanted to be Good Samaritans. They did not understand rule #1 as they did not have the skills to make the situation better, only worse, they almost killed the impaled guy. They fail at rule #2, they had no training and my sister was a ER attending physician. She was most qualified on the scene. She had already triaged the scene and was working on the guy who while not having the most injuries, needed the most help. She knew impaled guy would bleed out in seconds if pulled from car, wait for EMT who have the proper tools.

What does this have to do with shooting? Clerk probably sees several drunk customers a day, knows how to handle them. He was most likely best person to solve the problem and had the skills, as well as knowing the house rules. Despite good intentions, shooter unfortunately turned a non-violent verbal encounter into a deadly shooting. So before being a Good Samaritan, know rules #1 & #2 and "First Do No Harm".

I find it somewhat ironic a VOLUNTEER firefighter is being critical of someone volunteering to help. I know several full-time professional firefighters that believe VOLUNTEER firefighters get in the way and do more harm than good, well, with the exception of brush fires when they can give them a shovel and tell them to go over there and start digging a firebreak.

I also know many medical professionals that take the Hippocratic Oath and still make mistakes and harm people, even after all their training. Are you familiar with the term "Iatrogenic disease"? It happens to be, according to some reports, the 3rd leading cause of death.

My problem isn't with you personally as I don't know you. My problem is how critical you are and willing to turn on a Good Samaritan that tried his best and at least was willing to help. It wasn't his fault the guy turned on him when he went to look at his license plate. Yeah, I probably wouldn't have been so obvious in getting the plate number. However, I'm my going to say the guy did nothing right either.

[Pawpaw]

I can't see the picture

Sorry. I fixed it.

[Solaris]

There is a loss of what happened after he walked away from the back of the vehicle to the store entrance so unsure what escalated the issue. When they come into view in the store, pistol is drawn and words are being exchanged.

I googled up some other accounts and some reported the shooter first drew the gun in parking lot. That might have been what sent deadguy berserk.

For those questioning this man's tactics and choices ? Please tell me what you would have done differently ? Nothing is not really an answer - You could choose to do nothing, that's fine, but this man did do something. I believe evil happens when good men do nothing. I feel like he tried to make a difference, be a 'good Samaritan' and help the clerk/police by being a witness.

Well that would be me. I would mostly do the opposite of what he did so,

* I use a retention holster, whether concealed or open.

* Never turn back on arguer.

* keep distance, be in his blind spot, not yours.

* Let clerk take lead he is most qualified, you said you had 2-3 of these situations arise, i bet the clerk at a StopNRob sees quite a few a week.

* Back off. standing a foot beside him armed is threatening. Remember he does not know shooter is a goodguy. Also you do not want to be in striking distance.

* do not go back inside after altercation outside. So many more options outside. Far more ways to escape and maintain your distance to him.

* I carry less lethal options - pepper spray, flashlight/kubaton and training in how to employ them.

* I am never drawing my weapon unless I have already decided to shoot. This was a big one that severely reduced his options.

[Soccerdad1995]

I read through this entire thread before viewing the video.

I must say that it is hard for me to fault the CHL instructor (CHL) here. There are a couple small issues. He seems a bit oblivious to the situation at first, but it is hard to know exactly what is going on at the point, up to and including when the drunk appears to try and get CHL to side with him against the clerk (when he pokes at CHL). Based on the minimal response by CHL to getting poked I can only guess that things were not all that heated at that point. When the drunk starts getting more demonstrative, CHL moves out of the action. After the drunk throws chips, CHL decides to put himself in a precarious position to the rear of a vehicle that has an apparently drunk guy at the wheel, and he appears to be looking at the plate. From that point on, CHL appears to be attempting to abandon the encounter and retreat, until retreat is not an option.

Personally, I would not have gotten involved. The worst thing that the drunk did was throw chips at the clerk. That is not a situation where I feel compelled to intervene, personally. If the clerk was getting pummeled and drunk looked like he was not about to stop, that's when I would have gotten involved. And then only if I didn't have my kids with me.

If we want to critique anyone, let's talk about the clerk. He continually escalates the situation. I find it especially humorous that the clerk yells at the drunk as the drunk is exiting, which leads to the drunk coming back in. Clerk's job #1 is to get the guy out of his store, the guy was leaving, so clerk had won. But he couldn't just keep quiet. Then at the end, the clerk decides to straighten up a display that had gotten knocked into instead of getting out of the line of fire. CHL had the weapon drawn at that point. The clerk is lucky he did not catch a bullet.

[Solaris]

I find it somewhat ironic a VOLUNTEER fireighter is being critical of someone volunteering to help. I know several full-time professional firefighters that believe VOLUNTEER firefighters get in the way and do more harm than good, well, with the exception of brush fires when they can give them a shovel and tell them to go over there and start digging a firebreak.

Where I live it is volunteer or your house burns down. Crash on road, I extract you or you stay there and get eaten by buzzards. There is no professional option. I have been doing it 40 years, multiple academies, volunteer does not mean hobby, I have the same skills and passed the same tests as any professional. I have never met a professional who believes as your friends do, but there are definitely folks out their volunteer and professional who should not be.

I also know many medical professionals that take the Hippocratic Oath and still make mistakes and harm people, even after all their training.

I know. Only further reinforces fact those with no training at all should really think twice before engaging.

Are you familiar with the term "Iatrogenic disease"? It happens to be, according to some reports, the 3rd leading cause of death.

No my sister is the physician not me.

My problem isn't with you personally as I don't know you. My problem is how critical you are and willing to turn on a Good Samaritan that tried his best and at least was willing to help. It wasn't his fault the guy turned on him when he went to look at his license plate. Yeah, I probably wouldn't have been so obvious in getting the plate number. However, I'm my going to say the guy did nothing right either.

I am not turning on him. I was surprised he was not charged. I can see him getting charged, but not convicted. I would never convict him. This is a geography issue. In Texas, and the pro-gun south, you are likely to not be convicted, in anti-gun north (NJ, NY), you KNOW he is hosed.

I could not care less how many people want to pile on me. I have yet to see anyone take one of my points and say I was wrong (for example say it is a good tactic to stand within striking distance of an adversary). but the night is early!

[Pariah3j]

I could not care less how many people want to pile on me. I have yet to see anyone take one of my points and say I was wrong (for example say it is a good tactic to stand within striking distance of an adversary). but the night is early!

I'll bite... when exactly was he standing within striking distance of him once became a threat ?