When To Shoot - “Can” Doesn’t Always Mean “Should”

A few days ago, my local gun shop was robbed. This was a brazen, daylight grab-and-run type robbery, with the perpetrator making off with a pair of Walther pistols. In the following days, a lot has been discussed about what happened, what didn’t happen, and why. The social media keyboard commandos have been out in full force to critique and mercilessly hound the shop employees over their actions and perceived inactions. The most frequent question has been: why didn’t they shoot him?

We have had lengthy discussions about the mindset needed to for one to carry a gun or work in a capacity that requires the carrying of arms. We questions ourselves constantly over whether or not we would be prepared and able to shoot and possibly take another person’s life when the situation called for it. But lost in much of that discussion is the question of whether or not we would be able to hold fire when shooting just isn’t the best choice.

Note: My purpose here is not to discuss the legalities of shooting, I’m not a lawyer and shouldn’t have to tell you to consult knowledgeable professionals if you have questions about that. The purpose is to discuss why we don’t always need to shoot.

Getting back to the robbery, let me lay it out a bit. Full disclosure: I am currently a part-time employee of the shop in question, so I’ve had the opportunity to speak with persons involved and get first-hand accounts. However, this is all public knowledge and has been reported by local media. Bad guy walked into the shop and asked to see two pistols in a display case, coincidentally (not really) the case nearest the exit. A friendly employee happily obliges, removes the pistols from the display case and places them on the counter top. Bad guy grabs them and runs for the front door. Two employees chase him outside, where his car is waiting. At this point, one employee does have his pistol drawn, but chooses not to fire. Why?

The employee in question happens to be the shop’s lead instructor, who teaches a number of classes including the Texas License to Carry course. Needless to say, he’s fairly well versed in legalities. But more importantly, he’s an experienced shooter who remembers Cooper’s four rules. In particular, rule 4 “know your target and what is beyond.” In this case, the target was obviously a dirtbag who just stole guns. Beyond the target, however, were a number of things.

The front parking lot of the building is bordered on two sides by streets, busy streets, with lots of traffic. An errant shot could easily strike a passing motorist. Or miss the traffic and strike one of the houses on the other side of the street. The third side is essentially layered with things that shouldn’t be shot at. In order they include: the shop’s outdoor archery lane, a warehouse, a row of small offices, a Crossfit gym, and a kid’s trampoline playpark.

Now let’s add the fact that the second employee was between the instructor and the thief. Not directly, but close enough. Then add the fact that the bad guy was starting the car and preparing to drive away. So he was mere seconds away from being a moving target. Rather than shoot, our instructor chose to smash the car’s rear window with this pistol (auto glass does a number on HK polymer frames, apparently). Shortly after the robbery, the smashed window played a key role in identifying the vehicle and finding the bad guy.

None of this even considers other unknowns. Did the guy have another gun, loaded, on his person? Maybe. Did he have friends in the car? Maybe. Did his friends have guns? Maybe. This could have very quickly gone from quiet Tuesday in El Paso to the shootout at the OK Corral.

Could that employee have taken a shot? Sure. Would he have hit the bad guy? I think so. But the fact is that he may have missed. It happens. Frequently. The split second thought process boiled down to a simple risk assessment: odds of hitting the bad guy vs odds of hitting literally anyone else. So the choice was made not to shoot.

His decision not to shoot has caused a number of people to question his ability to teach classes that involve preparing students to shoot people. How can he give good advice if he wasn’t even able to pull the trigger himself? Right? Makes sense.

Except it doesn’t. What makes more sense is that he did exactly what he teaches and what we should learn and remember: having a gun doesn’t mean that shooting is your only option. It doesn’t need to be the final step in an escalating process. Rather, the entirety of the process needs to be considered, and quickly. The totality of the circumstances needs to be looked and assessed and the most reasonable actions taken as a result. Many times that means not shooting.

And we all need to be ok with that.
 

ggammell

Does not pass up an opportunity to criticize P&S.
Doesn't sound like it meets the definition of robbery. The guns weren't taken by force, threat or intimidation. Also important when employing deadly force.
 
Doesn't sound like it meets the definition of robbery. The guns weren't taken by force, threat or intimidation. Also important when employing deadly force.

That's an interesting point, one that we have discussed since the event. The argument could be made (could) that as soon as he had those pistols in his hands, he "intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death." There's no way to know for sure that he didn't have loaded mags in his pockets, and just needed to get his hands on the gun itself. This may be a bit of a logical stretch, I admit, but worth considering. As I mentioned, there were just a lot of unknowns.

BTW, sources tell me that Texas penal code 9.43 offers legal justification for shooting in this type of situation. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm obviously not advising that though.
 

ggammell

Does not pass up an opportunity to criticize P&S.
The questioning of his decision making reeks of guys who "wish a MF'r would" to establish their bonafides.
 

PatMcG

Member
Ya guys "wish a mf'r would" until they have to scratch a check to a lawyer then they wish a mf'r wouldn't have. Sometimes being a good witness is the best course of action. While stolen guns are never a positive thing I'd bet they're insured and the whole thing was videoed and plate # was recorded. Hopefully the shop learns from this and maybe adjusts some policy (one gun out of the case at a time per customer or firearms only handled far from exits)and store layouts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm personally happy no innocent person was harmed. We had a gun shop robbery attempted where I currently reside in Northern Texas a year or two ago. And a team of guys went in shooting, the old guy behind the counter emptied a revolver into them and got several hits. And he was able to survive the robbery even though he was in critical condition, I'm pretty sure the thugs were later arrested by police.

Should he continue teaching the classes, maybe. Will his business be hurt because he didn't shoot? Probably. Will he have massive court bills, for not shooting nope. I'm betting the business owner understands, and their will probably be some different procedures coming up. Maybe only one weapon on the counter at a time per customer.

If he had shot and missed he would be in a much worse scenario. Since no innocent people died I call it a win. Between insurance, and the police the guns may be gone but probably very good odds that the individual will be caught. I agree with your statement though, just because you can shoot; doesn't mean you should. The people critizing him were unlikely to be his customers on the training side regardless.
 

Ryan St.Jean

Regular Member
I’m not a lawyer but as a normal person I couldn’t reasonably articulate how a guy who grabbed and ran with 2 pistols I know are unloaded was a threat to my life/ limb/ eyesight that put me in fear for my life. Nor would I believe someone who tried to say that.

I know Texas has some interesting laws about use of force in defense of property. However experiences of people who did so are invariably bad.

As a potential employee would I use lethal force to protect my bosses property? Seems like a bad idea. Would I do so in a job without that as a specific duty (think armored car guys) Oh hell no. That isn’t in my best interest at all.

I do not have a few hundred thousand dollars for lawyers in case I get charged criminally or civilly and my boss probably doesn’t either.
 
Top