Like Phoenix alluded to earlier he is probably a vet. You can't really see him until he comes into the camera view, but the minute the guy with the pistol turned his back this guy got up and it looks like he tried to sneak as close as he could get.. nerves of steel. IMO it was more of a reaction than anything else. Like you said he probably thought it through and was mentally prepared for that situation, and armed. Good for him.
haha.. seriously though this is why if you are packing you USE it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZy8tTznLDA
It depends on the demographics of the group, of course, but in Texas, you have a 4% chance that a young adult male is packing legally. Assaulting four young guys in Texas would not be a good bet. Those odds get really bad if they are old white guys in suburbia. The most determined pistol shooters I have ever seen in my life are the retired old farts practicing in the morning.
Yeah, I definitely believe he was a vet...and just from looking at the video two times, it appeared he came out of that last row of computers and the robber didn't catch him out of his peripheral vision. My first reaction watching the video was that those two guys came in with alot of force and/or "swagger" or whatever the hell you want to call it. There was nothing calm or "professional" about the way these guys were going to rob the place. And the shotgun? I mean if I see that combined with the way these guys were jumping around in there and the ski masks, I'm inclined to think those guys are going to start mowing down people, NOT just go around and collect wallets and wristwatches.
I agree he had legal justification. My question went to how smart it was, and also the fact that he was damn lucky he wasn't left with an empty gun and two pissed off gang bangers. Like Joe Doaks said, his gun is basically meant for spitting range, not a dynamic gunfight against two guys in a room full of innocent bystanders. This also highlights one of the dilemmas of concealed carry: the gun you can carry inobtrusively is probably not the one you want in this type of situation.
One more, this is just ruthless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtPo8RIVNG0&feature=related If the clerk had shot him in the back and killed him, it should be justified imo. I would do it
The law is the problem. This type of incidence needs to have the Good Samaritan laws take precedence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
Well I don't know what to make of those calling me (and others) a pansy for admitting that I would not start wildly firing my pistol 10 seconds into a robbery in a room full of young people. I didn't criticize or second-guess the old fellow I was simply asked what I would have done. With a pistol I'm a cross between Elmer Fudd and Mr. Magoo, its just a fact. I would have to be inside of 10 feet from someone to hit them reliably. That fact would figure into my thinking for sure. Also, if you've seen someone who has been wounded with a gun you might be reluctant to just spray bullets. I know some of you think you are Bill Hickok but some guys would have us believe they are marksmen when they clearly have little or no experience with firearms. It was RCG who informed us that guns become more accurate with increasing range and that he can routinely make accurate pistol shots at ranges over 100 yards. I was shot at once and probably broke some kind of record for the first 50 yards running away lol. It ain't like watching a video. Some of you would decorate your boxer shorts if confronted by an armed man.
I seriously doubt that, even modest knowledge of physics would indicate that's just plain ol non-sense. There's a reason weapons have longer barrels and rifling and it ain't because it looks cool. Now look at a protractor and take a 2* swath measure out that distance (circumference ) at 20ft and 300ft. Honestly ohms you should know better.