Shooting to Wound?

Video of attempted liquor store robbery.

The perp got away easy.

ht/ jethro

26 Comments on Shooting to Wound?

  1. looks like the guy behind the counter was either concerned about hitting his partner or he just needs more time at the range

    either way, it was cognizant of the older guy to grab the perps pea-shooter, then pull out his own piece

    & yes, the perp was one lucky sob

  2. I did not see the perp get away. He looked thoroughly subdued and compliant, even though the shooter missed. Am I seeing this wrong?

  3. Shooting to wound could more accurately be called shooting for lawsuits.
    Turning perps into victims by allowing them to live another day.

    If your shooting to wound make sure it’s only for the purpose of fixing them in place for a clean kill shot.

  4. I think Asshole is hurtin for certain, but if he’s not mortally wounded or crippled, he could be out in a few short years to do it all over again. That counter man needs to keep close tabs on the perp in case he gets let out and goes on the hunt!

  5. Looks to me like the counter-man was shooting at center mass. likely took it in the hind quarters even at that angle. especially at that range, a head shot would have been preferable.
    “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell

  6. Clean up on aisle one! I think that was a woman behind the counter, no? I like that the first thing she does after the threat is contained is whip out her phone to record. I would be a mess.

  7. Wait! The old man grabs the pea shooter and pulls out his own gun too?

    Perp was close to finding old man’s gun when he started to pat his pockets. If clerk had not shot, old man’s gun would have been his.

    Clerk did a great job. That was a risky shot with old man so close to him.

    You shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. With the perp’s gun taken away and him staying put, the threat was mostly gone.

    You still don’t know what he may try, so keep the muzzle on him.

  8. A couple or three decades or so ago some Dindu Hindu stuck up a liquor store here and made the mistake of firing off a couple of shots at the clerk as he was leaving with the loot. He missed. The clerk pulled out a gun of his own from under the counter and fired back. He didn’t miss. When the gun battle was over the perp was dead with at least 9 bullet holes in him. Funny thing was, the clerk’s gun only held 6 rounds. A Grand Jury no-billed him.

    I’d like to think they would do the same today, but I’m just not sure.

  9. But he’s still moving, what’s up with that with 2 guns pointing at you. Either shoot to kill or get rid of the gun. That’s how I roll. Oh and watch the two get sued by the robber.

  10. The perps right leg never moves after the hit. He may have a gimpy leg forever. With the camera rolling, you’d have limited calls on your actions.

  11. A .45 to the face would have been a better choice.
    One, that perp could have had his own back up and shot and killed the lot of them from a stable position on his back.
    Two, dead men tell no tales

  12. Looked like the clerk took the first available shot when the other coworker was not in the line of fire.

    Great job!

    You shoot to neutralize the threat. If they die, so be it. If they don’t, you hold them at gun point just in case they pull another weapon or try to bum rush you.

    Shooting to wound is a bad idea. But I don’t think this person was shooting to wound. Hitting center mass on a stationary paper target is easy but real life is always in motion and unpredictable.

    You’re not guaranteed to get the best center mass shot in a dynamic, real life encounter so you have to take what you get at the earliest time and you take your shot. The rest is in God’s hands.

  13. As an instructor many years ago we always taught that when attacked “shoot them to the ground” the main point is to neutralize the threat!
    And when the police come ONLY say that you were in fear for your/your families life/lives, and you only shot to stop the attack/threat, no matter how many rounds it took. If you happen to put a .45 round thru the perp’s head and spatter gray matter all over the wall that was NOT your intent. No further dialog without an attorney present. There are too many scum sucking commie DA’s like eric swallow well out there who would just love to make an example out of you to boost their career!

  14. Doubt this happened here. Our laws may not apply. If perp wasn’t hit he wouldn’t have laid supinely on his back without trying to get out of the line of fire. Never heard of the one ad I could read Blue Bier and the day before the month on the time stamp suggest not America.

  15. It’s only a good job when you kill them. Killing them means they won’t be doing that again. Wounding them opens up a big can of worms – like coming back for more, but you the shooter ends up dead. Not good in my book.

  16. Never shoot to wound….Shoot till the threat is neutralized and in most cases the perp die’s from his wound’s!

  17. @muddjuice: You left out one important detail. By only wounding the perp you don’t have the to live with the potential guilt that can come from taking another human life, regardless of the circumstances. It can even occur when you are forced to do it in a combat situation.

    Trust me.


Comments are closed.