KRW Wrote:I'd have got him in a crossfire.
Was the crook actually hiding behind a clothes rack? Not great cover. Neither one thought about shooting through it. Neither waited for a shot when they popped up, they just shot and ducked. And they kept hopping up in about the same damn place. After the clerk finally hit him, he ran around the counter and was then in a position to see the guys face and hands, instead of walking strait up, he runs clear around the clothes rack, losing sight of the robber.
I also don't think the robber was there to kill the clerk, he just wanted the money. He had the oppurtunity to shoot the guy outright and didn't.
Haven't a clue if I would do better, Never been in that spot.
KRW
Some good insights. Yes, the clerk could have shot right through the clothes rack (not cover but concealment). That is part of the human condition - under adrenal stress the brain perceives any barrier as a just that - a barrier. Even though the higher brain knows that the bullet will go through clothes, the amygdala (frog brain) does not know this. And as we saw, neither shot through the clothing. Hell, even the clerk's counter is barely cover. A bullet would surely go through that as well (if not as easily as through clothes).
I must disagree though about charging head on. I too would have taken a circuitous route to the bad guy. Hell, I would have tried to flank him from the get go. No, you do not want to charge the guy from the same position as where he saw you last. Come from a different position or you charge right into his line of fire.
As for the intents of the criminal, I would posit this : the robber shot it out with the clerk, rather than running away, which is the course of action chosen by the vast majority of robbers when they are confronted by deadly force. Not this time though. That robber was there to fight, and he aggressively fired at the clerk and used his concealment, if poorly.
Just food for thought.