Now, THIS is restraint above and beyond!
Customer has argument with grocery store manager, pulls gun. In response, this being Florida, the manager and assistant manager draw, too. Customer backs up and then opens fire.
The manager reasons "When I saw the first bullet hit high, right away I knew I was dealing with someone that was not a good shooter." He and the assistant hold fire, eventually talk the guy into putting down his gun, assuring him they really won't beat him up if he surrenders.
I like to think I'm a cool head but I couldn't have done it. It Somebody lets loose at me, and I rather doubt I'd be observing his group size and figuring he's firing high. illustrates what Glenn Reynolds said, that in a disaster movie everyone screams and panics, because that makes for an exciting movie, but the reality is that in a tight spot Americans tend to keep calm, organize, and respond rationally.
Via the always amusing This Is True. A really great site for news of the unusual, including pro-gun news of the unusual.
The story made the rounds on blogs awhile back, and there were those who said it was wrong for the manager and the other guy not to shoot back.
At the time, I wondered whether it was a backstop problem--like they'd be shooting into a parking lot toward occupied areas if they fired back.
Posted by: Don Gwinn at May 31, 2008 11:00 AM
That's a good possibility. If so, even better. Rule 4 is no less important than the other three.
Posted by: Rustmeister at May 31, 2008 12:10 PM
I'm with the manager and the assistant: Call them as you see them and let the chips fall as they may.
Who needs, or wants the needless complications of shooting some idiot?
Posted by: Robert at May 31, 2008 01:44 PM
i think the guy had gone out the doors, and was firing into the store. i might be wrong.
if that were the case, it's reasonable to assume that your return fire will be just as off-target as the incoming shots. it could be a danger to innocents and even more likely won't be effective at stopping the threat -- not safe to fire.
of course, i don't endorse one or the other -- the most enlightened comment i read about this story was, simply, "you weren't there, buddy."
Posted by: jon at May 31, 2008 02:03 PM
You don't understand how hard it is to be a police officer. You have to make a split-second life-and-death decision (never mind who initiated the violent confrontation). Mistakes should be...
Oh wait. These were civilians? And even though they were in a life-and-death situation (which they did not start), they managed to calmly assess the situation and use judgement?
Posted by: an0n at May 31, 2008 06:40 PM
I saw it in "This is True" too. While it's great that you respected his copyright by not repeating his version of the story here, I've GOT to quote his comment on the story: "...The most effective gun control is knowing when not to shoot, even if justified." and the even more amusing title he put on it, "They Saved A Lot Of Paperwork, Too".
This isn't the first time Cassingham has taken on gun issues. http://www.thisistrue.com/guns.html and http://www.thisistrue.com/guns2.html are particularly thought-provoking.
As far as second-guessing them for not shooting, wouldn't all of us defend their decision TO shoot, had they done so? They were the ones in the position to decide. I sure wouldn't second-guess that decision when it came out so well.
Posted by: I Carry at May 31, 2008 09:33 PM