Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,101
- Reactions
- 21,407
I noticed this video about a Wenatchee attack on a 7 eleven clerk. Everyone takes away different lessons from these real-world events so they are interesting to watch for that reason IMO. The video's author has his own takeaways from the incident. What are the takeaway lessons you see in this incident? Here are a few of mine FWIW:
1. In this case the good guy was a big dude and it looks like he was trained in how to detain someone. If it were me I would not want to lose my position of advantage. That is, armed with a gun and not within striking distance of the bad guy. For a lot of people moving from that position of strength to basically hand-to-hand combat distance (the good guy still had the gun of course) weakens their position IMO.
2. The video's author says the good guy should have reholstered his gun. I disagree with that because there was no way to know if the bad guy had a gun, pepper spray, stun gun, knife, or other weapon. Again why weaken your position of advantage? You never know what kind of crazy thing the bad guy could do. Having the gun in your hand and ready is better than in the holster IMO.
3. The author has a really good point IMO about knowing what your goal or objective is. Is it to protect yourself and your family? Is it to protect the victim? Is it to detain the victim? For me in this case protecting both his family/himself and the victim are all accomplished by the same action of stopping the attack and being ready if the bad guy escalates things such as by pulling a gun. IMO the objective would not be to physically detain the bad guy, that is up to the LEOs. (plus that bad guy is probably pretty stinky ). I understand in this case the good guy was competent enough to take him down and physically detain him which is fine, but for most people that is a much more risky step (physically detaining the bad guy I mean). Stopping the attack and having the bad guy in my sites (thereby protecting family and victim) would be my goal in this case and only secondarily if possible keep him on the ground or close by until the cops can arrive so they can detain him..
1. In this case the good guy was a big dude and it looks like he was trained in how to detain someone. If it were me I would not want to lose my position of advantage. That is, armed with a gun and not within striking distance of the bad guy. For a lot of people moving from that position of strength to basically hand-to-hand combat distance (the good guy still had the gun of course) weakens their position IMO.
2. The video's author says the good guy should have reholstered his gun. I disagree with that because there was no way to know if the bad guy had a gun, pepper spray, stun gun, knife, or other weapon. Again why weaken your position of advantage? You never know what kind of crazy thing the bad guy could do. Having the gun in your hand and ready is better than in the holster IMO.
3. The author has a really good point IMO about knowing what your goal or objective is. Is it to protect yourself and your family? Is it to protect the victim? Is it to detain the victim? For me in this case protecting both his family/himself and the victim are all accomplished by the same action of stopping the attack and being ready if the bad guy escalates things such as by pulling a gun. IMO the objective would not be to physically detain the bad guy, that is up to the LEOs. (plus that bad guy is probably pretty stinky ). I understand in this case the good guy was competent enough to take him down and physically detain him which is fine, but for most people that is a much more risky step (physically detaining the bad guy I mean). Stopping the attack and having the bad guy in my sites (thereby protecting family and victim) would be my goal in this case and only secondarily if possible keep him on the ground or close by until the cops can arrive so they can detain him..
Last Edited: