I tend to be a “go against the flow” kind of guy in the self-defense training community.

Not because I am being contrary for contrary sake, but because I straddle multiple arenas in said community. Certainly I am a martial artist/combatives/hand-to-hand focused person, but I am just as much a firearms centered person. Throw in a nerdy need to know all there is to know about the human condition so I spend much research time looking at history, sociology, human performance, stress, vitality and fitness, and throw in my degree in psychology, at times I come at problems or scenarios from different angles than tend to be the norm when commentators have a more narrow prism to view things.

Case in point is the accompanying video. It has been making the rounds in the training community and most of the comments about it typically begin and end at “well, he should not be carrying a snub revolver against multiple opponents” with the blatant implication that if he had a full size pistol the end would have gone differently. That is not my take away. If you have not seen the video in question first, watch it here and then think about it for a moment before reading further.

 I am sure after seeing that then you understand why so many people keep their commentary centered on the idea that the good guy was outgunned because he ran a 5 or 6 shot revolver against three attackers. It is an easy conclusion to draw. After all, he was killed and all three of his attackers were armed with semi-autos. And this leads to the easy answer of “he should have had more gun”.

Except that misses everything that actually happened. Re-watch it and take note at the: 18 second mark where everyone is. The bad guys spread out and try to flank the good guy, but he brilliantly uses the nearest car as a form of cover. He has some protection from the two guys to the outside left, and has his gun out and firing at the closest bad guy on the right. Then watch what happens in the two following seconds – as he opens fire from cover ALL THREE BAD GUYS RUN AWAY! It is hard to see if the robber he is aiming at took any hits, but it is a secondary matter because all three broke off their assault and tried to escape. At that point, the good guy is fine, and the bad guys are leaving. It does not matter how many rounds the good guy has left in his gun, because at that point he is safe. Unfortunately, after doing literally everything correct and at an exceptionally high level (he sees the attack coming way ahead of time, instantaneously reacts, moves to a superior position, gets his gun out and makes the mental switch to “I am in a fight for my life and I will not fail” – all brilliantly executed), he makes a grievous error. As the bad guys flee, he leaves his superior position with some protection against incoming fire and presses the counter assault. At that moment, all three bad guys slow their attempt to leave and return fire. Now, in the open and without cover against multiple opponents who think their only hope is to fight back, the limitation of the snub become apparent.

From everything in the video and from what the reports after state, the good guy took the first hits when he was out away from the car in the middle of the sidewalk after the :20 second mark.  But at that point if he had stayed behind cover and let the bad guys leave, he would not have suffered that. Moreover, and probably more important to the overall discussion is that it is pretty much irrelevant then what gun he was firing. Standing in the open against three different attackers, he could have had a Glock 17 with a 33 round magazine and the outcome would have most likely been the same. His gear did not let him down, his final tactic did.

This is no way diminishes what this brave man did, nor does it diminish the tactically superior actions he took early in the fight. But we need to learn from mistakes as well as copy successes.

Nor should anyone take this as “Cecil says all you need is a snub against multiple opponents”. That is not what I said at any point. I think assuming that any and all bad guys you face in the future will always run away at the first sign of resistance is foolish, and can lead to other catastrophic results, so just because these attackers broke off does not mean any other future attacker will follow suit. But, it also does not mean all multiple opponents will stand and fight like they are the Mongol Horde either.

So please, let’s stop looking mindlessly through our own personal prism with our own confirmation bias’ and start talking about nuance and context to determine best practices rather than lazily falling into a type of solipsism based on what we want to believe, rather than what actually exists and happens.