Vol Texan wrote:Your statement was that you couldn't find a single thing he did right. That is also implying an absolute, and it is just as easy to prove you wrong. He survived an attack to live another day. That was something he did right.
You are confusing tactics with results. Surviving is not a tactic, it is a result. We are at 5 pages and nobody has been able to name a single tactic he employed that was right. Because there are none.
It is a good tactic to open carry in a non-retention holster? NO
Is is t a good tactic to be openly armed and turn your back on an argumentative person? NO.
Is it a good tactic to leave an area with 360 degree egress and enter a closed area and allow the aggressor to be between you and the only egress? NO.
Is it a good tactic to allow an aggressor to be within a foot of you when you are openly armed? NO.
Is it a good tactic to NOT call 911 on an aggressive person? NO.
[eta - one more big one. Even after shooting him, he turned his back on him again! and moved past him in a confined area. He is lucky he was not tackled from behind.]
Anyone who cannot see the tactics this guy employed were wrong is sadly likely going to repeat them, and it might not turn out as well.
Vol Texan wrote: I will no longer reply to you on the subject, so we can get back to the learning experience that it was meant to be.
Most people run from a thread when they realize they are wrong and no longer want to defend their wrong positions. So I understand you not responding. You clearly do not want to defend all his bad tactics. I get it.