She *might* have made a common error that every gun defender needs to be aware of. When you fire, keep firing. That is, the natural tendency is to fire a round, then pause while looking to see what happened. Do not do this.
She did put a bullet in him, but in that fraction of a second when she should have fired again, she might have paused, giving him a chance to shoot back. And had those books not been there, her injury would have been much worse, even fatal.
This is why when police get in a gunfight, they are trained to keep shooting without even thinking about it. Of course this often looks bad, after the fact, but the police are still alive, and the other gunman is dead or severely wounded.
Too many involved in assessing the scene after the fact don’t consider the fact that folks trained properly in the use of arms don’t necessarily shoot to kill. You want to stop the threat. And we know that doesn’t mean shooting the gun out of their hands. Then again, in the moment, someone may be firing faster than the brain can comprehend there is no longer a threat. Especially with about 20 gallons of adrenelin(sp?) pumping through your blood stream.
Did you look at the video? It’s at the link
She fired three shots rapid fire then ducked behind the counter. She hit a moving target and kept firing till she felt the threat to her had changed. The perp was concerned with the husband who the perp felt was the bigger threat. Never underestimate a little old lady with a revolver.
You've also got to keep in mind the 'dead man's 5 seconds'.
I think you’re being way too critical of the lady. In the first place, she used a snub nose .38 and actually HIT the guy moving under very stressful conditions. Instead of second guessing her tactics, I say give her a medal and a years’ free pass to the range of her choice. Way to go AnnieO.
Lew