If that’s how its done ^^ they are a lot braver than me.
Surely the “baddie” is still in a position to fire at the back up so shooting him is best.
It’s a calculated risk. It might work, it might not.
One thing that the advert cannot get across is the emotions that both parties are feeling; neither does it explain why either party is in that situation in the first place.
How do we know that the “baddie” is potentially wanting to surrender, and his first reaction when faced with an armed professional is to panic slightly and offer (albeit limited) resistance/defiance as an act of bravado?
In the split second that he realises that said professional might not be “all bad” and that to offer continued resistance would be utterly futile, he backs down.
I know that US doctrine preaches the “Three D’s” – deterrence, de-escalation and disarmament, wherever possible. This potentially increases survivability and the likelihood of a peaceful outcome.