HHHMMM, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't at least one of them, if not both robbers, have guns? So the gentleman fires one or two shots, the bad guys run a short distance turn around, regroup then recharge and end up shooting him and others? Then we'll complain the gentleman didn't do enough. By chasing them, in my opinion, he neutralized the threats by forcing them OUT the door. He stopped once he got to the door and ensured they were outside. The gentleman put himself between the robbers and innocent cilvilians and now he is the bad guy?
I'm sure the thugs will hire some low life attorney to defend them and sue this gentleman anyway. As my friend, who happens to be an attorney, will say, "there are those who always shine a negative light on our profession.
Furthermore, why are we focusing on the actions of the gentleman when we should be focused on the two facial covered robbers who were in there threatening innocent people with harm and to take their possesions from them? How does the gentleman become the bad guy?