Giffords shooting / mass murder

[zxcvbob]

You're right. I forgot this was S&T. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And the dumb-asses at MSNBC are ridiculing him, saying he almost shot somebody. So obviously we need more gun control....

And you're just now noticing that the conclusions one can draw from an event depend on the perspectives and values of the observer?

Pretty much every success could have been a disaster if things were done just a little differently. Just as many disasters could have been successes if handled a little better. We need to learn from both -- so we can repeat the successes and act appropriately to avoid disasters.

Mr. Zamudio handled his crisis courageously, wisely and with appropriate restraint. He was able to assess the situation and act on his assessment. And he was correct. Let's focus on what we can learn from his success.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I have to say he did about as good as could possibly be expected from anyone in that situation. Training or no training, professional or not, he made a lot of good decisions in a very compressed amount of time.

In the midst of chaos, he kept his head and correctly figured out what the role of those on the scene was, and made very good decisions based on limited information. That's pretty darn impressive.


He used his social skills to figure it out. For years we in the training community have been trying to convey the concept that a lot of these sorts of events are going to take good social skills to figure out. Sometimes those social skills are more valuable than shooting skills. This was one of those times.


Good show, sir.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Cosmoline,

Your statement is true of course, for the folks that are trained, who carry for a job, it is a good one...

For a vigilante it is always going to be a dangerous thing to do regarding legal and defense of ones self in the end (when all the paperwork is completed and money spent out of own pocket) If it is an attack on ones person different scenario for sure...

The problem lies in how you define having a shot. Abiding by the four rules, you will virtually NEVER have a truly clean shot in such a situation. There will be people behind and around the shooter, and walls all around that won't stop the bullet. When it's life or death you have to accept some measure of risk to bystanders or there's no point in even bothering to carry for defense

 

[Sam1911]

For a vigilante...

A vigilante? You mean (as the common definition indicates): "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands?"

I would think anyone who would do that would indeed face some enormous legal hurdles.

But armed citizens acting to defend their lives or the lives of others are not vigilantes, by any definition. Defense of life is not "taking the law into your own hands," but rather a basic human right.

 

[Harley Quinn]

This man was branded one, "Vigilante"...But was he

http://www.heroism.org/class/1980/goetz.htm

On December 22, 1984, Bernard Goetz, otherwise known as the "subway vigilante," shot four young men in a Manhattan subway car after he said the men threatened him and tried to rob him.

He was very effective, did a good job imho...His legal bills are overwhelming If he had to do it over again and just give up his wallet I wonder what his response would be now

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But armed citizens acting to defend their lives or the lives of others are not vigilantes, by any definition. Defense of life is not "taking the law into your own hands," but rather a basic human right.

Right, and you can be vigilant without being a vigilante. Folks often do not understand the difference of the concepts represented by these words.

Vigilantes act outside of the law. Vigilantes bypass due process.

Self defense or defense of another, as in this incident, are not acts that are outside of the law and they do not bypass due process. In this case, the people on scene have actually facilitated due process by getting the perp into the legal system via his capture.

 

[Elmer]

This man was branded one, "Vigilante"...But was he

http://www.heroism.org/class/1980/goetz.htm



He was very effective, did a good job imho...His legal bills are overwhelming If he had to do it over again and just give up his wallet I wonder what his response would be now

Goetz was in possession of a gun illegally, was carrying it illegally, shot one of his attackers when the man was seated and posing no immediate threat, reportedly telling him "You don't look too bad, here's another." or "You seem all right, here's another", left the scene and made no attempt to report the incident or summon assistance for the individuals he had shot, (only turning himself in 9 days later), and then made ill advised and bizarre statements to the police.

Goetz may have been over prosecuted, but he also isn't a shining example of a self defense shooting.

 

[Sam1911]

The details of Bernard Goetz's case have been the subject of other threads, and probably should remain there. Let's not derail this conversation by arguing his case again.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't think we really disagree here. When I say the light is green, I mean specifically that you or someone else is faced with imminent, unlawful deadly force. The armed citizen in this case realized that his light was NOT green, so he did not shoot. He saw an armed person, but realized quickly that he was not presenting unlawful deadly force. The man with the firearm was not at that point the shooter.

But if the light *IS* green you must shoot or either you or someone else will die or be seriously injured. To hesitate and wait for a perfectly clear shot abiding by all four rules would be patently absurd, since it's going to be almost impossible for you to have the killer positioned against an approved backstop with nobody else "downrange." The very idea is ridiculous. To fire off rounds in a crowded, chaotic environment will ALWAYS be risky, but that risk must be balanced against the imminent threat of death.

The solution is to train, train and train some more to be as good a shot as you possibly can be. A miss is the greatest threat to third parties, since it leaves a live full-octane bullet flying to parts unknown through interior walls and such. The best way you can minimize the risk is to not miss. But you don't want to just wait until everyone is already dead or shot and bleeding. HOPEFULLY they'd get on the ground, but when was the last time a panicked crowd behaved so well? They run all over the place, including across your line of fire.

You just have to do your best, or choose not to act.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Cosmo,

I already said we'll just have to agree to disagree, on many of your points.


That would be a polite way of me saying I don't want to go into this with you. This discussion is best held as a brand new topic, lest we bog this one down in back and forth banter. Which I don't much want to get into with you anyway.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm not sure how it's OT. It seems to me to be precisely on topic. Indeed a critical aspect of the issue of when or whether to shoot in such situations. It's applicable almost anywhere you may shoot outside of a designated range.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Cosmo, let's just call it "moderator emeritus intuition" shall we?


Begin a new thread in S&T if you want to discuss the hows, when, whys and judgment involved in making a shot in the midst of a crowd, OK? Seeing as how our young Mr. Zamudio did not shoot, you're leading us into discussing a hypothetical that neither happened, nor was necessary to end the massacre almost as soon as it began.


How about we discuss the merits of what actually did happen in this thread here. There's plenty of material to study and keep us all occupied. Start the tangents that hypotheticals always take us in another thread. Please.

 

[9mmepiphany]

This thread needs to stay on point...What did happen and what lessons we can learn from it.

If there is interest in a discussion of firing rounds in a crowd, hectic, confused situation, please start a different thread to discuss just that point. It has been my experience that such a discussion is a whole other animal.

Thanks for that accommodation

 

[JFtheGR8]

I have wondered myself what would I do. It would have been total chaos with people running and screaming everywhere. So much to the point that it may have been difficult to immediately identify the shooter. Once identifying the shooter would you have a clean shot? People between him and you? People beyond him? Would people dive to the ground if you yelled "Everybody on the ground!" and thus giving you a clean shot? I would like to think that I would try to position myself as quickly as possible to put at least two shots to center mass which would slow him down even if he had a vest on and give me time to take a carefully aimed head shot if needed. It was just a horrible situation with a very unpredictable perpetrator. Most times I think you would be able to gauge someone's intentions but all this guy wanted to do was spray bullets into a crowd and was more than likely hoping to be killed in the process. I know it is not for the S&T forum but how in the world did this guy slip through? He was identified by both the US military and the public education system as being disturbed. My thoughts and prayers go out to those affected by this derranged individuals evil actions.

 

[zxcvbob]

Just some thoughts:

• I don't think you can worry much about what's behind the bad guy (he's your backstop), just make sure you don't miss. Otherwise, you will *never* have a clean shot.
• People running across the line-of-fire is a real concern.
• If you're close enough for a point-blank shot, maybe a gun is the wrong primary weapon.

 

[LAK]

9mm glock.

Thank god it was a 9mm fmj in untrained hands.

What? A cursory look at the sum totals indicate that although he may have been "untrained" - he had a remarkably high hit/kill ratio.

Based on statistics, previous high profile shootings etc, I doubt that an average "trained" person - pro or amateur - would have done any better regardless of weapon and load.

------------------------------------

Je Suis Prest

 

[Neverwinter]

What? A cursory look at the sum totals indicate that although he may have been "untrained" - he had a remarkably high hit/kill ratio.

Based on statistics, previous high profile shootings etc, I doubt that an average "trained" person - pro or amateur - would have done any better regardless of weapon and load.

------------------------------------

Je Suis Prest

He may not have been trained, but he could have been very practiced. For all intents and purposes, the training might only have provided a marginal increase in lethality.

 

[IMTHDUKE]

I believe he was untrained in regard to his choice of ammo and thank God he was. Had he known the massive wound cavity that a JHP round would leave in comparison to a FMJ, that he used, the Congresswoman could not have survived a hit to the skull pearcing the brain from a JHP round.