re: mall shooting, and CCW holders

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

balletto

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
61
After reading the discussion of the mall shooting in Utah, the role the off-duty police officer played, and the role someone carrying a concealed weapon might have played, the question pops into my mind:

If I (not a law enforcement officer, but a hypothetical CCW holder) was in that situation, why would I do anything else except get myself and family to safety?

If the bad guy happens to be a direct threat to me and my wife, then I could see a reason to use force, but otherwise, why should I put myself and my family in both physical and legal danger?

Call me a coward, or cynical, or anything else, but I don't see the "reward" part of the risk/reward equation in getting involved in such a horrible situation.
 
There is no reason that your family couldn't get away, hide, etc. without you. I don't know from experience, but I don't think I could sit there and let innocent people get killed when I hold in my hands a possible way to stop it.
 
Everyone must decide for themselves...

While I respect that everyone who carries a concealed weapon has the right to choose whether or not to get involved in a potential deadly situation, I would have a hard time respecting a person that had the ability to do something and didn't. I believe this quote says it all. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
 
My wife and I had a discussion about this last night. It started when she asked me, "would you get me out and then go back in, or would you go after the guy first, or would we both just get the hell out?"

After thinking about it I could only reply that I would probably respond exactly as I did in my CCW class. I'd try to stop the guy, probably with very little thought. Especially if I saw bodies on the ground:

Direct threat coupled with victims = engage threat.

I'm not talking Rambo s#!+, I'm talking problem solving and default reactions.
 
Heavy Metal Hero said:
There is no reason that your family couldn't get away, hide, etc. without you.
Click to expand...

What if there is more than one shooter? How would you feel if you told your family to retreat out to a parking lot, while you confront the known shooter, only to find out that your now defenseless family was gunned down by a second shooter?

Like many others here, I wish there had been a CCW holder that had stopped the shooter as quickly as possible. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there were numerous CCW holders in the mall at the time. But I wouldn't blame them in the least if they refused to engage - whether it was because they felt their first duty was to protect themselves or their family, or because they didn't want to deal with the repercussions of getting involved in a shooting.
 
Folks -

The officer was off-duty. That makes him a civilian in my book. He had no duty to engage and could have easily choosen to remain uninvolved.

-Paul
 
What if there is more than one shooter? How would you feel if you told your family to retreat out to a parking lot, while you confront the known shooter, only to find out that your now defenseless family was gunned down by a second shooter?
Click to expand...

This is a specific situation you mentioned here. I wouldn't send my family out into a parking lot alone. I am not trying to play hero here, but I wouldn't be able to comfortably live with myself if I could have done something but chose not to.
 
After reading the article, I also wondered what I would do if I were in the same situation.
I would secure the safety of my family first before I did anything. After that, I would assess the situation for available cover, location of innocents, response from uniformed officers, opportunity to engage the BG, etc. I would not want to be mistaken for the BG when LEO's arrived.

I believe this quote says it all. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Click to expand...

I agree with this quote, and I definitely believe that I would get involved if I thought I would be able to stop the BG. I think before you make the decision to CCW, you should have the internal fortitude (balls), and get the proper training and mindset to become involved in a situation like this.
 
I think before you make the decision to CCW, you should have the internal fortitude (balls), and proper training and mindset to become involved in a situation like this.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The main reason for CCW is to protect an individual (and those with him/her). If someone is not capable of dealing with something like this, or doesn't have the "balls" to be Jack Bauer, I don't think they shouldn't CCW.
 
I posted this in a thread on anothr forum.

An uncordinated response by several concealed weapons owners could have led to an even more disasterous situation here. What identifies the baddies from the goodies? If you saw someone braced against a store doorway firing inwards would you shoot that individual?

This matter was covered in our CHL class. It was suggested that, unfortunately, point defence of your local area may be your best option. The possibility of being shot by responding officers was also considered. I frankly don't think that standing up with your wallet and pistol in view is going to help much in an adrenalin pumped situation.

I would think that stopping an obvious recognizable threat is valid. Running into a firefight in civilian clothes, gun drawn, is possibly going to prove fatal. I do not see a good answer.
Click to expand...

I would get involved with a clear objective but, despite the pain, I can only think that misguided intervention could make matters worse. Imagine the chaos of four or five CW holders moving around the mall with firearms in hand, shooting going on in the background, and a SWAT team arriving. Not nice and probably more bloody than the present situation. I think action against a clearly identified target would be correct but, as I said UNFORTUNATELY, a search and destry mission could be a disaster.

It is not a matter on balls, it is a matter of brains.
 
Call me a coward but if there's any way I can safely remove myself and/or my family I'm out of there without any hesitation. Besides that, my .38 snubbie is a last ditch, close range weapon. Let the cops or someone with a rifle or shotgun come in and do the job.
If I'm cornered it's a totally different situation though.
 
It's not a weakness to want to help other people from getting slaughtered. CCW is just a tool to give you the option to do something. If you encountered a burning building and thought you had a good chance of saving someone by running in, you have a choice... I would be pretty pissed if we found out there was a guy that shoots IPSC every weekend with a .45 standing right next to the guy the whole time. But, it's just two different kinds of people.
 
I think before you make the decision to CCW, you should have the internal fortitude (balls), and get the proper training and mindset to become involved in a situation like this.
Click to expand...
I guess this came out wrong. What I meant is that you should get the proper training and have the mentality to be able to become involved in a deadly situation if you choose to CCW.
 
If you choose to take action (fight or flight) and you CCW then you should be mentally prepared to make the best decision. I think that is what you are trying to say 1BLINDREF, correct me if I am wrong.
 
I was thinking about this with the idea that the shooter would be identifiable from the people running away from his position and the sound of the shotgun. IOW this specific scenario.

I would also think that the shooter would be acting offensively and another CCW holder would be acting defensively. These are different sets of identifiable behaviors.

That said, I'm not a cop and I wouldn't engage in what is essentially room clearing. I highly doubt that I'd go searching for the BG if the guy wasn't in my immediate vicinity or close enough to easily identify.
 
PaulBk said:
Folks -

The officer was off-duty. That makes him a civilian in my book. He had no duty to engage and could have easily choosen to remain uninvolved.

-Paul
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an off-duty cop. One of the main arguments for passing The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 was that LEOs are always on duty and thus need to be able to carry their weapons at all times.
 
Tough call...

I also discussed this with my wife. She has a CCW permit and can take care of business quite nicely with her Glock 26 or Kahr P9, thank you, so protecting her is not an issue.

We agree it's brains, not appendages.

IF we actually saw the shooter take a person down...

IF we could make the determination from actual observation that the shooter was not, say, a police officer taking out a threat we had not observed...

IF we did not see imminent police response/presence to deal with the threat...

IF we percieved intent for the shooter to continue to take innocent life, he's reloading, tracking, firing...

IF we were absolutely certain we could terminate the threat without danger of collateral injury to bystanders...

Then and only then, we agree, we would take the shot, terminate the threat, secure the shooter's firearm, holster and wait for the cavalry. We would expect to be disarmed, put on the ground and in cuffs, probably arrested and held until the police sorted things out.

I like the quote: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Coyote3855
 
I reckon you are working in the right direction Supernaut but consider these situations. (THe shooter did have a 38 pistol as well as the shotgun).

First, you are sitting in a mall restaurant, you see someone run into the public area with a shotgun and start firing randomly. No real decision.

Second, you are sitting in the same restaurant. You hear rapid shots from two different weapons. You draw your firearm and run the short distance around a corner to the source of the shots. You see two shooters, both behind cover, shooting at each other. You are ideally placed to hit either of them. How do you choose? Both have pistols, both are definitely aggressive. You drop the guy with the gang gear and jewellry. Congratulations - you just got the undercover DEA agent. The guy who runs the local drug pushers gets away.
 
i am most definately not going to engage in a fire fight in some hallway against a guy with a shotgun to my .38 snubby. just not going to do it, but if i see the opportunity to take care of the situation i would like to think i would have the courage and the willingness to do so. i had a discussion with my mother last night about what i would do, and her argument was an off-duty LEO hearing gunshots, and seeing a citizen with weapon drawn engaging the BG, is he going to assume he is the BG? as long as both have their wits about them, it should be clear to the off-duty LEO that he is not the threat, or at least we would hope.
 
For the second scenario I really don't have an answer Shooter503. There is only one certainty, of the three actors, I'm definitely a good guy. So I'd have to quickly figure out a way to discern which of the other two is the bad guy.

I have no suggestion other than observation based on experience, as flimsy as that may be. What else do any of us have?

IME actors with bad intentions have identifiable behaviors, but there is certainly a lot of room for error.
 
Coyote Said It Best

Defending your immeadiate area is one thing but going out into a situation is a bad idea - too much confiusion. Being ready and sheltering in place is the best option. Moving into the open enen to escape is not usually the best thing for the simple reason that you may catch a stray or become a target. Pulling your gun and waiting could also be disasterous as you could be mistaken as a BG - be ready not dumb. IF is the middle word in life so defending your self and others is proper but it is improtant to be certain you will offer a solution not be part of the problem. It is just as bad to go too far as it is not to go far enough.
 
My ccw is for the protection of myself and loved ones. If the shooter was in the immediate area, ie...across the hall or something like that,
then it would be a fight simply because he is an immediate threat to me and my loved ones.

I would not go running across a mall looking for a shooter.
 
I agree on not going out and looking for trouble. I was assuming the shooter was close enough to me to warrant the use of my weapon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Shooting at Tacoma, WA Mall: Ongoing
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
129
Views
8K
U.S.SFC_RET
U
ACP
  • Locked
Shooting/hostages in Tacoma, Washington mall
Replies
1
Views
482
Kaylee
K
M
  • Locked
Malls and No Weapon signs
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
hrgrisso
H
D
  • Locked
Class Review: Utah CCW class with THR’s own Larry Correia
Replies
8
Views
662
Trebor
T
R
  • Locked
To intervene or not?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
DarkSoldier
D
Back
Top