You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A good guy with a gun
- Thread starter JimmyR
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
As Pax pointed out, we don't know what would have happened if he'd gone the other way, but it seems likely he would have lived. After all, everyone else in that Wal-Mart did.
Sure. He may have lived -- but then again, maybe everyone else in the WalMart lived because he got involved. Maybe.
We. Don't. Know.
Maybe, if he hadn't acted, someone's three-year-old would have been taken hostage and ultimately killed. Would he have been able to live with that, after? Would that have been the outcome?
We. Don't. Know.
Maybe, if he hadn't acted, he would have stayed alive, gone home safe to his family, no additional deaths and the bad guys taken into custody alive. Would that have been the outcome?
We. Don't. Know.
It's very easy to look at the road not taken and think we know where it goes. But the point is, the road not taken was not taken. Which means we absolutely Do. Not. Know. where that road would have led, if someone had taken it.
There's no such thing as 20/20 hindsight.
Yes, it's horrible that a good and brave guy died. We want to construct a reality where he would be alive and the bad guys did absolutely nothing more to any other innocents. (We really want a reality where the officers lived, too.)
But that's not the reality we have. The reality we have is this one, where Wilcox did what he did and then he died. Would he, himself, if he had it to do over, have done something else?
We. Don't. Know.
Maybe he thought it was worth the risk, counted the cost and accepted it in peace. Maybe his action did, in actual fact, save a hundred lives because the bad guys were going to torch the whole building or something.
We. Don't. Know.
Maybe he bitterly regretted it with his dying breath, and died for nothing.
We. Don't. Know.
It's human nature to make up stories about things like this. But we will absolutely never know what would have happened in some other universe, on the road that wasn't taken.
pax
Obviously we don't *know* what would have happened either way.
However, isn't the point of this thread to dissect "tactics"?
And - outside of just matter-of-factly describing what happened - that's going to involve a certain amount of discussion and statistical reasoning.
If we don't discuss things that "we don't know" there's not much of a point to this sub-forum.
I wasn't trying to say that had the man walked in the other direction things would have definitely been better.
However, the whole situation does serve as a pretty poignant example of the fact that things don't always go well for the "good guy" in a gunfight.
This story might help us think up some helpful tactics for wading into a fight. But, for me, it reinforces the wisdom of running in the other direction if at all possible - my own prefered tactic.
However, isn't the point of this thread to dissect "tactics"?
And - outside of just matter-of-factly describing what happened - that's going to involve a certain amount of discussion and statistical reasoning.
If we don't discuss things that "we don't know" there's not much of a point to this sub-forum.
I wasn't trying to say that had the man walked in the other direction things would have definitely been better.
However, the whole situation does serve as a pretty poignant example of the fact that things don't always go well for the "good guy" in a gunfight.
This story might help us think up some helpful tactics for wading into a fight. But, for me, it reinforces the wisdom of running in the other direction if at all possible - my own prefered tactic.
Now -- that said, let's refocus this back to what JimmyR requested when he started the thread:
One thing I think we can learn here, without a doubt, is the importance of not getting sucked into tunnel vision. We talk about "tunnel vision" as if it's an eyesight thing, but it's really not. It's a brain function thing -- the human tendency to completely focus on the threat we know is real, and thus miss seeing other things that are equally dangerous but not as obvious.
Tunnel vision is why some small number of EMTs and paramedics get electrocuted every year, when they rush in to help the victims of a car accident involving a telephone pole.
Tunnel vision is why little kids run right in front a car while chasing a ball.
Tunnel vision is why outfielders run into the back wall while they're trying to catch a pop fly.
As any firearms trainer could tell you, teaching people not to get sucked into hyperfocus is hard, even when it's just a calm day on the range and all you're doing is learning how to shoot. That's why some schools really emphasize the "I'm done shooting" dance, where you take your shot and then swivel your head from side to side. Unfortunately, for too many students, a dance move is all that is. They never really grok the purpose in fullness, and thus never really see what's going on around them.
Add in lots of commotion, noise, screaming, shots fired, the breathlessness and adrenalin -- well, it's not surprising that someone might get so focused in on what they know is wrong that they forget to look for accomplices.
But as someone once pointed out: "Bad guys have friends, too."
Good idea to keep that in mind.
Other thoughts?
pax
... I want to keep this one focused on the tactics used and how we can learn from this tragedy (i.e. the risks of entering an active shooter situation, the need to identify all targets, etc.)
One thing I think we can learn here, without a doubt, is the importance of not getting sucked into tunnel vision. We talk about "tunnel vision" as if it's an eyesight thing, but it's really not. It's a brain function thing -- the human tendency to completely focus on the threat we know is real, and thus miss seeing other things that are equally dangerous but not as obvious.
Tunnel vision is why some small number of EMTs and paramedics get electrocuted every year, when they rush in to help the victims of a car accident involving a telephone pole.
Tunnel vision is why little kids run right in front a car while chasing a ball.
Tunnel vision is why outfielders run into the back wall while they're trying to catch a pop fly.
As any firearms trainer could tell you, teaching people not to get sucked into hyperfocus is hard, even when it's just a calm day on the range and all you're doing is learning how to shoot. That's why some schools really emphasize the "I'm done shooting" dance, where you take your shot and then swivel your head from side to side. Unfortunately, for too many students, a dance move is all that is. They never really grok the purpose in fullness, and thus never really see what's going on around them.
Add in lots of commotion, noise, screaming, shots fired, the breathlessness and adrenalin -- well, it's not surprising that someone might get so focused in on what they know is wrong that they forget to look for accomplices.
But as someone once pointed out: "Bad guys have friends, too."
Good idea to keep that in mind.
Other thoughts?
pax
another way of thinking is to copy Captain Jack Sparrow of movie fame. when given the option, he ran. live to live another day.
similar to the 'cornered cat' analogy (i need to spend more time reading your site, looks good).
in the case at hand, the CCW holder was not immediately and directly threatened. he moved toward danger, not away. now, if danger comes to you, and you can't get away, that's the time to fight.
my CCW instructor put it this way: if you decide to shoot, that's at least a $250,000 decision. maybe more. don't make a bad decision.
so i'm with Pax, if you can run, run.
at some point, someone with a badge will show up, their job is to run toward danger. and they have training and equipment and buddies sufficient for such an activity.
your duty is to go home for dinner.
similar to the 'cornered cat' analogy (i need to spend more time reading your site, looks good).
in the case at hand, the CCW holder was not immediately and directly threatened. he moved toward danger, not away. now, if danger comes to you, and you can't get away, that's the time to fight.
my CCW instructor put it this way: if you decide to shoot, that's at least a $250,000 decision. maybe more. don't make a bad decision.
so i'm with Pax, if you can run, run.
at some point, someone with a badge will show up, their job is to run toward danger. and they have training and equipment and buddies sufficient for such an activity.
your duty is to go home for dinner.
dayman,
I guess my real concern here is that when we start playing the coulda-woulda-shoulda game, it's usually because good people want guarantees of a good outcome. If only he'd done it our way, it would have ended well.
Two problems with that:
1) We don't know how it would have ended if he'd done it our way, and
2) We don't know if he could have lived with the choice we would have made in the same circumstances. Your choice to walk away may be a valid choice for you and still be an absolute, no way, I can't-live-with-that!, bad choice for someone else. His choice to get involved may be a valid choice for him, even in hindsight. Too bad we can't pull him out of his grave to ask if it was worth it... by his measure and meaning of "worth it." Because maybe it was.
The horrifying reality is... there really aren't any guarantees. To be really prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones means that you have accepted all possible outcomes of acting in self defense, including the awful ones, without glossing them over or shoving them aside in favor of a fantasy where it always only ends well.
If you can't save your family, if it's a no-win situation no matter what -- what do you want your family's last memory of you to be? Do you want them to remember you cowering under a table alongside them? Or do you want them to remember you bravely facing danger, running toward the sound of the guns, determined to save lives? (Alternately: do you want them to remember you holding them and comforting them and sheltering them with your own body? Or do you want them to remember you abandoning them to rush toward danger in a doomed, foolhardy attempt to stop the killer with whatever tools you have?)
Those choices, choices like those, are something we all have to look at an internalize for ourselves, but it's so much easier to retreat into a fantasy: "Well, if he'd done it this way, everything would have ended up good."
And that's ...not good at all.
pax
I guess my real concern here is that when we start playing the coulda-woulda-shoulda game, it's usually because good people want guarantees of a good outcome. If only he'd done it our way, it would have ended well.
Two problems with that:
1) We don't know how it would have ended if he'd done it our way, and
2) We don't know if he could have lived with the choice we would have made in the same circumstances. Your choice to walk away may be a valid choice for you and still be an absolute, no way, I can't-live-with-that!, bad choice for someone else. His choice to get involved may be a valid choice for him, even in hindsight. Too bad we can't pull him out of his grave to ask if it was worth it... by his measure and meaning of "worth it." Because maybe it was.
The horrifying reality is... there really aren't any guarantees. To be really prepared to protect yourself and your loved ones means that you have accepted all possible outcomes of acting in self defense, including the awful ones, without glossing them over or shoving them aside in favor of a fantasy where it always only ends well.
If you can't save your family, if it's a no-win situation no matter what -- what do you want your family's last memory of you to be? Do you want them to remember you cowering under a table alongside them? Or do you want them to remember you bravely facing danger, running toward the sound of the guns, determined to save lives? (Alternately: do you want them to remember you holding them and comforting them and sheltering them with your own body? Or do you want them to remember you abandoning them to rush toward danger in a doomed, foolhardy attempt to stop the killer with whatever tools you have?)
Those choices, choices like those, are something we all have to look at an internalize for ourselves, but it's so much easier to retreat into a fantasy: "Well, if he'd done it this way, everything would have ended up good."
And that's ...not good at all.
pax
I think we're actually circling the same basic idea.
That is, that we don't know for sure how things are going to go.
And, I think we (as gun people) sometimes become so focused on the tactics of engaging that we ignore disengaging as a viable - and in some cases "best" - option.
Not at all dissimilar to what you were saying about tunnel vision, just directed in slightly different direction.
That is, that we don't know for sure how things are going to go.
And, I think we (as gun people) sometimes become so focused on the tactics of engaging that we ignore disengaging as a viable - and in some cases "best" - option.
Not at all dissimilar to what you were saying about tunnel vision, just directed in slightly different direction.
I'm sorry it ended badly for Mr. Wilcox. From what I've read he had the best of intentions, and may have saved some lives. I don't know enough to say anything beyond that.
However a mass shooting in Seattle was recently ended by a brave kid with a can of pepper spray. If I had better tech skills I'd include a link, but the story is available via Google. In fairness he only had to deal with one shooter.
However a mass shooting in Seattle was recently ended by a brave kid with a can of pepper spray. If I had better tech skills I'd include a link, but the story is available via Google. In fairness he only had to deal with one shooter.
Mainah ~
His name is Jon Meiss, and he is indeed a hero. Read his statement about what happened at http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/SPU-shooting-hero-Jon-Meis-A-hero-cannot-come-5539209.php
Quote from Jon Meiss: "... what I find most difficult about this situation is the devastating reality that a hero cannot come without tragedy. In the midst of this attention, we cannot ignore that a life was taken from us, ruthlessly and without justification or cause."
Amen and amen.
pax
His name is Jon Meiss, and he is indeed a hero. Read his statement about what happened at http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/SPU-shooting-hero-Jon-Meis-A-hero-cannot-come-5539209.php
Quote from Jon Meiss: "... what I find most difficult about this situation is the devastating reality that a hero cannot come without tragedy. In the midst of this attention, we cannot ignore that a life was taken from us, ruthlessly and without justification or cause."
Amen and amen.
pax
Double Naught Spy
New member
A great sentiment, but heroes can and do come without tragedy in many cases, when they stop the tragedy before harm is done. His case was simply one that involved tragedy.
No doubt he is a hero. He brought pepper spray and smarts to a shotgun fight and was victorious, spraying and tackling during the reload. Good for him.
No doubt he is a hero. He brought pepper spray and smarts to a shotgun fight and was victorious, spraying and tackling during the reload. Good for him.
Just how did Mr. Wilcox approach the shooter?
Dis he issue a warning?
Did he first seek cover?
but I think it is ALWAYS a bad idea for a non-LEO citizen to engage a shooter, especially since the only known crime at the time was shooting into the ceiling and ordering people out.
I am inclined to agree.
Dis he issue a warning?
Did he first seek cover?
but I think it is ALWAYS a bad idea for a non-LEO citizen to engage a shooter, especially since the only known crime at the time was shooting into the ceiling and ordering people out.
I am inclined to agree.
Heres a story that happened today in Tampa. A passer by saw a 53 yo man being beaten by a 30 to man in a petsmart parking lot. A CCW holder broke up the fight by pulling his weapon. I commend him the police and fox 13 for reporting the story.
Here's a link to story.
http://wtvt.m0bl.net/r/1x7a1g
Here's a link to story.
http://wtvt.m0bl.net/r/1x7a1g
If we voluntarily enter into an armed confrontation we should ideally know that there is a clear danger of harm to others and that we are competent to act in that confrontation.
From what I've read it is unclear that the first condition was met.
Be that as it may, if we do intend to engage, it is important to make sure our flanks and rear are secure.
Without seeing the layout of the store we can't guess how to achieve that in this situation.
So I guess a question to ask is how does one train for this situation?
From what I've read it is unclear that the first condition was met.
Be that as it may, if we do intend to engage, it is important to make sure our flanks and rear are secure.
Without seeing the layout of the store we can't guess how to achieve that in this situation.
So I guess a question to ask is how does one train for this situation?
I am plesantly surprised that this discussion has been very dilligently kept within it's initial scope.
I have to stand by my initial comment about engaging an active shooter. It is a bad idea. That said, it may still be the best option- the lesser of two evils. My job as a LTCH holder is to protect my loved ones. If the shooter has acquired me as a target, then my job is to do everything I can to end the threat. If my family and loved ones aren't in immediate danger, any decision I make to protect others must be carefully weighed out, and to be honest, I don't think I would have done what Mr. Wilcox did. I admire his courage, but I don't think I would have done it.
I have to stand by my initial comment about engaging an active shooter. It is a bad idea. That said, it may still be the best option- the lesser of two evils. My job as a LTCH holder is to protect my loved ones. If the shooter has acquired me as a target, then my job is to do everything I can to end the threat. If my family and loved ones aren't in immediate danger, any decision I make to protect others must be carefully weighed out, and to be honest, I don't think I would have done what Mr. Wilcox did. I admire his courage, but I don't think I would have done it.
The reason I carry a fully loaded Glock 19, is for protection. Me and mine.
The only perfect way to safely respond to a threat, is for you to be the person threatened.
IE Joe robber says "Give me your wallet" Knife/gun in hand, in parking lot, or wherever, you know who the bad guy is, respond the way you believe is the correct one.
At 78YOA, boxing is not an option, but being aware is not an age thing, young man outside our local Pancake house, standing, not going in or out, watching my Wife (of 25 years, today!) and I approach, "Can you spare a couple of dollars?"
He said, "No, move out of my way" I had swapped my Wife to the opposite side of this man, and let go of her hand, as we approached.
I have been in lots of physical confrontations in the past, and know the moves.
He took a step away. In we went. Told the Lady Manager this man was panhandling her customers, can the Police. "He is not doing anything wrong" she said.
I wandered what World she grew up in, and went on my merry way. Great Pancakes, First Watch.
The only perfect way to safely respond to a threat, is for you to be the person threatened.
IE Joe robber says "Give me your wallet" Knife/gun in hand, in parking lot, or wherever, you know who the bad guy is, respond the way you believe is the correct one.
At 78YOA, boxing is not an option, but being aware is not an age thing, young man outside our local Pancake house, standing, not going in or out, watching my Wife (of 25 years, today!) and I approach, "Can you spare a couple of dollars?"
He said, "No, move out of my way" I had swapped my Wife to the opposite side of this man, and let go of her hand, as we approached.
I have been in lots of physical confrontations in the past, and know the moves.
He took a step away. In we went. Told the Lady Manager this man was panhandling her customers, can the Police. "He is not doing anything wrong" she said.
I wandered what World she grew up in, and went on my merry way. Great Pancakes, First Watch.
What Mr. Wilcox did was brave, and may have saved lives - I am sure we will have more information eventually.
However, his actions raise the question; how do you engage what you deem to be an active shooter, provided you've decided that engaging is necessary for whatever reason? From my admittedly ignorant point of view, it appears very difficult for one person to do it in a way that is tactically sound. At least if the engagement takes place at close range, which seems to be the norm during such incidents.
However, his actions raise the question; how do you engage what you deem to be an active shooter, provided you've decided that engaging is necessary for whatever reason? From my admittedly ignorant point of view, it appears very difficult for one person to do it in a way that is tactically sound. At least if the engagement takes place at close range, which seems to be the norm during such incidents.
Double Naught Spy
New member
I have to stand by my initial comment about engaging an active shooter. It is a bad idea - FOR ME.
There, fixed it for you. It may be a great idea for all those who you may save.
However, his actions raise the question; how do you engage what you deem to be an active shooter, provided you've decided that engaging is necessary for whatever reason? From my admittedly ignorant point of view, it appears very difficult for one person to do it in a way that is tactically sound. At least if the engagement takes place at close range, which seems to be the norm during such incidents.
Training, training, and more training. Active shooter engagement is specifically what school resources officers train for. In many/most cases, their specific goal is to stop the shooter ASAP so as to preclude further injury of loss of life. They have the benefit of knowing that they are often well-armed (at least more ammo than most CCW carry), wearing ballistic protection, and that arriving law enforcement is not apt to confuse them for the bad guy as they are properly uniformed). They know that the faculty and students will recognize them for who they are as well - NOT the bad guy(s).
Beyond that, nobody hear can tell you how to engage an active shooter as every situation is different and your goals for engaging may be dependent on your situational parameters. Are you planning on running down the active shooter and engaging or are you planning on engaging if the shooter comes your way? Do you have cover or concealment? How many potential victims are present? What are the ballistic backstops in your situation? How many shooters are there?
Exactly my point - the amount of training that would enable someone to assess and adapt to these variables with any degree of reliability would, imo, be too expensive and time-consuming for the average citizen.
I was primarily thinking about this particular incident, in which the ccw holder identified and engaged one threat, but was unaware of another one which proved fatal. Seeking cover/concealment and only engaging if it's unavoidable is another kettle of fish.
I was primarily thinking about this particular incident, in which the ccw holder identified and engaged one threat, but was unaware of another one which proved fatal. Seeking cover/concealment and only engaging if it's unavoidable is another kettle of fish.
I can not stand by and watch a violent crime . I train to watch for the right time to act . I'v always been the first to challenge the local bully or call out the one that don't treat his family right or is doing something that harms others . But still know one knows how they will act in such a sitiation lots of time I have my Kids or Grand Kids with me .I know they are not all active shooter situations but I am suprised that know one has mentioned the thousands of crimes being stopped by armed citizens that are reported in the American Rifelman bimonthly .
at some point, someone with a badge will show up, their job is to run toward danger. and they have training and equipment and buddies sufficient for such an activity.
Well, the training--yes. We hope that we don't have the EXPERIENCE.
And sometimes the buddies--fellow responding officers--are just not there yet.
First, addressing tactics and training: The problem with the response in this case is that Mr. Wilcox did not heed the "+1" rule--ALWAYS look for the second assailant.
There's an active shooter. OK, so you respond with your firearm ready; you are physically and mentally ready to engage. Slow down!
Assess the situation. We, as human beings, tend to "tunnel in" on what we perceive as a threat. That is why, in defensive shootings, you'll find a lot of wounds on or around the shooting arm. People will tend to channel in on the threat--the gun--to shoot at.
You MUST break the "tunnel". Physically LOOK around, and do so from a position of cover when possible. Remember the difference between cover and concealment. CONCEALMENT hides YOU, COVER stops bullets.
However--if at all possible, consider waiting--as the poster that I quoted above says--for us (the guys and girls with the body armor, carbines and other protective items) to get there. If you can give us (via phone call or even in person) directions and descriptions, we sure appreciate it.
Final thoughts about Mr. Wilcox? Muy hombre, compadre. He stepped up in the face of evil to confront it. Prayers for the family he left behind. As someone once said of good men, he'll do to ride the river with.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.