A good guy with a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
You don't know how it is going to go. This is true in many ways. You don't know how far away the police are. You don't know how long it will take them to enter the building to confront the shooter. You don't know if anyone has called the police. You don't know how many bad guys there might be in an active shooter situation.
Tactically, the correct response is to wait for backup to cover rear/flanks as the police do. Can't fault them for this.
Strategically, allowing the opposition to consolidate their position unopposed would be a mistake.
Is acting solo in an active shooter scenario tactically sound? No, it definitely violates the first of the two rules above. It would be wiser to secure your position (and family members/others) and effect an escape using your limited resources.
That said, before 9/11, pretty much all airline hijackings ended after several days/weeks on a lonely strip of tarmac and some long negotiations. Since 9/11, some attacks are aimed indiscriminately at citizens b/c they are citizens; the latest example would be the attack on the Nigerian mall.
If I saw the shooter and he was a guy in a polo shirt and a revolver, I might step away.
If the shooter was in a tac vest with zip ties and multiple drum magazines, it might be stoopider (yes, that is doofus spell check approved) to confront the shooter, but it might ultimately save lives. Maybe other peoples lives, but that's a question that the "good guy with a gun" will have to answer for him/herself. I think Pax already gave great examples of possible questions one might ask oneself, hopefully before one found oneself in a real scenario.
I don't know the full details about how the Nevada shooters were kitted up. I would assume that at least the wife was looking like a citizen as Mr. Wilcox overlooked her as a threat (maybe he never saw her?), but maybe the shooter was looking like he was there for the long term and to do big damage, so Mr. Wilcox decided to press on and follow the strategic goal of rule 2.
I can't say. He did his best to stop unlawful shooting and terrorism in a public space.
 
Don't know what I'd do.
Hope to never find out.
I'm trained to respond to situations as such being ret'd l.e.o. but a lot would depend upon the circumstance.
Were I with a loved one the first prioity would be to get them safe.
Were I alone, not with family, I think I'd take out the shooters, even, perhaps best, whack them in the back of the head.
Still there is much to be gained by not killing but whack one in the head, the other, if possiblem at the base of the spine near the belt line.
A shot there would drop someone immediately yet they would likely survive the wound.
It would be important to learn from the survivor, motives, other players involved, etc.
 
If you have to think about it.

If you have to think about shooting, then you probably shouldn't. That means you have other options. Take cover, look around 360 degrees. Are there choices other than shooting, take them!

Random thoughts:

  • Highly trained professionals get shot all the time.
  • Fight or flight?
  • Avoid situations where you can.
  • Don't be a victim
  • Don't let someone get you in a car. At least your loved ones will know where you are.
  • Control your thinking/control your actions.
  • Check your background
  • Is that an undercover cop about to shoot a bad gal/guy?
  • Women are bad guys too
  • Not much bullet proof cover in Wallmart or any where else for that matter
  • I hope I never have to ?
  • It is really impossible to know all that went on. I don't want to even be on a jury for a CCW shooting, much less be in front of it.

Please let my gun stay holstered, but if it comes out, be firm in mind and deed. "don't be afraid to drive on the lawn"
 
What Mr. Wilcox did was brave, and may have saved lives - I am sure we will have more information eventually.
Click to expand...

If Mr. Wilcox did land a shot on Mr Miller and Mrs. Miller shot Mr. Wilcox causing the two to finish their suicide pact, I'm doubtful those facts will be well publicized by those in the mainstream media.
 
The police say the man was killed by a police 223 and the woman killed herself.

Until we have second by second breakdown - it's speculative.
 
I wonder what role his death played in the gun women's subsequent actions?

After she killed the ccw, the next significant action was to kill her partner and then herself. Could it be that killing a non identified enemy upset her sense of values and mission?
I don't know and we will probably never know, but I'd like to think the murdered man's actions resulted in some benefit.
 
It could be that seeing they had more to worry about than the police and that other citizens were going to fight them rather than join them they knew thier Revoltion was over .
 
From Glenn's link...

Neighbors told police the couple left their apartment at 4:30 a.m. Sunday and said would murder cops. It seems that few people took their threats seriously; both had rambled about right-wing extremist conspiracy theories in online videos and on social media sites for years.
Click to expand...

So yet again we have 'crazy' people with bizarre or extremist views not being taken seriously, with a long history of such views and apparent long history of not being taken serious, finally taking action and causing harm.

At what point do we, as folks who might know some common rambler about revolutions and killing decide, know when the person is just still spouting nonsense or is spouting actual threats and basically saying they are going to take action?
 
depends

I grieve for the officers and the citizen as do most others. Whether or not to get involved is a complicated decision. In mere seconds, a person is called on to make a decision that could mean life or death for themselves or someone else. We can all sit at the computer and say ' I think this is what should be done ', however, until we are in that situation, we really do not know what we would do. Those split-second decisions have ramifications and we must be ready to live or die with the decision we make. As for myself, in the same situation I can honestly say I do not know what I would do.
 
the reality is that being that person may mean we put ourselves in harms way. It is a risk we all assume.
Click to expand...

It's assumed we should all respond exactly as a trained LEO/MIL would do it. The assumption is wrong.

Having a CCW doesn't make you automatically qualified to assess the entire situation - in fact, as discussed in another similar thread, one individual on the ground won't ever get a full scope view of exactly what is going on. With that in mind, they shouldn't restrict or limit their response to the situation. In the case of the LV shooters, walking past the female and giving her a pass on threat level was a fatal error. The "first responder" lacked the critical thinking and training to see her correctly.

It's why when police do show up - everyone is a perp. Once control over the situation is gained, people sorted out, and identified, then the innocents are released. A touching scene from a recent school shooting was seeing all the students filing out with their hands over their heads. Case in point.

We can dissect the LV Walmart incident all we want, the first decision - to confront - was where the risk was assumed. And in this case, it wasn't needed nor did it help.

If you CCW, the intent is to respond to a direct threat of lethal force. And the law will back you up. But, it's not a license to be a cop any more than having a Driver's license lets you compete at a NASCAR track just because you can drive onto the grid in your minivan. As said, you may very well just become an obstacle to the police who would waste time sorting our your presence.

In this case, no one has yet shown the LV CCW was presented with lethal force until he confronted the male, and he was immediately shot dead by the female. If there is a lesson to be drawn from it, it's pick your fight carefully. If you feel you are under some obligation to do something, then that obligation should include being trained to a professional level, and accepting that professionals get shot, and their family loses them, too.

There is rarely, if ever, an obligation to throw your life away when it's not necessary, and you can't know what will happen, or not. There is no perfect recipe to follow handling a threat. The very real danger is constantly repeating that some act of bravery is rquired, when we don't even know if it's needed. Don't accept as fact that something MUST be done. It's equally plausible that NOTHING need be done, and this case is supporting that point the more is known about it.

Unfortunately, those who let testosterone make their decisions will keep lining up and getting shot. Let your brains make that call, not your glands.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we still don't know enough. Maybe we never will. We don't know if Mr. Wilcox had military or LEO training. We don't know if his actions prevented a much larger loss of life. Although from what I do know I suspect that they did, those losers didn't go to Walmart to shop. And we do know for sure that he's dead.

We don't know how many others were carrying concealed and saw the situation and didn't get involved. But we do know that if there were any people there who did carry they are alive. To me the lesson from this is that if you are going to act in the defense of others without having taken a pledge to do so then you better be as prepared to die as those who take the pledge are. And of course you better be prepared to face the legal ramifications that will likely be involved if you live. Because like it or not you aren't empowered by the government to open fire in a Walmart.
 
You are right in that we don't know enough, but we do know that if the Millers were interested in racking up a body count, then they missed numerous opportunities at the Cici's where they murdered the police officers. They missed opportunities while transiting to Walmart. Once in Walmart, they didn't start off by opening fire on people, but into the ceiling.

Mr. Miller announced his revolution and that the police were on the way after firing into the ceiling. He didn't fire into people to make his announcement, but the ceiling. So you are right, they weren't there to shop, but they didn't appear to be there to kill shoppers either. After shooting Wilcox, they did not attempt to shoot other shoppers. They seemed to be there to wait for the cops.

It is also pretty safe to assume that since none of the family members have not mentioned it, that Joe Wilcox had not been a soldier and had not received LEO training. He had applied to be a cop a few years earlier, but had not been accepted.
http://heavy.com/news/2014/06/joseph-robert-wilcox-las-vegas-shooting-hero-jerad-amanda-miller/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/09/wilcox-vegas-shooting-hate/10261163/
 
From the Daily Mail article- bold type mine.

Wilcox, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon, told his friends he was going to confront the gunman - not realizing that he had an accomplice.

Wilcox went from the checkout area to Jerad Miller

and pulled his concealed firearm.

But before he could fire, Amanda Miller shot him in the ribs and Wilcox collapsed.

Police have confirmed that Wilcox was not able to get off a shot before he died.
Click to expand...

What did this guy think he was going to do, detain the gunman?

Why did he leave the checkout area and GO to the gunman?

Why didn't he pull his gun until he reached him?

1. Evaluate. Fools rush in...
2. Do not give up cover, distance or the element of surprise.
3. If you can shoot, distance is your friend.
4. If you have justification to shoot someone and are committed to intervene, then SHOOT them until they don't need shot anymore. Drive the OODA cycle like a dragster.
5. Hesitation will get you killed.
 
From what I have read and heard the 2 criminals were so deranged or detached that they thought they would realy start a revalution just like several befor them have . They did not intend a mass killing . I cannot second guess Wilcox . Just for thought and to help others if you find yourself in a situation . Catch cover asses the suroundings give the shooter the comand if practical if he does not comply terminate the threat . That is with time to think if you are blind sided with this like everyone in that store was then you do have to train like you fight . For shooters that have not grown up shooting , have a challenging schedule or what ever the case set up you own training routine think of situations and set up targest and engauge them . Use your imagination . You do not have to hire a tactical guru for this . My point is train and be fimiliar with your capabilities . Then you fall back on your training when there is no time to think .
 
Last edited:
Situational Awareness is hard to build in a gunfight. Personally, the only situations where I would likely be sure enough to act is seeing a crime from the beginning or an active shooter in progress (e.g. actively hunting down fleeing people). The downside there is that someone will probably be attacked while you observe long enough to make a semi-informed decision.
Running into a situation is likely to provide a very limited understanding of what is happening, and I generally would not recommend it.

Heroes are such because they try to do the right thing, without normal regard for personal risk. That is RISKY.
Perhaps Mr. Wilcox made the calculated risk and lost. If that is the case, we should mourn that his choice did not work out for him.
 
All I know is that he was a very brave man, God bless him and his family. As for the two cowards, well have a nice eternity in hell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top