A good guy with a gun

[James K]

No one questions the bravery involved but those who question confronting an armed criminal have a point, and it is not about proficiency with a firearm. According to one report, Wilcox approached the male killer but it was the female criminal who killed him.

Law enforcement officers are trained to quickly analyze the situation and determine what and who is involved before taking action. Most citizens do not have that training. Mr. Wilcox evidently had either not noticed the woman or discounted her as a threat; a professional law officer probably would not have made either mistake. There is also a tendency of most men to be reluctant to fire at a woman. But LEO training helps to overcome that and teaches that women can be as dangerous as men.

Jim

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Law enforcement officers are trained to quickly analyze the situation and determine what and who is involved before taking action. Most citizens do not have that training. Mr. Wilcox evidently had either not noticed the woman or discounted her as a threat; a professional law officer probably would not have made either mistake.

Sadly, the law enforcement profession has learned about these types of mistakes repeatedly and continue to make these mistakes even though they are trained professionals. Yes, cops screw up. They are human and so are not above screwing up. We could go through a long list of screw ups by training professional cops because of misunderstanding threats, but that would be considered cop bashing.

 

[Powderman]

Sadly, the law enforcement profession has learned about these types of mistakes repeatedly and continue to make these mistakes even though they are trained professionals.

Amen, amen and amen!!!!!

You can give someone the best training in the world, but if they don't LEARN and PRACTICE that training, it's useless.

I've seen officers who say, "I qualified, and that's good enough". I've assisted in running our qualification range more than once. And--more than once, I've seen and heard some of our officers ask for a second target exposure on a certain stage--BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T READY. (Really?)

I've seen some officers show up at the range with their carbines that were starting to show RUST because they were left in the vehicle mounts too long.

Or, how about taking a look at the rifles and finding officers carrying them in the vehicles with ONLY TEN ROUNDS OR LESS IN THE MAGAZINE?

We can have the best gear and optics and we can get sent to some of the finest training in the world. But if a person does not have what we call the "warrior mindset"--and the willingness to train, to hone those skills to razor sharpness, it won't do a lick of good.

Now, y'all excuse me, if you would...just qualified two weeks ago with a new duty gun (Sig P227) and I need to go put about 200 rounds downrange.

Semper Paratus, et Vigilo.

 

[Onward Allusion]

pax
<SNIP>ps -- But none of this means I think Wilcox made the wrong call. I. Don't. Know. And neither do you. We don't know what the other road looks like, the one he didn't take. We only know what the road he did take looks like.

Actually, we know he made the wrong call, because he's dead. Now, was it wrong for him to take that course of action? We'll probably never know.

 

[Onward Allusion]

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.

Um, I thought it was a Liberal conspiracy?

 

[Onward Allusion]

From a T&T standpoint, this raises the question of who you intend to defend with your weapon. Wilcox decided to try to defend other people in the store, whereas many of us believe we carry only ourselves and our famlies. I won't call either of these right or wrong, 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.

Ya know, after reading all 3 pages of this, I gotta say that we as a group, in general, love to Monday morning quarterback more than discuss what strategies should have been taken.

Personally, if my life or that of my loved ones weren't in danger, the first thing I would have done would be to get the hell out of dodge. Only then would I have re-evaluated the situation by observing.

Basic project management 101 using a waterfall methodology. Define Scope/Objective, Identify, Plan, Act, Review. Use the brain that gawd gave ya.

 

[pax]

The definition of heroism is stepping up to take care of a problem when:

1) the stakes are very, very high;
2) it's not your job; and
3) The odds are against you.

That means the normal, expected outcome of heroic behavior is a catastrophic loss, often including the hero's death.

Americans are funny. We cheer people who beat the odds, but also treat beating the odds like it's the normal outcome when it most assuredly is not.

pax

 

[Mainah]

Here's something else that we do know, Mr. Wilcox didn't shoot an innocent bystander. And none were shot as a result of his actions. The bad guys are dead, and unfortunately so is he. But the loss of innocent life stopped with him. I call that heroic.

 

[James K]

Unfortunately, heroism does not equal competence. And again, we emphasize "training" in the use of a weapon and confuse it with training in dealing with dangerous people and hazardous situations. Of course, LEOs don't "get it right" all the time, and some die because of that. But LEOs do have training in analyzing a situation and determining the proper response. Too many citizens who carry guns know HOW to shoot, but not WHEN, and WHEN NOT, to shoot. And too many CCW courses stop with the HOW, teaching the armed citizen to puncture paper targets, not wanting to "turn off" students by discussing the implications involved when the target is not paper, and is able to shoot back.

Not many CCW instructors will tell their students one simple hard truth: That gun you spent time choosing, you loaded so carefully, you worked and paid to get a license for, CAN AND WILL GET YOU KILLED IF YOU DON"T KNOW WHEN TO DRAW AND WHEN TO LEAVE IT IN ITS HOLSTER! If you draw on the wrong person, at the wrong time, you will not go home to your wife that night, or ever again. If you draw when you don't have to, your children may be without a father (or mother). Or you may be paralyzed for life. Or imprisoned for murder.

Yes, use your gun when you must, as a last resort, to defend your own life or the life of a family member. But if you draw that gun with the idea of defending others, make very sure you know exactly what is involved and that there is no other choice.

Jim

 

[Targa]

James,

I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone was questioning his bravery, just pointing out that no matter what mistakes or decisions were made on his part, the bottom line is he was a very brave man.
Law enforcement and military are trained to try and limit the effects of there sympathetic nervous systems in high stress situations which causes tunnel vision and hearing loss but it is a very tough thing to overcome at best, no matter the amount of training especially when your first focal point is one of somebody that is armed and has already fired a shot. Tunnel vision was what led him to not notice the female that killed him.

 

[psalm7]

And who is it that does sometimes shoot innocent bystanders when responding to a crime seen ?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

And who is it that does sometimes shoot innocent bystanders when responding to a crime seen ?

I am sure you mean cops, but it isn't just bystanders that negligently get shot and it isn't just when arriving at the scene. It also isn't just cops that do this.

Yes, use your gun when you must, as a last resort, to defend your own life or the life of a family member. But if you draw that gun with the idea of defending others, make very sure you know exactly what is involved and that there is no other choice.

Nobody ever knows "what is exactly involved..." Even if you think you have identified all the actors, that does not mean you have identified all their strengths and weaknesses or know who hasn't shown up yet that may interfere. So at best, you are just making a guess for which you feel you have high confidence, which isn't the same as actually knowing.

So far, I have yet to see any accounts from the incident where anybody else identified Amanda Miller as a threat in Walmart during the event before she killed Wilcox.

I did find this interesting however, Mr. Miller ordered everyone out of Walmart, threatening to shoot them if they didn't leave. People were leaving at the time that Mr. Wilcox confronted Mr. Miller.

He heard Miller shout, "This is the beginning of the revolution! Everybody get out! You will be shot!"

...

Wilcox "had the option to go left to exit the store to safety," Tanner told CNN. But he chose not to leave. Wilcox instead stayed inside and confronted Jerad Miller, Tanner said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/las-vegas-shooting/

 

[paladin-34]

im amaze at all the responces dealing with tactics. i see this as a regognition and personal safty problem. i have drilled into my kids heads since they started shooting with me, if you ccw and get involved in a situation no one should know you have a gun till You use it. that means it stays holstered till you know the situation and have a shot. why LEO has a uniform so s/he is imediatly recognized as..... good guy! someone in street close waving a gun is a bad guy to LEO and John Q. and just futher confuses the situation. someone in street close waving a gun that the bad guys see, they know who is with them, becomes a priority target. so for a ccw to move around a shooting situation with gun drawn puts him at a disadvantage. sorry all you "DIE HARD" fans

this should be the first consideration before any engagement.

after the engagement the guns holstered again for reasons stated above.

Joe

 

[44 AMP]

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?

Well, that's the question, now isn't it?

The people Tim McVeigh stayed with heard his rants, and thought they were all just hot air.

They wound up with a couple dozen year sentences because they DIDN'T call the FBI (or anyone) about him.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Michael Bane had an interesting podcast on his blog about civilian interventions and the problem with challenging the shooter. He recalled how Gunsite used to teach (never there, so correct me if I'm wrong) you to challenge the bad guy. I certainly took classes where such was taught.

Bane thinks and I agree that with an active shooter, you have no responsibility to challenge. It certainly didn't work in Tacoma and may have been a negative in this case.

At the NTI, we were doing a house clearing and I simply shot the bad guy. I was asked why I didn't challenge and I said - he's in my house. There was no doubt that they were bad guys, not just some drunk who wandered in. However, you did need to be careful. A friend came out of the same run and said - Oops, I shot my son. He was a touch upset.

 

[Brit]

In reading the whole thread (again) seems like it is about 50/50 engage, don't engage.

As most times I am out in public, actually walking in a store, a mall, I am accompanied by my Wife of 21 years, I could care less for being a interfering part time Cop.

I do work now and again for my Son's Security Company, in uniform, armed.
But with my Wife, on our daily activity's, my only concern, said Wife!

In shooting most items for some 60 years, I have a good idea what will stop hand gun rounds. And that is where you will find us. Under cover, with a view.

As many of the young Police Officers I have trained, have on majority never been in a fist fight, let alone a gun fight, me standing with my Glock 19 in hand is not going to happen. Getting shot in a "Man with a gun" call, is not my desire.

So holstered, till, and if required, is the mode I would be in. And no, commands of "Drop the GUN!" Is not my style, I see you as a threat, you are going to get shot, a lot. I have a Wife, Kids, and Grandkids who need me around for a while longer, thank you.

 

[Ruark]

I think this is one of those nightmare scenario-types most CC'ers hope they're never in. A BG in a store or bank waves a gun around, maybe fires a shot into the ceiling. You could whip out your weapon and put him down instantly, but you decide it doesn't meet the "imminent danger" requirement and do nothing. Then the BG blows a young mother's head off.

Could you live with it?

"She would be alive today if I......"

It makes you think of the fundamental question, "how many lives should be 'sacrificed' before I decide to engage?"

 

[45_auto]

Then the BG blows a young mother's head off.

Could you live with it?

Yes.

I fail to see where getting my head, my wife's head, my kid's heads, and 3 or 4 other innocent bystander's heads as well as the young mother's head blown off benefits anyone.

 

[Ruark]

Yes.

I fail to see where getting my head, my wife's head, my kid's heads, and 3 or 4 other innocent bystander's heads as well as the young mother's head blown off benefits anyone.

Can you reply to a post without sounding like a smartass? As stated in the OP, the presumption is that you are able to engage the BG effectively.

 

[45_auto]

As stated in the OP, the presumption is that you are able to engage the BG effectively.

Probably be a good idea for you to work on your reading comprehension. I've copied the OP's post for you below, look it over VERY CAREFULLY for any mention of "engaging the bad guy effectively".

I came across this link on CNN. It details how a CCW holder in Las Vegas attempted to confront a shooter in a local WalMart after the shooter had killed two off duty police officers. It left me with 2 thoughts:

1) We all talk about the effect of "good guys with guns," but the reality is that being that person may mean we put ourselves in harms way. It is a risk we all assume.

2) The citizen CCW, Joseph Wilcox, moved to confront someone who from what I read, fired a round into the ceiling of the Walmart store. The LEOs that had been killed were killed in a local pizza place, which I assume was not attached to the WalMart. The article also quotes Wilcox's sister, stating that he ran into the store to confront the shooter.

From a T&T standpoint, this raises the question of who you intend to defend with your weapon. Wilcox decided to try to defend other people in the store, whereas many of us believe we carry only ourselves and our famlies. I won't call either of these right or wrong, 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.

Am I off base here?

ETA: I tried searching for this before posting, but just now found an earlier thread on this event. The focus on that thread appears to be the role of CCWs in stopping tragedies. As such, unless Staff feel the thread is redundant, 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.)