A story all CPL holders should read & why you need plenty of ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I understand it

So I know this is a hot one and it's my first post here so I'm going to try and remain noninflammatory, lest I make a bad first impression.

As I understand it the cop was caught off guard and decided to pull. I don't quite see how he escalated elevated or "started" the firefight. That said I do get that as CCW holders we have no responsibility to act in a situation like this, hell my friends and I have had this discussion countless times and I refuse to back down off of my stance.

My first point is getting the hell out of where-ever something was going down, as a first responder I will call police officers but refuse to put my own or any bystanders life in danger. The second point I refuse to switch on is pretending to be a cop, too me the very notion is far more irresponsible than doing nothing.

However this guy was a cop and felt, rightfully so in my opinion, that he needed to do what he could to clear the restaurant. The officer had every intention of letting the BG leave with the money but the situation changed and he intercepted the robber.

On topic I believe the point trying to be made by the OP was that the cop felt revealed that he had a second magazine seeing as if there had been multiple assailants he would have been dry on the first. Personally I have always agreed with this point but can concede that it's not altogether necessary to shoot someone ten times. I guess shooting a BG that many times is merely assurance that they go down.
 
Armchair quarterbacks.

We have the right to “armchair quarterback”. Persons elect to do a job because they believe they are qualified. Others do not elect to do those jobs because they know they are not qualified and leave those jobs to those who claim to be.

You want controls for your chemical plant? Call me; I can do it. I’m qualified for that and know so.
You want electrical power for that plant? Call an electrical engineer. I'm not qualified for that and I know so.
If my controls don’t work then the electrical engineer can fault me, even though it’s not his discipline.
If the substation blows up I may fault the electrical engineer, even though it’s not my discipline.

This logic applies to any job.
 
The idea of responsibility is an interesting one. So if person X starts a bad action, person X is responsible. However, you can take actions which have different consequences.

1. You can let Person X's action occur with a high probability of limited harm but some property loss.

2. You can take an action which may stop Person X but has a reasonable possible of person X or yourself causing more and significant harm.

In both cases, Person X is to blame for starting the action but do you have responsibility for initiating a path with a greater probability of a reasonable bad outcome?

The issue is blame sharing. The officer should know and is usually trained that the damage generated by his action is a reasonable likelihood. Person X has already done his action - you are responsible for the choice you make that leads to various outcomes. X being the instigator doesn't remove the need for you not to make bad choices.
 
This shootout took place in June 1997,and I suspect that the officer that was involved is still wondering what he could have done(should have done?)different,that would have resulted in the child not being killed.I in no way judge his actions,as without a doubt he acted in the way that seemed best to him at the time.His actions seem to me to be consistient with a well trained and brave LEO.In his position,I would like to think I would do as well,but I very much doubt it.The 2 main things that I got from this,(1) No matter how much you train and plan,bad things can still happen.Swat officers train far more than regular LEO's much less an average concealed carry license holder.He had preplanned with his wife to get his family out of the building if such a situitation ever happened,and was trying to get others to leave as well.Circumstances that he could not forsee prevented them from being sucessful.Murphy is everywhere,24/7,365.(2) In the excitement of a gunfight,you will shoot until you run out of ammo and then think about reloading and additional threats.Always carry at least 1 reload.
 
Powderman...

+1, agree with you on all points.

Officer didn't choose to start a confrontation in a crowded restaurant, but was unable to get everybody out of harm's way.

I suspect several of the posters who've found fault with him didn't really read the entire account, but picked and chose a few phrases here and there, and glossed over the rest.
 
Different strokes for different folks. I am not LEO, on duty, or off duty, I would have simply taken my wife and kids and exited stage left. I have no need, desire, or duty to engage anyone in a gun fight, unless me, or mine, are actually under assault. Sticking around for that to happen strikes me as not the wise thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Apples and oranges comparisons

Faulting a LEO for not acting like a civilian doesn't make sense.

As Powderman pointed out, the LEO didn't deliberately escalate anything. He placed himself between the threat axis, and the soft targets, while trying to get the soft targets out of the danger zone. Sounds like exactly what he should have done.

As Powderman also pointed out, the soft targets had difficulties evacuating, and were not all clear when the BG emerged, with gun in hand. That wasn't the LEO's fault, either. McDonald's definitely should have been both cited and sued over the locked fire doors, though.

At that point, the LEO could have chosen to just step aside and remain incognito, but if the BG had done anything violent, then everybody would be asking why the LEO had done nothing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Even then, the LEO physically put his body between the BG and the fleeing patrons - again, as one would hope a LEO would perform.

If the LEO had gone in with the intention of making an arrest, in a crowded place, this would be an entirely different thing. He didn't. He attempted an evacuation, and it didn't work out.
 
While very interesting, the debate about what the off-duty officer should have done is off topic.

The title (topic?) of this thread is, "A story all CPL holders should read & why you need plenty of ammo."

It also makes clear why you need plenty of ammo. You listening revolver people?
Click to expand...

I have no idea why the OP used that story to argue his case. It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what a CCL holder should carry or how he should respond.
 
I agree with what Powderman said.

The only thing I think I would have done differently would have been to make sure my family was outside before I started doing anything else.


Michael Grace
 
Seems to me that this may be a very educational post if it is completely true....LEO admitting that he should've simply left with his family? It is presents itself as pure proof that the Police are not there to protect us. That is why we must maintain the right to protect ourselves. I was always under the impression that is was the duty of LEOs to do what he did, get as many people to safety then attempt to stop the BG.
Monday morning Quarterbacking is the only reason he has doubted his reactions. He had no way of knowing if the BG killed the employees in the back office or what his next intention was. The death of the innocent girl is very unfortunate but could not have been prevented unless you look back after the dust has settled.

I do agree that this story does nothing to prove we need to carry enormous amounts of extra ammo. The BG opened fire and only hit the girl by accident...he was shooting at the guy with the gun. TRAINING...TRAINING...TRAINING is what we should carry with us.
 
It's possible for an event to offer more than one lesson

And this one does.

Its teaching points involve decision making in crowded environments; things that can go wrong with seemingly sound plans; differences in responsibilities between CWP holder and off-duty LEO, and off-duty vs on-duty LEO.

But it also does offer a lesson about carrying spare ammo, which has been brought up but which keeps getting lost in the focus on the death of the little girl.

The lesson about carrying reloads was that, under stress, the LEO emptied his gun without noting if there were any other BG's. Because there weren't, in this case, a lot of people are pooh-poohing the idea that more ammo could have been useful.

But as the officer pointed out, if the guy had NOT been alone, and if an accomplice or two had suddenly sprung out of the woodwork, then it would have been a very good thing that he had a spare mag.

I find it ironic that many of the people saying there's nothing here to reinforce the idea of carrying a reload, seem to be the same folks who talk about one of the risks of interfering in a convenience store (or other) robbery - the presence or arrival of accomplice(s).

Unless those same folks think that they'll do a better job of conserving their ammo than did the SWAT instructor in the story, the probability is that more rounds will get expended under duress than we may have intended. It's nice to think that won't happen, and to train toward not letting it happen, but...
 
Lots of things strike me as odd.

First OP- This story is 15 years old, not "recent" on my time line.

Second Powderman- My thoughts exactly. Sometimes no matter what you do you are not going to have a good outcome, sometimes the angels smile on you.

Third- I am pretty sure that in this case, as in most shootings, the weapons had a lot less to do with anything than the training and mind set of the officer involved. Having extra rounds was not necessary. Being able to reload is a lot better than standing there with your slide locked back looking helpless. But here it made no difference. So this is an oddly titled thread.

The bad guy was down in two seconds, which is about as fast as you can hope for with a pistol round, or even a lot of pistol rounds. A larger gun, more rounds could not have changed the outcome of the bad guy shooting first. A rifle round might have put him down a hair faster but it still would not have changed the end result.

I am not against carrying a spare mag, a speed loader, whatever. Just saying it made no difference here.
 
All the comments about "the cop caused that little girl's death".

No, folks.

It was the guy who made the choice to do an armed robbery of a McDonalds that caused the little girl's death.
Click to expand...

Yep, like I told that kid ran a red light got his car totaled by my truck "if you hadnt run that light I wouldnt be here talking to ya". plain and simple.

BG = 100% at fault, if he hadnt been there nothing bad would have happened to that girl. Cop was doing his job above and beyond the call of duty.
 
Killed over a happy meal? Are you kidding me? NO amount of money is worth a life.

Poor judgment on the cop's behalf. Contrary to popular belief, police are under NO obligation to put themselves in harms way or protect any individual while on duty, much less off. He made a conscious decision, and a bad one. He had a choice and nobody forced him to be confrontational.

He started out on the right foot getting people out because he was privy to information most did not have. There's no way of knowing, but if he'd just stood there staring at the menu in a trance like most customers the perp would most likely have run past him and exited without incident. He had his money, there's no reason to believe he wanted any confrontation. Had he been in uniform, that would have been a different story. The BG never raised his gun until the cop "announced" himself.

With awesome power comes awesome responsibility. He forced the perp into a gun fight, and bears responsibility for his actions. I know one thing for sure. If I had been in the cops place and done what he did with the same results, I'd STILL be rotting in jail here, and all of my guns would be confiscated, and I'd be being sued by SO many people.

What was he hoping to do... save Mickey D's money? For what? Let the darn guy run away if he's running away.

My heart breaks for the cop, his family, the dead girl and everyone involved, except the BG. He could have robbed the place with a butter knife and everyone including himself would likely be alive. I doubt the employees gave ANY resistance at all even if he had no weapon.

I know... hind sight is 20/20 and who am I to judge not having been there.

Very sad story.
 
Mr Dish said:
Seems to me that this may be a very educational post if it is completely true....LEO admitting that he should've simply left with his family? It is presents itself as pure proof that the Police are not there to protect us. That is why we must maintain the right to protect ourselves. I was always under the impression that is was the duty of LEOs to do what he did, get as many people to safety then attempt to stop the BG.Monday morning Quarterbacking is the only reason he has doubted his reactions. He had no way of knowing if the BG killed the employees in the back office or what his next intention was. The death of the innocent girl is very unfortunate but could not have been prevented unless you look back after the dust has settled.
Click to expand...

I sense some confusion. The officer is off-duty with his family with him. His first obligation is to himself and his family, if it's to anyone. No one could, nor should, expect him to willfully subject his family to danger. Second, a LEO's duty is to act in the best interests of public safety (which I believe the officer attempted to do in this case) but also not to make stupid decisions. If he felt he was outgunned or outnumbered, I would expect him to exit and provide intel to the arriving on duty officers.

What are the lessons here?
From the citizen's point of view:
- Getting yourself and family to safety is paramount.
- If you can get others to safety along with you, great.
- Stay low-key to avoid "escalating" the situation to a gunfight.
- Good training is a high priority. Perfect practice makes perfect.
- You should be able to reload your weapon at least once, just in case.
- No matter how much the angels smile on you, expect Murphy to pi** in your coffee.

The tragic death of the young girl is squarely upon the head of the BG. The officer tried to send his family to safety and then get as many people out of the line of fire as possible. If he'd had more time, I suspect he would have been the last one out of the building. I see his actions as commendable and about as solid as can be expected working alone.
 
The one thing that has not been commented on in this article is the stupidity or apathy or the general public.

When told to get down, move or get out, how many just stood there???

I have seen this in my personal experience, where I drew a weapon, and told my date to get down, HUH was the response. Totally brain dead to the danger.

I have been in this restaurant numerous times. It is huge. When the BG appeared from the office, I believe the officer was totally focused, and believed those he had told to leave, had indeed followed instructions. Even his wife, who he had coached did not manage to leave.

In my case, I did not have to fire, as I was able to remain concealed behind a post until the BG walked by me, them I put my gun to his ear. Somehow he did not want to engage me. However, my date asked,,,shall I call 911? she was still standing close by me...I had no idea.

My heart goes out to this officer and his family...and I hope we all can learn by his experience.
 
In my case, I did not have to fire, as I was able to remain concealed behind a post until the BG walked by me, them I put my gun to his ear.
Click to expand...

Old Wanderer,

Just out of curiosity, are you a LEO?
 
As I was standing near the front counter trying to get some of the kitchen help to get out, the suspect came from the office area and began running in my direction.

I immediately noted the large semi-automatic pistol in his hand. The distance was about 15 to 20 yards. I drew my weapon, announced myself and took a kneeling position behind the counter. Unfortunately, the suspect raised his weapon at me and the gunfight erupted
Click to expand...

The off duty officer DID NOT initiate the gunfight. As his words described. he was still at the front counter attempting to clear the area of bystanders. He only drew when he saw the BG running towards him with a gun in his hand. The BG did not know that this guy was a cop or even if he was armed. He saw people fleeing and rushed to ?? (what). If he was ushering his family out and the gunman saw this and rushed them, what would the gunman have done? Human nature for many is to see trouble and flee in the other direction. Others freeze to watch like it's some movie. We have no idea what the gunman would have done! Was he done robbing the place or would he have held up the patrons? Would he have ushered the people into the cooler, ala Brown's Chicken, and shot them all for no reason? You have no idea what the gunman was thinking.

The off duty cop did not escalate the situation until the gunman was coming at him with his weapon drawn. The cop did the only right thing in trying to de-escalate the situation. It didn't work and a little girl died. If the cop left with his family the gunman may have left or he may have killed 10 people. No one knows and will ever know. However, the gunman reacted when he saw a patron helping others to safety. That could have been anyone helping their family to safety. The gunman acted first in an aggressive manner to people attempting to flee.

The cop did everything right with a bad ending. The ending could have been worse. There is no logical sense to armed criminals. They don't think like you and I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top