Armed Citizen Stops Mass Shooting in Oklahoma City

stephen426 said:
I wonder if the restaurant is going to change it's stance on "no guns" after this event. I still believe that private businesses who prohibit guns are responsible for the safety of their patrons. Businesses that fail to protect their patrons should be held liable.
Click to expand...
And, until a place of business loses a hefty lawsuit to the victims who were disarmed, I doubt it will change anytime soon.

....this is the kind of stuff the NRA should be pursuing, not writing bump-stock legislation.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
So, I disagree with your assumption that the “shooting was over.” Given the circumstances, I think it reasonable, and probably prudent, to assume the shooter was merely looking for additional targets rather than fleeing the scene.
Click to expand...

You can assume what you want, but that isn't in evidence from any of the reports, just like it wasn't with the Sutherland Springs shooter or the Appalachian School of Law shooter.
 
DNS said:
You can assume what you want, but that isn't in evidence from any of the reports, just like it wasn't with the Sutherland Springs shooter or the Appalachian School of Law shooter.
Click to expand...
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The shooter was stopped after shooting three people, and he's now dead. We'll never have any way of knowing if his intention upon leaving the restaurant was to kill more people in a nearby establishment, or to go home and have a cold beer. He still had a firearm and he still had ammunition. He had means and he had opportunity, so he was still a viable threat. Reports are that both of the armed citizens who confronted him called for him to put down his weapon. Apparently he didn't, so they did what any logical person would do and neutralized the threat.
 
You can assume what you want, but that isn't in evidence from any of the reports, just like it wasn't with the Sutherland Springs shooter or the Appalachian School of Law shooter.
Click to expand...

There is as much, if not more, evidence for my assumption than there is for yours that it was “over.” The reports describe the shooter as “leaving the scene”; but if he opened fire from the doorway then pretty much any direction but into the restaurant is away from the initial scene.

And none of us knows where he was going next. I’m not sure why you think your assumption is somehow more likely.
 
And none of us knows where he was going next. I’m not sure why you think your assumption is somehow more likely.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see what percentage of mass shooters (who aren't stopped at the initial shooting location) leave the scene of the initial shooting and then continue shooting at another location.

It would also be interesting to know if the shooter had any provision for continuing his attack, e.g. additional ammunition, a second loaded firearm, etc.

At any rate, the shooter in this case had disengaged before being confronted by the armed citizens. It's possible he was going to continue his activity at another location, but although we can speculate about what his plans were, nobody knows for sure. What we know for sure is that he had already stopped shooting before the armed citizens confronted him--i.e. they did not interrupt him in the process of actively shooting at victims and cut that activity short.

So if we want to be accurate and make a statement that is not based on speculation we could say that the armed citizens MIGHT have prevented him from perpetrating another shooting.

We can't accurately say that the armed citizens DID stop a shooting unless we caveat it by saying that the statement is based on speculation that the shooter might have been going to shoot more people at a second location.
 
JohnKSa said:
It would be interesting to see what percentage of mass shooters (who aren't stopped at the initial shooting location) leave the scene of the initial shooting and then continue shooting at another location.
Click to expand...
The Virginia Tech shooter killed one (or two?) people on one part of the campus before going to Norris Hall, which is where he killed most of his total body count.

The shooter at the New Life Church in Colorado first killed two and wounded two at the Youth with a Mission camp/center in Arvada before going to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where he killed two and wounded three before being stopped by Jeanne Assam, a former police officer who was a security team volunteer.

I believe the theory on the Sutherland Springs church shooting is that the shooter went to the church with the intention of killing his estranged wife's family. They didn't attend services that Sunday, so there's a good degree of probability that he would have gone hunting if the good guy across the street hadn't stopped him.

The Sandy Hook shooter started by killing his mother at home before he went to the school.

I'm sure there are other examples.
 
The Tyler Court House shooter drove all over town exchanging fire with the police.

The Millers went to CiCi's pizza first and then got mowed down in Walmart.

The terrorists in San Bernandino left and were riding around when the police found them, they had no end game so it is likely they were looking for a fresh target.

The Chattanooga shooter hit two places till he was killed.

That is just off the top of my head. So yeah it happens a lot. This guy died the typical cowards death after shooting innocent women and kids.

In 2014-15, 28% of active shooters who were stopped by others were stopped by private citizens. Those numbers seem to be on the rise.
 
The terrorists in San Bernandino left and were riding around when the police found them, they had no end game so it is likely they were looking for a fresh target.
Click to expand...
It is POSSIBLE that they were but since they never did, it wouldn't make sense to use them as evidence of mass shooters who intended to hit a second location unless we are willing to accept speculation as evidence.
The Millers went to CiCi's pizza first and then got mowed down in Walmart.
Click to expand...
This is a situation (along with the VA Tech shootings, the CO springs church shooting and the Chattanooga shootings) where mass shootings were continued at a second location.
The Tyler Court House shooter drove all over town exchanging fire with the police.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

The Tyler Courthouse shooter fled the scene, was pursued by police and exchanged fire with them when they got close--that is not remotely the same thing as going to a second location to continue a mass shooting. His obvious targets were his wife and son who were shot at the courthouse. If there's one mass shooting we know was only aimed at specific targets at a single location, this one is it. There is absolutely nothing to suggest he had other targets or another location in mind--everything points to his having only a single objective.

We get too far ahead of ourselves when we not only make claims based on speculation (he might have been going to continue the shooting at a second location) but also use further speculation as evidence (e.g. the San Bernadino shooters might have been going to a second location too) and even try to use situations (like the Tyler shooting) which are not at all relevant.

The evidence is on our side. We don't have to base our arguments on speculation or on trying to spin the facts.
 
Hmmm ... phrasing?

“We don’t want people to be vigilantes,” Bo Mathews, a spokesman for the Oklahoma City Police Department, said in a recent interview. “That’s why we have police officers.”
Click to expand...
We have police officers to be vigilantes? That's what he just said.
 
Last I checked, self defense and defense of others is not considered vigilantism. Vigilantism implies a breaking of the law by bypassing the legal process. You would think Bo Mathews would know the difference.
 
DNS said:
Last I checked, self defense and defense of others is not considered vigilantism. Vigilantism implies a breaking of the law by bypassing the legal process. You would think Bo Mathews would know the difference.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't think Bo Matthews would know the difference. He's a police officer. Police officers today are taught that the citizens (whom they are supposed "to protect and serve") are the enemy.
 
Well, one can assume the shooter was on his way to a new spot with fresh targets, or you can assume the shooter was done, and was on his way home for that cold beer...doesn't matter either way.

One thing you can say with accuracy is that the shooter was stopped from shooting anyone else, again, ever.

As to those who somehow think the responding citizens "failed" because they didn't stop a mass shooting before it happened, I find that totally unrealistic.

One cannot stop a mass shooting, ever. No citizen, and no police can do it. Because its a trick of language.
 
Police officers today are taught that the citizens (whom they are supposed "to protect and serve") are the enemy.
Click to expand...

Well aren't you the learned one. I'd like a reference for that note so I can be educated as well.
 
When it comes to LE's relationship with the communities that they serve, I think it's fair to say that there's more of an "us vs. them" mentality on both sides than is ideal.

That said, I think it's more than just a slight overstatement to say that LEOs are actually taught that regular citizens are their enemies.
 
When men go armed on the streets against whom are they arming themselves? The answer may be the same for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top