Two Florida CHLs Halt Spree Shooter

Double Naught Spy said:
And why would they? It was just a local shootout between a gunman and employees. Only two employees hit, only 1 killed, and the gunman injured/stopped. So what is national newsworthy about the event? It never got to the level of being a mass shooting, so it isn't even a mass shooting.
Click to expand...

because the media purposely doesn't cover these events in detail, like they do mass shootings. Yet, in reality, these events greatly outnumber mass shootings annually.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
The thing that concerns me about cc holders intervening in these shootings is what will happen when a cop confuses one for a bad guy and ends up killing him/her. I can just picture the field day that news media would have with it. Still, I'm glad that this creep was stopped.
Click to expand...

I honestly doubt this would happen much to be a problem. Cops arrive to active shooting scenes with a lot of fanfair, the armed citizen would be a fool to continue to engage the suspect once he heard sirens blazing. I realize there's a grey area in there between hearing the sirens and physically seeing the cops in action but I think most naturally anyone would be re-holstering as soon as they could. Now two armed citizens confusing each other I think would also be [statistically] rare but possible and would certainly be more complicated, I think communication is the key and ultimately the real threat is the active shooter so hopefully the two good guys focus would be on that.
 
Citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.
Click to expand...

A lot depends on how you define "law enforcement" and "deter crime"

Many, if not most states allow the justified use of deadly force by private citizens to stop certain crimes against themselves and others.

The specific situation matters.
Generally speaking,

You can't (legally) shoot the guy walking off with your TV. (preventing a theft)

You can shoot the guy who enters the coffee shop with a hatchet and tries to disembowel the clerk. (preventing a murder)

Generally speaking. Local laws vary WIDELY and I highly recommend you become thoroughly familiar with them before going armed.

Armed citizens are not required to act as police officers, but there are situations where they may legally do so.
 
Have fun entertaining yourself with the anti media whine. The incident amounted to little and nobody cares. That's the reason it got little coverage. They're in the business of making money and covering news that nobody cares about doesn't go over well.
 
I'm sorry, but this comment makes no sense to me. Do you simply do nothing while people are getting shot (and wait your turn) or do you act and save your own life, and hopefully others? An active shooter and a concealed permit holder should act in very different ways. The active shooter is seeking out targets and engaging anyone. The concealed permit holder will not be shooting at people indiscriminately. As someone else has already mentioned, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away
".
Click to expand...


The reason it doesn't make any sense to you is because you think I'm suggesting that CC holders shouldn't intervene, when my point was more about the police knowing the difference between good guys with guns and bad guys with guns. Along with the increase we're seeing in mass shootings is an increase in armed citizens fighting back, which isn't a bad thing. You'd think an armed citizens would know to stand down when police show up, but what if they show up while a citizen is in the process of shooting back at the bad guy and they confuse the good guy for the bad guy? All it would take is one instance of such a mistake, and I can just about guarantee you that it would not only be all over the news, but it would be used as justification to restrict cc.
 
Right Andy!

because the media purposely doesn't cover these events in detail, like they do mass shootings. Yet, in reality, these events greatly outnumber mass shootings annually.
Click to expand...

You are right. They purposefully don't cover them, but not because of some liberal bias, but because they simply are not worthy at the national level. They don't cover assaults, murders, purse snatchings or cell phone snatchings to any great extent, a very common crimes, particularly around the holidays, and yet where is all the main stream media coverage? It just isn't terribly newsworthy on the national level.

Now, had this auto shop been an actual mass murder, it might have gained some media space, like Sutherland Springs where Stephen Willeford battled with the shooter. That made national news over and over again. That was national news worthy. It might have made more news, but Stephen Willeford intentionally did not give many interviews.

Hero or feel good stories are not nearly as eye catching and newsworthy as tragedies, however. Are you going to rush right home to turn on your TV to watch coverage of the news of the Las Vegas shooting or are you going to rush right home to see the story of the injured Afghanistan War soldier walking for the first time in 8 years thanks to a newly experimental nerve repair procedure? Out west, are you rushing home to check the progress of the 50K acre XXXX Canyon Fire or are you rushing home to see the story about the guy and his two sons who stopped on their way home from a fishing trip and beat down a small grass fire before it made it into the National Forest?

I mentioned the refinery fire above. It made Reuters in the financial section only because loss of the refinery would be huge financially, but instead it was a little blurb about employees stopping a fire before it got out of hand.
 
I honestly doubt this would happen much to be a problem. Cops arrive to active shooting scenes with a lot of fanfair, the armed citizen would be a fool to continue to engage the suspect once he heard sirens blazing. I realize there's a grey area in there between hearing the sirens and physically seeing the cops in action but I think most naturally anyone would be re-holstering as soon as they could. Now two armed citizens confusing each other I think would also be [statistically] rare but possible and would certainly be more complicated, I think communication is the key and ultimately the real threat is the active shooter so hopefully the two good guys focus would be on that.
Click to expand...

You'd think that hearing the sirens and whatnot would be enough to let a cc holder know to holster the gun, but when you factor in adrenaline, tunnel vision, and stress, common sense can be in short supply. Fortunately, such an incident hasn't happened yet, and I hope it never does.

And yeah, two good guys confusing each other for bad guys is another thing we need to think about as cc holders. However, in terms of what I think the media response would be, there's no comparison.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
The reason it doesn't make any sense to you is because you think I'm suggesting that CC holders shouldn't intervene, when my point was more about the police knowing the difference between good guys with guns and bad guys with guns. Along with the increase we're seeing in mass shootings is an increase in armed citizens fighting back, which isn't a bad thing. You'd think an armed citizens would know to stand down when police show up, but what if they show up while a citizen is in the process of shooting back at the bad guy and they confuse the good guy for the bad guy? All it would take is one instance of such a mistake, and I can just about guarantee you that it would not only be all over the news, but it would be used as justification to restrict cc.
Click to expand...

If there was confusion as to what your point was, I apologize. As for police confusing "good guy" with gun, it is always a possibility. I believe the possibility is fairly remote since there is usually a response time for the police to arrive. I don't know how much ammo you guys carry, but I don't pack enough for an "extended" fire fight. Most likely, the bad guy or good guy will have already been taken out of the fight by the time the police arrive. If the police responded really fast and the gun fight was still going on, the "bad guy" would probably shoot at the police, clearly identifying himself as a "bad guy". The "good guy" would probably lower or drop his weapon if the officer pointed his gun at him. The point is that active shooters do not act like someone shooting in self defense.
 
I see your points, SonofScubaDiver; they are real reasons for concern.

I'm of the opinion that:
1. Any self-defense incident where a CHL holder has to engage would necessarily be far enough removed from a police office that the BG felt comfortable doing what evil intentions he/she is planning. Very rarely do people do crimes against citizens in a police station (or nearby). So, the odds of an officer arriving in the middle of a self-defense fracas and confusing good guys/bad guys is probably not as high on my list of worries as 44Amp's "guy with a hatchet" standing in front of me.

2. I agree that if multiple CHLs are engaging the same threat, it is possible that they might endanger each other. But if multiple CHLs are all choosing to engage a threat, the situation would probably be a dire enough situation where they thought the risk of friendly fire was the lesser of several dangers confronting them.
 
You are right. They purposefully don't cover them, but not because of some liberal bias, but because they simply are not worthy at the national level. They don't cover assaults, murders, purse snatchings or cell phone snatchings to any great extent, a very common crimes, particularly around the holidays, and yet where is all the main stream media coverage? It just isn't terribly newsworthy on the national level.
Click to expand...

I did mention in detail....

I do understand that common local crime isnt necessarily national news worthy, but Im saying there are national stories published that are biased when they do cover them, they do not cover them in detail, ....purposely biased.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgia-inmates-captured_us_5943260ae4b06bb7d2721cf3

Anyone familiar with the story I just linked knows who really captured the fugatives, but the bias is there and lawful DGUs are not covered truthfully, if at all, in the media and it is part of the debate.
 
I did mention in detail....

I do understand that common local crime isnt necessarily national news worthy, but Im saying there are national stories published that are biased when they do cover them, they do not cover them in detail, ....purposely biased.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b06bb7d2721cf3

Anyone familiar with the story I just linked knows who really captured the fugatives, but the bias is there and lawful DGUs are not covered truthfully, if at all, in the media and it is part of the debate.
Click to expand...

You are just complaining about bias on some other story? I fail to see the lack of relevance to this story.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
You are just complaining about bias on some other story? I fail to see the lack of relevance to this story.
Click to expand...
it was mentioned above when you asked why the "lamestream" (not your quote) media would want to publish this story I replied because they are biased. Just responding to the conversation you replied to yourself. The OP simply shared a news story with no real direction or question so here we are... The relevance to this story is that DGU's outnumber mass shootings and are purposely under reported. The Huffpo story I shared was an example of the bias Im referring to. It was reported in the OPs news story the suspect had multiple magazines on him so the armed citizen very well could have stopped the next mass shooting. Haven't heard anything about this on the national news sources...
 
To add my own opinions to the above..... If law enforcement does make it to the scene while the shooter is still active, and can't tell the difference between the bad guy and the good guy, said law enforcement best be finding a new line of work. But, with that said, I guess there are cops out there that grab their AR and start blasting away at anyone with a gun, and anyone acting suspicious. But then I say again, they best be finding a new line of work.
Click to expand...
I've talked to cops about this, regarding school shootings specifically.

Put yourself in the cop's head for a minute: You are in your cruiser and hear a radio call about an active shooter in a school. You're a dad and first thing that pops in your mind is your child bleeding after getting shot by some psycho (even if it's not your kid's school). You go code three and break every law getting across town to the scene. You are the first one there as far as you can tell and you hear gun fire from inside the building. Adrenalin raging through your bloodstream, you grab your patrol carbine out of the trunk and head in to stop the killing. As soon as you get through the door you see a man with a handgun come around the corner. You already have the dot of your aimpoint centered on his chest.

What happens next?


How do you know that you aren't putting another good guy in your sights? Did you see him shoot someone or just hear shooting in the next room? Hesitate and that next round might be through your chest.

Again, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from stopping a killer if they can. But when we draw a gun in public, we do need to be concerned about how good guys will react, not just the bad guys.
 
Last edited:
blackwidowp61 said:
Not what you might expect. This is why people need to be able to PROTECT THEMSELVES as the police are under absolutely NO obligation to protect them! I wonder if any of the anti-gun groups know about this???
Click to expand...
Of course they know about it. That's why they are so assiduously careful not to ever mention it. It doesn't fit their narrative.
 
No, it doesn't fit their narrative. Our side does the same sort of thing. All the "accidents" with guns don't fit our narrative very well, either. We quickly turn on the person who has an 'accident' and disavow them as not being part of our ranks. You don't have the NRA bragging about how many fewer kids killed other kids with guns at school since Eddie the Eagle came around or anything like that (not sure the number has gone down). Both sides typically fail to acknowledge any shortcomings of their arguments for fear that it shows weakness in their stance. It is a debate tactic and PR thing.
 
I've talked to cops about this said:
I've talked to cops about this, regarding school shootings specifically.

Put yourself in the cop's head for a minute: You are in your cruiser and hear a radio call about an active shooter in a school. You're a dad and first thing that pops in your mind is your child bleeding after getting shot by some psycho (even if it's not your kid's school). You go code three and break every law getting across town to the scene. You are the first one there as far as you can tell and you hear gun fire from inside the building. Adrenalin raging through your bloodstream, you grab your patrol carbine out of the trunk and head in to stop the killing. As soon as you get through the door you see a man with a handgun come around the corner. You already have the dot of your aimpoint centered on his chest.

What happens next?


How do you know that you aren't putting another good guy in your sights? Did you see him shoot someone or just hear shooting in the next room? Hesitate and that next round might be through your chest.

Again, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from stopping a killer if they can. But when we draw a gun in public, we do need to be concerned about how good guys will react, not just the bad guys.
Click to expand...

The good guy with a gun could also be an under cover officer that was responding quickly. The good guy should immediately lower the gun and identify himself. The officer should not shoot as long as the unidentified person with a gun puts down the weapon. Even if he was the unidentified person was the shooter, the officer cannot shoot him if he surrendered. Many of these school shooters do not plan on being taken alive and would either try and shoot the officer or commit suicide.
 
The good guy with a gun could also be an under cover officer that was responding quickly. The good guy should immediately lower the gun and identify himself. The officer should not shoot as long as the unidentified person with a gun puts down the weapon.
Click to expand...
Yet, blue on blue incidents do happen, unfortunately.
 
Right, you deal with the problem at hand first, the bad guy shooter. Chances are, the situation will be over before the cops arrive. And while there are a fair number of blue on blue shootings, when they are documented, the majority seem to be crossfire issues more so than identification issues.

If you are going to worry about a cop shooting you, shouldn't you first worry about another CCW shooting you before the cops even arrive? After all, aren't there more CCWs in a given city than there are cops? Aren't the cops generally better trained than CCWs?

Keep you priorities straight!!! Deal with the immediate threat FIRST.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top