The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 3, 2017, 01:31 AM   #1
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
Walmart Shooting-CC Holders Hindered Police? NOT!

Oh boy.
In the wake of the Walmart shooting in Colorado the New York Daily News ran the following headline.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3608011

Quote:
Investigation into Walmart shooting was delayed by innocent shoppers who pulled out their guns in response
Okay...could this be a problem? I guess. But then I found the ABC News story about concealed carry folk at Walmart:

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/l...oting-50883278

Quote:
He (Thornton police spokesman Victor Avila) says the customers who pulled out guns did not slow officers' response to the crime scene.
(I'm the one that put part of the above quote in bold.)

So which is it?

I SUSPECT that concealed carry folk are going to be pilloried from now forward every time something like this happens. The anti-gun attacks, irrational and unfounded are just so unremittingly relentless it's just depressing.
DaleA is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 02:48 AM   #2
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
One story talk about the police going through store video and having to rule out the ones who pulled their guns, which did delay the INVESTIGATION of the crime in order to identify the shooter.

The second story says that customers pulling out their weapons did not delay officers RESPONDING to the crime.

There's a difference. It appears to me that you jumped to conclusions, based on your belief that anti-gun attacks, irrational and unfounded are just so unremittingly relentless.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 03:30 AM   #3
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
AFAIK,with what has been released, the killer entered WalMart,shot the victims,then turned and left He drove away. At this point,motive unknown,or at least unreleased.

IMO,what the news reporter's opinion is? NYT reporters and gun matters equates to nothing useful.

Had the shooter stayed in the store and continued to shoot,those armed folks would have saved lives.
As it is,they did no harm.The oft-repeated prediction that gun-totin public cowboys are irresponsible,untrained,and will just shoot up the store ala "The Wild Bunch" did not occur .

That the police spent more time is a police matter the Armed Citizens have no control over.

Last edited by HiBC; November 3, 2017 at 03:43 AM.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 09:09 AM   #4
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Location: IL
Posts: 853
Don't you realize that he probably picked Walmart as his place for shooting innocent strangers BECAUSE he knew there would be concealed carriers present? Everyone knows that ordinary citizens carrying guns makes it more unsafe, so maybe the shooter was just trying to highlight that danger? Only because the legal concealed carriers are so poorly trained and ill equipped to defend themselves did none of them fire their weapons and create mass mayhem and chaos in the store. Its just common sense that ordinary citizens can't be trusted with guns, and that the right response to a crazy shooter in their midst is to hide and pray, or maybe throw store merchandise at the shooter, and wait for the police to come and protect them. If only Walmart had big signs that said "No Guns Allowed" then none of this would have occurred in the first place. And not only at Walmart, but other places probably inspire some to kill innocent bystanders, maybe with a truck on a bike path, as a way of showing their apprehension at the thought of people carrying those awful guns hidden under their coats or in their pockets. Just common sense.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell
vito is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 11:30 AM   #5
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Quote:
Had the shooter stayed in the store and continued to shoot,those armed folks would have saved lives.
As it is,they did no harm.The oft-repeated prediction that gun-totin public cowboys are irresponsible,untrained,and will just shoot up the store ala "The Wild Bunch" did not occur .
LOL, had the shooter stayed in the store, those armed folks would have saved lives? Well, for as long as he was in the store, they didn't bother to save any lives.

He walked into a GUNS ALLOWED ZONE where there were apparently several gun carriers present and not one of them did a single thing, not one stinking thing. Just how much longer did the gunman need to remain in the store before the good citizen gun carriers were going to start saving lives??????? How many more people did he need to kill before they reacted???????

I don't see how you can put a positive spin on how well they would have performed in saving lives when they didn't show any inclination to do anything like that at all while the opportunity to respond was occurring.

Definitely not a "Wild Bunch" as you note, but also definitely not the proclaimed pro gun crime deterrent mass shooting stopping hero types either. Pretty much, the armed people of Walmart were a NONFACTOR in this event, except to hinder the cops.

Quote:
Darlene Jackson, a truck driver, said she was in the toy section of the store when she heard the gunshots. She later heard that people other than the shooter had guns, but they did not confront the killer.

“Why wouldn’t they draw their guns and shoot him?” she said.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/02...mart-shooting/
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 12:01 PM   #6
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
And in "not so surprising" followup news: When my local paper (owned by the Boulder Camera) reprinted the Denver Post article sited by DNSpy, they retitled it to throw some shade at the CCW crowd. It's title? The scary:
Quote:
Panicked people, shoppers drawing guns created chaos, delayed investigation into Thornton Walmart shooting
When you read the actual article, though, it's apparent that:
1. No one seemed to know that anyone had drawn a gun until police saw it on camera. So the "chaos" can't be attributed to the CCW crowd.
2. None of the CCW citizens present ran about shooting wildly at all other CCW carriers as we've been told to expect by the media. (AKA: no "Blood in the streets")
3. The CCW crowd didn't act like the police officers that they weren't empowered to be. This was a disappointment to some who were not carrying....of course.

I'm an optimist:
I'd save this story as a rebuttal to all future talking points about "crazy self-appointed vigilantes with CCW weapons."
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 12:19 PM   #7
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
D47, the purpose of titles on articles is to get your attention. Apparently, it worked. LOL
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 12:37 PM   #8
Don Fischer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 1,868
I've though about being a a situation like that and Have come up with never expose my gun until I'm ready to shoot. To do so only let's the shooter know where danger is coming from. Actually with stories I've read about CC guns, I'm not sure it's a good idea to be involved like that in the first place. Take yourself and family to safety is you can. Avoid a gun fight, that's what the cops are for.
Don Fischer is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 03:56 PM   #9
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
The possibility exists that the gunman saw citizens drawing guns and that is what caused him to beat feet without doing more harm.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old November 3, 2017, 06:16 PM   #10
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
I think SOSD in post #2 pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I still believe that the anti-gun movement has found a new stick to beat us with...that concealed carry folk waste the time of police officers just by being there.
DaleA is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 10:15 AM   #11
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
I'd say you are seeing a definite messaging effort from the anti-gun side here.

Since the shooter left prior to police responding (because others were armed?), you can hardly say CCWs delayed police response. As for "delaying the investigation", they arrested the shooter five hours after the incident according to this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...police-or-not/

I'm sure it was confusing sorting out who was who; but I'm doubtful the confusion caused any significant delay to police. Which makes one wonder why this story is getting national coverage?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 02:47 PM   #12
Paul B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,795
"He walked into a GUNS ALLOWED ZONE where there were apparently several gun carriers present and not one of them did a single thing, not one stinking thing. Just how much longer did the gunman need to remain in the store before the good citizen gun carriers were going to start saving lives???????"

I kind of have to think that maybe they held back due to either not having a clear shot or a fear of hitting innocent bystanders close to the active shooter. It could be none of the CCW holders was even close enough to take a decent shot. We weren't there so really don't know exactly what was of was not possible.
Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
Paul B. is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 04:11 PM   #13
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
No Paul, we weren't there, but how many times have you seen posted on this site or others like it, "If only somebody had been there with a gun..."?

Well, there were several people there with several guns and none engaged the shooter. It is a salient observation.

There are no reports that any good guys with guns, threatened, drew on, or interacted with the shooter in any way. Nobody is being heralded as a hero for stopping the shooter in any form or fashion.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 04:22 PM   #14
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
Did you say NYTimes ? Do some research and you'll find that during the American Civil War the NYTimes bought gatling guns to protect their offices during the Draft Law Riots ! Times do change !
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver !
mete is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 04:23 PM   #15
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
I have been struck by the fact that armed intervention by off-duty/former LE seems to be more common than intervention by CCW holders without LE experience/backgrounds.

This does not make sense, from a pure numbers standpoint. In TX, for example, there are something like 60,000 LEOs. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the total number of off-duty LEOs and retired LEOs something like double that number. I'll use 150,000 as the number.

There are about a million license holders in TX. That's about a 6 or 7 to 1 advantage in pure numbers.

And yet when we see an armed citizen intervening in active shooting situations it seems that it's more common for them to be off duty/ex LE than for them to be a license holder without any LE background.

it seems that people without LE background/training are very unlikely to mount an armed intervention into an active shooting situation even if they're in place and armed.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 05:01 PM   #16
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
it seems that people without LE background/training are very unlikely to mount an armed intervention into an active shooting situation even if they're in place and armed.
My pure speculation: This may save more lives than it costs.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 07:49 PM   #17
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
It's hard to say one way or the other.

I've seen statistics indicating that citizens (as opposed to on-duty LEOs) tend to shoot the wrong person less often than responding LEOs. That is usually attributed to the fact that the citizen is more likely to have seen the situation develop from the ground up as opposed to being thrown into the middle of an existing situation as a responding LEO is.

Another factor which I should have mentioned in my previous post is that there are a lot of license holders who don't carry and that might get the two populations (armed citizens & off-duty/retired LEOs) much closer to each other, numerically speaking.

I'm certainly not trying to push people to respond if they wouldn't otherwise, nor am I impugning those folks who choose not to mount an armed intervention. It was just something interesting that I had noticed awhile back.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 09:00 PM   #18
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
I've never seen the statistics, but your entire post make perfect sense.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 09:40 PM   #19
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
I'm glad that whatever delay in the investigation there might have been didn't result in any harm or the suspect evading capture.

I can understand that the police might have wanted to view the camera footage carefully after the shooting but I would have thought that the shooter would have been pretty obvious. I'm not sure what the delay would have been in pursuing the shooter.

How, exactly, did people drawing their firearms delay police from pursuing the shooter? If the police delayed pursuing the shooter because they wanted to rule out accomplices, then they have flawed policy.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 4, 2017, 10:13 PM   #20
greenmtnguy
Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Posts: 37
CCW holders are under no legal obligation to protect others in our state. If I was in that store and was not nearby/directly threatened by the shooter, I wouldn't necessarily try to go into "SWAT" mode and try to take out the shooter amidst a crowd of shoppers without the liability protection of being a badged public safety officer. MY gun is primarily to keep me and my family safe. Anything beyond that is at my discretion and the circumstances. I suspect that the laws in Co are similar? I haven't seen the video, but the shooter may have just entered the store, fired at several people, and left again in a matter of seconds.

Last edited by greenmtnguy; November 4, 2017 at 10:20 PM.
greenmtnguy is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 01:34 AM   #21
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
Well, there were several people there with several guns and none engaged the shooter. It is a salient observation.

There are no reports that any good guys with guns, threatened, drew on, or interacted with the shooter in any way. Nobody is being heralded as a hero for stopping the shooter in any form or fashion.
WalMarts can be quite large - if someone is in Ladies Wear, shooting, and I'm in Automotive, I will be quite some distance away with a great deal of intervening items/shelving/etc. I won't be able to see him, hearing will be distorted, and I will be unsure of what exactly is going on - did someone drop a whole bunch of boxes from a powered lift?
Where was the shooter? How long was he in the store? Where were the armed citizens? Were any of them actually in a position to see the suspect? Did the armed citizens have families with them, people they are responsible for?

Last, this has been brought up by LOTS of people over the years, yes, CCW permit holders are armed, for DEFENSE. In many states that can stretch to defense of a third person, but there is not now nor has there ever been any legal requirement for a CCW permit holder TO intervene on anyone else's behalf, and many would hesitate in todays legal world. Off duty LEO, yes, absolutely, but the truck driver and the barber shopping in Sporting Goods, or the gas station clerk in Beauty Supplies, no. How often do we hear the advice, "if in a mass shooting, keep your family safe and exit if possible" They did exactly what was suggested as a logical course of action for years.
armoredman is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 01:58 AM   #22
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post

Another factor which I should have mentioned in my previous post is that there are a lot of license holders who don't carry and that might get the two populations (armed citizens & off-duty/retired LEOs) much closer to each other, numerically speaking.
this is the way I see it too, also that the off duty/retired LEO is more likely to have actual experience in similar situations to know when to respond while the armed citizen even with training is more likely going to be their first time and only going to respond if specifically confronted by the bad guy.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 07:18 AM   #23
Remington74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2012
Location: Carthage, NY
Posts: 231
I think armoredman hit the most probable reason for no armed intervention. The BG was in the front of the store, popped in, fired a few shots and left. WalMarts are big and unless the CC holder was checking out at the time they may probably have been far removed from the incident location. In this case they may have decided to shelter as best they can and wait for the BG to come in their location, if indeed the incident was to escalate further.
Remington74 is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 08:02 AM   #24
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNS
Well, there were several people there with several guns and none engaged the shooter. It is a salient observation.
Wel, isn’t that basically the textbook response? Hunker down and gather information while you defend yourself? I can’t see where moving through a Walmart trying to locate and identify the shooter is going to be a solid strategy in most cases. Which means unless the shooter walked into one of the armed people AND they were able to identify him as the shooter, there probably isn’t going to be an encounter.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 08:27 AM   #25
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Quote:
WalMarts can be quite large - if someone is in Ladies Wear, shooting, and I'm in Automotive, I will be quite some distance away with a great deal of intervening items/shelving/etc. I won't be able to see him, hearing will be distorted, and I will be unsure of what exactly is going on - did someone drop a whole bunch of boxes from a powered lift?
Where was the shooter? How long was he in the store? Where were the armed citizens? Were any of them actually in a position to see the suspect? Did the armed citizens have families with them, people they are responsible for?
Right, but the argument offered was that said armed shoppers might have scared away the gunman, hence precluding him from doing further harm. After all, they must have been close enough to the gunman that he noticed them apparently pointing their guns at him while he was engaged with murdering people, hence he ran away. It wasn't somebody over in Automotive or over in the changing rooms that pulled his gun and scared away the gunman at the front of the store, right?

So if we are going to grasp for a shining light that CCW folks were in Wal-Mart and actually did something to change the dynamics of the situation without actually verbally, physically, or ballistically challenging the shooter (none of which have been reported), despite the problems you noted, then there should be some evidence to support it, but there isn't at this time.

Quote:
Last, this has been brought up by LOTS of people over the years, yes, CCW permit holders are armed, for DEFENSE. In many states that can stretch to defense of a third person, but there is not now nor has there ever been any legal requirement for a CCW permit holder TO intervene on anyone else's behalf, and many would hesitate in todays legal world. Off duty LEO, yes, absolutely, but the truck driver and the barber shopping in Sporting Goods, or the gas station clerk in Beauty Supplies, no. How often do we hear the advice, "if in a mass shooting, keep your family safe and exit if possible" They did exactly what was suggested as a logical course of action for years.
Hmm, most CCW permit holders are NOT armed. That is one of the shortcomings of claiming CCW permit holders are going to stop a lot of crime, not that there are even more than a few percent of permit holders in the first place.

I don't know of a single state in the US where laws must be stretched to include defense of a 3rd person. It is legal in all 50 states, no stretching involved.

Maybe folks did do "exactly right" and retreated to safety as you say and didn't engage the shooter in any form or fashion. After all, it was not reported that any did. So then the argument that he saw the guns of CCW folks and left because of it seems far-fetched, and maybe for the reasons you suggest.

The argument has been made many times..."If only somebody was there with a gun, the gunman might have been stopped." After all, "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, they were there and no evidence is reported that they stopped him with their guns.

I am not chastising the CCW people for not stopping the shooter. Where and how a CCW person decides to act is a very personal decision that is dependent on the circumstances of the situation and no two situations are going to be the same. They should do what they feel is appropriate for their safety.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; November 6, 2017 at 08:33 AM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12618 seconds with 8 queries