Distance shooting is a necessary task to sharpen.

[SIGSHR]

In my Army days I recall something called "overtraining"-prepare for the absolute worst case. In August 1979 I went through TOW trainers school at Fort Benning, we were told the practice targets were considerably smaller so if we learned to hit them, the real thing would be much easier.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I love that. Over-training, over-built, over-engineered, etc.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here’s a conversation I feel we should be having; but, nobody wants to have because it can be fairly perceived as criticism of a heroic action. Our protagonist here was a firearms instructor from 1995-2016. He was a reserve police officer, which requires him to meet the same minimum standards as any other peace officer in the state of Texas, plus whatever the requirements of his local agency are.

That draw was, at best, four seconds from open carry. Maybe even six seconds. All of us who work with a timer know that is a long, long time from the beep. Entire strings of shooting involving six separate targets and a draw from concealment can be over in that time - WHEN WE EXPECT IT.

What we are seeing here is the additional processing time added to the OODA loop of a trained shooter when you aren’t sitting there waiting for the buzzer. This is the big thing I’ve been seeing over and over again. People hear a gunshot. They are shooters and they know what a gunshot sounds like but they have trouble identifying it because it is outside the environment they expect to hear that sound in. Even with all the training to work with, their expectations dictate their response.

Meanwhile, cops who have, at best, adequate training, and aren’t gun people, frequently respond better because they have an expectation that things can go south anywhere and anytime.

Cooper talked a great deal about his color codes; but in my experience the biggest problem in situational awareness is believing that you are in a situation that occurs rarely for most people. Lots of people notice details AFTER the fact. To the extent people notice them before the fact, it is because they believe they can be murdered while worshipping in their church at a base level.

And that’s not to denigrate Mr. Wilson. If anything, he and Mr. White displayed an amazing ability to shift expectations. Look at the response time in the congregation. Wilson and White were way ahead of that - and the congregation was not shabby. Multiple congregants went from Christmas season worship with the family to guns out closing on the threat in around ten seconds?

So how do we reasonably shorten crossing that expectation barrier? Because that’s a better advantage than a Jerry Miculek draw.

[Nanuk]

So how do we reasonably shorten crossing that expectation barrier?

Training. They had also been watching this guy the entire service, perhaps, he was condition red fatigued?

That is where the experience and the training come together. I know a bit of Granbury, TX where Mr Wilson is from, a fairly sleepy small town. He may have been a reserve deputy 30 years ago, but he may not have had the decades of experience that a retired cop gets.

[Tactical Jackalope]

First off, Bartholomew. Great post! I agree with it in it's entirety.

Nanuk

They had also been watching this guy the entire service, perhaps, he was condition red fatigued?

That's exactly it. They've been in condition yellow, orange, and red with this guy before as J. Wilson has said. It's not the first time seeing and or dealing with him. This time, they were all on that side of the church because he was exceptionally weird on this day with the fake beard and such.

I've been called "dramatic" by a few un-trained people when I'd worked in gun shops or even just security for having my firearm already ready and out of their (POI) sight for a "just in case" moment. I can share an example of my instances, but it won't add to the conversation and it might derail it a bit. I like where this is going.

Now, on that note. I don't see how one would apply that in this setting. If I'm one of the unarmed or even armed church-goer and I saw someone next to me quietly remove their weapon from their holster, I know I would stay still or try to quietly leave with haste. If I was also armed, I'd signal or tap them and you know...How you can ask with your face "what's going on?"

But who else would see that and become uneasy and flee or gasp? So I don't know where or how they could have prepared in any other way other than having a much faster draw aside from being able to hide oneself the way I have in the past and draw at the ready.

In some parts of this nation, that's also illegal. But if open carry is legal and you draw but don't point what they? (genuinely curious)

At any rate... Good discussion. I really wish it didn't have to happen where two innocents were killed.

[jwamplerusa]

If this has been discussed previously, excuse the redundancy.

One environmental aspect which I haven't seen discussed is the auditory aspects of the event. Just as with a flash bang, there is going to be a sensory overload when the assailant touches off a shotgun feet away from you pointed in your general direction, and with no ear pro on and in an enclosed space.

The stun factor alone, may well have extended the armed citizens reaction time.

Frankly, considering the blast effects with all the other factors at play I'm surprised the OODA loop response time was not longer. I don't believe I could have done as well under the circumstances on my best day.

[FireForged]

I do not see this as having anything to do with a "expectation barrier". This is simply a mental processing issue regarding the speed in which a person realizes what is happening, deciding what they need to do first and how to put that into motion. It also likely has to do with coming to terms with a decision to use deadly force and the weighing of risk to others as well as self. It doesn't matter what your expectations were.. nobody expects to be in a gunfight. If they did, they would likely already have their weapon in hand. Expectations are irrelevant when you consider that the man is wearing a gun and is part of a security team. He obviously accepts that things may not always go as desired.

People need to remember that shooting target on a range or in a gun game is essentially skills in a bubble. life does not hang in the balance, people are not in danger of being harmed by your actions or inaction, there are no real consequences and nobody is shooting back. Gun games are not fighting and its not preparation for fighting. Its a timed tango which involves a gun.

I have plenty of criticisms regarding this event but I am not all tore up that he took 4 or 5 seconds to get a shot off.

In a circumstance like this, what you do first is going to be very critical.. left, right, kneel, prone, move to cover, one shot, 5 shots, shoot on the move, stand and deliver, flank the badguy, go straight in, retreat to a better position.. the list goes on and on. I don't give a flip that he took 5 seconds.

My criticism narrowly has to do with why he was not challenged much earlier.


… as far as what can speed the process up? practical experience dealing with danger and associated crisis, training within the proper context as well as other scenario driven methods to inoculate or insulate a person from customary stress responses while introducing customary tactics in regards to specific type of conditions. The goal being to think clearly, respond in a controlled manner while having the appropriate knowledge base to make competent and effective decisions.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

My criticism narrowly has to do with why he was not challenged much earlier.

Challenged for doing ... what? It was a Sunday worship service. Other than looking strange, what had he done that would justify a "challenge"?

[FireForged]

Challenged for doing ... what? It was a Sunday worship service. Other than looking strange, what had he done that would justify a "challenge"?

I will use the word [ if ] simply because I have no idea if what is being said on the internet is true or not.

[if] a man wearing a seemingly heavy coat, hood and fake beard in near 60 degree weather while concealing a (large cumbersome object) shotgun under said coat -was not setting off alarm bells with a "team" in place.. I simply find that odd. There certainly could be a reasonable explanation but as I said, I do not know much in the way of "details" regarding this incident. It just seems odd to me.

I don't care how squared away a person might be, moving around with a shotgun under your jacket is not really something hard to detect if someone is intentionally assessing someone for the potential of carrying a weapon.

I am simply a strong proponent of proactive measures as apposed to reactive measures. I admit that we do not live in a perfect world and sometime bad things will happen in spite of our best efforts.

I am not pointing a finger or casting blame on anyone but the badguy. If we are to discuss and examine this incident for the purposes of perhaps preventing something similar in the future, I simply have some questions in regards to how he was allowed to enter the sanctuary and why there does not seem to be anyone "on him".

I have no criticisms for what happened after he began his attack. I think the team member who took the first shot did very well ( all things considered).

[USNRet93]

[if] a man wearing a seemingly heavy coat, hood and fake beard in near 60 degree weather while concealing a (large cumbersome object) shotgun under said coat -was not setting off alarm bells with a "team" in place.. I simply find that odd. There certainly could be a reasonable explanation but as I said, I do not know much in the way of "details" regarding this incident. It just seems odd to me.

Easy to monday morning quarterback..but maybe Wilson unholsters his gun and holds it under his suitcoat..
I mean, the security team is there for security, not the sunday service. If the guy with coat, beard was NOT any threat, then re-holster the HG..IMHO.

[Nanuk]

Challenged for doing ... what? It was a Sunday worship service. Other than looking strange, what had he done that would justify a "challenge"?

Wearing a fake beard/wig, wearing a long coat. It is what in LE we call a suspicious person. It may turn out to be nothing but........

Maybe challenge is the wrong word, maybe investigate, talk to him. He was also known, but not as a regular church member. All of those articulable facts give you enough suspicion to warrant a conversation.

The other option they did, wait and see. We see how that turned out.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Wearing a fake beard/wig, wearing a long coat. It is what in LE we call a suspicious person. It may turn out to be nothing but........

Maybe challenge is the wrong word, maybe investigate, talk to him. He was also known, but not as a regular church member. All of those articulable facts give you enough suspicion to warrant a conversation.

The other option they did, wait and see. We see how that turned out.

Challenging him may also have resulted in a shooting. He was there with a shotgun concealed under a coat. I'm not sure how well talking him down would have gone across, though it may have worked. One question would be if they did confront him earlier where would they do it. If they did do it at the entrance while people were filing in for service there could easily be collateral damage to parishioners. I'm not saying it couldn't have gone better, I just don't think it's a given.

Part of this may also be a conflict between a security posture and the mission of most churches. Churches generally want to be viewed as welcoming. Now this church did have armed guards, but maybe they felt turning away people at the door that looked suspicious wasn't in keeping with their mission. Of course now that mentality might change.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

Easy to monday morning quarterback..but maybe Wilson unholsters his gun and holds it under his suitcoat..I mean, the security team is there for security, not the sunday service. If the guy with coat, beard was NOT any threat, then re-holster the HG..IMHO.

You are correct, it is easy to MMQB but that is exactly how technical evaluations of tactics and methods are born. Its how change occurs, mindsets change and adaptive training is developed. It all comes from MMQB.

Maybe challenge is the wrong word, maybe investigate, talk to him. He was also known, but not as a regular church member. All of those articulable facts give you enough suspicion to warrant a conversation.

When I say "challenge" I simply mean that you do not permit the person access or entry until you assess the individual, their intentions and whether or not you feel it is proper to allow them into the protected space. The whole point is that you qualify your disqualify whatever trepidation you have regarding the person, persons or developing circumstance. You do that via contact, close observation and at least a cursory investigation. It can take seconds, minutes or long moments; depending on how things unfold. Generally you err on the side of caution and deny access if you are unable to reasonably satisfy your concern. Of course if you qualify your concerned during the process, you respond accordingly. You should not conduct these actions alone.

The other option they did, wait and see. We see how that turned out.

True, that is always an option but I don't really call that "security". Security is generally a culmination of many things, not just a reactive component.

Challenging him may also have resulted in a shooting

sure it's certainly possible.. but conventional wisdom suggests that allowing the plan to hatch is not always the best thing to do. Disrupting the mission is generally less damaging vs allowing the badguy to carry out his plan according to design and cadence. These things are not without danger and should probably not be formally undertaken without plenty of experienced forethought. I am speaking broadly of course and not about this incident specifically or anyone involved.

If they did do it at the entrance while people were filing in for service there could easily be collateral damage to parishioners.

I would much rather answer for why I took some sort of protective action as soon as I suspected a threat vs trying to explain why I let a suspected potential threat enter the protected space unchallenged. When I say "take action", I am simply referring to delaying a persons entry and checking them out. A person may also want to consider that the [one] individual you encounter may be part of a larger threat. Perhaps stopping or delaying him may substantially hinder a larger more destructive plan. Allowing him to enter and perhaps act in concert with other bad actors, could be much worse. It should go without saying that we are talking about circumstance were it is reasonable to suspect bad happenings are afoot.

One question would be if they did confront him earlier where would they do it

every venue is unique and the methods for securing/protecting any event or structure should be reflective of such uniqueness. Still, in spite of planning you may still be forced to improvise if unwelcomed conditions suddenly materialize( which is often the case). A good rule of thumb is to challenge a potential problem as far away from the protected as possible. Using the idea of a "check-point", you should probably not conduct security screening 10 feet away from the people you intend to protect. Any purposeful activity which bears the likelihood of uncovering bad deeds or evil intent is a rather likely place for hostile action to erupt.

Part of this may also be a conflict between a security posture and the mission of most churches

this is often a challenge no matter if its a church, school or private business. People simply must decide of they want protection or not. It can often become "appearance" vs "substance".

[USNRet93]

Part of this may also be a conflict between a security posture and the mission of most churches
this is often a challenge no matter if its a church, school or private business. People simply must decide if they want protection or not. It can often become "appearance" vs "substance".

Particularly, like this church', the 'security' were people around that were armed via CCW. NOT outward, open carry, type security. I wonder how many church goers actually KNEW the guys at the LH side were armed security. Kinda like sky marshalls(do they still have that?)...

[Don Fischer]

Love it!

[hank327]

After watching the video numerous times, I wonder about the value of having a second, smaller gun. For instance, what if Mr. White, the first man shot, had had a J frame S&W in his pocket. According to reports, he was suspicious of the shooter and watching him. He could have had the S&W in his hand in his pocket while watching the shooter with no one being the wiser. He was quite close to the shooter and could have had the Smith out and in action within a second or so instead of the 4 or so seconds it took him to stand and draw his holstered pistol.

With a gun already in hand, he could probably have stopped the shooter and saved his own life. However as has been mentioned, was he thinking, “this isn’t real, this can’t be happening here!”

[TunnelRat]

Drawing from a pocket while seated might not be necessarily easy, depending on your pockets (depending on your pockets it might not be overly easy to even get your hand in a leg pocket). I'm admittedly not a big fan of pocket carry.

One option in this event was drawing while he was still seated. Standing, showing yourself to be a threat or at the very least elevating yourself on the list of targets while not being in a position to defend yourself isn't perhaps the best idea tactically. Certainly someone can make the argument that he drew fire from others. Being able to at least access your firearm while seated so that when you stand you're completing the draw rather than starting it is a reasonable goal I think.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[shurshot]

Good points... Action beats reaction.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

When I say "challenge" I simply mean that you do not permit the person access or entry until you assess the individual, their intentions and whether or not you feel it is proper to allow them into the protected space. The whole point is that you qualify your disqualify whatever trepidation you have regarding the person, persons or developing circumstance. You do that via contact, close observation and at least a cursory investigation. It can take seconds, minutes or long moments; depending on how things unfold. Generally you err on the side of caution and deny access if you are unable to reasonably satisfy your concern. Of course if you qualify your concerned during the process, you respond accordingly. You should not conduct these actions alone.

...

I would much rather answer for why I took some sort of protective action as soon as I suspected a threat vs trying to explain why I let a suspected potential threat enter the protected space unchallenged. When I say "take action", I am simply referring to delaying a persons entry and checking them out. A person may also want to consider that the [one] individual you encounter may be part of a larger threat. Perhaps stopping or delaying him may substantially hinder a larger more destructive plan. Allowing him to enter and perhaps act in concert with other bad actors, could be much worse. It should go without saying that we are talking about circumstance were it is reasonable to suspect bad happenings are afoot.

I've been pondering on this. I finally concluded that it's a Sophie's choice kind of thing -- there is no good solution.

I assume this church, like most, has a lobby or vestibule, and that during the time when people are arriving this space is crowded, with a lot of people milling around. We don't know if this bad actor arrived with the other congregants or if he came in late (or, if someone knows, I haven't seen it reported) but let's assume he arrived with the others. So the hawkeyed security team spots him as a potential threat and "challenges" him there in the lobby -- in the midst of a throng of people.

What is he likely to do if challenged, or if told he can't enter? My guess is that he would just pull out the shotgun and start shooting. So now, instead of a couple of shotgun blasts aimed at specific individuals with a wall as the backdrop, you have a shooter blasting away at targets of opportunity and the security team engaging in a crossfire with a crowd of people as the backdrop. Tat IMHO is a recipe for disaster.

It certainly sounds like a great idea to just not allow the threat to enter. The problem in the real world is: how do you prevent that without precipitating the event you hope to prevent?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by FireForger

To be fair, we should probably reflect on those type of criticism within the proper context.

I think that the people shown in the NYT photo were NOT part of the Security Team but rather other parishioners (whom the Security Team may or may not have known) who were just carrying that day. One parishioner interviewed said she did not realize so many in the church carried. My point is even in chaotic situations normal everyday CHL folk do not just start shooting everyone they see with a gun. I don't believe people have a natural tendency to just shoot others. I've observed this in combat where soldiers take a while to shoot back when they are clearly engaged in combat. Look how long it took the security team to respond when they knew beforehand the guy was squirrely and didn't draw their guns (although maybe they should have). No, it is an anti red herring that folks who carry will just shoot each other in a bad situation. As to the cops, that might be different but they too are trained not just to shoot someone holding a gun.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I've been pondering on this. I finally concluded that it's a Sophie's choice kind of thing -- there is no good solution.

I disagree. I think there are ways to approach folks at the ready and interview them for lunacy. In the testimony I heard, they spotted this guy in the parking lot and worried about him. Maybe once he is Id'ed a member of the security team (who should not be wearing identifying stuff or open carrying) calmly follow and sit behind said squirrel with his hand on his/her gun out of sight. I've always maintained that surprise in DGU situations is the best. The last thing a bad guy should remember as he pulls his gun is bang and then wonder where that came from. Might require more training but not too hard.

[TunnelRat]

So at what point does the person sitting behind the shooter, whose line of sight will be blocked by the shooter himself, decide to apply the coup de grace? Simply standing isn't enough to warrant an execution, imo, and being behind the shooter will limit what the security person can see. Sitting behind also assumes that in front of the potential shooter is clear. It may not be. I also think that in the scenario you outline calling the police needs to be a step.

I expressed concerns similar to Aguila earlier above. As I said there, I'm not saying confronting the shooter earlier is a bad idea, I am saying it's not a guarantee of a good outcome, as was seemingly suggested in the comment I was replying to above. I think some thought has to be given into how that confrontation is performed, similar to what a few here have done.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[peterg7]

You can’t go hands on without a reason, being an odd duck in church ain’t a reason.

Should he be “allowed” into sanctuary? I think not but depends on the team’s training and tactics.

While you can’t assault you can crowd and herd with team members, close up without contact would also mitigate risk to the sheep if he does pull his gun.

While security was “on” him by allowing him to stand and create space sealed the deal that a gunfight was going to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

So at what point does the person sitting behind the shooter, whose line of sight will be blocked by the shooter himself, decide to apply the coup de grace?

When he pulls his shotgun out which you could see outside of his line of sight. Remember that is what allowed Mr. Wilson time to draw and shoot. He was outside of the shooters LOS.

Originally Posted by peterg7

You can’t go hands on without a reason, being an odd duck in church ain’t a reason.

You can go hands on whenever you wish. Being an odd duck in church (like this dude) is VERY ample reason. If he does nothing, no one is the wiser.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

You can go hands on whenever you wish. Being an odd duck in church (like this dude) is VERY ample reason. If he does nothing, no one is the wiser.

No, you can't go hands on whenever you wish. If you go hands on because someone is wearing a long coat and a fake beard, be prepared to be charged with assault. As peterg7 wrote, "You can’t go hands on without a reason, being an odd duck in church ain’t a reason."