Distance shooting is a necessary task to sharpen.

[JohnKSa]

He was a reserve deputy sheriff from 1980-86. IMHO calling him ex-LEO is a stretch.

How is it a stretch when it's the truth?

He was a reserve deputy sheriff. Why not just stick with the facts?

Also, I think he was a LOT closer than the video shows.

I think he was exactly as close as the video shows--that's how video works.

Wilson takes 8 steps to get from where he fired to the point where White fell. Average stride length for an adult male is 2.5 feet. It's safe to say he was 6 or 7 yards from White when he fired.

Wilson took 12 steps to get from his firing position to the end of the last pew. That would be 9 or 10 yards and then figure another 2 feet or so to the wall.

The shooter fell against the wall, a little bit more than 5 pews forward from where Wilson stops after taking his 12 steps. Normal pew spacing is 36 inches--1 yard per pew. So the shooter was a little more than 5 yards forward of the back of the rear pew when the shot was fired.

Making some assumptions, we can calculate the straight line distance from Wilson to the shooter at the time the shot was fired. It works out to between 11 and 12 yards.

My earlier estimate was 11.5 to 17.4 yards, but the upper end of that range is based heavily on the assumption that Wilson and the shooter were about the same height. If the shooter is significantly shorter than Wilson, the lower number would be closer to the actual value.

Anyway, while it's hard to settle on an exact number, at this point I feel pretty confident in saying that they were at least 11 yards apart.

I think he is a firearms (CHL, NRA) trainer but I think it's important to not up play his former status as the antis will say "See, only highly trained LEOs can do this".

He was also certified as an LE trainer by the state of TX. Personally, I think we should just let the facts speak for themselves as opposed to trying to "spin" this to make it fit some narrative a little better. After all, we criticize the antis for spinning things to fit their narrative. Aren't we better than that?

Something else to consider, if we really need to spin the facts to make our case, then maybe our case isn't really that strong.

[Brit]

It seems fairly safe to say, person with a pistol (A good Guy) shot a bad guy, who killed two, with a short shotgun. In the head with his pistol. Whilst being in church, in a position of protection. As part of a group. That was the end of that murderous attack.

It shows me, like always, the first hurried report? Was somewhat (Hurried) but non of the facts are anything but good. Within 6 seconds or so, the bad guy was taken out of action, by a pistol bullet to the head. And an organised group had been placed as armed Security, prior to this murderous attack. Great. I hope more vulnerable places of worship copy this self-same system, it worked.

[rodfac]

Kudos to the guy who took the bad guy out...it was a great shot, taken under stress and with enormous consequences if he'd not been there to help. Some lessons to be learned from this incident: carry position, practice for real world situations...in this case a crowded church...distance shooting beyond the normal SD distances with a gun that's capable of that kind of accuracy...and, for that hellofa man, a mind-set that of, "not on my watch". Rod

[FireForged]

Some lessons to be learned from this incident: carry position, practice for real world situations...in this case a crowded church...distance shooting beyond the normal SD distances with a gun that's capable of that kind of accuracy.

this is your lessons learned?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

They gave (or offered) him food but not money.

Right. I mistyped. They gave him food but when they wouldn't give him money for his drug habit he got mad. I think that was a big part of his motive. That and he's crazy.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

How is it a stretch when it's the truth? He was a reserve deputy sheriff. Why not just stick with the facts?

A guy who was a reserve cop over thirty years ago. I think it's misleading by the press to call him ex-LEO. Kind of like calling an Army clerk/typist a hardened combat vet. IMHO.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I think he was exactly as close as the video shows--that's how video works.

Well, true. I should have said a lot closer than YOU thought he was. Also, I watched and counted the steps and it looked to be like he wasn't taking long but rather short choppy steps. Plus he said in one interview he was 12 ft away and in another 15ft. More like 3-5 yards. As you correctly pointed out earlier the distance can't well be measured looking at just the video. Maybe more will come out later?

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Something else to consider, if we really need to spin the facts to make our case, then maybe our case isn't really that strong.

I'm not spinning anything. Antis try to always up play the training and experience of guys like Wilson to convince the ignorant public that only highly trained SWAT types can successfully defend themselves and others. This was not true in this case. First it was reported he was ex-FBI. False. Then it was reported he was former LEO. Not really IMHO. He was a regular guy who had some skills and some certifications (BTW, I don't know about Texas but in good ole TN the bar is quite low for CHL instructors as most of the class is law related). Jack said it well himself in one interview. Most people could do this with some training and practice and they don't have to be a tacticool ninjas to do so. That is my only point. We'll just have to disagree about it perhaps but that's fine.

Another myth exploded was that in these types of shootings having lots of people with guns could result in fratricide. After Wilson got the BG all kinds of people came out of the woodwork with pistols and no one innocent was shot. Another anti-gun myth busted.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

A guy who was a reserve cop over thirty years ago. I think it's misleading by the press to call him ex-LEO. Kind of like calling an Army clerk/typist a hardened combat vet. IMHO.

IMHO it depends on what the role of a "reserve" deputy sheriff is. My late cousin was a reserve deputy in Arizona. He wore the same uniform, held the same P.O.S.T. certification, performed the same duties, and had all the same authority and powers of arrest as the regular deputies. The only difference was that he wasn't paid the same, he didn't get any benefits, and he didn't work a 40 hour week.

On the other hand, my former sister-in-law was an "auxiliary" state police officer in my home state. The auxiliary troopers wear the same uniform but the shoulder patch is slightly different (but close enough that you have to know about it to spot the difference), but they aren't P.O.S.T. certified, don't have powers of arrest, and don't carry duty weapons. They are used for secondary tasks such as directing traffic at accident scenes and special events, in order to free up the regular troopers to continue performing law enforcement-related functions.

Assuming that a Texas reserve deputy sheriff is like the Arizona reserve deputies, if someone has performed that role for six years I don't think it's a stretch or incorrect to refer to him as a former LEO.

There's a small gun shop near me, run by two former cops. They were both on the force of a nearby town, but one quite the force after six or eight years and went into another line of work. The other put in his 20 or 25 years and retired with a pension. As far as I (and any of their regular customers I've gotten to know) am concerned, they are both former (or "ex-") police officers.

I'm a Vietnam veteran. Once my enlistment was done, I chose to come home rather than not to reenlist. Does that make me NOT ex-military?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

IMHO it depends on what the role of a "reserve" deputy sheriff is.

I've had several friends who were Reserve City Police and Deputies and they mostly didn't do much but were around if needed. Training was sparse (but hell some small police forces have next to none training but that's another story). Calling them ex-LEOs may be technically correct but IMHO disingenuous.

It's a matter of context. The clerk/typist is ex-military and might have spent 30 days in a combat zone in the rear. Is that the same as the grunt who patrolled outside the wire for a year? Of course not. My point is that the antis try to up play the training and ex-LEO/Military DGU participants to justify not allowing regular joes to carry. I think you know what I'm talking about and so I won't comment further on it. You may have the last word.

I think this incident busts a lot of myths that antis use to oppose legal carry and that is why I think it is a good defense of our position here.

BTW, I saw a picture in the NYT that showed SEVEN parishioners (probably more as this is Texas) who had handguns drawn after the shooting. Antis say we dummies will shoot ourselves in that scenario which makes me laugh. What this also tells me is that church would not have suffered like the Sutherland Springs affair with over 20 killed and many more wounded. NOBODY was armed there. My last rant here is that ORDINARY people (not ninjas, SWAT or Delta) can and do defend themselves against crazy bad guys with guns IF they can be armed.

[J.G. Terry]

The real issue here is how the news media screws stuff up getting into real time in their reports.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I've had several friends who were Reserve City Police and Deputies and they mostly didn't do much but were around if needed. Training was sparse (but hell some small police forces have next to none training but that's another story). Calling them ex-LEOs may be technically correct but IMHO disingenuous.

As I wrote, it depends on what role "reserve" deputies play in the jurisdiction. Your friends didn't do much. My cousin was a real cop. Please avoid falling into the trap of generalizing every situation based on the one or few that you have second-hand knowledge of.

[JohnKSa]

A guy who was a reserve cop over thirty years ago. I think it's misleading by the press to call him ex-LEO. Kind of like calling an Army clerk/typist a hardened combat vet. IMHO.

It would be misleading to call an army clerk a hardened combat vet, but it would be accurate to call him a veteran. Similarly, it's accurate to call Wilson an ex-LEO, particularly if (as all the coverage I've seen does) they note that he was a reserve deputy.

I should have said a lot closer than YOU thought he was.

Well, I've picked it apart using two different methods and they both come out pretty close to each other in terms of the bottom end. Having run both methods, I think it's safe to say he was at least 10-12 yards away from the shooter when he fired. I wouldn't say that's a really long shot, but under stress, hitting a moving target the size of a human head at that distance on the first try isn't bad shooting at all.

...in good ole TN the bar is quite low for CHL instructors as most of the class is law related..

Wilson actually has several training certifications (at least 3), only one of which is CHL trainer.

I'm not spinning anything.

I think we should let the facts speak for themselves.

For example, he was an ex-LEO--we shouldn't try to explain why he wasn't really ever an LEO. It's too easy for people to prove us wrong.

For example, the shot was at least 10 yards. There's no need to try to make it seem like he was closer to the shooter than he was.

For example, he clearly had more training than the average permit holder. If we try to pretend he didn't, we are trying to spin the facts to fit an agenda and in a way that's pretty easy to detect and attack.

All of that opens us to criticism. We can take a situation that actually supports carry and weaken it by trying too hard to spin the facts in an attempt to make it stronger. Just accept the facts, accept that the circumstances are not exactly perfect for supporting citizen carry rather than trying to apply spin in a manner that is easily detected and attacked.

[Brit]

The facts can be seen on video. Man with a gun, an accurate pistol.
Took a shooting stance, fired one shot, that struck the shotgun armed nut case.

IN THE HEAD.

It is good for we gun-carrying people to discuss this. The shooters LEO status, or not. He owned a range till 2016. Good stuff. But the facts are not to be in any way argued against, one shot one kill. And in Texas this was legal.

I just hope that other jurisdictions follow this armed security model.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Brit

The facts can be seen on video. Man with a gun, an accurate pistol.
Took a shooting stance, fired one shot, that struck the shotgun armed nut case.

IN THE HEAD.

It is good for we gun-carrying people to discuss this. The shooters LEO status, or not. He owned a range till 2016. Good stuff. But the facts are not to be in any way argued against, one shot one kill. And in Texas this was legal.

I just hope that other jurisdictions follow this armed security model.

As I mentioned, regardless of the various discussion points, who the guy was and his training...etc..
Soft targets need protection.
If your have a CCWP, you 'ought' to carry..as the guy said, 'every place it's legal'...I know I do.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I wonder if he cocked the hammer of his P229 before taking the shot or if he took it in double action...

:shrug:
:hides behind couch:

[Brit]

Originally Posted by Tactical Jackalope

I wonder if he cocked the hammer of his P229 before taking the shot or if he took it in double action...

:shrug:
:hides behind couch:

If I had that self-same Sig. I would have cocked it to obtain that great single-action Sig trigger. But I only carry Glocks.

[Tactical Jackalope]

If I had that self-same Sig. I would have cocked it to obtain that great single-action Sig trigger. But I only carry Glocks.

That's what I'm saying! lol, also one of the benefits to striker-fired over hammer in DA/SA. You don't have to take that extra step. My HK P30L and Glock 17 must get into fist fights when I'm not looking.

[Nanuk]

As I wrote, it depends on what role "reserve" deputies play in the jurisdiction. Your friends didn't do much. My cousin was a real cop. Please avoid falling into the trap of generalizing every situation based on the one or few that you have second-hand knowledge of.

I was a cop in Ft Worth, TX in the 1980's. Our reserve cops worked with us, did the same stuff we did, had the same qualifications we did, just not the same academy and they did not get paid.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

As mentioned before, I think it is noteworthy to say that a large number of the parishioners were carrying. In a NYT oped a picture showed at least 7 had handguns drawn right after the shooting.

Antis often like to say that in these type of shooting situations that regular CHL holders will shoot each other cause of confusion and not knowing who the BG is. Even when the police responded, no fratricide. This should not be overlooked! A great talking point in future conversations. I think it's fair to say that had Jack Wilson missed the BG might have still been brought down by others who were armed. So, many were carrying that day (good) and none shot each other (better).

[FireForged]

Antis often like to say that in these type of shooting situations that regular CHL holders will shoot each other cause of confusion and not knowing who the BG is

To be fair, we should probably reflect on those type of criticism within the proper context. I don't think people have suggested that within small team tactics, people are likely going to suffer friendly fire. What is typically said is that a person running around with a gun can very easily be misconstrued as the badguy when LEO or other armed members of the public (at large) respond to a shots fired MWG call.

An unknown person with a visible gun is exactly that (UNKNOWN). Common sense demands that you at least consider that this unknown person with a gun may in fact be the BADGUY. The more unknown people running around with guns, the more potential for confusion, misidentification and wasted critical time. Goodguys have been fired upon and some actually shot when mistaken for the badguy.

None of that has much to do with a church security team who undoubtedly know one another. The primary risk of FF in this type of circumstance will be a goodguy who is not paying attention to their background and other team members (suffering from acute tunnel vision) who are not considering likely angles of incoming fire.

[kenny53]

After reading the start of this thread I thought about shooting at 25 yards. I didn't like any of my thoughts. Went to the range today and was shooting really good at 5-7+ yards. I ran a little man sized target out to 25 yards. Shooting both 9mm and 45 acp I put holes in the target. It was no where near a good group but it would have hurt a bad guy if needed.

[FireForged]

Good observation Kenny

I am perplexed at how some people tend to think that if you train according to conventional wisdom ( 25-33 yards) you are somehow unable or incapable of making an effective shot beyond that imaginary barrier.

I can only speculate that plenty of well intending people are simply confusing combat imperatives with target shooting imperatives.

I once heard an instructor say "if your desired skill is to shoot a jelly bean off a golf tee, this aint the class for you". He was right, none of use where there to learn about tight groups and the class had nothing to do with that. I believe that some people who strive to shoot a quarter size hole out of a target are somehow using that standard to gauge their overall fighting ability.

[TunnelRat]

In shooting there's generally a balance between speed and accuracy. Most firefights won't involve the time for a proper bullseye course of fire, nor do you likely need all hits in the 10 ring to have an effect. At the same time most of us acknowledge that handguns are poor "man stoppers". Getting hits at 25 yds is one thing. Getting effective hits at 25 yds may well be another. The same logic apples at much closer distance. Kenny's post seems, to me, to be aware of this. There's a lot of gray area between shooting a bean off of a golf tee and just getting hits on the paper. While being the best shot is certainly no guarantee of a win, I've seen a lot of people at ranges shrug off poor marksmanship with the remark of, "Well they all hit", while at the same time not being particularly quick either (and this is without the stress of a two way range). Now maybe they'll be extremely cool under fire and it won't matter. But making excuses is something humans excel at.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

I am not a fence sitter.. if the assertion is that it is necessary to train beyond the conventional 25 yards (with a handgun), I will politely disagree. When one says "distance" shooting, I am assuming that being something generously beyond 25 yards. Can citizen self defense involve shooting beyond 25 yards?..sure. Do I think training beyond 25 yards is necessary? Nope, and I feel that way for all the reasons I have already expressed in this thread.

A handgun is a rather low power and minimalistic weapon which is generally used in rather close quarters(Close being contact to 25 yards). I am a proponent of training within those parameters and in a manner which is conductive to addressing most historically common (non-military) related combat situations.

To those who want to put a lot of effort into shooting 40 50 60 yards with a pistol.. fine, I wont try to talk anyone out of it. If you want to test those skills vs practical combat, participate in force on force where the only thing that matters is overcoming your training adversary. Nobody is measuring how fast you draw or the size of your groups and nobody will marvel at the distance you made a shot. All they care about is who gets hit and who doesn't. Its as close to real fighting as most people will ever get and I have never seen a single person take a "distance" shot ( with a handgun) in any fast moving force on force scenario.

[TunnelRat]

I don't see how I called you a fence sitter, nor do I believe anything I said fits the definition of a fence sitter. YMMV. I personally didn't say people need to train for beyond 25 yds, and that wasn't remotely my point in the prior post.

As someone that has done force on force, while no one is measuring your groups or timing your draw, those artifacts still exist. You still need to make hits. You still need a reasonable amount of speed to disable/kill the attacker before he does the same to you. Yes the abstractions of a timer or target rings are no longer physically there, but they are still being manifested.

The farthest distance I shot in force on force was likely 25 yds. It was a simulated mall shooting in an outdoor facility made of connexes. I witnessed the shooters stopping to execute a number of shoppers and took one shot before moving (we were simulating injuries and I was weak arm only, it was a hail Mary). For the rest of the 8 hr that day the shooting was noticeably closer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

I am not a fence sitter.. if the assertion is that it is necessary to train beyond the conventional 25 yards (with a handgun), I will politely disagree. When one says "distance" shooting, I am assuming that being something generously beyond 25 yards. Can citizen self defense involve shooting beyond 25 yards?..sure. Do I think training beyond 25 yards is necessary? Nope, and I feel that way for all the reasons I have already expressed in this thread.

How did the "conventional" self defense shooting (training) distance suddenly change from 25 feet to 25 yards?

"Can citizen self defense involve shooting beyond 25 yards?..sure."

I wouldn't say "sure." I would say, "Maybe, under rare and unusual circumstances." I think the times when a non-LEO citizen could possibly justify taking a "self defense" shot at 25 yards are extremely rare.

[FireForged]

As I wrote, it depends on what role "reserve" deputies play in the jurisdiction. Your friends didn't do much. My cousin was a real cop. Please avoid falling into the trap of generalizing every situation based on the one or few that you have second-hand knowledge of.

if the guy raised his hand, took an oath and wore a badge and a gun.. they can call him an ex-LEO or ex-lawman or whatever they want. I wont argue against it.

Lets at least acknowledge what the moniker generally means. It generally asserts that the person is an experienced law enforcer with the customary training and knowledge of such a position held 40hrs a week for a lengthy period of time ( usually years )

I know nothing of where this man comes from but again, speaking generally. Many reserve LEOs of the 80s did not receive the same standard of training that we see today. Perhaps not even the same training as the regular employed officers of that era. Many did not perform regular duties equivalent to regular sworn police or deputies. Many carried a card in their pocket, a badge and gun on their belt and stood perimeter of crime scenes, crowd control, search and rescue, prisoner transport, office, desk duties and other special functions like the fair or rodeo. Sure.. some jurisdictions sent their reserves to the academy and gave them a regular patrol assignment in a marked unit. The problem is that with a "reserve" of that era, you simply don't know.

As I said earlier, I accept him as ex-LEO in spite of all the unknown but that's me. Others may feel different and I wont necessarily call those objections unreasonable. I am simply giving him the benefit of the doubt.