Gunman kills 3 in NV,armed shopowner regrets not shooting back

The news I saw said the perp started shooting in the parking lot. They showed where many rounds came into the store of the man who didn't engage a shootout with the perp. ( this happened after he came out of the Ihop) They had video of the store owners son trying to lock the door and just as he stepped back a round came through very close to him.

They also showed the Ihop location from the BBQ store . It was on the other side of the parking lot. Hard to tell distance but looked to be 25 yards or more.

I don't know what I would have done. I would like to think that I would have taken a shot but till you are physically involved in such a situation , it's hard to tell.

wrightme said:

In those states without solid Castle Doctrine law, that citizen can be charged with a crime for doing so, where deadly force is employed.


Do you have a link or reference for that please? I would love to review that one before the next NV legislative session. We almost got strong Castle Doctrine last go-round.


Now, the reality in NV is that HAD the armed individual acted, and it was subsequently determined that HE was not in danger, he MIGHT leave himself open to criminal charges.

Here is the relevant legislation passed in 2011: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB321_EN.pdf

Note that the existing statute provides
Statute does NOT extend it to "defense of others." While it might result in a "no bill," or not even be presented as a charge, our current law does not cover beyond "self, habitation, property or person."

I may be misreading "person" more restrictive than the author of the law intends, but.

NOTE: The changes are not effective until 01OCT, 2011.

Click to expand...

I come away from that statute with a different meaning.

I'm betting defense of others is included.

It makes no sense for the legislature to start with self-defense, and then mean self-defense again in the next clause but actually use the word person. I think the correct construction is to take the word person as meaning any person, just like it would mean any habitation, any property. I think the word person is being used in the general sense in a set that includes two other items meant in a general sense.

From another angle, if person means only self-defense, then a parent cannot use lethal force to protect a child, nor a husband to protect a wife, etc.

Citizen said:

I come away from that statute with a different meaning.

I'm betting defense of others is included.

It makes no sense for the legislature to start with self-defense, and then mean self-defense again in the next clause but actually use the word person. I think the correct construction is to take the word person as meaning any person, just like it would mean any habitation, any property. I think the word person is being used in the general sense in a set that includes two other items meant in a general sense.

From another angle, if person means only self-defense, then a parent cannot use lethal force to protect a child, nor a husband to protect a wife, etc.

Click to expand...

Statute does not agree with you....

Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human
being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property
or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by
violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or
persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous,
tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of
another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to
any person dwelling or being therein.

Click to expand...

The legislature did NOT extend that to include the general public, no matter how WE view it or would desire it to be worded. A parent CAN use lethal force to protect a child, husband, wife, or another "dwelling or being therein." They did choose to include "Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force
is used," but they did NOT extend the persons who can be defended, and left the existing definition in place. It is difficult to place any legislative intent to protect others outside of those defined, when there IS a group defined.

AB-381 WOULD have expanded the definitions, and added civil immunity. This also indicates that existing statute does not cover "defense of others" directly.

In fact, in the legislative digest section of AB-381, we find the following:

"Existing law provides that in a civil action brought by or on behalf of a person
24 against whom force which is intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury was
25 used: (1) there is a presumption that the person who used such force had a
26 reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another
27 person if the person against whom such force was used was committing burglary or
28 invasion of the home"


Existing civil immunity covers "burglary or invasion of the home," within the definitions already in statute. This does not support a view that civil immunity would cover defense of others in public, other than those fitting the existing statutory definitions. TWO bills were presented. We got a third, weaker version.

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

Bovine Feces!!! That's that Sheepdog propaganda talking. I carry to protect me and mine. I decide if I want to do more than that. It's like say that if I'm not willing to pick up hitchhikers then I have no business driving a car. You want to play superhero, go ahead. My pistol is to shoot my way out of a bad situation or toward a bigger gun. I'm not going run across a parking lot to engage a shooter who is armed with a 7.62 military style rifle with my EDC 9mm pistol. Hell, the deputies who respond are going to be pulling ARs and shotguns from thier cruisers. Why would I, Joe Citizen, run in with no personal body armor and a marginal offensive weapon (my Ruger P-89 9mm)? The armchair commandos can sit tehre and talk about being heros with their glocks on their hips but I seriously doubt that when faced with an active shooter armed with an Ak anyone is going running into the free fire zone.

Ralph Swagler is not at any fault here. I'm sure plenty of people in that iHOP were capable of using a firearm and just didn't carry because "they don't like guns." I mean, ultimately this is the gunman's FAULT, but if you think you can just go out of the house anymore and live in a perfect world then you've got another thing coming. people are crazy, they always have been.

wrightme said:

In those states without solid Castle Doctrine law, that citizen can be charged with a crime for doing so, where deadly force is employed.


Do you have a link or reference for that please? I would love to review that one before the next NV legislative session. We almost got strong Castle Doctrine last go-round.


Now, the reality in NV is that HAD the armed individual acted, and it was subsequently determined that HE was not in danger, he MIGHT leave himself open to criminal charges.

Here is the relevant legislation passed in 2011: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB321_EN.pdf

Note that the existing statute provides
Statute does NOT extend it to "defense of others." While it might result in a "no bill," or not even be presented as a charge, our current law does not cover beyond "self, habitation, property or person."

I may be misreading "person" more restrictive than the author of the law intends, but.







NOTE: The changes are not effective until 01OCT, 2011.






Further, had he enganged and neutralized the shooter, Nevada law does NOT provide civil immunity.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-041.html#NRS041Sec095

Click to expand...

I believe it was in American Jurisprudence, I have it on disc so will look for it.
It may take some time.

Butch00 said:

I believe it was in American Jurisprudence, I have it on disc so will look for it.
It may take some time.

Click to expand...

That is no problem at all, and I will look for that one myself. IF you can come up with something more specific, I would definitely appreciate it.



Good reference material is always handy. Even bad reference material is of assistance. After I get home today, I will post a couple that I have, and my impressions of them. Both about Rights and 2nd amendment, but from two sides of the subject. Why? Because to engage in effective battle FOR our rights, we must understand the mindset of those who want to REMOVE our rights.

Let me try to clear this up. I am not saying you need to go out looking for a fight, what I am sayin is if your in a position to stop a madman from murding innocent people, where's your heart. I am not saying you have to always go toe to toe with a gunman but if you have a damn good chance of stopping the mad man I hope you do something. A shoot out is always better than a massacre. For those who say I am not getting involved because he is not engaging me, I hope and pray your family is never in the same situation at the mercy of a man man. That they could have been saved by another gun owner that has the same mentality that you do. How could anyone sleep at night knowing that they could have saved someones loved one. If it was your family getting blown to bits you would be for damn sure would be asking why did he not attempt to save my loved ones.

zack991 said:

Let me try to clear this up. I am not saying you need to go out looking for a fight, what I am sayin is if your in a position to stop a madman from murding innocent people, where's your heart. I am not saying you have to always go toe toe with a gunman but if you have a damn good chance of stopping the mad man I hope you do something. A shoot out is always better than a massacre. For those who say I am not getting involved because he is not engaging me, I hope and pray your family is never in the same situation at the mercy of a man man. That they could have been saved by another gun owner that has the same mentality that you do. How could anyone sleep at nigt know that they could have saved someones loved one. If they was your family getting blown to bits you would be for damn sure be asking that man why did he not attempt to save your loved ones.

Click to expand...

By the simple understanding that someone else was the bad guy. And very possibly, seeing a professional to work through any "survivor guilt" or other misplaced regrets.


The aggressor is the cause. The rest is monday morning quarterbacking. Each person is responsible for their actions, and choosing what to do after someone else was in a situation is always infinitely simpler than being the one in the situation making the decision.

lets not forget that the shooter engaged him (ralph) also...one of the 911 audio released was "ralph" on the line with dispatch while he and his son were being shot at..as far as im concerned, he opened himself up to ridicule when he told multiple news agencies that he had a firearm and did nothing. the facts are, He was engaged by the shooter and did what alot of gun owners will do, he"froze"..he didnt even defend himself or his son....

i cannot tell you what i would feel if someone came in where i am eating and started opening fire. i can tell you i would fear for my life and limb. that is plenty to defend myself.
being outgunned would not help, but i would not take the time to care to see what weapon someone would be firing.

you are justified for protecting 3rd party persons, but just remember in this screwed up world, people have sued other for trying to perform cpr and saved a persons life, then turn around and sue them for breaking a rib or other bullcrap.

who knows what would of went through my mind if this happened, but i knew i would have tried to defend myself at the right time.

Well, well, well. Another great thread on OCDO.

I'm a bit amazed at the fairly intelligent discourse we have here. And I'm amazed at the amount of agreement, even with some quibbles we have.

I do agree with Skid that there is just a bit too much bloodlust evinced on this board by some posters, BUT, I understand the passion and I realize that we're a little different in person than behind the keyboard.

What I want people to realize is that it's good to find it hard to shoot someone. It's good to have passion, but it must be tempered with a dose of reality. We don't know how we'd react. Having a handgun does NOT mean you know how to fight with it. Shooting paper targets is not the same as perforating a fellow human being and finally you do NOT want to get into the system, you do NOT want to ever harm, let alone kill someone. Right now, those of us who have lead fairly peaceful lives are living in a utopia free from guilt and recrimination and suffering from having to take extreme action. Enjoy it and don't be too hasty to become a statistic.

$.02

yale said:

Bovine Feces!!! That's that Sheepdog propaganda talking. I carry to protect me and mine. I decide if I want to do more than that. It's like say that if I'm not willing to pick up hitchhikers then I have no business driving a car. You want to play superhero, go ahead. My pistol is to shoot my way out of a bad situation or toward a bigger gun. I'm not going run across a parking lot to engage a shooter who is armed with a 7.62 military style rifle with my EDC 9mm pistol. Hell, the deputies who respond are going to be pulling ARs and shotguns from thier cruisers. Why would I, Joe Citizen, run in with no personal body armor and a marginal offensive weapon (my Ruger P-89 9mm)? The armchair commandos can sit tehre and talk about being heros with their glocks on their hips but I seriously doubt that when faced with an active shooter armed with an Ak anyone is going running into the free fire zone.

Click to expand...

I'd like the think I'd be prepared and able to engage while he was reloading, but I can't say for sure what I would do and definitely wouldn't blame somebody for choosing not to open fire. For all we know if he did he could have not stopped him fast enough and been killed and that could have turned some wheel in the madman's head causing him to come over and injure/kill more innocent people.

So many Internet Rambos, so little time...

PERHAPS 15 seconds to react in real time - 4 days and counting to analyze the incident.

If the armed citizen at the scene is not already "PRE-programed" to use his/her weapon in response to such a threat, the brain isn't capable of "downloading" the necessary software in the limited time allowed.

In order to access conditions "RED", and "BLACK" in such a brief reaction window- one needs to already be living in virtual condition "ORANGE ".

The IHOP was not a statutory GFZ, but what if it had been ? Another decision point that must be addressed BEFORE the fact.

People are not robots, and will always have different (ROE) rules of engagement. Will some people get killed trying to be heroes? Yes. Will some people lose their life because others fail to act? Yes. IMO it is more important for gun owners to accept and train for their personal ROE, and continue open carrying to normalize responsible firearm ownership. The more responsible owners there are, despite their self imposed limitations, the safer our society will be.

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

Here, here! How could anybody stand by and watch an atrocity happen? I think if I was in a position to help, I would. I would also like to think that somebody would do the same for me or my family.

Butch00 said:

I believe it was in American Jurisprudence, I have it on disc so will look for it.
It may take some time.

Click to expand...

I hope you have that wrong.

http://west.thomson.com/american-jurisprudence-2d/2074/13504006/productdetail

"List Price for Set: $10,582.00 "

IMO Ralph did not have a legal obligation to stop the shooter as far as a moral obligation that's up to him to decided. What was Ralph's training? What experiences did he have to fall back on. Is he one of the tens of thousands who pass the minimal training standards required to pass his states ccw permitting process and then call it good.

For me I wouldn't have a legal obligation to stop an active shooter but I feel that I would have a moral duty to do so. 9 years of active duty and hundreds of hours of weapons and tactics training give me skill set to fall back to when the crap hits the fan and I carry 24x7

IMO You don't rise to the occasion you fall back to your skills and training.

Cut Ralph some slack.

zack991 said:

If you don't have the will to use the firearm in the defense of yourself or others you have no business carrying concealed or openly.

Click to expand...

I posted this on another IHOP thread but I wanted to add some of it and some followup comments here.

"My premise: True Freedom is taking total responsibility for yourself.

Is it your assertion that the gun owner on site has a "Moral Obligation" to respond to a AK armed shooter by laying his life down for complete strangers? And this is based soley on the fact that he has taken up his personal responsibility to (provide for) defend(ing) himself?

That doesn't work for me. I have said it many times here, I am no man's protector. I protect myself and my family and it ends there. I may CHOOSE to act on the behalf of another, but I am in no way bound to do so.

Am I a coward? No. My primary goal behind me and my wife being armed is to make sure that we make it home safely every day. Were I to hear AK fire at a business near me, I am heading the other way with my family in tow. Were we trapped inside that business, then, and only then, would those around me benefit from my choice to carry and train with my firearm."

More to the point of the actual concept, that being successfully engaging that guy in that situation at the IHOP: This weekend I tested out the concept of taking out a rifleman at both distance (50') and in close quarters (10') while armed with a pistol (both airsoft guns). My 10 year old nephew with an airsoft AR-15 was able to deal with me each time I came at him with my handgun. I did get regular hits each attempt but unless I got a headshot with my first round or two, I do not think I would survive attacking a man with a battle rifle unless I had complete suprise and did not miss with the first adrenal powered shots. And that is with his bad aiming and my regular practice.

So, will I go chasing after someone in an active shooter situation? Probably not. Unless my family is in direct danger and there is no way out.

I also learned that I need to practice the old shoot and move. That darned kid left me with lots of painful little welts. And those welts would be much bigger with 7.62 ammo... And my wife and kids would be looking at my coffin, going into the ground. Sobering thought.