• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What Would You Do? Slain Reporter and Cameraman

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Turns out the killer videoed himself committing murder.

I saw the video. It is currently posted on Liveleak. Twenty three seconds pass between the first frame showing the gun and the first shot.

Once upon a time, this forum dissected and debated what a lawfully armed individual might do in such a situation. We debated the soundness of the tactics, the rationale, and so forth. It gave everybody a chance to figure things out before faced with such a situation.

Lets do that again.

There were four people on that deck in the immediate vicinity--the killer and three victims. Lets say you are a fifth person and witness someone pull a gun and point it at the reporter, cameraman, and interviewee. What do you do?
 
Last edited:

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
If I had been on that deck watching the interview being made, I'd like to think I'd be alert enough to spot the bad guy and his gun and realize what's about to happen. And I also would like to think I'd have the courage to immediately act, likely drawing down on the bad guy. But I won't know until I'm actually in that situation.

I've watched the video several times and, there are those 23 seconds between the bad guy first pointing the gun at the reporter, then waiting for the camera man to turn the camera so as to get the murder on live TV, then opening fire. Twenty three seconds is plenty of time to draw from any kind of concealment, see if there are innocents in the line of fire, etc. There can be little doubt that the bad guy had deadly intent - you don't point a gun at somebody out in public like that just to see if the sights are still working. I'll offer the opinion that any reasonable person, seeing what is shown in the bad guy's video, viewed from almost any perspective on that deck, would easily conclude he had a "reasonable belief, based on objective facts" that the bad guy had just committed a serious crime (I'll leave out brandishing and just call it assault - the real and armchair lawyers here can offer their assessment as to the legal specifics of the crime) and the innocent reporter, camera man and interviewee were in imminent danger of a further assault likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. I don't see in the videos the kind of expanse of "gray" that often obscures a bad guy's intent and makes it hard for a good guy to decide what to do. Turning all this over in my mind, I can't think of any reason for a good guy with a gun to hesitate.

If only there had been an alert, armed good guy on that deck, looking in that direction, and resolved not to let evil triumph by doing nothing.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
Don't know. Hope not to know. My instincts and level of training would, more than likely, make me the victor in that specific scenario...hesitation kills.

Lesson learned? Folks have no clue what is going on around them until it is too late.

Sorry state of affairs.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
What would I do?

Based on credible reports from folks in the area, Bridgewater Plaza http://www.bridgewaterplaza.com/ , like almost every other mall/shopping center, is a Gun Free Zone.

So, what would I do? Nothing, because I would not have been there.

How would I feel if it could conclusively be proven that, had I been there, the two murders and one attempted murder would have been prevented? It's a red herring question.

Bad stuff happens. Some folks take steps to be personally responsible for being able to try to mitigate bad stuff that might happen. But sometimes you have to go somewhere/do something where your ability to mitigate bad stuff happening in restricted - in that case you accept that and hope bad stuff does not happen while you are there.

For me it is a case of "Don't go stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things." For the reporters and the Chamber of Commerce lady it was "This is what I have to do today to put bread on the table."

stay safe.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Tough question. Instincts manifest in life or death situations such as this. Skidmark hit the nail on the head when he said, "I wouldn't be there."

If you want a real hypothetical answer, I would immediately take cover. That's step one in my opinion. Whether I was to draw or run, taking cover is first and foremost in my mind if I'm dealing with what appears to be a criminal with a gun, especially one who is brandishing. Next, it's important to ascertain whether or not the man is a direct threat to life. We know now that the shooter had a manifesto and premeditated the violence, but at the time of the incident happening, there's no way to know this. There would have to have been no question about what was happening for me to take a preemptive shot in defense, and it's really hard to say either way whether or not I would have perceived the man as a threat. These are all thoughts that would race through my mind before the fact. Without a gun directly pointed AT ME, I would be afforded the time to observe and not need to necessarily make a split second decision, especially if the shooter was unaware of my being there.

If I had witnessed the man shoot these people and I had position on the shooter, I can't say I wouldn't feel obligated to stop the threat if possible to safely do so. Whatever the course of action, it would need to be quick, not hurried, and decisive. I think it's been said that hesitation could be deadly. Once the decision has been made to engage, the threat must be stopped.

Here's a question...

As I said, we know now what the man's intentions were in retrospect, but is what the man did prior to taking shots warranting of the use of deadly force? Could one take cover behind a pillar, draw and take aim, and as soon as the man points the gun towards another with the perceived intention to do harm, squeeze off a well placed shot?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,777
Location
here nc
alas mark, your scenario is what caused a good citizen to die in the walmart when he, with his gun drawn, unabashedly approached the BG pushing the shopping cart and who then got shot by the BG's GF ~ he died at the scene along with the BG duo who committed suicide at the rear of the store. the good samaritan's family, i am sure wish he might have chosen a different path that day as the family's lives are in probably in shambles from the loss of their husband, father, wage earner

i unfortunately, as unashamedly stated numerous times, will not involve myself since i am not under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, but would take due diligence to take cover and retreat to preclude my presence. with drawn firearm, of spooking the bad people(S) to turn their deadly rampage towards myself and possibility those i hold near and dear.

in retrospect, i am not even sure i would hollar out a warning as that act in and of itself could bring me under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury if my SA failed to discern any accomplices of the initially seen BG.

while morally reprehensible to some, i would not stop the ensuing carnage as i steadfastly refuse to put myself into a position where i might run afoul of a judicial inquest which could go awry (nawwwwlllll that could never happen could it??) I long ago reconciled my sleeping at night from this moral decision i made decades ago. i, fortunately, have not been placed into this type of situation per se to assure my decision would be appropriate. because like other's i would not be on the scene as mentioned...it is a GFZ!!

it was premeditated, an act of distorted thinking, and unfortunately three souls are lost! let's move on, nothing more to see here folks!!

ipse
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,362
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwie!!!!

Im sorry,,, but I just cant help myself..

This thread is full of Spys,, A bunch of whiny Bi**hes!!!

I wouldnt do anything,, cause I wouldnt be in a GFZ...
I wouldnt do anything,, cause he didnt point the gun at me...
I wouldnt do anything,, cause I fear getting in trouble for shooting my gun..
I wouldnt do anything,, cause I might miss my shot and injure someone a mile away...
I wouldnt do anything,, cause I would be running away and hiding from the scary man with a gun..

Well from vidios Ive seen,, If I was up at that ungodly hour, and I was hanging out at that place,
and I was standing off to the left side of a reporter and a lady and a camera man,, watching them..
And some random guy,,, pulls a gun and threatens to shoot those folks....

I will,,, I would,,, immediately,, Draw,, point shoot.. repeatedly,, until the threat was eliminated!

Tell me why I am wrong...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP
Tell me why I am wrong...
I don't think the point of the thread is to say who is wrong (or right).

I can't argue with a father taking the course likeliest to ensure he's around tomorrow to take of his kids, or the son taking the course likeliest to ensure he's around tomorrow to support his elderly parents.

For myself, I think the long lag between presentation and first shot would make me uncertain whether it was a prank or a toy gun or something other than murder.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I don't think the point of the thread is to say who is wrong (or right).

I can't argue with a father taking the course likeliest to ensure he's around tomorrow to take of his kids, or the son taking the course likeliest to ensure he's around tomorrow to support his elderly parents.

For myself, I think the long lag between presentation and first shot would make me uncertain whether it was a prank or a toy gun or something other than murder.
There is a logical disconnect to me for those who support troops killing foreigners who have no to very little chance at doing us harm, and then not be willing to intervene when they can actually stop/limit harm from being done.

I don't think there is any duty, I don't feel defender is wrong for feeling what he feels.

That lag time issue is a great issue to raise.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,777
Location
here nc
1245b darn didn't know you were going to post your rhetoric on multiple threads...

quote from: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...quot-to-Intervene-in-Active-Shooter-Situation

1245a, nawllll, you ain't wrong ~ for following your personal perceptions of how to deal with this particular situation as you have changed by elegantly described and played out in such as an ideal containment of the BG while you, you rise to the occasion as the hero of the moment for all of mankind to adore for the remaining time you have left!!!

where i do take extreme exception is your biased, narrow & short sided, condescending bovine statement about the values everyone else has expressed based on the reality of the situation as, how did you put it....oh right: quote: A bunch of whiny Bi**hes!!! !!

now that is why you are wrong...

ipse

unquote
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
There is a logical disconnect to me for those who support troops killing foreigners who have no to very little chance at doing us harm, and then not be willing to intervene when they can actually stop/limit harm from being done.

I don't think there is any duty, I don't feel defender is wrong for feeling what he feels.

That lag time issue is a great issue to raise.
I'm reposting part of my response to that other thread that solus so kindly identified:


Let me ask you this: being there and seeing that the only three other people had been shot, what does your shooting the shooter accomplish - other than becoming judge and jury in handing down and carrying out a death sentence?

Or supposing you had noticed, three seconds into the 23 that passed between when the murderer first appeared and when the first shot was fired. Would be shooting him be the only,or even best, response at that moment? What if yelling out, getting his attention as well as the attention of those three who ended up being shot, would have been sufficient to cause him to turn and run? Remember, as soon as he was eventually confronted he did shoot himself. What's to say he would not have done that when you confront him?

These are things that I believe should be going on in your head at the moment as well as in discussion boards or courtrooms after the fact. And if you can mostly safely drive to work from home and back again you demonstrate the ability to process vast amounts of known and hypothetical information in a split second and to then select one course of action out of all the possibilities available.

Sadly, those that see themselves as sheepdogs rather than members of the flock who have learned to kick and bite as well as run tend to have but one answer to the question "What would you do?"

stay safe.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Gun is drawn by BG.

Call out, I am now a target.
Pull my gun, sights on target, call out, fire if threatened.
Pull, aim, and fire. I am now setup as killing someone because of the color of their skin.

I would have to choose the second option or a variation there of. I have not seen the video/area to know if there was sufficient cover to use.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I'm reposting part of my response to that other thread that solus so kindly identified:Let me ask you this: being there and seeing that the only three other people had been shot, what does your shooting the shooter accomplish - other than becoming judge and jury in handing down and carrying out a death sentence?Or supposing you had noticed, three seconds into the 23 that passed between when the murderer first appeared and when the first shot was fired. Would be shooting him be the only,or even best, response at that moment? What if yelling out, getting his attention as well as the attention of those three who ended up being shot, would have been sufficient to cause him to turn and run? Remember, as soon as he was eventually confronted he did shoot himself. What's to say he would not have done that when you confront him?These are things that I believe should be going on in your head at the moment as well as in discussion boards or courtrooms after the fact. And if you can mostly safely drive to work from home and back again you demonstrate the ability to process vast amounts of known and hypothetical information in a split second and to then select one course of action out of all the possibilities available.Sadly, those that see themselves as sheepdogs rather than members of the flock who have learned to kick and bite as well as run tend to have but one answer to the question "What would you do?"stay safe.
Not exactly sure what this post as to do with most of my statement. Especially since I have already said I am not sure what I would do unless I was already there. This means judging what is happening as its happening."Only 3 other people been shot" seems a bit trivializing to me.What if he was pointing the gun at you? Would you yell at him hoping he would run away? Would you then be judge, jury and executioner? Yes are we now not discussing it?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There is a logical disconnect to me for those who support troops killing foreigners who have no to very little chance at doing us harm, and then not be willing to intervene when they can actually stop/limit harm from being done.
For heaven's sake, could we please have a thread with intelligent discussion without someone bringing up libertarian or anarchy foreign policy as though it had any rational bearing on these matters here at home?

Whether military action in any particular nation is justified or not is pretty well off topic to this thread and the decisions about where and whether military action is warranted are quite different than what an individual faces in the moment of a possible violent assault here at home.

And once military action commences (for better or worse) the rules of war are morally and materially different than of individual self-defense in a peacetime setting.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
For myself, I think the long lag between presentation and first shot would make me uncertain whether it was a prank or a toy gun or something other than murder.
This is perhaps one of the most insightful comments I've seen on the subject, especially in light of some who have--at previous times on this forum--argued that no crime is committed until an actual, material harm is inflicted.

In retrospect, knowing he had murderous intents, it is easier to think we'd know what we'd do. But with a TV camera, very realistic looking airsoft or stage guns, etc, how does one know that the gunman isn't an actor? Or a jokester of some kind? Yes, stupid joke if is. But who wants to find out after the fact that he killed an innocent, harmless (if very stupid) man when he wasn't even pointing the gun at you?

We've certainly seen some prominent members of the site express strong concerns about police making contact with someone who is "merely" carrying a gun in hand as in the Rooselvelt, Utah case of a man coming to the attention of police (and was ultimately shot) for carrying a gun in hand along rural road. Similarly, we had very strong objections to any suggestion that a gun in hand was cause for alarm in the Washington Legislature (one of several threads in the Washington sub-forum on the incident and aftermath).

Lacking the benefit of hindsight, how might we (and especially those who rail against MWAG calls or police action when a person is "peacefully" carrying a gun--real, airsoft, etc--in hand) really determine that lethal force is justified prior to some overtly violent conduct?

I think reaction depends on where I am relative to the gun man.

I'm with those that my first priority is going to be going home safely. I'm not a cop, not a soldier, and I'm not anybody's sheepdog. I'm a guy who wants to get home to his family safely each night.

I also think skid brings up a very good point about non-lethal force. Tackling or even punching a perceived threat is a lot less risky in many ways than shooting him, depending on circumstances.

So, assuming I'm not so close as to easily tackle him, and not directly in line of sight such that I feel immediate deadly force is needed to defend my own life:

Make sure those with me are under cover, seek cover, access firearm, yell out, ascertain his reaction.

Charles
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,166
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
What would I do?.............a Gun Free Zone.
I would not have been there.
I must stand with Skid on this. I do not go to GFZs. But that is reality, let's move to hypotheticals.

I have seen reporters doing thier jobs at various locations and I always watch just for the fun of it. I am also aware of my surroundings as each of you are. So the premise here is that we, everyday OCers, observe this BG doing what he did from a position unseen by all parties.

The BG has what appears to be a pistol in his hand as he videos with his phone. Now that's odd. Guns out, I take cover. Not wanting to shoot someone without reason, I would get his attention with my rather strong voice. I would not draw my weapon as I do not wish to be a threat in that way. This situation does not look like he is a part of the filming, if he responded to me badly, then would be the time to draw and force him to the ground. Easier to apologize for disturbing a film than the alternative..
In this case, I believe he would have panicked and ran.

I am too old for hand to hand. Did that a great deal in my youngers and have the scars to show for it. I no longer see that as entertainment and would rather avoid running BGs down and doing all that hero stuff. Ya'll go on with that if you choose, I will pass on that part. Twenty one feet, you all know what that means.
 
Top