View Full Version : Regarding Omaha...
I know Gabe Suarez may not be considered "the guru" for a variety of reasons, but the quote below is a response to some comments Suarez made about "first responders" being irrelevant in Omaha as they are in all mass shootings like this.
I thought it was interesting, and agree with this particular first responder 100% - WE need to be sure we're carrying all the time, so that WE can off these psychos before they can rack up a body count!
Our first responders were on call in 6 min. the shooting was done in approx 1 minute. I walked though the grisly murder scene today. I know you have seen some nasty scenes in your time as a copper but this was undescribable.
The piece of *** shooter who shall be eternally burning in Hell as we speak made head shots with his AK-47 on the move at 25 yards made kill shots from the 3rd level to the first and second levels shows that he was tacitcally proficient with his weapon system. The weapon was indeed and AK (NOT AN SKS) ( have 7 AKs myself) with 2-30 round mags taped in reverese. approx 38 rounds fire in 1 min. before the coward sat down in front of customer service put the weapon under his chin and offed himself. The blood collatulation was 1 inch thick.
This jackal did a recon unarmed just minutes before he came up the elavatorand shot a female in the head kicking off his bloody rampage. He fired in series of 3 and 4 round sequences. All the rounds were parralell to the floor, no wild shooting into the ceiling. Angels must have been watching over the children as many rounds were fired into the children section. He engaged his targets with rutheless efficiency and even made point blank range head shots into a 64 year old male hunched down covering his wife in a corner at customer service. She lived.
The first reponders were irrellevent as you said but not becuase they didn't run to the sounds of the gunfire and put themselves in harms way. We had good men on scence in 6 min. That brings up another issue about our sub par 911 system not getting the call out to us until 2 minutes after the first person called in. IT WAS OVER.
I thouroghly believe in the unrreguated Miltia, they should have handled this problem but we live among Sheep as you know. Too many are too afraid to stand up to the communist, facist gungrabbers that are in positions of powers in our country. We need to have citizens armed and ready to address these types of attacks.
I must respectfully disagree with you in saying that first reponders are irrelavent. They weren't in this incident and won't be in future incidents of this type but the person at ground zero at the time of the shooting needs to be armed and ready to step up .
I doubt the shooter was that good.
BushmasterFanBoy
12-08-07, 19:01
A part of me wants to believe that the shooter could not have been that good of a shot (particularly with a WASR, not to mention the shooter himself must have been under some sort of stress, insane or not, you have to be completely screwy to not have some sort of nervousness when you think about killing random innocent people) but it's not as if a he could not have done some target shooting on the side could not have gotten his skill to a proficient level.
I think that's whats so scary about these scenarios. It's one thing to have a shooter with no experience taking random shots in a generic direction, but to have actual expertise with a firearm, now thats just horrifying. Thank goodness insanity is not conducive to good marksmanship.
John_Wayne777
12-08-07, 20:58
Suarez calling the first responders "irrelevant" is just plain nonsense. :mad:
I know officers who are the first guys into a situation like that *by choice* because of the duty and obligation they feel to protect their fellow citizens. They aren't irrelevant. They aren't Superman, but they aren't irrelevant.
That being said unless there are officers who just happen to be nearby when an active shooter starts flinging lead, you are on your own for a minimum of 4 minutes.
Here's the thing about the shooter:
You don't have to be good to wantonly slaughter people. All you need is proximity and ammo, and that goes double if you are using a rifle. A reasonably intelligent chimp can shoulder a rifle, aim in the general direction of a knot of people and open fire making hits.
The shooter here was deliberate and dedicated, and he was accurate enough to kill 8 people before finally doing us all a giant favor and removing himself from this plane of existence.
The person writing that response is correct in the sense that this guy wasn't just in there aimlessly blasting around. He was determined and efficient. He obviously spent a fair bit of time figuring out exactly what he needed to do to inflict the most carnage.
It's much easier to murder than it is to stop the hostile actions of someone trying to kill you or kill others.
KintlaLake
12-08-07, 21:22
It's much easier to murder than it is to stop the hostile actions of someone trying to kill you or kill others.
Word.
They're called "first responders," not "first preventers."
There was a shooting today at the mall closest to us (five miles away). One wounded, stable condition at the local trauma center. Suspect at large.
Alpha Sierra
12-08-07, 21:35
Suarez calling the first responders "irrelevant" is just plain nonsense. :mad:
He is referring to the fact that police are almost never where they need to be to cut short these massacres before the body count takes off.
In that context, they are almost always irrelevant. Irrelevant to the outcome.
The ONLY person who can do something about something like this is someone already at the scene. Not someone responding to it from miles away.
An armed person, even if not SWAT, Delta, or SEAL could potentially lower the body count if they keep their wits about them.
Suppressing fire, from behind cover, could tie up the shooter long enough to allow the "good guys" to become relevant.
I think I understand Suarez's point, and I'm betting it's not trying to trivialize the first responders, but rather trying to empower the CCW'er.
BushmasterFanBoy
12-08-07, 21:54
An armed person, even if not SWAT, Delta, or SEAL could potentially lower the body count if they keep their wits about them.
Suppressing fire, from behind cover, could tie up the shooter long enough to allow the "good guys" to become relevant.
I think I understand Suarez's point, and I'm betting it's not trying to trivialize the first responders, but rather trying to empower the CCW'er.
The shooter already has enough things on whats left of their selfish little homicidal brains, a CCW'er is really going to mess up their plans. Now their worry turns from "Will I kill enough innocent people to make the news?" to "What the hell is that!?"
CCW'ers could easy stop this simply by turning the shooter's plans upside down. If they anticipated killing until the cops showed up, then killing themselves to prevent engaging in a mano-a-mano fight, then what do they do when the same thing happens before they've claimed any victims? Suddenly their little "spree" is meaningless, their homicidal playground fantasy comes crashing down on them, more than likely they will kill themselves once wounded (if they thought getting dumped by a girlfriend was painful enough to die over, just wait till they feel hot lead in their gut), or coming to the realization that they cannot "make the news" like they planned and can only kill themselves.
This can all be accomplished through fairly little on behalf of the CCW'er, simply locate the threat, and send fire his way. From his perspective, any gunshots that aren't coming from his own weapon are nothing but bad news. Even if you do not hit him, his plans are now completely messed up, and you've saved many lives. If the whole incident unfolds in less than a minute, then a CCWer responding to it will pin the shooter down and divert their efforts long enough to save many people.
John_Wayne777
12-08-07, 22:49
In that context, they are almost always irrelevant. Irrelevant to the outcome.
The ONLY person who can do something about something like this is someone already at the scene. Not someone responding to it from miles away.
They weren't irrelevant at Virginia Tech, or at the recent Utah mall shooting.
The sooner an AS meets armed resistance, the better. Yes, we would all be better off if the armed resistance someone like this little crapstain met was at the hand of armed citizens who shoot him so full of holes he whistles on the way down. Try as they might, the cops can't be there when something like this starts to go down barring some remarkable stroke of luck. Thus the wise man prepares to deal with bad people on his own because he's likely to be on his own at least for a few minutes.
the1911fan
12-08-07, 22:51
I think I understand Suarez's point, and I'm betting it's not trying to trivialize the first responders, but rather trying to empower the CCW'er.
It's amazing to me that there was'nt someone other than the shooter in that mall who was armed. Empower the CCW'er for sure but if the business prohibits CCW'er..you get a "victim rich zone"
Shame on businesses for restricting lawful CCW ...they certainly do not help the situation
John_Wayne777
12-08-07, 23:03
Even if you do not hit him, his plans are now completely messed up, and you've saved many lives.
...or he spins and directs fire on you and kills you.
Missing the threat isn't really an option in a situation like that. Yes, he may panic and fall to pieces....but odds are he's going to return fire with a more powerful, effective, and accurate weapon.
That's what happened in Tyler Texas a couple of years ago.
If you're going to deliberately engage an active shooter when he's not a direct threat to you (meaning he isn't shooting at you) your best option is only to engage when you stand the best chance of putting him down.
If the whole incident unfolds in less than a minute,
This incident supposedly went down inside of a couple of minutes. The shooter did what he wanted to do and then offed himself.
It would have gone on longer if someone had engaged him. It would be incredibly difficult for someone with a handgun to be involved in a sustained firefight with a bad guy armed with a rifle for the other 4 minutes it took for the good guys to arrive.
Remember that "cover" is a relative term. A determined adversary with some ammo can defeat cover by putting some rounds into it. Very little of what you see in a place like a department store truly qualifies as cover.
then a CCWer responding to it will pin the shooter down and divert their efforts long enough to save many people.
If a CCW tries to pin the shooter down, likely he will buy folks more time....but at a very, very high price.
They weren't irrelevant at Virginia Tech...
They were only relevant in that they were the timer by which Cho decided it was time to kill himself. Unfortunately, that is the case most of the time.
Are they irrelevant? To those who died up until that point, they are. If a CCW'er would have killed the idiot before he shot the second person, the CCW'er would have been irrelevant to the first person who died. It's a matter of perspective.
It is much better to have someone respond who is at the scene at the time of the shooting than it is to have to have someone respond to the scene at a later time. Action beats reaction and all that.
variablebinary
12-08-07, 23:26
If you dont have the jump on the shooter at the first instant shots start flying you're taking a MASSIVE risk if you decide to engage. Especially when you are talking a handgun vs rifle...in a mall no less so forget the notion of cover.
Its a tough situation. Sometimes there is nothing anyone can do. Crazy people will hurt innocent people.
John_Wayne777
12-08-07, 23:27
It is much better to have someone respond who is at the scene at the time of the shooting than it is to have to have someone respond to the scene at a later time. Action beats reaction and all that.
No argument there.
The "irrelevant" comment strikes me as coming from that "doing God's work" mindset that some folks in some places seem to have, and that's objectionable in my view.
At this point in MHO we can only speculate, life is full of "What Ifs".
What if- there were more CCWs?
What if- you had to get training, both MENTAL and PHYSICAL, to obtain a CCW?
What If- malls had to have armed trained guards in them?
What If- the gunman had tact training or served?
What If- there were more than 1, 2, 3, or more CCWs in the immed vicinity?
Just another point of veiw, for WIW.
BushmasterFanBoy
12-09-07, 10:08
...or he spins and directs fire on you and kills you.
Missing the threat isn't really an option in a situation like that. Yes, he may panic and fall to pieces....but odds are he's going to return fire with a more powerful, effective, and accurate weapon.
That's what happened in Tyler Texas a couple of years ago.
If you're going to deliberately engage an active shooter when he's not a direct threat to you (meaning he isn't shooting at you) your best option is only to engage when you stand the best chance of putting him down.
This incident supposedly went down inside of a couple of minutes. The shooter did what he wanted to do and then offed himself.
It would have gone on longer if someone had engaged him. It would be incredibly difficult for someone with a handgun to be involved in a sustained firefight with a bad guy armed with a rifle for the other 4 minutes it took for the good guys to arrive.
Remember that "cover" is a relative term. A determined adversary with some ammo can defeat cover by putting some rounds into it. Very little of what you see in a place like a department store truly qualifies as cover.
If a CCW tries to pin the shooter down, likely he will buy folks more time....but at a very, very high price.
Of course hits are better than misses, but misses from a CCWer on scene are better than "hits" from a first responder 5 minutes away.
No argument there.
The "irrelevant" comment strikes me as coming from that "doing God's work" mindset that some folks in some places seem to have, and that's objectionable in my view.
Why???
Just for the record, I am not a cop nor am I any kind of "hero". If I had been standing there within a few feet of the guy, with or without my family, then yes I would definitely have pumped rounds into him until one of us was no longer able to pull a trigger. However, if I had been say 50 feet away or more and he was not shooting in my direction...? Honestly I don't know what I would have done. If I was with my family, I'm about 99% certain I would have simply tried to get them out of the area, and not engaged the bad guy unless he became a more immediate threat, i.e. was moving or shooting toward my family.
My primary job is to be a provider and protector of my own. My duty is to protect THEM, as well as protect myself so that I can keep bringing home the bacon -- they need a daddy and hubby, not a dead hero that everybody will forget about in 2 weeks. Most of me thinks, "screw those other people - they should be protecting themselves".
But there is that little voice in the back of my mind that says that since I have some training and some skill, I also have a duty to put that psycho down if I have the chance, and thus save some other people's lives... in other words, "get in there and do God's work", which is essentially the motivation of the "first responders" who run to the sound of the shots. There's no doubt that the boys with the badges want to "get in there and do God's work", but 5 minutes after the bad guy starts shooting is about 4.9 minutes too late. That's what Suarez meant when he said they were irrelevant, and I think for the most part he was right. I don't think he meant to question their motivation or bravery, only to point out the fact that if there's ever any kind of effective way to lower the body count in an incident like this, it's to have somebody return fire immediately, not 5+ minutes later.
Oh yeah, speaking of the whacko in Salt Lake City - wasn't it an off duty SWAT guy carrying concealed who immediately engaged the bad guy and thus drastically cut short his spree? Of course, the average guy with a CHL isn't as capable as a SWAT shooter, but I still think Salt Lake City was a good illustration of the point Suarez was trying to make.
Jay Cunningham
12-09-07, 12:07
I know exactly what JW_777 is talking about.
It comes from certain individuals who post things like, "I would run toward the sound of gunfire 'cause it's the only thing I know how to do." It comes from guys who talk about how they keep their carbine and their plate carrier in their car and sincerely think that they are going to run out to their car, get jocked up, then run back in "to do God's work."
These people are not living in reality. The reality is that there is going to be a few moments of total confusion, followed by screaming and chaos. In those few seconds, you will need to make a determination of how feasible you think it may be to attempt to engage the threat. An incredible number of variables come into play to make this difficult determination.
Is your wife/family right there with you?
Are they somewhere else nearby?
What is your level of training?
What is your level of fitness?
What is your armament?
Is there ANY usable intelligence on the threat? ("A lunatic with a shotgun!" or "Three terrorists with Ak-47's!")
Unfortunately, sometimes the best course of action will be to get you and yours the hell out. Sometimes the best course of action will be to get on your cell phone and try to provide the best possible intelligence to 911. Sometimes the best course will be to hunker down and take a shot if you can get one.
And sometimes the best course of action is to go on the hunt.
Sometimes the best course will be to hunker down and take a shot if you can get one.
50 - 75 feet seems like a lot of room to be off line, or out of sight of the shooter, and very well could be...
It's only 17 - 25yds though...if he is not directing fire my way, 17 - 25yds is a God send for getting the first unannounced shot in this guy's torso or head.
I would hope that I had the courage to conceal myself and take proper aim to end it right there. I am certain I could kill him without much remorse, just not sure my nerves would cooperate with me and allow me a perfect sight picture. :(
I could only pray that they would...
You know, I've been thinking about this a bit the last few days.
For me, if I were to find myself in that kind of situation, getting my wife and/or other family members to safety would be my first concern. After that, who knows.
At the rate and speed that these things go down, unless someone was in the line of fire, they probably would have had a difficulty responding in time to be of help. Malls are big, even on site armed security could have had a very limited role to play.
That aside, the second ability that would really come into play would be your ability to administer first aid. I think this is really where the 'saving someone else's life' scenario would come into play.
It is really easy to play the 'what if' game and Monday morning quarterback these types of events. It only takes a short time to drastically alter an event, and there are so many ways for something to go down. I would just hope that it doesn't happen to me, and from there hope that if it does, my performance would in some way help the situation.
The best first responder, is one who is already there. The brave folks on the way aren't irrevelant -- but help that is on the way has never saved anybody until it got there. These mass rampage type active shooters only stop when either put down by force, or they do themselves.
In that environment, hits are hits and misses are hits on the wrong thing.
An armed person, even if not SWAT, Delta, or SEAL could potentially lower the body count if they keep their wits about them.
Suppressing fire, from behind cover, could tie up the shooter long enough to allow the "good guys" to become relevant.
I think I understand Suarez's point, and I'm betting it's not trying to trivialize the first responders, but rather trying to empower the CCW'er.
All very good points. CCW holders have the best chance of being "first responders" to this type of thing.
I wonder if there were any CCW holders (that were carrying) in the mall when the shooting started?
I wonder if any of the carrying CCW holders ran FROM the sound of gun fire?
I wonder if the carrying CCW holder had the thought as the first shots rang out, that they have never had any training with said pistol?
I wonder if the carrying CCW holder felt (as they were running to safety) that it wasn't their job to protect women and children from a mass murderer?
I wonder if the mall has a sign on the outside that says "no weapons allowed inside?"
Train hard CCW holders as you are on the front lines as our society continues to go down the gutter.
C4
...or he spins and directs fire on you and kills you.
Missing the threat isn't really an option in a situation like that. Yes, he may panic and fall to pieces....but odds are he's going to return fire with a more powerful, effective, and accurate weapon.
That's what happened in Tyler Texas a couple of years ago.
If you're going to deliberately engage an active shooter when he's not a direct threat to you (meaning he isn't shooting at you) your best option is only to engage when you stand the best chance of putting him down.
This incident supposedly went down inside of a couple of minutes. The shooter did what he wanted to do and then offed himself.
It would have gone on longer if someone had engaged him. It would be incredibly difficult for someone with a handgun to be involved in a sustained firefight with a bad guy armed with a rifle for the other 4 minutes it took for the good guys to arrive.
Remember that "cover" is a relative term. A determined adversary with some ammo can defeat cover by putting some rounds into it. Very little of what you see in a place like a department store truly qualifies as cover.
If a CCW tries to pin the shooter down, likely he will buy folks more time....but at a very, very high price.
I agree with you. Picking a fight with an AK and you only having a HG is a bad idea. Pick your spot carefully and engage with as much force as you can.
Sometimes you have to step up to the plate and do what is right. Could you die because of it? Yes you could. Could you save a lot of innocent people from being killed? Yes you could.
I often think about what I would do if confronted with a scenario like the one we are discussing. As we know, we cannot always LEGALLY carry a firearm into public places. Having knowledge of the weapon being used against you, (accuracy, range, magazine capacity, reloading speed, etc) is very important. Use these things to your benefit and you have a very good chance of ending a bad situation (even though you don't have a firearm).
C4
Alpha Sierra
12-09-07, 19:23
I wonder if the mall has a sign on the outside that says "no weapons allowed inside?
Yes it did. It has been reported in the media.
Yes it did. It has been reported in the media.
It does indeed, I've seen it in person. At the time, it was prominent. I thought I had a pic, but I can't find it.
Alpha Sierra
12-09-07, 19:40
It does indeed, I've seen it in person. At the time, it was prominent. I thought I had a pic, but I can't find it.
There are certain places in Ohio, enumerated in the OH Revised Code, where CCW is a felony. Elsewhere it is a misdeamenor trespass and I ignore them.
I will not be slaughtered like a fish in a barrel just because some corporate lawyer asswipes are trying to limit their employer's liability exposure. **** them.
I will not be slaughtered like a fish in a barrel just because some corporate lawyer asswipes are trying to limit their employer's liability exposure. **** them.
I snap pics of these signs where I see them. While looking for Westroads sign, I found one for the Mall of America, which is similarly posted:
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j18/Skintop911/MOACCWSign.jpg
Alpha Sierra
12-09-07, 20:15
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j18/Skintop911/MOACCWSign.jpg
Meaningless and worthless
Just in case anyone is wondering here is the article that Gabe wrote.
FIRST RESPONDERS ARE IRRELEVANT
This article was written long before Katrina and the debacle of N.O.
Not a day goes by where we don't hear something about the training and deployment of First responders as if their presence somehow would change everything when evil comes to play. Calling 911 is an illusion of security that will usually deliver the false promise of safety too late. Recently, in my old neighborhood, evil did come to play. The first responders did as they are trained to do...they responded. But as is seen in almost all of these cases, the response comes too late.
Spree killer takes 3 lives in two-day county rampage
Los Angeles Daily News
Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - SIMI VALLEY -- A career criminal shattered the calm of two of the nation's safest cities in a vicious two-day crime spree during which he killed three people and seriously injured four others before committing suicide Tuesday in a Wal-Mart.
Toby Whelchel, 38, who has a rap sheet running from Florida, through Indiana and into California, apparently sought revenge against his former attorney in Thousand Oaks and then went on a rampage of carjacking and pistol-whipping and shooting innocent people.
It ended in the sporting-goods section of the discount department store where Whelchel intended to steal ammunition to carry on his spree. Cornered after panicked early-morning shoppers and sales staff had fled, he shot himself, authorities said.
Less than a half-hour earlier in a gated community just outside Simi Valley, Whelchel had pistol-whipped two children and shot their mother, Carole Nordella, as she pleaded for help in a phone call to her husband. She died later and the two children remained hospitalized with serious injuries.
"This is an act of unexplainable violence," said Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks. "It certainly wasn't the level of force necessary to steal a car, which was his intent (Tuesday morning). It was violence just for violence's sake."
The spree began in Thousand Oaks about 4 p.m. Monday as Tim and Janice Heyne returned a motorboat, borrowed for a Memorial Day weekend trip to Big Bear Lake, to the home of longtime friend Steve Mazin.
"He and Steve were A-No. 1 buddies," said Tim Heyne's brother-in-law, Mike Baumann. "They lived two blocks from each other. They played golf every week together. I don't know how much closer you could get."
As the two men and Heyne's wife, Jan, stood outside talking, Whelchel ran up the driveway -- "it appeared he was going to go up and give Steve a bearhug" -- and instead pulled a gun, firing several shots, Baumann recounted from talking with Tim Heyne.
Authorities say Mazin, an attorney, had represented Whelchel in a 1999 dispute with a towing company, but after an unspecified dispute a judge in 2002 issued a restraining order. It was set to expire this December.
Janice Heyne, 51, died at the house; Mazin, 52, died later at a hospital. Tim Heyne, who was shot in the shoulder, remained hospitalized in critical condition Tuesday night.
Neighbors, who gathered around the home after hearing gunshots, reported seeing Whelchel smiling and waving as he drove away in a pickup.
The gunman abandoned the truck at a nearby supermarket and carjacked another truck, which was found about 7:45 a.m. Tuesday at Wildwood Park, near the exclusive Santa Rosa Valley neighborhood in Thousand Oaks, said Brooks.
A half-hour later in an unincorporated area Carole Nordella, a 48-year-old mother of three, summoned her husband, Jeffrey, by cell phone because someone was trying to break into the house.
As Nordella raced home, Whelchel pistol-whipped Carole and two young children. Carole was shot in the back of the head as well, and died later at a hospital.
"It's random, one person who just went crazy," said neighbor Wes Hoagland, who noted the area is usually so peaceful many residents don't even lock the doors to their homes. Indeed in 2003 Thousand Oaks was ranked the safest city in the nation with a population over 100,000, according to annual FBI data. Simi Valley, which had been the reigning champion, was bumped to the No. 2 spot.
Jeffrey Nordella, upon arriving home, used his car to block Whelchel's escape and was joined by Deputy Scott Ramirez, a 10-year Sheriff's Department veteran. The deputy was hit twice in an exchange of gunfire with Whelchel, though Nordella escaped injury.
As authorities poured into the neighborhood, Whelchel escaped in a pool maintenance man's black pickup that was parked in the Nordellas' driveway. The maintenance man was also beaten but not hospitalized.
With deputies tracking him from the ground and a helicopter in the air, Whelchel sped away to a Wal-Mart store at Cochran Street and Madera Road.
The Wal-Mart store, just off the 118 Freeway in a quiet retail complex, had opened less than two hours before. The usually bustling retail chain enjoys a special calm around the early-morning hours.
Arlene Barnett, a six-year employee, was standing at the entrance to the door greeting customers when Whelchel ran past her.
"He looked like he knew exactly what he wanted. To be honest, he didn't look like he was worried about anyone else," she said. Witnesses said he ran into the sporting goods department and broke into a case containing ammunition.
Customers were rushed from the building as quickly as possible.
"People were panicked," said Susan McWhorter, a 39-year-old mother of four who was in the shampoo aisle when Whelchel entered the store. "They were just leaving their carts, running. I heard yelling and then employees were just saying get out, get out," she said. "It was really scary."
Whelchel, who Brooks said has a history of violent crimes including assaulting a police officer and violently resisting arrest in Indiana and Florida, was found dead inside the store from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
TIMELINE MONDAY
4 p.m.: Timothy and Janice Heyne return a motorboat to the home of longtime friend Steve Mazin. Toby Whelchel shoots the couple and Mazin. Whelchel speeds off in a white Dodge Ram pickup.
4:15 p.m.: Whelchel pulls into a Vons parking lot at the corner of Janss and Moorpark roads and hijacks a white Ford pickup.
Overnight : Authorities believe Whelchel may have stayed the night in Wildwood Park, hiding in the brush.
TIMELINE TUESDAY
7:45 a.m.: Residents of a neighborhood near Wildwood Park spot the hijacked Ford pickup and report it to police.
8:15 a.m.: On the other side of the park, Whelchel breaks into a large home in a gated community. He shoots Carol Nordella, 48, and pistol-whips two of her children (children are later treated for fractured skulls).
Deputy Scott Ramirez, 30, arrives and is shot twice by Whelchel as he flees in a hijacked black pickup.
8:20 a.m.: Patrol cars and a helicopter chase Whelchel to Simi Valley.
8:30 a.m.: Whelchel pulls into a Wal-Mart at Cochran Street and Madera Road and runs to the store's sporting goods department. Store is sealed and evacuated by police. At least one gunshot is heard within the store. Police enter the store with K-9 units and find the suspect dead with a bullet wound to the head.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here is our view of this. Laws denying citizens their ONLY TRUE LINE OF DEFENSE (carry of weapons) could not save any of these people. Laws putting serial numbers on bullets could not save any of these people. Federal funds for the training of first response units and SWAT teams could not save these people.
What could have saved them? If just one man had been carrying a gun with him...specially the first man, that may have been enough. How much killing and sorrow could have been prevented with a simple press of the trigger? One bullet for three innocent lives, and the destroyed lives of several others. Seems like a fair exchange to me.
Yet in California, I suspect that had any of these4 poor victims been armed and carrying in disobedience to the laws in that state, they would likely still be alive, but likely facing prosecution. Such is justice. Similarly in many areas of the nation, there are laws on the books denying these poor innocents the very right to live and defend themselves with firearms (as recognized in our Constitution).
While the evil criminal is responsible for these atrocities, equally responsible is any lawmaker that writes a law prohibiting good citizens from carry their only means of self-protection. There will likely be some fall out over this event. Rather than Wal-Mart taking ammo off the shelves, or another epidemic of "tough new laws" or more first responders, what we need to see is a class action lawsuit against the forces that denied these victims their only way to stay alive.
I wonder if anyone gets the message?
While the evil criminal is responsible for these atrocities, equally responsible is any lawmaker that writes a law prohibiting good citizens from carry their only means of self-protection. There will likely be some fall out over this event. Rather than Wal-Mart taking ammo off the shelves, or another epidemic of "tough new laws" or more first responders, what we need to see is a class action lawsuit against the forces that denied these victims their only way to stay alive.
I could NOT agree MORE with that!!! AHMEN!
Yes it did. It has been reported in the media.
How did I know that. :rolleyes:
So much for a "safe" zone.
C4
I was out of town, so just saw this thread. First off, I am from Omaha and the shooting happened less than a mile from my office. I could see the Helo circling and see the Police Cars responding from my window. I was actually going to be at that mall, just outside of VonMaur not an hour prior to the shooting as well. Also, my CCW permit is in the works so the CCW course is fresh in my mind.
The Mall, as mentioned prior, is posted no weapons. In Nebraska, our CCW law states that carrying in a posted establishment is a misdemeanor. The following is taken right from Nebraska State Patrols' website: "The following offenses are classified as a Class III Misdemeanor for the first offense and as a Class I
Misdemeanor for the second or subsequent offense:
Permit holder carrying a concealed handgun into a prohibited place or premises.
(See § 018 in the regulations or §69-2441 in the statutes.)"
If a CCW holder is convicted of any crime in regards to weapons, he loses his CCW permanently. So, while, yes, I can carry places, and most would not know, I do so at the risk of losing a very basic right.
Second, I read an account earlier today of someone who was on the 3rd floor when the shooting started. This person has taken the CCW course, but does not yet have his permit. He was NOT carrying on that day, but based on wehre he was standing, he had a perfect head shot from less than 30 yds away. The shooter was facing forward with this gentleman approx. 90 off to the side.
In addition, the mall has, for whatever reason, now removed the signs that contained the prohibition. These were their "code of conduct" signs. They are now gone. It has been speculated they were removed at the request of lawyers, perhaps to try to head off a civil suit. However, as I understand it, there are pictures of the signs posted on the Internet.
Last night, while driving home from Kansas City with my wife, we heard about the shootings in Colorado. My wife turned to me and said "I want a gun". She was 100% serious. She had been talking about taking the CCW course at some point, but these incidents have finally made it hit home, that stuff happens and we need to be prepared. She used to balk when I brought the pistol on vacation. She does not any longer. She didn't even particularly care for guns when we got married, so this is a huge step for her.
Giff
Last night, while driving home from Kansas City with my wife, we heard about the shootings in Colorado. My wife turned to me and said "I want a gun". She was 100% serious. She had been talking about taking the CCW course at some point, but these incidents have finally made it hit home, that stuff happens and we need to be prepared. She used to balk when I brought the pistol on vacation. She does not any longer. She didn't even particularly care for guns when we got married, so this is a huge step for her.
Giff[/QUOTE]
Lucky you, MY wife grew up in Montana and still can,t stand guns. She did not like me getting my three grandsons BB guns this year for Christmas. And their dad is a LEO and said they didn't have a choice and would learn SAFTY/HANDLING FIRST.
KintlaLake
12-10-07, 10:11
In addition, the mall has, for whatever reason, now removed the signs that contained the prohibition. These were their "code of conduct" signs. They are now gone. It has been speculated they were removed at the request of lawyers, perhaps to try to head off a civil suit. However, as I understand it, there are pictures of the signs posted on the Internet.
In my last "regular job," I worked in an office building with 100 other employees. On the same property was a separate building open to the general public (for an admission fee). Company policy prohibited employees from carrying a firearm on the premises and, several years ago, the company's president ordered that this sign be posted on the entry doors of both buildings:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/kintlalake/NOTICE.jpg
A few months after those signs went up, a visitor from Pennsylvania took great exception to entering an "unarmed victims zone." He threatened to pull his business from the company and began an aggressive letter-writing campaign encouraging NRA members and others to do likewise.
The president, underestimating the potential backlash and adamant that the signs should remain, convened a meeting of senior staff -- essentially to brainstorm a public-relations push to convince our customers that the signs were necessary to "protect" employees and visitors from those intent on doing them harm. With a majority of the senior staff opposing the signs, we asked the president if he truly believed that someone bent on carnage would be deterred by a sign.
The signs came down. Employees still aren't permitted to carry.
I believe in private-property rights, including the right of the owner to determine what's permitted and what's not. I don't have the legal chops to discuss the intersection of (or the conflicts between) private property and public accommodation, but I think that guy from Pennsylvania may have given us a clue about one way to effect change, albeit imperfect change.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.