How To Stop A Massacre

[FirefightnRick]

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

No s, Sherlock.

Anyone who puts himself in harms way in a gunfight knows what he is getting into. There is never a gaurantee you will win. 

This guy was a Marine and knew that. He should be praised for his willingness to step up and attempt to do the right thing instead  of used to make an Internet point.

Let alone the fact that his involvement may have actually prevented anyone else from dying.  The guy might have had plans of killing his wife and going back into the store and shooting everyone?  Instead after the shooting he freaked out and ran.

 

Rick

[Army of Dad]

4 hours ago, UNT90 said:

No s, Sherlock.

Anyone who puts himself in harms way in a gunfight knows what he is getting into. There is never a gaurantee you will win. 

This guy was a Marine and knew that. He should be praised for his willingness to step up and attempt to do the right thing instead  of used to make an Internet point.

Some people will never get that since they can't comprehend the decision to get involved and risk one's own life to protect another. 

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

Let alone the fact that his involvement may have actually prevented anyone else from dying.  The guy might have had plans of killing his wife and going back into the store and shooting everyone?  Instead after the shooting he freaked out and ran.

 

Rick

Quite possibly this. The wife of the shooter has made public statements that she thought he was coming to finish the job he started when he shot her in the ankle.

[UNT Five&Dime]

So now he's a martyr? Who was he protecting by engaging? Seems to me all that did was escalate the situation and could have resulted in the shooter doing everything you guys feared anyway.

He made a knucklehead decision to approach the shooter. If he was so interested in helping out and "doing the right thing" he would have gone to the aid of the victim. If he wanted to protect everyone he would have secured the entrance to Walgreen's.

It was clear the shooter and employee knew each other. There were witnesses. Get the license plate. He wasn't going to get away with it.

[Army of Dad]

19 minutes ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

So now he's a martyr? Who was he protecting by engaging? Seems to me all that did was escalate the situation and could have resulted in the shooter doing everything you guys feared anyway.

He made a knucklehead decision to approach the shooter. If he was so interested in helping out and "doing the right thing" he would have gone to the aid of the victim. If he wanted to protect everyone he would have secured the entrance to Walgreen's.

It was clear the shooter and employee knew each other. There were witnesses. Get the license plate. He wasn't going to get away with it.

Not so fast my friend. 

Was the shooter returning to his car to arm up? 

Or, rather than go through each of the scenarios you used to make your argument let's address this first: Have you ever considered how to address this situation and taken into account things like your skill level, your preparedness (mental, physical, weapon availability), tactics, identifying cover or concealment, effective means to stop unlawful behaviors?

Edited May 4, 2016 by Army of Dad

[UNT Five&Dime]

34 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Not so fast my friend. 

Was the shooter returning to his car to arm up? 

Or, rather than go through each of the scenarios you used to make your argument let's address this first: Have you ever considered how to address this situation and taken into account things like your skill level, your preparedness (mental, physical, weapon availability), tactics, identifying cover or concealment, effective means to stop unlawful behaviors?

Obviously the Marine misjudged his skill level, preparedness and tactics. He definitely didn't consider cover and concealment. It's not his job to stop unlawful behavior.

Approaching was the wrong decision. Securing the entrance to Walgreen's was a much smarter option, especially if the endgame was to protect others. If the thought was he was arming up (that's a big leap), why would you approach the vehicle? Any scenario I can think of, I don't know why one would approach the vehicle/suspect.

[Army of Dad]

2 minutes ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Obviously the Marine misjudged his skill level, preparedness and tactics. He definitely didn't consider cover and concealment. It's not his job to stop unlawful behavior.

Approaching was the wrong decision. Securing the entrance to Walgreen's was a much smarter option, especially if the endgame was to protect others. If the thought was he was arming up (that's a big leap), why would you approach the vehicle? Any scenario I can think of, I don't know why one would approach the vehicle/suspect.

It sounds like you are the one making big leaps. 

Why not attempt to secure the store entrance? Because their are other potential victims outside (including the good samaritan's wife). Additionally, I haven't seen any reports that indicate anyone other than the first victim knew this was a domestic violence incident. Have you? If not, then you are making a leap in logic.

It's unlikely the former marine failed to consider cover or concealment, why are you so dinfinitive that he didn't? He likely made at least one tactical error, but approaching the shooter probably wasn't it (it's possible that an error was approaching to close, but that's not the same thing as approaching the shooter). It's been one year since two terrorist douche bags tried to kill a bunch of people in Garland. They were stopped, not by withdrawing, but by moving towards the threat. In fact, it's now fairly standard to move to active shooters. I haven't seen any information that shows the threat was clearly over when the former marine decided to do something. 

I hope if you are ever confronted with a deadly situation such as this you are able to safely cower away from the shooter while others act to save you. Each situation is different and must be assessed by the people there at the time, but please understand that many people prefer to be more active in the defense of themselves and others. Be thankful, they may just save your life one day.

[UNT Five&Dime]

33 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

It sounds like you are the one making big leaps. 

Why not attempt to secure the store entrance? Because their are other potential victims outside (including the good samaritan's wife). Additionally, I haven't seen any reports that indicate anyone other than the first victim knew this was a domestic violence incident. Have you? If not, then you are making a leap in logic.

It's unlikely the former marine failed to consider cover or concealment, why are you so dinfinitive that he didn't? He likely made at least one tactical error, but approaching the shooter probably wasn't it (it's possible that an error was approaching to close, but that's not the same thing as approaching the shooter). It's been one year since two terrorist douche bags tried to kill a bunch of people in Garland. They were stopped, not by withdrawing, but by moving towards the threat. In fact, it's now fairly standard to move to active shooters. I haven't seen any information that shows the threat was clearly over when the former marine decided to do something. 

I hope if you are ever confronted with a deadly situation such as this you are able to safely cower away from the shooter while others act to save you. Each situation is different and must be assessed by the people there at the time, but please understand that many people prefer to be more active in the defense of themselves and others. Be thankful, they may just save your life one day.

If you get shot in an open parking lot, you aren't using cover too well.

What big leaps am I making? From my understanding the argument started inside Walgreen's and continued out. Clearly it would be seen as a domestic dispute where the two parties knew each other. This threat to others is a big leap you are making. If the point is to react logically, wouldn't that be the fair assumption anyway...the majority of arguments are between persons who know each other, no? Garland has no bearing here, you yourself say each situation is different. Neither of us were at either but I assume they looked vastly different.

I appreciate your concern that I am able to cower away behind those who use fear to motivate their actions under the guise of heroism, but not once have I mentioned what I would have done.

[Army of Dad]

1 minute ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

If you get shot in an open parking lot, you aren't using cover too well.

What big leaps am I making? From my understanding the argument started inside Walgreen's and continued out. Clearly it would be seen as a domestic dispute where the two parties knew each other. This threat to others is a big leap you are making. If the point is to react logically, wouldn't that be the fair assumption anyway...the majority of arguments are between persons who know each other, no? Garland has no bearing here, you yourself say each situation is different. Neither of us were at either but I assume they looked vastly different.

I appreciate your concern that I am able to cower away behind those who use fear to motivate their actions under the guise of heroism, but not once have I mentioned what I would have done.

Oh, how is it clear to the people on scene at that time it was a domestic? We know that now, but haven't seen anything that indicated it was well known to others at the time of the incident.

Do you know how he approached the shooter? Do you even know how the scene was laid out? If not, how can you be so definitive?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to denigrate the actions and/or the motivations of others who attempt to protect people. 

The threat to others isn't a big leap. You've already got one major crime. Those often lead to additional crimes.

[UNT Five&Dime]

10 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Oh, how is it clear to the people on scene at that time it was a domestic? We know that now, but haven't seen anything that indicated it was well known to others at the time of the incident.

Do you know how he approached the shooter? Do you even know how the scene was laid out? If not, how can you be so definitive?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to denigrate the actions and/or the motivations of others who attempt to protect people. 

The threat to others isn't a big leap. You've already got one major crime. Those often lead to additional crimes.

How is it clear? They argued in the store, came out, argued some more. Unless you're deaf, I think you could probably decipher that they knew each other. And again, random violence is the minority. Do you really believe that domestic violence turns to multiple shootings "often"? I don't know what to say to that.

I'll give you I have no idea how any approach was made, but it was obviously not done effectively. I'm not denigrating, just saying his decision/action was not the correct one. You feel it was. Maybe the reason is I can't understand how he thought he was protecting others, or that he needed to.

[Army of Dad]

1 hour ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

How is it clear? They argued in the store, came out, argued some more. Unless you're deaf, I think you could probably decipher that they knew each other. And again, random violence is the minority. Do you really believe that domestic violence turns to multiple shootings "often"? I don't know what to say to that.

I'll give you I have no idea how any approach was made, but it was obviously not done effectively. I'm not denigrating, just saying his decision/action was not the correct one. You feel it was. Maybe the reason is I can't understand how he thought he was protecting others, or that he needed to.

Oh, they argued in and out of the store. And you know that everyone else in the area was able to hear it and understand what was being said? Just because they are (presumably) yelling doesn't mean that will make the situation clear to everyone in the area.

You keep making these diffinitive and absolute statements and I've not seen or read anything that backs up what you are saying. It's certainly possible I didn't read the same stories you may have, but I've mentioned it several times and you don't appear to have back up for most of those statements.

Yes you are denigrating his actions and his motives for acting. 

It is certainly possible his actions prevented the shooter from engaging others. That is something that can't be proven either way, but the former marine was well within his rights to act as he did. It's probable that he could have things better, but he did something instead of just standing by and watching. It's obvious our opinions differ, but that's a commendable choice in my opinion.

[UNT Five&Dime]

27 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Oh, they argued in and out of the store. And you know that everyone else in the area was able to hear it and understand what was being said? Just because they are (presumably) yelling doesn't mean that will make the situation clear to everyone in the area.

You keep making these diffinitive and absolute statements and I've not seen or read anything that backs up what you are saying. It's certainly possible I didn't read the same stories you may have, but I've mentioned it several times and you don't appear to have back up for most of those statements.

Yes you are denigrating his actions and his motives for acting. 

It is certainly possible his actions prevented the shooter from engaging others. That is something that can't be proven either way, but the former marine was well within his rights to act as he did. It's probable that he could have things better, but he did something instead of just standing by and watching. It's obvious our opinions differ, but that's a commendable choice in my opinion.

You're right. He could have been (presumably) yelling at her and shooting the ground because his prescription for Viagra wasn't in. Or because they were out of Juicy Fruit.

If his actions triggered a full-blown attack on everyone there instead of him getting "freaked out", would I be able to question him then? It is all what-ifs. But odds are if he hadn't done what he did, he'd be alive along with everyone else. Mr. Dumbass would still be arrested.

[UNT90]

11 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

Obviously the Marine misjudged his skill level, preparedness and tactics. He definitely didn't consider cover and concealment. It's not his job to stop unlawful behavior.

Approaching was the wrong decision. Securing the entrance to Walgreen's was a much smarter option, especially if the endgame was to protect others. If the thought was he was arming up (that's a big leap), why would you approach the vehicle? Any scenario I can think of, I don't know why one would approach the vehicle/suspect.

Some of the dumbest things you have ever posted. You are second guessing a situation you have f'n zero reliable information about.

If you truly believe it isn't all of our responsibility to stop crime and criminals, why don't you just check out of society. It is absolutely ALL of our responsibility to stop unlawful behavior. If I'm not mistaken, you are one of the first to criticize police shootings, and now you are telling us you want no part of your responsibilities as a citizen? Shocked. 

You have no idea what would have happened if that freaking hero hadn't done something you would never do, put himself in harms way for someone he didn't even know. Because he felt it was the right thing to do.

Why don't you go pee on his grave while you are at it.

8 hours ago, Army of Dad said:

Oh, they argued in and out of the store. And you know that everyone else in the area was able to hear it and understand what was being said? Just because they are (presumably) yelling doesn't mean that will make the situation clear to everyone in the area.

You keep making these diffinitive and absolute statements and I've not seen or read anything that backs up what you are saying. It's certainly possible I didn't read the same stories you may have, but I've mentioned it several times and you don't appear to have back up for most of those statements.

Yes you are denigrating his actions and his motives for acting. 

It is certainly possible his actions prevented the shooter from engaging others. That is something that can't be proven either way, but the former marine was well within his rights to act as he did. It's probable that he could have things better, but he did something instead of just standing by and watching. It's obvious our opinions differ, but that's a commendable choice in my opinion.

The soon to be ex-wife was on the news calling the deceased a hero this evening. She also sad that anyone in the store could have been hit by rounds that the suspect fired. Seems she knows something 5 abd dime doesn't: criminals aren't very good at hitting their target, this isn't the movies, and stray rounds can kill.

I love the idiot that comes on here with zero information and wants to call a guy who sacraficed his life to protect another an idiot with ZERO facts, simply to support his personal beliefs. And we wonder how Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton get nominated. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by UNT90

[UNT Five&Dime]

9 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Some of the dumbest things you have ever posted. You are second guessing a situation you have f'n zero reliable information about.

And you're applauding a situation you know nothing about. What's your point?

 

9 hours ago, UNT90 said:

If I'm not mistaken, you are one of the first to criticize police shootings, and now you are telling us you want no part of your responsibilities as a citizen? Shocked. 

I've made a couple jokes (maybe just one), but as far as I know I've never criticized IRL or on here. But you bring up a good discussion, shouldn't we be celebrating the criminal here since he used deadly force against someone approaching him with a weapon? Surely he feared for his life and had every right to shoot?

 

9 hours ago, UNT90 said:

You have no idea what would have happened if that freaking hero hadn't done something you would never do, put himself in harms way for someone he didn't even know. Because he felt it was the right thing to do.

I still don't understand how he was protecting anyone.

 

9 hours ago, UNT90 said:

The soon to be ex-wife was on the news calling the deceased a hero this evening. She also sad that anyone in the store could have been hit by rounds that the suspect fired. Seems she knows something 5 abd dime doesn't: criminals aren't very good at hitting their target, this isn't the movies, and stray rounds can kill.

Isn't that just "coach speak" after the fact?

 

9 hours ago, UNT90 said:

I love the idiot that comes on here with zero information and wants to call a guy who sacraficed his life to protect another an idiot with ZERO facts, simply to support his personal beliefs. And we wonder how Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton get nominated. 

Just want to clarify if you're calling me an idiot directly or not since you always seem to puss out when someone points out you went personal first, again. And please stop with your broken record about people arguing to support their personal beliefs. As you say, "No s, Sherlock". Why would someone argue against their beliefs? You're arguing with me to support your personal beliefs. Are you too much of an idiot to realize that?

[Censored by Laurie]

19 hours ago, Army of Dad said:

It is certainly possible his actions prevented the shooter from engaging others. That is something that can't be proven either way, but the former marine was well within his rights to act as he did. It's probable that he could have things better, but he did something instead of just standing by and watching. It's obvious our opinions differ, but that's a commendable choice in my opinion.

I think the general and irreconcilable difference in opinions is that there is a faction of people who feel that more guns in a given situation can make that situation safer and a faction of people who believe that more guns in a given situation can escalate the danger. 

the lead in the discussion I think is being buried here is the fact that he was a marine and things still went this wrong. I understand there is assumed risk every time a person grabs a gun, but if someone with legitimate training with firearms is unable to defuse a situation like this imagine had this good samaritan been someone with little more than a weekend CHL course. 

[Army of Dad]

4 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I think the general and irreconcilable difference in opinions is that there is a faction of people who feel that more guns in a given situation can make that situation safer and a faction of people who believe that more guns in a given situation can escalate the danger. 

the lead in the discussion I think is being buried here is the fact that he was a marine and things still went this wrong. I understand there is assumed risk every time a person grabs a gun, but if someone with legitimate training with firearms is unable to defuse a situation like this imagine had this good samaritan been someone with little more than a weekend CHL course. 

To your first point I would agree that there is a wide divergence in the opinions of the two groups you mentioned. I would add a qualifier to the former group: more guns in the hands of good guys makes for safer situations.

To your second point, I don't have all of the facts and haven't seen a detailed report of this incident. I don't think you can make such a definitive statement without more fully understanding both this incident in particular and the relative training levels you are talking about.

[Censored by Laurie]

23 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

To your first point I would agree that there is a wide divergence in the opinions of the two groups you mentioned. I would add a qualifier to the former group: more guns in the hands of good guys makes for safer situations.

To your second point, I don't have all of the facts and haven't seen a detailed report of this incident. I don't think you can make such a definitive statement without more fully understanding both this incident in particular and the relative training levels you are talking about.

to the first point...your qualifier doesn't really change the opinion of that second faction. maybe change "good guys" to "trained professionals".

to the second point...I'm not sure what specifics I would need here, unless you're saying that the relative training level of a marine don't always exceed the relative training level of a weekend CHL course. 

[UNT Five&Dime]

Bad guys are good guys until they aren't anymore. Opportunity can influence when that happens. My guess is increasing one side of that equation is going to increase the other eventually.

[Army of Dad]

10 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

to the first point...your qualifier doesn't really change the opinion of that second faction. maybe change "good guys" to "trained professionals".

to the second point...I'm not sure what specifics I would need here, unless you're saying that the relative training level of a marine don't always exceed the relative training level of a weekend CHL course. 

An, but adding 'trained professionals' wouldn't help the opinion of the first group and I think you could argue that it wouldn't help all of the second. (Think wrongful police/federal agent shootings).

That depends on what courses in pistol handling the marine took and what constitutes 'little more than a weekend CHL course'. An afternoon with a reasonably competent practical handgun shooter could dramatically increase someone's skill level and readiness. 

[UNT90]

9 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

And you're applauding a situation you know nothing about. What's your point?

 

I've made a couple jokes (maybe just one), but as far as I know I've never criticized IRL or on here. But you bring up a good discussion, shouldn't we be celebrating the criminal here since he used deadly force against someone approaching him with a weapon? Surely he feared for his life and had every right to shoot?

 

I still don't understand how he was protecting anyone.

 

Isn't that just "coach speak" after the fact?

 

Just want to clarify if you're calling me an idiot directly or not since you always seem to puss out when someone points out you went personal first, again. And please stop with your broken record about people arguing to support their personal beliefs. As you say, "No s, Sherlock". Why would someone argue against their beliefs? You're arguing with me to support your personal beliefs. Are you too much of an idiot to realize that?

What you are posting as fact is your idiot opinion. You have no way of knowing the circumstances. But that didnt stop you from creating them to fit your agenda. That is what I am talking about. Making crap up to validate your personal opinion. And that's exactly what you did here. 

And no, you can't shoot a citizen trying to arrest you after you have committed a felony assault with a firearm. You know why? Of course you don't, because you are ignorant on this matter. ANY citizen has the right to arrest For a felony committed in their presence under Texas law. That also kinda screws your "not his (really I mean my) responsibility" statement since the State of Texas specifically allows you as a citizen to arrest. 14.01 (a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure if you want to actually educate yourself on what you are talking about. 

 The fact that you even present the possibility that the criminal had the right to defend himself against lawful arrest also shows your ignorance on the subject matter. 

Maybe your trolling. Either that or you are just incredibly dense on the subject matter. 

[UNT Five&Dime]

On mobile so I'm not going to waste my time cutting the parts I am responding to. Try to follow along everyone.

I'm not going to question you to tell me what facts I've made up, it's the usual argument you and others make. Husband not going after everyone else is more plausible than the argument he was, which is what you guys are placing as much a fact as me. Whatever.

So is it a right or responsibility to arrest? You say both. I just want to know. Does the Texas Code "allow" or require me? It sounds like you should educate yourself before trying to teach me.

 

[UNT90]

26 minutes ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

On mobile so I'm not going to waste my time cutting the parts I am responding to. Try to follow along everyone.

I'm not going to question you to tell me what facts I've made up, it's the usual argument you and others make. Husband not going after everyone else is more plausible than the argument he was, which is what you guys are placing as much a fact as me. Whatever.

So is it a right or responsibility to arrest? You say both. I just want to know. Does the Texas Code "allow" or require me? It sounds like you should educate yourself before trying to teach me.

 

It "allows." And I have no doubt that is something you will never do. It wouldn't be specifically in the code if the state didn't see a need for it. I'm glad you aren't my neighbor. 

I didn't applaud a good citizen getting murdered by a criminal. I said the guy is a hero. So did the female shooting victim. And he is. Don't worry, from your posts on here I doubt you will ever have to worry about anyone applying that moniker to you in any situation where you can make a difference. Just keep on keeping your head down and going about your way. 

I'll believe the lady that got shot over your highly uneducated opinion. She was there. You weren't.

[UNT Five&Dime]

13 hours ago, UNT90 said:

I'll believe the lady that got shot over your highly uneducated opinion. She was there. You weren't.

I'll just mention I'm not surprised you and others don't realize her thoughts and what she said afterwards (the usual fear-for-life quote) do not make it a fact that her husband was targeting her further or others in the area.

How do you know I wasn't there? There's 300,000+ alums in the Metroplex   .

[UNT90]

On May 6, 2016 at 9:05 AM, UNT Five&Dime said:

I'll just mention I'm not surprised you and others don't realize her thoughts and what she said afterwards (the usual fear-for-life quote) do not make it a fact that her husband was targeting her further or others in the area.

How do you know I wasn't there? There's 300,000+ alums in the Metroplex   .

Troll.

[UNT Five&Dime]

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:21 AM, UNT90 said:

Troll.

Your mom's a troll.

[FirefightnRick]

LOL...Yall are killing me.

 

Rick