Say you have a mall shooting similar to the Oregon mall shooting in December 2012 and you were present. You are in a store by yourself and you have your CCW weapon on you. Choose one of the poll options in relation to your knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Not nearly enough information to make that call. One thing that will be on my mind: if I fire my CCW, I'm in for a world of lawyer fees and courtroom time, regardless of how I'm ultimately judged.
Ok, you are right. I will take it one step further. If you were in this guys shoes, in his exact position knowing what we know from stories on the internet, how would your answer change? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...lder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html http://www.nwcn.com/news/oregon/183609901.html Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI
Take cover and assess the situation. Help others take cover. Just because you have a right doesn't meet you have to commit suicide. You will still be responsible for any action taken against the shooter if you hit someone else. Now, if I had to make a choice, shoot or be shot, I would be shooting. You can make all kinds of decisions after the fact but things are different during the actual occurrence. Who really knows until you have to face it.
I stay hidden and engage asap. It's probably not smart on my part, because I think the law says that unless MY LIFE is in imminent danger I cannot shoot without repercussion. If someone is trying to slaughter people though, I think I shoot to kill and take my chances. Pretty hard decision whether to let you getting in trouble legally stop you from saving someone's life.
Ayuh,.... The sequence of events would be, Take cover, access the tactical advantage of the shooter,... Develop a Better tactical advantage than the shooter has, 'n only then execute whatever actions are necessary to disable, 'n Stop the active shooter....
Need to know what happened (in a nutshell) in the Oregon mall shooting of December 2012, to answer the questions. So what happened ?
It would be difficult to do much of anything unless the shooter was near me. I would easily move into predator mode, but I'm not the athlete I once was, so I'd have to be wary of available cover. I would try to put myself in between the shooter and as many people as I could, and urge them to escape, somewhere behind me. I know that if I actually did engage the guy, one or both of us would take hits. I would be very keenly interested in seeing how this thing would go. It's a game that you would probably never have another chance to play.
Back in my bachelor military days it would have been a no-brainer. I would have engaged without a second thought. I have a family now so my life isn’t mine alone to gamble with. At the same time I don’t think I could live with myself if I just ran away. I would probably do a careful assessment and weigh my odds. Nowadays the odds would have to be heavily in my favor to take the chance.
The law (in WA) is that you are lawfully authorized to use deadly force to protect yourself or another. Naturally, if you screw up, all bets are off. As for answering the Forum question, (like apostate) my life too isn't mine to risk anymore so I'd have to be dammed sure that I'm in the best tactical position possible before engaging, and then only if I'm sure that he/she is the active shooter and about to do it again. The most likely scenario is that I'd try to escape. If not possible, I'd honker down, take stock of the situation, and fire if it looks like I'm next. However, if I'm with either one of my wife or kids, its escape, hunker down, take stock then if s/he even looks at me funny... --- Tribble
I changed my mind on this one completely, before I said I would engage and take my chances basically with the law. Now, unless I was 100% sure that I was within the law, I wouldn't do anything.
I'm not the sheriff. I'm not here to rid the town of bad guys so I can save the damsel in distress. My priority is protecting myself, my family, and my friends. I don't look to be the hero. I look to just protect. If I am in a similar situation but the shooting is on the other side of the mall my job is to get my people out of the mall safely not run to the other side and swoop in to save Lois Lane. If I'm closer to the action and I'm in a situation where I feel the need to shoot back then that's different.
I would first attempt to find cover and once that was done I'd look to use my weapon to stop the shooter without unnecessarily exposing myself to being disarmed by his fire or direct threat of being shot. For the first few moments I might leave my weapon undrawn so as to make sure I was able to reliably engage the bad guy from a position of safety. No sense in standing up in full view of the shooter and getting myself shot because of some John Wayne sense of bravery, i.e. ill-advised theatrical displays of machismo. That's Liberal behavior.
I probably would have shot myself as soon as I realized I was in a mall. LOL But under the right circumstances, I would have to engage if I had my weapon on me. Not John Wayne or Rambo, but I dont think I could just haul ass and ever look myself in the mirror again. I would first try to get a bead on where the rounds are coming from, and if with others (family) get them going the other way while providing any cover for them if needed. Million what ifs. But in the absense of any LEO on site, armed guards, and a way to engage and make a difference. I would have to do it. Yes, even if to my detriment.
The problem is the question. I think the expected or hoped for response was that people would either do nothing or they'd engage like Rambo. But the scenario has me in a store by myself (cool that there's no clerk present to keep me honest! haha). By law if I am not in danger I cannot engage a threat that isn't a threat to me, at least yet. It's in many people's natures to help others in distress. Would I be willing in that situation to put myself in danger to help others? Maybe. But to just commit suicide by dangerously engaging would be silly. I'd have to understand the situation, see the threat, know I had a chance against the threat and then find an opportunity to engage where I wouldn't be further endangering others beyond what the shooter planned to do. Keep in mind, if I miss then any death becomes my fault. So I have to take the danger and compare it to my opportunity to intervene without harming others. It's just more complicated than to say I'd intervene or run. By all rights within CCW training, I should disengage myself as quickly as possible from even being drawn into the situation, but like had been mentioned earlier, how do you look at yourself in the mirror and know you ran and helped nobody if you truly could have? Americans are not typically cowards and we have a long history of helping others who are in danger. Look at the heroes on the battlefield and surrounding so many dangerous situations here at home. My conscience would not allow me to just run so I can only assume I would await the best opportunity to make the most of my CCW and try to help. Put my family in that scenario and I'd turn into the best imitation, amateur Rambo I can be. I will engage any threat to their safety at any cost to myself. Period. I suspect many others feel the same.
Actually, the CCW holder in the Oregon mall shooting did something different from the choices. He pulled his gun out, ready to engage the shooter, but did not, because a bystander was in the way. What he did was in between the 2nd and 3rd choices. IMHO, his revealing his gun was the major factor in stopping the incident.
I wouldn't run away without pulling my weapon; Instead I'd walk away without pulling my weapon. Let the police deal with it, that's what we pay them to do.
The poll is invalid as it doesn't take into considerations far to many factors. For example currently the option of "Pull out CCW and actively engage the shooter" has received the most votes but it's problematic on at least two counts. First and foremost is the person with the CCW property trained to address the situation? Without proper firearm competency training all the person would become is a target. Many gun owners seem to believe they're a much "better shot" than they really are. Even trained police officers have been known to empty their firearm without ever once hitting an armed criminal at relatively close range! They're trained and are excellent shots on the firing range but in an actual fire-fight the dynamics change dramatically. Next, and more important, is can that "shooter" be engaged without endangering others? This is a tactical decision that wasn't addressed at all and spraying bullets into a crowd would result in innocent people dying.
If I were armed and the shooter(s) were white, and the opportunity presented itself, I would intervene (engage) them. If the shooter(s) were African-Americans, for reasons of political correctness, I would try to discreetly slip away to avoid becoming involved in a stand-your-ground type of scenario. -30- See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil
id have my gun out, hopefully i could get as many people as possible behind me and into cover before the possibility that i may very well be engaged by the shooter and have to retalliate. If i was engaged id wait for the best possible clear shot as to not endanger any innocents near him. but as in life, we can pretend to know what happens, we can only hope for the best in a situation like that. but i know i would do everything i could to get women and children in my area to cover first and foremost.
