TexasCHLforum.com

Pariah3j wrote:

Solaris wrote: I could not care less how many people want to pile on me. I have yet to see anyone take one of my points and say I was wrong (for example say it is a good tactic to stand within striking distance of an adversary). but the night is early!

I'll bite... when exactly was he standing within striking distance of him once became a threat ?

He was condition WHITE for the first 2.5 minutes, but saw the argument and the clerk showing the guy the door and come back to argue. At 2:45 he exposed his strong side gun to the guy, within easy grab/strike distance. His head is looking down at his money in his hands and he would never have seen it coming. After he did at least go weak side but still way to close IMO and had his head looking down at his money in his hands again.

Did anyone notice the deadguy had a friend? He came in after him and took the beer the deadguy paid for and went out with it.

mojo84 wrote: I find it somewhat ironic a VOLUNTEER fireighter is being critical of someone volunteering to help. I know several full-time professional firefighters that believe VOLUNTEER firefighters get in the way and do more harm than good, well, with the exception of brush fires when they can give them a shovel and tell them to go over there and start digging a firebreak.

Where I live it is volunteer or your house burns down. Crash on road, I extract you or you stay there and get eaten by buzzards. There is no professional option. I have been doing it 40 years, multiple academies, volunteer does not mean hobby, I have the same skills and passed the same tests as any professional. I have never met a professional who believes as your friends do, but there are definitely folks out their volunteer and professional who should not be.

mojo84 wrote: I also know many medical professionals that take the Hippocratic Oath and still make mistakes and harm people, even after all their training.

I know. Only further reinforces fact those with no training at all should really think twice before engaging.

mojo84 wrote: Are you familiar with the term "Iatrogenic disease"? It happens to be, according to some reports, the 3rd leading cause of death.

No my sister is the physician not me.

mojo84 wrote: My problem isn't with you personally as I don't know you. My problem is how critical you are and willing to turn on a Good Samaritan that tried his best and at least was willing to help. It wasn't his fault the guy turned on him when he went to look at his license plate. Yeah, I probably wouldn't have been so obvious in getting the plate number. However, I'm my going to say the guy did nothing right either.

I am not turning on him. I was surprised he was not charged. I can see him getting charged, but not convicted. I would never convict him. This is a geography issue. In Texas, and the pro-gun south, you are likely to not be convicted, in anti-gun north (NJ, NY), you KNOW he is hosed.

I could not care less how many people want to pile on me. I have yet to see anyone take one of my points and say I was wrong (for example say it is a good tactic to stand within striking distance of an adversary). but the night is early!

Pariah3j wrote: There is a loss of what happened after he walked away from the back of the vehicle to the store entrance so unsure what escalated the issue. When they come into view in the store, pistol is drawn and words are being exchanged.

I googled up some other accounts and some reported the shooter first drew the gun in parking lot. That might have been what sent deadguy berserk.

Pariah3j wrote: For those questioning this man's tactics and choices ? Please tell me what you would have done differently ? Nothing is not really an answer - You could choose to do nothing, that's fine, but this man did do something. I believe evil happens when good men do nothing. I feel like he tried to make a difference, be a 'good Samaritan' and help the clerk/police by being a witness.

Well that would be me. I would mostly do the opposite of what he did so,

* I use a retention holster, whether concealed or open.

* Never turn back on arguer.

* keep distance, be in his blind spot, not yours.

* Let clerk take lead he is most qualified, you said you had 2-3 of these situations arise, i bet the clerk at a StopNRob sees quite a few a week.

* Back off. standing a foot beside him armed is threatening. Remember he does not know shooter is a goodguy. Also you do not want to be in striking distance.

* do not go back inside after altercation outside. So many more options outside. Far more ways to escape and maintain your distance to him.

* I carry less lethal options - pepper spray, flashlight/kubaton and training in how to employ them.

* I am never drawing my weapon unless I have already decided to shoot. This was a big one that severely reduced his options.

mojo84 wrote:I detected a recurring theme. http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1076877

Since you have decided to make me the topic of this thread, I will not run away.

Yes, that is a recurring theme. I do not like to see people get in over their head and die. I am funny that way. I am also VFD, I will also criticize anyone who runs into a burning building without proper knowledge, training or equipment too.

And that brings us to the next point I want to make about shooting. Getting involved. We hear it a lot on gun forums, "do something", "at least he got involved."

From the Hippocratic Oath - "First do no harm"

Despite quotes taken out of context from Teddy Roosevelt, getting involved does no good if you make the situation worse. So before getting involved, ask yourself, 1) Do I have the skills to improve the situation? 2) I am I the best one on the scene to take action?

Knowing when NOT to take action is more important than taking action. Years ago when I was in my 20s, my younger sister and I happened on a car crash, we were first there. First guy was dead, second was alive, stable but impaled, third had cuts, broken bones, some bleeding. Sister went to work on guy #3. I called in 911 giving directions and details.

Others stopped "to help". They decided to remove the dead guy from car, and then remove the impaled guy. I saw this before they did it, I forcefully told them to leave him alone. They did, They thought it was their duty to "get involved". They wanted to be Good Samaritans. They did not understand rule #1 as they did not have the skills to make the situation better, only worse, they almost killed the impaled guy. They fail at rule #2, they had no training and my sister was a ER attending physician. She was most qualified on the scene. She had already triaged the scene and was working on the guy who while not having the most injuries, needed the most help. She knew impaled guy would bleed out in seconds if pulled from car, wait for EMT who have the proper tools.

What does this have to do with shooting? Clerk probably sees several drunk customers a day, knows how to handle them. He was most likely best person to solve the problem and had the skills, as well as knowing the house rules. Despite good intentions, shooter unfortunately turned a non-violent verbal encounter into a deadly shooting. So before being a Good Samaritan, know rules #1 & #2 and "First Do No Harm".

One point I have not seen mentioned. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The shooter only had a gun. He did not appear to have any other less lethal options. Cops carry batons, pepper spray, taser, flashlight, kubaton, etc., not for the added weight, but to have more options other than kill or be killed.

Less lethal tools, something to think about having in addition to your gun.

And yes I have critiqued the shooters tactics, but I have tremendous sympathy for him. It was not his fight, he got involved and now he owns it, and when it went really bad, NOBODY else was there help him. NOBODY. The guy was pushing him, and NOBODY else was there to help stop the guy - tackle, clunk him on head with bottle, broom to face, push him over (he was drunk), whatever. So I feel for him on that. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

Keith B wrote:

Solaris wrote:
However all we have is the non-audio tape, so that is all we can comment on, and for whatever reason nobody really wants to talk about tactics right/wrong, but on just some how justifying a shooting none of us will ever have all the facts to.

There's your problem; you can't talk tactics validly from just a video with no audio and without other info. Any talk about what he did or didn't do is pure speculation. All we DO KNOW is that he was justified in the shooting from the investigation done by the DA and police. Trying to armchair quarterback the shooting and say what he did right or wring from just that video is no bueno.

Well that is the entire topic of this thread, and it sure looks like I am not the only one commenting on his tactics now, I see several more joining in. Some even seem to be taking my side on some of the tactics.

There is no incident in life where all the facts are known. WWII history books were written for 25 years about how we won the war. People got PhDs for the work, Books, Movies you name it were done. Then in 1972 a relatively unknown F.W. Winterbotham (and others) wrote a book showing for 25 years, everyone was wrong about how we won WWII. EVERYONE.

So let's get back to the tactics based on the facts we know, we can revisit when new facts come to light. There is a whole lot more info on this if anyone wants to google it that answers some questions asked in this thread.

mojo84 wrote: Since you say you have been in a similar situation, can you provide a video so we can critique your tactics or learn how to perfectly handle a similar situation?

Yes there is video on YouTube. You have probably seen it. You do not have to critique my tactics, my supervisors did that for me in spades. I had no problem hearing it either, I knew I could have done better, I wanted to improve, and they had no problem telling me. I learned from it, worked on improving, and it never happened again. But enough about me, let's return to discussing this incident, which seems to be back on track.

mojo84 wrote: You seem to be assuming the cops weren't called. The clerk picked the phone up multiple times. Who did he call?

I did not see VicMackey make a phone call. Maybe he left phone it in the car? [ I do not know who clerk called. Who are YOU ASSUMING he called?] BTW, 911 does not mind if there is more than 1 caller.

Have you ever been in a similar situation where someone just kept coming at and threatening you?

Yes.

How do you know the guy didn't say he was going to his car to get a gun?

So the correct tactic is to follow him to the car?

Who are you to criticize the guy's method of carry.

I am a guy on a gun forum and was asked by the OP ( let's discuss what you think the armed citizen did right, and/or wrong.) to discuss. That is who I am and what I am doing.

Just because you do not like open carry for yourself,

WRONG.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in order to criticize the armed citizen's "tactics".

I am assuming nothing. Everything is based on what we all see on the tape. You are making assumptions about who the clerk called, whether the guy said he was going to car to get gun,etc., all of this is assumptions on your part. Let's get back to actual facts..

I think it is a shame some seem to be awfully quick to turn on a good Samaritan for trying to help another. Eating out own every chance we get isn't beneficial.

Blame the OP for asking for discussion.

Why are people afraid to discuss tactics employed in a REAL shooting? How are we going to improve ourselves if we do not look for right/wrong in real events?


eta

I am not running from this thread, but after a week of rain I need to cut the grass and I have a lot to cut. Back later.

Vol Texan wrote: Your statement was that you couldn't find a single thing he did right. That is also implying an absolute, and it is just as easy to prove you wrong. He survived an attack to live another day. That was something he did right.

You are confusing tactics with results. Surviving is not a tactic, it is a result. We are at 5 pages and nobody has been able to name a single tactic he employed that was right. Because there are none.

It is a good tactic to open carry in a non-retention holster? NO

Is is t a good tactic to be openly armed and turn your back on an argumentative person? NO.

Is it a good tactic to leave an area with 360 degree egress and enter a closed area and allow the aggressor to be between you and the only egress? NO.

Is it a good tactic to allow an aggressor to be within a foot of you when you are openly armed? NO.

Is it a good tactic to NOT call 911 on an aggressive person? NO.

[eta - one more big one. Even after shooting him, he turned his back on him again! and moved past him in a confined area. He is lucky he was not tackled from behind.]

Anyone who cannot see the tactics this guy employed were wrong is sadly likely going to repeat them, and it might not turn out as well.

Vol Texan wrote: I will no longer reply to you on the subject, so we can get back to the learning experience that it was meant to be.

Most people run from a thread when they realize they are wrong and no longer want to defend their wrong positions. So I understand you not responding. You clearly do not want to defend all his bad tactics. I get it.

Vol Texan wrote:

Solaris wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:
What if the BG had beat up/disarmed CHL Instructor and used the gun to shoot the store clerk?

Yeah that goes to the problem of OC, he showed his cards, and thus limited his response choices and perhaps made himself a target. Then he drew, further limiting his choices. dead guy was pushing him around, and he could not fight back, and had trouble maintaining his balance. then he got himself backed into a corner, it looked like he left himself with 2 choices, holster and go hands on or shoot. He chose option 2.

Like I said, I cannot find a single thing he did right.

He lived.

So did the clerk and he managed to do it without shooting anyone. The clerks tactics were far superior to VicMackeys. The final irony would be confirmation the clerk was armed the entire time. The clerk did EVERYTHING right. VicMackey did EVERYTHING wrong. It is all right there on video to see.

1st rule of a gunfight, do not be in one. The clerk understood the rule, the Instructor did not. his life is forever changed not for the better.

warnmar10 wrote:
What if the BG had beat up/disarmed CHL Instructor and used the gun to shoot the store clerk?

Yeah that goes to the problem of OC, he showed his cards, and thus limited his response choices and perhaps made himself a target. Then he drew, further limiting his choices. dead guy was pushing him around, and he could not fight back, and had trouble maintaining his balance. then he got himself backed into a corner, it looked like he left himself with 2 choices, holster and go hands on or shoot. He chose option 2.

Like I said, I cannot find a single thing he did right.

Vol Texan wrote: Lots of things we don't know. But some things we do. We do have more than just the non-audio tape. We do have the text of the linked article that states unequivocally, "Ron Ruple, assistant chief of the Mandeville Police Department, said evidence from the scene, including statements from witnesses, video evidence and the shooter’s own account, pointed to a justifiable act of self-defense."

That really does not tell us anything about tactics employed.

Since he was not arrested and not charged it would seem obvious they concluded justifiable act of self-defense. Now had they said what evidence, and posted those statements, that might be useful. But it is really not interesting to me if it was justified or not. 1 less dirtbag on the streets justified or not. I am more interested in the events that led up to the shooting. I would love to have audio. I think that would tell a lot, as it might explain why clerk & Mackey took the action they took.

warnmar10 wrote:The tactics look fine to me. I don't know why CHL went outside to get a tag number. Maybe BG promised to go get his gun and come back and settle things? Would that justify trying to ID the guy?

I think the issue between deadguy and clerk was over, and VicMackey was getting plates to call in drunk driver? That would make sense to me. Unfortunately that set the deadguy off.

Keith B wrote: If you read the article posted, it was stated that there was way more than the video used as evidence. According to the article, the investigation included several witnesses who were interviewed and all had the same story. So, just looking at the video, you can't definitively say the guy did wrong. Just because you choose to not get involved in something doesn't mean no one should. Some people choose to help others, which IMO and others is what the firearms instructor did.

Yes again in an earlier post I acknowledged there was obviously more to the story than a non-audio single video:

So based on that tape alone, it was not justified, IMO. Yet he was not charged, leading me to conclude there were other aggravating factors we are unaware of, for example, he was shouting "I am going to take that gun from you and kill you", etc.

However all we have is the non-audio tape, so that is all we can comment on, and for whatever reason nobody really wants to talk about tactics right/wrong, but on just some how justifying a shooting none of us will ever have all the facts to.

Keith B wrote:And the DA and Police Chief say the guys was 100% in the right http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... _made.html

Yes that was mentioned in the article the OP posted

District Attorney Warren Montgomery said in a news release that his office will not pursue criminal charges based on the evidence. He noted that the Mandeville Police Department concluded Breland was the aggressor in the incident and that it didn’t arrest the shooter, who was lawfully armed.

We were originally talking about this from a "tactics learned" point of view (again as the OP stated, "Watch the video and let's discuss what you think the armed citizen did right, and/or wrong.") I followed the OP lead and pointed out I did not think he did anything right, but somehow it turned into the Nazis killing the Jews, and it being my fault because presumable I am from New York and watched Kitty Genevese get murdered while I watched eating popcorn.