First hand account of the Von Maur (Omaha, Nebraska) shooting

[fireflyfather]

Can't read the whole thread, but want to make three quick points.

1. Lots of people talk about how chaotic the situation in the mall was, but nobody is commenting on how the author of the article (survivor) had a near perfect angle on the shooter, and could have fired from surprise. His first few rounds would not have had return fire, and there were no innocents in the line of fire, provided the backstop was decent.

2. Yes, his accuracy would be worse than the range, but if he can put 50% of rounds on target, then even an 80% accuraccy loss would still land one round out of a 10 round mag on target (and we are talking about head shots here folks...the dude could make 50% hits on a head at that range under controlled conditions. Even a 10% hit ratio would land a hit). Is that enough? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not the impossibility many are making it out to be.

3. Many people are suggesting that engaging the guy would draw fire. In this particular instance, the guy was already pretty screwed. There was a very good chance he would have taken fire anyway. He was already in the threat area. Also, the perp was firing a rifle in an enclosed space. He may not have even heard the pistol fire and located its source until a full mag was emptied in his direction. Hell, the survivor didn't accurately locate the first shots the rifleman fired. Why not empty a mag and displace? In this case, engaging the shooter would have been the right thing.

 

[canopy2k]

This thread is full of Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

c2k

 

[meef]

This thread is full of Kitty Genovese Syndrome.

......

Words.

 

[Kharn]

First post updated to reflect the mall removing the conduct code/no-ccw signs.

Kharn

 

[hecate]

They are located in Omaha which has completely restricted it.

Omaha passed an ordinance (over the mayor's veto) allowing concealed carry in accordance with state law. I know, I testified at the hearing:

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10945&sid=27

Search on Sec. 20-192. Carrying concealed weapon

One of the council members who sponsored it is a retired LEO whose life was saved on duty by an armed citizen.

 

[Phydeaux642]

If he could shoot those groups at 55yards at a range, he might as well reduce his hit percentage by at least half when in a high stress encounter... Then he is pitting a weapon that is not designed to accurately shoot at those distances against a weapon that makes a 55 yd. shot look like child's play. And once he does that, he becomes the target; with the deck stacked against him big time.

I was reading an article recently about the late Jim Cirillo and one of the stories in the article was concerning a shooting during an armed robbery where he ended up in a gunfight with three armed men. Two of the men were hiding behind a hostage. Mr. Cirillo said he was about 25 yards away and in just a matter of a few seconds he had killed one gunman and injured the other two. He also said that in the years to come that he could never duplicate the results of that shooting in a controlled situation. I guess sometimes you get into "the zone". I am not saying I could have hit the guy or that I would have tried. I hope I am never in the position to find out.

Ken is also a firearms instructor that teaches offensive tactics to LEOs, military, etc..., I would venture to believe that the great majority on this site train for defensive purposes.

Maybe that is worth rethinking.

CCW holders are NOT trained professionals. I don't care if they won the IPSA World Shoot five years running. IT IS THE POLICE WHO ARE QUALIFIED.

Oh, please.

_______________________

"Phydeaux, bad dog....no biscuit!"

 

[Rustynuts]

The more I think about the original NWJT account, I tend to think "pics or shens" to it. Seems too well thought out, bordering on prime Mall Ninja postings.

Some of the details just seem too contrived, like they're trying for a good read. Like the thing about still having the coat in hand after all the running to-fro, jumping over handrails, staring at the shooter for 5 seconds, perfect shot lineup at potentially unrealistic distances, etc.

A big UNCONFIRMED for this one for me (unless it has been, haven't read EVERY post!)

 

[JT1JTI]

An interesting thread. Some questions in my mind:

1) How do we know there weren't licensed CCW holders (or even off-duty LEOs) in the mall and carrying in contravention of the mall's stated policy? That is, people who were packing, but chose not to engage?

2) How do we know that even if the mall had no policy of against legal carry that the number of CCW holders present would have made a significant difference? Even if a representative number of CCW holders were in the mall, isn't it still a soft target from the perspective of someone ambushing innocents from an elevated position with a superior weapon? (I am mindful of the outcome in the Colorado church shooting, but I don't think the scenarios are 100% comparable.)

3) I've seen posts scoffing at the notion of paid and armed security for malls or other such targets. (e.g., "why would someone stick his neck out for $10 an hour??") Fair enough question, but then shouldn't we ask why we would expect unpaid CCW holders to do anymore?

For me, the takeaway from this shooting is to always know where the nearest working exits are and the safest way to get there. Yes, I would like to think I would engage the bad guy, but since I'm moving to California, I'm not sure bringing pepper spray to a gunfight is a realistic strategy.

 

[Avenger29]

3) I've seen posts scoffing at the notion of paid and armed security for malls or other such targets. (e.g., "why would someone stick his neck out for $10 an hour??") Fair enough question, but then shouldn't we ask why we would expect unpaid CCW holders to do anymore?

The thing about CCW is that the bad guys don't know you are carrying. An armed, uniformed security guard is a priority target. If I was robbing a store or killing a bunch of people, I'd shoot anybody that looked like they were wearing a uniform first.

but since I'm moving to California

Why are you moving TO CA?


The "Run away, run away- he has a gun, he's undefeatable!" and "Let the cops take care of it- they are the only ones qualified" arguments don't sit well with me.

I think a CCW'er with a decent weapon and the WILL TO USE IT could have significantly altered the outcome. Even if the odds were stacked against him. I wouldn't give it a second thought before deciding to engage. Better to die with a gun in your hand, trying to do your best than be shot in the back running away...

Yeah, malls, churches, etc- anywhere with a large number of people gathered (except maybe gunshows) is a "soft" target. But fighting back would still help, even if it only forces the shooter to keep his head down or focus his attention on those fighting back.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What struck me about the "first hand" account is that his initial distance from the shooter seems to have been a bit, ah ... elastic. If I read the story right (and I haven't gone back to re-read it, I admit) I think he first mantioned 30 yards, and then later it had gone up to 40 or 50 meters.

Ya know, I occasionally get dragged into malls by my wife. 50 yards in a mall anchor store is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG distance. I don't think there's an anchor store in any mall around here where you can see 50 yards, and probably not even 30 yards. Sure, the anchor stores are that big -- but they're full of "stuff" on display racks.

At any rate, I know I couldn't make a head shot at 50 yards and I carry a 1911. 25 yards I'd try for center-of-mass. 50 yards, I might take the shot but it would be a prayer shot.

 

[Caimlas]

Seems like a valid case for suing the mall, IMO - both the wrongful deaths and the emotional trauma this guy is likely to experience for quite a while, realizing that he could have done something if he hadn't been restrained - instead, he was forced to cower, run, and go against his instinct to stand and fight for his life. Furthermore, the lives of others - most of the others - could have (would have? most likely) been saved. That is a lot to live with.

Going up against a rifleman from a distance of 40 meters with a pistol is a situation where the odds are against you. Doing it without anything at all is suicidal. He'd been restricted by the law from doing anything but cower and run in fear: state-sponsored terrorism.

Then he is pitting a weapon that is not designed to accurately shoot at those distances against a weapon that makes a 55 yd. shot look like child's play. And once he does that, he becomes the target; with the deck stacked against him big time.

At least then he could say to himself - even if with his dying breaths - "my conscience is clear". I can not speak for this man, but this event would plague me until the day I die, had I been in his situation. Yes, I have a wife and family, and that would likely be on my mind. I think it is difficult to have a sense of civil duty and not care for the wellbeing of others at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive by any means, but for me, it holds true.

At the very least, a miss would've done at least one of several things: saved some others from becoming targets, allowing them to get away after realizing what was happening; killed the attacker; and/or allowed the attacker to get away.

(Don't forget: the police forces which have led, and do lead to oppressive uses of force were originally necessary because of a lack of armed and willing citizens to do what needs to be done to get the job done, despite personal interests in preservation.)

 

[HuntAndFish]

Wow. They took the "NO CCW" signs down? I didn't expect that. Good news if true though.

 

[xm15]

For all those that talk about the how hard it would be act effectively in a situation like this, and cry out that the best course of action would be to do nothing riskier than run away, I offer this.

"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

 

[papajohn]

55 Yards with a handgun would get you killed? Really. I work armed, practice at all ranges, and regularly break 4" clay pigeons at 50 yards. I could have EASILY killed this moron, rifle or no. In fact, I'm betting that the second I popped a round at him, his rifle would have gone quiet even if I missed, because he'd be too busy cowering and covering, because he is a COWARD, like all these jerks are. 55 yards is NOT a long shot with a handgun, I'd wager I could hit you four out of six at 200 yards if you held still!

Papajohn

 

[Karma]

Rustynuts said:

The more I think about the original NWJT account, I tend to think "pics or shens" to it. Seems too well thought out, bordering on prime Mall Ninja postings.

Some of the details just seem too contrived, like they're trying for a good read. Like the thing about still having the coat in hand after all the running to-fro, jumping over handrails, staring at the shooter for 5 seconds, perfect shot lineup at potentially unrealistic distances, etc.

A big UNCONFIRMED for this one for me (unless it has been, haven't read EVERY post!)

"Pics or shens"? lol Had to look that one up, and I've been on the 'net for about 14 years.

But yeah, this immediately struck me as a sort of 'pious fraud'. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, just that I'm a bit skeptical.

 

[XDKingslayer]

This guy would have tried to take a head shot at 55 yards with a sidearm? Sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.

The key thing to remember is that this is a guy thinking about arming himself for protection for the first time. He has no training, no guidance, no experience. He'll learn the proper thing to do just like all of us have.

There was a time early in our carrying "career" that we would have said the exact same thing.

 

[Eagle103]

I'm still waiting for verification of this guy's story.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Karn: Any indication on whether the sign removal reflect a positive change in the mall's policies -- or a negative one. That is, are they going to replace it with "NO GUNS" signs on all the doors and a "You will be removed and prosecuted" notice on the "rules" list?

 

[strat81]

Henry, the new signs (old signs?) are up.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=325213

 

[coylh]

Well, the one time I tried it, I hit a paper plate at 100m with a CZ-75 on the first try, but I was perfectly calm, supported position, etc.

I wonder though, if you did take a shot at the guy, would he even hear it? Blasting away with no ear plugs(?) is going to dull his senses. If he did hear you take a shot at his noggin, would he then be able to locate you? I'm assuming you're only exposing your barrel and right eyebrow from the cover/concealment you're hiding behind.

 

[Black Adder LXX]

I'm betting that the second I popped a round at him, his rifle would have gone quiet even if I missed, because he'd be too busy cowering and covering, because he is a COWARD, like all these jerks are.

EXACTLY! Returning fire could have changed this situation drastically, even if he didn't score a hit...

BTW- That account was very sobering...

 

[MikeS63301]

You've got to remember in this situation... around here the malls have police and armed security guards. Sure the guy was firing on innocents, but you've GOT to think about how much of a problem you would create if you start firing on this guy. You risk 1) getting shot by the LEO on duty because he thinks you're the bad guy, 2) complicating the situation by giving the impression to the LEO's that there's more than one shooter, 3) getting shot by another CCW'er, 4) then there's where your lead is going if you miss or there's complete penetration. This is a mall, not a gun range. One on one is probably not the best way to handle this.

There's just so many variables in whether this guy should have taken a chance HAD he been armed. The sidearm he would have been carrying would be a big variable. You have to know what your weapon AND what yourself are capable of, not just react and take a pot shot because you think it's the right thing to do. At 50 yards, I'd have to think too long about whether I could make the hit. Some times the right thing to do is bug out fast as you can.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Once again it's threads like this one that truly show how castrated and full of the slave mentality the gun culture is. It should come as no surprise that the rest of society is permeated by the same phenomenon on an even larger basis.

 

[wjustinen]

I think it's realistic to assume that a person with a CCW engaging a rifle shooter at ranges past 15 yards is at a SEVERE disadvantage. The only two cases I'm aware of that put a civilian CCW against a rifle shooter ended with the CCW'er dead or seriously wounded and the rifle shooter still ambulatory.

"SEVERE disadvantage." Wow!!! But, I'll take that over UNARMED against a rifle shooter ANY OLD TIME.

By the way, the standard in these situations is a quick suicide when the shooter meets armed resistance. And it is about stopping the killing. That can only be done by someone on site. The cops rarely are.

 

[AK103K]

Once again it's threads like this one that truly show how castrated and full of the slave mentality the gun culture is.

Very well put. This also applies to the whole gun culture too, not just here. All the hand wringing over what to do about this and the whole scheme of things makes your point vividly. Anyway you look at it, stand around wringing your hands, and you'll die trying to make a decision, wont matter if its a crazed gunman or your government taking away your gun rights.

I find it interesting that there are some here who were diligent enough to apply for a carry permit and then carefully choose a proper firearm and the accouterments that go with it and proudly walk around wearing their gun, seem to have a problem with making what I see as a simple decision here, that being engage the shooter. Seems there might just be a little more to it than slipping that shooter on your belt, eh? You actually might be called on to use it.

Speaking of engaging, how many actually practice or have any experience "assaulting" someone? Do you stand at the range on a Sunday morning and calmly shoot tight little groups at 15, 25, 100 yards and proclaim yourself a marksman and competent to carry your "gun", or do you REALLY practice? Its very easy to shoot something that isnt shooting back, things tend to change dramatically when they do, and that works both ways. You stand a very good chance of prevailing, IF you are aggressive and determined, and even more so if you've done it before.

It seems to me, that many seem to think the "gun" is the power and will somehow make the bad man go away by their just having it in their hands. Some seem to think that even when you have it, you should run away. Unfortunately, you'd be running in the wrong direction. In that instance, and moment in time, YOU are probably the only solution to the problem.

I will tell you this, if I was there with my wife or kids, and they were killed or injured and you had the opportunity and means and didnt act, there would be one more victim of that tragedy, and they would have died from a beating.