Armed civilian stops mass shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the article cited below:

> [Girlfriend] Shay hid behind a kiosk. Then investigators said Eli, within seconds, stopped the suspect.
> They tell 13News the 22-year-old pulled out the pistol he was carrying under the “Constitutional Carry”
> law, steadied himself against a pole and fired ten rounds at the gunman from about 40 yards away.
>
> The suspect tried to go back into the bathroom, but instead fell to the ground.
>
> “His actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun.
> Was very proficient in that, was tactically sound and as he moved to close in on the suspect, [presumably
> after gunman down --meh] he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,” Greenwood Police Chief
> Jim Ison said about Eli’s actions. “Many people would have died last night if not for a responsible armed
> citizen that took action very quickly within the first two minutes of this shooting.”
https://www.wpta21.com/2022/07/19/g...ooting-called-hero-by-his-girlfriends-family/

There already seems to be some conflation of defender's movement during firing vs movement after the gunman went down.
I'm sure the MSM will now go determine the distance between the pole and the bathroom door w/ a tape measure.

Stand by. . . .
;)
 
Craig_VA said:
I'm still looking for an authoritative statement about the distance. The 40 yards number came from the mother of Eli's girlfriend in a TV news porch interview. I recall hearing the police chief in his press conference say "over 30 feet."
Can someone please post source links for the distance?
Click to expand...
This pic was posted yesterday, allegedly Eli was standing behind the pillar, the shooter was in front of the corridor in the background.
Not sure if it's factual.
Also not sure if all shots fired by Eli at the shooter came from one position.
Screenshot_20220720-090836~2.png
 
Last edited:
Kleanbore said:
How would the lawfully justified use of force, deadly or otherwise, when it is immediately necessary to defend others against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm "lead to chaos"?
Click to expand...
Because we don't know if the use of force is lawfully justified until after the fact. Split-second decisions have to made, and they could just as easily prove to be incorrect as correct. I can see shooting the wrong target (say, an undercover cop) in a confused situation. Great discretion has to be used. Is everyone capable of that? Would the circumstances allow it?
 
AlexanderA said:
Because we don't know if the use of force is lawfully justified until after the fact. Split-second decisions have to made, and they could just as easily prove to be incorrect as correct. I can see shooting the wrong target (say, an undercover cop) in a confused situation. Great discretion has to be used. Is everyone capable of that? Would the circumstances allow it?
Click to expand...

This thread is discussing the Greenwood mall shooting.
Are you familiar with the details?
A man with a rifle and spare mags attached to his torso was shooting (mostly) defenseless civilians in a food court.
Not sure what kind of "split second decision" needs to be made in that obvious situation.
Run or engage.
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
Because we don't know if the use of force is lawfully justified until after the fact.
Click to expand...
That thinking would prevent us from opening a door a door, writing a check, purchasing anything.... It is ridiculous.

AlexanderA said:
I can see shooting the wrong target (say, an undercover cop) in a confused situation.
Click to expand...
If an undercover cop is shooting innocents in a food court shooting him would be lawful and proper.
 
Shooting from behind cover changes things for some people, which makes the "Good Samaritan's" shooting even more impressive. Whatever practice he's done was probably not standing flat footed, in his lane at an indoor range.

If you've never shot from behind cover, I would recommend trying it just so you know how you perform.
 
AlexanderA said:
Because we don't know if the use of force is lawfully justified until after the fact. Split-second decisions have to made, and they could just as easily prove to be incorrect as correct. I can see shooting the wrong target (say, an undercover cop) in a confused situation. Great discretion has to be used. Is everyone capable of that? Would the circumstances allow it?
Click to expand...

No, not everyone is capable of that. But I believe recent history has shown that the vast majority of 'good guys' either avoid entering such conflicts entirely, or when forced to act performed better than they (or anyone else) expected them to. Again, if this was actually a problem - with as many people carrying guns these days as there are - we would have heard about it. Every single 'good guy with a gun that went south' story would be running on a CNN-hosted continous loop.

My guess is that every day, regular people like you & me are using the great discretion you deem them incapable of. It's just not broadcast on the news.
 
No “formal military or police training” certainly doesn’t mean “unpracticed” or incompetent. Those are not the only venues for firearms training, and just because someone is qualified in shooting a pistol in the military, it certainly doesn’t mean that they may be trained in the use of that weapon in an armed conflict. In most cases, it simply means they are able to put a certain number of rounds onto a target under a controlled environment.

I have a feeling he was quite practiced in being able to use his weapon. The source of that could be as simple as going to the range and practicing a lot. While engaging with a carry pistol at longer ranges may seem a waste, it’s actually pretty fun, and apparently, also has a practical application.

As far as engaging another human with deadly force, as JShirley said earlier:

“Training. Training. Training. You don't have to dehumanize someone to kill them. you just have to be mentally and physically prepared.”

In addition to practicing to competency with his weapon, it appears as though he was mentally prepared to do so as well.
 
Last edited:
old lady new shooter said:
View attachment 1090956
Click to expand...

"I don't know who needs to hear this, but..."

Oh, I'm sorry! Did you say something? Because I thought I heard you say you're a stay at home mom who wouldn't care if some active shooter was left unchallenged by someone who was a perfectly legally concealed carrier not breaking any laws while shooting at you and your five children while at the mall. I don't know who needs to hear this, but that sounds totally insane.
 
Last edited:
357 Terms said:
This thread is discussing the Greenwood mall shooting.
Are you familiar with the details?
Click to expand...
There is the particular situation, and then there are the lessons and conclusions to be drawn from that situation. The lessons and conclusions are far more important than the particular facts of this case. In a discussion thread, the OP is often just a springboard. I find it pointless just to rehash the known facts. How are those facts going to enlighten us going forward?
 
.455_Hunter said:
Your property isn't so "private" when it is "open to public" in a retail setting or free other access fashion.
Click to expand...

I've argued the same thing when I found out the police would not investigate fender benders in a large (!) supermarket parking lot because it was "Private Property." There were 6 other stores also serviced by their "Private Property."

Shy little retiring subservient inoffensive pussyfootin' me did not want to argue with the PD, but I finally arm-bended the supermarket to release the surveillance tapes... which they had said they wouldn't without a police investigation. Catch 44.

I have every respect :eyeroll: for a homeowner or an individual private retail owner who wants to have a gun free zone in his space. His stupid choice and welcome to it, but surely there has to be some limitation on "that" right in large retail areas accessible to <ahem> "anybody" <koff-koff>. No offense to "anybody" if you're one of them. :evil:
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
There is the particular situation, and then there are the lessons and conclusions to be drawn from that situation. The lessons and conclusions are far more important than the particular facts of this case. In a discussion thread, the OP is often just a springboard. I find it pointless just to rehash the known facts. How are those facts going to enlighten us going forward?
Click to expand...

Something's wrong with the lessons & conclusions being drawn when nearly every single example of successful self-defense (or defense of others) is derided for the all the things that didn't go wrong, but theoretically could have.

The armchair discussions will always be flawed. We'll never know the minute details that the people involved did. Actions that look careless or risky from our perspective might be anything but if we were the ones in the driver's seat. Of course, the converse is true. Which is why I tend to take things like this pretty much at face value. If the bad guy got stopped and the good guy(s)/gal(s) didn't shoot anyone else, my take-away is they did a great job.
 
How can you learn any lessons or come to any accurate conclusions if you don't consider the facts? This sounds like somebody has their mind made up and nothing is going to change it, especially facts. But I'm just an engineer who has had to solve problems, and keep them from happening again, all my working life, so what do I know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hso
  • Locked
Chicago, program to deescalate gang violence defunded
Replies
10
Views
1K
PJSprog
P
B
  • Locked
Armed Citizen Who Stopped Mass Shootings?
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Cosmoline
C
N
  • Locked
Citizens stopping potential mass shootings
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
X-Rap
X-Rap
H
  • Locked
Oliver North says Ritalin linked to school shootings
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
4K
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
P
  • Locked
Colt Will Stop Selling AR15 to Civilian Market
Replies
6
Views
452
hso
hso
Back
Top