Panama City School Board Hostage Situatuation and Shooting w/ Video

[Mr.Davis]

Rusty, I'm not too proud to say that in a situation like this one, where I was unarmed, that I'd rather leave as a live chicken than a dead (wannabe) hero.

If I had a gun, I'd shoot the guy with no qualms. But meetings like this almost invariably ban guns, and despite my personal objections, I follow the law. Are you really expecting me to go tussle with an armed nutjob? Who outweighs me by 100+ lbs?

I have a wife who expects me to come home at night, so no, I won't be casually tossing my life away by making an unarmed solo mad rush at a killer, thanks.

If I, a strong young man, had attacked this blob and failed to wrestle the gun away, what do you think would have happened to me? He had mercy on the old lady because she's old and a lady. I really doubt he would have shrugged off my attack.

The best thing in such a situation is to recognize that you're at an extreme disadvantage and wait for the cavalry to arrive. The only possible exception is if you could marshal several strong brave individuals to rush the gunman, where you'd have a more reasonable chance of success...then I MIGHT consider going back in.

 

[Six]

What do you think God would want you to do?

I think religion is an incredibly poor foundation to build tactics and strategies on.

It's also an aspect best left out of the S&T forum lest the thread end up locked.

IMHO.

 

[Ghosty1]

wow. CC or not, wont matter in a school. if it was a school zone. forgive me for not reading it all.

as usual, disregard my opinions lol.

the OP question was TOO rhetorical. however, assuming the gunman wacko was already engaged in convo...answer: sit quietly.
point #2...again, leading question. id like to decline to answer, for its just not answerable as asked. are the cops coming? how many are there? what gun is it? do i think i might help or hurt if i draw? how well is he engaged? does he look like he can actually shoot (it seems, he could not)....i simply cant even offer a valid opinion as to this as posed....
as to point three. that is a very OPEN question, thus irrelevant to the particular scenario.
applying this to MY situation..i am not cc. no need, as im in texas, and we have peaceable journey law. so, id have my "carry" gun...but in my truck.
assuming he was engaged in convo, and under control, so to speak...
id probably just be quiet. and anyone there, with a CC that is currently armed is breaking the law, as CC folks will know. having said all that
if there was a chance, for nobody hurt, for me to possibly get to my gun...i would have to say, not having been there, that there is a high liklihood that i would try to neutralize the situation as i have been trained, until the professionals showed up.
note that this includes holding my fire.
either way, very hard questions. but well asked...if any of that made sense.
note also, that even in texas...firing your weapon during dayligh hours vs nighttime has diff legal ramifications...also if its not you or "yours"...you may do the right thing and save the day, and still be in prison....not to make anyone paranoid, but facts that we all must consider for the day we hope never comes.

-G

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, now for the disturbing part about the security guard's actions.

The following clip is the guard's version of what went down. He makes some mistakes in the details of the story, but they favor his position. For example on the exchange about whether or not the gunman had a real gun, the guard says he invited the gunman out an then backed up, drew his gun, and waited for the gunman to exit. However in the original video, you can clearly hear the gunman invite the guard in the room and the guard declines.

So the guard didn't shoot early on because the school board was behind the guard and the shots would not be safe. After the shooting starts, he opens the door and sees the board is now behind "cover." Apparently, "cover" means that the can't see them because those desks aren't cover, not unless the school board paid for ballistic desks but didn't budget a full time meeting guard. Anyway, the guard shoots. He claims his shots all hit and the guy goes down. Then the guy starts shooting again and the guard ducks behind chairs and holds his gun over the top of the chairs and "dumps" rounds at the bad guy.

The guard is a hero, no doubt about it. However, he is one very lucky hero in that he didn't shoot the wrong people either because their desks really weren't cover or because he sprayed and prayed.
http://www.newsherald.com/video/?videoId=713554919001&lineupId=99536645001&play=now

Ask yourself this. Put yourself in the position of "purse lady". Only you have your pistol. What do you think God would want you to do? Just for clarification, now what do you think Satan would want you to do?

Six noted that religion is a poor foundation for strategies and tactics. I would have to agree.

What would God want me to do? No doubt the query is to make us think that God would want us to stop the gunman who is doing evil, and that possible could be true, but that all depends on what God we are talking about. Depending on the type of god you believe exists, your decision will vary. Are we talking about a God who has a reason for everything and if so, should I be trying to interfere with his plan and the apparent calling home of his children that is about to take place? If so, then maybe I am doing to work of Satan by misunderstanding the plans of the omnipotent God.

The appeal to the supernatural entity, therefore, can be used to argue for actions either way and with just as much validity. This is why the appeals to supernatural authority for making arguments are so problematic. The appeal is made so as to add strength to the argument of the person making the appeal, but the appeal is actually of no argumentative value unless both parties share the exact same view of the supernatural entity to whom the appeal is being made.

Six is right. Making strategy and tactics decision based on religion probably isn't the best way to make the decisions.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Many supernatural entities are more forgiving than yr. moderator.

Therefore lead not yr. moderator into temptation to close threads...

lpl

 

[Win1892]

I live in Panama City and know most of the people involved in this shooting. The following is a list of points I submitted to a local radio talk show host that is going to focus on concealed carry on Monday morning. I'm trying to help him see this from a handgunners standpoint.


I am a CCW permit holder in the State of Florida and have some concerns about the dialogue I am hearing relevant to the shooting Tuesday.

First, I am not trying to take anything away from the "hero" status of anyone involved that day. Everyone in that room has been through something that I have not. I can only assume that my actions in such a scenario would resemble what I think they would be. All involved were put into a very threatening situation, and all prevailed.

I've been thinking about this event from a technical standpoint, trying to remove emotion, thankfulness, and divine intervention from the argument.

POINT #1: We have to assume that by pointing and firing the gun, the shooter meant to kill.

I attribute the favorable outcome of the shooting to the following:

The shooter missed his target from near point blank range. Why?
He was clearly not in his right mind. He appeared to be under the influence of something or was under mental distress that was crushing him. Also, he fired the weapon one handed, cutting his accuracy dramatically. He probably had very limited experience with handguns, or had not shot that gun with any regularity.

POINT #2: Everyone in that room was lucky the shooter was a lousy shot.

I say this because I am a handgun shooter. I fire around 20,000 rounds in most any year.. I do this on a tactical range and am usually firing at multiple targets while moving. I am a very good shot.

If that had been a practiced, determined shooter in that meeting room, holding that handgun, there would have been considerable loss of life.

POINT #3: It has been said that Mike Jones presence in that building that day was pure luck. What if he'd not been there? What if the shooter had started firing shortly after drawing the symbol on the wall, before Mike was in the room?

POINT #4: Had there been a CCW holder in the audience or behind the desk he(or she) would have been legally able to take the shooter's life.

Now that last point has some legal gray area in that the concealed handgun would have been, technically, illegal to possess in that building. The State of Florida does not cause you to flee a life threatening situation, it allows you to defend yourself. I think use of the handgun would have been legally justified, but the CCW holder could have been prosecuted for the illegal possession on school or government grounds. If I had been in that room, a handgun in a good guy's hand would have been a welcome sight.

POINT #5: He was allowed to point the gun without intervention. In fact, shots were fired before Mike Jones acted.

My primary concern about the incident is that Mike Jones allowed a man to wave a gun in the first place. Protocol should be to put down the threat immediately. What a different outcome it would have been if the shooter had hit Husfelt, then the gentleman to Husfelt's left, then swung left and hit Ryan, Franklin, and possibly the next fellow by the time Mike had opened fire. That could have been the outcome.

I guess the demeanor and rambling behavior of the shooter caused Mike to hold his fire hoping for a peaceful resolution. Nobody wants to see a person killed. My difficulty with that is everyone behind the desk was in clear and present danger of being shot and killed.

POINT #6: This will happen again, and people will die. Maybe in Panama City, maybe not.

I just don't want the general public to think the vanilla ending to this incident is typical, they don't all end this way. I don't want the general public to think that the authorities alone stopped a potential tragedy; as a number of positive circumstances worked together to intercede. I don't want the general public to fall back into their convenient, blissful existence, where bad things won't happen to them.

The bleeding hearts don't want to hurt the suffering shooter. The crazies think the shooter was justified. Those with their heads in the sand will think this ended well, so all is good in their world. It's not.

POINT #7: The headline in the News Herald could have said DERANGED MAN KILLS 5 AT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING

Headlines have said that before.

POINT #8: The school board maintenance department will be patching bullet holes in the walls next week.

BULLET HOLES IN OUR WALLS! That's insane.



I am not an anarchist. I trust the government, to a degree.
I wholeheartedly support our local law enforcement and rely on them to protect me, my family, and my property.


But:

I vigorously support the 2nd Amendment.
I will not be bullied.
If backed into a corner I will, if possible, deliver severe injury or death.
I believe concealed carry is not only a right, but a responsibility.
Listen to the news. The good guys are losing. It will get worse. Hiding in your gated communities and locked SUVs will only protect you for so long.

One more thing:

Kudos to Mike for hitting his target. He put himself into harm's way and won the battle.

Kudos to Husfelt for trying to draw the shooter's wrath away from the others. That's real leadership. Was he in the Marines?

Kudos to Littleton for risking her life to assist others. I'd rather she hadn't, however. Instead, she should carry a gun in that big purse.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

POINT #5: He was allowed to point the gun without intervention. In fact, shots were fired before Mike Jones acted.

My primary concern about the incident is that Mike Jones allowed a man to wave a gun in the first place. Protocol should be to put down the threat immediately. What a different outcome it would have been if the shooter had hit Husfelt, then the gentleman to Husfelt's left, then swung left and hit Ryan, Franklin, and possibly the next fellow by the time Mike had opened fire. That could have been the outcome.

Mike Jones did not allow the man to do anything as Mike Jones was not in control of the situation. Apparently, putting down the threat immediately was not the protocol and even if it was, it might be hard to do that given Jones' own account of the situation where he feared shooting the board members. http://www.newsherald.com/video/?vid...45001&play=now

I guess the demeanor and rambling behavior of the shooter caused Mike to hold his fire hoping for a peaceful resolution. Nobody wants to see a person killed. My difficulty with that is everyone behind the desk was in clear and present danger of being shot and killed.

No, it wasn't the rambling. Mike Jones didn't get to hear much of it, in part because he was repeatedly ordered from the room. In the approximate words of the head board member, "We're just talking here."

POINT #6: This will happen again, and people will die. Maybe in Panama City, maybe not.

You are right. It will and will happen again regardless of how this situation turned out. As with so many individuals, Clay Duke was already resigned to die before he started.

 

[answerguy]

I'd like to say I would have been a hero and ninja kicked the gun out of his hand and then put him in a submission hold. But since I have never been in a situation even remotely resembling what I saw in this video, I could just have likely have wet myself while using one of the ladies as cover for my escape.

 

[Erik M]

Im just thankful that no innocent people were hurt, this could have easily have turned into a massacre. I think a situation can be analysed endlessly but until each of us are intorduced to a similar situation none of us can know precisely how we would react.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Im just thankful that no innocent people were hurt, this could have easily have turned into a massacre. I think a situation can be analysed endlessly but until each of us are intorduced to a similar situation none of us can know precisely how we would react.

...but the whole purpose of the S&T forum is to think about these situations in advance, so we can formulate some sort of advance plan in case we ever wind up in a similar situation.

 

[therewolf]

As to the question, as a CCW, could I slip away and leave the room with a clean conscience?

Y E S ! !

... and not 1 LEO would question it or tell me to do otherwise.

Now, if I tried to intervene without the proper training or authority, and things went south,and people got killed after I tried to help-

E V E R Y B O D Y would have questioned my actions. I would lose my CWP, and probably have all my guns confiscated, AND I would probably face multiple lawsuits, as well as being brought up on charges, jailed, and very possibly losing my job, for starters.

Here comes the MANTRA: Just because I have a CWP, does NOT make me

the Police, a PI, the FBI,CIA, Captain America, Deputy Dawg, or even Danger

Mouse.

Am I the only one who actually READ the letter which comes with every CWP?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

...but the whole purpose of the S&T forum is to think about these situations in advance, so we can formulate some sort of advance plan in case we ever wind up in a similar situation.

I have made mention previously about how surprised I had been about the lack of proper personal safety reaction to a gun shot in a gun show where there were apparently a lot of self defense-oriented individuals. We all read about and hear from folks who talk about situational awareness, head on a swivel, always ready to react, etc. So the fact that virtually everyone stood around, standing still after the shot really made me think that far too many people don't react properly to an immediate lethal threat stimulus. Apparently nobody in the gun show was going to attempt to do anything helpful unless there was going to be more than one shot.

No go back and watch the video showing the events leading up to the shooting. Once the guy draws his circle and V and shows his gun, how many folks vacate or try to drop behind chairs and desks to get out of the shooter's line of sight?

Part of the way in which the 6 members of the board managed to become hostages is because the failed to react at the first sign of trouble. Too many folks perform poorly in these situations because they loose the first few critical seconds in confusion or disbelief because something out of the ordinary happened.

Even after the gun was produced, look at how many people made no attempt to hide or leave until AFTER the gunman ordered them away.

Listen to the disbelief of the guard when he asks the gunman if his gun was real.

 

[answerguy]

At first blush when I watched the wide angle video I thought that they missed an opportunity to rush the gunman when 'purse lady' swatted him.
But on further review that might not have been such a good idea. For starters the board member sitting closest to the action was an older gentleman and probably not up to the task. Secondly, the gunman had his gun in his right hand and that would have been a long trek around the rotund bad guy to even have a chance at securing it. And going for a leg take down could have resulted in the the BG shooting his tacklers.

FWIW- I'm quite surprised that the 'purse lady' didn't provoke him in to shooting right then.

Also, another brave lady worth noting is the one right after the purse swatting. The lady who comes into view and says "May I help her?". She didn't have to do it and put herself at risk.