Shooting in Hollywood - What would you do?

[Diggers]

Gun laws aside, the laws in CA about protecting self and others in such a situation are pretty good. (To the shock of many here I'm sure. ) One can use deadly force to protect ones self or others if there is a danger of great bodily injury or death. A guy randomly shooting at people in cars qualifies for sure.

In this situation, shooting this guy with a rifle from the building would be totally justified in CA.

 

[JohnhenrySTL]

This is a tough one to answer. All I can say for sure is that I would avoid any gun fight I could if I had my four year old daughter with me. It was hard to tell from the video if he shot like an experienced shooter; I can't help but to think my truck would be a safer bet against him then trying to shoot through a window, or line up my vehicle while he was blasting away at me. I find around here, revving up my engine and letting approaching "undesirables" know I am willing to use my truck as a weapon keeps people respectful of my rights. It really does work. LOL

 

[Sobel]

Would it be beyond reason to try and hit him with my vehicle? if i were behind him of course. Would that be illegal to hit him with a car?

 

[mortablunt]

This is a situation with no good answer. The most probable way to survive would be to drive away ASAP, but I'm nto sure how many of us here could live with training and talking just to run away when they were in a position to prove that CCW holders really can combat tragedies. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just ran away from an opportunity to save others. In that case, I'd take the car, which as a 2000 pound weapon, and attempt to ram him with it. Assuming that didn't work, well, I'd probably be rather screwed. If it were during a time I had a firearm, I would attempt to gain some sort of position or advantage so that I could shoot him and hopefully not get shot myself. At the Box O Truth, it was shown that a car does not provide good cover from most handgun, rifle, or shotgun projectiles. Of course, legally, if you went at him to fight, that would mean that any successful attack you made which stopped him would be considered either homicide or attempted murder under the law. However, in this situation, I don't think anybody would press charges or convict you because of the circumstances.

 

[lemaymiami]

I've actually used a car on one occasion as a cop.... Not to kill but certainly knocked the guy down ( a car is a very handy weapon if you're in a position to use it). I've also used a car to corner someone against a house (just jump the curb and get to it...). These are actions I never would have considered if not for a long career on the street ( and I'd bet that the shooter would probably survive getting hit by a car and the danger he posed would have been ended in a heartbeat). Before I became a cop I'd have fled unless the guy was standing in front of me - and even then I'd have fled in reverse if possible. Even the slightest impact will put down a human being and I've seen more than one pedestrian fatality caused by a car only going 35mph...

Now for the guy who can clearly see what's happening but is not in the line of fire.... This response is again colored by experience. If you're the observer your best action is to get on the phone, call it in - then stay on the line to tell the responding officers exactly where the guy is, what he's doing - real time.... That sort of info is vital for the guys coming to deal with the shooter. Remember initially the incoming info to police emergency lines will be all over the spectrum (from there's a disturbance all the way to there's a massacre or heavy gang banging shootout). No one headed that way will have any idea of what they'll find or just how bad it's going to get. A calm caller with a bird's eye view of the action is just golden. I can't emphasize that enough. Many a rookie was told early on that if they're off duty and see something bad happening - the best response is to call it in and direct the response. They're told (over and over again) not to jump in unless there's just no other choice. I've been on both sides of that equation and the advice is the best going.

 

[JustinJ]

UT Tower Shoooter Charles Whitman's list of victims may have been longer had it not been for citizens returning fire at him from the ground. If i could stop the guy with a reasonable chance of not further endangering the public i would not hesitate. I would hope that any LE that arrived on the scene used more discretion than to randomly start shooting.

 

[lemaymiami]

Justin.... your last comment gets me to make this suggestion. If you're able sign up with your local police department for a ride along (most all departments that I know, not only allow this but encourage it..). You won't be able to pick the officer or the circumstances - but you should be able to pick the day and time frame. The Department will make sure you're clean (and you won't be bringing any weapons along), you'll have to sign a liability waiver before you're allowed to ride along, and you'll only be an observer unless things get entirely out of hand. That shift might be the most boring few hours you ever spent or entirely too exciting, you just never know. Most haven't the slightest idea what that world is like (the one thing I guarantee is it won't be what you've seen on tv or in the movies).

I highly recommend a ride along for anyone interested - it's usually an eye opener...

 

[gathert]

You get to pick what day and which shift you ride along with, day/night. If riding night an a civilian you can only ride until 12AM.

 

[JustinJ]

lemaymiami, I've always wanted to do a ride along. So does one generally just call the LE departments main phone number to sign up? I assume a Saturday night would be the least boring.

 

[Bobson]

If riding night an a civilian you can only ride until 12AM.

Just an FYI, that's not the case with all departments. A friend of mine recently went on a ride-along with Phoenix PD, and they were out from 1900 to 0700. But I agree, rides-along are great experiences.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The "dilemma" here is one of ethics, not tactics. Tactics are designed to meet the relevant strategic goals. The usual strategic goals are 1) the protection of your own life and that of your loved ones, and 2) staying out of jail.

If you are in a car when you notice the gunman, reverse directions and get out of there. If you can't reverse direction or if you notice the gunman too late to do that (and you are convinced you are about to receive fire), then run him down IF that seems to you your only or your safest escape.

If you are an armed bystander not under immediate threat, the tactical considerations will be the shooter's distance, your firearm's range and accuracy, and the safety of the backstop.

But what are your goals? Goals #1 and #2 above probably preclude an unthreatened bystander's shooting, unless you expand #1 to include protecting all presumed innocent human life.

Should you expand your goals and take the shot? Like I said, not a tactical question.

 

[Bobson]

The "dilemma" here is one of ethics, not tactics. Tactics are designed to meet the relevant strategic goals. The usual strategic goals are 1) the protection of your own life and that of your loved ones, and 2) staying out of jail.

Tactics and ethics ought to intertwine. If a certain goal forces you to do something unethical, there's little reason for it to be a goal, IMO.

If you have the ability to save an innocent person's life, and choose not to act because you fear potential jail time, you just made an unbelievably selfish decision, in my book. Preventing some madman from murdering someone's innocent child/sibling/spouse is worth me spending a few years in prison.

I understand that's a personal decision one would have to make, but that doesn't mean it's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of right and wrong. Letting someone die to save yourself a bit of skin is wrong.

 

[Strykervet]

Well, the guy that I saw in the video, the red car that got shot at and pulled over just a few meters past the active shooter stopping FAST, he died it seems.

This goes back to what I posted yesterday. If he cut off my escape or he hit me and disabled me from completing my escape, I think I would have engaged him. I can't say for sure, I wasn't the guy that got hit, maybe he got hit in the neck and was paralyzed. But from what I saw, were I in the red car and still capable, I probably would have taken him down. He was certainly close enough in an open intersection for me to accurately put a couple 10's in the chest. That would have stopped him from shooting several other cars and/or people.

But in CA, the law abiding citizen does not have this recourse. That guy in the red car pulled over because he was now disabled and was stuck in the street that way with an active shooter. Since he's in CA, he has not weapon with which to defend himself. The law has abanonded him and declared his right to life and defense of it non-sequtr. In CA, this is allowed to go on until the cops show up. It can take them minutes, it can take them seconds, but you can do a lot of damage in a crowded place in just seconds.

I think that a criminal just knowing there is a large community of concealed carriers significantly drops the chance of it happening. Some will do it anyway, but others, the ones that want to get away with it, they'll think twice. In WA, we are shall issue, and lots of folks carry here, mostly concealed, but some open. You almost never hear of a CCW holder in trouble or involved in something bad. From time to time, the news will say a guy was robbed or broken into and defended himself and that is pretty much the end of it. Prosecutors don't like charging folks involved in obviouisly justifiable homicide cases because if they lose, the state has to pay for the entire defense bill (but one clown wants to change this, has a bill that probably won't pass).

We have our problems, we had the Tacoma Mall shooting. But the story there to the bad guy is that if you try that crap, some dude might jump out from behind a rack of levis and let you have it when you least expect it. It ended bad for the good samaritan, but it doesn't always end that way, and by that guy getting into it with the bad guy, he very well could have bought others seconds and saved their lives.

 

[mgkdrgn]

If I was in my car and he pulled the gun I would try my best to swerve and hit him.

If I saw him in advance I would accelerate quickly and swerve and hit him.

If I was in one of the condo's/high rises and in my current gun friendly state i'd grab my rifle engage him in conversation as the guy in the video did and if he shot at anyone else or took aim at me I would shoot him.

Best answer I've seen so far ... and pretty much the same thing I would do. I'd have no more qualms about dropping this guy in the street than I would about shooting a rabid dog.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

This is an interesting theoretical question. And I don't know you gents personally so I trust you would all respond precisely as you think/hope you would. I can, however, tell you from experience that when comfy armchair theory crosses into shocking bloody reality, I've never known ANYONE who could be SURE of their own response (IMHO). Hope you never have to really decide.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If you have the ability to save an innocent person's life, and choose not to act because you fear potential jail time, you just made an unbelievably selfish decision, in my book.

I get that. I also get that my wife and kids may have a separate book back home. At what point does my duty to them (to stay alive and out of jail) become secondary to my duty to "the public?"

Not to drag this away from tactics, but some of this duty/ethics/should discussion is inherent in the subject.

I think that a criminal just knowing there is a large community of concealed carriers significantly drops the chance of it happening

John Lott would tell you his data shows that.

 

[scaatylobo]

Brave kid and I would unass the AO asap.

That would be the primary plan,and he was not stopping cars .

So leaving was possible and desirable.

IF that were me and in a higher ground and IF I had the means [ rifle ] I would most likely have taken him out.

 

[JR133]

Everybody makes alot of real good points. Here are some things to keep in mine. If you were in your vehicle and that threat was near you, try to get out of the vehicle or shoot out of an open window. We did some tests and fired into and out of the front windshield and there are little pieces of glass everywhere. You may be put out off service before you even get started. Plus your point of aim and point of bullet impact is very different.

Also, the average person who has ccw permit may have never conducted any other training but shooting at a paper target. Shooting at a moving target and a target that is shooting back at you is very different.

Let the Police handle that incident unless it is right in front of you.

 

[JustinJ]

Also, the average person who has ccw permit may have never conducted any other training but shooting at a paper target. Shooting at a moving target and a target that is shooting back at you is very different.

Isn't that sort of an arguement not to carry in the first place? Besides, i would venture that many cops never shoot at anything but paper either.

 

[Averageman]

I would shoot, that shot doesn't look to hard and ending his ability to take someones life is the morale thing to do. If you can end the tragedy, why let it go on?
I spoke with a guy at work who is from L.A.'s Korea town. He said someone would have sit their Ramen down and put a cap in his behind if he would have tried that in K.T.
Living there after the riots, I believe that.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If he were not shooting at me I would not get involved. After all, the WORST thing that you can do is to take the law into your own hands.

 

[Fred Fuller]

With all the chest-beating going on here, somebody's gonna hurt themselves. Be careful...

 

[Ankeny]

I can, however, tell you from experience that when comfy armchair theory crosses into shocking bloody reality, I've never known ANYONE who could be SURE of their own response (IMHO).

Exactly what I was thinking as I read through the thread. Kind of throws a wet towel on my hero fantasy.

 

[mortablunt]

Exactly what I was thinking as I read through the thread. Kind of throws a wet towel on my hero fantasy.

That's why we have video games

 

[Bobson]

If he were not shooting at me I would not get involved. After all, the WORST thing that you can do is to take the law into your own hands.

I agree, but I don't think that applies here. I wouldn't mark anyone as a vigilante simply because he engaged an active shooter to stop a murderous rampage. That's far from taking the law into one's own hands.