Suspect Opens Fire in Synogogue, Good Guy With Gun Shoots Back, stops assault

[Double Naught Spy]

My initial reaction was "He shot at the suspect while the suspect was trying to leave? Seems risky." But as an LEO, I suppose he went into "apprehend or stop the threat" mode.

"Trying to leave" is an interesting thing, like the shooter at the Mosque in New Zealand was 'trying to leave' when he returned to his car the first time to get another gun and more ammo which he then took back to shoot more people or as he "tried to leave" and ran over a woman and shot at others ... on his way to another mosque where he shot more people.

It is hard, if not darned impossible, to determine the difference between "trying to leave" and things like "going to get more gear to kill more people" or "just going in a different direction to kill people" until after the fact.

I don't think the BP agent will have any problem in justification of his shooting as an attempt to preclude hard to others.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

"Trying to leave" is an interesting thing, like the shooter at the Mosque in New Zealand was 'trying to leave' when he returned to his car the first time to get another gun and more ammo which he then took back to shoot more people or as he "tried to leave" and ran over a woman and shot at others ... on his way to another mosque where he shot more people.

It is hard, if not darned impossible, to determine the difference between "trying to leave" and things like "going to get more gear to kill more people" or "just going in a different direction to kill people" until after the fact.

I don't think the BP agent will have any problem in justification of his shooting as an attempt to preclude hard to others.

Yes I agree. It was a snap reaction for me just because we here on THR, and in a permit class I had to take, promote restraint when shooting at an attacker, and making sound decisions about if an attacker retreats not shooting them in the back if it can be helped.

But clearly this is a different scenario, and you are absolutely right. This individual clearly demonstrated a desire to cause harm and death. How heavy of a response is heavy enough, or too heavy? There's no way to know. For all anyone could have known the car could've been rigged up to explode, and wounding or killing the perp prior to them getting to their vehicle could have saved a lot more lives.

No judgement. I'm glad the situation was stopped from escalating to an even worse outcome.

 

[GEM]

I don't think the fog of war has cleared yet. The combat vet has said some things that don't make sense in some reports. He supposedly said, that he didn't think the shooters' gun jammed because only fully autos jam, not semis. That is obviously not true, if he said it.

I'm waiting for a well vetted report before drawing conclusions. Never heard the Rabbi was armed either.

It was said that the BP agent shot at the lower part of the car to disable it. That makes no sense, if you are trained, esp. with vehicle related procedures. However, shooting at a fleeing mass shooter is justifiable as we have many instances of them fleeing to another target. Look at NZ for instance.

 

[alsaqr]

An unarmed man chased the shooter from the synagogue. Oscar Stewart is a stand up guy.


"I’m going to kill you,” Stewart boomed. This seemed to rattle Earnest, who began to flee.

From his time as a sergeant in the Army, Stewart knew that the rifle would be useless if he was within five feet of it. So he kept close to the shooter as he chased him into the parking lot.

The shooter got into a Honda sedan. Stewart, seeing the man reach for his weapon, punched the side of the car. The man started the ignition and let go of the rifle.

That’s when Jonathan Morales, an off-duty Border Patrol agent, shot four bullets into the car. As the shooter sped away, Stewart and Morales took down the license plate number."

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-diego-synagogue-shooting-hero-20190428-story.html

 

[GEM]

From his time as a sergeant in the Army, Stewart knew that the rifle would be useless if he was within five feet of it. So he kept close to the shooter as he chased him into the parking lot.

That makes no sense, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Deanimator]

That makes no sense, I'm sorry to say.

Possibly a poorly stated assertion of the Tueller doctrine.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Here is a clip of Stewart explaining in person what he recalls occurred during the time...more detail, expanded version of alsaqr's post..
https://fox5sandiego.com/2019/04/29/army-veteran-who-chased-away-poway-synagogue-shooter-speaks-out/

 

[old lady new shooter]

I don't think the fog of war has cleared yet. The combat vet has said some things that don't make sense in some reports. He supposedly said, that he didn't think the shooters' gun jammed because only fully autos jam, not semis. That is obviously not true, if he said it.

I'm waiting for a well vetted report before drawing conclusions. Never heard the Rabbi was armed either.

Agree about the fog of war. Multiple accounts, some contradicting each other. The woman who wrote the piece claiming that the deceased positioned herself in front of the rabbi to shield him, also got the rabbi's name wrong, identifying him as his son, who is also a rabbi there. Maybe the deceased actually did position herself in front of the son but the way the piece read one would think the author meant the main rabbi. I'm sure if she had positioned herself in front of the main rabbi he would have mentioned that in his several interviews / press conference.

Re not hearing that the rabbi was armed: After the 2008 attack on the Chabad in Mumbai, the head of the emissary program was interviewed and the reporter asked what Chabad would be changing about security going forward. He replied, "Do you really think I'm going to answer that?" In this case, the rabbi's fingers had been rendered unusable for shooting purposes when he first encountered the shooter, so being armed wouldn't have helped him, so my guess is that he probably thought why mention this. Note also how when asked about training he mentioned that LE had come to the synagogue and talked about evacuating etc, he did not mention anything about defending.

It was said that the BP agent shot at the lower part of the car to disable it. That makes no sense, if you are trained, esp. with vehicle related procedures. However, shooting at a fleeing mass shooter is justifiable as we have many instances of them fleeing to another target. Look at NZ for instance.

Apparently the intention was to prevent the shooter from fleeing by shooting out the tires to disable the car. I guess a LEO is allowed to do that, maybe someone here can confirm.

 

[GEM]

I know a relevant Federal agent who says the shooting to disable is against training and doctrine

 

[old lady new shooter]

So would the protocol be to shoot the assailant while he was driving away? Or what?

I know LE will put spikes in the path of a fleeing car... maybe someone can explain why putting the spikes to disable the car is OK but shooting out the tires isn't.

 

[Charlie Horse]

So would the protocol be to shoot the assailant while he was driving away? Or what?

I know LE will put spikes in the path of a fleeing car... maybe someone can explain why putting the spikes to disable the car is OK but shooting out the tires isn't.

Stop Sticks and Spike Strips are designed to stop a car in a controlled manner. The wikipedia article sums it up succinctly.

"The spikes may be hollow or solid; hollow ones are designed to detach and become embedded in the tires, allowing air to escape at a steady rate to reduce the risk of the driver losing control and crashing." I've deployed the Stinger brand spike strips, as well as driven the car stopped in training. They are remarkably effective in stopping a vehicle right quick, is a relatively short distance and straight line. You don't get that kind of precision with a bullet.

Basically, its controlled and safer. There is also no liability from an errant shot. (I can just see the media report on that one!)

As far as shooting at the vehicle, I wasn't there and I hate to say anything because I know how these things sometimes bear little resemblance to what ACTUALLY happened. We were taught that if you employ lethal force, then you are shooting to stop and possibly\probably kill a subject, and you do so until the target is no longer a threat. Shooting at a fleeing suspect that you have little\no chance of hitting would be frowned upon in the extreme. I would be more concerned with my rounds hitting someone\something other than the suspect, and there would be no telling where they WOULD hit.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Thanks very much, that makes sense.

Of course in this case they didn't have any spike strips to use...

The combat vet did specifically say the BP guy yelled at him to get out of the way before starting to shoot, and how appreciative he is of BP's professionalism for doing that.

 

[Charlie Horse]

Thanks very much, that makes sense.

Of course in this case they didn't have any spike strips to use...

The combat vet did specifically say the BP guy yelled at him to get out of the way before starting to shoot, and how appreciative he is of BP's professionalism for doing that.

I saw that while I was getting dressed this morning. It was certainly a bad scene, but FAR better than could have been the case.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Definitely.

 

[theotherwaldo]

You have a man who just murdered a woman, shot three others, is still armed, and is running away for some unknowable reason.
-And someone is questioning the responsibility to try to stop this murderer from continuing his rampage?

Well... .

 

[Deanimator]

You have a man who just murdered a woman, shot three others, is still armed, and is running away for some unknowable reason.
-And someone is questioning the responsibility to try to stop this murderer from continuing his rampage?

Well... .

At that point, it's no longer self-defense. It's defense of community against hostile military action. Anybody who thinks you should let him flee to kill more unarmed people is delusional at best, despicable at worst.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

At that point, it's no longer self-defense. It's defense of community against hostile military action. Anybody who thinks you should let him flee to kill more unarmed people is delusional at best, despicable at worst.

It IS still self defense if you are defending others. Defense of others is cover in all US states under self defense laws. Is is NOT defense against "hostile military action." There was no military involved.

 

[rpenmanparker]

At that point, it's no longer self-defense. It's defense of community against hostile military action. Anybody who thinks you should let him flee to kill more unarmed people is delusional at best, despicable at worst.

Possibly just wrong.

 

[Speedo66]

The famous case in shooting a fleeing suspect is "Garner vs. TN", where an officer shot and killed a fleeing unarmed burglar. SCOTUS said you can't do that.

However, part of our annual LE training was a class on the use of deadly physical force and even in NYS, there was a list of crimes where we could shoot at a fleeing perp. The acronym was "Dr. Barks".
DR.BARKS
D- deadly physical force being used against me or 3rd party
R - robbery, armed
B - burglary, of an occupied building or dwelling
A - arson. Applies to buildings only
R - rape, forced
K - kidnapping
S - sodomy, forced

In my particular agency, a house rule was that we were not permitted to shoot at a vehicle unless someone in the vehicle was shooting at us. Use of the vehicle as a weapon was not enough. Keep in mind this was in NYC where errant shots could be life threatening.

I think in this instance the border patrol agent, who is a federal peace officer, was justified in shooting at the fleeing murderer. The unfortunate part is he didn't hit him and cause him some pain.

For a classic movie about witnesses having conflicting memories of an event see Akira Kurasowa's "Rashomon".

 

[Deanimator]

It IS still self defense if you are defending others. Defense of others is cover in all US states under self defense laws. Is is NOT defense against "hostile military action." There was no military involved.

In the case of a jihadi, it's defense against a military proxy of a hostile foreign entity.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Personally, I don't care about the label, the behavior is the significant part.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In the case of a jihadi, it's defense against a military proxy of a hostile foreign entity.

Are you actually suggesting that that John T. Earnest is a jihadi? We are talking about the synagogue shooting in this thread specifically. You responded to the comment about the specific people Earnest had shot. Earnest is American through and through and has not been shown to be working with any military, foreign or domestic.

 

[Deanimator]

Are you actually suggesting that that John T. Earnest is a jihadi? We are talking about the synagogue shooting in this thread specifically. You responded to the comment about the specific people Earnest had shot. Earnest is American through and through and has not been shown to be working with any military, foreign or domestic.

Did I say he was a jihadi?

Of course it wasn't very long ago that we had a car and knife jihadi at Ohio State.

 

[JDR]

Hopefully I can set the story straight. The synagogue shooting this past Sat. in Poway CA was 5 miles from where I live, 1 dead three injured. The woman who was killed physically blocked the rabbi from the shooter, and saved the rabbi’s life, The suspect is a 19 yr old kid from the neighborhood right where I live.

The suspect’s rifle jammed so he fled, there was an off duty federal border patrol agent who was at the synagogue attending Passover services, who returned fire as the guy took off and he hit the suspects vehicle. OBTW, a federal agent can legally carry a firearm in a CA gun-free zone such as a synagogue, that’s a felony for anybody else including several people attending Passover services at the synagogue who held CA concealed carry permits but who had their CCW’s stowed in their cars in the synagogue parking lot.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Hopefully I can set the story straight. The synagogue shooting this past Sat. in Poway CA was 5 miles from where I live, 1 dead three injured. The woman who was killed physically blocked the rabbi from the shooter, and saved the rabbi’s life, The suspect is a 19 yr old kid from the neighborhood right where I live.

The suspect’s rifle jammed so he fled, there was an off duty federal border patrol agent who was at the synagogue attending Passover services, who returned fire as the guy took off and he hit the suspects vehicle. OBTW, a federal agent can legally carry a firearm in a CA gun-free zone such as a synagogue, that’s a felony for anybody else including several people attending Passover services at the synagogue who held CA concealed carry permits but who had their CCW’s stowed in their cars in the synagogue parking lot.

As an escaped former Californian, I would like to correct your statement. Unless the law has changed over the past year, it is NOT illegal to be armed in a house of worship. A person can be armed on any premises he or she owns, or whose owner (or owner's representative) has given permission for the person to be armed there. All the orthodox synagogues in my former neighborhood have congregants who are armed during services with the permission of their respective rabbis. It is unfortunately not legal to carry from one's home to the synagogue if a person doesn't have a carry permit or isn't subject to an exception like being a LEO, so since observant Jews don't drive on the Sabbath or Jewish holidays the weapons of those people have to be stored in the synagogue. Some members put on their weapon on arriving for services, other weapons are stored for use by any members of the security team. In any case, a weapon in a car has to be unloaded and in a locked container in the trunk. As for carry permits, in Los Angeles County and some others (I think San Diego is one) it's almost impossible to get one. "Self-defense" per se is not considered a valid reason. People whose business requires them to carry large sums of cash have somewhat of a chance.

As for exactly what happened in Poway, descriptions provided by key participants have been reproduced upthread.