Medford Police Say "Fight Back" in Active Shooting
#1
http://www.kdrv.com/fight-back-during-ac...ng-crisis/

I read this with disbelief! I find the advice to be a terrible idea! Does anyone agree with me?
Reply
#2
Well, lets see.

A man with a shotgun, 50 shotgun shells, and a knife opened fire in a building at Seattle Pacific University. He was taken down by a building monitor with pepper spray when he stopped to reload.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/06...in-Seattle



1) The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with pepper spray.

2) Having to reload one shell at a time, or having to reload frequently really cuts down your opportunities to kill a lot of people, and increases other people's opportunities to tackle you.

3) If people just hid, he could have kept reloading and shooting until he went through all 50 shells, or law enforcement arrived, and harmed a hell of a lot more people.

4) Trying to take down a shooter before they end up shooting you sounds like a good idea, if you're in a situation where you think you're likely to get shot anyway. Unless you've got a good chance of getting away, or can get to shelter, and there isn't anyone else in danger.

5) If other people are in danger, what the hell are you doing cowering behind a shelter in the first place?
Reply
#3
(06-07-2014, 02:43 PM)csrowan Wrote: Well, lets see.

A man with a shotgun, 50 shotgun shells, and a knife opened fire in a building at Seattle Pacific University. He was taken down by a building monitor with pepper spray when he stopped to reload.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/06...in-Seattle



1) The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with pepper spray.

2) Having to reload one shell at a time, or having to reload frequently really cuts down your opportunities to kill a lot of people, and increases other people's opportunities to tackle you.

3) If people just hid, he could have kept reloading and shooting until he went through all 50 shells, or law enforcement arrived, and harmed a hell of a lot more people.

4) Trying to take down a shooter before they end up shooting you sounds like a good idea, if you're in a situation where you think you're likely to get shot anyway. Unless you've got a good chance of getting away, or can get to shelter, and there isn't anyone else in danger.

5) If other people are in danger, what the hell are you doing cowering behind a shelter in the first place?

Certainly, a shotgun can be a clumsy weapon, but most of these situations are high capacity, semi automatics aren't they?

So, it appears you would agree that more concealed weapons carriers would be a good thing? I ask because I think I have seen you post against it in the past.

Also, on number 5, it appears to be the normal reaction of most people. You would not do that? You would advance on the armed person?
Reply
#4
(06-07-2014, 02:58 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(06-07-2014, 02:43 PM)csrowan Wrote: Well, lets see.

A man with a shotgun, 50 shotgun shells, and a knife opened fire in a building at Seattle Pacific University. He was taken down by a building monitor with pepper spray when he stopped to reload.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/06...in-Seattle



1) The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with pepper spray.

2) Having to reload one shell at a time, or having to reload frequently really cuts down your opportunities to kill a lot of people, and increases other people's opportunities to tackle you.

3) If people just hid, he could have kept reloading and shooting until he went through all 50 shells, or law enforcement arrived, and harmed a hell of a lot more people.

4) Trying to take down a shooter before they end up shooting you sounds like a good idea, if you're in a situation where you think you're likely to get shot anyway. Unless you've got a good chance of getting away, or can get to shelter, and there isn't anyone else in danger.

5) If other people are in danger, what the hell are you doing cowering behind a shelter in the first place?

Certainly, a shotgun can be a clumsy weapon, but most of these situations are high capacity, semi automatics aren't they?

So, it appears you would agree that more concealed weapons carriers would be a good thing? I ask because I think I have seen you post against it in the past.

Also, on number 5, it appears to be the normal reaction of most people. You would not do that? You would advance on the armed person?



If someone is carrying, I would prefer that they carry concealed. But I'd much rather that they not carry at all.

Yes, most of the situations are high capacity semi autos. I was pointing out the benefits of this one NOT being a high capacity semi auto. I like the idea of most gun owners being limited to bearing revolvers, shotguns, and simple hunting rifles, with semi autos and magazine-loading firearms being reserved for law enforcement, military, and thoroughly background checked members of well-regulated militias.

On number 5, I'd like to highlight a few things in the article:

Quote:MEDFORD, Ore. — Medford police officers are urging people to think twice about the way they would handle an active shooting situation.

Police said during an active shooting, the first response most people have is to hide, but really you should fight dirty, meaning you should fight back.

“It’s just something to think about, if that is an option and that plan presents itself, you know we would certainly encourage that type of violence so to speak to his violence,” said Lt. Mike Budreau, with the Medford Police Department.

Although this does mean putting oneself in danger, police said the civilian is already in danger in that situation.

Instead of hiding, think quick, and work with those around you to take the shooter down.

Police said every second counts during an active shooting, and it only takes two to three people to take an armed gunmen down.

If I don't have a good opportunity, if I'm far away, if I have to cover a lot of open ground, there's not a lot of point.

If the shooter is facing another direction, if the shooter is reloading, distracted, if I have a table I can throw at him, a chair to swing, if I can grab the barrel of the gun and twist it—I know leverage. If nothing else, I might be able to distract the shooter long enough for other people to get away.

If I've got him down, if I can keep him from shooting, I can yell for people to help me, to hold him down.
Reply
#5
(06-07-2014, 02:16 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: http://www.kdrv.com/fight-back-during-ac...ng-crisis/

I read this with disbelief! I find the advice to be a terrible idea! Does anyone agree with me?

I think it's a good idea. It's common sense. It doesn't get in to all of the possible scenarios but what they are trying to say is some times you need to fight back.
Reply
#6
But, then, there's this:

http://www.kdrv.com/shots-fired-during-fist-fight/




Shot Fired During Fist Fight


Published June 7, 2014
Jacob Allen Golden

MEDFORD, Ore. — Officers responded to a disturbance on the 1500 block of Bryant Street Friday night where multiple people were fighting. The first officer arriving on scene heard a shot fired, according to a press release.

Four people were taken into custody. Police found a .38 caliber revolver in the front yard of the residence. Investigators say Jacob Allen Golden, 21, instigated a fight with multiple people including Allen Paul Norris, 72.

During the fight, police say Golden punched Norris in the face. Norris went inside the house to get the gun and fired a shot in the grass to scare Golden, according to police. Police say because of that, he was not acting in self-defense and arrested him for Fourth Degree Disorderly Conduct. Norris was also arrested for Unlawful Use of a Weapon and Recklessly Endangering Another Person.


Personally, I think it's irresponsible of the police to issue a fight back statement and then expect people to act within the letter of the law of "self defense".
Reply
#7
Police said, DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENT, fight back.

They did NOT say, "bring a gun to a fistfight."
Reply
#8
Oh, and leaving the fight, getting a gun, coming back to the fight, then firing the gun—that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the letter of the law of "self defense" as you put it.
Reply
#9
(06-07-2014, 10:36 PM)csrowan Wrote: Police said, DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENT, fight back.

They did NOT say, "bring a gun to a fistfight."

I believe you miss my point entirely, Rowan. Most people are only going to see the words "fight back" or only remember those words when in a violent threatening situation. What they won't remember are the specifics of the wording. Why would they when the adrenaline is pouring through their veins. People will remember the edict with a broad scope, forgetting it's implicit meaning. That's why I, personally feel it is irresponsible to say.
Reply
#10
(06-08-2014, 10:39 AM)Tiamat Wrote: [quote='csrowan' pid='341151' dateline='1402205788']
Police said, DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENT, fight back.

They did NOT say, "bring a gun to a fistfight."

Quote:I believe you miss my point entirely, Rowan. Most people are only going to see the words "fight back" or only remember those words when in a violent threatening situation.

Oh for Pete's sake Tia the police were CLEARLY talking about what you should do in an active shooting situation.

You expect the police to edit carefully what they say for the idiots who can't read or comprehend something so simple?






Quote:What they won't remember are the specifics of the wording. Why would they when the adrenaline is pouring through their veins. People will remember the edict with a broad scope, forgetting it's implicit meaning. That's why I, personally feel it is irresponsible to say.

Are there really that many of the "they" you speak of that good advice can't be given?
Are there REALLY that many idiots who won't understand and cause a problem?
SHEESH I hope not or we are doomed.
Reply
#11
(06-08-2014, 11:53 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-08-2014, 10:39 AM)Tiamat Wrote: [quote='csrowan' pid='341151' dateline='1402205788']
Police said, DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENT, fight back.

They did NOT say, "bring a gun to a fistfight."

Quote:I believe you miss my point entirely, Rowan. Most people are only going to see the words "fight back" or only remember those words when in a violent threatening situation.

Oh for Pete's sake Tia the police were CLEARLY talking about what you should do in an active shooting situation.

You expect the police to edit carefully what they say for the idiots who can't read or comprehend something so simple?






Quote:What they won't remember are the specifics of the wording. Why would they when the adrenaline is pouring through their veins. People will remember the edict with a broad scope, forgetting it's implicit meaning. That's why I, personally feel it is irresponsible to say.

Are there really that many of the "they" you speak of that good advice can't be given?
Are there REALLY that many idiots who won't understand and cause a problem?
SHEESH I hope not or we are doomed.


I'm surprised you would wonder.
Reply
#12
(06-08-2014, 02:00 PM)Tiamat Wrote:
(06-08-2014, 11:53 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-08-2014, 10:39 AM)Tiamat Wrote: [quote='csrowan' pid='341151' dateline='1402205788']
Police said, DURING AN ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENT, fight back.

They did NOT say, "bring a gun to a fistfight."

Quote:I believe you miss my point entirely, Rowan. Most people are only going to see the words "fight back" or only remember those words when in a violent threatening situation.

Oh for Pete's sake Tia the police were CLEARLY talking about what you should do in an active shooting situation.

You expect the police to edit carefully what they say for the idiots who can't read or comprehend something so simple?

LaughingLaughing




Quote:What they won't remember are the specifics of the wording. Why would they when the adrenaline is pouring through their veins. People will remember the edict with a broad scope, forgetting it's implicit meaning. That's why I, personally feel it is irresponsible to say.

Are there really that many of the "they" you speak of that good advice can't be given?
Are there REALLY that many idiots who won't understand and cause a problem?
SHEESH I hope not or we are doomed.


I'm surprised you would wonder.
Reply
#13
What did you say, TV?
Reply
#14
(06-08-2014, 06:38 PM)Tiamat Wrote: What did you say, TV?

I couldn't hear him either. Speak up man!
Reply
#15
I find it hilarious the position rowan put himself in.

"Be a man!!! Why are you hiding? Protect those innocents around you!!!!!


But........ NO ONE SHOULD CARRY GUNS!!!!!
Reply
#16
Who said anything about "being a man".

I was talking about being a decent human being. And I still would rather that the general public not carry guns.
Reply
#17
A little thought of possibility, is to carry "Un acha". In close quarters, even short guns are cumbersome. I got a corrido, with a kindling axe. But then, my family has a connection to the tomahawk, that goes back much further than our arming Geronimo. Sometimes, running is better than walking. I'm confidant of my God. But another day of fighting has some appeal left. If it affects others, then you have to do, what you have to do. That's something best considered now.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)