Multiple People Shot at Texas Church

[Renegade]

You don't think private property owners should be able to control access to their own property?

Private property designed for public accommodation should be treated differently than private property for personal use.
As long as this is part of 30.05:

(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden;  and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure , regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

then this should be too:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;  and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,   1 to carry a handgun;  and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner;  or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

In fact, it should be changed to:

(f) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden;  and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was issued a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,   1 to carry a handgun;

 

[jordanmills]

Private property designed for public accommodation should be treated differently than private property for personal use.
As long as this is part of 30.05:

(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden;  and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure , regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

then this should be too:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden;  and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,   1 to carry a handgun;  and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner;  or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

In fact, it should be changed to:

(f) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden;  and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was issued a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,   1 to carry a handgun;

Oh yeah, they also need to fix that bit about trespass not applying to cops even when they are not on duty.

 

[oldag]

Why are you wearing a Trench Coat? It is 72 degrees in here. Why dont we help you check it in the coat room? And what is with the fake beard and wig? Why are you wearing those? And are you happy to see me or is that a PGO shotgun in your pants?

Well, yes in this particular situation.

But they are not always wearing fake beards and wigs. And some regular folks don't remove their coats inside. With the long coat, the shotgun may have been truly concealed. Nor do all church shooters carry shotguns.

Not always easy to discern.

 

[Kar98]

And when he says "Oh, nothing. How are you today?" - what do you do?

Anything I can help you with today? What's with the beard and the wig? Let me take your coat? How about we take a nice walk outta here...

 

[cycleguy2300]

Oh yeah, they also need to fix that bit about trespass not applying to cops even when they are not on duty.

You can trespass a cop when off duty, you just can't do it because the have a weapon...



Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[jordanmills]

You can trespass a cop when off duty, you just can't do it because the have a weapon...



Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

But what if the only reason you want him to go is because he has a scary gun?

 

[avvidclif]

Regardless of what I think, that is how things are. Try telling someone they can't come into your store because they're gay and see what happens.

There is a missing point. There is a BIG difference between "Private Property" and private property that the public has general access to IE: A retail establishment, store, restaurant, whatever.

 

[Glenn B]

Well, I waited until there were 24 pages (I wrote this earlier but only posted it after 5 more pages appeared) of replies prior to mine to say what I will say, here goes:

There is only one guy to blame for innocent people being shot - that is the now dead dirtbag.

The first innocent shot fumbled his draw - of that there is no doubt. Why did that happen, my guess (note I said guess) is because of how he carried it and lack of training/practice or maybe because of the pucker factor. He also made himself a more obvious target; he did so by standing up. Had he drawn from a seated position, the bad guy may not have noticed him in time to shoot him, has he moved to cover and drawn the bad guy may have missed his shot. He stood up to confront the bad guy but did not immediately and concurrently move toward cover, that probably (note I said probably and not definitely) was either due to poor judgement or lack of training, instead he essentially stood there like a stationary target. If that is what he was trained to do, he had some piss poor training. I am not attempting to fault him, but must say his actions led to his demise somewhat. The fault and blame is of course with the dirtbag but had this man been better prepared, he may have survived; then again, there is the pucker factor. He was a brave man indeed to stand up and face off against a shotgun wielding maniac to save the flock.

The second innocent to be shot did nothing to stop the dirtbag. Cannot say why, can only guess and I could guess at least several different reasons. I think many people would have done the same either because they have no clue what to do, have never trained for such a situation, or are just scared into freezing but again, or in utter disbelief or shock over what was transpiring - all just supposition.

The security person who shot the bad guy did a fine job of putting him down; however if he actually aimed at his head - he was taking a big chance of missing. The head is among the most difficult parts of the body to hit when in an armed confrontation even for a distinguished marksman. Yeah, I know, some of you guys could do a head shot without fail under stress of facing off with a guy who just shot two other people but me, I'd rather go one or two to center mass then one or two to the head in this situation as I've been trained. Then again, if a head shot was the only shot - so be it.

Had there been an accomplice of the dirtbag there who was armed and also ready to wreak havoc, that person would likely have killed at least one other and probably would have shot shot and maybe killed several more folks.You may recall the shooting at a Walmart some years back where an armed bystander took out the bad guy shooter only to be killed by the bad guy's accomplice whom the good guy never noticed was there. Tunnel vision is normal but it can get you killed, you need to train hard to break from it.

Amazingly none of you big time shootists mentioned that every security person (or other armed person) in the place who was seen in the video seemingly had tunnel vision. Someone did point out looking for other threats would be a god idea and then a real expert replied that the time to look for other threats was over; I beg to differ.

Church security, supposedly, had been watching the bad guy since he entered the church according to some. If that is correct (note I said IF) then they made a terrible mistake by not situating themselves within arms reach of him. At least two of them should have been within easy arms reach of the guy. The reason should be obvious. While distance is often your friend in a gunfight, proximity might have prevented a gunfight in the first place.

Only one person in the church appeared to possibly be looking around around for other threats; the bald headed man who is in right (your right as you look at it) foreground of the video - he got up looked around started to walk toward front of church looked around again. I did not notice any of the armed security personnel do so, they seemed intent only on the bad guy who had already been shot. Likely due to either terrible judgment or lack of good training.

As for the shot dirtbag, did anyone secure his weapon and secure him. He needed to be handcuffed, zip-tied or otherwise secured - head shot or not; his weapon(s) secured as well.

The guy whose You Tube video was posted here more than once is an arsehat IMO. He sates the obvious, which can be a good thing, but he gets even that wrong to some regard and disregards too much. He does not know tactical from smatical or in other words does not know shit from shinola yet poses as an expert telling church security how to do it.

I heard little or no mention of what church goers should have done. Most hit the ground and stayed there. One lady runs around and my guess is that it was she who is screaming bloody murder as she runs, in a panic, to the second innocent guy who was shot then away from him. What did everyone else do? Did you see those who got up and appeared to leave? There were a few who seemingly did so. Were they just getting out of Dodge or were any an accomplice who did not carry out his/her part? None of the security guys paid them any mind from what I could see.

It is probably a fact that had an accomplice been there and waited, the accomplice could have easily shot at least some of the armed security personnel as they all zeroed in on the fallen bad guy; or, had the accomplice lost determination, the accomplice could have just walked away. I will grant, maybe there was other security but judging from the response witnessed in the video, I tend to doubt they would have been reacting any differently.

My critique is not to fault those who fell or those who did not do maybe what should have been done but to help others prepare for such a situation in their own lives. You can learn a lot from the mistakes of others. One thing to consider is that if you do not learn from their mistakes you may well make those same mistakes yourselves at some future date.

 

[Renegade]

Well, I waited until there were 24 pages (I wrote this earlier but only posted it after 5 more pages appeared) of replies prior to mine to say what I will say, here goes:

There is only one guy to blame for innocent people being shot - that is the now dead dirtbag.

The first innocent shot fumbled his draw - of that there is no doubt. Why did that happen, my guess (note I said guess) is because of how he carried it and lack of training/practice or maybe because of the pucker factor. He also made himself a more obvious target; he did so by standing up. Had he drawn from a seated position, the bad guy may not have noticed him in time to shoot him, has he moved to cover and drawn the bad guy may have missed his shot. He stood up to confront the bad guy but did not immediately and concurrently move toward cover, that probably (note I said probably and not definitely) was either due to poor judgement or lack of training, instead he essentially stood there like a stationary target. If that is what he was trained to do, he had some piss poor training. I am not attempting to fault him, but must say his actions led to his demise somewhat. The fault and blame is of course with the dirtbag but had this man been better prepared, he may have survived; then again, there is the pucker factor. He was a brave man indeed to stand up and face off against a shotgun wielding maniac to save the flock.

The second innocent to be shot did nothing to stop the dirtbag. Cannot say why, can only guess and I could guess at least several different reasons. I think many people would have done the same either because they have no clue what to do, have never trained for such a situation, or are just scared into freezing but again, or in utter disbelief or shock over what was transpiring - all just supposition.

The security person who shot the bad guy did a fine job of putting him down; however if he actually aimed at his head - he was taking a big chance of missing. The head is among the most difficult parts of the body to hit when in an armed confrontation even for a distinguished marksman. Yeah, I know, some of you guys could do a head shot without fail under stress of facing off with a guy who just shot two other people but me, I'd rather go one or two to center mass then one or two to the head in this situation as I've been trained. Then again, if a head shot was the only shot - so be it.

Had there been an accomplice of the dirtbag there who was armed and also ready to wreak havoc, that person would likely have killed at least one other and probably would have shot shot and maybe killed several more folks.You may recall the shooting at a Walmart some years back where an armed bystander took out the bad guy shooter only to be killed by the bad guy's accomplice whom the good guy never noticed was there. Tunnel vision is normal but it can get you killed, you need to train hard to break from it.

Amazingly none of you big time shootists mentioned that every security person (or other armed person) in the place who was seen in the video seemingly had tunnel vision. Someone did point out looking for other threats would be a god idea and then a real expert replied that the time to look for other threats was over; I beg to differ.

Church security, supposedly, had been watching the bad guy since he entered the church according to some. If that is correct (note I said IF) then they made a terrible mistake by not situating themselves within arms reach of him. At least two of them should have been within easy arms reach of the guy. The reason should be obvious. While distance is often your friend in a gunfight, proximity might have prevented a gunfight in the first place.

Only one person in the church appeared to possibly be looking around around for other threats; the bald headed man who is in right (your right as you look at it) foreground of the video - he got up looked around started to walk toward front of church looked around again. I did not notice any of the armed security personnel do so, they seemed intent only on the bad guy who had already been shot. Likely due to either terrible judgment or lack of good training.

As for the shot dirtbag, did anyone secure his weapon and secure him. He needed to be handcuffed, zip-tied or otherwise secured - head shot or not; his weapon(s) secured as well.

The guy whose You Tube video was posted here more than once is an arsehat IMO. He sates the obvious, which can be a good thing, but he gets even that wrong to some regard and disregards too much. He does not know tactical from smatical or in other words does not know shit from shinola yet poses as an expert telling church security how to do it.

I heard little or no mention of what church goers should have done. Most hit the ground and stayed there. One lady runs around and my guess is that it was she who is screaming bloody murder as she runs, in a panic, to the second innocent guy who was shot then away from him. What did everyone else do? Did you see those who got up and appeared to leave? There was at least one guy who did so. Was he just getting out of Dodge or was he an accomplice who did not carry out his part? None of the security guys saw him from what I could see. It is probably a fact that had an accomplice been there and waited, the accomplice could have easily shot at least some of the armed security personnel as they all zeroed in on the fallen bad guy; or, had the accomplice lost determination, the accomplice could have just walked away. I will grant, maybe there was other security but judging from the response witnessed in the video, I tend to doubt they would have been reacting any differently.

My critique is not to fault those who fell or those who did not do maybe what should have been done but to help others prepare for such a situation in their own lives. You can learn a lot from the mistakes of others. One thing to consider is that if you do not learn from their mistakes you may well make those same mistakes yourselves at some future date.

TL;DR

 

[Kar98]

TL;DR

We're all master shots putting 25 rounds into a quarter sized hole at 25 yards from the ready position at a paper target, but going from white to red in a real life fire fight is a different ball of hair and we are all well advised to learn from other people's mistakes.

 

[jrbfishn]

TL;DR

Don't worry, you dod not miss anything.
Just another " my way is better and I know more than you" post.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[roadkill]

Y’all forgot the part where John Correa is full of shit and an internet armchair commando knows better.

 

[SlimJim]

You gave the wrong answer, TXI gave the correct one. Get over it.

That is not what the The Texan led with in their news story but whatever. I carry regardless.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[SlimJim]

You don't think private property owners should be able to control access to their own property?

That is a can or worms. Sure true private property owners should be able to control access but that is not what you have here. You have private property that is generally open to the public which should also mean open to ALL those abiding by law.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler]

What some of our "tactical experts" seem to miss is they had no reason to suspect he was going to do what he did. Had they thought that its unlikely they wouldn't have taken some action to prevent it.

The "experts" analyzing the actions of these brave men from the safety of their armchair and the superiority of their "training" exhaust my otherwise good nature. Oddly I don't hear much critique from those on this forum with actual experience. Their silence speaks volumes.

These guys were a handful of volunteers, primarily older men with all the baggage our younger 'analysts' have yet to enjoy. They didn't do it for pay, it wasn't their day job, just a few guys with the heart and the guts to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

 

[Davetex]

Yeah, no shortage of John Wick clones here.

 

[cycleguy2300]

What some of our "tactical experts" seem to miss is they had no reason to suspect he was going to do what he did. Had they thought that its unlikely they wouldn't have taken some action to prevent it.

The "experts" analyzing the actions of these brave men from the safety of their armchair and the superiority of their "training" exhaust my otherwise good nature. Oddly I don't hear much critique from those on this forum with actual experience. Their silence speaks volumes.

These guys were a handful of volunteers, primarily older men with all the baggage our younger 'analysts' have yet to enjoy. They didn't do it for pay, it wasn't their day job, just a few guys with the heart and the guts to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Huh?

Wig, fake, beard, trench coat... those are called clues. Those are not NORMAL and when you see something that isnt right, you have to get to the bottom of why it doesnt fit.

I have heard they recognized there was something disturbing about the suspect's behavior, which is why the first person shot was there.

Maybe they knew "something" was up, maybe they didn't... but it takes training and mindset to both see and recognize that something is wrong and make the correct decision about what action to take on it.

It is entirely right to point out when a strong man stumbles, people make mistakes. I have screwed up entries, searches, etc, we call each other without regard to ego and move on.

If you see someone trip on a rock in the trail, its not a slight on the man to let people know there is a hazard and suggest a course of action.

There is a difference in identifying specific training and tactics issues evidenced in the video and playing the 20/20 hindsight shoulda-coulda-woulda game.

Also a part is about reasonableness.
If you are on an armed security team presumably intent on combating and armed threat, is it reasonable to carry where it takes 3.1 seconds to access your weapon? (NO!)

Is it reasonable to allow someone in a with Wig and fake beard wearimg a trench coat to come in to the service? (No! its OK to make people uncomfortable sometimes, don't be a weirdo and you won't draw the attention)

Is it reasonable to maintain such a large distance between someone you may have ID'd as a potential threat? (It could be, or could not be)

Bottom line is thanks to my training and actual experience I see a few training and mindset issues. Some of you seem to just like to argue... but denying the training and mindset issues with some of the red herrings you heaved out there is a disservice to anyone wanting to learn from this.



Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Whistler]

Some of us seem to like to argue? Says the guy analyzing and nit picking every detail of a situation he wasn't in, only has incomplete second hand knowledge of and can't accept a handful of old guys volunteering at church on Sunday didn't respond like a Seal trained SWAT unit?

Okay you win, I for one am grateful for your insightful comments and highly informative analysis. Thank you from the bottom of my unworthy heart.

 

[TX OMFS]

Apparently he was known to the church. That's probably the reason they gave him more latitude.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/gunma...efore-shooting/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[easy rider]

A lot of over analyzing detectives here. Two dead people that didn't deserve to die and one that did is what I see. Certainly take away from this that bad things can happen when you may least expect it, but don't demean the lives of those that put themselves in harms way so that a situation that could have turned out a lot worse was nullified quickly.