Shooting at Colorado Walmart

THE LEGALSYSTEM NEEDS TO LEARN THIS.

Obviously you didn't read the article. That's not how it happened at all. They say they were slowed down because of the people they saw on the surveillance video.

How are they supposed to tell? By the way they stand and act. Did they present after the initial shooting? Then they're probably a good guy.

Guilt or innocence can be determined by posture. :rolleyes: That's how it happened because "THEY" said so in a news report??? :rolleyes:
 
How different would this story be if one of those CCW holders had been able to intervene and shoot the shooter, preventing those fatalities or maybe more?
 
I was not at the Thornton WalMart incident so I can't say with any certainty what any of the facts and circumstances may have been. I do know with reasonable certainty that law enforcement officials in the greater Denver Metro area (which includes Thornton) are usually opposed to citizens' rights to firearms or self-defense, and certainly not above politicizing such incidents as a means of denigrating any lawful possession or use of firearms by the public. It also would not surprise me if a journalist picked up on a comment by LE spokesmen to the effect that investigators had to repeatedly review security recordings to separate lawfully armed citizens from criminal suspects, and turned that into anti-gun reporting.

Secondly, I can envision being inside a large retail store when shooting breaks out, and I don't think that assuming a defensive posture (including having my handgun ready for use if necessary) would be an unreasonable act. Moving to a position offering as much view of approaches as possible, barricading behind store displays, hunkering down, and remaining ready to engage a threat all strike me as pretty reasonable responses. It would also be entirely reasonable, upon the approach of uniformed officers, to lay down my weapon and assume the most non-threatening posture possible.

In short, I'd rather worry about follow-up investigators stressing over images of me with a pistol in hand and assuming the strongest possible defensive position than I would want to worry about armed thugs or terrorists moving aisle to aisle and shooting down unarmed victims with impunity.
 
Rastoff, good points about moving towards an exit and having hand on holster rather than drawn.

Thanks.
 
Rastoff, good points about moving towards an exit and having hand on holster rather than drawn.

Thanks.
Just to be perfectly clear, it was Rob Pincus that wants you to keep your hand on the gun without drawing/presenting. I don't agree with him.

If there is an active threat, that could end my or my family's life, I want my gun out. I want to avoid any potential hangup while trying to present my firearm.

Think of it this way. It's concealed. To keep your hand on it while waiting for the threat means you'll have to have your concealment cleared as well. Do you think it's a good idea to attempt to keep your concealment garment out of the way for a protracted time? I don't know about you, but after a minute or two, my support hand will likely start to slip down a little. This would serve to not keep my concealment out of the way sufficiently. Then, should I need to present, it might get in the way and cause me to fumble. That would be bad.

No, I want it out. When the threat is over, I'll reholster.
 
It's concealed. To keep your hand on it while waiting for the threat means you'll have to have your concealment cleared as well. Do you think it's a good idea to attempt to keep your concealment garment out of the way for a protracted time? I don't know about you, but after a minute or two, my support hand will likely start to slip down a little. This would serve to not keep my concealment out of the way sufficiently. Then, should I need to present, it might get in the way and cause me to fumble. That would be bad.

Depends on what state you are in.
 
Rastoff,
I think there is no right or wrong but having a plan is good.
Everything is situational. If shots are fired, if the threat is imminent, then gun comes out.
I pocket carry 95% of the time anyway so my hand is not going to get tired.
If the Exit is too far, I find cover and wait it out. Bad guys might be at the exit too.
Consideration #1 are my loved ones and getting them to safety.
Good discussion.
 
Last edited:
NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL CORRECT ANSWER

I agree with parts of ALMOST every post. Having your gun at ready may be good OR make a potential target out of you & anyone near you. Hope you don't have a dark complexion/beard/look like a middle eastern/ & hope none of the other CC's dislike the way you appear or stand/behave.
 
JUST GUESSING BUT FAR FROM "OVER".

...I believe the perp was caught and behind bars in less than 24 hours...if anyone was slowed down...it wasn't by much...

...the anti-gun Denver metro area was using the anti-gun local media for a little free propaganda...

Interviewing every single shopper/employee/person on the property, forensics, viewing tapes etc sounds like an awful time consuming task.
 
Depends on what state you are in.
I don't see how that matters. If the gun is concealed, all the difficulties I presented are real.

However, you seem to be implying that open carry would alleviate any issue. That is a discussion for another thread.

Rastoff,
I think there is no right or wrong but having a plan is good.
Everything is situational.
Very well said. This is the basis for all situations. Nothing is 100%. Each of us has to evaluate the situation we're in and plan accordingly.

Is placing your hand on your gun, but not presenting, wrong? Of course not. It's just slower.
 
This is the basis for all situations. Nothing is 100%. Each of us has to evaluate the situation we're in and plan accordingly.

Oh, how I wish more people understood this simple concept. Additionally, the world isn't black and white...it's not even shades of gray! It's a multi-spectral rainbow of color. Each of us has to assess the situation for ourselves and make the decision that makes sense for us...not everyone else.
 
Well, my comment was about the interviewing every single shopper, forensics and watching tapes (specifically every second of every tape), but much gets lost in threads like this.

Also, the implication from the article is that it took 5 hours to review the tape because of all the concealed carriers. I don't buy that for a second. Again, even if it took 5 hours to review the tape, just a few minutes of talking to witnesses and viewing a small portion of the tapes is enough to get a description/picture of the guy.
 
Well, my comment was about the interviewing every single shopper, forensics and watching tapes (specifically every second of every tape), but much gets lost in threads like this.

Also, the implication from the article is that it took 5 hours to review the tape because of all the concealed carriers. I don't buy that for a second. Again, even if it took 5 hours to review the tape, just a few minutes of talking to witnesses and viewing a small portion of the tapes is enough to get a description/picture of the guy.


Five hours to review a five-minute video tape. It must be frame-by-frame.
 
That particular store has probably a couple hundred cameras in it, and I 'm sure other Super Walmarts do too. Next time you're in one look up, they're hanging from the ceiling.

The shooter entered and stayed near the south entrance, so I'm sure the police started with that video first.

Bill
 
Back
Top