walmart stabbings

Register to hide this ad
I read about that...

11 people were stabbed near the checkout area at the Traverse City Walmart (northern Michigan). One Marine chased him, a second Marine pulled his gun and the two held the attacker until police arrived.

A Witness reportedly said the guy with the gun showed remarkable restraint. "Everyone else there would have pulled the trigger!"

Thank God for US Marines! :cool:
 
I'm not aware that the mainstream media is remaining silent about it but I wouldn't be surprised
 
I read the story on Fox News, don't know if it is on any of the other mainstream media outlets. I hope the armed Marine does not get charged with something like brandishing, he was very justified in his actions, but it did occur in Michiganistan, soooooo...
 
Yes, you're supposed to call 911, let the "professionals" handle it, don't be a vigilante, take the law into your own hands, etc....
 
BLACKHAWKNJ said:
Yes, you're supposed to call 911, let the "professionals" handle it, don't be a vigilante, take the law into your own hands, etc....
Click to expand...

That's standard press release fare from police chiefs. Sheriffs, who are directly elected tend to be a lot more realistic about the fact that police of any type will almost never arrive in time to save anyone.

Walmart is one of the reasons I conceal carry. I rarely shop there as I prefer to support small businesses, but I'd never consider going to one unarmed.

There was a similar Walmart stabbing in 2017 that ended a lot sooner due to an armed citizen.

Media stories are mentioning the gun but it's almost secondary to what they describe as corralling the assailant with shopping carts.

Still, I'll take it as a "win" over the "shelter in place" policies. At least people are doing something to defend themselves. That's a key difference between the US where a shelter in place and wait for the police to come save you mentality exists, versus many other countries like Israel and Australian where the would be victims are going to be much more aggressive in their response to a threat.

If you look at the data on mass shootings and stabbings in the US, you'll find that even here the assailant is killed, kills himself, or flees after being confronted by would be victims about 1/2 the time, long before police arrive on scene. The result in those instances is much lower casualties on average than in instances where they waited for the police to arrive.

That data itself is biased against and under reports the success of citizen intervention as early intervention, particularly by armed citizens, often results in either very few fatalities or injuries or no one being shot except the assailant. As such they don't qualify as mass shootings, don't get counted in the data, and as it doesn't fit the narrative get almost no news coverage.

This one was a bit of an outlier as 11 people were stabbed before an armed citizen became involved.
 
CNN described the perp at the recent shootings at NY NFL headquarters as a "White Man" I don't know what he is, but he sure isn't a white man. People wonder why only 31% of Americans trust the media? It is the reason why so many millions of folks remain "Blissfully ignorant".
 
Dave Haynes said:
CNN described the perp at the recent shootings at NY NFL headquarters as a "White Man" I don't know what he is, but he sure isn't a white man. People wonder why only 31% of Americans trust the media? It is the reason why so many millions of folks remain "Blissfully ignorant".
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what color he was. But whatever color, he wasn't at the NFL headquarters either. The speculation is that he was targeting the NFL headquarters and took the wrong elevator. The working theory is his mental illness was due to head trauma and unsubstantiated CTE that he blamed on the NFL.

But he did attack the offices of the Blackstone Investment firm and a real estate management firm. I'd want to rule out things like recent rent increases etc before I buy fully into the NFL theory. They'd rather have the NFL be the target than another Luigi style "we're tired of getting ripped off by investors and private equity firms" shooting.

Either way it looks like a massive failure to enforce current gun laws and background check systems, and rather than calling for proper funding of those existing laws and systems they'll just call for more gun control.
 
Last edited:
BB57 said:
It doesn't matter what color he was. But whatever color, he wasn't at the NFL headquarters either. The speculation is that he was targeting the NFL headquarters and took the wrong elevator. The working theory is his mental illness was due to head trauma and unsubstantiated CTE that he blamed on the NFL.

But he did attack the offices of the Blackstone Investment firm and a real estate management firm. I'd want to rule out things like recent rent increases etc before I buy fully into the NFL theory. They'd rather have the NFL be the target than another Luigi style "we're tired of getting ripped off by investors and private equity firms" shooting.

Either way it looks like a massive failure to enforce current gun laws and background check systems, and rather than calling for proper funding of those existing laws and systems they'll just call for more gun control.
Click to expand...
The point is that the media (CNN) wants to place blame on the wrong folks. So in that context, color does matter. You and I will never know his reasoning, it is whatever the media chooses it to be. I found it telling that he walked in, shot a couple of people and then just ended it there. I'd bet that he did have a background check either in Calif or Nev and passed without a problem.
 
Onomea said:
The guy with the gun made a deliberate decision not to shoot the perp, and to deescalate the situation.

I think this example of a good guy with a gun is good for our cause, as an example showing armed civilians are beneficial for public safety.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Marine showed great restraint and was able to gain compliance from the stabber. Here's the however, de-escalation only works if the stabber decides he doesn't want to be shot.
 
Given the situation that marine found himself in, showing great restraint while brandishing his gun (Walmart stabbing) . . .
If I was that marine, in the very same situation, I would also restrain myself because the “self-defense” laws in my state would not allow me to pull the trigger UNLESS the perp threatened me DIRECTLY!
As he was stabbing OTHER people and not ME . . .I couldn’t shoot!
 
9Mary7 said:
I agree that the Marine showed great restraint and was able to gain compliance from the stabber. Here's the however, de-escalation only works if the stabber decides he doesn't want to be shot.
Click to expand...
The important point that's been made is that the armed citizen didn't just shoot the assailant as soon as he had a legal justification to do so.

That sends a huge positive message about armed citizens not being vigilantes out looking for someone to shoot.

That's doubly important now, in an era where way too many law enforcement officers, adhering to attitudes such as "us against the civilians" or "what ever it takes to get home tonight" are far more likely to shoot as soon as a minimum legal standard is met in the interest of "officer safety", and that ironically the concept of officer safety is often used by police to escalate situations.

I'm approaching fossil hood and entered law enforcement 40 years ago with a criminology degree and at a time when it wasn't considered sufficient justification to shoot just because a minimum threshold was met. Times have changed and those new attitudes around deadly force are causing most of the problems in law enforcement and its perception by the public.

For example, I saw a video several years ago where a mother called the police as her schizophrenic adult son was refusing his meds and she was requesting assistance to get compliance - not to address any danger or threat. When the police arrive they knock on the door and the mom calmly walks out explaining the situation followed by her son, who is also calmly walking. But he has a Philips screwdriver in his hand that he is spinning between his fingers.

The officers immediately keyed on the "weapon" and started screaming "drop the weapon!" while drawing their guns. The soon to be dead son is just stood there in confusion. You could practically see the thought bubble over his head as he thought "what weapon?", as he continues to spin his fidget spinner screwdriver between his fingers.

Nine seconds of door opening to dead guy. No effort at de-escalation, no effort to consider the context of what's going on in the situation. No attempt to increase space and distance to provide more time to get a handle on what's really happening and what if any threat actually exists. No effort to engage the mom to have he put his screw driver/fidget spinner down. The sad part is both officers were sent as they had attended a two day course on working with people wit mental health issues. That isn't training that stuck or came to mind - on a mental health call.

They reverted to their lowest level of fully mastered training which was to immediately shoot a mis perceived threat. It was ruled to be a valid shoot, but it was 100 percent avoidable.

In that kind of environment, an armed citizen who didn't shoot the guy comes off looking extremely good in comparison and speaks volumes about the value of armed citizens not only being on the spot with minimum response time, but also handling the situation with minimum use of force.

That's a big win for 2A rights as it demonstrates the responsibility and restraint that a responsible armed citizen brings to the situation, while also saving lives.
 
BB57 said:
The important point that's been made is that the armed citizen didn't just shoot the assailant as soon as he had a legal justification to do so.

That sends a huge positive message about armed citizens not being vigilantes out looking for someone to shoot.

That's doubly important now, in an era where way too many law enforcement officers, adhering to attitudes such as "us against the civilians" or "what ever it takes to get home tonight" are far more likely to shoot as soon as a minimum legal standard is met in the interest of "officer safety", and that ironically the concept of officer safety is often used by police to escalate situations.

I'm approaching fossil hood and entered law enforcement 40 years ago with a criminology degree and at a time when it wasn't considered sufficient justification to shoot just because a minimum threshold was met. Times have changed and those new attitudes around deadly force are causing most of the problems in law enforcement and its perception by the public.

For example, I saw a video several years ago where a mother called the police as her schizophrenic adult son was refusing his meds and she was requesting assistance to get compliance - not to address any danger or threat. When the police arrive they knock on the door and the mom calmly walks out explaining the situation followed by her son, who is also calmly walking. But he has a Philips screwdriver in his hand that he is spinning between his fingers.

The officers immediately keyed on the "weapon" and started screaming "drop the weapon!" while drawing their guns. The soon to be dead son is just stood there in confusion. You could practically see the thought bubble over his head as he thought "what weapon?", as he continues to spin his fidget spinner screwdriver between his fingers.

Nine seconds of door opening to dead guy. No effort at de-escalation, no effort to consider the context of what's going on in the situation. No attempt to increase space and distance to provide more time to get a handle on what's really happening and what if any threat actually exists. No effort to engage the mom to have he put his screw driver/fidget spinner down. The sad part is both officers were sent as they had attended a two day course on working with people wit mental health issues. That isn't training that stuck or came to mind - on a mental health call.

They reverted to their lowest level of fully mastered training which was to immediately shoot a mis perceived threat. It was ruled to be a valid shoot, but it was 100 percent avoidable.

In that kind of environment, an armed citizen who didn't shoot the guy comes off looking extremely good in comparison and speaks volumes about the value of armed citizens not only being on the spot with minimum response time, but also handling the situation with minimum use of force.

That's a big win for 2A rights as it demonstrates the responsibility and restraint that a responsible armed citizen brings to the situation, while also saving lives.
Click to expand...
Many of the LEOs today have never been in a physical altercation in their lives. That is a big factor. Years ago it took a special kind of guy to be a cop. In SF all of the cops were big imposing people, tough Irish guys mostly. They didn't have to shoot people. Now the gun is just another tool in the belt. They shoot people because they can. The big difference now is that there are a lot of people who deserve to be shot, no so in the old days. But it isn't law enforcement anymore, it's a game of GOTCHA. The old days cops responded to trouble, today they look for trouble. Look and you will find. My fear is that some day I will have a knock at my door in the middle of the night and I will answer it with a gun behind my back and be shot 10 or 15 times by the good guys...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnRippert
Found me a 2020 Shelby GT500
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
'79 Magnum GT
'79 Magnum GT
D
This One Leaves Me Speechless!
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
Leonard
Leonard
M
My LGS robbery.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
Truckman
Truckman
S
My wife's newest Project/Pet?
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Skeet 028
S
Bald1
Job ops and Economic benefits of……..
Replies
19
Views
840
Bald1
Bald1

Latest posts

Back
Top