The un-redacted version of the Texas chirch shooting

We live in a society where we value our personnel freedom above all else. Unfortunately this allows someone like this gunman to come into this church and want to take other peoples lives. This same freedom allowed someone to have a firearm and stop the person that wanted to take others lives. Taking guns will not fix this issue nor will taking away my personnel freedoms fix the issue. What has become of our society is the issue.
 
When I first was made aware of the event I saw the video on youtube and my initial thought was how well things were handled. Now, as I see it in more detail, slowed down, have the benefit of the defenders interview, and hindsight, I see a lot that should and could have been done better.

It's hard for me to say because I know it triggers many to get defensive and think I couldn't do better, I'm being judgemental and disrespectful. But, non of that is the case.

I simply think when events like this occur, they should be reviewed and discussed to hopefully create a better outcome.

I've outlined four suggestions of thought for others that might be part of a defensive security team.

1. In this event the bad actor was a known person. In other words, many times these events take place, people don't notice anything suspicious. In this case, not only did they know, but they were watching him and staged around him. With this advantage, it allows for two additional choices. One, to engage the individual on the security teams terms and outside the venue, or to simply contact the police and report a suspicious person and let them engage. My point is to put the timeline on their terms and not be reactionary. By their own admission, they have a security protocol to address these potential threats, it would be wise not to just sit back and see what happens.

2. The whole thing is over in about six seconds....That a tremendously short period of time. Yet, when you look at the defenders draws, they are dangerously slow. I'm not saying I could do better or making any bravado claims. But, if you look at the reaction and Defender #1 drawing against a pulled shotgun, the poor man never stood a chance. Only he knows what was in his mind, but to draw against that in the line of fire is likely a suicide mission and probably pulling the weapon was why he got shot. If you see the, the bad actor doesn't fire until he sees the defender pulling his weapon and that man is shot first.

3. The "hero", Defender #2 is a true hero. No doubt his training, experience, and a sprinkle of luck contributed to his single kill shot....And yet, not judging, but look how slow he is to react. Had he been positioned closer to the shooter, it might have been a different outcome. He was never in the shooter line of sight and was provided a clear shot... Further, had it not been a kill shot, who knows what would have happened.

4. This one is really critical for those on a security detail. You see that Defender #2 trains on the bad actor, and while that's probably ok, it's not the best for the entire detail. If you watch the video with all the advantages to slow it down and analyze, you notice all the security that draws their firearm myopically train on the shooter. What if he wasn't acting alone and there was a sleeper? He would have the advantage of knowing who to take out first and likely wouldn't have been seen until too late....My point is, don't get tunnel vision if the shooter is already being handled. Look for what isn't expected. Prepare for a second event and clear the area.

Anyway, these points aren't meant to criticize. I think they did a phenomenal job and likely saved many lives. It's out of respect for them that I analyze it so perhaps others can learn.

It absolutely sucks that anyone has to take on the burden of defender. I hate it...I hope no one ever has to face it. But as Defender #2 said, and I say to my girlfriend, evil exists. And until it doesn't it has to be put down anyway possible.

I still think under the stress environment that was one hell of a shot.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I'm shocked, impressed and happy for our 2nd amendment rights all at the same time.
 
Six seconds.

Bad Guy stands up and says something to the first of the Security guys. Next he pulls out his shotgun. Security #2 does a slow draw and the bad guy kills him. Then the Bad Guy shoots Security #1 at point blank range.

Security guy #3 drops the bad guy with a single head shot from what appears to be 40' away. Not the kind of news that today's liberal media likes to report since #3 is just a citizen exercising his 2nd Amendment rights......and protecting everyone else inside the church.

A terrible loss for two families.
 
It seems that a church with a security detail and protocols should have some way to prevent an individual from bringing a shotgun in the building. A pistol I understand being difficult to discover at the door without intrusive magnetometers but a shot gun?
It’s so sad that it has come to this but I would not be opposed to subjected to modest screening at just about any larger gathering I’d attend these days. I actually will just avoid gatherings all together and worship on the deck of my boat.
May god bless those folks affected by these evil acts.
 
I'm with Boat Guy. The security detail's attention was drawn to this guy early enough that they directed the audio/video crew to focus a camera on him and stay focused on him.

In my way of thinking, if the bad guy drew that much attention and they recognized the fake beard and hair and the long coat, I'd have surrounded the guy and hustled his ass right out of the church. In putting hands on the guy to get him out of the church they likely would have discovered the shotgun and taken it away from him. I'm amazed they let him stay in the church.

Problem solved.

I also wondered why the security detail, after recognizing him as a potential threat, didn't close in on him and have at least 2-3 security guys within arm's reach of him.

I'd bet that a gun or two stuck firmly in his ribs would have changed his mind about doing a shooting.

It's easy to be an armchair expert and I commend the security team for the job they did.
 
What is really really sad about this is:
1. You have gotten to the point that you need armed security in a church.
2. You have gotten to the point that you think that you need to bring your own gun to church.

Wouldn't it be great if you could get to the point where:
1. Sane, law abiding people can own guns
2. Mentally ill, high risk and non-law abiding people cannot possess guns
3. You don't "need" to have a gun with you at all times to defend yourselves against #2.

There is a way. Y'all have solved a lot more complicated issues.
 
Creekwood said:
What is really really sad about this is:
1. You have gotten to the point that you need armed security in a church.
2. You have gotten to the point that you think that you need to bring your own gun to church.

Wouldn't it be great if you could get to the point where:
1. Sane, law abiding people can own guns
2. Mentally ill, high risk and non-law abiding people cannot possess guns
3. You don't "need" to have a gun with you at all times to defend yourselves against #2.

There is a way. Y'all have solved a lot more complicated issues.
Click to expand...

There is no easy solution, but it's a society issue more than a guns issue. Years ago they used to be kept in the back window of pickups in school parking lots and available via mail order.

Until life is valued again, I fear this path will continue. Can't get them out of society when there's more guns than people in the US.

And I'll agree, this church security team did well. Having the video available to learn from and train from is helpful to many.
 
With 325 million people in the US....it just is not as simple as passing another gun law. No gun law would have stopped this guy. Having a sign outside the church saying NO GUNS would not have stopped this guy. Waiting for the police to show may have meant he killed dozens of people.

With that many people in a country how many do you think are psychopaths and don't care if you or your family live or die? The answer is probably in the 10s of 1,000s.

We are well beyond the day when taking guns away from law abiding citizens makes any sense at all.

While I'm not a fan of everything the NRA says.....it got the part right where: "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". You could give bad guys capital punishment for using a gun in a crime and it would have no effect on most of them. They just don't care what you think, what laws you believe in or what utopia you find appealing.

Keep in mind that if you have previously been convicted of a felony in the US.....you can't legally own a gun. The bad guy in the church didn't care about the law he was already banned from owning a gun.....he just wanted to kill people.

Fortunately, there were well trained people there to stop him. It is tragic that two of them were killed protecting their church.
 
Creekwood said:
What is really really sad about this is:
....
Wouldn't it be great if you could get to the point where:
.....
There is a way. Y'all have solved a lot more complicated issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all want utopia....Until then, understand evil exists, and while it does, don't get in the way of defenders. Those people take on the responsibility and burden of defending, and don't need some mentally weak individual imposing their restrictions on them. The answer has been studied and is well known. Address the mental health problem and accept that with freedom come a different kind of security...Don't ever trade it....Look around the world and see how many regimes would like to take it away.
 
PlayDate hit on some very valid points. Laws apply to all of us but rely on voluntary compliance of the population. For those who choose not to comply, no law is going to make them comply. They just do not care about laws. All they care about is what's important to them, at that moment, on that day.
 
Boat Guy said:
When I first was made aware of the event I saw the video on youtube and my initial thought was how well things were handled. Now, as I see it in more detail, slowed down, have the benefit of the defenders interview, and hindsight, I see a lot that should and could have been done better.

It's hard for me to say because I know it triggers many to get defensive and think I couldn't do better, I'm being judgemental and disrespectful. But, non of that is the case.

I simply think when events like this occur, they should be reviewed and discussed to hopefully create a better outcome.

I've outlined four suggestions of thought for others that might be part of a defensive security team.

1. In this event the bad actor was a known person. In other words, many times these events take place, people don't notice anything suspicious. In this case, not only did they know, but they were watching him and staged around him. With this advantage, it allows for two additional choices. One, to engage the individual on the security teams terms and outside the venue, or to simply contact the police and report a suspicious person and let them engage. My point is to put the timeline on their terms and not be reactionary. By their own admission, they have a security protocol to address these potential threats, it would be wise not to just sit back and see what happens.

2. The whole thing is over in about six seconds....That a tremendously short period of time. Yet, when you look at the defenders draws, they are dangerously slow. I'm not saying I could do better or making any bravado claims. But, if you look at the reaction and Defender #1 drawing against a pulled shotgun, the poor man never stood a chance. Only he knows what was in his mind, but to draw against that in the line of fire is likely a suicide mission and probably pulling the weapon was why he got shot. If you see the, the bad actor doesn't fire until he sees the defender pulling his weapon and that man is shot first.

3. The "hero", Defender #2 is a true hero. No doubt his training, experience, and a sprinkle of luck contributed to his single kill shot....And yet, not judging, but look how slow he is to react. Had he been positioned closer to the shooter, it might have been a different outcome. He was never in the shooter line of sight and was provided a clear shot... Further, had it not been a kill shot, who knows what would have happened.

4. This one is really critical for those on a security detail. You see that Defender #2 trains on the bad actor, and while that's probably ok, it's not the best for the entire detail. If you watch the video with all the advantages to slow it down and analyze, you notice all the security that draws their firearm myopically train on the shooter. What if he wasn't acting alone and there was a sleeper? He would have the advantage of knowing who to take out first and likely wouldn't have been seen until too late....My point is, don't get tunnel vision if the shooter is already being handled. Look for what isn't expected. Prepare for a second event and clear the area.

Anyway, these points aren't meant to criticize. I think they did a phenomenal job and likely saved many lives. It's out of respect for them that I analyze it so perhaps others can learn.

It absolutely sucks that anyone has to take on the burden of defender. I hate it...I hope no one ever has to face it. But as Defender #2 said, and I say to my girlfriend, evil exists. And until it doesn't it has to be put down anyway possible.

I still think under the stress environment that was one hell of a shot.
Click to expand...
From what I read the hero had to wait for innocent bystanders to duck before he had a clear shot. Then he took the bad guy out. So he was on it but had to wait for the clear shot.
 
Gofirstclass said:
I'm with Boat Guy. The security detail's attention was drawn to this guy early enough that they directed the audio/video crew to focus a camera on him and stay focused on him.

In my way of thinking, if the bad guy drew that much attention and they recognized the fake beard and hair and the long coat, I'd have surrounded the guy and hustled his ass right out of the church. In putting hands on the guy to get him out of the church they likely would have discovered the shotgun and taken it away from him. I'm amazed they let him stay in the church.

Problem solved.

I also wondered why the security detail, after recognizing him as a potential threat, didn't close in on him and have at least 2-3 security guys within arm's reach of him.

I'd bet that a gun or two stuck firmly in his ribs would have changed his mind about doing a shooting.

It's easy to be an armchair expert and I commend the security team for the job they did.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, the focal point of the camera never changed, and I will add that it was a fixed position camera. That is the only point that I want to counter.
 
Jaybeaux, when the security detail's attention was first drawn to the bad guy, one of them directed the audio/video team to keep a camera trained on the bad guy. In my earlier post I used the term "focused on the bad guy". Perhaps focused was the wrong term. I should have said they trained the camera on him.

It likely was a fixed focus camera (as opposed to one that can be zoomed in and out) but according to the security detail shooter's comments, they can change the direction of to have it aimed at any area of the sanctuary they like. It was at the security detail shooter's direction to change the aim point of the camera that so much of this was caught on video.
 
It's interesting how something like this thread can trigger a memory of a similar situation.

Back in the early 80's I was a cop. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) was going to hold a public announcement to all of the WPPSS employees that they were shutting down production on one of the reactors. This resulted in the layoff of thousands of union workers of various trades. The big wigs from WPPSS were going to be speaking from atop a several story building and the workers were to be gathered out in front of the building in a parking lot.

One of those workers was a guy well known to cops named Jimmy. Jimmy was a biker, known to carry a handgun/knife/club or whatever fancied him that day.

We were pretty sure Jimmy would be in the crowd as he worked at the nuke plant, and we knew he was nuts enough to try to take a shot at the big wigs. It was my job to be Jimmy's shadow. I was in jeans and a work shirt and I was to make sure I was never more than 3' from Jimmy and my instructions were that if pulled out a handgun I was to take him out before he got a chance to shoot it.

I spent about an hour in the crowd waiting for Jimmy to show up. He finally did, and he never realized I was next to him.

The big wigs gave out the bad news, there was a lot of bitchin' and moanin' in the crowd, but Jimmy never made a move. Thankfully.
 
Without knowing how the security team was carrying, there is a 5 point draw drill. As a former LEO I have practiced the 5 point draw many times. A 5 point draw requires your weapon to be directly on your side, not in the small of your back, not appendix carry. This is the most efficient draw position. You also have to be mindful of your clothing and anything blocking your access to your weapon. Definitely harder to do when wearing street clothes and carrying concealed but something to be aware of. We had a drill that we were required to successfully complete. Standing 3' from our target in a field interview stance (45* cant with weapon away from suspect and hands in front of your stomach/chest area). The instructor would yell 'gun' and you had to draw and fire 2 shots into center mass in under 2 seconds. Granted we knew we were going to be drawing and firing so definitely an advantage there. But the point was if you weren't efficient with your draw you would not pass.

Easy to Monday morning QB but videos like these were used for training. We used to practice in a simulator and these were recorded. After we were done we all watched each others and critiqued each others reactions and responses all in the name of becoming better and safer.

But it sucks that we have to have these discussions at all.
 
Gofirstclass said:
I'm with Boat Guy. The security detail's attention was drawn to this guy early enough that they directed the audio/video crew to focus a camera on him and stay focused on him.

In my way of thinking, if the bad guy drew that much attention and they recognized the fake beard and hair and the long coat, I'd have surrounded the guy and hustled his ass right out of the church. In putting hands on the guy to get him out of the church they likely would have discovered the shotgun and taken it away from him. I'm amazed they let him stay in the church.

Problem solved.

I also wondered why the security detail, after recognizing him as a potential threat, didn't close in on him and have at least 2-3 security guys within arm's reach of him.

I'd bet that a gun or two stuck firmly in his ribs would have changed his mind about doing a shooting.

It's easy to be an armchair expert and I commend the security team for the job they did.
Click to expand...

This is a church not a bank and the security detail was private citizens not professional guards. They did an admirable job. No need to second guess. It's a damn shame more than one life was lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,102
Messages
1,425,972
Members
61,018
Latest member
IslandGirls1020
Back
Top