Another Gunman, Another Woman

:karma:  

Come on Tova she was the youngest adult there!

Actually, she tells the story different from the sheriff. In this case, as opposed to the other one, this woman had a viable strategy in mind... get the shooters magazine away from him (no handbag swatting). I like this action much better.

Also, I'd call the man that died shielding his wife a hero and he was an old fellow.

As she explained it in an interview I heard, she dropped to the ground when he started shooting.  She made no attempt to 'go after' him, but when he paused to attempt to reload 2 or more people tackled him & he ended up on the ground next to or near her.  As he was attempting to get the magazine to the gun, he & it were right in front of her and she reached out and grabbed the magazine away.

She's a hero in my book, too, because she instinctively acted to protect others in the face of evil.

I do not recall anyone "poo-pooing" your early story on the Heroine.  Some objected to your harsh treatment of the men, and some did call the woman reckless (albeit brave), but as no one was killed, no one really poo-pooed anything about the lady.

And I am happy for Patricia - saddened that the top law enforcement officer in the area is the biggest coward of them all and lied about it to promote his own agenda.

Thanks go out to all the people that jumped in and stopped this lunatic.  Perhaps the examples set by the 2 ladies (and the men) will embolden others to jump in to stop the crazies before they set records of dead.

I see this as an apples and oranges comparison.  But I get your point.  There is some differences in accounts and the policitians immediately jumped in to cast their own agenda into the mix.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  There is too much difference in the many versions but they all convey the essence of these kinds of situations:  It is chaotic and confusing and even the people who are there and acting don't have a clear picture of what is happening.

Yes, there seems to be a little discrepancy in the telling .. but I still like the fact she ACTED.

Absolutely.

I think the other woman planned to knock the gun out of his hand....but you're right...she was using her noggin ... no clip, no reload.

Exactly BFD.  But I still think acting is better than playing stationary target

Hope so.

Seemed like it to me Doc.  In fact, I got the impression some people thought Ginger shoulda just walked away...done nothing.  That's poo-pooing her efforts imo.

I agree with Doc on the "poo-pooing."  We just had another viewpoint T.  We just saw it a bit differently.  That's all.  I don't think anyone said Ginger shoulda done nothing.  But what she did do, could have very well cost lives including herself. 

In this other case, things happened so fast.  The men may have acted first as Daiwa mentioned.  In that case they all worked together (men and woman) to do what was needed in the heat of the moment regardless of who acted first.   Who was the closest?  Who had the best vantage point?  Who was paying attention? 

I don't think this is a man-woman hero thing.  Men are heroes just as well as women.  Look at 9/11.  Like BFD said 20-20 hindsight comes to mind but we just never know what we'll do in any particular situation until we're in it no matter what we think we'd do.  So many variables come into play and each situation is unique. 

But I do agree that Patricia did a great job in her quick thinking in pushing the magazine away.  Good on her is right!  But also on the men who held him down and the man who shielded his wife trading his life for hers.  All are heroes.   

No matter which version of the story you go with in this case, the exact same thing could be said of Patricia, or any of the three men who jumped this guy.  They were unarmed after all, and failing to subdue him would almost certainly mean instant death for them and others. 

No argument here.  I would even go so far as to say men are more often heroes of this nature than women.  Some of that is due simply by virtue of chosen professions.  And I'm thankful for them!

Aside from professional training (soldier, emergency services, etc) though, I still think there is a whole side to the cultural feminization of our men, and boys in this society.  A way of thinking that makes it "ok" to not step up, to let a woman fight their battles.

Just like the man Nitro mentioned who protected his wife, I can't imagine my grandpa or uncles standing by, waiting for, or any other obedient verb, while a gunman pointed/shot/threatened other people.  Even at the expense of their own lives.  

Today.  It seems to me, if the Titanic were sinking....the life boats would be full of men.  And they'd all be rationalizing why they needed the seats.

Her efforts - yes. I do recall that.  But not your take on it. I know BFD was hard - but only because of his experience with crises and the reactions he has seen.  She was lucky - and brave.

I'm not sure how you can read the responses on that article and not come away knowing most of the respondents didn't think Ginger did the right thing/smart thing/safe thing.

There is even a direct reference to the fact she should have just left and called for help.

We'll just have to disagree on this point Doc. 

and while I don't think I made that reference I would agree with it.  Attempting to hit him with her handbag wasn't the right thing to do...gun vs handbag.  This is a no-brainer.  Reminds me of Crocodile Dundee holding up his  very large knife and saying "this is a knife"  to the dude who held up a very little switchblade.   

I agree. 

no, this was a much different situation.  They had nothing to lose here.  The guy was already shooting wildly making his targets.  In the other case, the guy was waving a gun shooting off nothing really but his mouth while the school board members were trying to calm him down.  Ginger could have set him off when quite possibly he wanted nothing but attention; to be heard.  Sometimes they can be talked down.  In most cases I believe it's so.  There was dialogue happening there. 

But here in this second case,  shooting was happening and he meant business.  He had to be stopped and stopped quickly for the sake of the rest of the potential targets. 

Granted, there are certainly differences and I didn't mean to imply the cases are the same.  I don't think you could replicate a situation like that no matter how many times it played out.

The common denominator though is the gunman (and in these two cases the women).  Part of that "sometimes they can be talked down" mentality is, imo, what paralyzes people.

I'm sorry, call it barbaric, but if someone comes in waving a gun at me or mine, I'm not going to "trust" they might be talked down.  Trust they might just do the right thing and be rational (because they've already shown how reliable they are when it comes to doing that, pfft).  Why would I trust someone with a gun pointed at me to be rational? 

That's crazy.

There are lots of steps, deliberate steps, taken to get into a public place with a loaded weapon and extra ammo. 

When you break down those steps you realize there are multiple opportunities for a gunman to back out, to change his mind, up to the moment he pulls out the weapon and points it.

From then on, it's better to deal with the reality of the situation, (people are likely gonna die if someone doesn't act) not sit around and hope things will turn out. 

But I understand this is my view..I don't expect it to be everyone's.

In that we agree and strongly.  The time for talk ends when the weapon comes out.

not necessarily.  The one with the gun in his hand is in charge at least for the moment.  If he wants to talk...you talk.  That's called  hostage negotiations and is used all the time with great success.  Remember the lady who wrote a book and was called a hero because she talked an intruder out of whatever he was going to do to her?  If I remember right, she led him to Jesus even praying with him. 

In any type of tactical training one of the things they teach you is  to fight only with an equal or greater force unless you have a tactical advantage.  So like I said earlier a handbag against a gun is NOT a greater or equal force.  Obviously it didn't work.  Neither do you attempt to fight a gun with a knife.  Again it's a lesser force.  But if you have a tactical advantage you can use the lesser force successfully.  So for instance if a man with a knife comes up behind a gunman and is able to slit his throat, then that would be an exception to the lesser force having an advantage against the greater force. 

In this latest case, the gun jammed and it turned out to be a tactical advantage which the men who tackled him and the woman who pushed the gun away were ready to act upon.   

Ginger acted when the guy had a loaded weapon. The others acted during the time the shooter was closest to their equal, when he had spent the last round in his magazine and before he could reload the next magazine (no chance or action prior to this). The second action was much better thought out, with less time available, than the first action. Had anyone waited until he reloaded and tried to slap the weapon from the shooters hand, I would have given that person the same grief I did Ginger.

"If we'd fought these women instead of the men," another marine comments, "we might have got our asses kicked."

              - Generation Kill

In reality, women realize that it is less likely someone will kill them.

I can see the logic in that, yet I wonder if that is really what is going through ones head when the rubber hits the road.

Tell that to the congresswoman who he went there to kill.

I don't think that's accurate; not in today's society.  I'd like to say it is, but the type of men who go on killing sprees are not respecters of gender, or as this latest shooter shows, age.

lol, I know you would.  I'm just proud they did something.....because there are many times when people don't...even when an opportunity presents itself...for whatever reasons...

Right but when that moment ends...THAT is where people diverge and some act and some don't.

KFC: Most people cannot spell 'tactical Training' much less having a use for it. I suspect a ‘tactical advantage’ is just as foreign too.  Let me play devil’s advocate here: (I am good at that you know, hehehe)

I believe in humanity and do not have a problem defending it, even at the cost of my own life (I like to think so anyway). I am tactically trained and very comfortable around weapons and agree that a headlong death play is not a good thing, except under very special conditions. It doesn’t take long to get to the point where … but you have got to have the time. I have found from experience that people respond to immediate life threatening circumstances in one of 3 ways:

• They run,
• They freeze or
• They fight.

None of these responses are concerned with active thought (not enough time) and thoughts only come into play once one of these 3 conditions are met. When this happens and circumstances allow you, one can override their ‘gut reaction’ and bring the brain back into active play … and proceed.

No one sane walks into these types of situations and most would never even consider them possible after all … It couldn’t happen to them anyway, Could it? I agree “might make right” is always a good thing to keep in the mind, but there are other things to be considered too … if one HAS TIME.

tova7:

I cannot recall your second story (my problem not yours) so I cannot comment on it. The first story has been re-analyzed enough IMO. Food for thought- "Most heroes do not want to be one and most people who flaunt their heroism ... aren't". Hum, not sure if that applies here, but it sounded good to me, hehehe.