Blogs
Jun 9, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Comments
Please wait...
and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
In that order?
@3
A powerful enough gun would be able to penetrate two bodies, like when Nick Nolte shot Eddie Murphy to kill the bad guy with a gun behind Eddie Murphy in one of those 48 Hrs. movies. So she could have killed herself and then her husband.
Regardless of your beliefs the guy didn't deserve to die, he was trying to do the right thing and protect others. Your comments are ugly just for the sake of being ugly.
Maybe the good guy with the gun was Honey Bunny and Mrs. Miller was the Bad Motherfucker.
The correct course of action is to immediately deliver a controlled pair of shots to the thoracic cavity as quickly as possible (followed immediately by a single shot to the cranial optical cavity if the subject is not incapacitated) and then take cover and scan for other aggressors.
With basic proper training, all of this is possible in 3-4 seconds and with good accuracy from a concealed draw at 40 feet. (I know 70 year old women who have mastered it in 3 days of training). The error that cost him his life wasn’t bringing a gun to Walmart. It was failing to bring adequate training on how to use that gun in a live fire situation to Walmart.
No one deserves to die, not even the Millers. He may have been trying to protect others, but he certainly wasn't doing the right thing, which would have been to get the fuck out of there along with everyone else and let people with actual professional training handle the situation.
So some of today's gun owners will come to their senses. You won't hear from them; you'll hear from those still in the grip of the delusion. Those guys, they will close the circle tighter with the fervor of dead-enders on a mission whose goal they no longer remember.
But my sense is that Wilcox might have been a gentleman and sexist and didn't believe that Amanda could be a killer. He may have assumed that a little 'ol sweet thing like Amanda needed to be protected.
As to @6, yup those damn holsters slo u down. I advise open carry, safety off and finger on trigger in any WalMart. And do it with a buddy. Never shop alone!
So again… Poor training.
"No one deserves to die, not even the Millers."
How do you get that? EVERYONE dies at some point and the Millers brought it on themselves NOW. Their murder/suicide saved us a lot of money and waste of legal time and some ridiculous "political trial" where they could scream about liberty.
But worry about the Millers death? no loss at all except in the most general vaguest sense that life has tragic elements and had they a better family upbringing and more mental health counseling, they'd be fine productive citizens, maybe even Obama supporters. Cry for people who deserve it, like the cops'/Wilcox families. (Wilcox obviously erred but he was trying to do the right thing.)
If so, I salute your commitment to the "well-regulated" clause of the Second Amendment.
Shame, that.
The guy was an idiot vigilante.
Your cowboy fantasy is a danger to others. This isn't the way people are supposed to behave. At no point in our history have we had so many people poised to start shooting in common areas like stores and schools with no idea what they hell they're doing.
Do not draw a gun you don't intend to shoot, and don't point a gun at anyone or anything you don't intend to kill. Draw and shoot immediately, or do not draw. Guns are not for intimidation.
(This whole thing is a giant pile of horrible and I'm very sorry for the loss of the loved ones of the innocent victims.)
Poor equivalency argument. At the time Wilcox confronted the Millers by brandishing his own weapon, they were already carrying not only their own firearms, but the two dead cops service revolvers, so they already had him massively out-gunned before he even had a chance to fire off a round. Meis, on the other hand, faced a situation where his assailant was actually in the process of reloading a shotgun - something that requires a bit of time and dexterity to accomplish - and presumably didn't appear as a direct threat, because, no obvious weapon was visible.
Wilcox was armed and exposed, his killers knew it, and one of them (who he may not even have realized was an accomplice) eliminated him as a threat. In short, his gun did absolutely nothing to protect him; in fact, it did exactly the opposite.
I would go further. I say bring back high school ROTC and make it mandatory. Even if you never plan to own a gun, you should know how to use one safely. Knowledge is power people.
Your worldview is a cancer.
Most countries have gun control far tighter than ours. Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of…
There are a lot of prosperous capitalist countries out there which seem to get by fine with tight regulation. And people do own guns. Plenty enough for sport, hunt and self-defense. (How many guns can you shoot at the same time?)
My own theory is that we are still fighting the Civil War and since LBJ and then Obama, the racists have gotten even more scared that they will lose.
It's too bad that Obama doesn't emphasis more of his own white roots.
Try getting a stepladder.
I know what you mean and some people here do vociferate a bit. Easiest thing to do is respond gently with a nice firm "STFU". That always settles 'em down.
And since you seem like a good egg, I am glad that you are going to join in and support I-594. Good on ya! as we say in New Zealand.
We basically did, (for men at least) until the 70's.
Seems to be working for the Swiss.
I support your assertion that the "well-regulated" clause of the Second Amendment requires it.
And how is requiring a broad basic education an infringement of individual rights?
Next you will be calling for the elimination of the US Department of Education.
The problem isn't that Miller tried to intervene, hoping to save lives. That's the good part! The problem is that a lifetime of indoctrination told him that his gun made him a superman, that he thought because he had a gun he could save the day right away.
Meis on the other hand knew the limitations of his pepper spray and waited for an opportunity.
Mind you, I don’t object to your proposed approach. I just think it can be improved upon.
I highly doubt that if Meis had been killed by a second gunman during his attempt to disarm Ybarra with pepper spray he would be being treated the same way as Wilcox is here.
Inveigh against Neo-Nazis and the Teahadi fringe. Mock the NRA. But respect and honor Mr. Joseph Wilcox, because he laid down his life to protect his fellow citizens without anyone asking.
@39: Um, what? They had already murdered two cops. If he had succeeded in stopping them, there would be anywhere from two to four dead.
@26 is correct. You do not point a gun at anybody/anything you do not intend to destroy posthaste.
And @45 is also correct. Wilcox had the best of intentions, and I respect him for that, but his poor execution (pun not intended...okay, somewhat intended) cost him his life.
The lesson which I think you are indirectly suggesting is that general public needs more self-defense training. What is best, smartest thing to do in different crisis situations?
Starting with ideal situation...suppose Wilcox was an off-duty cop. A beat cop with street- smarts. He's at the cash register and 50' something starts to happen. What should/could he have done? You start with the ideal scenario for a trained person _with_ a gun and then everyone else not trained has to back off from that behavior. Did Wilcox do exactly what a trained cop would have done?
So maybe the lesson is "know your limitations" and if you don't even know them, do nothing.
Does it really require pointing out that all 3 of the Miller's victims were armed, and that 2 of them had extensive training?
The only thing that would have been guaranteed in your hypothetical scenario is a lot more casualties due to collateral damage.
You must not know much about the military, if you think that being in high school ROTC (or the regular military for that matter) means that you know anything about using guns. I bet that very few high school ROTC's ever even get close to a gun.
Since I was in the military for 8 years and went through ARMY basic at Fort Sill, OK in 1994, let me tell you how it works. Unless you are in the infantry you don't get that much training with guns. The vast majority of people in the military are not in the infantry. Think personnel clerk, truck driver, gas attendant, doctor, radio specialist, etc etc.
The vast majority of military members, both enlisted and officers had a similar experience to what I had:
I learned how to take apart, clean, put back together and shoot an M-16. I had to be good enough to qualify, which wasn't really that hard. You don't have to be proficient in order to stay in the military, just decent enough.
I also got to shoot an M-16 at night, with tracers, an M-60 and throw two grenades. Each time I asked my DI where I was aiming. I was told to just aim downrange and to throw the grenades over a wall. Nothing else. There was no point to it; they were just marking off boxes on forms that were required by their superiors.
I, like most other soldiers (think Elvis!), never learned how to fire any other types of weapons. Just the M-16. No handguns, no shotguns, no other types of rifles. Most of what we did was for show, like throwing the grenades. Marking off little boxes.
After basic we had to qualify on the M-16 every so often. I think maybe every year or every other year. And it wasn't that hard. Most soldiers aren't marksmen.
I bet you the Swiss Army (and probably every army) is the same way, since they have about a ZERO chance of ever needing their training in an actual combat situation. Hell, I bet you even the average Israeli soldier isn't that great with weapons. Every army on earth has more support staff than actual infantry soldiers on the front lines.
So, no, bringing back the draft would do NOTHING to ensure that gun owners are properly trained. NOTHING.
60% -- Americans who supported a handgun ban in 1959
26% -- Americans who supported a handgun ban in 2011
Fascinating.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/b…
In my mind, Meis and Wilcox did the same thing. They both risked their lives to end an active shooter event. Meis was successful; Wilcox was not. The prevailing theme here seems to be that Wilcox fucked up, and consequently died, and is therefore deserving of scorn. I think that's pretty unfair.
People with integrity and a spine are able to address the topics directly, people who are interested in resolution are the only ones qualified to take part in resolving the issues that plague the human race.
Idiot sensationalists, political strategists, and others who believe in manipulation over a well framed constitution of law, are the people who labor to confuse the public.
They are reason we have such a confused majority within The People.
Because they themselves are extremely confused and completely ignorant, and the ones who are not that labor to confuse are the definition of the evil and tyranny of wicked men
either way, fuck you charles
What exactly is the point of publishing such manipulative information?
only a man's man could tell that, only someone with the typical male ego, which so often reaches levels that can only be described as a disease, could tell you what would possess a person to publish this sort of reporting.
Journalists whom are not respectful of the truth are the exact ones whom daily abuse the rights that some people respect and hold dearly, there is a reason that right was the first amended, but ignorant people are not likely to ever understand why it's important to exercise your rights responsibly
go fuck yourselves Charles and Kevin et al
And the only thing that stops that good guy with a gun is a bad girl with a gun.
And the only thing that stops a bad girl with a gun is that same bad girl with that same gun.
One more thing: those of you who say this wouldn't have happened if was able to openly carry, are you even thinking logically? Even if he had his gun out, waving it around, do you really think those two crazy "Patriots" would have been scared of him? They had already killed two police officers, so some guy at Wal-Mart wasn't going to stop them.
Well, I did call Charles "Chuckie" and everyone else a bunch of faggy communist liberal pussies who caused the death of this American Hero with their anti-Freedom activism @6 above, so surely I must have some credibility and need not be ashamed.
Now twice we've seen that a good guy with a gun isn't the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun. Time to retire that self-serving fallacy.
Disgusting attempt to confer any sort of honorable status on either of these two shitbags. But in any case, turns out it was the police who killed Jerad Miller, not his wife.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-ve…
Sorry, Charlie.
–Charles Mudede
How nice; a grammatical error in the headline.
Note to Charles: One of the best ways to dispel a setreotype is to AVOID PERPETUATING IT.
"stereotype"
What do any of you know about Mr. Wilcox and his beliefs, aside from the willingness to risk his own life in defense of others?
By all means folks, keep telling each other how Mr. Wilcox was fearful, deranged, indoctrinated, and stupid. That's exactly how I would characterize you people, so it all balances out nicely.
The late Mr. Wilcox's stupidity is irrefutable. The fact that we now have to append "the late" to his name is a pretty clear indicator of that. He didn't "risk his life in defense of others" for the simple reason that the Miller's quite specifically allowed everyone in the Target store to escape unharmed. Wilcox chose to ignore this, to squander the opportunity to escape with everyone else because he was mistakenly, fatally under the delusion that he was "the good guy with the gun" who would vanquish the "bad guy with the gun", while completely failing to perceive there was more than one "bad guy (gal) with a gun" to prevent him from realizing his fantasy.
See you at the bar...
From the accounts given, he was worried they were going to kill someone, a fear that was well founded by the now cold, dead bodies of their victims, and the fact that Jerad had begun firing his weapon.
The only thing he did wrong was to not shoot Jerad the instant he had a chance.
Your fictional, biased story, ascribing judgements and decisions to Mr. Wilcox that no one will ever be privy to is frankly disgusting. You can't spin Mr. Wilcox into an anti gun narrative. The only way that works is if you attack the character of a man who died trying to stop murderers. I don't often say this, but Fuck You if you think that's ok. Fuck you and get shot in the face at a walmart, or while you're eating pizza please.
Mudede I expect this shit from, he did refer to bridge jumper suicides as drama queens who should just go kill themselves quietly after all. I thought you might have more class.
@77 "I was informed that staff at "the Stranger" have multiple mock profiles and leave comments on articles like this"
I heard the worst one was a Stranger Staff account by the name of 'Charles Mudede'. Huge troll.
Are you ranting at yourself? I presume not. So, you want some facts. Try these on for size:
There were numerous eyewitness accounts to what transpired when the Millers ran into the Walmart store after shooting the two cops. Here's how it was described in the initial news report:
"The duo then left the restaurant and walked over to a nearby Walmart, where Jerad Miller fired a shot into the air and told people to get out, shouting that it was 'a revolution,' (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Assistant Sheriff Kevin) McMahill said."
Miller would have had no way of knowing what had previously transpired, and YOU have absolutely no idea what went through his mind. All we do know is what he told his companion at the time: "Bystander Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, who was carrying a concealed weapon inside the store, spotted Jerad Miller and told a friend he would confront him, according to authorities. As he neared Jerad, he was shot in the ribs by Amanda and later died, McMahill said." This, AFTER Miller fired the warning shot and AFTER he told bystanders to leave.
Here's the testimony of Wilcox's friend Jeremy Tanner:
"Wilcox, was with Jeremy Tanner, a longtime friend at a Las Vegas Walmart when the Millers walked through the door. Tanner recalled seeing Jerad Miller come into the store, seeing Miller dressed in some kind of fatigues and wearing gear.
Tanner had to very quickly process what was happening.
He heard Miller shout, "This is the beginning of the revolution! Everybody get out! You will be shot!"
Tanner looked at his friend Wilcox. He knew Wilcox had a concealed carry permit and sometimes had a gun on him. Customers and staff were fleeing the store.
Wilcox 'had the option to go left to exit the store to safety,' Tanner told CNN. But he chose not to leave. Wilcox instead stayed inside and confronted Jerad Miller, Tanner said.
Tanner told CNN his friend was unaware that Jerad Miller was with Amanda Miller. Wilcox was shot, authorities said."
So, the only pertinent question here is: why DIDN'T he leave with everyone else when he had the clear opportunity to do so? It certainly wasn't to "protect" anyone, as you have speculated, because by the time he acted, everyone else was in the process of high-tailing it out of the store. We don't know at this time if anyone else there was carrying, but regardless, we DO know that Wilcox was the ONLY person who felt compelled to confront Miller, and apparently the only reason he felt that way was because he had a gun. So, it's not at all unreasonable to surmise he did so because he thought the gun would somehow protect him, which it most certainly did not.
But you do bring up one interesting point: Why, if Wilcox was so intent on "saving lives" didn't he just shoot Jerad Miller when he had the chance? According to other reports, he approached Miller from behind, so he even had the element of surprise to some extent. But for some reason, he didn't even draw his weapon until he was in close proximity, and by then Miller's wife, who was herself already armed and seeing him approach, apparently moved in behind him, shooting him when he finally did draw.
So, again: why did he feel it necessary to walk up to a man whose weapon was already drawn and attempt to confront him? It doesn't take a person with even a modicum of tactical firearms training to recognize that was a pretty stupid move on his part: to openly approach the shooter, thus eliminating the advantage of cover and distance, to have no stituational awareness of a potential accomplice, and to have no actual plan other than to "confront" an armed man.
According to another news report, his mother claimed he "had long wanted to be a police officer. But she had warned him that the job was dangerous." Other reports confirm he had applied to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Force, but had been rejected. Now, what does all THAT tell you about his mind-set?
To answer one of the questions this site, yes, concealed carry permit holders have stopped shootings, there are many examples, including the Oregon mall shooting. In that case, the individual just had to show his weapon, and that caused the shooter off himself. Most of the time, when a concealed carry permit holder intervenes, doesn't become a "mass shooting," it's stopped well before it gets that far.
It wasn't "bad luck" and Wilcox didn't "take a chance" - it's not like what he did was akin to throwing craps and hoping for the easy seven - he did something incredibly stupid and ill-thought through and he paid the price for his stupidity and lack of tactical decision-making. And speaking of "what-ifs", it wouldn't have mattered if he HAD been successful - he still would have been stupid for having done it. Luck and intelligence aren't correlational.
And in this particular instance, you articulate exactly what he SHOULD have done, what Jerad Miller gave him the chance to do, and what his grieving family and friends probably wish he had done - run like hell away from the scene. Remember, he WAS the guy in there with the concealed firearm. Throwing his life away for no good result doesn't make him a hero -the only thing his "guts" and his gun made him was dead.
Didn't mention that aspect, did you?
I know why...
Because people like you are inherently selfish. So the guy died. Tragic, but his death saved more lives than we'll ever know. How many lives did he save by drawing the attention of the killers? How many people were able to get away because they heard the gunshot that killed him instead of an innocent bystander?
But no. In your mind, because he didn't survive himself, his death was meaningless.
That man was willing to confront an armed man to protect total strangers. And you're all laughing at him because it wasn't what you would have done.
You're all pathetic cowardly charlatans with no concept of self-sacrifice.
Put yourself in that Wal-mart, in that crowd, and realize that this guy died to protect you, even though in your eyes, he was stupid and deserved it.
You people sensationalize statistically rare individual incidents like emotional drama queens in fits of hand-wringing bed-wetting, nanny-state liberalism, the while ignoring statistically-proven facts.
Gun sales are up, violent crime is down. See: FBI UCS.
Spare us. Please.
You people sensationalize statistically rare individual incidents like emotional drama queens in fits of hand-wringing bed-wetting nanny-state liberalism, the while ignoring statistically-proven facts.
Gun sales continue to trend up and gun owner demographics continue to expand, while violent crime continues to trend down, per the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics.
Spare us. Please.
So we should all run like hell from from people who have murdered policemen? To only save our own lives??? That would be great our whole country just running away from criminals! So what do you think would happen then? Read the news it's happening in Iraq right now. He is a hero he tried to stop 2 killers but unfortunately did not. What would you do if that was one of your loved ones they were about to kill? Run and save your own life? By your posts I think you would. Some of us are willing to put our lives at risk to save others whether or not guns are involved. If he would have died trying to save lives in a car accident by using his own car would you still call it "STUPIDITY"??? Think about it!
So we should all run like hell from from people who have murdered policemen? To only save our own lives??? That would be great our whole country just running away from criminals! So what do you think would happen then? Read the news it's happening in Iraq right now. He is a hero he tried to stop 2 killers but unfortunately did not. What would you do if that was one of your loved ones they were about to kill? Run and save your own life? By your posts I think you would. Some of us are willing to put our lives at risk to save others whether or not guns are involved. If he would have died trying to save lives in a car accident by using his own car would you still call it "STUPIDITY"??? Think about it!