Oklahoma City gunman shot, killed by bystanders

[Rogue 9]

NPR

Gunman Who Fired Into An Oklahoma City Restaurant Was Shot Dead By 2 Bystanders

May 25, 20182:34 PM ET

Alexis Diao

A gunman who opened fire at an Oklahoma restaurant Thursday evening was confronted by two people who saw what was happening, got their guns and shot him dead, police said.

The man, whom police identified as 28-year-old Alexander Tilghman, planted himself outside the door to Louie's Grill & Bar in Oklahoma City at about 6:30 p.m. local time. He began firing a handgun into the restaurant. Three people, including two juveniles, were wounded, according to police. A fourth person fell and broke his arm when the shooting started.

The gunman turned to flee and was confronted by two armed men outside, Carlos Nazario, 35, and Bryan Wittle, 39.

Police say the two men had arrived at the restaurant separately and saw the man open fire. They went and got handguns they each had stored in the trunks of their vehicles. The men then shot and killed the gunman, according to police, who gave no further details.

Capt. Bo Mathews of the Oklahoma City Police Department confirmed that all three men had used handguns and said investigators had no idea why the gunman targeted the restaurant or what he was planning to do afterward.

When asked by reporters whether he thought the two men were heroes, Mathews said, "I consider them two people who stopped an incident that was very tragic. I mean, you can say they're heroes, which is a very good thing to say. ... Heroes is a great terminology. I just say they were two people who stopped a very tragic situation from going any further."

The National Rifle Association praised Wittle and Nazario, touting its long-held slogan in a tweet: "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun a good guy with a gun #2A." It also called the incident a "wake-up call" for Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin.

The Republican governor recently vetoed a state bill that would have allowed adults to carry a firearm without training or a permit. The bill had widespread support among lawmakers in Oklahoma, already considered a gun-friendly place. About a dozen other states have passed so-called constitutional carry laws.

In a statement, Fallin explained why she vetoed the measure, saying, "The firearms laws we currently have in place are effective, appropriate and minimal, and serve to reassure our citizens that people who are carrying handguns in this state are qualified to do so."

[The Romulan Republic]

Naturally, this one story will outweigh the dozens of school shootings this year, at least in the view of pro-gun activists.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And, like the incident in Moore four years previous, the retelling of this tale of good guys with guns will omit the fact the two gents only succeeded in taking out the gunman without incident, because they got the drop on him.

From what I read, it could have easily gone the other way, had the gunman not been fixated on his intended targets.

[Rogue 9]

According to CNN, they demanded he drop his weapon and shot him after he refused to do so. He didn't die in an ambush. In general, though, yes, it only worked because they weren't the initial targets.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

That's what I meant, R9. Apologies for not making myself clearer.

[Ralin]

Personally the thing that stood out to me was less the 'good guy with a gun' part and more that they weren't carrying their guns on them or next to them and had to fetch them from the trunk and still managed to, well. Win sounds silly, but they were the ones who walked away so it fits.

From what I read, it could have easily gone the other way, had the gunman not been fixated on his intended targets.

That's true of gun fights in general, I'd expect.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

That's true of gun fights in general, I'd expect.

It is, but that's what gets glossed over by those wishing to romanticize gun violence in particular, and all violence in general.

Personally the thing that stood out to me was less the 'good guy with a gun' part and more that they weren't carrying their guns on them or next to them and had to fetch them from the trunk and still managed to, well. Win sounds silly, but they were the ones who walked away so it fits.

Like Vaughn four years ago, they were amazingly lucky, and, as Rogue 9 pointed put better than I, they weren't the initial targets, and, thus, were able to get the drop on him.

[LadyTevar]

According to CNN, they demanded he drop his weapon and shot him after he refused to do so. He didn't die in an ambush. In general, though, yes, it only worked because they weren't the initial targets.

I also wonder if he was out of ammo

[JCady]

And, like the incident in Moore four years previous, the retelling of this tale of good guys with guns will omit the fact the two gents only succeeded in taking out the gunman without incident, because they got the drop on him.

From what I read, it could have easily gone the other way, had the gunman not been fixated on his intended targets.

Yes, but if you're a sensible CCW carrier, you don't engage at all if you don't have the advantage. That's the entire point of having a concealed, as opposed to openly carried, weapon. If you don't have a clear tactical picture and a clean shot from surprise against a clearcut threat to innocent lives, you just *wait* -- you're not visibly armed and presenting as a threat, your hidden weapon does not escalate the situation at all.

Sensible, sane concealed carry is not about "being the hero", it's about having a tool that expands your ability to handle certain types of emergencies.

[Simon_Jester]

By that same token, CCW permit-holders are not a reliable defense for society at large against criminals. As private individuals who carry their weapons for self-defense, they are under no obligation to risk their lives to subdue or kill armed criminals, nor can they reasonably be expected to do so. Police or even private security might be expected to do that, but private citizens cannot.

As such, it requires considerable good luck on the part of the armed civilians for them to find themselves in a position to do something about an attack AND be wiling to risk their lives to do it. That level of luck cannot be planned upon.

It would be like saying that our policy for preventing forest fires was to rely on rainy days to extinguish the fires. While it's true that rain can and does extinguish fires, we have no way of ensuring that rain will occur, or that it will be there when it is most desperately needed. It is much better to limit forest fires in other ways, such as depriving them of fuel, preparing teams of responders who can limit its spread, and exercising control over ignition sources that could potentially start a fire.

[This is not a disagreement with you, so much as a generalized comment]

[Zwinmar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html

[Gaidin]

By that same token, CCW permit-holders are not a reliable defense for society at large against criminals. As private individuals who carry their weapons for self-defense, they are under no obligation to risk their lives to subdue or kill armed criminals, nor can they reasonably be expected to do so. Police or even private security might be expected to do that, but private citizens cannot.

Private security are typically at best case expected, if not required, to secure the building entry and wait for police. Forgive using a movie as an analogy but the best example most on this forum would know would T2 where they were watching the elevators and calling 911 and getting the cops to send all the cars. I thought back in the young days of watching it it was because they recognized wanted people. But now when I familiarized myself with my workplaces policies, that's actually amusingly realistic, though possibly accidentally done.

[Elheru Aran]

By that same token, CCW permit-holders are not a reliable defense for society at large against criminals. As private individuals who carry their weapons for self-defense, they are under no obligation to risk their lives to subdue or kill armed criminals, nor can they reasonably be expected to do so. Police or even private security might be expected to do that, but private citizens cannot.

Private security are typically at best case expected, if not required, to secure the building entry and wait for police. Forgive using a movie as an analogy but the best example most on this forum would know would T2 where they were watching the elevators and calling 911 and getting the cops to send all the cars. I thought back in the young days of watching it it was because they recognized wanted people. But now when I familiarized myself with my workplaces policies, that's actually amusingly realistic, though possibly accidentally done.

Anecdotally, I also understand that police frequently get rather snotty when they start thinking that private security is trying to do their job for them. So that creates another incentive (disincentive?) for private security to do nothing more than call the cops.

[TheFeniX]

By that same token, CCW permit-holders are not a reliable defense for society at large against criminals. As private individuals who carry their weapons for self-defense, they are under no obligation to risk their lives to subdue or kill armed criminals, nor can they reasonably be expected to do so. Police or even private security might be expected to do that, but private citizens cannot.

I lump this into the same line of thinking the "arm the teachers" morons go on about: "Hey, we can't (or won't bother to) do our job. You do it.... with none of the protections that come with being law enforcement."

Remove the emotional element: Some CCW holder or a teacher gets involved in a shoot-out and pops the wrong person. They got a union to back them up? Lawyers on tap? Counseling? An entire body of authority that seemingly has their back? What, they going to crowdsource a defense fund? (Has worked before).

No, it's just them and financial ruin at best, at worst, murder charges.

I've gone past worrying about how the entire idea is just an unbelievably bad one. But the largest proponents of the system want something worse than.... to use your example: we have volunteer fire-departments. Now SOME are pretty YOLO about it, but a majority have funding, training, insurance, dedicated equipment: that sort of thing. Because if you go that route, these are things you need to protect both the volunteers and other people.

But when it comes to blasting doods, just show up with a CHL and be the hero? IF you DON'T fuck it up, maybe the mayor will give you a pat on the ass? And if you're a teacher, Florida will send you a cool couple hundred bucks for packing heat..... That's our lawmakers at work. The whole thing is a fucking dodge so shitheels can act like they're doing any work whatsoever and give a warm fuzzy to other shitheels like the NRA.

[Simon_Jester]

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/poli ... otect.html

Might, I said.

The point remains, police officers CAN reasonably be ordered to go arrest an armed suspect, or to stop an active shooting in progress. There's a command structure that can tell them to do that. Nobody is in a comparable position either to give such orders to private armed citizens, or to legally cover their backs after the fact if something goes wrong.

[MKSheppard]

Yes, you CAN defend your home with Abtomat Kalashnikova 47

MEMPHIS, TN (WMC) - Two people were shot and killed while trying to burglarize a residence in the Colonial Acres neighborhood, according to Memphis Police Department.

The shooting happened Friday evening on Myrna Lane near the intersection of Willow Road.

Both of the shooting victims were pronounced dead at the scene.

The homeowner, who asked not to be identified for his safety, said when he arrived home, the men were already inside.

"I see my house being ransacked and the dog was still going hysterical in the cage," he said. "When he saw me he notified the other individual that was with him, 'hey, they are here.'"

That's the moment he said when the suspected burglars pulled out guns, but he was able to get to a hall closet to get his.

"I had my own personal AK-47," he said.

The homeowner admits it's not the first time there's been a shooting at his home. Police markings show where the home was shot up less than a year ago.

"I don't know what's going on but I know I'm going to defend my life to the best of my ability," he said.

MPD identified the two victims as 28-year-old Azell Witherspoon and 17-year-old Demond Robinson.
"These boys need their father and need some type of discipline. They out here without any fear," the homeowner said.

He said he did regret the loss of life, but "it was either me or them."

MPD said the man responsible for the shootings was detained but later released. The District Attorney General's office determined that no charged will be filed at this time.

The homeowner gave MPD his home surveillance system to back up his story that the shootings were in self defense.

He said he does worry about possible retaliation.

"That's a possibility. You never know how someone else's family may perceive the situation, but I mean, I just have to take it one day at a time," he said.

[Raw Shark]

I load hollowpoints mainly because I like my neighbors.