"So, the authorities said, he charged at the gunman, who had already fired several rounds, and pinned him down until police officers arrived. 'But for [Riley's] work, the assailant may not have been disarmed,' Chief Kerr Putney of the Charlotte-Mecklenberg Police Department said of Mr. Howell, who was among six victims of a mass shooting at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte campus Tuesday evening. 'Unfortunately, he gave his life in the process. But his sacrifice saved lives.'... 'He is my hero,' said Mr. Howell’s girlfriend of nearly six years, Lauren Westmoreland, who said she was overcome with grief. 'But he’s just my angel now, as well.'... Mr. Howell had considered a career in the military or firefighting before enrolling at the university, where he was an environmental studies student. In a statement, his parents said he was a fearless athlete with a sturdy frame who relished a challenge, 'whether it be jumping from the highest cliff into the water below or power lifting competitions at the gym.' 'Once committed to something,' they said, 'he never gave up, never gave in, and gave everything he had.'"
From "U.N.C. Charlotte Student Couldn’t Run, So He Tackled the Gunman" (NYT).
ADDED: I don't think the NYT should make assertions about what was going on inside Howell's head. Yes, there's the conventional message "run, hide, fight," which prioritizes your options, and what Howell did was the first thing on the list that was possible for him, but you can't assume that he would have maintained the conventional priority if he had had other options. The headline — "... Couldn't Run, So He Tackled..." — and the excerpt I quoted — "could neither run nor hide. So... he charged..." — both purport to convey his decisionmaking and to ascribe a preference for saving himself that we have no way to know he had. The man is a hero, and there's no reason to diminish his story with a made-up presumption that he was following the advice to run or hide if you can.
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
৪৮টি মন্তব্য:
Toxic masculinity.
Win if you can... loose if you must.
Flight 93, "lets roll" is the way. Changes everything.
It’s a damn shame he wasn’t allowed to carry a weapon.
-XC
PS - I had to click thirty or so grainy 2000’s era resolution pictures of cars in the CAPTCHYA to post thIs. Not really worth it for Anton....
In all of the hand-wringing over methods to reduce this type of violence, few in the media spend any intellectual capital on:
A. The role media plays in promoting others to perform such violence.
B. The way potential attackers view the likelihood of being taken down by someone tackling them or otherwise stopping them promptly and how this deters attacks in the first place.
C. The reduction in casualties possible by promoting people to fight back.
There is a time and place for running and hiding. But running while others are vulnerable and you have the power to potentially help them should only be encouraged by a society who is fine with "As long as it's not me" as a mentality.
Don't fill out captchya at all. Blogger is having a bad error day today, is all. In firefox, reload followed by resend lets you hit it indefinitely without retyping.
Lose rhymes with choose but it’s spelled like chose. Just sayin'
I don't think the NYT should make assertions about what was going on inside Howell's head.
They do this to the President every single day. (And it's never good.)
"I don't think the NYT should make assertions about what was going on inside Howell's head."
This is the essence of modern news reporting. It highlights the narrative at the expense of all else. They tacitly justify it by assuming they know what is best for us.
yes, But; if the NYT wasn't going to print unsupported assumptions about people's thoughts, what would they have to print? They'll certainly not going back to that old, "when,what,were" thing.
I don't think the NYT should make assertions about what was going on inside Howell's head.
One of the first things I learned in the single Journalism Class I took in college. Only write facts you can verify. Do not embellish.
As others note, routinely violated now by the New York Times.
TreeJoe,
"There is a time and place for running and hiding. But running while others are vulnerable and you have the power to potentially help them should only be encouraged by a society who is fine with "As long as it's not me" as a mentality."
It's an extension of the NIMBY attitude that is so prevalent with the "leadership" on the left. So since they can't picture themselves taking this type of action, they subtly denigrate those who do.
The man is a hero, and there's no reason to diminish his story with a made-up presumption that he was following the advice to run or hide if you can.
Actually, if you think about it, yes there was. It’s for the same reason one doesn’t see articles about how men in the theater in Aurora, CO, covered their girlfriends’ bodies with their own when James Eagan Holmes started shooting, and so they died saving the lives of their dates. Young men acting in a manly way are to be diminished for their toxic masculinity, not honored for their self-sacrifice.
TreeJoe,
"There is a time and place for running and hiding. But running while others are vulnerable and you have the power to potentially help them should only be encouraged by a society who is fine with "As long as it's not me" as a mentality."
I've made this point here before: Run-hide-fight maximizes the individual's chances of survival. It also ensures that the killer moves unimpeded for as long as possible.
People should know about Howell. And about Oscar Stewart, who charged the last synagogue shooter, promising he was going to kill him. And James Shaw, Jr., the Waffle House hero who decided that he was going to see his little girl again, but if not, he was going to make the bastard work to kill him.
It's great Clint Eastwood made a movie about the guys who thwarted the train attack in Belgium, but how many people know about Mark Moogalian, the middle-aged professor; or Chris Norman, the 60ish Brit who said he wanted to run but then he saw the Americans moving and decided he should back them up?
Projection. The NYT projects how they would react on to the subject of their story.
The point of the article is not to celebrate the man who took action, but to reinforce the proper things to do are run and hide.
We must not elevate the person who disarmed the gunman in ways that make cowards of the runners and the hiders.
They too are heroes.
Report, Describe, Make up Fake News
But the NYT could neither report nor describe...
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
Laying down your life for strangers probably demonstrates a greater love, but the whole thing is funnier if you include the punchline:
"You are my friends if you do what I command."
I knew an asshole like that once.
It’s a damn shame he wasn’t allowed to carry a weapon.
My first thought,.
I've asked at every Run, Hide Fight lecture that I've attended how should one fight?
Fight the person or fight for the weapon?
Every time the speaker was unprepared to answer that essential question.
"I don't think the NYT should make assertions about what was going on inside Howell's head."
I realized some time ago that a lot of my liberal / progressive friends believe that they can discern the motivations and deepest beliefs of people just by looking at them, even people they have never met.
I did intervene in a mugging. It's possible I would do the right thing. The right thing is to charge the shooter, but mortal risk generally doesn't bring out the best in people.......I just briefly saw pictures of that guy who charged the shooter in the synagogue. He not only acted like an action hero, he looks like an action hero. He should be as celebrated and famous as the shooter.
Here in Texas, at least in public colleges and universities, we can 'run, hide, or SHOOT BACK.' No 'gun free' zone.
“Fight the person or fight for the weapon?”
My answer there is probably the person.
My view is that the best way to defeat an active shooter or the like is through a swarming attack, as used on UAL flight 93 on 9/11/01. Imagine if students were taught to rush active shooters at their schools, after tossing their books at him, as they closed in. If you don’t train for it, that sort of attack would very quickly make it impossible for the shooter to aim, as he instinctively dodged incoming missiles. And in a situation like that, an evil “assault weapon”, because of its length, would be more trouble than it was worth. He needs accurate aimed shots to maximize his casualty count, and rushing him, while throwing objects at him, minimizes that.
One problem with “run, hide, fight” is that it makes concerted coordinated fighting the shooter nearly impossible, which leaves him free to leisurely find the hiders, one by one, and execute them. One on one, he has the advantage because he has the weapon. Their only real defense is numbers, and they give that up by hiding.
My question to everyone here, is why do the same authorities who refuse to face the armed threat until the scene is secure, and their own personal safety secured, still advise school kids to “run, hide, fight”, thus probably maximizing the probability that there will be multiple fatalities? For me, this is a significant problem with the bureaucratic state, where the people are taught to rely on the state for their safety, but the bureaucratic state, filled with bureaucrats, puts its own safety ahead of that of those it is supposed to protect.
The old rule was "Charge a gun and run from a knife." A gun may jam, as happened on the Belgian train and in the Poway synagogue. Knives are short range.
The kid at UNC was unlucky but probably still made the right choice.
The Columbine killers went around the school shooting kids who hid.
We had "active shooter" training a couple of years ago at the recruit center. The trainer, an FBI guy, was good. He told us what to do until the security people had gotten the guns from the closet where they were kept. Then the Commander told him there were no guns.
What ? It was Los Angeles, of course.
Bruce Hayden said...
“Fight the person or fight for the weapon?” My answer there is probably the person.
My thought: The weapon first, especially if the person hasn't shot someone yet. If you can muster a swarm, the weapon first but the eyes a close second.
I agree with Michael K, how not?, but I would like add the the Orlando nightclub incident. Forty-nine people lost their lives trying to get away from Omar Mateen, no doubt some by bleeding out after being seriously wounded. How many would have died if people near the door had rushed him and others joined in? Not nearly as many, and the wounded would have gotten medical care right away.
“My thought: The weapon first, especially if the person hasn't shot someone yet. If you can muster a swarm, the weapon first but the eyes a close second.”
Watch how the police take down armed suspects who don’t respond to threats of violence. Most often, if more than one cop is available, the suspect is hit from behind. He is knocked to the ground, one or more cops sit on him or hold him down, and another cop steps on his wrist and kicks the weapon away. Their priority is not to get the weapon away from him, but rather to immobilize him.
One of the reasons for this may be the physics of the whole thing. If you are facing someone pointing a handgun at you, and you grab the gun and try to take away, where is his finger, most likely? Probably on the trigger, which is called by the “bang switch” by some shooters. And there is a good chance that the gun was pointed in a potentially fatal direction at that time (I.e. center mass) when it discharges.
Bruce Hayden @ 8:21. Exactly! And perfectly analyzed. Throw any thing. A Purse. A chair. A book. A pen. The shooters aren’t trained for combat conditions. They are fearful and easily distracted. The moment the rain of books and purses begins, the swarm should follow.
The same is true of armed citizens. The Paris night club slaughter could have been substantially reduced if the shooters had to deal with return fire. The Colorado theater shooter could very easily have been distracted long enough to flatten if he had received incoming from even a small caliber pocket weapon.
Hiding becomes just a question of dumb luck and the ammo count. I’d prefer a more active approach. It really comes down to limiting the number of lethal trigger pulls. Rounds fired into the ceiling have a lower mortality rate.
- Krumhorn
Hiding becomes just a question of dumb luck and the ammo count.
Some of these mass shooters stop to reload. Why not charge them then ? I understand being afraid. I don't know how I would react in such a situation but self preservation should kick in.
This guy saw what his option was pretty quickly and acted on it.
I'm sorry it cost him his life.
For any emergency situation, you really need to have at least a general plan in mind before the emergency occurs, or you'll be mentally overwhelmed.
The shooting and killing at the Chabad in Poway a few days ago ended when an ex infantryman (a Sergeant) charged at the gunman yelling, "I'm going to kill you". He said he knew that if he could get within five feet of the shooter, the shooter's rifle wouldn't be much use. The gunman fled into his car and started to drive away. An off duty Border Patrol officer put four rounds into the car. The Sergeant wasn't hurt--I think one of the shots hit the gunman. In any case the police caught the shooter.
Back in the day (1969--Ft. Polk Louisiana--which was turning out 1,000 infantrymen a week--most of us destined to go to Viet Nam) we were trained about ambushes. If you found yourself in a kill zone, you charged toward the shooters. You might die in doing so--but you might not. If you stay in the kill zone of an ambush, you will die. Some things don't change. The Sergeant's training kicked in.
I teach at a high school. We have several lockdown drills every year and a briefing from the school police on lockdown/active shooter strategies every year. We're told to turn off the lights and cower in a corner.
I tell the kids if it ever happens for real, I'll stand next to the door, when someone comes in, throw the textbooks at them and I will tackle them.
Flight #93.
😢
Advice I hope no one has to use:
If you're close enough to grab the gun, put your hand on the back. If it has a hammer and you can get the web of your hand between your thumb and forefinger between the face of the hammer and the back of the gun, you can stop the hammer from striking the back of the cartridge and thus prevent it from shooting. Your hand will hurt like Hell, but it beats the pain of bullet going into your torso.
If there's no hammer and it's a semi-automatic, you may (MAY!) be able to stop the gun from firing by pushing the slide back and taking the barrel out of battery.
If there's no hammer and it's a revolver, try to prevent the cylinder from rotating.
And at any rate the safest place to be is alongside the shooter, but behind his elbow.
Too bad the student was in a "gun free zone".
If he'd been armed, he could have shot the attacker, and NOT died.
Quick challenge for all the anti-gun robots out there:
Don't tell us "armed students would have led to more people getting accidentally shot!!11!"
Give us examples of times where someone tried a mass shooting, and armed bystander shot back, hitting other innocent bystanders.
Give us your best "worst case" that actually happened.
Don't have one? Then stop with the BS bloviating point.
Run-hide-fight is renaming instincts (flight, freeze, fight). ALICE is a more flexible and cognitive thus realistic strategy to prepare yourself for any active shooter situation, and especially helpful when there's a risk or reality of being trapped (e.g. school or office situation with corridors and side rooms).
ALICE is : Alert (situational awareness), Lockdown (prepare as defensible a position as possible), Inform (get as much information as you know out to whoever you can reach), Counter (mobilize and coordinate if you can), Evacuate (if possible, minimize risk).
ALICE is a better approach for training and for surviving, because starting right now you can mentally prepare and view any situation from a "what if" perspective. Train your brain in emergency response until it is a nearly unconscious habit to locate exits, maintain situational awareness, identify response options, and you will be able to respond (less likely to freeze/panic) if anything bad happens. Building those habits is one reason civilians who stop active shooters often turn out to be current or former military, firemen, cops, athletes, etc., but anyone can learn these skills. Lots of info out there.
That is the definition of dying a good death.
“Fight the person or fight for the weapon?”
Both. Neither. Just try to kill the %#$&er.
Correction: May 1, 2019
An earlier version of this article misstated how Paul Rold, a grandfather of the shooting suspect, described his grandson’s attitude toward guns to The Associated Press. Mr. Rold told the agency that his grandson had never shown an interest in guns or other weapons, not that he knew him to be a weapons enthusiast.
That's a doozy of a correction, how did they misquote exactly backwards which happened to support their political activism? They just printed what they thought would help the narrative no matter what the guy said. Sometimes their efforts are so outrageous there isn't any other explanation.
It is important to the people CS Lewis called "men without chests" that no other man has a chest, either.
I would suppose the writer of the story is uncomfortable writing about this because it forces the readers to wonder whether or not the young man might still be alive if he hadn't been unarmed himself. If more of these people were shot while attempting mass murder, it would certainly serve as a deterrent. What shocks me is how many are taken alive after running out of ammo.
If tackling the gunman was just the "logical thing to do" - then everyone would do it. Except almost no one does, because it takes courage. A true hero.
So, why isn't this guy all over the internet and TV? And who is the Gunman? I don't see a picture anywhere.
Very few people in real life go through a 'Run-hide-fight' analysis. Most people are cowards and will always run or hide. Others may wish to fight but want "George to it" while they stay safe. Others are just so shocked and surprised they freeze and do nothing.
Almost all the people who charge gunman are young men. Remember the guys who saved a trainload of people in Belgium? They were young military guys. As far as I know, not one woman has "charged a gunman".
Charge a gun, run from a knife.
Unless there are two of you. Then charge the knife.
Others may wish to fight but want "George to it" while they stay safe.
You might be interested in This column from a while ago.
"You are alone when trouble comes."
Just my luck, I would disarm the guy drop the mag and empty the chamber, then get arrested because my prints were all over the weapon.
Almost all the people who charge gunman are young men. Remember the guys who saved a trainload of people in Belgium? They were young military guys. As far as I know, not one woman has "charged a gunman".
I thought the one KIA at Poway, 60yo Lori Gilbert-Kaye, confronted the shooter, possibly in defense of the rabbi. May her memory be for a blessing, and Riley Howell's. And may their killers be forgotten even by the worms that eat them.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন