Mall Shooting Victim was Carrying

[Meta4]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ooting23m.html

The man who was critically wounded during Sunday's shooting rampage at Tacoma Mall drew a pistol and confronted the gunman before he was cut down by gunfire, his family said Tuesday.

Brendan "Dan" McKown was delivering a bank deposit for a mall gift store when gunshots scattered shoppers at around noon. McKown was among six people hit.

Police say Dominick Sergio Maldonado, 20, of Tacoma, marched through the mall shooting randomly at shoppers before taking four hostages in a Sam Goody music store. He surrendered about four hours later.

Witnesses told McKown's family that he was shot after he pulled his own handgun during the shooting.

"Our understanding is that Dan drew his weapon and confronted the gunman," his stepmother, Beverly McKown, said during a news conference Tuesday at Tacoma General Hospital.

McKown, 38, was shot twice in the abdomen and may have suffered permanent paralysis due to spinal damage, said hospital spokesman Todd Kelley. McKown was being brought out of a medically induced coma Tuesday. The other shooting victims were treated at hospitals and released.

Tacoma police confirmed that McKown had a gun, but spokesman Mark Fulghum said there was no evidence that gunshots were fired by anyone other than Maldonado, who faces numerous criminal charges. Police also could not confirm whether there was a confrontation between the two men before McKown was shot.

Maldonado is being held in the Pierce County Jail on $2 million bail.

McKown's father, Roger McKown, said his son has a permit to carry a handgun, which he did not out of fear but because "he always believed in protecting people."

(Snip)

Apparently, the only serious injury that occurred at the Tacoma Mall shooting was caused by a tactical error. Brendan drew his concealed pistol and verbally confronted the shooter. For his trouble, he was shot twice and is now in Tacoma General Hospital. He will probably not walk again.

If you carry a weapon for defense you are under no legal obligation to utter a single word before you pull the trigger. In fact, it is an error of colossal proportions to tell the shooter that you exist.

If you challenge a man who has drawn a weapon with the intent to kill, do you truly believe that you can talk him out of firing? Are you willing to risk your life at the marginal chance of preserving the life of a drug addict and felon? Moreover, if you are the only thing between that man and hordes of crying soccer moms, is it not better to err on the side of caution and ensure that there is only one casualty?

Generally, a citizen is allowed to use deadly force to protect another individual (including a total stranger) from death or serious injury, including rape. This is a perfect example of why such a legal doctrine exists.

When you have to pull the trigger, there are three ways to disable an attacker - hydraulically, mechanically, and electrically. "Hydraulically" disabling someone requires one or more wounds that will cause the attacker to "bleed out." Even with a fatal heart wound, the attacker has at least 60-90 seconds of mobility before they lose consciousness. For obvious reasons, this is not a preferred method. "Mechanically" disabling someone is more difficult, but it physically prevents an attacker from continuing their attack by "dropping" them. In a close-quarters confrontation, this is most easily done with a pelvic shot, which is a fairly large target. A bullet to the pelvis will drop an attacker instantly and keep him mostly immobile. However, this doesn't disable his upper body, so this will do little to stop a determined attacker with a firearm or other "ranged" weapon. The last and most preferred option is to "electrically" disable an attacker. This requires a very accurate shot to one of two areas - the spine, which is nearly impossible to hit under stress on a moving target, and the "headband," a two inch band around the middle of the head. This is the area to aim for.

The headband is the "lightswitch" that will instantly and permanently drop an attacker if hit hard enough. If someone threatens your life, shut him down. If his back is turned, all the better. He can't see you, and will therefore be a much easier target. This isn't medieval Europe, and chivalry doesn't mean a thing when a crazy serial killer is mowing down men, women, and children in the middle of a busy mall.

If you ever decide to carry, you'd better be prepared to do what you have to do. A brave man is laying in a hospital bed right now because he did not act aggressively enough. I know that hindsight is 20/20 and I can play armchair quarterback all day long, but this event should be a lesson to us.

In a gun fight, nice guys finish last.

-James

[FatMatt1981]

The guy probably was having conflicting thoughts about takin the guy down...he was considering for split seconds the legal problems he thought would soon follow after he squeezed the trigger...giving him too much pause.
I too used to have thoughts about things like that when I first started carrying...until I researched the state's websight...the Constitution here is very plain to understand to the average Joe. However even though you are protected under the highest state statutes.....the local authorities will still try to challenge it sometimes. The police officers are the first to be the judges....whether or not to let you go home after seeing it was clearly a self defense situation, and the fella was licensed to carry...or to go ahead and cuff you and try to handle things like you were just another guy with a gun.
Still though it sucks how after they let ya go home....you should contact a lawyer in case the paperwork makes it to the local prosecutor's desk...then HE gets to decide whether or not to take things to court over "recklessness" etc. and rack up a ton of legal fees for everyone....only for the judge/jury to say "it was self defense" only now they finally sat down and read the law.....
this silly stuff happens all the time when it shouldn't...rant over now.

[sjp2452]

Can somebody familiar with Washington law weigh in on how he would have done in court?

I'm afraid if the same happened in Minnesota, the guy with the license & gun, if he had shot & killed the maniac, would have had hell to pay in court. To make the claim of self defense, you have to show that you were a reluctant participant, retreat was impossible without further danger, no lesser force would do, and you must reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily harm. The first two, in this case, would be awfully hard to prove. Essentially you have to avoid the confrontation if at all possible, and if you get into it you have to be able to show that you couldn't avoid the confrontation. Unless the maniac is headed straight for you, there are plenty of ways to duck out of the way and hide.

In a situation like this, the guy didn't have to confront the gunman. He was brave to do so, no doubt. But here in MN, I think he would not have fared well in court, no matter how many lives he saved.

I hate to say it, but I would have serious reservations about getting involved, given the legal situation. Do I choose to face manslaughter charges (with high risk of conviction) for trying to saving lives? Would be easier if I didn't have a wife & kids to think about...

That sucks.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by sjp2452

Can somebody familiar with Washington law weigh in on how he would have done in court?

I'm afraid if the same happened in Minnesota, the guy with the license & gun, if he had shot & killed the maniac, would have had hell to pay in court. To make the claim of self defense, you have to show that you were a reluctant participant, retreat was impossible without further danger, no lesser force would do, and you must reasonably believe that you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily harm. The first two, in this case, would be awfully hard to prove. Essentially you have to avoid the confrontation if at all possible, and if you get into it you have to be able to show that you couldn't avoid the confrontation. Unless the maniac is headed straight for you, there are plenty of ways to duck out of the way and hide.

In a situation like this, the guy didn't have to confront the gunman. He was brave to do so, no doubt. But here in MN, I think he would not have fared well in court, no matter how many lives he saved.

I hate to say it, but I would have serious reservations about getting involved, given the legal situation. Do I choose to face manslaughter charges (with high risk of conviction) for trying to saving lives? Would be easier if I didn't have a wife & kids to think about...

That sucks.

If the laws that bad in Mn why would anyone bother to carry?

[ichy_trigger]

I will tell you what...If any of you are in a mall with me or my family in a similar situation, please shoot the maniac in the back of his head. I will mortgage my home to pay your legal fees if it means you save a member of my family.

Some situations may sound iffy but a retard in a shopping mall randomly shooting innocent people should not require a judge and jurry to decide the legality of stopping him. I feel for the guy that was shot, he may not be a well trained CCW holder, maybe it was new to him, maybe hes never had to make a rash decision. Either way, he tried to help and he and his familie have my prayers for doing so. Maybe, even though he was shot, he drew the attention of the gunman long enough that another adult or child had the opportunity to get away.

I'll call him a hero if no one else will, handled properly or not, he gave up himself for the better of another.
Thank you!

[one-eyed-fatman]

Originally Posted by ichy_trigger

I will tell you what...If any of you are in a mall with me or my family in a similar situation, please shoot the maniac in the back of his head. I will mortgage my home to pay your legal fees if it means you save a member of my family.

Some situations may sound iffy but a retard in a shopping mall randomly shooting innocent people should not require a judge and jurry to decide the legality of stopping him. I feel for the guy that was shot, he may not be a well trained CCW holder, maybe it was new to him, maybe hes never had to make a rash decision. Either way, he tried to help and he and his familie have my prayers for doing so. Maybe, even though he was shot, he drew the attention of the gunman long enough that another adult or child had the opportunity to get away.

I'll call him a hero if no one else will, handled properly or not, he gave up himself for the better of another.
Thank you!

Yeap. I second that motion. At least he tried.

[Sry0fcr]

Wow. That's all I can say. I don't think legal ramifications would be crossing my mind at all in that situation, but then again I live in Texas. It's unfortunate that he may never walk because of a half second's hesitation.

[Lonnie]

Just giving him the benefit of the doubt... maybe he hesitated because he wasn't clear behind the target? He might have taken one second to check behind the shooter, then got hit himself.

And while I'm talking about that, could anyone tell me, not specific to your state, but in general, what would have happened to him if he missed his target and hit an innocent bystander? Is there any protection for him? Any type of "Good Samaritan" clause?

These are just thoughts raised for discussion - I'm not disagreeing with anything already posted. We really won't know for sure why he waited until we here it directly from him - and I hope that is soon.

[sjp2452]

Originally Posted by ichy_trigger

I will tell you what...If any of you are in a mall with me or my family in a similar situation, please shoot the maniac in the back of his head. I will mortgage my home to pay your legal fees if it means you save a member of my family.

Some situations may sound iffy but a retard in a shopping mall randomly shooting innocent people should not require a judge and jurry to decide the legality of stopping him. I feel for the guy that was shot, he may not be a well trained CCW holder, maybe it was new to him, maybe hes never had to make a rash decision. Either way, he tried to help and he and his familie have my prayers for doing so. Maybe, even though he was shot, he drew the attention of the gunman long enough that another adult or child had the opportunity to get away.

I'll call him a hero if no one else will, handled properly or not, he gave up himself for the better of another.
Thank you!

+1, well said ichy. A hero he is.

OEFM--I can defend myself and my immediate family. Defense of 3rd person in MN is iffy at best. Who knows--maybe there'd be a way to defend it in court that I'm unaware of... What I can't get away from is the comparison of the rights of one (me) vs. the life of an innocent bystander. Is it fair to make that decision in a vacuum on behalf of my family? I don't know.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it would have been better to draw and shoot the guy without a word, consequences be damned. But it's a heavy price to pay for being a hero. I wonder how the guy in the hospital would feel about which he would prefer--ability to walk vs. his rights & freedom. What a diabolical question!

Better to struggle with it and become firmly convinced than to never ask the question and then doubt on the spot.

[pdjplano]

Wow, tough situation.

We went through a number of these in the CHL class here in Texas where you come upon a situation and have a flee/engage decision to make.

Honestly, this particular situation is an easy one to play armchair with, but I'm sure very difficult in the real world. I'd like to say I'd engage, but if flee was an option (meaning me and my family weren't in danger), I can't say I wouldn't do that.

I do think, however, that if I decided to engage there would be no words exchanged of any kind, if I draw I'm going to shoot, as quickly as I can get a sight on the guy. I would not want to give away any tactical advantage I may have by announcing my presence or trying to stop someone who, IMO, is obviously deranged..

I'd agree with the parents and others who describe Mr. McKown as a hero, while the results and tactics may not have been what we'd like to see, the fact he put himself at risk to save others and stop the threat is to be lauded...