Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Responding Cops Don’t Shoot Two Concealed Carriers Who Shot the Bad Guy Edition

 Scene of the crime (courtesy 5newsonline.com)

One of the arguments against “allowing” Americans to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms: if they use their guns for self-defense the police – and other armed good guys – won’t be able to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Bullets will fly in every direction, taking more innocent lives than if everyone just left everything to the police. It’s the “logic” Gun Victims Action Council jefe Eliott Fineman used against me in a recent debate . . .

Fineman couldn’t provide a single example of any such a ballistic cluster you-know-what. And now we can provide an example where it didn’t happen, despite the fact that not one but two civilians took out a third gunman in a mall parking lot.

Investigators said [Fadi “Frankie” ] Qandil [above] confronted his estranged wife, Tabitha Qandil, 31, Grayson Herrera, 23, and Dustin O’Conner, 27, as the three were headed to the movie theater.

“The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon. The other two were concealed handgun weapon carriers and they pulled their weapons, and there was an exchange of gunfire,” said Grubbs.

An off-duty officer was working security inside the Malco, another off-duty officer was attending a movie, when both heard the shots and ran to the parking lot, according to Grubbs. The officers were able to disarmed Herrera and O’Conner.

Qandil died, Herrera was struck once (expected to recover), O’Conner and Tabitha Qandil were not injured. No charges filed. Result. And a sterling example of why anti-gunners like Fineman don’t like to talk facts. [h/t Roy Hill]

comments

  1. avatar mrvco says:

    Always wear a white hat?

    1. avatar Gurney Halleck says:

      White Hat Holsters are pretty good.

  2. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    Glad to hear the situation turned out so well for all involved (with the exception of the scumbag; but no one will miss him). Good for the off duty cops for not being the kind of dog-shooting, trigger happy bastards we hear so much about.

    1. avatar Gene says:

      But that “scumbag” just turned his life around! He is a good boy! Never was in trouble with the law before! He’s an altar boy! He wasn’t a gang bange; he just hung out with them!

      1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        Yep, gotta love the bleeding hearts (not calling you one, it’s obvious you were being sarcastic)…. “Lethal force is never justified, and there is no such thing as a bad guy who can’t be reasoned with! If you just talk with him and show him some love, he will stop being a bad guy!”. Right….

      2. avatar Rokurota says:

        Well, according to the story, he was “the victim.”

        1. Yeah! I couldn’t get past that to concentrate on the point of the article. Farago could repost this as a different story pointing out the contradictions in the “investigator’s” findings. The dead guy is a “victim” yet no charges filed against the killers? Strange.

        2. avatar Tarilyn says:

          I think they use the word ‘victim’ simply because he was killed during the incident. I have a friend who is an EMT and everyone who gets medical attention is a ‘patient’. For cops, people who get shot and killed are ‘victims’, its just a terminology thing.

        3. avatar Mchael in GA says:

          Tarilyn, with all due respect, your analogy is flawed. Someone receiving treatment by an EMT is referred to as a “patient” because…that’s what they are. The term “victim” has a specific meaning by police investigators. They shouldn’t be throwing that word around as in “victim of circumstance”. The report was just poorly written. The non victim could have been referred to as the “deceased” and it would have been more comprehensive.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Tarilyn, if you are correct, the terminology thing needs to be changed. Its a setup to convince the uninvolved that he was the poor, defenseless, inoffensive sweetheart fatally abused by those bad men who were NOT the victims. “Suspect” or even “Perp” would be better.

      3. avatar Mike the Limey says:

        I guarantee that his latest exploits will have turned him away from a life of crime.

  3. avatar twency says:

    “The officers were able to disarmed Herrera and O’Conner.”

    Bad grammar aside (were they “able to disarm” the mean, or did the officers come upon them to find them already “disarmed”?), this seems like it’s written with an anti-carry bias. My guess is that the concealed carriers were at pains to comply with police orders and didn’t need to be “disarmed” in the sense the word is most often used, ie. have their guns taken from them by force.

    1. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      I concur.

      To take the question a bit further:
      1) I’m threatened with deadly force;
      2) I deploy the tool which I carry on my person for response to deadly force:
      3) Two newcomers to the engagement appear. One is wearing a mallcop uniform, both presumably have badges, both presumably say “I’m an off duty cop, drop your weapon.”

      Am I free (morally and legally) to respond: “Um, no thanks. I’ll remain armed. I’ll respond to questioning, and threaten no one, but I’ve committed no crime, and this here parking lot seems like a dangerous place, so, you know I’ll continue to enjoy my God given rights if it’s all the same to you.”?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        You are morally and legally free to remain armed when on duty sworn peace officers arrive on scene. Keep in mind that you have a moral and legal obligation to follow lawful orders from police. And when police respond to a shootout with people who are openly armed or report that they are armed, police have “probably cause” to believe that someone committed a crime and can lawfully disarm those people.

        Having said all that, an even better course of action is to extricate yourself to a safe location, put your handgun back in its holster, and then contact police.

        I have no idea what to say about off-duty sworn peace officers arriving on scene. Anyone in plain clothes who has a shiny piece of metal could be a police imposter. My response to a plain clothed person claiming to be a sworn peace officer (whether on or off duty) would be to stay back and tell the uniforms who are on the way to hurry up — because I am not disarming until the uniforms show up.

        Disclaimer: The above is my opinion. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          Ideally, that is an excellent strategy.

          Realistically, if you tell an actual off duty/undercover cop “No thanks, I will continue pointing this gun at this guy until uniformed officers show up.” you will most likely be shot, arrested, and then shot again.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Quite so. Running a red light is against the law, but if you step in front of a lawbreaker you will wind up both dead and in the right. Actions have consequences; not all of them good.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          There are a lot of dead right people.

        4. avatar OngoingFreedom says:

          uncommon_sense said: “an even better course of action is to extricate yourself to a safe location, put your handgun back in its holster, and then contact police.”

          Leaving the scene is NOT advised unless you need to do so to remove yourself from further harm (you had to put down one nazi-anarchist-cross-dressing-biker and the other eleven of his gang are showing up). If the threat is gone (bad guy assuming ambient temperature, no further threats) then holster, call the police, and start protecting evidence and identifying witnesses. VERY IMPORTANT! You must remain on scene to do this. Doing these things may save your hide if the DA decides to prosecute.

        5. avatar Mchael in GA says:

          Then again, if you are so composed that you meticulously do everything precisely according to the legality of the whole matter, the DA might argue that you were not in a life and death situation to begin with and your actions seem premeditated.
          I’m going to fight (and run away) to survive. The law be damned. I will have time to explain my side later.
          What about the guy that ran over a kid and when he got out of the car to render aid, he was beaten into a coma by the local upstanding Detroit citizens. If it wasn’t for Grandma with a gun to save his life, he would have been murdered for not leaving the scene and reporting it later from a safe distance.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I am more in favor of “extricate yourself to a safe location, holster your firearm, and go home to await the police. If they don’t show up, oh, well…”

        7. avatar OngoingFreedom says:

          You guys certainly do what you think is right. Me? I’m going to use the advice of the trial expert, Massad Ayoob, because I prefer to use the advice of someone who knows what he’s talking about.

      2. avatar EATENG says:

        Do keep in mind that the on or off-duty cops showing up on scene only know this: They heard gunshots and now they see someone pointing a gun at someone dead or dying on the ground. They don’t know if they’re looking at a victim or a suspect, but they do know that there’s been a homicide. I personally would comply, and comply slowly. It’s a lot easier to explain your actions when you’re alive.

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I can tell you why there is almost zero chance of police shooting armed citizens at such an event: because the event is over by the time the police show up — even police that were close enough to hear the shots!!!

    About the only exception to this would be the extremely rare situation where an armed good guy has a spree killer pinned down and the gun fight carries on for minutes, such as the 2007 Trolley Square shopping mall shooting in Salt Lake City.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I agree. Even if the shooter were still active, the “cops won’t know whom to shoot” narrative still doesn’t hold water. After all, these events don’t resemble duels at fifty paces, or alleged old west showdowns at high noon. It’s the kiler walking around shooting, while everyone else hides or runs away. An armed citizen is going to be behind cover, taking the occasional shot, but mostly just trying to stay alive and keep the killer occupied. Responding cops will interpret this scene accurately.

      Moreover, the armed citizen is the one who will readily surrender to the police when they make the scene, and not fire on them. The killer will keep on keeping on. The antis’ whole horror fantasy is exactly that, fantasy, and a morbid obsession one at that. It’s hardly the stuff upon which to base decisions about policy or individual conduct.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Your onto something. . . 30 seconds post shooting to death a single BG and the gun is back in the holster (after an administrative reload of course!) As for the active shooter, I’m positive that my shouting “I’ve got him pinned down over there!” is enough to direct the proper direction for police gunfire. It’s not like they can’t handle the idea that a plain clothes, or off duty officer or an armed citizen might be in the fight.

      I don’t know what it’s like in the cities but out here it’s not uncommon for armed citizens to go on ride alongs with police or even (if they know you well) to be tapped as back up in a situation that’s apt to go sideways. ‘They’ very much like having ‘us’ around out here, if it’s not like that where you live, I’m truly and deeply sorry.

    3. I remember seeing photos of non-uniformed responders during the Westgate Shopping Center massacre in Nairobi. If they were able to identify good guys from bad in that situation then I think it is not an issue. Not saying friendly fire hasn’t happened but it should never be a point for the antis.
      http://totallycoolpix.com/2013/09/graphic-the-westgate-shopping-center-shootings-in-kenya/

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Even if it were a possibility, is it not my right to decide to take that risk? Must I be protected from myself by people half my age without 10% of my experience? Who the hell do they think they are?

  5. avatar reoiv says:

    FYI Malco is a gun free theater chain. Good thing those signs kept people from carrying guns…

  6. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Chalk up another one for good guys with guns.

    That’s what so far this year? 7,000 or so, right?

    On another note, the two defenders did pretty well, seeing as the bad guy had a head start; maybe he lost his concentration when it turned out to not be a caged “hunt” situation.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      EDIT: In retrospect, it’s a very good thing that the cinema in question was either not “gun-free,” or if it was that state or local law preempted such nonsense, or that the two defenders gave such a policy the negligible respect it deserved.

      Armed is good.

    2. avatar JR says:

      Nah, we hit 7,000 back in January, statistically speaking.

    3. avatar Excedrine says:

      That depends on whose numbers you go by. Even by the well-known (and admitted) propaganda mill that is the Violence Policy Center, we hit the 7,000 mark sometime in mid-February. According to the (naturally) much more accurate Klek and Lott numbers, we hit the 7,000 mark sometime in the wee hours of January 2nd.

      We are at least well over 20,000 now, even by the lowest guestimates.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I wonder if there’s any kind of “official” count of DGUs….
        [google]
        Yup:
        “… federal government research project, called the National Crime Victimization Survey, which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Making various reasonable-sounding adjustments, other social scientists have suggested that perhaps a figure somewhere between 250,000 and 370,000 might be more accurate.”
        http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

    4. avatar Ardent says:

      Just to keep pace it has to be something like 500,000 to 1M this year so far.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Pretty well. I had to wonder why nobody punched the dick if it went down as described. Left hand punch, right hand draw, could have avoided good guy injury.

  7. avatar T says:

    Once again emotional fears from anti’s debunked again. Score a thousand for the good guys!

  8. avatar CarlosT says:

    Being shot by responding officers is brought up as a concern from time to time, but until cops start training at Hogwarts and learn to apparate, it’s not something I’m going to worry about too much. Chances are high it will all be over with by the time they arrive and if I’m still in a state to deal with them, I’ll make sure to be nonconfrontational.

  9. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Fireman is a disgrace to the Jewish Faith! He needs to be re shown the innocent European Jews being lined up naked and shot in the back of the head over pits.He needs to view that for hours til he gets it that ,that’s what happens to unarmed popular.Oh excuse me…too rough? Tough Sh.t! Stupidity needs a check up from the neck up!

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Your spell check hates you, fyi.

  10. avatar Cubby123 says:

    CCW carriers 2,bad guy a big fat ZERO! Ah what’s that Shannon? , no.. I don’t think it was a Jack in The Box or Starbucks,it was another GUN FREE ZONE..a movie theater.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      No worries; Watts’ll still add this corpse to the victim list.
      Shot with a gun is the only requirement – anything to pad the numbers – just like the Boston Bomber brother.

  11. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    The scumbag chose to attack other people and lost the bet… he’s not a “victim” in the least.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      I think my parrot just got a Halloween costume.

  12. avatar Kaliope says:

    Has anyone else noted that the article describes the offender as “the victim”?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yup. Another logical contortion.

  13. avatar Ing says:

    The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon.

    WRONG.

    A victim is someone against whom a crime has been committed. The victims in this case were the trio whom Frankie Qandil tried to kill.

    “Victim” is not a neutral word. Using it to refer to the instigator in this situation turns the facts on their head by implying that the ACTUAL victims somehow magically became criminals when they dared to fight back.

    If these so-called journalists had the least regard for truth and fairness, they’d call Frankie Qandil the one thing he definitely now is: the deceased.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Addendum: Reading the original article with a little more care, I see that it was a police spokesman who said this, not the reporters — it was a direct quote. I withdraw my charge against the reporters and level it instead against the police representative, who also should know better.

      He was probably speaking off the cuff, but still, words matter.

      1. avatar MudPuppy says:

        I believe the correct word would be decedent.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          I believe you are correct, by Jove! (I did say words mattered, didn’t I.)

        2. avatar bontai Joe says:

          I think the more correct word would be “perpetrator” since the deceased was the guy that allegedly initiated the violent act. I used the word allegedly because I wasn’t there and didn’t see this for myself.

  14. avatar PeterK says:

    Also I think off-duty cops (at least the one not in mall uniform) would also count as dudes who would qualify for blood running in the street who knows who the bad guys are hysterics, right?

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    Maybe the cops involved in this event can school the trigger happy LAPD who snuffed one hostage and wounded another.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/10/local/la-me-producer-killed-20140411

    We can protect ourselves from the bad guys, but protecting ourselves from the so-called “good guys” can be much more problematic.

  16. avatar DaveL says:

    Thank goodness the police arrived in time to disarm the two unoffending good guys.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      You reminded me that even though the DGU is righteous, you gun becomes evidence for a long time…
      Not a big problem for those of us who have more than one.
      Huge problem for those who can afford only one.

  17. avatar caffeinated says:

    It’s amazing even TTAG reports that cops “do right,” the ad hominem attacks still surface against law enforcement “…dog-shooting, trigger happy bastards …”

    Guess what. Most rank and file law enforcement officers are NOT your enemy as much as most of you would like to believe. It’s the exact same mentality many on our side complain that democrats and liberals hold against gun owners. Just like any other professions, there are bad cops out there. You are doing no favors to gun rights by promulgating a stereotype against law enforcement.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Correct.

  18. avatar Tile floor says:

    Officers working off duty security at movie theaters are generally required to wear their police uniforms while working, since the movie theatre hires them to work in a police capacity. The dude watching the movie was most likely not wearing a uniform though

  19. avatar Jared says:

    Ummm…. How about telling us what city and state this took place in…..

  20. avatar Sean in Fl says:

    Are they really calling the bad the victim?

  21. avatar Gun_Chris says:

    Just an FYI, but there doesn’t seem to be a link to any news articles about this incident embedded anywhere in TTAG’s reporting of it.

    Google helped me out, but it would be nice if I didn’t have to do that.

  22. avatar Kevin says:

    It happened in Fort Smith, AR.

    Here is the local news link.http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/10/police-shooting-at-central-mall-in-fort-smith/

    1. avatar John says:

      Stupefying how many commentators on that article apparently seem to think the two defenders should have NOT returned fire after the “victim” pulled a gun on his estranged wife.

      “But he was a good man!”
      “Irresponsible to carry/shoot at a movie theater!”
      “How could they not press charges!?”
      “Imagine if there we no guns!”
      And my favorite, “but it was the day before Mothers’ Day and they killed a mother’s child!”

      It’s like a permanent disconnect from reality.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Thoroughly confusing. The criminal is the victim? Able to disarmed!?! Someone needs to go back to school. Anyway good for the people who were able to defend themselves.

  24. avatar GoodGuyWithAGun says:

    I live in ft smith. I was glad to hear that theres one less crazy guy around here.

  25. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Me loves a happy ending

  26. avatar Mr. Bad Timing says:

    Debate should really be in finger quotes in that first paragraph…

  27. avatar Wayne Helms says:

    This was just two miles away from my home where the good guys won this one . Arkansas Became a Constitutional Carry state last August and the Ft Smith Police are use to seeing people both conceal and open carry as I open carry daily.

  28. avatar Max says:

    How is the decedent considered “the victim” here?

    “The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon.”

  29. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Not knowing what really happened there, when the bad guy flashed, I would seek cover if available, if not available I would draw and shoot the perk. After putting him down I would reholster and sit on the ground. When officers came in plain clothes or uniform I would let them know I’m calling police and that I am armed. This is only comments, you would have had to be there.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If you know you’re facing an “ex”, I agree. Without that knowledge, I’d be prepared for an associate of “the victim” to arrive from any direction.

  30. avatar Accur81 says:

    It seems that things worked out remarkably well.

    There are certainly a few points to consider. Any firearm used in a homicide automatically gets taken for evidentiary purposes. There are a host of ballistic tests that are usually performed. There are a number of circumstances for the investigators to consider – too many for me to detail with the my limited time. Although eye witnesses and involved parties can sometimes be notoriously unreliable, the statements in a justifiable homicide should be close to physical evidence and eyewitness accounts.

    Any off-duty police officer should be carrying more than one form of ID, to include his departmental ID and driver license. I always have mine when I’m carrying outside of my home. Anyone claiming to be a police officer outside of uniform should know that showing ID is necessary. Use wisdom and common sense as your guides. If an “off-duty cop” does not have their ID, then I don’t take their word for it and neither should anyone else. I personally would not give up my legally concealed firearm to anyone but a uniformed officer or an on-duty detective. I’ve also had undercover agents catch some of my fleeing suspects while I was on duty. They understood very well to have their badges and IDs at the ready.

    One of the reasons that I regularly carry Glocks is that they are easily replaceable. The gun that you use may spend quite a while doing ballistics testing or sitting in an evidence locker. In some cases, police agencies don’t want to return the firearm unless there is a court order to do so. That’s unfortunate, but it does happen. Having access to good legal council is a good idea, although that is more Ralph’s area of expertise. As has been said before, don’t be in a rush to make statements. What you say will be “on the record.” Medical treatment is also a great idea, even if you don’t seem to be hurt.

    I’ve been involved in off-duty incidents and have worked well with on-duty police officers on several occasions. Although real life crimes can happen quickly, there are certainly those of us out their who do our jobs well and enjoy either catching the bad guy or having someone else do it for us. Some of us even like guns and the people who carry them responsibly.

    1. avatar OngoingFreedom says:

      This makes the genesis of the quote, “A Kimber is what you show your friends, a Glock is what you show your enemies” understandable!

  31. avatar cubby123 says:

    The “victim” as the police stated should have been rightfully called the “perp” or the “unsub” .Don t cops watch cop shows? What’s with that?

    1. avatar EATENG says:

      “Unsub” is used for a suspect whose identity is unknown, which is not applicable in this case. “Perpetrator” works, but keep in mind that his actions are alleged and the investigation is probably not complete, so “suspect” would be better still. However, since there is no question that he is dead, “deceased” or “decedent” fit best. IMHO, of course.

  32. avatar former water walker says:

    John they call that SARCASM. That is all.

  33. avatar Hannibal says:

    Good job for all the good guys.

    …but the concern of being shot by responding officers is serious. Once the bad guy is no longer a threat, be ready to make yourself also not a threat. While it’s possible he might happen to have friends who happen to have fake badges just waiting to play imposter, it’s definitely not the most likely scenario.

  34. avatar Patrick hayes says:

    Fake badges? Police Imposters? Really?
    What are the chances that those types would just happen to be there? Possible, but not likely.
    But just in case, ask for ID. Most cops carry state ID’s that fake cops don’t have and rarely think about forging. I have worked several police impersonator cases and only one had a real police badge. None of them thought about any other ID.

  35. avatar Granny Grunch says:

    I think the stats would show that police have shot more off duty police than armed civilians

  36. avatar Sammy says:

    “Investigators said [Fadi “Frankie” ] Qandil [above]”

    Maybe the funniest display of bone dry humor I have been fortunate enough to read. Well played.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email