The above video is an interview of a veteran who was at the Roseburg, Oregon college campus during the shooting yesterday and who was carrying a concealed handgun. According to his own report, he attempted to leave the vet center to engage the shooter but was prevented by the school staff from leaving the building. We reported on this yesterday as one CNN report mentioned it in passing, but this is 100% confirmed now based on this report from the armed vet himself.

75 Responses to Update: ARMED Veteran Prevented from Stopping Oregon Shooter by School Staff [VIDEO]

  1. Next from the left we will hear about how a good guy with a gun failed to help and it’s proof that conceal carry is a failed idea.

      • But then again Aren’t they the ones saying they dont want protection from us?

        I’m pretty sure those that are carrying defensively arent the ones on the slab. I have zero need to be a hero. If the shooter came to me THEN I would get involved..Secure evacuation Sure. Go on a hunt when no one knows who the shooter is and you have inbound LEO. No Thanks.

        Life is about creating options,

        • “don’t want protection from us.” because the anti-gun nudniks do not wear identifying accouterments, i will protect no one i do not know as part of my family. if in the company of POTG, i will defend, or help defend them. else, everyone in sight is potential bullet bait while i swiftly initiate my personal/family egress plan. i refuse to honor the lives of those too timid to protect themselves, those who rabidly work to deny my choice of methods of self-defense. an active shooter does not rise to the standard of imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or death. an active shooter pointing at me is a different horse. in that case, inadvertently saving anti-gun people is forgivable.

      • I hate facebook most of the time and the 1 person on my friends list that isn’t pro 2a went on about this. My reply was there should have been more than one good guy with a gun.

        • Don’t know the specifics, but a building in lock down can be difficult to leave without smashing a window – no mean feat when it’s tempered.

          While setting off the fire alarm will unlock the doors, many people are unaware of this.

      • You know this for certain how? Were you there? It was chaos with students running in every direction. People were already dead by the time this guy knew something was wrong. What do you think might have happened if he and the others had rushed into the scene, not knowing where the shooter was, and wound up getting killed himself? What do you think the police might have done if they saw him running in and thought he was one of the shooters? What do you think might have happened if he shot one or more of the students?

    • We already heard from the liberal sites and they have an interview of him saying he “chose” not to intervene claiming he didn’t want to get in the way of the SWAT team or responding officers. What’s his story and why did he change his story?

  2. Good job libertards. You guaranteed that the only people in a position to stop this were unable to do so. If I was related to one of the victims, no force on earth would protect the scumbags responsible.

  3. The veteran who tried to take down the NUTCASE might have fared better had he been armed ! Maybe But if he was abiding by the law he would not have been armed on campus.

    • And it took the cops 8 MINUTES to reach the scene. Meanwhile this guy was calmly walking around shooting unarmed college students. And the one guy who might have been able to save some lives was stopped by the school’s cowardly staff. Is it wrong to call college teachers who were probably following school lock-down policy cowardly? Damn right they were. The guy in question was in the presence of several military veterans who were also prepared to step in and do something. This was a huge fail. People died because of this. I’m not going to play “what if” but there are some obvious alternatives that might well have saved some people’s lives.

    • That’s incorrect. The campus policy has already been reported here; it allows guns as provided by law, which means a licensed concealed carrier can carry.

        • Oregon law allows firearms by CHL holders on a college campus or schools. Oregon gun laws are preemptive, but there is a loop hole in another part of a non-gun law that allows the University system to make a gun policy of it’s own on grounds it manages. The Oregon University system implemented a “policy” of no firearms, including CHL holders. However, it is not enforceable to those that are not associated with the school (like me). As a student, I think they could expel you or as a prof. fire you since you broke the policy, but it still is not a crime according to Oregon Firearms Federation. I imagine the community college has a similar policy.

          Here’s the Oregon University System policy:
          http://police.uoregon.edu/weapons-policy

  4. Consider this: Should culpability for the losses yesterday be shared between the murderer AND those lawmakers and staff responsible for effectively disarming everyone in attendance at the college?

    Before you answer, Google the name “Chris Mintz” and consider if he had been armed at the time how events may have happened.

    • That’s a simple question. Yes. If you pass a law that protects a criminal, you should be charged as an accomplice.

    • pwrserge, Shaun L, Chip Bennett: don’t be ridiculous. Culpable as an accomplice? Culpable for passing laws “protecting the criminal”? What the hell are you guys smoking?

      If you have a law degree, and I’m sure none of you do, please go back to your law school (heck, to every teacher you’ve had) and request a refund.

      You can’t even sue police for failure to protect you, as that ain’t their job. So you are going to sue and make responsible a school for having a policy (preempted by state law, mind you) of “no weapons on campus?” Gonna sue your kid’s elementary school for not allowing switchblades when they get their ass kicked?

      • Wrong. My agency has been sued for millions in “failure to provide service” and “special relationship” lawsuit cases. LAPD and LASO regularly get sued.

        • This is America, you can sue anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean you will win. There is case after case showing that the police do not have an obligation to protect specific person.

      • Yes: culpable.

        Culpable, for rendering defenseless people who would otherwise avail themselves of lawful means of defense, by enacting a policy that prohibits the possession (or use) of firearms inside the buildings on campus, under penalty of school discipline. The same is true for stores that likewise disarm their customers, under penalty of trespass (civil or criminal).

        In fact, if one state representative gets his way in the next session, Indiana will write just such liability into law.

        (And no, I’m not a lawyer; just an engineer.)

  5. My first thought was that he should not have let anyone stop him. But what would it have taken to get past the staff, and possibly other students to get out? Shoot them? And running across open ground with a pistol in your hand is a good way to get shot by responding officers just getting to the scene. Too bad he wasn’t in the building where it went down.

    • You make a great point… It’s probably a good idea NOT to draw your weapon in that case until you’re ready to fire (or just about depending on the situation). This is the surprise part of our mantra. All the Monday morning quarterbacking aside, you just don’t know until you’re in the suck. It’s the mind that is the true weapon, not a good time to “holster” that…

    • I don’t quite buy his story. I don’t trust that he’s rushing to get his face on T.V. and his side of the story out there first. I want to hear from the staff and students who supposedly stopped him. I’m not buying his “gosh darn it, I *would’ve* been the hero, but……” routine.

      I’m not clear on Oregon law pertaining to campus carry, despite some rants I’ve read in here, but it seems clear the school’s policy is against it. They’ll probably expel him for his admission, which is why he demurred when asked about others who were carrying. No need getting them busted.

      That said, I agree it wouldn’t have been a good idea to go charging off across campus, out in the open, with only a pistol, to engage the shooter. He’d be outgunned by the shooter(s) and probably gunned down by the police. Much better to take a defensive position and wait it out.

      • I have similar doubts. I coulda been a hero! If only for….

        Regarding tactics, I’m just going to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, and repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat. Or die trying.

        I’m not going to sit on my a$$ when other people are getting murdered.

    • Lord have mercy! He wouldn’t have to SHOOT them… a little pistol-whipping would have done the trick.

  6. SOP for active shooter scenarios: lockdown. Those who kept him from leaving the building were probably just complying with active shooter playbook…

    • If all the faculty is going to do is run from a script, maybe the school should save money and replace the faculty with a web-based self-learning system, since it seems the faculty is operating on autopilot anyways…

    • In the building where the actual shootings started, one instructor sent a student to go investigate the sounds. She returned to the classroom after having been shot.

      1. Not everybody follows SOP.

      2. Perhaps SOP isn’t always all that bad.

      • “In the building where the actual shootings started, one instructor sent a student to go investigate the sounds.”

        Hello, big-ass lawsuit.

        • “Hell no! How ’bout YOU go investigate what’s going on. I’m going out the back door.”

    • “Clearly, that playbook doesn’t work.”

      It is working just as planned. (By the Progressives.)

      Create by law a gun-free zone.

      Wait for the inevitable tragedy.

      Piss and moan that gun laws ‘don’t work’.

      Legislate more restrictive laws.

      Wait for the inevitable tragedy.

      Legislate more restrictive laws.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

  7. We need to start bringing lawsuits against any organization that prevents citizens from defending themselves. A lawsuit should be filed against the school in this case. I hope that happens, perhaps this veteran could be the spear head and the NRA and other orgs could get behind it. Part of the reason a lot of universities and the like prohibit weapons is because of liability. If they get the idea that the true liability will happen in the wake of such an incident then perhaps there will be a change.

    • Chris Mintz — who charged the murderer and was shot several times — probably has standing to sue, and he should.

      The state’s labyrinthine regulations and restrictive laws effectively removed the Second Amendment rights from everyone in that building, rendering them incapable of exercising their fundamental human right of self-defense.

      It’s time for the SAF and NRA to get their heads together and push this.

      • Actually, the state law allows CHL holders to have firearms concealed on campus. But there’s a loop hole in another section of a non-gun law that allows University systems and higher education school systems in Oregon to create a firearm policy for people that are associated with the University. It’s not a crime if you have a CHL and carry on campus, per se, but as a student it could get you expelled (or fired if you’re a prof., etc.).

  8. Some school staff members would have gotten kicked. If I want to leave, I’m LEAVING. Somebody needed help and cowards are stopping me??? Ha, that ain’t happening. They could open the door or I’m throwing a chair through a window, because I’m leaving and no school staff is stopping me.

    • Seems that while he shouldn’t have been made to stay where he was, it’s also not a terrible idea to stay where you are. Opening the door and letting someone out/ in.

      • Yeah well you don’t blindly open doors in a fire either. You feel the door for heat and use your head.
        I’m not advocating swinging the door open and charging into the dark.

        If you’re going to step up and protect those around you, it will do no good if you are shot and there is an element of risk just as there is sitting there waiting for evil to come knocking.
        Personally, I’d have my gun in hand and exit as carefully as I can. Those that want to hide under a desk, so be it, but not me! That’s not my style.
        I’m a say what I want, take charge person. That’s my personality and style.

  9. The shooters mother is culpable. They shared a one bedroom apt and she pettisioned the complex to have it exterminated as her son is bothered by roaches and has some mental health issues. Just like Newtown ,mom knew her son was unfit, yet exposed him to firearms. Unless this parent truly didn’t know about his firearms, she should of reported it as a concern. No staff or whatever is hindering my decision making.

  10. It is very important for the liberal/progressive agenda that an individual does not become a hero. That is, a real hero; fake, make-believe heroes with awards for being there, that’s a different matter. Those are generated constantly to dilute the real heroes. Only the State is allowed to decide who lives or dies; only the State can be a Hero. In fact, this is recognized by the libtards, who are generally much more honest when talking about events outside of the US. Here’s an excerpt from the Investor’s Business Daily, 7/13/2012, regarding Chinese passengers stopping a hijacking and a subdued response of the Chinese media:

    “No wonder the Chinese government is keeping mum. Uighur activists claim the story is phony, but it could well be that the real story is that the hero is no longer the state, but ordinary Chinese.”

    This is precisely why our Party does not want an American to be a hero, to be able to decide for himself and, ultimately, to be anything more than sheeple.

  11. The vet had the right motivation and the willingness to fight the murderer. However, he respected the wishes of the anti-gun staff. This is even more grevious evidence that antis want more than gun bans. THEY ACTIVELY PREVENTED A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN. ITS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THEY WANT EVIL TO TRIUMPH. I’m thinking accessory to murder.

    • I don’t think they think this way, besides, they don’t think. They are too afraid to admit that guns can be used for good purposes by citizens because they are afraid of their lefty friends will ostracize them.

  12. I don’t understand this veteran’s inability to ignore the staff’s orders. What could the staff do if he insisted? Wrestle him to the floor? I can’t believe the doors were locked from the inside to prevent exit since that would violate fire safety codes.

    In a similar situation, as far away from the scene as this veteran was, I wouldn’t run toward the sound of the guns. I would take action only if the shooter were in front of me. In that case, I would not tolerate interference from anyone but a LEO.

  13. I was really hoping that this wasn’t the case… Very sad… What part of speed, surprise and violence of action did he not understand? When the shooting starts DO NOT listen to the “scared horses”, they will only attempt project their fear onto you. Take out the freaken threat already….

  14. And it took the cops 8 MINUTES to reach the scene? Meanwhile this guy was calmly walking around shooting unarmed college students. And the one guy who might have been able to save some lives was stopped by the school’s cowardly staff. Is it wrong to call college teachers who were probably following school lock-down policy cowardly? Damn right they were. The guy in question was in the presence of several military veterans who were also prepared to step in and do something. This was a huge fail. People died because of this. I’m not going to play “what if” but there are some obvious alternatives that might well have saved some people’s lives.

  15. >>but was prevented by the school staff from leaving the building<<

    Let me see if I can comprehend this situation. The unarmed pip-squeak school personnel told an armed individual (who could have stopped the spree) to stay in the building and he decided to obey their "orders"??? Here is a news flash… that armed individual is just a bot following the orders of anyone during a crisis. In other words and in my opinion, not a self-thinking individual and certainly not a leader.

    • You maybe judging prematurely and incorrectly. His life was not directly threatened. He offered to help (by risking his life) and not only did not get support from the staff, but actively prevented. Would you have gone and made yourself not only a target for the shooter (which he was willing to do), but also for the surely about to arrive SWAT that would start shooting indiscriminately at anyone with a weapon, while the staff would be reporting him to the LEO as another threat? That, I’m afraid, would have been the end of you…

  16. Who has blood on their hands? Who would exercise such authority as to disallow a defensive action versus allow the person to make their own choice? This is where emotions get in the way of logic. Though the Vet was far from the scene, maybe he could have done some good. We will never know and the Vet will always wonder and second guess.

  17. colin goddard already spreading lies about the armed veteran at the campus; according to colin, the armed vet decided not to confront the shooter, and colin explains how this is a reason against campus carry. No mention of the staff who stopped the vet. More lies from the gun-grabbers.

    • One man’s decision not to take action has no bearing on whether he or others have the right to carry. Other than proving that concealed carry on campus is not a panacea, an argument which nobody has actually made, this vet’s decision not to act is irrelevant to the issue if campus carry.

      As for his having been stopped by staff, so far, he himself is the only source of that information. Without corroboration, say from the staff who did the stopping, then I’m not taking that as an established fact.

      • JOnathan,

        I’m with you. Story doesn’t make sense. I can understand if he was told, but he could disobey the order and go forward. Sounds to me like he’s trying to make himself to be the “would-be hero” in the space of lack of information. I’ll wait till more information comes out, but I am not buying it.

  18. Just as 9 11 taught americans to rush the bad guys on planes…this should be a wake up example to students everywhere to rush the bad guy and use overwhelming force..c carry or not then render them ” neutralized”
    Or just lay down and accept getting shot?

    • This; if 8 guys rush a single bad guy in close quarters, unless he is Jason Bourne yes 2 or 3 or even 4 of you are getting shot but the other 4 are kicking the guys head into nothing

  19. He should of punched whatever “staff” was getting in his way and gotten it done. Shame on those sheep , crying and huddling in their corners and holding back an actual sheep dog from saving innocents.

  20. The truth comes out. He didn’t approach or go forward because he didn’t want to be mistaken for the shooter by SWAT or other emergency personnel.

    https://youtu.be/bK-Ht57AdBA

    He didn’t get involved because he didn’t want to get shot. Good call. Could’ve been worse.

  21. Part of me says that I would have beat the crap out of the person preventing me from confronting the shooter. The other part says it is too easy to sit at my computer criticizing the actions of someone in a situation I did not experience. The whole event lasted a matter of minutes, and I am sure there was a lot of confusion. I am sure he may not have known exactly where the shooter was, who the shooter was (police?), and what equipment the shooter had. It is likely that the CCW guy was armed with a small, concealable pistol and carried perhaps less than 30 rounds…maybe even less than 15 rounds. What if the bad guy had a rifle, which he did? Would his pistol have the accurate reach needed if he had to confront the shooter in a hallway? Perhaps he thought it a better tactical position to take cover behind a barrier and wait for the bad guy to silhouette himself in the doorway? For us who have trained, we know that maneuvering through a building is fairly complicated. Perhaps the CCW guy was smart enough to understand his own limitations. What if the CCW guy left that classroom to pursue the shooter, and while he was looking for the bad guy, the bad guy manages to find the classroom he just vacated. Everyone reacts differently to these kinds of situations regardless of their training, experiences, and how macho they think they are. Perhaps he was experiencing auditory exclusion, time dilation, loss of gross motor skills, or whatever, and he felt he was better off covering the door instead of playing superhero. There are so many variables, I am hard pressed to be a Monday morning quarterback. If I were in that same situation, what would I have done differently? I haven’t a clue. I know that once the information is out, I am going to study it, and learn from his experience.

    • These are all very good points. But the bottom line is that you had several ex-military in a veterans center who were going to move toward the sound of shooting but were stopped by
      a staff member. That shouldn’t have happened. That single action probably got some people killed who might have been saved.

  22. I call suspect if not bs. It’s not confirmed just because he himself says it’s true. Are there at least other witnesses to back up his story?

  23. Wait for all the testimony to come in. It’s just like a traffic accident, you have 10 witnesses, ok, you are going to get 10 different versions and what you hear from one may seem to totally contradict another.

    Delve into the Mall shooting in Africa – what was put out in the days after was coverup, what a reporter got from a hundred witnesses months later was still pieced together but a much broader and more complete view.

    We aren’t going to get most of the picture for at least 6 weeks.

    As for one vet – or for that matter anyone armed at the scene – if they are being verbally restrained by staff, what are they going to do? SHOOT SOMEONE? Oh, wait, no, just beat them down, ah, no, that’s not going to play well . . .” Armed Vet pistol whips professor to seek gunman on campus and never finds him?”

    “Shooter on campus aided by veteran also shot dead by police?”

    There is no possible way to forecast exactly how good or bad the results will be. Let’s take a moment to remember the CCW guy in the Walmart who confronted a man with a shopping cart of guns wheeling in – he lasted about how long before he was shot in the back by his confederate?

    Got a lot of emotion and angst running around with no clear headed thinking.

    I’m also going to suggest that by restraining the Vet we now have a reason why the POTUS isn’t doing more than jawboning – an attempt to change state law unilaterally isn’t Constitutional, even more so the bad press being identified as agreeing with staff on the one hand, and being pointed at by grieving parents for supporting the shooter on the other. “HE COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED!” is, all said and done, about as valid as the anti gunners saying anyone with a gun could just start shooting people. It’s just rhetoric with no basis in fact behind it.

    We’ve had a similar situation in our area in the past – an EF5 was bearing down on some Box stores and staff locked customers in. the result was that quite a few were killed inside the building when it collapsed. I can only counterbalance that with the fact that everyone OUTSIDE the building in their cars was killed, too. I’m not sure I would want to be restrained from doing what I see fit in handling a situation – but I also recognize that I’m just one actor in the scene and I don’t have omniscient powers of observation to understand the entire scene. Only the cameraman on a Hollywood set gets that, ever, and it’s all orchestrated down to the last footstep – or they shoot it over again until it’s right.

    All we get is one take, and the chips fall where they may.

  24. It looks like they want to punish him. Hannity baited him gun free zone does NOT trump “shall not infringe”
    No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

  25. C’mon guys. Think about it a bit.

    1. Guy was 4 years in Air Force. Maybe he is hot shit with a pistol, but it takes a lot of training to enter a room. I don’t think he would have saved lives by the time he got there. I don’t question his bravery, but it sounds like his frustration at being helpless to save lives is making him blow this out of proportion.

    2. Doesn’t say how the staff kept him from going or if they physically blocked him. It may have been a good strong argument that he would be more effective staying and protecting the people he was with. And I respect that.

    3. I think the only guns that might have prevented this or shortened his killing would have been in that classroom or in adjoining rooms. And yes, I would have been carrying despite the schools distaste for it. Done properly it is never an issue because it is concealed, not flaunted.

    Lets drop the hero BS and admit that concealed carry for all is the only solution. Not everyone is comfortable with it, or lets face it, responsible with it. Lets defend our rights by pointing out:

    1. The rooms with guns would have prevented further bloodshed.

    2. All CC holders reacted properly. No innocents were killed by CC holders acting like Rambo (which would validate everything the Anti’s want). Police response was not help up by misidentifying CC holders.

    3. No existing or proposed gun laws would have prevented this.

    Pray for the victims and their families. Pray for our country. Defend our rights with valid arguments and responsibility.

Leave a Reply

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