Concealed Carrier Stops Shooter In Oklahoma City Restaurant – Defensive Gun Use of the Day

courtesy newsok.com

An unidentified man walked into a restaurant and bar this evening on Lake Hefner, just northwest of Oklahoma City and opened fire. Two people were wounded and are reported to be in surgery. The shooter then turned to leave the restaurant and encountered a passerby who was carrying a concealed handgun.

After leaving the restaurant, the suspect was confronted by a person who was armed with a gun and opened fire, fatally striking the suspect.

News9.com – Oklahoma City, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Very little is known at this point about the dead man’s motive for the shooting or whether he’d planned any more random gunfire. Fortunately, he never got the chance, thanks to a legally armed individual.

 

comments

  1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    Stops any repeat offenses.

    1. avatar Nigel the Expat says:

      Specific deterrence.

      But it must be fake news. Shannon, Mike, and Sugardaddy told me DGUs don’t happen and you’ll just shoot your eye out.

  2. How convenient! The Shooter simply walks into a Bar where nobody is armed, only to walk out of the bar. Where the only other person in that part of Oklahoma was armed! No the shooters luck day.

    1. avatar Darren says:

      The shooter wasn’t in the restaurant. He fired on a group of people going into the restaurant from a spot near the east side of the parking lot. 3 different citizens moved to confront the shooter with one of the citizens shooting and killing him.

      1. Local press said that there was an Older and Younger Woman both Shot while being in the Restaurant. Without know where inside the restaurant they are, how was the shooter able to shoot them outside the restaurant.

        1. avatar Darren says:

          I live here. It’s all that has been on TV since it happened. I actually watched the OKC police spokesman press conference along with several eyewitness interviews telling the same story. You can choose to believe whatever bullshit early news reports you wish. I wasn’t on here to argue just give an updated account of what actually happened. Have a good day

        2. avatar Dave says:

          I know that Louie’s has an outdoor area. That would probably be considered “in” the restaurant while being open to the adjacent parking lot.

  3. avatar CarlosT says:

    Come on, Dan! We all know this is simply impossible.

  4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Yet another argument for bar carry!

    1. My thoughts exactly.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        It’s legal here in Iowa. Until your BAC hits 0.08% that is.

        1. avatar AubreyB629 says:

          isn’t it federally illegal to carry while consuming any amount of alcohol? or any other substance for that matter?

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          I seriously doubt that is the proper interpretation of your state’s bar carry law.

          Kids, this is why the Internet is a fine source of leads, but a lousy source for conclusions. Go seek competent legal advice before doing anything with a gun that could possibly get you in serious trouble.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          There are no federal laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms and would probably violate the 10th Amendment if there were. Only the purchase of firearms can be regulated under the commerce clause. You can’t be addicted to illegal drugs and legally purchase a firearm.

          I law is pretty clear – bars are not GFZs. A BAC of 0.08% or higher temporarily invalidates your permit. Carrying without a valid permit is a serious misdemeanor.

          http://www.dps.state.ia.us/asd/weapon_permits.shtml

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Also, private business no g un signs do not carry the force of law, so if the bar owner notices you’re printing he can only ask you to leave. Refusal to leave would get you a trespassing charge.

        5. avatar KSinIA says:

          to those not from the great state of Iowa and who don’t know our law:
          from Iowa code 724 (weapons):
          724.4C Possession or carrying of dangerous weapons while under the influence.
          1. Except as provided in subsection 2, a person commits a serious misdemeanor if the person is intoxicated as provided under the conditions set out in section 321J.2, subsection 1, paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c”, and the person does any of the following:
          a. Carries a dangerous weapon on or about the person.
          b. Carries a dangerous weapon within the person’s immediate access or reach while in a
          vehicle.

          Section 321J.2, subsection 1, paragraph “a”, “b”, or “c” refers to the operation of a motor vehicle while impaired (exceeding 0.08% BAL).
          If you can operate a deadly vehicle on the Iowa public byways, you can have a deadly weapon on your person (and utilize it if necessary).

    2. avatar The Rookie says:

      I first read your post as “B.A.R. carry.”

      Which I’m not opposed to either, btw. 🙂

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        That would be quite the IWB holster.

        1. avatar Sich says:

          Unless he’s referring to the Colt R-80 “Monitor”, which was substantially smaller then the M1918 B.A.R. But used the same BAR Magazines.

          ( http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1929 )

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Is that a rifle in your pocket or are just happy to see me.

  5. avatar n64456 says:

    “This never happens” : Shannon Twatts

  6. avatar Ragnar says:

    Good guy shoots bad guy. That’s OK.

  7. avatar Alan says:

    Gun Free Zone!
    Wait…maybe not.

    1. avatar That One Guy says:

      Louie’s is a restaurant that serves alcohol, so it is not illegal to carry in the building, so long as you are not drinking.

      However, Louie’s displays no-gun signs on the doors, so it is a GFZ by choice (rather than by law).

      In Oklahoma, those signs do not have direct force of law, but they can lead to a trespass charge if the carrier refuses to leave the building after being ‘caught’ with a gun.

  8. avatar Model 31 says:

    I’m curious about how the good guy outside knew the bad guy coming out of the restaurant needed shooting, but not curious enough to click the video link.

  9. avatar Mark says:

    This actually is on CNN. I can’t believe it!!!

  10. avatar SurfGW says:

    If the CCW Good Samaritan engaged the shooter after the shooter was finished with his bar massacre, the Good Samaritan better lawyer up quickly to justify why he killed someone when his life was not in danger. Hope the law sees it the way the Good Samaritan saw it

    1. avatar larrylarry says:

      I was thinking the same thing. If a cop had driven up at that moment, he would have had no justification for instantly opening fire, and a cop has a lot more leeway in use of deadly force than the average joe. Unless the perp threatened or pointed his gun at the good guy, shooting him for brandishing is going to be tough to defend.

      Wouldn’t be surprised to see the antis try and spin this with the old “concealed carriers just want to be heroes” thing.

  11. @ Darren

    Would you by “Chance” be the “Good Samaritan” in the shooting and are trying to justify the shooting by saying something not mentioned by the press.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      It’s Oklahoma. We had a pastor stop a fleeing suspect and then fire 6 shots in an attempt to blow out a tire in residential area that faced no charges. Dude only has to worry about protecting from shoulder sprain due to the excessive number of high fives he will be giving in the coming weeks.

  12. avatar Sven79 says:

    The antis will still say that the good guy didn’t stop a mass shooting because not enough people were killed to make it a mass shooting. What’s a good guy to do – wait until 4 people are killed and then shoot the bad guy? Of course, if a bunch of people were killed first, before the bad guy was shot by a good guy, then they’d say that the good guy didn’t really do anything, since the bad guy was already done (like they said about the Texas church shooting, and the good guy with the AR-15 who shot him).

    Despite what they say, the antis NEVER really want to “have a conversation about guns;” they’ll never ever concede any point to the pro gun side, regardless of the evidence. Whenever they’re confronted by facts, they just change the topic with a “what about ___” statement. It’s like an endless game of whack a mole with them, but without any tickets to redeem for prizes, even when someone gets a perfect debate score. A total waste of time and energy.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Not that complicated:

      It’s a mass shooting if a gun goes off and it fits the narrative, regardless of anything else

      If it does not fit the narrative, it is not a mass shooting

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Gun Grabber logic: If the good guy stopped a massacre before many or a few or no people died, then there was no massacre to stop. If the good guy stops a massacre after people have been murdered, then the good guy completely failed.

    3. avatar CC says:

      it IS in the definition of mass shooting used by Everytown (four or more injured including the perp)

  13. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    According to the Brady Center and Little Boss Hogg there is nothing to see here in this story. The SPLC is now investigating the armed citizen for a “hate crime”, stand-by for further labeling.

  14. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    I can’t believe that it was the first story on the Yahoo main page this morning!

  15. avatar Paul Mcmichael says:

    Everybody just needs to cool their heels and stop second guessing the good guy until we know what really happened.

  16. avatar That One Guy says:

    ….and just last week Governor Fallin personally denied the right to effective self defense to anyone who didn’t first ask the state for permission and pay the state for the opportunity by vetoing a widely supported ‘constitutional carry’ bill….

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    A happy outcome…very little on this in Chiraq newz. This type of shooting happens around here and gets scant attention.

  18. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I probably wouldn’t go chasing down the shooter outside to get into a gunfight. Someone comes in, shoots two people, then walks out? Sounds like a mob hit, or at least something personal. It doesn’t sound like a spree killer to me. So he probably isn’t about to kill more people at random.

    I might follow from as safe a distance as I could, so as to give the policpe a good description of him, his car, and what direction he took. Beyond that, let the murder police show up and do their job.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Jonathan,

      I agree with your comment for the most part. The sticky wicket is the demeanor of the attacker as he/she exits the restaurant. If he/she is basically calm, both hands are visible, and does not have a knife, club, or firearm in hand, then your course of action is spot-on.

      If the attacker exits the restaurant with handgun visibly in-hand and is angrily pointing it at various people on the way out, a more aggressive course of action is probably in order.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Fair enough. That’s why I slipped in that “probably” as an implied disclaimer. Of course it would depend on the circumstances as to how I would react in a specific case.

        That’s what gets a little squirrelly with these breaking stories. People comment on the story, but the specifics of the exact event aren’t known get. Others take the story as inspiration to comment on a general scenario such as that in the story, which is more my approach precisely because I don’t know the details of this event yet. For example, in this case, my understanding was that the good guy was inside the restaurant at the time of the attack.

        That’s why I used the term “chase down”, meaning exit the restaurant and give chase. If the good guy was already outside and the encounter was more like an immediate confrontation, then that’s a different scenario. I don’t want to get into details of this exact event, because they’re still unknown. So my comments are more generalized.

        Ultimately, be careful out there. Try to decide in advance what you’re prepared to do under general scenario guidelines, understanding though that nothing will unfold precisely as you’ve envisioned.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          unless it does, of course. or did you just forget a “probably?”

        2. avatar CC says:

          “I probably wouldn’t go chasing down”

          The guy who confronted the church shooter effectively chased him down. We don’t know all the details but this certainly could easily be 100% legal under justified homicide case law even with no stand your ground etc.

          My jurisdictions has no stand your ground and the actions of the two armed citizens could easily be fully legal.

          You are allowed to used exactly the same reasonable justification to protect third parties, even ones you don’t know. If police, prosecutors, jury or judge believed the two reasonably believed in that circumstance and conditions (not with perfect hindsight but what they could observe at that moment) that ANY innocent person as in danger of serious bodily harm the two citizens who shot the gunman are justified under the law.

          In most cases protecting unknown third parties is a problem, harder for evoking justifiable homicide defense, but in some cases it removes duty to retreat even in states with a duty to retreat.

          IN US states with the worst hardest to evoke self defense laws and full duty to retreat, if you reasonable believe a gunman is still armed, chasing them down and shooting them could easily be more legally justified than chasing down someone who shot at you for a known reason. If you knew someone was shooting at you for a reason, you don;t necessarily have reason to believe they will shoot random people. But if you observe a shooting you reasonable believe is random (even if it turns out to be not random, a public shooting could be assumed by a reasonable person at the moment to be random) then you have reason to believe they will continue to shoot other people at random.

          So if these two did not see the initial gunman drop the gun, and they did not have some kind of facts to make them think the initial shooting was not random (like someone shouting: “he just shot his brother”) they have a very good justified homicide defense even in duty to retreat states.

          With defending third parties, what you need to keep in mind regardless of state code or case law on justifiable homicide is not the law, but the fact that the third party you saved may turn on you and blame you. This happens to cops in domestic disputed all the time: the cops are called, the woman is being beaten, the cops use hand, baton, choke-hold or if needed firearms and then the woman says the cops used excessive or illegitimate lethal force. If you are a citizen trying ti intervene, even if all the info you have justifies it, the party you see being harmed or threatened, the victim you are saving, could turn on you in court. if they are related to their attacker they have an incentive to do so from the prospect of a civil suit against you

    2. avatar That One Guy says:

      There’s no evidence that anyone chased down the bad guy.

      The bad guy shot two people on the patio (outside) and then ran to the parking lot where he encountered a good guy. The good guy likely heard the gunshots, so he might have been a little more prepared for a confrontation, but we do not know the specifics of that encounter.

      If the bad guy was running thru the parking lot with his gun in hand (by far the most likely option), the good guy may have drawn on him. If the bad guy then raised his gun towards the good guy, the good guy is well within his rights to shoot him.

      The truth is, we don’t have all the facts. The police on the scene have more of the facts, and since they didn’t arrest the good guy, we might assume that his actions were within his rights.

      1. avatar CC says:

        Exactly. We don’t know they “chased.” Moreover, while, under self defense law, even in stand your ground states, chasing down a fleeing gunman is problem BUT under general justifiable homicide where you have reason to believe the person may imminently kill someone else, it can be 100% Legal justified homicide to chase someone down and shoot them.

  19. avatar GS650G says:

    He gets the Saving taxpayers Money award for May.

  20. avatar That One Guy says:

    update from the OKC police blotter:

    Thursday evening, police responded to a call regarding a man shooting inside the Louie’s restaurant located at West Hefner Drive. Officers located the shooter, Alexander Tilghman (white male, 28), deceased outside the restaurant. The deceased/suspect was shot outside the restaurant by two citizens, Carlos Nazario (hispanic male, 35) and Bryan Wittle (white male, 39). Three people were stuck by gunfire from the suspect. Shooting victims #1 (white female, juvenile), #2 (white female, juvenile), and #3 (white female, 39) were inside the restaurant when they were shot and are reported to be in good condition. Injured party #1 (white male, adult) fell and broke his arm after the shooter started his assault. All involved parties were interviewed and released.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Amazingly, the two armed citizens were not confused and did not accidentally shoot each other, or any other innocent party. Nor were the responding police so confused as to shoot any innocent party. Another non-data-point for those who keep promoting the confusion argument against armed citizens.

      1. avatar That One Guy says:

        weird….cuz that’s all i ever hear about. how carry will cause a domino effect when one bad guy shoots, all the good guys will start shooting each other and then the cops will show up and shoot any remaining good guys.

        and yet……it keeps not happening.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        The report I watched today suggests that the two GGs were together and that their arms were in the trunk of their car. Hearing the shots, and apparently seeing the shooter shooting through the door of the restaurant, the engaged him in the parking lot. Both fired shots. Also, the shooter was not known to any of the victims, and was not an employee or former employee of the restaurant. So I guess this qualifies as a “Waffle House” type copycat shooting.

      3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        That’s probably the most important take-away here, even more important than their having taken down the suspect.

        We constantly hear the morbid refrain about how responding officers will be confused and shoot the good guys with the guns, or that multiple good guys already on scene will shoot each other. While it is not unheard of for responding officers to shoot the wrong person, it’s extremely rare. I’ve never heard of multiple good guys already on the scene shooting each other, either.

  21. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    Some reports claim the attacker was wearing hearing protection. But, the ears of the many innocent bystanders/victims were not protected. Surely that’s an argument in favor of pushing the bill to de-restrict sound suppressors?

    1. avatar Sich says:

      Not going to happen! The Hearing Protection Act was “Killed” in September 2017. There were 165 Supporting Cosponsors (Democrats included) that voted for the Bill. But unfortunately 165 votes, is 43 votes short of a Simple Majority vote. So the Bill never left the US House of Representatives.

  22. avatar MIO says:

    You know whats better than a good guy with a gun?
    2 Good Guys With Guns!!!

  23. avatar MIO says:

    Anyone know what type of weapons our 2 good guys used?

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