One San Bernardino Witness to Shooting Was Armed

employee-lockdown-mass-shooting-bernadino-ca

By Brandon via concealednation.org

An eyewitness to the mass shooting that occurred at the Inland Regional Center reported that he stayed put in his business and protected his employees and others in the area. This is a fantastic example of the reality of being responsible in an active shooter situation and it echoes a recent statement by another concealed carrier on the campus where the Oregon shooting took place. Observe, assess for threats, and otherwise stay put . . .

According to the account given by the business owner to ABC News, a man was filling up his water truck at a fire hydrant when he heard shots ring out.  The man ran into the business and told the business owner what he believed was happening. The owner had a handgun and proceeded out to the water truck to observe the situation.

He told ABC News that he saw a couple of people get into a tinted-windowed black SUV and roll off calmly. As he had an estimated 12 employees inside, he stood his ground and kept watch over the business.

Throughout the course of the event, he attempted to gain safe passage for his employees to leave by coordinating with the sheriff and deputies actively handling the situation.

So, to recap: responsible California gun owner realizes an active shooting situation is going on next door and stays put to protect his employees and shop in case the violence surges over into his business.

That’s the responsible choice.

Because he made those choices, he didn’t have to worry about being misidentified by law enforcement converging on the Inland Regional Center buildings and was able to ensure himself and others were kept safe.

As much as we’d all like to be in the position to stop something horrible from happening, sometimes it just comes down to ensuring our situation is covered.

And, likely, if any of those attending that fateful Christmas party had been armed, some resistance would have been available to fight back against what the FBI is now classifying as a terrorist act.

comments

  1. avatar Paul53 says:

    Wow, from the headline I didn’t expect those conclusions. Thanks for the enlightenment.

    1. avatar Seth says:

      How does a guy with a gun stop global warming??

      1. avatar Jerry R says:

        I shoot .223 at the sun at sunrise when the sun is much closer to earth… It seems to be working as it has been very hazy lately! In related news, Obama has reclassified the Pearl Harbor attack as work place violence.

      2. avatar Not Seth says:

        What a stupid thing to say, what does global warming is got to do with this witness? All it does say that Seth has no clue or is trying to be a wise ass, in the scale of evolution which is probably what he believes in more than anything else…nothing wrong with that… Only the fittest survives, apparently Seth wont, unless he gets his head out of his…..
        Now Unless this armed business had enough hardware and tools to deal with this terrorist treat, he did the smartest things by protecting his own people and avoiding getting tagged as a terrorist shooter himself
        Seth. You came from dust… Chances are – as you believe – with global warming you will end up in due time into a little pile of mud under 200 feet of water.. Hope you can swim

        1. avatar AdamTA1 says:

          … Wut?

  2. avatar HAVE GUN says:

    Going in with no idea of what is going on is like going where Angels Dare not Tread.

    I bet he had a clue that the shooting going on was more than him and his handgun is ready for.

    He did the right thing.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Tactically, if I remember my training correctly, the defender has a significant advantage over the offensive force. When planning an attack against a defended position it is generally considered that you require a numerical superiority of 7:1 over the defenders.

      By this calculation it would be foolhardy in the extreme for a single armed person to mount an assault against an unknown threat, but makes perfect sense to establish a defense position and prepare to repel invaders.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Note: When I completed and posted the above comment the “click to edit” function gave me notice that I had 29 seconds remaining to edit. Nice.

  3. avatar Kc in NorCal says:

    I haven’t been able find it agin but I saw a comment a few years back by one of the heads of the anti gun groups trying to explain why concealed carry was bad. She used 2 events, I believe, the Giffords shooting and on at a Nevada IHOP where a man with an ak was shooting up the place with all the customers as a backdrop. He made the decision not to engage a man armed with a rifle and innocents in the background and instead got to a safer place. So using that and the concealed carriers statement that was at the Giffords shooting that he wasn’t sure who the shooter was and almost pointed his gun at the wrong person she concluded that concealed carry doesn’t help because they will “either run away or shoot the wrong person.”

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      First you shout “who here is against concealed carry?” Shoot them, then shoot the armed enemy. Much neater that way.

      1. avatar Clay says:

        Actually that’s backwards.

  4. avatar M9A1MAN says:

    Good for him. I’m actually surprised that no one shot those bastards. San Bernardino County is very CCW friendly. I was able to get my CCW through San Bernardino county Sheriff because they’re pro 2A. A lot of people in San Bernardino carry.

  5. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    This i what the antis don’t get. I remember after oregon they were using that CCW holder as an example that “destroys” our position…”Oh a CCW holder clearly can not stop a mass shooter, see??”

    Having a CCW doesn’t mean if you are in the vicinity of a shooter you run off to engage. Its so if confronted with the shooter you have another option besides “Get executed”

    This guy did exactly what i would have done.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Considering that only fairly recently have law enforcement officers received training on how to engage an active shooter if confronted when the cop is alone (prior to that, the solution to sit tight and call for backup) it’s pretty darned ridiculous for the anti’s to claim that, “See, CCW doesn’t help, ’cause they don’t engage anyway.”

      Of course, if the business owner had burst in the door like Dirty Harry and smoked the terrs, he’d be getting roasted by the media now for being a one-man vigilante with delusions of grandeur – with the MSM, if you’re a gun guy, you are not going to be able to win.

    2. avatar alanstorm says:

      Lefties tend to be very binary.

      If you oppose excessive regulation, you obviously want anarchy.

      If you think abortion after 20 weeks, i.e. half a term, is wrong, you want to “inflict” children on innocent women.

      If a gun owner can’t stop ALL shootings, they can’t stop any.

      The list goes on and on.

      1. avatar Meridia says:

        Abortion though I think is a slightly different beast.

        There are valid reasons for aborting a pregnancy right on up to the due date. One side of the argument, unfortunately, doesn’t like to hear about it.The other side doesn’t care if the reason is morally good or bad, or viable or valid. :/

  6. avatar txJM says:

    I respect the man’s decisions, but I don’t applaud them.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      So, if a water truck driver ran up to you and said he heard shots, and you saw two people calmly walking out of a building, you would have done…what, exactly?

      1. avatar txJM says:

        Probably nothing differently, except that I wouldn’t pander to the media and blogs who chickenhawk for clickbait stories. This guy was smart, right up until he ran his yap to George Stephanopoulos in exchange for free advertising.

        It shouldn’t surprise me that this is a cross-post from Concealed Nation, preaching the “See? SEE?!” line…

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          This. That guy in the mall shooting who claimed that he did something useful was the same.

          Stop talking to the media. They are not your friends.

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    Well, the business owner wasn’t an eyewitness. He did not see the crime occur.

    He wasn’t an “earwitness” either, since he was told by another person (the one filling a truck with water) that there had been shots.

    The business owner did see two people walking calmly toward, and then rolling away in, the now-famous SUV, but he had no idea who they were or what they were doing. They certainly didn’t appear to be making their getaway from a mass murder.

    So what else was the man supposed to do?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Exactly. And if he first saw them as they walked to their getaway car then it was too late. The damage had already been done to the victims.

      Be interested to know if this armed business owner allows his employees the same option.

  8. avatar Dave says:

    Like in the Oregon situation here is an armed citizen caught in a tough situation. It’s very much “a fog of war”. He made the decision that he believed to be the best-given the information he had.

  9. avatar CZ Guy says:

    We can’t make a determination whether this person did or did not do the right thing. We were not there. Circumstances will dictate each and every time.

    1. avatar B says:

      Yes we can. Hindsight and all that. The shooting was over. He had family in his business, so he grabbed his gun, kept an eye out, and coordinated with the cops who were on scene. They never would have caught those two if he hadn’t seen their SUV leave. He did this right.

      1. avatar txJM says:

        So he says.

        I am suspect of anyone who phones in their own story, especially when they rep their business in the process.

      2. avatar CZ Guy says:

        I was arm chair quarterbacked for 25 years by management who never did my job. I try not to do that to others. If this guy has a clear conscience and did what he felt was right at the time, I have no issues with his decision.

  10. avatar Pete S. says:

    The man was clearly a craven. He should have torn his shirt off let out a loud roar and charged directly into the building! At least that’s what all the key board commandos who have played way too much rainbow six think. He did exactly what a CCW holder should do. Assess hold a defensive position, retreat if retreat is an easy option, and only engage if engaging is your only choice.

    1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      Exactly right. Especially considering most concealed carry guns people actually carry aren’t to accurate past 25 yards. Tough contest against two people with rifles.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        ^^This. Even if he had seen them acting nervous and openly carrying smoking ARs, what was he supposed to do? With a pistol at even medium ranges he had between 6 and about 19 shots on hand, depending on his pistol. Even if he had emptied his weapon in their direction the chances of a disabling hit an either shooter, much less both shooters, were at best 50/50 and now he has attracted the attention of two people with rifles and 20-30 round magazines to his location and endangered all the people in his business.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          This is CA. Unless he has grandfathered mags he has a max of 11 shots in one gun.

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Add body armor into the situation and things get more problematic.

  11. avatar Vv ind says:

    He was talking to the news commentator over the phone on fox while the scene unfolded. He was very calm and level headed and mentioned the black SUV also. The Caller was straight forward at that ime about having his gun on him. The news anchor couldn’t seem to wrap his own mind around the fact that the caller was so calm and carrying during it all.

  12. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    So where is the part where he was “witness to the shooting?” This guy did the right thing, but let’s be honest with ourselves, he was only an eyewitness to the escape.

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    As we have said on this forum before, unless you are 1000% certain that a person in front of you unlawfully attacked someone, you should not engage them whether or not they are armed.

    And the only way that YOU can be 1000% certain that a person in front of YOU unlawfully attacked someone is if YOU were there at the scene of the attack and saw and heard everything before, during, and after the attack. Otherwise, the person in front of you, whether or not they are armed, could be a righteous defender.

    It sounds like the man who is the subject of this story did the right thing. The only thing he knew for certain is that some person or people were shooting firearms — presumably at other people. He had no way of knowing who were attackers and who were defenders. That being the case, he took up a defensive position and waited for the dust to settle. I like it.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Taking on multiple, well armed (ei, rifles, shotguns, body armor, etc.) attackers with the average, run-of-the-mill carry pistol only fairs well in movies.

    In real life, it’s only a slightly better option that dropping to your knees in front of some lunatic and offering “favors” in exchange for your life.

    Staying put is the right move.

  15. avatar Kendahl says:

    The business owner learned second hand that shots had been fired across the street. Rather than jump to conclusions, he secured his business and the employees inside. Smart man. Cops shoot the wrong people because they arrive late and act on incomplete and misleading information.

    I wouldn’t write off a good shot, armed with a pistol, just because the opposition is armed with long guns. Remember the nut case who used an AK47 to shoot up the hospital on Fairchild Air Force Base in 1994? He was put down with a head shot at a range of 70 yards by a Security Policeman armed with a Beretta 92 pistol.

    1. avatar jean says:

      Yes – Ayoob wrote an article about this a few years back. The man was actually off-duty but close by, and he was carrying a Taurus 92 clone because he wanted a carry piece as close to his service weapon as possible.

      1. avatar Stan says:

        Interesting

  16. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “The owner had a handgun and proceeded out to the water truck to observe the situation.”

    Um….how…exactly, is that ‘staying put’ and being responsible?

    What was he going to do outside, facing a suspected lethal threat of unknown scale and scope? Sounds like a looky-loo who who’s damn lucky he didn’t get shot by the terrorists and/or the cops.

    Lock the doors, stay away from the windows, and hunker down armed in a defensive position until its over, one way or another. Don’t go exploring on your own little recon mission.

  17. avatar GenghisQuan says:

    Antiguns tend to not understand that the point of having a concealed weapon, if you are caught in one of these spree killings, is to make it so that if the killer makes a mistake or has a moment of distraction, you have a small window of opportunity to possibly stop them right there or at the very least take one with you before you die. Or, if you are not in the immediate vicinity, you can hunker down and be in a better position defensively. But no, they seem to simultaneously deride us for having superhero fantasies, and then when one of us is actually present, chide us for not actually acting on superhero fantasies.

  18. avatar James Lind says:

    Amen to the US constitution for ensuring that ISIS jihadists have equal access to assault rifles.

    Just imagine how bad things might have been had they not been able to obtain firearms.

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