Tuesday, January 20, 2009

CHL Holders Stop Violent Rampage

Here is evidence that CHL holders can quickly put an end to a violent rampage at the work place. You would not know that from the headline.

From the Houston Chronicle:

By Mike Glenn and Anita Hassan


A woman accused of shooting a man with a bow and arrow at her father's workplace before being shot by two civilians and a Houston police officer has been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon...
First I have to say that this woman is lucky to be alive, being shot by three different people and surviving is beating the odds a bit.

Next I have to comment on the Chron's anti gun bias. Note the headline "Police shoot woman..", what a load of crud. Who were the first responders at the scene who stopped this female goblin's rampage? And how many more people would have been injured or killed if they were not on site and armed?

Police and witnesses said that Parker shot Armando Silva in the chest with a hunting bow and arrow after she entered the offices of Texas Components Corp. in northwest Houston.

Silva, 49, was reported in good condition at Ben Taub today.

Police are still trying to determine the motive for the incident. Officers said the violence erupted after Parker came into the office in the 1600 block of West Sam Houston Parkway with a hunting bow and arrows and what appeared to be a handgun about 3 p.m. Monday.

Her father works there and was in the building at the time, police said, but it was not clear whether she was looking for him.

After walking into the company's micro-electronics division, Parker shot Silva with an arrow and then pointed the apparent gun at two other employees, police said.

Those employees, who are licensed to carry concealed handguns, fired "numerous" shots at Parker, hitting her several times, investigators said.

Parker dropped her pistol, which later was found not to be a real gun, and retreated to an office with the bow and arrow, officers said. Workers at nearby businesses took cover and called police.

Police arrived about 3:15 p.m...
It took the police 15 minutes to respond. How many more people could have been hurt or even killed in that 15 minutes?

This is how it is supposed to work. A deranged goblin enters the work place with the intent to create havoc and kill people. The people use their inherent right to self defense and the most efficient tools available to stop the deranged goblin in her tracks. The police come in, mop up, and take statements. Officers did have to shoot the goblin one more time as she still had the bow and attempted to draw it on them, but lives were saved by two men who had made the decision to be responsible for their own lives. Good on them.

12 comments:

Robb Allen said...

Why isn't the headline "Police suspected of shooting woman..."?

I mean, if she's only "suspected" of shooting other with a bow and arrow then how can they say the police and the bystanders shot at her?

TexasFred said...

First I have to say that this woman is lucky to be alive, being shot by three different people and surviving is beating the odds a bit.
***********************
Bigger calibers and more training..

When I was taught to shoot a pistol, many years ago, the man that taught me was a retired Border Patrol commander and a gun writer of some note and his words were, "If you have to shoot someone, make sure there is only one story to tell, YOURS!!"

God Bless Mr. Bill Jordan...

Kirk said...

15 minute response time?

My response time is less than 5. I have had the chance to find out twice now. A couple of months ago and then again Sunday night. Damn hoodrats just won't leave my dirt bike alone

Even at 5 minutes things can go south. I can't get a CCW in my pathetic state without a writ from God and a good lawyer...

Demian L. Neidetcher said...

It's possible that, because she was the daughter of a co-worker, the guys didn't want to shoot to kill. That might make the work place a little awkward. I doubt I would take that chance but that might be an explanation for no fatal shots.

Kim du Toit said...

This, children, is why we practice "mozambique" drills.

TexasFred said...

Demian L. Neidetcher said...
It's possible that, because she was the daughter of a co-worker, the guys didn't want to shoot to kill. That might make the work place a little awkward. I doubt I would take that chance but that might be an explanation for no fatal shots.
********************
Maybe so, but you don't *shoot to wound*, that's TV only... And somehow, I can't help but think, if I had to shoot someone, would I be, at that moment in time, consumed with thoughts of the attitude of the workplace in the future?

I really don't think that's what would be going on in my mind, and speaking as someone that knows what it's like to have to fire on another human being, there are many thoughts that run thru your mind in a split second, but *the work place* ain't one of em... Just sayin'...

paxparabellum.com said...

I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop...

Rorschach said...

JR, the anti-gun bias of the Chronicle is even worse than you realize.

The story you link to above with the Mike Glenn/Anita Hassan byline is not the original story they published online. It IS however textually identical to the print story with Anita's sole byline as near as I can tell. The original online version with Anita's sole byline had been hacked apart by some editor to remove virtually every reference to the CHL holders. In doing so, the story became virtually unreadable because you could not make heads or tails of what happened. They didn't rewrite the story, they just took huge chunks of it out. In doing so, the continuity and the timeline got all fubared up.

I wrote a very pointed email to Dean Betz, the online content editor for the Chron and complained about how badly the story had been hacked apart. By about noon or so, the story in the form you see it now replaced the hacked up one without any mention of what was published before. I never heard back from Dean about it however.

JR said...

Rorschach - Thanks for the heads up and thanks even more for taking action in letting the editors at the Chron know that you noticed their bias.

drjim said...

Hey, how come we never hear anything about "Bow and Arrow" control? Maybe the antis could vent their wrath there....

bobby b said...

"Maybe so, but you don't *shoot to wound*, that's TV only . . ."
- - - -

If you're close, you know your accuracy limits, you need to stop someone from doing something, but you don't want them dead, why NOT shoot to wound?

It's more chancey, sure, as they may turn around and get you back, but if you make your choice in full knowledge of that chance, well, you're the one making the decisions at that point.

Anonymous said...

bobby b, the point is that the use of a firearm is legally considered deadly force, no matter how it is used against the criminal/target/victim/whatever.

Since civilians generally only have a legal option to use deadly force to confront an immediate threat to life (and/or limb), "shooting to wound" immediately brings into question whether or not the shooter's life was in immediate danger.

Practice good situational awareness, and chances are you can avoid being in a bad situation to begin with. Carry a firearm and train with it for those times when you cannot.