Why did no one fight back?


The problem I see is low I/Q's in the peanut gallery. You obviously have no idea what the muzzle of a shotgun or AR can do to your dreams of heroism.

Mr. Shoobee, you have that wrong. Wonder what else you have wrong.
 

Hindsight is always easy.

Now we know it was a psycho schizo grad school kid with very little experience with guns who was just spraying and praying.

However on the scene you would not know if it was a well train rag turbanned desert jihadist.

Of course your first clue would have been that the shooter had an AR rather than an AK.

Desert camel jockeys prefer the AK without exception.

The people in the movie that night did not know that.

All they knew was that someone was spraying and praying.

True, no one knew till after, who or what the shooter was. I dont think that would change my reaction unless I KNEW it was a trained sharp shooter. Is hindsight the right word if we wernt there or involved and didnt actually do anything?


All of this is food for thought for sure!
 
You would have best protected your family by forcing them all to the floor and making sure that they did not try to run with the rest of the crowd.
At least 3 men did exactly that... and were killed. Do you think it matters to their loved ones whether they were laying on top of them or actively trying to take the shooter out?

I don't understand all of the speculation that nothing could have been done to take the shooter out, but it sounds like your thought processes could be similar the the ~100 people who were in the theater that night.

Also, why would it be assumed that someone who had never had military training and had only acquired their weapon a couple of months before could change magazines faster than someone with considerable training and years of practice? Adrenalin doesn't equate to skill.
 
Since none of us knows with certainty, lets go on the assumption that nobody was carrying anything more than a bucket of pop corn and a box of Ju-Ju-Bees. I find it amazing how many forum members are CRITICIZING the movie-goers for what they DIDN'T DO. They essentially had seconds or a minute at the most to realize there was a danger present (since most thought the smoke was part of the show), realize WHAT the bangs were, assess the problem (possible multiple gunmen), see through the smoke as to where the shots were coming from, come up with a plan and then execute (no pun intended) it SUCCESSFULLY.....all within ~60 seconds. I say successfully because if you failed, your wife, kids, parents will still be doing without their loved one(s). Granted they will be thinking you died bravely but it won't cure the sorrow and pain.

Everybody here has heard of the saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight" and probably repeated at least once. So if you don't even have a knife, you are recommending what?...........running at him while flailing your arms screaming oogily-boogily in hopes it scares and chases him away? Or to do the "Swan Technique" because even Mr Miaggi says it's un-defendable if done correctly? Get real.
 
Aurora is a no-carry city and the movie theater doesn't allow weapons regardless which explains why no one was armed but Mr. Holmes. As to why no one tackled him I'm not sure but I'd bet the tear gas, chaos, darkness and the scarcity of 74-year-old retired Lieutenants Colonel had something to do with it. One report I read said he went out the exit door, came back in armed, tossed tear gas grenades, pretty much stood there and shot anyone who moved or tried to escape then went back outside to his car after two or three minutes.

Colorado has a preemption law and carry is legal in Aurora (with a permit). The movie theater had a no guns sign posted. I keep hearing different stories about the "gas" with it maybe being smoke and maybe teargas. But there were several military personnel in the theater. I have no idea if they were close enough to have been able to have attacked him.
 
Although I believe in carrying and have my piece on now, I feel as though if there were multiple CCW's in the theater, it could have been a worse tragedy than what it was and here's why:

Let's suppose you were actually able to decipher what was going on and able to draw your weapon quickly enough to respond to the situation......and so were 2 or 3 other people who were carrying. Now everybody shoots towards the BG..... BUT now you have milliseconds to figure out if it was a team effort/ambush or are they "with you".

In this particular instance and scenario.....I think the outcome could have been worse.

Granted, I am not saying I would not have pulled my weapon. I'd like to think I would be able to stop the attack with a single shot. But in hind-sight, if a couple others thought the same thing at the same time......I think the outcome could have been horrible and perhaps worse than it was.
 
The question needs to be asked of the people that were closest to him at the time of the attack. They were the ones that did nothing to stop it. If you are the sole person in the theater that does have the guts to challenge the perp, but you have a herd of sheeple stampeding in your direction and the only way to get to the perp is over the seats because the isle way is clogged with screaming masses, there's not much chance you're going to be successful in the endeavor.

If the masses were crawling on the floor as it has been reported, if you pop up to do something, anything, you're immediately in the spot light. Literally in the spot light. Don't forget the movie was still running through the entire carnage, so as soon as you're up you are front lit and at that point there is a high possibility you're targeted.

Even if you did happen to ignore the "no Guns" policy of the establishment, one would have to weigh the decisions based on the conditions at hand. The questions to ask ones self are; do I have a clear shot at the perp or am I willing to create 'collateral damage' by the possibility of a sheeple jumping in front of me just as I squeeze the trigger? Do I stand a survivable chance to get to him before he gets to me? And if I do get to him, do I have the ability to take him down without causing more collateral damage? Should I be worried about collateral damage?

This Monday morning quarterbacking is so much mental masturbation. We weren't there. The people trying to profess their unending knowledge about human behavior, weren't there. The only people that have to search their souls to know if they did the right thing are the immediate survivors of the attack. Everyone else, including me is just second guessing the ones that were there and really had no skin in the game.

But I will tell you this, as I sit in the comfort of my own home writing this, if it was a "point blank" experience and anyone, I don't care how their dressed or what weapon they have, if they point that weapon in my wife or child's direction, I will sacrifice myself to try to protect them. If that means grabbing the end of the barrel and forcing it in my direction, so be it. Now if I have my gun on me, and I most certainly will, it's a whole new ball game. But this is just me.
 
I didn't read the entire post but I'm guessing a few factors came into play.

1)Some people probably thought it was a stunt for the movie when it first started so they didn't think anything bad was happening at first.

2)It was a dark theater that started filling with smoke and people did what normal people do, panic.

3)I'm willing to bet that if there was anyone people the theater who had any combat training the number was extremely low and they were likely caught in the middle of a large group of non-combat trained individuals who were panicking and they could not get the chance to do anything.

4)We also know that many people were there with family and loved ones and they didn't think of themselves first, but of the people they cared about. They jumped on top of people to shield them, pushed them out of the way, or just grabbed them and ran.

We can sit here and come up with a million "what if" scenarios and ask a million questions but the bottom line is that absolutely no one in the theater that night EXCEPT the shooter expected the massacre to happen. People get shot on the street every day over drug deals and arguments but how many other occasions can you point out where a heavily armed gunman with body armor busted into a movie theater and opened fire? None. That's the simple answer.

I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of people who go to see a movie like this are average citizens, not soldiers trained to deal with life threatening situations like this. As privately armed citizens who carry a weapon we know there's a chance we could have to use it one day but honestly how many of us train for situations like that? Most of us shoot out pistols at the range to improve our accuracy and practice drawing and re-holstering and we hope that if we are ever forced to make the choice to use our weapons we'll be able to.
 
I read the entire post and I'm a little shocked and more than a little concerned. I'm positive that everyone in the theater acted according to whatever training they had (or in most cases the training they didn't have).
The conclusions that some people have drawn are concerning. There are 4 conditioned human responses... most people know Fight and Flight and most people never heard of or can't remember Posture or Submission. I'm of course only speculating since I wasn't there but all accounts seem to say that no one fought and no one postured. Several people who have posted have suggested it would have been impossible to fight back or the result would have been worse. Still others submit that tear gas or smoke would have made a fight less likely to succeed. Others say that a ccw response would have been outgunned and didn't stand a chance. Others suggest that a gun pointed at you means it's the endgame.

I'm not sure anyone has answered "Why did no one fight back"? I would like to think that there were no concealed carry holders present because it was posted no firearms and they decided to not attend. That is certainly a more security minded decision. Some suggest that several armed individuals would only have made it worse (that sounds like so much anti gun spin it's not funny). It would have been to hard to make a head shot (so why bother to try... right?)

No one fought back because they weren't trained. No disrespect intended but not one trained person was in that theater. It seems unbelievable but the evidence is obvious. There was likely some people present that had some training but it was obviously not enough and they recognized it as such. No one present thought it could happen to them so they made the decision to not get training. Not one person had enough training to be confident in their ability to change the outcome. Not one person trained with a flashlight in low light conditions to know that even a relatively cheap tactical light could have changed the outcome.

It's obvious and scary that many people who do carry; realize they are not trained and would have reacted in the same manner. Don't believe it? Re read the posts in this thread. This shooting tragedy like all others should serve as a wake up call to everyone. It won't... but it should. If you are not physically and mentally prepared to respond to an overt threat against you, then get that way. Can't afford the training you need then maybe a little budgetting for your safety and the safety of your family is in order. I'm pretty sure no one made anyone enter that theater un-armed, I know that no one made anyone enter un-prepared to protect themselves! Those were choices. Maybe we should be helping our family and friends make better life choices. There is no doubt in my mind that just one trained person could have changed the outcome... more trained folks could have changed it with more certainty.

I think we are starting to wear out the Sheep and Sheepdog analogies, but just one Sheepdog in that group of Sheep could have changed the outcome. Fewer Sheep pretending to be Sheepdogs in this thread and maybe the outcome gets changed next time. There should be no doubt in anyones mind that had the murderer suspected resistance of any kind he would have gone somewhere else.
 
I feel as though if there were multiple CCW's in the theater, it could have been a worse tragedy than what it was and here's why:

That's certainly what the hoplophobes in a couple of forums I go to are saying. But even given extremely stupid people carrying (and that's no where near the norm), it's not likely it would have gotten more shot than actually were. So, I'd say that's an extremely short sighted belief.
 
No one fought back because they weren't trained. No disrespect intended but not one trained person was in that theater
.

I disagree that is the reason. You can't train for everything that conceivably could happen. I think the problem was no one had ever thought about that or a related scenario. I think you need to go over escape routes and strategy for any place you frequent concerning attacks. Do I do it? Only rarely but it something we all should consider.
 
.

I disagree that is the reason. You can't train for everything that conceivably could happen. I think the problem was no one had ever thought about that or a related scenario. I think you need to go over escape routes and strategy for any place you frequent concerning attacks. Do I do it? Only rarely but it something we all should consider.

I agree that you can't train for everything at face value.... But would submit that not thinking about it happening in a given location or played out in a specific order is in fact "not training". I'm not suggesting that we should find a theater to train in.... merely saying that a lack or preparation (training) is the reason that no one fought back. I hope it doesn't happen again, but if it did happen again would it play out the same? Is it enough to hope that there are at least some people who learned from the last tragedy and would react in another manner?
 
True, no one knew till after, who or what the shooter was. I dont think that would change my reaction unless I KNEW it was a trained sharp shooter. Is hindsight the right word if we wernt there or involved and didnt actually do anything?

All of this is food for thought for sure!

Well you could not assume one way or the other, or you would be hazarding the guess being wrong and getting yourself killed.

From now on, if I see anyone taking a cell phone call and leaving by the emergency exit, I know I will be getting up to check it out.

If they propped the door open, I will knock out the prop.

Your ticket will always get you back into the movie theatre; you don't ever need to prop open this door.

That was the part that nobody got.

That was the small clue to this big disaster about to happen.

Nobody got that part.
 
What baffles me is why was the side door open and not locked?
Because its a fire/emergency exit. Locking ir (from the inside) is not only illegal, it subjects the theater owner to huge fines and lawsuits.

The shooter went out through this emergency exit, then propped it open so he could re-enter through the same door.
 
The answer is easy Same thing at VT. We have let the liberals turn us into a nation of Sheep. When once we where a nation of Wolfs. If either place had the same caliber of men that fought WW2 how many you think would have got killed before someone killed the shooter??
 
.

I disagree that is the reason. You can't train for everything that conceivably could happen. I think the problem was no one had ever thought about that or a related scenario. I think you need to go over escape routes and strategy for any place you frequent concerning attacks. Do I do it? Only rarely but it something we all should consider.

IMO, You're right about scanning for avenues of egress. I've done this long before this incident ever happened. It's just something I learned from people I hung out with as a youth. It's second nature now.
 
The theater was was posted as an unarmed and defenseless zone, that is why i never frequent those places. By requiring those people to be defenseless, the theater should have been responsible for their safety and the theater should be sued for criminal negligence, it is common knowledge that criminals seek out those safe zones and theater should have been aware of that and had appropriate armed guards.
 
It's easy to thump your chest and tell everyone how you would waste the guy with a single, well-placed shot through the eye... or jump into action...
It's even easier to lie on the floor cowering like a frightened child. Reality lies everywhere between that and the majority of the population becoming the "best-of-the-best" trained professionals on the other end of the spectrum.

The people on UA Flight 93 weren't trained, nor were they armed. The big difference there was they had a few minutes to think about it. Courage can't be trained. Killer instinct is being bred out of us every passing generation. Someday mass murderers and serial killers will be the only ones left with it.
 
The people on Flight 93 had no exits, weren't under fire and were assured they were going to die if they did nothing. They had plenty of time to reflect, mull the situation over, size up the enemy and formulate a plan. The people in the theater had none of those things. I personally like to think that I would have done something had I been in that theater, but it really isn't possible or fair for me to claim that I would have because I wasn't there. Anyone can say what they would have wanted to do or would have tried to do, but it's all just speculation if you weren't actually there. It's like someone trying to lecture on combat who's never been in combat. Sure, you can cite facts, list your abilities and proclaim your intentions, but you'll never really know how things will truly transpire until you're actually there. I certainly would have wanted to fight back, and I like to think that I would have at least tried, but there's no way for me to know if I would have.

And all of this discussion makes me think of another question. What makes you think nobody fought back? Who's to say that one of the 13 dead wasn't shot while trying to get to the shooter? We know that most were scrambling for the exits, but we also know that many simply hunkered down in the theater. It's certainly possible that one of the dead was shot, not while headed for the exit, but while headed for the gunman in the hopes of tackling or disarming him. We may never know for sure. And heroism takes many forms. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13. Several people gave their lives to save others that night.
 
A friend of mine, who's not easily fooled, says he saw video on TV of survivors, some from hospital beds, telling about people charging the gunman and bein shot down before they could get to them. My google searches have come up with nothing more than the 3 guys who shielded their girlfriends and were killed. Has anyone else seen anything like this?
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top