Posted on 05/05/2015 8:50:33 PM PDT by servo1969
More details are beginning to emerge about the incompetent Islamic terrorist attack on a free speech event held by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) in Garland, Texas Sunday. Bearing Arms readers have asked for more details about how the actual shooting went down, and about the Garland police officer who used his duty sidearm to defeat two attackers armed with rifles within 15 seconds.
Please keep in mind that we don’t have all the details about the attack, the individual officer’s response, or the exact steps law enforcement took once the attack began, and that even if we had that information, we would withhold such details which may be useful for any other would-be terrorists attempting future attacks.
That said, we will provide analysis of some key pieces of publicly available information.
* * *
At the point of the attack, the two suspects apparently drove up and opened fire upon an unarmed security guard who was accompanied by a 60-year-old Garland police officer. The unarmed guard was struck the volley of gunfire. The veteran Garland officer then drew his duty-issue Glock pistol and opened fire on the suspects.
The officer killed one terrorist and wounded the other in his initial volley of return fire. Witnesses claim there was a brief pause, and then the officer fire two more shots to kill the still-moving terrorist as he appears to be reaching for a backpack. The entire event lasted 15 seconds, with heavily-armed Garland SWAT converging on the scene immediately afterward.
We’re not going to mention any more about the officer who took out these terrorists, only that to give an idea of his approximate position in relation to the terrorists as he engaged them.
The evidence markers at the bottom of the photo above show us a remarkable story, as they denote the final locations of the shell casings ejected from the officer’s Glock duty pistol. While every pistol is different from another in its ejection pattern, and the movement of the officer and the cant of his gun precludes us from knowing exactly where he was, there, is a distinct trial of shells showing that the officer was moving forward from the bottom left of the photo above towards the terrorists at the rear of the vehicle. He appears to have opened fire from 20 yards away, and fired at least a dozen shots by the time he reached an area near the traffic cones, roughly 7-10 yards from where the terrorists died.
Second photo taken from the opposite angle (below) seems to confirm this determined officer’s advance on the terrorists while firing.
Note: the damage to the vehicle driven by the terrorists was from controlled demolitions from EOD units ensuring that the car was not a VBIED (vehicle-borne improvised explosive device).
There seems to be a great deal of skepticism regarding whether or not the suspects were wearing body armor and whether they were armed with “automatic weapons” or “assault rifles” or something else entirely. Other photos from the crime scene suggest answers to those questions as well.
In the image above, we have drawn an orange rectangle around what appears to be blood-drenched halves of a soft body armor carrier worn by one of the terrorists. Most people don’t seem to grasp that there are multiple grades of soft body armor, that these materials degrade over time, and that the armor panels themselves do not often cover the entire torso, leaving gaps under the arms, below the ribs, and at the neck.
We simply don’t know if the officer’s bullets compromised the armor or went around the armor panels, but it is quite clear that there was soft body armor worn by at least one of the terrorists, and that it did not prevent him from being quickly taken out of of the fight.
Did the terrorists have “automatic weapons” as some mainstream media outlets initially claimed?
The media claim of “automatic weapons” or “machine guns” is always to be discounted until positively affirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt by firearms experts (not law enforcement public information officers), simply based on how difficult it is to obtain automatic weapons in the United States.
What we do have is two separate images that appear to show long guns recovered at the scene. We’ve taken part of the image above and flipped it vertically below in an effort to better determine what we’re looking at.
It isn’t anything we immediately recognize, though we can say for certain that it doesn’t appear to be any centerfire variant or an AR-15 or AKM. While the photo we have to work with is frankly horrible, our best guess is that The firearm we’re looking at is a most likely Kel-Tec SUB-2000, a popular and inexpensive pistol caliber carbine shown below.
Partially obscured behind evidence marker 34 is what appears to be a firearm with an AR-15-type front sight post, but the quality of the image and amount of the gun covered by the evidence marker make it impossible to tell what we’re really looking at.
Is this a legitimate centerfire AR-15? Is this a rimfire copy? Is this an airgun, designed to look enough like an AR-15 to win a jihadi his martyrdom?
Frankly, I’m tempted to think that we’re looking at a “faux-15″ martyrdom special or a .22 clone, considering we’ve not be able to track down credible reports of the distinctively different reports of a centerfire rifle fire, and the confirmed Glock pistol-fire from the Garland officer.
We’re not ruling out the possibility that this was a centerfire AR-15 recovered at the scene, we’re simply noting that there wasn’t much evidence suggesting it was able to be brought into play by the terrorists.
* * *
No matter how you break down the details, this was an incredible display of bravery and marksmanship by this 30+ year veteran of the Garland Police Department, who not only resisted the natural urge to create distance between yourself and rifle-armed assailants, but who appears to have done precisely the opposite, and who advanced while firing accurately, bringing the attack to a swift conclusion without a single additional casualty once he brought his weapon to bear.
Determined people with good training and a decent handgun can indeed defeat the most zealous fanatic.
Get out there and train folks. Maybe one day it will be your turn to be the one standing on the line defending liberty from savagery.
Update: We’d like to thank Kaitian for finding a higher resolution image of the SUB-2000 used in the attack, which we’ve swapped out in the story above.
@bob_owens Don’t know if you know but there’s a higher resolution picture of the gun used. https://t.co/39OmgBAclL
— Kaitian (@Kaitian1) May 5, 2015
Interesting about the body armor. My initial understanding was that the officer took head shots, but obviously that color got there from somewhere, hopefully from the festering carcass of Johnny Jihad. We'll know more, I'm sure, in the next few days.
Perhaps if he was a moslem.
...I was attacked here relentlessly for suggesting its not a good idea to attack someone else’s religion,...
__________________________________________________________
You do realize you ‘attack’ their religion by owning a dog and eating bacon, don’t you?
So where do you draw the line?
Despite plenty of evidence, some people still can't understand that there is a difference between moslems and normal people. So they make strange analogies between confronting moslems and confronting civilized normal people.
“it is never a bad idea to confront the satanic evil of islam”
ok, you all are assumming that all muslims are evil while I continue to believe it has been hijacked by a few.
and forgive me for saying so but drawing cartoons is not an effective weapon if your assumptions were correct anyway.
the point I will concede, after further thought, is that people like o’reilly are not likely to go on tv and say all muslims are bad. that wouldn’t be good for business.
That’s how it’s done
Advance on them. Bound forward, cover, fire....repeat.
I'm not going to question your intelligence as I do not know you and will not take the time to research your posts here. I will say that (based upon my experiences with and knowledge of Islam, its tenets and its followers) you lack an understanding of Islam and its tactics.
You (and Bill O’Reilly) can descend into dhimmitude if you so desire, but you won't find many takers here on FReeRepublic. Under YOUR beliefs (if you are consistent) you would have thought that Congressman Leo Ryan was foolish to go to Jonestown and “attack” the religion of Jim Jones of the “People's Temple”.
God bless Pamela Geller and other like-minded souls who are courageously fighting the good fight against incredible odds. They are the heroes here and the fools such as O'Reilly who conform to the establishment views are cowards or, at best, lack all discernment.
Attack? Those people did not attack anyone. They were painting and drawing pictures. I'm not sure where you're from but drawing pictures is not considered an attack in America.
In America it's not a good idea to mass murder innocent people for drawing pictures or voicing their opinions.
Anyone can see the evidence that islam is an evil ideology. There's no excuse for an adult who, despite the evidence before his eyes, continues to support this evil ideology. The ones who do ARE EVIL.
I would question whether Islam is a religion.
Apparently Officer Friendly’s first round punch Thing #1 right in the nostril.
His hits on Thing #2 were similarly effective.
not to deviate too far from the point, but if you fear islam as a religion, you have more to fear from a quisling like Obama than possible terrorist attacks on our own soil (speaking just of the big picture). they’re not going to come here and overrun us, if you remember that laughable movie starring chuck Norris “invasion usa”. it will be Obama (and soros), using our own laws against us.
Why yes. Yes you have.
Might I recommend a much smarter site for you?
Do you have a provlem with the women dissident of islam who speak out and make drawings of the true face of Mohammed?
I suggest you try grow some balls or join your sheikh as his transvestite bribe and come back and tell us about it. Until then your argument is invalid.
Only if one is terrified of conflict....
*problem
*bride
What do you know of muslim doctrine and theology?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.