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
Theres a magazine to the left, just next to the evidence marker 35 (which is knocked over). It's got what looks to me to be the classic curve of an AK mag.
As someone said earlier, it doesn't matter if they get sharia law by implementation or intimidation -- it's all the same to them.
I take that back. That's not as curved as an AK mag. More like an AR-15.
Thanks for posting this!
I just now recognized it looking at the pic again. The object directly between markers 34 and 35, (looks kinda like a boom box) right next to the weapon is a dual drum magazine.
Good eye. AK’s typically do not have dual drum mags, which are made primarily for AR-15s.
However, after checking, the rifle does appear to be the AK variant and they do make dual drums for AKs.
Maybe he took the front sight off. It is interesting that it appears to be missing.
But the curve of the standard mags is different from an AK and an AR. Right next to marker 35 is a standard mag that looks to be for an AR.
Islam is not a religion.
Islam is a sociopolitical form of governance masquerading as a religion.
It spells out what your governance should be, it spells out who you can speak to, be friends with, it also says to kill those who don’t believe as you do.
And you excuse that.
I'm leaning toward AK-74.
Don’t forget Regal. *I* got that one. :)
Saw that one coming. A slow burner, but no less satisfying.
Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9: 5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29).
Quran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tell clearly that no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q. 3: 85).
It relegates those who disbelieve in Quran to hell (Q. 5: 11), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q. 9: 28). It orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193).
It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q. 14: 17).
It asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q.5: 34).
“As for the disbelievers”, it says that “for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowls and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (Q. 22: 9).
Quran prohibits a Muslim to befriend a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (Q. 9: 23), (Q. 3: 28). Quran asks the Muslims to “strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor (Q. 25: 52), be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q. 66: 9).
The holy Prophet demanded his follower to “strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” (Q. 47: 4).
As for women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (Q. 4:34).
It teaches that women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (Q. 66:10).
It maintains that men have an advantage over the women (Q. 2:228).
It not only denies the women’s equal right to their inheritance (Q. 4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the court (Q. 2:282).
This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslims to marry up to four views and gave them license to sleep with their slave maids and as many “captive” women as they may have (Q. 4:3).
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/
Search to your imbecilic hearts content, you’ll find most of the Sura sections mentioned are correct.
USC changed their format around a couple years back, but before they did, the following thread had everything correct:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/528671/posts?page=7#7
BUSTED TROLL IS BUSTED.
Regal the limp wristed, flouncing around and slapping with purses since Dec 22 2014, er.. he claimed 1999..
Surprised he wasn’t zotted on the previous thread, I still think he’s a lib leftist professor. lol
Thanks for the ping, TOL and hope you’re doing well!
Good question, because he was laboring under a really big fundamental misconception:
"but what I do know, is that if the human spirit is inherently good"
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.