# Man Who took Down Seattle Shooter Gets Crowd-Funded Reward



## arnisador (Jun 7, 2014)

[h=1]Seattle student credited with stopping campus gunman has wedding registry, honeymoon paid for by strangers[/h]


> Jon Meis, a 26-year-old electrical engineering student, pepper-sprayed the gunman, identified as Aaron R. Ybarra, as he went to reload his gun after shooting three students, killing one.
> 
> Meis then put the shooter in a chokehold until other students rushed to help, The Seattle Times reported. Police say without Meis quick action there could have been more victims.



People chipping in for his wedding registry--now that's a feel-good story! I also note that sometimes the only thing that can stop a bad actor with a gun is a good actor with pepper spray and a"chokehold". (I'd like to know if he had any training and used a formal choke/strangle of some sort.) He regularly carries pepper spray.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 7, 2014)

I read about this story earlier today. I'd like to know what training he had as well. That was quick thinking with the pepper spray, probably a good alternative when you can't CC.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 7, 2014)

It says he was deeply religious yet concerned about being prepared for danger--I wonder if he consciously chose a less-lethal option.


----------



## Steve (Jun 7, 2014)

There are a lot of things to discuss about this, but for now, I think it's enough to just acknowledge that he saved a lot of lives by taking this guy down while he reloaded his shotgun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## MAist25 (Jun 7, 2014)

This is just purely awesome, and a great job done by him. A perfect example to always be prepared, cuz anything can happen anywhere and at any time. It is better to have and not need, than to need and not have...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2014)

arnisador said:


> also note that sometimes the only thing that can stop a bad actor with a gun is a good actor with pepper spray and a"chokehold". (I'd like to know if he had any training and used a formal choke/strangle of some sort.) He regularly carries pepper spray.




Yeah...and sometimes you can take out two men armed with knives barehanded. Doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Are you suggesting that the method this hero was left with was the best option for dealing with and armed killer?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 7, 2014)

Good for him for doing something. Most folks wont


----------



## Steve (Jun 7, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Yeah...and sometimes you can take out two men armed with knives barehanded. Doesn't mean it's the best way to do it. Are you suggesting that the method this hero was left with was the best option for dealing with and armed killer?



Who knows?  Sometimes, people who are armed don't fire a shot.  I remember an interview from the shooting in Arizona.  Guy was carrying, but didn't even draw his weapon, iirc.  Too many people and too much confusion.  Gun advocates pointed to him as an example of good critical thinking, which I agreed with at the time.  

Point is simply that you can't say for sure that a gun would have helped or not.  Maybe so.  Who knows?  All I know for sure is that this guy and the others who helped him saved lives.  The bad guy here was loading his shotgun.  Had he finished, he would have shot more people.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> Who knows?  Sometimes, people who are armed don't fire a shot.  I remember an interview from the shooting in Arizona.  Guy was carrying, but didn't even draw his weapon, iirc.  Too many people and too much confusion.  Gun advocates pointed to him as an example of good critical thinking, which I agreed with at the time.
> 
> Point is simply that you can't say for sure that a gun would have helped or not.  Maybe so.  Who knows?  All I know for sure is that this guy and the others who helped him saved lives.  The bad guy here was loading his shotgun.  Had he finished, he would have shot more people.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



So you would have gone overseas with just a bayonet and a CS grenade?

If I had been there as an LEO with all the "tools" on my belt which one do you think I should have used?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jun 7, 2014)

Tgace said:


> So you would have gone overseas with just a bayonet and a CS grenade?
> 
> If I had been there as an LEO with all the "tools" on my belt which one do you think I should have used?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


Are you saying that a random, active shooter situation is equivalent to being in a warzone?  Come on, Tgace.  Going to college isn't the same as being a cop or being a soldier.  We do not yet live in a military state.  I hope we never do.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> Are you saying that a random, active shooter situation is equivalent to being in a warzone?  Come on, Tgace.  Going to college isn't the same as being a cop or being a soldier.  We do not yet live in a military state.  I hope we never do.



You "come on"...the snide commentary here is alluding that you don't need a gun to defend yourself against an active shooter because "look this guy did it with pepper spray"...as some sort of jibe against gun rights supporters.

This guy was brave and lucky and had to go up against a shooter all but bare handed because that was all he had. Military state? Hyperbole much? How about a country with a 2nd Amendment? Lets start there.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2014)

Tgace said:


> You "come on"...the snide commentary here is alluding that you don't need a gun to defend yourself against an active shooter because "look this guy did it with pepper spray"...as some sort of jibe against gun rights supporters.
> 
> This guy was brave and lucky and had to go up against a shooter all but bare handed because that was all he had. Military state? Hyperbole much? How about a country with a 2nd Amendment? Lets start there.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



I'm not trying to politicize this at all.  I'm acknowledging the facts of what happened. I'm saying he is a hero.    

You're the one saying he was a hero, but....

And, frankly, these are kids at a college.  They are not soldiers or policemen.  So,  yeah.  Come on, Tgace.  Military state looks a lot like what you are describing.  We have the right to bear arms, but I'm pretty sure it's not mandatory... Yet.

And there is no evidence that, in this situation, a gun would have made any difference.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2014)

It worked. Other tools might also have worked--and maybe he could've simply tackled the guy.


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2014)

arnisador said:


> It worked. Other tools might also have worked--and maybe he could've simply tackled the guy.


Exactly!


----------



## wimwag (Jun 8, 2014)

Then again, maybe he goes to tackle the guy and gets thumped across the nose and eyes with the butt of the gun and the shooter reloads and continues his spree, shooting the would be tackler first.


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 8, 2014)

Most ppl will do nothing. This guy was brave and lucky.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 8, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> Most ppl will do nothing. This guy was brave and lucky.



Naa most people will record it on cell phones and post it on the internet


----------



## Rumy73 (Jun 8, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Naa most people will record it on cell phones and post it on the internet



Thanks for the wise input.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 8, 2014)

Rumy73 said:


> Thanks for the wise input.



no prob Im here to help


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Then again, maybe he goes to tackle the guy and gets thumped across the nose and eyes with the butt of the gun and the shooter reloads and continues his spree, shooting the would be tackler first.



Oh brother.  We may as well be playing dungeons and dragons at this point.  In the real world, it happened the way it actually happened.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## wimwag (Jun 8, 2014)

Steve said:


> Oh brother.  We may as well be playing dungeons and dragons at this point.  In the real world, it happened the way it actually happened.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk




And any suggestion that what he did is morally superior or going to work every time is like playing Candy Land.  In this one instance, yes it worked.  Go ahead and make claims.  You know as well as I do that a gun is better than mace against an armed assailant bent on mass murder.


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2014)

wimwag said:


> And any suggestion that what he did is morally superior or going to work every time is like playing Candy Land.  In this one instance, yes it worked.  Go ahead and make claims.  You know as well as I do that a gun is better than mace against an armed assailant bent on mass murder.



What the hell are you talking about?  You're arguing against points that literally no one has made.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 8, 2014)

arnisador said:


> It worked. Other tools might also have worked--and maybe he could've simply tackled the guy.



Like this guy

Veteran Chance Perkins tackles man who allegedly shot woman at point-blank range | abc13.com


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Then again, maybe he goes to tackle the guy and gets thumped across the nose and eyes with the butt of the gun and the shooter reloads and continues his spree, shooting the would be tackler first.



That's moving into a bit of fantasy argument. There is no action anybody could have taken that maybe could not have gone wrong.


----------



## wimwag (Jun 8, 2014)

It's called a pre emptive strike, Steve.  I know your playbook.  Your next move was to introduce the straw man, then rail on and on about the supposed moral superiority of not using a gun.


----------



## wimwag (Jun 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> That's moving into a bit of fantasy argument. There is no action anybody could have taken that maybe could not have gone wrong.




That was my point.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Like this guy
> 
> Veteran Chance Perkins tackles man who allegedly shot woman at point-blank range | abc13.com



Happens a bit.

Monash shooter.
Monash University shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Queen street.
Queen Street massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tuscan shooting.
2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2014)

wimwag said:


> That was my point.



That the tackle option was the best option because it worked?


----------



## wimwag (Jun 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> . There is no action anybody could have taken that maybe could not have gone wrong.



Nope.  The above was my point.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Nope.  The above was my point.



That is above.

And above that.

If someone had a gun. He could of missed shot a baby and then been shot himself.

See easy to make up stuff.

If you want to make a point about defensive gun carry. You need to wait and make it where there was actual defensive gun carry. And even then it is a bit contrived because we know you are cherry picking.

Eg.
http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/qu...-shopping-centre/story-fnihsrf2-1226944543308

Ha ha. See no guns.

Or something like that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> And even then it is a bit contrived because we know you are cherry picking.



And this thread wasnt?  

There are many things that "could have" happened.  That doesn't mean what did happen was the best approach.  Just because it worked don't make it the best.  We could play what it games forever.  Given the choice more people then not would choose to confront an armed killer with arms themselves.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2014)

...for the same reason an armed killer arms himself with guns.

My main point was actually that it was cool people were paying for his wedding, but secondarily that what most martial artists might think of as the sort of self-defense they teach--without firearms--was used here and worked. No one is trying to make a general case of it. In this case, it worked. A local cop defended himself against a knife attack using a technique I'd disapprove of. He agreed--he was just caught by surprise, and reacted. It worked. He's alive. We're all happy.


----------



## Steve (Jun 9, 2014)

wimwag said:


> It's called a pre emptive strike, Steve. I know your playbook. Your next move was to introduce the straw man, then rail on and on about the supposed moral superiority of not using a gun.


LOL.  Do you understand that arguing against points that you admit no one is making is an intentional red herring?    You use terms that you clearly don't understand.    Throwing a term like straw man around when you obviously don't know what it means makes it hard to have a good conversation.  

My play book is to just hold the mirror up for you.  You do all the work yourself. 



arnisador said:


> ...for the same reason an armed killer arms himself with guns.
> 
> My main point was actually that it was cool people were paying for his wedding, but secondarily that what most martial artists might think of as the sort of self-defense they teach--without firearms--was used here and worked. No one is trying to make a general case of it. In this case, it worked. A local cop defended himself against a knife attack using a technique I'd disapprove of. He agreed--he was just caught by surprise, and reacted. It worked. He's alive. We're all happy.


I remember a thread a while back about guns and such.  I get the idea that for cops, martials arts are for when the gun is empty.  I can appreciate the difference.  But, for anyone who trains in a martial art style specifically for self defense, isn't this validation that there is some value to it?  What I mean is, this guy planned for an emergency.  He was prepared. And it worked.  I don't know whether he has formal martial arts training or not, but he certainly thought about what he would do in an emergency, and his preparation kicked in.  

I understand that, in some cases, being armed with a pistol is an advantage.  But, not always.  As I mentioned earlier, there are times when people who are carrying do not even draw their weapons, or may not fire a round.  The gun is a tool.  

And, conversely, we are not helpless without them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 9, 2014)

arnisador said:


> ...for the same reason an armed killer arms himself with guns.


Right and since they already have them we shouldn't limit our abilities to defend ourselves


> My main point was actually that it was cool people were paying for his wedding, but secondarily that what most martial artists might think of as the sort of self-defense they teach--without firearms--was used here and worked. No one is trying to make a general case of it. In this case, it worked. A local cop defended himself against a knife attack using a technique I'd disapprove of. He agreed--he was just caught by surprise, and reacted. It worked. He's alive. We're all happy.



I'm glad it worked I hope this is a trend that people will stop at a ding by and actually take action to stop these people.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 9, 2014)

The hero from the SPU shooting released his first statement and it absolutely blew me away | Young Conservatives

Hero's statement about the event


----------



## Steve (Jun 9, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> The hero from the SPU shooting released his first statement and it absolutely blew me away | Young Conservatives
> 
> Hero's statement about the event


Awesome young man.  I wish I hadn't read the comments, though.  Many of the comments reminded me of this place, and it made me sad.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2014)

From the Nevada shooting:



> The pair ran to Walmart where Jerad Miller fired off one round and told people to get out, McMahill said.A shopper, identified as Joseph Wilcox, told his friend he was going to confront the suspects.
> 
> "He was carrying a concealed weapon, and he immediately and heroically moved towards the position of Jerad Miller. Upon completing that action, he did not realize that Amanda Miller was with Jerad Miller," McMahill told reporters.
> 
> ...



Credit to this guy for being both willing and prepared to help. He had the right tool to have a chance to make a difference there. But the bottom line is that if he hadn't had the weapon then he wouldn't have been able to even try anything and there would've been one less death. Let's separate respect for his willingness to risk his life to help from acknowledgment of the ultimate effect--one additional casualty. The NRA is pushing a "good guy with a gun" fantasy that rarely plays out that way in real life, except for LEOs. You'd _need_ a firearm (or other ranged weapon) to have a chance to do something in this situation, barring very fortuitous positioning, but that doesn't mean it _will_ help--what helped is a large number of well-equipped, well-trained, well-coordinated LEOs.

There's just no telling what will work when. As I always tell my students when they're very impressed by a technique: "Nothing is magic." Nothing works every time.


----------



## crushing (Jun 10, 2014)

Steve said:


> Awesome young man.  I wish I hadn't read the comments, though.  Many of the comments reminded me of this place, and it made me sad.



I made the same mistake.  I should have known better given the domain name and intended audience.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2014)

arnisador said:


> From the Nevada shooting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except there are countless cases where good guy with a gun did work out well.  This one didn't because it wasn't typical.   You don't typically have more then one mass shooter.  He played the odds and lost.  Had it been me a trained officer with a gun chances are I'd have lost too.  Now I do train to always look for more I use the if there I'd one shooter then there's two.  If you see two shooters there are three ect.  But even in active shooter training I've missed people.  I get shot often in training it's a risk I'm willing to take.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 10, 2014)

crushing said:


> I made the same mistake.  I should have known better given the domain name and intended audience.


Domain name has nothing to do with it any site will have Waka do comments that's why you shouldn't read them unless you want to have a good laugh at the crazies


----------



## billc (Jun 10, 2014)

Keep in mind, most "good guys" who use guns in self-defense do it as individuals attacked by criminals where no one notices it happening...it happens every day, in every state, and in most cases the good guy never fires a shot, merely threatens to use his weapon if the attacker doesn't back off, and the attacker flees, or the good guy holds him till the police (more good guys with guns) arrive to make the actual arrest.

Since this happens thousands of times a year, they should be counted toward the good guy with a gun theory...

Also, since there are usually no bodies on the ground bleeding out, they are usually only covered in local news outlets...and a lot of times the good guy never reports them because the criminal fled the scene without a shot being fired, and so the good guy doesn't contact the police...doesn't need the hassle...


----------



## Steve (Jun 10, 2014)

The only thing that bothers me about the direction this thread has gone is that we're talking about a young man, armed with pepper spray, who subdued an armed shooter and saved lives.

And you guys are so defensive about guns that you are actively undermining this incredible tale of heroism.  "He's a hero... but..."  I think that the "but" is unnecessary.  

Once again, if he had carried a weapon would it have helped?  There is no way of knowing either way.  We know that he saved lives.

Conversely, in the situation in WalMart, there is no way of knowing whether his gun made a difference at all.  He confronted the bad guys and was killed, after which the bad guys killed themselves.  Did the gun make the difference?  I don't know.  personally, I think it was the man's bravery and his willingness to act that made the difference, and I'd like to believe that he would have done SOMETHING whether he had a gun or not.  A gun is a tool.  It's not the panacea of self preservation, and it doesn't replace a person's brain or his heart.


----------



## wimwag (Jun 10, 2014)

Steve said:


> LOL.  Do you understand that arguing against points that you admit no one is making is an intentional red herring?    You use terms that you clearly don't understand.    Throwing a term like straw man around when you obviously don't know what it means makes it hard to have a good conversation.
> 
> My play book is to just hold the mirror up for you.  You do all the work yourself.
> 
> ...




I understand perfectly what a straw man is.  Do you?  I'm just calling it like I see it.  You're anti gun.  In a thread about how people paid for a guys wedding as a way to say thanks, you chose to rail about how he was "unarmed.". Nice try.  2/10. Your troll fu is weak.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2014)

Steve said:


> I remember a thread a while back about guns and such.  I get the idea that for cops, martials arts are for when the gun is empty.



I think we can put this in a much broader context--jujutsu for samurai and similar grappling methods used in Europe were to aid in sword-fighting or as a last-chance hope if disarmed or taken unawares. The weapon has always been king. But at any given time, there have been many types of weapons in play--swords, spears, archers--because each is best-suited for some situations. 



> But, for anyone who trains in a martial art style specifically for self defense, isn't this validation that there is some value to it?



Exactly. Given the alleged nature of this site, seeing someone win with a less-than-lethal, close-range weapon and empty hands should give us something to talk about!


----------

