But before we embrace Zamudio’s brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let’s hear the whole story. “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ ”
But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out…
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio “grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall” before realizing he wasn’t the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn’t pull out his own weapon was that “he didn’t want to be confused as a second gunman.”
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon
In my opinion, Zamudio exercised better judgement than many police officers would have. He should be commended for that. Not turned into a poster child for gun control by people who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Any guy willing to run towards the sound of gunfire, and exercises good judgement, is OK in my book. Radley Balko is also indignant.
I don’t want to belittle Zamudio, but from what I hear, the perp was already disarmed and on the ground by the time he got there.
Zamudio did right, in grabbing his gun and moving towards the disturbance. But the folks who disarmed and contained the perp before Zamudio arrived did right, as well, and they deserve more recognition than they are getting.
I don’t disagree… and don’t think that’s belittling Zamudio. He arrived too late, but he acted quite reasonably under the circumstances.
Additionally, Zamudio was the ONLY person PREPARED to meet the murderer with the means to stop him effectively.
Zamudio had a gun. No one else did. No one around Giffords was willing to take responsibility for the safety of theirselves or of those around them even though Arizona law allows them to do so unimpeded by bureaucratic licensing.
Sheesh, “theirselves” should be themselves. Mashed “their families” and themselves.
They’re really spinning this alright. So he doesn’t get trigger happy and uses good judgement, and that proves we shouldn’t be able to carry guns? I guess we are in “alternate universes” after all.
I’m willing to bet that if the Tucson shooter had tried to assassinate a Republican in the same way he shot up the Gabby Giffords event in the Safeway parking lot, there would have been someone else close at hand who was carrying a concealed firearm. It’s quite apparent that security was not a concern with the manner in which the event was planned.
I also heard something yesterday about the Tucson shooter that backs up what I had said earlier. It turns out that he had some sort of knife on him in addition to his Glock 19. Even if the shooter had not been able to get a firearm, he was still able to get so close to Gabby Giffords, he could have just attacked with her with his knife instead. What many people perhaps don’t realize is that knife wounds can be even more lethal than gunshot wounds in some cases.
Saw it somewhere else (Tam, perhaps?) that by the Slate standard of almost shooting, every one of us that has ever had a traffic stop was also almost shot.
LC Scotty,
That was Bobbi.
A clever observation, I thought.
Replace “Zamudio” with “the off-duty officer” and no one would have a problem with…no…that’s what people would expect to happen.