Jump to content

Gunman attacks Dallas Federal Building


CHEF DIESEL

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, thestud said:


They’re still “searching for a motive”, but none of the outlets have made mention that the building this Einstein shot up is where everyone from the North Texas area comes for MEPS.

Not the same building. MEPS is at 207 S. Houston St. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

The fatal shot apparently came from inside the building according to the Dallas Morning News photographer on scene. I thought it would have been the gunfire engagement down the street. Had to of been a rifle shot because photos of the gunman show his lungs and heart liquified and oozing out onto the pavement.

It looks like an officer that peaked out of the parking entrance just down the that side of the building is who landed the chest shot. In this video he jumps / reacts once he is hit. Starts to run and grab his chest then drops dead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2019 at 3:26 PM, 0xdeadbeef said:

Well, this is Texas where a cop once put down a baddie at 100 yards with a pistol...while holding two horses...

This wasn't NYC where 7 cops recently unloaded at close range and shot only managed to shoot two Cops. 

 

True story: the APD officer's one handed shot while holding two horses actually bounced off the street before hitting McQuilliams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Loco said:

First off...   really glad he's dead, glad he didn't kill anyone else...

 

Now, for the love of god, can we talk about his decision not to put in his contacts?  

Fingerless mittens from TJMaxx...check!

Extra mags from craigslist and the bargin bin, non matching, check!

Olive drab pants from TacticalSansABelt.com, check!

Oversized greenish t-shirt, un-ironed, check!

Various straps and shit to tactically hang off meh black rifle. check!

Contacts?   Maaaaaaa! where are my contacts?!  Tactical tortoiseshell ballistic shields, check!

 

sling ducktaped to rifle butt

also, he pissed himself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

What the fuck did he plan on doing with 5 mags of ammo? That ain’t much in an engagement.

210 rounds is a standard loadout for an infantry soldier which would be (6) 30 round magazines plus 1 in the rifle. For a trained rifleman that would be quite a bit of ammo to run through.

The Dallas gunman had what looked like at least one 40 round magazine. I have an identical magazine to that and it's a little fickle sometimes with failure to feed. I would not want to take that into a life threatening situation. The 40 round magazines are for goofing around with.

His whole kit was a mess. Literally the cheapest chinese junk loadout possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, thestud said:

 

 


Two different chucklefucks I work with said it was where they went, but they’re from FW and even worse they’re marines. Seems they were mistaken

MEPS I thought was in the old Annex there on Houston. I see kids lined up there at 6am many mornings with a couple sailors or airmen talking to them likely their recruiters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

210 rounds is a standard loadout for an infantry soldier which would be (6) 30 round magazines plus 1 in the rifle. For a trained rifleman that would be quite a bit of ammo to run through.

The Dallas gunman had what looked like at least one 40 round magazine. I have an identical magazine to that and it's a little fickle sometimes with failure to feed. I would not want to take that into a life threatening situation. The 40 round magazines are for goofing around with.

His whole kit was a mess. Literally the cheapest chinese junk loadout possible.

I wonder if his body armor wasn't some kind of cosplay mock-up.

I was taught to leave a couple of rounds out of the 30-round magazines to keep them from binding up. Can't imagine depending on a fully-stuffed 40-round one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

So he was infantry for almost two years and he doesn't know how to change a mag properly? Surely that's something our boys are taught early on, right?

We've cut back on proper rifle training just in case they plan on shooting something up after getting dismissed or serving their 2 years. 

It's a bold strategy but clearly paying dividends. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

So he was infantry for almost two years and he doesn't know how to change a mag properly? Surely that's something our boys are taught early on, right?

I saw one report that said he dropped and then picked up the magazine, which explains his clumsily holding it. .   While I was in an infantry unit, I was not an 11B (arty bitches), but they never told us in any of our exercises or training  “hey, if you’re in a shooting situation and drop a magazine, make sure to stop and pick it up.”

Based on when that photo was taken (moments before being shot in the heart), I’m willing to bet that stopping to pick up the magazine gave the LEO enough time to properly line up.   

The bigger issue, that feeds into his bumbling this whole thing up, is why he was discharged early, and why his Army buddies said there were red flags (and what those red flags were).  We had fuckups that were able to make it through training and various qualifications, and we were able to make sure they were never in a position to fuck around and hurt somebody.  I’m wondering if this guy was constantly sidelined by his superiors with various duties not relating to being a grunt. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm beginning to think that the Quality Control process on our current crop of clueless losers is slipping.  Another sign of a country going down the shitter.  We used to produce better-performing dumbfucks than this!

No doubt. Black Haired Piper Perabo was elected, and she's not as well performing as Piper Perabo, pero sin sesos.  /NoCR 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off...   really glad he's dead, glad he didn't kill anyone else...
 
Now, for the love of god, can we talk about his decision not to put in his contacts?  
Fingerless mittens from TJMaxx...check!
Extra mags from craigslist and the bargin bin, non matching, check!
Olive drab pants from TacticalSansABelt.com, check!
Oversized greenish t-shirt, un-ironed, check!
Various straps and shit to tactically hang off meh black rifle. check!
Contacts?   Maaaaaaa! where are my contacts?!  Tactical tortoiseshell ballistic shields, check!
 

101st Airborne black patch for street cred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy probably wasn't this smart, but perhaps it was suicide by cop? He went to a place with armed security and had a rag tag assortment of apparel/armor. 

And opening fire at a courthouse is a guaranteed way to get shot vs. leading police on a chase or something of that nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comment was posted on a military site I follow - kinda mirrors what some of us said about him being assigned other duties.  

Quote

This guy got to his unit from OSUT shortly after they returned from a deployment, lost his shit at JRTC and had his weapon taken from him, failed several PT tests, and was chaptered before the unit deployed again in 2017, after about 17 months in the Army. He's was a soup sandwich.

OSUT = one-station unit training - basic and advanced combined   JRTC = Joint Readiness Training Center - very stressful/high tempo training.  Them taking is weapon away from him would have been a huge red flag.

Photos of him in the Army lend credence to him failing his PT tests.   He was packing too much weight for an grunt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very sad that the various government entities have the data that could easily be pieced together to identify a number of shitbags who should clearly never own a gun.  Like the idiot who shot up the church near S.A.  I thought they enacted legislation after that incident to prevent this from happening again?  If they did, did it also not contain provisions that also required us to go root out the folks who could already be in possession of a gun that shouldn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the military "forgot" to enter his shit into this magical database.

So what's the explanation on our Dallas LARP'er?  "You cant have a gun in the Army, but leave us out of the decision process once we make you a citizen again...."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, freyguy said:

Yeah, the military "forgot" to enter his shit into this magical database.

So what's the explanation on our Dallas LARP'er?  "You cant have a gun in the Army, but leave us out of the decision process once we make you a citizen again...."

Precogs? Not sure I can get on board with the US military going that far. In the case of the church shooter he had a history of violence/assault. I don't know about this guy but snapping and having a rifle taken away under simulated combat stress is an entirely different scenario. jmho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, El Diablo said:

Precogs? Not sure I can get on board with the US military going that far. In the case of the church shooter he had a history of violence/assault. I don't know about this guy but snapping and having a rifle taken away under simulated combat stress is an entirely different scenario. jmho.

His buddies in the Army (people he was Facebook friends with, who had photos of him in the Army, not random internet strangers) directly and specifically said there were a lot of red flags, and he was clearly booted out before his enlistment was up - you don’t get to say “I’m tired of the Army, I want to do something else” and just walk away 4-5 months early.   

Whatever was enough to raise red flags and get him booted out should have been enough to bar him from owning weapons as a civilian   Whether he was dishonorably discharged, medically (mental health), whatever, should have been enough to bar him from owning weapons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

His buddies in the Army (people he was Facebook friends with, who had photos of him in the Army, not random internet strangers) directly and specifically said there were a lot of red flags, and he was clearly booted out before his enlistment was up - you don’t get to say “I’m tired of the Army, I want to do something else” and just walk away 4-5 months early.   

Whatever was enough to raise red flags and get him booted out should have been enough to bar him from owning weapons as a civilian   Whether he was dishonorably discharged, medically (mental health), whatever, should have been enough to bar him from owning weapons.

 

Actually you can just up and quit, I had a buddy do it. We were coming back from overseas and he said "fuck this". Wouldn't go to work, wouldn't wear his uniform. Soon as we got home they got him the fuck off the ship, guy like that can have a contagious attitude. He got discharged a couple months later after seeing the shrink, base commander, chaplain etc...- general under honorable, not suited to the needs of the Navy. Red flags, yes, wouldn't be good in a military unit. Not the same as civilian life and if we're going to start tagging folks into their civilian lives based on performance in the military we may need to rethink the purpose of the military. It's not to disqualify people as civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, in a structured environment where having a firearm is an essential requirement to defending these United States from commies and brown people, this guy was deemed "unfit" by those experts.  Or in other words, if the game is on the line and freedom is at stake, they did not want this guy to have a gun. 

So why in our free and unstructured civilian life would we (law abiding voters) want that that same individual to be able to purchase any available gun on the market?

Edited by freyguy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, freyguy said:

My point is, in a structured environment where having a firearm is an essential requirement to defending these United States from commies and brown people, this guy was deemed "unfit" by those experts.  Or in other words, if the game is on the line and freedom is at stake, they did not want this guy to have a gun. 

So why in our free and unstructured civilian life would we (law abiding voters) want that that same individual to be able to purchase any available gun on the market?

We're not soldiers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, El Diablo said:

Precogs? Not sure I can get on board with the US military going that far. In the case of the church shooter he had a history of violence/assault. I don't know about this guy but snapping and having a rifle taken away under simulated combat stress is an entirely different scenario. jmho.

If you can't hold your shit together in a simulated combat situation, why would i trust your instinct with a weapon in a live shoot?

 

That's what carrying a gun and having to use it is. A combat situation. If you are a complete doofus who could not hack it in the army to the point that they took your a gun away, then giving giving you a gun in a real active shooter situation creates more problems than it solves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...