Charlie Kirk Shooting

[deirdre]

If you were in a crowd and a shooter was at a distance in an unidentified direction, you would not know where to hide anyway, would you? You'd probably think "not near the victim", but that's about it.

most of the crowd didnt -and wouldnt -know who "the victim" was.

and not knowing where to hide does not equal ''just stand at the balcony" (like dozens did) and watch everyone else duck. It is a bit stupid, and they were just lucky the shooter didnt keep shooting at easy targets.

 

[Giddierone]

If you were in a crowd and a shooter was at a distance in an unidentified direction, you would not know where to hide anyway, would you? You'd probably think "not near the victim", but that's about it.

It seems most of the crowd had at least the core survival elements down: staying alert, looking for cover (even a behind flimsy gazebo) or getting down. I guess "active shooter" drills that are part of University life in the US are effective.

 

[MapperGuy]

Isn't not having someone filming in the face of danger stranger these days?

If you wanted to make something look real these days you probably have to have someone stood somewhere filming it on their mobile phone.

How do we define EXACTLY how people should act? It's hardly surprising that it's pretty much impossible and therefore any action can be deemed "strange". Not strange enough is strange. Strange is strange. Too strange is strange.

There is no porridge that's JUST right. Unless it's perfectly crafted. Which would make it obviously strange. It's not just right, it's TOO right.

Expecting everyone in a group to react in a specific way ignores the widely different life experiences of the individuals, it ignores exactly what they saw and heard (which will vary from person to person), and what their instant response is. Flight, fight, keep filming.... Firefighters ran toward the World Trade Center, everybody else runs away...

 

[FatPhil]

most of the crowd didnt -and wouldnt -know who "the victim" was.

What level of situational awareness are you ascribing to these people? I would have defaulted to the crowd being aware that the main speaker, who is in front of them at the time, had been shot. What else were they at the rally for if not to see the main speaker?

 

[deirdre]

What else were they at the rally for if not to see the main speaker?

to hear the main speaker and the guy asking the questions?

basically 90% or more of the people ive seen interviewed who said they actually saw kirk shot (they all mention blood) were directly in front of him and 20 feet was the furthest distance i heard. certainly i imagine some further back also were looking directly at kirk the moment he was shot. Many said they turned toward the sound when they heard the shot and then everyone around them was dropping to the ground.

the awning didnt seem to blocking the view of kirk from those further back. one man about 80 feet back said the crowd dropped in a wave from near the stage and back vs the crowd all dropping at the same time. Maybe if you arent close enough to focus on the small area the blood was coming from your brain cant register anything really in the half second before everyone around you starts to drop? i'm guessing if charlie was mid word or mid sentence maybe that stop in action would have been more noticeable?

 

[Gary C]

What level of situational awareness are you ascribing to these people? I would have defaulted to the crowd being aware that the main speaker, who is in front of them at the time, had been shot. What else were they at the rally for if not to see the main speaker?

In current era of social media addiction, many are 'there' just to be at "an event". Many of you are probably aware of the phenomenon of attendees making a video of an entire popular music event but afterwards being unable to discuss what was played and in what order. IMO this subset of attendees can be expected to possess almost no situational awareness and to react in some pretty random ways to any unexpected event.