Man Who Shot Texas Church Gunman Shares His Story

And hit him he did. Autopsy report revealed that Willeford had hit him in the torso and leg. Additional reports mentioned that the shooter communicated with a family member revealing that he was gravely injured and didn't think he was going to make it. Afterwards he supposedly administered a self inflicted wound upon himself.


www.4029tv.com...

Willeford, a former NRA instructor, got his rifle out of his safe while his daughter looked outside again. She ran back in and told him she saw a man in black tactical gear shooting up the church.

Willeford loaded his magazine and ran across the street to the church, not even taking the time to put on shoes. When Willeford saw the gunman, he exchanged gunfire.

"He saw me and I saw him," Willeford said. "I was standing behind a pickup truck for cover."

"I know I hit him," Willeford said. "He got into his vehicle, and he fired another couple rounds through his side window. When the window dropped, I fired another round at him again."

Authorities: Texas church shooter had three gunshot wounds
www.cnn.com...

a reply to: infolurker

I'm glad a legally carrying citizen put an end to his life before he could take more innocent people

Pray for those at the church who didn't make it

a reply to: infolurker

Good man. Award him for his brave act.

Here's a good interview with him.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Man, unreal. The adrenaline must have been intense.

This man is the face of lawful gun ownership.

I am very happy this law abiding patriot decided to defend himself and his community by engaging the gunman. Furthermore, Mr. Willeford and the driver fearlessly pursued the attacker. In doing so, they once again defended themselves and another community/group of people from any further violence from this crim.

These guys are absolute heroes, and deserve the largest, heaviest and shiniest medal we can adorn them with. Extremely self-less acts by these two patriots, very amazing and quite unexpected in today's world.

Men like this are the true first line of defense in our society.
We need more of them.

I just have to "say" this out loud: God bless that sweet and humble man. I pray that he will be nothing but supported and loved for the rest of his life, and that the emotional wounds from that horrific ordeal will heal swiftly.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Here's a good interview with him.

Thank you for finding this and letting us see it, that was really something to watch.
The man is somebody that I wish that I knew, he is a GOOD person, not just a hero, but a good person because you can see it in everything that he does and also everything that he says.
That helped restore the humanity in me, somewhere along the way I lost a part of me, that guy helped me get just a little more back, and I need that.

The best that Crowder has ever done in my opinion, his heart was actually really in it, he was actually flustered, he had a hard time in coming up with the really hard things to say or question that wouldn't cause the man to feel ill at ease. The MSM would've screwed this interview all to hell.
Also, I am so glad to FINALLY hear the real story from the horses mouth.
Thank you, Mr. Willeford...

a reply to: infolurker

And hit him he did. Autopsy report revealed that Willeford had hit him in the torso and leg.

Oh that. Willeford indeed hit him twice. Only problem, Willeford's actions had little to no effect on the actions of the mass shooter. He didn't even kill him. Kelley made the shot to the head himself ending his life. A common part of these mass shootings. Suicide.

Authorities have said Kelley essentially shot everyone in sight, killing at least 26, and encountered Willeford only once he left. Officials also said there was “some length of time that the subject spent inside that church in the shooting event” and that “he moved around freely inside the church.” This is not to diminish Willeford’s heroism—he got there as soon as he could and confronted Kelley. But shootings unfold quickly

The Heroism in the Sutherland Springs Shooting Does Not Validate the “Good Guy With a Gun” Argument.

Right now, as with other mass shootings, conservatives are using everything to argue that access to these sorts of guns is not the problem. This includes waving around Willeford as an example, using him as a prop (not that he minds I'm sure), despite the facts at hand. It's not making any ground though. People are becoming increasingly fed up. These excuses won't last.

Let's also be honest here, you couldn't give a damn about Willeford's actions. It's purely ideological.

a reply to: Southern Guardian


Fed up with what? Where is this outrage over Chicago? There is more gang violence related deaths there every year than every mass shooting in US history combined.

Access to weapons isn't the issue - like anything else we have access to, they can be used or misused. NYC and 9/11 have shown us that firearms are not required to complete a criminal/terroristic act. The best defense against a deadly threat is lethal force.

It is extremely likely the armed Citizen did in fact stop the shooter. Had he of not confronted the shooter, the shooter would've continued to his next location (domestic, right?) unimpeded to carry out his evil intent. By engaging the attacker, he forced him to drop his rifle and flee at a high rate of speed. The suicide is likely due to the fact he was confronted, and was cornered after the accident. If he didn't plan to escape, why bother trying? Why not just stand there and shoot it out using that pistol with the armed Citizen at the scene? Why take to the road and drive at high rates of speed?

Clearly the Citizens interdicted whatever other plans he may have had, at a bare minimum they twarted his plan to survive. Shooting yourself after fleeing and wrecking your vehicle (possibily due to blood loss/pain from the gun shots from the CItizen) is clearly an act of desperation and not according to some plan. He planned to survive, maybe even to finish that long standing domestic dispute they mention.

To say that this good guy with a gun/good guy with a truck duo didn't help is very dishonest, and shows you have no interest in an objective discussion or analysis. No one wants to have an agenda pushed on them, especially in the face of substantial evidence (plenty of good guys with guns have stopped bad guys with deadly weapons). Some are interested in having a real discussion, but not getting your dissent from the narrative shoved down our throats.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, we see your leftist slant using the Slate source. Point is, this guy risked his life to stop another person with a gun. It took a gun to stop a gun. The shooter could've gotten away and holed up in a house and took more lives if somebody didn't stop him, because the police weren't obviously on scene fast enough to stop him.

As for the shooter killing himself, he probably did that because he was going to bleed out anyway.. He didn't want to be taken alive.

Dear god, it must be miserable being you.
a reply to: Southern Guardian

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Southern Guardian


Fed up with what? Where is this outrage over Chicago? There is more gang violence related deaths there every year than every mass shooting in US history combined.

Access to weapons isn't the issue - like anything else we have access to, they can be used or misused. NYC and 9/11 have shown us that firearms are not required to complete a criminal/terroristic act. The best defense against a deadly threat is lethal force.

It is extremely likely the armed Citizen did in fact stop the shooter. Had he of not confronted the shooter, the shooter would've continued to his next location (domestic, right?) unimpeded to carry out his evil intent. By engaging the attacker, he forced him to drop his rifle and flee at a high rate of speed. The suicide is likely due to the fact he was confronted, and was cornered after the accident. If he didn't plan to escape, why bother trying? Why not just stand there and shoot it out using that pistol with the armed Citizen at the scene? Why take to the road and drive at high rates of speed?

Clearly the Citizens interdicted whatever other plans he may have had, at a bare minimum they twarted his plan to survive. Shooting yourself after fleeing and wrecking your vehicle (possibily due to blood loss/pain from the gun shots from the CItizen) is clearly an act of desperation and not according to some plan. He planned to survive, maybe even to finish that long standing domestic dispute they mention.

To say that this good guy with a gun/good guy with a truck duo didn't help is very dishonest, and shows you have no interest in an objective discussion or analysis. No one wants to have an agenda pushed on them, especially in the face of substantial evidence (plenty of good guys with guns have stopped bad guys with deadly weapons). Some are interested in having a real discussion, but not getting your dissent from the narrative shoved down our throats.

And we can never be certain the killer actually shot himself...But since that's the narrative it frees the two heroes from any legal complications and that may have been the intent of the cops...To keep this as neat and clean as possible...

To suggest the hero's actions had no affect on the situation is completely ridiculous...They have to push that gun control agenda with any means they can invent...

a reply to: JBurns

It is extremely likely the armed Citizen did in fact stop the shooter.

This armed civilian didn't stop the shooting. 26 people died. The worst mass shooting in Texas. Only after he left the church, after wondering about insider, was Kelley confronted by this Willeford.

Armed civilians didn't stop the Las Vegas shootings.

Armed civilians didn't stop the Virginia tech shooting.

Come to think of it, any major shooting. No armed civilians. On occasion you'll find armed civilians stopping shootings from time to time but it's so minor. The idea arming our wives, mothers, teachers, fathers, will solve this issue is ludicrous. It has no grounding in reality and only creates a tense environment. Everybody walking with guns right? Surrounded by armed citizens left front and centre. Idiotic.

a reply to: eXia7

Yes, we see your leftist slant using the Slate source.

So then the events stated by Slate are false? Did Willeford confront Kelley in the Church? Did Willeford prevent any further church goers from being shot? Or was Kelley already out by the time Willeford confronted him?

Come on now. Slate is leftist right? And I'm a hippy commie leftie,so set me straight on the chain of events.

this guy risked his life to stop another person with a gun.

I have no doubt he did. But the fact remains, it was only after the events within that church, after 26 church goes killed, slaughtered. He may have stopped any further casualties. Though there's a strong trend with these mass shooters committing suicide as soon as they've hit their target so that's unlikely, but possible.

It took a gun to stop a gun.

If that's the case, why the long list of mass shootings did these armed citizens not come out? May of which occurred in gun friendly states. Reality doesn't jive with this claim.

The shooter could've

Could've, maybe, probably. etc.

Worst shooting in Texan history, following the worst shooting in modern times. No armed civilians prevented these from occurring.

I guess the next excuse is, like it just happens man.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
This armed civilian didn't stop the shooting.

Well that's because the armed civilian isn't psychic. You generally have to wait for a threat to be present before using defensive force.

How much further killing did the armed civilian prevent?

Armed civilians didn't stop the Las Vegas shootings.

It was a concert venue where people were screened for weapons. Furthermore, most defensive weapons are handguns. Not much use against a shooter using a rifle from an elevated hide 500+yds away.

Armed civilians didn't stop the Virginia tech shooting.

On a college campus, where firearms are banned. Seeing a pattern here?

Come to think of it, any major shooting. No armed civilians. On occasion you'll find armed civilians stopping shootings from time to time but it's so minor. The idea arming our wives, mothers, teachers, fathers, will solve this issue is ludicrous. It has no grounding in reality and only creates a tense environment. Everybody walking with guns right? Surrounded by armed citizens left front and centre. Idiotic.

Most mass-shootings occur in an area that either restricts or discourages carrying of a firearm. The shooters pick these areas for maximum damage, and when the calvary arrives, be it the local LEO's or an armed citizen, they are either neutralized or off themselves.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Well that's because the armed civilian isn't psychic.

Exactly, hence this idea the good guy with a gun will stop the bad guy with a gun falls flat.

Kelley had finished his business at the Church and was outside before confronted.

Thank you for helping me prove my point.

It was a concert venue where people were screened for weapons. Furthermore, most defensive weapons are handguns. Not much use against a shooter using a rifle from an elevated hide 500+yds away.

Exactly. So whether or not the civilians were armed at that concert or outside or wherever, they would not have stopped that guy with his sniper rifle.

Again proving my point. This idea of arming citizens won't stop these mass killings, which are on the rise.

Thank you again.

On a college campus, where firearms are banned. Seeing a pattern here?

Virginia Tech had armed guards. They still couldn't react in time.

Virginia has pretty good gun laws so citizens around the premises could have reacted. Again, no good armed civilian. The shooter killed 32 people.

Most mass-shootings occur in an area that either restricts or discourages carrying of a firearm. The shooters pick

No, mass shootings occur often in places the shooter has a connection with. The Virginia Tech killer attended that school.

Sandyhook was the place where the killers mother taught.

Las Vegas, in the vicinty where the shooter gambled.

It goes on and on and on.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Nancy Lanza never taught at Sandyhook, that was an error early on in the narrative which was proven inaccurate later. Just thought I'd mention it

Stephen Paddock gambled in many many casinos in various cities not just Vegas

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Nancy Lanza never taught at Sandyhook, that was an error early on in the narrative which was proven inaccurate later. Just thought I'd mention it

Acknowledged. Atlantic article confirmed it. Motive taken to his grave. I'm unsure if his mother taught that age group. May explain it.

Stephen Paddock gambled in many many casinos in various cities not just Vegas

But Vegas was one of his main gambling spots. Reports confirm Casino's would pay for his rooms. Again it stands, he went to a place he was familiar with and shot. He knew the area well. Been to that hotel 3 times before, alone.
www.news.com.au... 50e73bb050