Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Where is the information about the Aurora theater shooter’s body armor?

Written By: Bob - Jul• 26•12

Within the first 48 hours of the Aurora Colorado theater massacre, we knew the specific details of the weapons that the shooter used, from the brand and caliber of each weapon (Smith & Wessom M&P15 carbine, Remington 12-gauge shottie, Glock .40 S&W pistols) to the ammunition used.

What we don’t know almost anything about is the claim by the Aurora Police department that the suspect was wearing considerable “ballistic armor.”

There has been no further information forthcoming, and I’ve made multiple attempts to contact the Aurora Police Department and the prosecutor’s office. They’ve ignored all requests, apparently the result of a judge’s gag order. The same “gag order” seems to be leaking like a sieve, as fresh information is leaked on a near constant basis.

We don’t know if the suspect was wearing actual bullet-resistant armor, or if he was instead wearing police-type riot gear (which is padded and armored to withstand thrown projectiles and blows, but not bullets). Was he wearing an old military “flak jacket” he bought at a surplus store that wouldn’t stop bullets?

If he was wearing body armor, what kind was he wearing? What was the threat level/armor rating of the armor? What kind of condition was the armor in? Would it have thwarted typical rounds used by responding police officers or civilians carrying concealed weapons? Was it junk? Was it just for show?

We don’t know, and the media doesn’t seem to care since the claim (unsubstantiated by any details) supports their anti-gun agenda.

Facts, please.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. I saw at least one mainstream story and several blog posts where it was just an equipment carrier, no protection value.

  2. Heartless Libertarian says:

    Actually, I’ve seen on various sites that all he was wearing – at least what he bought from the one ‘net vendor that has talked – was a tac vest/chest rig type thing, with pouches for extra ammo.

    Given that our troops in combat zones most often strap their ammo pouches, etc, directly to their body armor, it’s easy to see where initial reporting might be confused.

    That, and the gas mask and helmet.

  3. thebronze says:

    Also, there’s no factual evidence to support that his M&P-15 had a 100 rd Beta-Mag type drum on it. If you look at the pictures of the exterior crime-scene (just outside the rear door, near his car) his rifle is laying just outside the emergency exit door.

    It has a 30 rd mag in it, not a Beta-Mag.

    This is also something worth following up on.

  4. Divemedic says:

    The store that sold the equipment is in Missouri. I did a Blog post about it a few days ago.

  5. Brad says:

    I wish I had the post handy, but I read a story by one anti-gun writer went full-monty on the whole body armor B.S. Complete with a link to an image of a receipt which he claimed as evidence to support his position. The receipt showed an item of about $100 for some name-brand of “tactical vest”. Obviously some variety of chest pouch magazine carrier, and NOT body armor!

    Keep pushing for proof on the body armor claims. That propaganda is bound to fall apart sooner rather than later.

  6. Joe Doakes says:

    It’s important to know the details for the sake of pure truth, but it won’t really change the discussion.

    Gun-grabbers now assert shooting at the killer would have been fruitless because his body armor made him Invincible!

    But even if he had been unarmored, they’d shift to arguing it was too noisy, had bad lighting and tear gas so accurate shooting was Impossible!

    And if that doesn’t hold up, they’ll note innocent fleeing patrons might be hit, so shooting is Irresponsible!

    In the end, they want you to holster your weapon and sit quietly for your turn to die. And that’s the problem I have with their analysis: the innocent always die.