Crazy man shoots at school board

[champion]

In the full video the gunman himself says that someone's going to die, I really don't think he was just trying to "scare" them.

[Zygimantas]

In the full video the gunman himself says that someone's going to die, I really don't think he was just trying to "scare" them.

That would be a very scary thing to say don't you think?

[champion]

In the full video the gunman himself says that someone's going to die, I really don't think he was just trying to "scare" them.

That would be a very scary thing to say don't you think?

yeah... well...... pshhh.

[Napalm]

That guy has a LOT OF [bleep]ING BALLS to say that stuff to a guy whos holding a gun against him. The last thing I'd do is disagree in a situation like that. [bleep], I'd probably be frozen in place without even being able to mutter a word out.

[KittyKat]

"Please don't"

[Star_Fox]

"Please don't"

 

Well, it's certainly a lot better than "HELP".

[Arcantica]

yea that woman who hit him with the purse musta had some huge balls. But I think I would of at least tried to hit him on the head with something hard anyways.

 

 

If he was really going to kill someone else besides himself, it would have been the woman who tried to stop him. He just kinda pushed her away.

[KittyKat]

"Please don't"

 

Well, it's certainly a lot better than "HELP".

 

Not by much.

[Bloodstain]

yea that woman who hit him with the purse musta had some huge balls. But I think I would of at least tried to hit him on the head with something hard anyways.

 

 

If he was really going to kill someone else besides himself, it would have been the woman who tried to stop him. He just kinda pushed her away.

 

He wasn't there to kill the woman. Shooting a gun is a lot harder than people think, especially when you're an idiot like that guy and don't seem to know how to shoot

[All_Is_Great]

This doesn't surprise me.

 

Guns are way to easy to get a hold of in the States.

[The Dark Lord]

Fight the power!

[Rainy_Day]

Quite a look into the actions/words of someone thinking they are about to die. :/ Good riddance to crazy people like that tbh.

[Will H]

**cough** Easy access to handguns is so wonderful **ahem**

 

You know that in around schools are dedicated "Gun free zones"... 1000 foot buffers where its illegal to carry a firearm. That frivolous law didn't stop this guy from carrying a gun in, but I bet it stopped everyone else (law abiding citizens). If every one of those board members and people in the audience had a gun, this f---er wouldn't have got a shot off. Bet that didn't occur to you :rolleyes: .

 

 

That 'f---er' was an unstable person. That doesn't make him any less of a person, it just makes his judgements likely to be unsound at the time. It does not by any means give you a right to point a gun at, or even shoot, him. When you reduce people to the point that you make it ok for them to be killed or threatened to be killed by another person, for any reason, it's very easy to descend into terrible consequences. It disturbs me a lot that so many people still have this mentality.

 

If I was there, and I had a gun, I would have no problem shooting him to save the board members. Killing him would not be my intention, saving everyone else would be my intention. If he died by my hand because of that, its an unfortunate consequence, but not my intention.

 

His rights as a person went straight out the window as soon as he threatened others. You'll notice that the situation ended when the security guard shot him and the SWAT team moved in. We need more people like the security guard.

 

A right that can be freely ignored at the discretion of someone else is not a right at all. When you threaten him in return, do your 'rights' go out of the window as well? Is it then morally fine for him shoot you? Both of you believe that what you're doing is the right action. That guy wants justice for his wife, you want the safety of yourself and your colleagues. What happens if a security guard stumbled in with no idea of what just happened and sees two men pointing guns at each other?

[sees_all1]

A right that can be freely ignored at the discretion of someone else is not a right at all. When you threaten him in return, do your 'rights' go out of the window as well? Is it then morally fine for him shoot you? Both of you believe that what you're doing is the right action. That guy wants justice for his wife, you want the safety of yourself and your colleagues. What happens if a security guard stumbled in with no idea of what just happened and sees two men pointing guns at each other?

 

He'd probably point his gun at me or the other guy, yell "drop the weapons," and being a rational person I would. The other guy wouldn't, which is how he'd know who the aggressor is. Unless the other guy did comply, which is pretty far into a hypothetical, in which case the situation would be over and I'd have to explain myself.

 

This guy clearly has the intention to harm others, posing a clear and imminent danger, and it warrants action. Using force that incapacitates this person is necessary for the safety of others. I'm not trampling on any of his rights - he gave them up the moment he became a threat.

[Dupin]

A right that can be freely ignored at the discretion of someone else is not a right at all. When you threaten him in return, do your 'rights' go out of the window as well? Is it then morally fine for him shoot you? Both of you believe that what you're doing is the right action. That guy wants justice for his wife, you want the safety of yourself and your colleagues. What happens if a security guard stumbled in with no idea of what just happened and sees two men pointing guns at each other?

 

He'd probably point his gun at me or the other guy, yell "drop the weapons," and being a rational person I would. The other guy wouldn't, which is how he'd know who the aggressor is. Unless the other guy did comply, which is pretty far into a hypothetical, in which case the situation would be over and I'd have to explain myself.

 

This guy clearly has the intention to harm others, posing a clear and imminent danger, and it warrants action. Using force that incapacitates this person is necessary for the safety of others. I'm not trampling on any of his rights - he gave them up the moment he became a threat.

First of all, I'd like to point out that nobody got hurt in this situation, besides the guy who killed himself. In your situation, not only would you murder a man (and probably end up in court over it - he was mentally unstable and did not actually show real signs of intending to hurt anyone - you'll notice the guy he shoots at thinks they're blanks), but with the ten other people in the room with guns, accidents would happen. Nobody's a perfect shot, as I think this "crazy" fellow proved pretty well, and it would have been pretty easy for anyone in the audience to shoot one of the six board members after missing the aggressor.

 

Second, what makes you think you're a perfect shot? You pulling a gun and attacking this guy would just put your own life at risk. In addition, by intimidating him, you move him to do something stupid. He would fire on you, and then be all worked up and turn to fire on others. Pulling a gun would be the stupidest thing to do in this situation, as it increases the risk to innocent bystanders.

[sees_all1]

he was mentally unstable and did not actually show real signs of intending to hurt anyone - you'll notice the guy he shoots at thinks they're blanks

 

Did you even watch the same video that I watched!?!!!? Not intending to hurt anyone means raising the gun straight up then shooting.... Pointing a gun at someone and firing three times shows pretty clear intention.

The fact that he missed doesn't change his intent, it just means he's a lousy shot.

 

 

In my scenario, if all ten people had guns, do you honestly think they'd all stand equal distance from each other in a circle and shoot at him? I'd like to think everyone would show a little more common sense than that.

 

 

You pulling a gun and attacking this guy would just put your own life at risk. In addition, by intimidating him, you move him to do something stupid. He would fire on you, and then be all worked up and turn to fire on others. Pulling a gun would be the stupidest thing to do in this situation, as it increases the risk to innocent bystanders.

You know that the situation ended when the crazy got shot in the shoulder by the security guard? Also, talking about "increasing the risk to innocent bystanders" is ridiculous. They already have a gun pointed at them, how much more risk can there be? Maybe if he fired at them three times? Wait, no, he did that. Also, taking those measured risks is what makes people, like the security guard, heroes.

[Dupin]

he was mentally unstable and did not actually show real signs of intending to hurt anyone - you'll notice the guy he shoots at thinks they're blanks

 

Did you even watch the same video that I watched!?!!!? Not intending to hurt anyone means raising the gun straight up then shooting.... Pointing a gun at someone and firing three times shows pretty clear intention.

The fact that he missed doesn't change his intent, it just means he's a lousy shot.

He pointed it lower than the guy, shooting only to scare, then shot it again in the air, before being shot by the guard. After being shot by the guard, he had a moment of panic where he did appear to point and shoot, but that was because he had been forced into a panic. You don't try to aggravate a mentally unstable man. I would also like to point out that the security guard was a trained professional, while the members of the audience were not. He was hired for the purpose.

 

In my scenario, if all ten people had guns, do you honestly think they'd all stand equal distance from each other in a circle and shoot at him? I'd like to think everyone would show a little more common sense than that.

The audience and the board were on opposite sides of the perpetrator - any members of the audience who pulled a gun would be risking the lives of the board members. As far as common sense goes, I wouldn't trust the hand-eye coordination and level-headed experience of a panicked citizen with my life - would you?

 

You pulling a gun and attacking this guy would just put your own life at risk. In addition, by intimidating him, you move him to do something stupid. He would fire on you, and then be all worked up and turn to fire on others. Pulling a gun would be the stupidest thing to do in this situation, as it increases the risk to innocent bystanders.

You know that the situation ended when the crazy got shot in the shoulder by the security guard? Also, talking about "increasing the risk to innocent bystanders" is ridiculous. They already have a gun pointed at them, how much more risk can there be? Maybe if he fired at them three times? Wait, no, he did that. Also, taking those measured risks is what makes people, like the security guard, heroes.

Well, having multiple guns in the room would increase the risk, as would having multiple panicked people firing many more than three shots. Also, the hero mentality is silly. The security guard was doing his job, and was hired for that purpose. Having ten other "heroes" in the room would only interfere with his ability, as a professional, to solve the problem effectively with as little risk as possible.

[sees_all1]

he was mentally unstable and did not actually show real signs of intending to hurt anyone - you'll notice the guy he shoots at thinks they're blanks

 

Did you even watch the same video that I watched!?!!!? Not intending to hurt anyone means raising the gun straight up then shooting.... Pointing a gun at someone and firing three times shows pretty clear intention.

The fact that he missed doesn't change his intent, it just means he's a lousy shot.

He pointed it lower than the guy, shooting only to scare, then shot it again in the air, before being shot by the guard. After being shot by the guard, he had a moment of panic where he did appear to point and shoot, but that was because he had been forced into a panic. You don't try to aggravate a mentally unstable man. I would also like to point out that the security guard was a trained professional, while the members of the audience were not. He was hired for the purpose.

Do you have eyes? Watch the video again. He clearly raises the gun, lowers it and aims AT the superintendent, then shoots. Not above, not below, AT. I think he must have shot wide right, because the papers on the desk fly off after the bullet flies over. If he shot low originally, you'd see the table's front shatter into a million pieces. His second shot wasn't aimed at all, and it looks like it would have hit the floor.

 

THEN the security guard shoots at him, and the perpetrator ducks and gets off three more shots (where he thinks the board members are) before the security guard shoots again. If the security guard had aim, he would've shot him in a vital spot (like the head or the chest) the first time to end the situation faster.

[Skeptical]

he was mentally unstable and did not actually show real signs of intending to hurt anyone - you'll notice the guy he shoots at thinks they're blanks

 

Did you even watch the same video that I watched!?!!!? Not intending to hurt anyone means raising the gun straight up then shooting.... Pointing a gun at someone and firing three times shows pretty clear intention.

The fact that he missed doesn't change his intent, it just means he's a lousy shot.

He pointed it lower than the guy, shooting only to scare, then shot it again in the air, before being shot by the guard. After being shot by the guard, he had a moment of panic where he did appear to point and shoot, but that was because he had been forced into a panic. You don't try to aggravate a mentally unstable man. I would also like to point out that the security guard was a trained professional, while the members of the audience were not. He was hired for the purpose.

Do you have eyes? Watch the video again. He clearly raises the gun, lowers it and aims AT the superintendent, then shoots. Not above, not below, AT. I think he must have shot wide right, because the papers on the desk fly off after the bullet flies over. If he shot low originally, you'd see the table's front shatter into a million pieces. His second shot wasn't aimed at all, and it looks like it would have hit the floor.

 

THEN the security guard shoots at him, and the perpetrator ducks and gets off three more shots (where he thinks the board members are) before the security guard shoots again. If the security guard had aim, he would've shot him in a vital spot (like the head or the chest) the first time to end the situation faster.

 

In bold: that's stupid - a small caliber round fired into a soft surface. I'm certainly not by any means a firearms expert, but I think it's fairly obvious what happens then.

 

I can't tell from the video exactly where he's aiming the first shot, but I agree that his second shot was just him pulling the trigger in their generally direction, and I'm fairly certain that one ended up bouncing off the floor.

[Low C]

His wife was interviewed and she says he's a military veteran with the intent to scare the people not hurt. So either he went blind since his firearms training, has Parkinson's, or he just wasn't trying to kill people at point blank range.

[sees_all1]

His wife was interviewed and she says he's a military veteran with the intent to scare the people not hurt. So either he went blind since his firearms training, has Parkinson's, or he just wasn't trying to kill people at point blank range.

 

Or he missed his target by a couple of inches. Military veteran doesn't mean squat if he isn't practiced with the gun he's using, or if he hasn't used a handgun in a while.

Besides, what else would his wife say? Yeah, he's a raving lunatic and I love him?

[fakeitormakeit2]

That was quite the situation, my respect to the chairman.

[Low C]

His wife was interviewed and she says he's a military veteran with the intent to scare the people not hurt. So either he went blind since his firearms training, has Parkinson's, or he just wasn't trying to kill people at point blank range.

 

Or he missed his target by a couple of inches. Military veteran doesn't mean squat if he isn't practiced with the gun he's using, or if he hasn't used a handgun in a while.

Besides, what else would his wife say? Yeah, he's a raving lunatic and I love him?

 

Did you see the range he was at? I take it you've never fired a firearm. Hell even with a pellet gun I could have hit the guy in the head point blank range rofl.. If he's fired guns much he shouldn't have missed all 3 shots..

 

And I was only going by his military background, not his wife's opinion. Unless she's lying about him being a military veteran.

[The_Gabe]

His wife was interviewed and she says he's a military veteran with the intent to scare the people not hurt. So either he went blind since his firearms training, has Parkinson's, or he just wasn't trying to kill people at point blank range.

 

Or he missed his target by a couple of inches. Military veteran doesn't mean squat if he isn't practiced with the gun he's using, or if he hasn't used a handgun in a while.

Besides, what else would his wife say? Yeah, he's a raving lunatic and I love him?

 

Did you see the range he was at? I take it you've never fired a firearm. Hell even with a pellet gun I could have hit the guy in the head point blank range rofl.. If he's fired guns much he shouldn't have missed all 3 shots..

 

And I was only going by his military background, not his wife's opinion. Unless she's lying about him being a military veteran.

 

They'd have records of him. Maybe they will be released in 20 years.

[Low C]

Not unless Wikileaks gets a hold of them. :-#