She is referenced in the headline and is then the lede paragraphs, subsequently honoring the victims, and closing with the details about what she did. Yes unnamed as she should be unless she consents to be named.
Not sure what you are reading.
I disagree with the headline referring to this man as a murderer. He didn’t murder a child, he stopped a child murderer. He had children of his own in that school, and he did the right thing. I’m sure it wasn’t easy, and whatever he feels on first blush he will have years of contradictory feelings ahead of him.
The fact that the shooter got off 15 shots astounds me. I had no idea a pump-action shotgun could hold that many shots these days, but it seems they can now.
Very much gun debate - see moderation below
This escalation of civilian firearms leads nowhere good.
Do you mean the thread title?
Yes.
I did walk that back in the early posts. I was just bothered by the praise for the father which didn’t seem to acknowledge the fact that killing someone else’s minor child is tragic, even if stopping further murders is positive and indeed heroic.
I hate that killing humans is sometimes a valid course of action, as here. My own response was shocked sadness for the situation, and respect for the father but also bewilderment. I could and would kill to save a loved one or someone else’s children, which I think is pretty instinctual, but I don’t know how I’d feel afterward.
Where do you get the idea he didn’t reload?
Pump shotguns typically hold a few rounds max. I do not know what specific model of shotgun he had. He was found to have 40+ rounds on his person or in his bag. He certainly intended to keep reloading for several complete weapon-loads.
Inaccurate gun speculation, hidden in light of prior gun debate mention
I haven’t seen any information specific to the shotgun he used. But I looked it up regarding what is possible these days as I haven’t used a shotgun in about 30years. I found several with double 7 shot tubes plus one int he chamber, and one site claimed it could hold 25 - don’t know if that was accurate. Here’s an example of a 7+7.
On phone so hard to reply in detail, and more so when trying to avoid gun control…
My default is that the father did the right thing.
But, I can’t help wondering if there might have been other options and how risky they were.
IMHO, when it comes to taking a disturbed teens life, “taking NO risk” is not the right standard to apply.
I’d hope that I, as an unarmed person coming into a room and seeing the teen struggling with the teacher would have been willing to jump in and help. Not in a storm the trenches suicide rush sort of way, but in a “we can probably subdue” sort of way.
Having that discussion doesn’t mean the dad shouldn’t have done what he did, but the more we lionise him without having the discussion the more likely we make gun violence of all sorts.
Someone screwed up there; the pandemic started in Wuhan in December 2019 and didn’t get to America until February-March 2020. The actual story from KTVZ aired in September 2020.
I agree that “taking no risk” is not the right standard to apply. But taking no significant risk or even meaningful risk is.
But what he did deserves recognition as bravery. Not that he shot and killed the shooter, but that he saw shots fired, recognized what was going on, and ran into the circumstance to try to stop it if could. We have professionals who don’t dive into such risk in order to protect others. Yes no doubt an easier choice with his kids in the building than not, and being armed than not, he was in fact bringing a gun to a gun fight, but he nevertheless made a choice that put himself at risk. And could have died himself as a consequence for all he knew.
Praising that does not make gun violence of all sorts more likely.
I think the tone may have shifted after the earlier reports, and I may have been thinking of those. Certainly NPR is currently strongly crediting the teacher. If others are now also doing so, I’m glad of it.
Wow. TIL. Thank you!
Like you, my shotgunning days were a looong time ago. Heck, it’s been a looong time since I did any firearms of any flavor.
Like their site says “This ain’t your grandpa’s shotgun.” I guess I must be Grandpa.
Going back to the event …
Since it’s been reported that the Mom bought the gun for him, I had assumed it was probably a hunting gun with the usual hunting related design and capacity, not a high capacity tactical one.
If he had a similar 15-ish round shotgun and was carrying ~40 more rounds he must have had some thought (maybe not exactly a plan) to reload at some point. I’ll note that the Keltec example does not have removable magazines / “clips”. Reloading is by feeding shells one by one through the ejector port into the built-in tube magazines.
It’ll be more interesting to learn whether he’d fired every round and the teacher counterattacked when the gun went Click instead of BANG. Or when he paused to start to reload.
Moderating:
@TruCelt, this is an official warning for failure to obey Moderator Instructions. I tried to persuade myself to let you off with a very stern note, but the line I hid above is a very blatant violation of the “no gun debate discussion”:
And your followup (hidden in full) was both inaccurate and seemingly so in defense of your assertation in the prior post, as the exact model of shotgun found at the scene has been reported for over 24 hours now, well before the post in question.
Taking both those factors into consideration, this would almost go beyond carelessness into willful, direct violation of the orders (verging on trolling), but I persuade myself its just passion not a deliberate effort to derail the thread.
The thread will re-open shortly.
This topic was automatically opened after 5 minutes.
Agreed. I would vote on the jury to convict that person of murder in a heartbeat. If he had watched his own kid being murdered, I’d call it unpremeditated, and expect a lesser penalty.
In the actual incident, i think it was justifiable homicide.
I’m not sure i could, and I’d feel a little guilty for the rest of my life. I’d probably also feel a little badass.
That’s a little bit chilling.
I’m the one who screwed up. I realized later that school usually starts in the fall, so the statements would’ve been made sometime in mid- to late-2020.
If you have the chance, that’s the way to do it. But she threw a cellphone at the shooter, so I assume that she didn’t have much time to plan it out.
No, it”s really not. On the contrary, it’s absurd to think that someone who owns and operates a firearm shouldn’t be expected to know when deadly force is justified versus when it’s not.
Everyone’s life matters and they should only be deprived of it if there is no other option. If deadly force was the only option (within reason) to prevent additional deaths, fine. If it wasn’t… not fine.
Although, in this respect, the age of the shooter does not matter to me. He could have been an octogenarian and I’d still have the same opinion.
Some thoughts…
Asking if the age of the shooter matters, and of some people matter more than others, would your reaction be the same if the shooter had been a 16 yo gang member shooting other kids over aturf dispute? (Either side)
With regards to wrestling the 16 yo, I know plenty of 16 yo boys bigger and stronger than me. Without knowing the details of this kid, I can’t in abstract day jumping in to help wrestle the shooter would have made more sense.
Also noting that the gun in question was a shotgun, I’m leaning more on favor of shooting to stop him. It wouldn’t take much to be struggling with the teacher and still manage to point the gun barrel at someone else and make another victim.
While it is tragic that this special needs 16 yo had to be shot, the circumstances that lead here are the tragedy. The people involved will have to deal with the repurcussions for themselves.
From my perspective, the father made the right choice to use his own gun to stop the danger. He is heroic. The teacher who reacted is also heroic, but she was also reacting to being put in danger, whereas the man went to the danger to stop the killing. Levels of heroism can be bandied back and forth. Both deserve credit.
What do you think the standard should be? For me, it’s not about risk, at least not measuring how likely one action is to cause harm over the other. The standard should be deadly force is permitted when a reasonable person is in fear of grevious bodily harm or death. The risk is already there. Nor do I think it’s particularly useful to dwell on which course of action might have been the best given the stress and the need to make decisions quickly.
I don’t think this is going to have any significant impact on gun violence one way or the other.
I can’t help but agree. Anyone who owns a firearm for self-defense should have an understanding of what conditions it is acceptable to use deadly force.
Yes. I mean, technically, we didn’t know he wasn’t a gang member when the story broke, though we did know it wasn’t a turf war.
I really fundamentally believe that one atrociously horrific act can still be rehabilitated in at least some cases, and that we should make an effort to facilitate that. I wasn’t on the scene, but I think the father rightly prioritized saving actually endangered children over a potential future rehabilitated murderer, so it’s not the events that bother me here but the conversations about them after the fact.
I don’t really have a good reason for feeling more strongly about a minor murderer than an adult murderer. I’m not particularly warm and fuzzy-feeling towards children. I just feel that anyone who gets as far as murdering others has already been failed by multiple adults in his life. Executing him absolves all of those people for their failures.
Don’t get me wrong: the vast majority of my sympathy is for the children who were murdered just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And a small part of me resents killing the shooter, because of the lack of closure it provides.
That said, we know the shooter was “special needs” but not (as far as I know) what that entails. Looking it up just now, I see from Oregon school shooter identified as 16-year-old Griffin J. John II whose mother purchased gun, sources say that “The shooter was an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, a federally recognized sovereign Indian tribe,” and I wonder what THAT brings to the table:
racism?
discrimination?
the after effects of colonialism? (I can see that the tribes were a confederation of groups speaking 11 different langagues per Wikipedia, of which 9 went extinct between the 1930s and 1970s, so some historically recent severe cultural disruption is inevitably a part of the group’s history.)