I think that can be a gray area, but not in this particular situation.
By the time the father had engaged the attacker, the attacker had already shot at another car, shot through locked doors, and opened fire inside a school. I’d say that makes them fair game even if they hadn’t yet taken a life at that point. The intent was unambiguous.
In other situations, it would still require a case by case. No, obviously we should not encourage concealed weapons holders to start randomly executing others on a mere suspicion of wrongdoing. (Not that you’re saying that.)
The teacher’s split second decision to take him down as best she could was amazing. I suspect many people then would have just frozen, and been shot.
If she hadn’t done that the father with a gun may have been shot before he got a shot off himself. Or the teen would already be in other rooms. And many more would have died.
The trauma I suspect she is dealing with is not over the teen mass murderer being killed but of the students and the other teacher being killed in front of her, and her own survival. Her thought towards the teen’s death may forever be “good” and I wouldn’t blame her.
The father coming into a struggle in progress and has the means to definitively end it? No fault and highly likely saved lives.
But
Without question absolutely so.
That would be murder. Not in my mind as a mere legal trifle but ethically it does much matter how and when the teen was killed.
I do however expect a fair amount of the general public would agree with you, and would literally, to quote the OP, “celebrate” that action.
Some of us who feel the teen shooter being shot several times to be sure his threat was eliminated was justified as defensive action, even if he could likely have been subdued without fatal force at that point (hypothetically), also consider a civilian killing him when he was longer a threat would be condemnable.
Perhaps deciding how to react to a disastrous situation like the one in the OP, the “grey area” you are talking about, is not the conversation to have because it involves revenge and/or reaction. Putting off the actual problem, because it is costly and a little harder to handle, is what I am talking about.
Even I think the life of the teen matters. It’s just that I don’t believe it’s reasonable to expect anyone on the scene to take the value of his life into consideration while he’s actively involved in murdering other people.
I suspect some people are having difficulty reconciling conflicting values. They value life and want to protect it, but when someone takes a life to protect a life it’s difficult to reconcile.
Sorry, I still don’t follow. It’s been a long thread.
What is “the actual problem” you’re referring to, and what is “prevention” in this context?
If you’re referring to 2A and gun control etc., yes, that is an important part of the conversation, but we were specifically instructed not to discuss them in this particular thread.
If you meant something else, please be explicit? Sorry I’m still not catching on.
As I have said upthread, I think the father who killed the shooter and stopped further carnage is a hero and deserves a medal. What he did took incredible bravery, and with the help of the teacher he evidently succeeded in not only promptly stopping the incident but also not causing any other inadvertent casualties (so far as we know).
So with that said…
Yes, of course it would. Summary executions are murder.
The main shade of gray would be how much time the father had to process the situation and switch from armed confrontation to standing down. The father might also be uncertain if the killer had additional weapons on his person.
I’d expect the father would get charged with murder. There’s a chance a jury might not convict, though, depending on how much time had passed. The longer the time, the more likely he gets convicted. At some point, it turns into a Jack Ruby-type situation (who was initially convicted of Lee Harvey Oswald’s murder and sentenced to death).
That would be up to the jury to decide. If I were on the jury, I would have to hear all of the facts to decide.
Right. And I would have no problem telling them that if they so much as moved a muscle or made any threatening moves, I would shoot them. Because at that point—having already killed three people—they have given up any benefit of the doubt and could well decide at any point to reach for another weapon.
I am not, in any way, talking about gun control.
This shooter was a special needs child, and we have no information about what his problems were or what help he did or didn’t get. What I do know is that this didn’t become a “real” problem involving a final solution and mass discussion until after the shooting.
As in, what can/should we have done better as a society to prevent special-needs kids (or really anyone) from becoming school shooters in the first place?
Absolutely that is a conversation worth having. It’s just not what the OP had in mind, I think?
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on that elsewhere, if you’d like to start a linked thread. Especially if you have ideas about how to do it without pissing off the 2A crowd.
There most certainly is. Just takes a bit of self-control and a willingness to discuss what his problems may have been and what help was (or was not) available when he needed it.
So you walk into that room and see the dead bodies and the shooter on their knees, hands up. And you perform your “citzen’s execution” on the shooter.
And then the actual shooter pops up behind you and shoots you; because you just shot the wrong guy.
Or maybe the shooter’s one of the dead bodies; and you just shot either the one who killed them, or just a terrified witness waiting for the cops.
We don’t allow “citizen’s executions” for a damn good reason!
There’s another damn good reason, of course; but that one’s enough on its own.
I don’t think that would be reasonable either. I, like some others in this thread, am concerned about the reaction on the news and otherwise by people sitting safe in their chairs, away from the incident, knowing neither any of the victims nor the shooter, and with plenty of time to reconsider their first reactions.
And very concerned by the extent to which coverage and some other reactions are concentrating on the heroism of the armed man who killed the shooter, and not that of the unarmed woman who tackled him.
Mass murders are not a mental health access crisis. The United States does not have gun deaths, including the mass murders we have, because we have that much worse mental health care than other countries (and I don’t think we do) but because the people with those problems use guns and have wide easy access to them.
I must be on a different set of feeds than you. The NYT leads with her heroism. Even Fox mentions her first:
Bend school district honors slain teacher, praises staff member’s courage during attack: ‘Forever grateful’
“BEND, Ore. — The Oregon school district that lost three young students and a teacher in a mass shooting this week expressed profound grief on Saturday, praising the courage of the educator and staff member who risked their lives during the attack.
“Our hearts are broken,” the Bend-La Pine Schools district said in a social media post. "They responded to an attack on their school in a way for which we are forever grateful.”
Just to be clear, it was not initially known that there was another hero. The teacher’s story wasn’t known until the second day, and only got a sentence then during the City’s second press conference. Then other news outlets started digging more. I think, and hope, she will get more prominence in the days to come.
The article talks prominently about the dead teacher and another one who was injured. The one who tackled him is just mentioned near the bottom and is “unnamed”