Does this count as a mass shooting? It probably does, but since it didn't happen in a school, most lists of "mass shootings" will not include it.Two West Virginia State Police troopers were involved in a deadly shootout Tuesday night.The West Virginia State Police confirms that two troopers were involved in a shootout that killed one trooper, left another in critical condition, and left the shooter dead. A Roane County deputy and a tow trucker driver were also injured by gunfire.The troopers stopped the suspect, whose name has not been released, at the Wallback park-and-ride on Interstate 79 in Clay County. When they approached the vehicle, the suspect started shooting, injuring one trooper and a tow truck driver and killing the other trooper.A Roane County deputy tracked the suspect to a nearby barn, killing the suspect and taking a shot to the arm. The deputy's name has not been released.
One thing it has in common with most incidents we readily recognize as mass shootings is the people involved do not consider whether the locale of their action is a gun-free zone or not. They just act.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Obviously we do not know all of the details of the situations but I don't think this would be considered a mass shooting in the traditional sense because this doesn't seen to be a premeditated incident with the intention of killing as many people as possible. It appears to be a reactionary response to being pulled over by the police.
ReplyDeleteThe media should be using these types of incidents to spread the message to other would-be criminals that they too will be shot and killed if they try to attack the police.
Here is a little story about how showing examples can be a life changing events:
When I was 16 years old my biology teacher got permission to take some of the students (those whose parents didn't have a conniption fit at the idea) to the county mortuary for a lesson in anatomy, close up. I sure got a lesson that day. There happened to be a person that was shot in the head in there. Yes, the family gave permission for us to view the remains.
I was forever changed after seeing that. Mind you, it wasn't the first time I had seen someone up close, dead. The year prior my best friend died in my arms. After he dropped me off he was driving through a intersection when a drunk driver hit him. I ran to go see what I could do to help when the car started to smoke badly so I pulled my friend out of the car to a safe spot. I heard someone yell that they were calling 911 so I stayed there, holding my friend until the paramedics arrived to take over but there was no hope, I could see he had massive head injuries(I'll spare you the real details).
Even after going through that traumatic experience of watching my friend die in my arms, seeing that person after they had been shot in the head was shocking to say the least. No amount of shooting water melons or other objects that are supposed to simulate what happens when a person is shot in the head, do it justice. There is no way to simulate so you see how the flesh, bone, brain tissue and skin are mutilated. I had even seen the results of a deer being shot in the head but it's not the same as seeing a person....
My point to all of this is that if we do not expose people to what is happening and what the real outcome of these actions cause then people will not completely understand how dangerous guns are. I fully stand behind the 2nd amendment and believe that gun ownership comes with an immense amount of responsibility. I do think that there are some out there that forget the 2nd amendment does not give them the right to shoot anyone for any reason they want. Those people should be harshly punished to set an example for others that those actions will not be tolerated and there will be serious consequences.
Thanks for sharing those details with us. You're right there's no way to understand these things without having seen them up close and personal.
DeleteI've seen things too, and I've had some experience with guns, to respond to one of your other recent comments, and the effect on me was to drive me towards the gun control side of the argument.
We have had discussions about which is more common, the convert to guns or the one who swears off. I'm in the latter group.
The NRA is the sworn enemy of all LEOs. If you are a LEO, the NRA is coming to get you. They want a lawless America, where they can rule by fear and might.
ReplyDeleteEvery gun is a potential dead LEO. In the hands of an NRA member, it's only a matter of time.
Mike - love th leaner cleaner more minimalist format.
ReplyDeleteThere are different lists which include mass shootings; the most inclusive put it at more than two victims, regardless of dead or simply injured (and no maetter how slightly injured). Others set the threshold at 5 or 6.
It is NOT a requirement that it be premeditated in any way, and it does not typically require either that the shooter killed or injured the people involved to count towards the total tally of bodies involved.
The shooter being killed seems to help put some of these events on the lists more so than their surviving.
Although more of an interrupted mass shooting, it seemed to go by mostly under the radar last week when one of the Aurora Co copycat killer-wannabes, Neil Prescott/Maryland, was released from a psychiatric hospital where he had undergone voluntary assessment, into the custody of his parents.
He was another nut job who assembled a private arsenal and who wanted to go shoot up his former employer and former co-workers, who self-proclaimed himself as the Joker, (no funny haircolor), and who was wearing a t-shirt when taken into custody that stated guns don't kill people, I kill people.
Because of a quirk in the MD state law, they can't charge him with a felony apparently, of making terroristic threats, etc.; they can only get him on misdemeanor abuse of the telephone.
This means that unless a judge adjudicates he is not just crazy, but 'too crazy', he may get that private arsenal back when his misdemeanor trial is over.
Scary stuff the people we allow to have carry permits, like Ian Stawicki or collector permits, like Neil Prescott, in spite of mental illness.
I wrote about it on penigma yesterday:http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/08/update-on-neil-prescott-joker.html
Since you are interested in mass shootings; I'm not sure if Prescott should be considered a mass shooting prevented, interrupted, or just.......delayed.
I am not in any way excusing what the criminal did in this case ... it was totally and completely wrong any way you look at it. That said, I have no reason to believe the criminal would have shot anyone if the police had never approached him.
ReplyDeleteSo does that discount this as a mass shooting? It depends on your definition. When I think of a mass shooting, I think of a criminal who starts shooting offensively at several people. In this case the criminal was shooting defensively at law enforcement. It isn't quite the same in my book but it is splitting hairs.
I love how the gun guys redefine "mass shooting" every time there is one, and of course the re-definitions are geared toward excluding them.
ReplyDeleteI figured I've seen it all, but that last one is new ("defensive" toward police vs. "offensive", as if it is a legitimate defense to shoot at police). Sometimes they say it isn't a "mass shooting" if it involved some other crime (such as robbery), or if it wasn't publicized in a national news outlet, or if there were fewer than 10 victims, or if the shooter was specifically targeting someone (as opposed to random victims).
Just because we like to get our terms correct doesn't mean that we're redefining things. It's your side that wants to add "mass" to every shooting and "assault" to every piece of firearms technology.
DeleteActually, I'm using "mass" only when there are 4 or more victims. This was recently pointed out to me as the FBI definition.
DeleteI don't use "assault" very often for the simple reason it's hard to define.
You've got a lot of nerve claiming to be on the side that likes to get its terms correct after that ridiculous argument we had over whether NYC is a gun free zone or not.
"You've got a lot of nerve claiming to be on the side that likes to get its terms correct after that ridiculous argument we had over whether NYC is a gun free zone or not."
DeleteMike, you mean the argument that you soundly lost? Ok, I get it. O_o
Here you go Mike:
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss
So lets try a little math, shall we:
37,000 licensed permit holders
------------------------------
8,244,910 population of NYC
That is less than one half of one percent of the population on NYC - and many of them "boldface names and public figures: prominent business leaders, elected officials, celebrities, journalists, judges and lawyers"
I think that probably qualifies as a "gun-free zone" by any definition of the term. Wouldn't you??
Just remember Mike's definition of "gun free zone" next time he says that he doesn't want to ban guns.
Delete"I think that probably qualifies as a "gun-free zone" by any definition of the term. Wouldn't you??"
DeleteNo.
A gun free zone is a place in which guns are prohibited, not where they're strictly controlled.
Ok, I will give you that version of the definition as a semantic victory.
DeleteBut then, what you are expecting us to believe is:
When evaluating any particular shooting incident as to whether an armed citizen could have made an impact (either positive or negative), it is fair to lump NYC. where less than .5% of the citizens can legally carry (and most of those are elite citizens). with un-prohibited areas in "shall issue" states?
You are really trying to sell those two scenarios as being equivalent?
"You are really trying to sell those two scenarios as being equivalent?"
DeleteHe's selling. It's just no one is stupid enough to buy.