Cali Teen Who Tried to Commit Columbine-Style Attack Wanted Revenge

imported post

no, not all over the place. just in him. if the situation was just a sword and chain saw and they restrained him yea good for them, but since he had a suicide vest i think a gun is necessary. because hes a kid and had no idea what he was doing everyone got lucky. but if he would have wired a switch, those teachers would of been blown into the roof... then the cops would of been issuing a public statement saying "this is why we do not encourage citizens to get involved with police business"

imported post

HankT wrote:

This Cali case is interesting because it undeniably displays that in this one incident that no guns were needed to end the threat and take the aggressor into custody.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's interesting but disagree that guns were undeniably not needed.

The fact that this story illustrates is that no guns were available and that the teachers acted bravely in the face of iminent threat to their lives and that of their students.

What this proves is that an armed atack can be stopped before anyone is hurt. Whatever the tool used to prevent the attack, in this case brass-balls, it shows that the anti's are wrong. Don't run and hide and wait for the cops, do something about it and save lives.

We all use the tools that are availlable to us in any given situation. This was no different. The teachers were extremely lucky that they weren't killed. This could have easily went against them because they didn't have weapons. If they would have ended up dead this whole conversation would be "too bad they didn't have guns".

imported post

HankT wrote:

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

were the teachers actually "ARMED"? if so?, they showed remarkabl restraint!

Click to expand...

Yep, each of the teachers had 2 of them. Each.

No guns. They handled the threat by just phsyically restraining the goof student.

When you think about it, a gun really wasn't needed in this case. Just some men/women who were quick to take action.

Those teachers are heroes.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the implications this has upon HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD):


It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


HankT has admitted that a person is ARMED simply by the fact that their bodies have arms. So all along HankT has just been saying that It is a bad strategy to shoot someone who has no arms! Now I understand.

imported post

Sorry Hank,

It's hard to use a case like this to justify your point. It's true that this was stopped without guns, ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE THERE WAS EXTREMELY LUCKY.

If this kid had been serious about this killing, anyone who came close to him would have been either stabbed with a sword or chain saw! Or even worse, he would have just blown himself up and killed everyone trying to "tackle him".

Then what would you be saying? "Oh they did the right thing trying to tackle him and not shoot him. Too bad he killed them"

The reality is Hank, this kid was obviously dumb as a brick. In 99% of these situations, a gun would have been MUCH more benefitial than "tackling".

Using one little out of the ordinary case to prove your point is hardly convincing.

I guess they should have tried to tackle Cho at Virginia Tech, or maybe the murderer at Trolley Square too right?

You're argument is flawed

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

The subject line implies that a kid from Colombia, South America commited a crime. I see nothing about where the kid is from.

HankT?

1. How do you know this kid is from South America?

2. How do you know EXACTLY what town in Colombia he is from? Does it say he is a member of the Cali Cartel?

Hank, try typing in English. It works much better. If you mean the kid is from the state of California, then try using the proper abbreviations. The people that are from there and grew up there (that also speak English, not gang-speak) know their state's proper abbreviations. They are as follows: CA, CAL, CALIF. That's IT. There are no others.

Don't be such a putz. Quit trying to be a gang-banger spork.

Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about?

Wait a minute....are you.... are you...Felix Unger?

imported post

Guns may have helped here but they may not have. It is obvious that if a person comes in with a gun to cause mayhem that another person with a gun could potentially stop it. When the maniac chooses to come in with a bomb, however, it is a different story. If a person has a bomb strapped to his chest, it may not be a good idea to shoot him in the chest (duh). Your best bet isa head shot but it is unlikely the guy is standing still and there are probably people everywhere running and screaming thereby making a missed head shot possibly another accident waiting to happen. This is one of those very tricky situations that is not going to have an easy answer. Even a gun will not guarantee safety at all times. I have always believed that gun or no gun, the best safety is using your own brain by utilizing "what-if" scenarios on a frequent basis and being aware of your surroundings at all times.

imported post

You all are missing a very important issue here. Suppose this kid had planned his crime better and rigged a "deadman switch" to his explosives. Shooting him would have automatically detonated the bombs in his vest. Attempting to tackle him would have, too.

The teachers were very lucky as well as courageous. This could have been allot worse than what it was.

imported post

So I decided that since I've never had to use my fire extinguisher or my smoke detector I pitched them both in the trash. Hell with them.

imported post

Those teachers are far braver individuals than I.

It'll be a cold day in hell when I go charging in to tackle someone carrying a chainsaw with intent to harm.

imported post

Yes, but a gun shot to the chest / bomb will stop this fine citizen from
doing it AGAIN in less than a couple of years. The idiot judges out there
are chomping at the bit to open the doors wide open, and the spend till
you release legislature will not stop them.
After all he hasn't hurt anyone, so it was a victimless crime. :cuss:

I would love to know if he can take VA tech classes by mail from a ca prison though.

imported post

Shouldn't this school have been made a bomb, chain saw, and sword free zone.That would have stopped this kid in the parking lot.

imported post

HankT wrote:

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

were the teachers actually "ARMED"? if so?, they showed remarkabl restraint!

Click to expand...

Yep, each of the teachers had 2 of them. Each.

No guns. They handled the threat by just phsyically restraining the goof student.

When you think about it, a gun really wasn't needed in this case. Just some men/women who were quick to take action.

Those teachers are heroes.

Click to expand...

So if you had a gun, you would prefer to tackle a guy who is strapped with explosives than use a designated head shoot to put the guy down? While I'm glad that the teachers willing to take a walk on the edge of insanity to protect their students (and for the fact that the kid didn't have a gun to pick them off as they tried), guns would have been far more appropriate.

imported post

The one thing that bothers me about this thread and many others is the apparent concept that so many people have that is you don't have a gun you are completely defenseless. How did we get his way that unless we have a gun to do our talking an fighting then we are cowards. These teachers and yes they are the same ones that so many of you seem to revile took control of a situation without having a gun. How many of you would have done the same? From what I read not very many. Most seem to be saying that unless you have your gun you are ready to turn tail and run leaving the boy to go ahead and finish off the school.

Instead of sitting behind a keyboard talking about how great a head shot would be we need to actually do something besides complain about how if only the teachers would have had a gun. They didn't and took care of business. They were armed with the one thing that seems to be sorely lacking in today's society, a brain full of courage and common sense.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

The one thing that bothers me about this thread and many others is the apparent concept that so many people have that is you don't have a gun you are completely defenseless.  How did we get his way that unless we have a gun to do our talking an fighting then we are cowards.  These teachers and yes they are the same ones that so many of you seem to revile took control of a situation without having a gun.  How many of you would have done the same?  From what I read not very many.  Most seem to be saying that unless you have your gun you are ready to turn tail and run leaving the boy to go ahead and finish off the school.

Instead of sitting behind a keyboard talking about how great a head shot would be we need to actually do something besides complain about how if only the teachers would have had a gun.  They didn't and took care of business.  They were armed with the one thing that seems to be sorely lacking in today's society, a brain full of courage and common sense.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you are coming from on this one. I think you are dead wrong. I can only speak for myself, though I imagine others here would have done the same in my position, but I have put my butt on the line to protect complete strangers when I didn't have a gun. I wished I had a gun (the victims injuries would have been significantly less serious if somebody was able to pop the melons of the guys beating them on the ground with pipe wrenches), but the fact is I didn't have one and did what it took to stop the attack.

There is a difference between being dependent on a gun and simply appreciating how much more effectively you can defend yourself with one. I think you are the one that needs to learn that.

imported post

inbox485 wrote:

There is a difference between being dependent on a gun and simply appreciating how much more effectively you can defend yourself with one. I think you are the one that needs to learn that.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the incident described in OP could have been handled in a more "effective" manner with a gun?????????


How?

Make your case.

imported post

HankT wrote:

inbox485 wrote:

There is a difference between being dependent on a gun and simply appreciating how much more effectively you can defend yourself with one. I think you are the one that needs to learn that.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the incident described in OP could have been handled in a more "effective" manner with a gun?????????


How? 

Make your case.

Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

Often being presented with a gun, attackers stop immediately. By tackling the kid the teachers risked being blown up in the process. If the kid failed to stop the attack after being ordered to do so at gun point a well place shot or two would have stopped him.

And yes the idiot kid would have possibly died from it. I happen to value the lives of teachers over some dill weed kid trying to kill his classmates. I guarantee if a resource officer happened to be their that moment a gun would have been drawn and if the kid failed to stop, shots would have been fired. The cop wouldn't have holstered his gun and tackled a kid strapped with explosives and waving a chain saw.

imported post

inbox485 wrote:

HankT wrote:

inbox485 wrote:

There is a difference between being dependent on a gun and simply appreciating how much more effectively you can defend yourself with one. I think you are the one that needs to learn that.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the incident described in OP could have been handled in a more "effective" manner with a gun?????????


How?

Make your case.

Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

Often being presented with a gun, attackers stop immediately. By tackling the kid the teachers risked being blown up in the process. If the kid failed to stop the attack after being ordered to do so at gun point a well place shot or two would have stopped him.

And yes the idiot kid would have possibly died from it. I happen to value the lives of teachers over some dill weed kid trying to kill his classmates. I guarantee if a resource officer happened to be their that moment a gun would have been drawn and if the kid failed to stop, shots would have been fired. The cop wouldn't have holstered his gun and tackled a kid strapped with explosives and waving a chain saw.

Click to expand...

If a bullfrog had wings.............. Yes you have a bunch of ifs in your reply but none of them made any difference. The student was not injured, the teachers were not injured and no guns were used. Maybe IF the teachers had a gun a pointed it at the student he would have stopped and maybe not. Then you would have a dead student. And while we are at WHAT IFS what about the deadman switch that when you put the bullet in his head the bombs went off and blew the whole school up. A deadman switch that was brought up also applies to being dead from gun shots as well as tackling by teachers.

The whole point is that just because a convicted felon or whoever doesn't have a gun they aren't defenseless. They have other means of protecting primarily staying away from the same places that put them in jail to start with. What if someone had tackled Cho at VT? There are all kinds of possibilities and no one is saying that a gun won't help but you don't always need one and just because you don't have one is no excuse to run. I think those teachers also valued the lives of the other teachers and students over the dill weed kid and is exactly why they acted. You can criticize them all you want and propose what ifs but they acted and the outcome was for the best of everyone. Under the suggestions of most on here there wouldhave beenat least one dead instead of none.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

If a bullfrog had wings..............  Yes you have a bunch of ifs in your reply but none of them made any difference.  The student was not injured, the teachers were not injured and no guns were used.  Maybe IF the teachers had a gun a pointed it at the student he would have stopped and maybe not.  Then you would have a dead student.  And while we are at WHAT IFS what about the deadman switch that when you put the bullet in his head the bombs went off and blew the whole school up.  A deadman switch that was brought up also applies to being dead from gun shots as well as tackling by teachers.

The whole point is that just because a convicted felon or whoever doesn't have a gun they aren't defenseless.  They have other means of protecting primarily staying away from the same places that put them in jail to start with.  What if someone had tackled Cho at VT?  There are all kinds of possibilities and no one is saying that a gun won't help but you don't always need one and just because you don't have one is no excuse to run.  I think those teachers also valued the lives of the other teachers and students over the dill weed kid and is exactly why they acted.  You can criticize them all you want and propose what ifs but they acted and the outcome was for the best of everyone.  Under the suggestions of most on here there would have been at least one dead instead of none.

Click to expand...

Not sure what Bullfrogs have to do with this. I'm also not sure how drastically reducing the risks the teachers faced makes no difference. I guess I prefer good guys safe and bad guys neutralized. A dead student is fine by me if it was that student.

I skimmed back through the previous posts and couldn't find a single criticism of the teachers that you speak of. In fact everybody said they were heroes that could have benefited from being armed. You make the assumption that because this time the teachers didn't get blown up that in any similar case tackling a guy throwing pipe bombs around is preferable to shooting them. I happen to disagree.

You also keep repeating the idea that people would run if they didn't have a gun. You are the only person who keeps saying this. Everybody else has simply said that it would have been safer for the teachers if they had a gun.

imported post

While the actions of the teachers were clearly heroic, they really didn't have a lot of options. Either take the student on empty handed as they did, and risk that he had the capability to detonate his vest or run like hell. I certainly their decision to stop him at such a great personal risk must have been the right decision given their circumstances. I would not presume to second guess them after they way that they put their lives on the line with that decision.

However, in the hypothetical world of IF-ville I would like to think about how different this situation could have been if the teachers had actually been armed. If the teachers were armed, then trying to tackle this guy would not have been the right option. Stand off weapons would be best, but handguns would be the next best thing to deal with someone potentially capable of detonating their explosive vest.

In my mind, the attackers life is already forfeited in a situation like this and should not factor into the analysis. What then remains are the lives of the students and teachers the would be victims of this attacker. What is safest for them? Most likely the use of lethal force, from as safe a distance as possible.

I have seen HankT post over and over that the facts demonstrate that guns weren't necessary in this situation and that is technically and factually correct. But don't confuse this with the idea that the use of guns IF AVAILABLE would have been the most prudent course of action.

Just my $0.02