Who needs a gun at a school board meeting? (Amazing Video)

That gunman was a very crappy shot, no matter how "evil" or corrupt those schoolboard directors are, they didn't deserve to be killed.

Of course the most "brilliant" solution will be metal detectors at the doorways, not promoting the idea that sane people be armed.

Never bring a purse to a gunfight.

MarlboroLts5150 said:

The craziest thing I saw was the lady swinging her purse at him. I can't even imagine what universe her mind was in, what....thinking she was going to knock him out.

Click to expand...

And then she immediately fell down screaming.

Seriously, did she think one whack on his arm with a purse was going to be the knockout blow?

KBCraig said:

And then she immediately fell down screaming.

Seriously, did she think one whack on his arm with a purse was going to be the knockout blow?

Click to expand...

She was the one who should have had a gun. She got close enough that she could have put two in his head at point blank range, unfortunately, she would have gone to prison, because as we know, only criminals are allowed to have guns on school property.

It's rare that we get to see an event like this in such detail. we usually have to listen to police department and witness statements, but in this instance we can see just how armed law abiding citizens could have ended this before rounds started whizzing by innocent peoples heads. Let's say everyone in the room was armed; granted not everyone would have had an opportunity to line up a shot with a safe backdrop, but clearly one person got the chance, to bad all she had to shoot him with was a purse.

KBCraig said:

And then she immediately fell down screaming.

Seriously, did she think one whack on his arm with a purse was going to be the knockout blow?

Click to expand...

She watches too much TV. On TV, one hit with the purse would've done the trick--if it suited the purpose of the plot.

On another note, the gunman could not legally posses a firearm. Signs, metal detectors, and anti-gun policies only stop that folks who would defend us from maniacs like this from carrying. The maniacs will continue to carry.

eye95 said:

She watches too much TV. On TV, one hit with the purse would've done the trick--if it suited the purpose of the plot.

On another note, the gunman could not legally posses a firearm. Signs, metal detectors, and anti-gun policies only stop that folks who would defend us from maniacs like this from carrying. The maniacs will continue to carry.

Click to expand...

I think maybe the guy just didn't see the sign barring firearms on the way in.
Perhaps the county board should create a committee to investigate and determine the most effective size, font, color and placement of signs. So they are as visible as possible to anyone entering the facility. (Of course this study will take a minimum of 5 years)

Citizen said:

I was thinking about this. I'm not so sure. Having only the Ability and Opportunity sides of the triad (Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy/Intent) doesn't seem to fulfill the requirements.

As far as I know, brandishing alone is insufficient.

Now, at the instant the gun is pointed (demonstrating intent), or a verbal threat was made (as it was part way into the event, if I recall) demonstrating intent, then all the elements are present.

After the gun was drawn, but prior to the threat that somebody was gonna get shot, the most I could see was the guard or board member drawing a weapon and demanding the brandisher drop it.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately waiting for that triad to present itself clearly squanders time that could be used to eliminate a clear threat. In this instance, considering the location and the type of meeting, somebody drawing a weapon would cover the AOI triangle.

That isn't a blanket assessment because if you read the kronicles of kwik, he was carrying a pistol in the hand walking through the community. Ability and opportunity are there, but intent was not established.

Self defense can be clear as crystal and murky as the mighty Mississippi river all at the same time.

I wonder how it misses at that range???

If you listen to what they say in the video, you hear someone say he had caps! (Blanks)

I wonder if that was the truth or if it was on the tape to make it sound good?

palerider116 said:

SNIP In this instance, considering the location and the type of meeting, somebody drawing a weapon would cover the AOI triangle.

Click to expand...

Explain please. In the early part of the video lethal intent is not only unclear, it is absent. Only brandishing. He sprays the "V" onto the wall, draws the gun, but does do not point it in a threatening manner. Then just seconds later he uses it to gesture for just a moment at the school board members, not to make a threat but to indicate who may leave the room*, but then lowers the gun again.

*Now, this is the point a defender could legally start shooting, as I understand self-defense law.

a) the gesture could be reasonably interpreted as "about to open fire"

b) the gunman stated who should leave the room, essentially announcing a potential hostage situation at a minimum for those who are not allowed to leave the room


By the way, thanks for the explanation about lawsuits in the other thread.

Citizen said:

Explain please. In the early part of the video lethal intent is not only unclear, it is absent. Only brandishing. He sprays the "V" onto the wall, draws the gun, but does do not point it in a threatening manner. Then just seconds later he uses it to gesture for just a moment at the school board members, not to make a threat but to indicate who may leave the room*, but then lowers the gun again.

*Now, this is the point a defender could legally start shooting, as I understand self-defense law.

a) the gesture could be reasonably interpreted as "about to open fire"

b) the gunman stated who should leave the room, essentially announcing a potential hostage situation at a minimum for those who are not allowed to leave the room


By the way, thanks for the explanation about lawsuits in the other thread.

Click to expand...

He held a gun in his hand because he intended to use it to gain leverage. No one in that room would have been unjustified in putting two in his chest. nor would the woman who tried to bat his gun from his hand using her purse have been unjustified by putting two well placed shots behind his ear. His behavior coupled with a firearm in his hand constituted a menacing intent to do harm, especially when he said "I'm going to die today."

Just goes to prove.....school zones need guns !!

Nevada carrier said:

He held a gun in his hand because he intended to use it to gain leverage. No one in that room would have been unjustified in putting two in his chest. nor would the woman who tried to bat his gun from his hand using her purse have been unjustified by putting two well placed shots behind his ear. His behavior coupled with a firearm in his hand constituted a menacing intent to do harm, especially when he said "I'm going to die today."

Click to expand...

The 1000 ft law about carrying a handgun in a GFSZ obviously didn't apply to this dumbass or maybe he hadn't seen the memo either way .....and its been proved many times in the past that all school teachers should be armed and trained to deal with these threats ...ARM our teachers and keep the crazies, child molesters and pedophiles away from our kids! All because his wife had been fired from her job at the school and her husband wanted to do what???? Oh and the defence of him being on Bi polar medication that he didn't take doesn't wash with me whether true or not ...Thank gawd that the retired cop turned security guard was in place complete with his weapon to swiftly end the threat ...

Nevada carrier said:

He held a gun in his hand because he intended to use it to gain leverage. No one in that room would have been unjustified in putting two in his chest. nor would the woman who tried to bat his gun from his hand using her purse have been unjustified by putting two well placed shots behind his ear. His behavior coupled with a firearm in his hand constituted a menacing intent to do harm, especially when he said "I'm going to die today."

Click to expand...

Cite, please. What is your legal theory? I am aware of no self-defense law that says brandishing "to gain leverage" is the same as AOJ/I.

Also, stick with the timing of events as discussed in the thread discussion. PaleRider and I are discussing the moment "when the gun is drawn", not when "I'm going to die today".

just to up my post count,,,,,

as soon as that guy took the gun out of his pocket,
i am sure it would be lawfully justified to take him out, by any means!

when the woman attacked him with her purse,
the men sitting there, should have all rushed the guy!
if she can be man enough to stand up, those men should have been man enough to stand up too!

i dont know when security became aware of the problem,
did he come to the sound of the shots?
he should not have waited for two shots fired before responding.

1245A Defender said:

as soon as that guy took the gun out of his pocket,
i am sure it would be lawfully justified to take him out, by any means!

Click to expand...

This is a great declaration, but so far nobody has been able to explain it in terms of AOJ/I. So far, the shoot-when-he-draws supporters are all combining the gun (Ability) with Jeopardy/Intent into one factor. No one has clearly explained how the gun draw is at the same time both Ability and Jeopardy/Intent.

Looking at it from another approach, lets say a fella takes his gun out of his pocket in a gun store to lay it on a counter or check its fit in a holster. Suddenly we have a justified shooting? Doesn't make sense.

Or, what if a fella comes into a public building, drops his keys, bends to pick them up, and his J-frame falls out of his pocket onto the carpet. Someone nearby gasps and points, the security guard, hearing the gasp and seeing the pointing, turns just in time to see the gun-dropper with the gun back in his hand. Suddenly we have a justified shooting? Doesn't make sense.

In the same vein, someone pulls and brandishes a knife inside 21' is supposedly a justified shooting target, even if all he does is stand there brandishing and talking big. The brandisher
has Opportunity (he's close enough), and Ability (he has a knife), and even though he has done nothing to make a reasonable person believe he is actually attacking or actually going to attack imminently, knife-man supposedly has presented Jeopardy/Intent simply because he also has the Ability (knife). Doesn't make sense.

new ideas cloud to question,

in the setting of a meeting, after spraying a V on the wall,
pulling the gun out of his pocket,
shows the ability!

everyone sitting there, defenseless,
shows the opportunity!

drawing a gun at any time it is not required for self defense, is a direct threat,
shows jeopardy!

the ability and the jeopardy happen at the same time and action.
the opportunity was already there, sitting in front of him!

1245A Defender said:

SNIP the ability and the jeopardy happen at the same time and action.
the opportunity was already there, sitting in front of him!

Click to expand...

Brilliant explanation (sarcasm). All you've done is re-declare what you declared earlier.

Can anybody actually explain their rationale--that both Ability and Jeopardy occur simply because a gun is drawn from a pocket? In light of the fact that the common law has THREE factors (AOJ/I), and not two.

If the presentation of the weapon was both A and J/I at the same time, what would be the point of having two separate factors? (Don't bother trying to make a distraction by arguing with this point, unless you also explain the rationale for the main point.)

well,,,

Citizen said:

Brilliant explanation (sarcasm). All you've done is re-declare what you declared earlier.

Can anybody actually explain their rationale--that both Ability and Jeopardy occur simply because a gun is drawn from a pocket? In light of the fact that the common law has THREE factors (AOJ/I), and not two.

If the presentation of the weapon was both A and J/I at the same time, what would be the point of having two separate factors? (Don't bother trying to make a distraction by arguing with this point, unless you also explain the rationale for the main point.)

Click to expand...

i have only told readers here about the way I weigh the event,
and the way I would react to the event!
maybe next you will opine that, since he didnt actually manage to shoot any body
that his demise was unlawful, and uncalled for!

he didnt have the ability, cause he cant shoot good.
therefor no action was required or lawful nor was it needed!

really got to fill out that A,O,J form in triplicate, get the counter signatures and the notaries stamps before necessary self defense actions can be put into action!

Clearing up some things...

Self-defense: It wasn't self-defense on the part of the school board security officer, for at one point he wasn't just out of the room, he was out of the building (to retrieve his firearm from his vehicle). Rather, it was both defense of others, as well as the simple performance of his duties.

Missing at that range: It's likely he missed on purpose, as he was trained in the military, had multiple opportunities to hit his target, and was fairly calm throughout, even to the point of reacting to the woman with mild annoyance, nothing more. That's not something something a deranged psycho would do. Most likely his intent was two-fold: Bring attention to the fact his wife was fired, and go out via suicide by cop, not because he was psychotic, but because he was depressed. When that failed, he turned his gun on himself and ended it.

Blanks: No way. Blanks don't blow papers off a desk, leave holes in the wall behind the school board members, or provide the killing blow of the last shot he fired into his own head.

When to legally fire: In this situation, one would have been justified the moment he withdrew his firearm. I personally may have waiting a bit long, until he pointed it at someone, but at that moment I wouldn't have hesitated any longer.

The woman with the purse: Very brave. Very poor idea. If you don't know how to take down a perp, stay away, as it's as likely to do more harm than good.

The 1,000 ft law: This is one of the most ridiculous laws on the books. It's yet another attempt to calm the fears of the anti-gun fanatics while making things even less safe for our children because we can't defend them within 1,000 ft of their public schools. A very similar and equally stupid law is California's UOC law.

Retired cop: I've heard reports he was never a cop, just a trained security guard who had risen over time to be the chief of security for the school system. No solid verification on that, however.

When security became aware of the problem: Immediately, as he was in the room when the guy first took the podium. He first helped people out of the room, ran to his vehicle to get his gun, and arrived back at the door leading into the room about the time the counsel member said, "Please don't." At that point, he opened the door, entered the room, and fired as soon as he could get a shot off.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy / Intent: His shooting skill is immaterial, as MWAG constitutes both Ability and Opportunity. Jeopardy occurs the moment he withdraws his firearm in that context, and the context is all-important, here. Drawing it at a gunsmith's shop for maintenance is an altogether different context. It's intent that's difficult to nail down, but that is in part because it varies the most throughout the states. Castle laws generally imply intent towards an unknown and armed intruder. In a couple of states, however, you almost need a signed confession from the perp, or may have to follow a ludicrous "do not fire until fired upon" rule.

In 20/20 hindsight while watching the video, intent wasn't clear until he slowly drew a bead towards the one board member who said "Please don't," but it could reasonable be inferred intent was stated when he said something about dying that day.

AOJ/I aside, no triplicate form is needed to ascertain that someone who spraypaints a wall then pulls out a firearm, brandishing it menacingly towards others, is a clear and present danger to the lives of self and others. Whether that meets the requirements for a takedown in your own state is something of which each of us need to be certain.

It is easy to miss from that range, especially if one does not know what he is doing with a firearm--and this guy didn't. He put is second shot into the floor, and surprised himself by doing so.

His whole manner and handling of the weapon stunk of learning how to use a firearm by watching action TV shows.

1245A Defender said:

i have only told readers here about the way I weigh the event,
and the way I would react to the event!
maybe next you will opine that, since he didnt actually manage to shoot any body
that his demise was unlawful, and uncalled for!

he didnt have the ability, cause he cant shoot good.
therefor no action was required or lawful nor was it needed!

really got to fill out that A,O,J form in triplicate, get the counter signatures and the notaries stamps before necessary self defense actions can be put into action!

Click to expand...

Straw man arguments; blatant, classic strawman. Create something I didn't say. The only thing different is you leave your argument implied (by not saying it). Using the absurdity of what I didn't say--what you created--to undermine what I did say.

There is no triplicate required. What is required, according to my understanding of AOJ/I is an objective indication that would give a reasonable person genuine reason to believe he's actually going to do it. Note the absense of hyperventilation; note the absence of melding two or three factors into one. Note the absence of overactive imagination and worry. Note the absence of shooting just in case.

Thank you, sincerely, for clearing up that you were just giving your take on it.

Can anybody explain how AOJ/I is accomplished by merely drawing the gun? Rather than just declaring it is so. Since9, while level-headed and sincere in his post, only goes so far as to say "in that context" which is really only an enhanced declaration. He does not lay out the exact elements of the context to which he is referring; nor does he explain how those exact context elements contribute to or create Jeopardy/Intent that the gunman is actually going to start shooting people solely because he draws a gun.

Nor, does Since9, or anybody else, explain how anybody is going to honestly evaluate these context points in the fractions of a second after the gun is drawn, because, remember, the gun draw, according to the pro-shoot posters, fills the bill. Now that I think about it, the defender can only really do one of two things mentally: 1) add up evaluate all the context points before the gun is drawn such that the gun draw is, in effect, the final context point, or 2) evaluate all the context points at the gun draw. Neither method seems particularly workable in that the moment will have passed into something else--in this case, where the gunman is in fact not shooting, nor declaring that he will.

Although in this case, he immediately announces a sort of hostage situation by telling some people to leave and gestures with the gun to indicate which people should not leave, either of which would be grounds to open fire. But, neither of which is the actual draw itself--both come after the draw, with enough time (seconds) to recognize that the gunman is not shooting merely by drawing: he is merely brandishing at most.