Friday, August 24, 2012

Another Mass Shooting, this one at the Empire State Building

Want to bet the gun or guns turn out to have been bought OUTSIDE of New York City? New York has very successful gun control; 85% of the guns used in any kind of crime come from other states, notably Virginia and Florida (ah HAH! turned out to be Florida).

The headline below is out of date; it appears there were 2 killed, 9 wounded.

It is too easy for disgruntled individuals to get their hands on firearms, and to use them.  We have far too many shootings in workplaces, we have too many domestic murder suicides - an estimated 3 or more per week - many of which involve multiple victims, and of course, we have far too many school mass shootings.

from MSNBC.com

2 killed, 8 injured in shooting near Empire State Building

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and
A disgruntled ex-employee of a women’s accessories business gunned down a former co-worker and then died in a hail of police bullets Friday morning outside the Empire State Building, officials said.
Eight bystanders were grazed or shot -- all of them, apparently, by police bullets, sources said.
The suspected gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, 58, who was laid off a year ago, approached a former co-worker on the street and shot him three times, killing him, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
Johnson's victim was not officially identified, but a law enforcement official told NBC News he was Steven Ercolino, a vice president at Hazan Import, where Johnson had worked until last year.
A police report from last year said that on April 27, 2011, Johnson threatened Ercolino, saying, "I am going to kill you."
A construction worker who witnessed the shooting incident Friday at 10 W. 33rd Street followed Johnson as he walked away, Kelly said. The construction worker alerted police, who confronted Johnson.
Johnson was walking along the curb in front of the Empire State Building when he turned his .45-caliber pistol on the officers and was killed as they opened fire, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
Police fired at least 14 times, Kelly said.
More coverage at NBCNewYork.com
Kelly said that some of those injured in the incident may have been hit by police bullets, adding that the injured are expected to survive.
Kelly said Johnson was a designer of women's accessories at Hazan Imports until he was laid-off in a downsizing.
Johnson bought the .45-caliber gun used in the shooting in 1991 in Florida, two law enforcement souces told NBC News. He was not licensed to carry arms in New York, they said.
Ercolino, who lived in Warwick, N.Y., was the father of a young boy, neighbors there told NBC News.
Through photos and tweets, witnesses show chaos outside Empire State Building
Witnesses described a chaotic scene Friday morning on streets crowded with tourists and commuters alike.
"People were yelling 'Get down! Get down!", said Marc Engel, an accountant who was on a bus in the area when he heard the shots. "It took about 15 seconds, a lot of 'pop, pop, pop, pop, one shot after the other."
"I heard pop, pop, pop, pop, and I ran back into my offices,” Gloria Walker, another witness, told NBC News. "I ran, I ran, I ran."
Another witness, Darrin Deleuil, told the Wall Street Journal that he saw the shooter, wearing a suit and fedora shoot one victim point blank on 33rd Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenue. "He looked like an old gangster," Deleuil said. "He looked real calm to me. He made sure he didn't miss him."
 
The FDNY told NBC News they responded to a call about the shooting at Fifth Avenue and 34th Street at 9:07 a.m. Friday and arrived at 9:13 a.m.
The body of the gunman remained on the street, under a white sheet, in front of Heartland Brewery until it was taken to the city medcal examiner's office around noon.
The Empire State Building operators said the building was not involved in the shooting and remained open.

15 comments:

  1. The gun was purchased legally in Florida by the shooter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apparently it was purchase 20 years ago I'm sure more details will emerge about him.

    What I found more instructive was that after the Aurora Colorado shooting we had pro-carry people coming out of the woodwork touting how they would have blown away James Holt (never mind the body armor) but they insist they wouldn't have killed anyone else or wounded anyone else, in a dark, crowded, gas/smoke/haze filled theater.

    Whereas here, in broad daylight, with the shooter firing on them, two trained law enforcement officers have probably had shots from their two weapons strike some if not all of the 9 people wounded, although some may be from ricochets. These were people who were not as densely packed together as those in the theater, the light and visibility was as close to perfect as possible, no irritant haze in the air.
    I'm sure we'll have a computer model available sometime soon, confirmed by all the many videos which shoot images of people through the NYC surveillance system that should make it very clear how each injury occurs.
    If there were civilian casualties, I can't fault the police, especially if they are the result of ricochets. I applaud them for the job they did in responding, I applaud the gutsy construction worker who helped them, and for the apparent number of shots which struck the (alleged) apparent killer.
    I understand this guy had multiple magazines, and that he may have fired into the crowds of people around him as well as at police. It doesnn't sound as if he went so far as to buy expanded capacity magazines, just regular ones. But he still seems to have been in that mode of thinking that he was going to shoot these other people to get away -- and doing what he did that was delusional thinking. The only real question was going to be if he was stopped before or after shooting, or shooting at, his victim.
    Apparently he tried to get into the building earlier this week and was stopped by building security.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your headline for this post is an example why some people don't take you seriously.

    A disgruntled worker shot his boss. Everybody else was killed or injured by police. It's not fair to call this a Mass Shooting and blame it on millions of law-abiding firearms owners.



    ReplyDelete
  4. You are wrong Joe; a lot of people DO take me seriously.

    1. At the time I wrote the headline, at least some of the people who were witnesses described the shooter as firing at other people.

    2. Multiple people WERE shot, which makes it a mass shooting; this is true if the people were shot by police in the course of dealing with the threat by the shooter, or if the shooter fired the shot that hit them.

    Please show me where multiple people who are shot are more shot if they are injured by the criminal, or less shot if they are wounded by police fire or ricochets. Show me your authoritative source for defining mass shootings. Because I can show you that there are many different definitions, includign multiple people killed or injured in a single event - which this was.

    In either case it was the shooter who was the cause of these shootings, and who put people at risk.

    Where did I blame this on millions of law-abiding firearms owners? This was a legally purchased weapon, so in that context, since this shooter did not have a criminal record, how is he not what you call a 'law-abiding' firearms owner who committed murder, and apparently suicide-by-cop?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know, as much as you tout your firearms expertise, you should call the NYPD Police Officer's Union to offer your services as Firearms Guru. They'd love you.

    You harshly criticize civilians who even contemplate violating the Iron Rules of Firearms Safety for not assuring their backstop, suggesting instead these civilians should physically attack the man with the machine gun for the safety of other theatre patrons.

    But you give the cops a big smoochie when they comletely ignore their backstop (and all the other non-lethal options) to put 16 bullets in the air, managing to hit a suspect at close range 12 times and still gun down 9 innocent bystanders, a modern math miracle.

    And best of all - it's the NRA's fault! If they hadn't fought against sensible prohibition on everyone owning any sort of firearm ever, disgruntled former workers wouldn't have been able to legally purchase firearms years ago and miles away so none of this would have happened.

    The chain of reasoning is breathtaking. Insane; but breathtaking. Call them.


    ReplyDelete
  6. Your information is out of date Joe. Only two of the wounded were hit by whole bullets; the other 7 were hit by fragments and ricochet bits. If you take a look at the footage, it looks like they had pretty legit shots they took; and given that he drew on them, when they were following him, trying to get the optimum situation to intervene. It wasn't exactly their choosing when the shooting at them started - where did you think they should have taken cover?

    No one, except the dead shooter appears to have been seriously hurt; whereas the shooter had twelve of 16 rounds in his body. What non-lethal options did you recommend.

    Unlike the theater shooter, this guy wasn't wearing body armor, it wasn't dark, it was still less crowded than the theater, and oh yeah -- not irritant gas obscuring visibility. And of course, the cops were coordinating their response instead of what you had suggested where it would have added to the difficulty of law enforcement.

    Two totally dissimilar situations.and if anyone is insane it is you for conflating them as if they had something significant in common.

    Are you suggesting this guy was a GOOD gun owner, Joe? You want guys like this to own firearms, do you? Because you think people should be using firearms to shoot their fellow employees? Any idea how many people use their firearms to shoot co-workers? (Hint - it is one of the most common kinds of mass shootings.)

    Is that your idea of 2nd Amendment freedome Joe? Murder in the streets, blood in the streets? Ummmm I don't think you are making a winning argument for your pro-gun side here.

    If the NRA hadn't been anti-gun regulation, the cops would have known this guy had a gun, and could have required he turn it in due to that restraining order.

    It doesn't appear from the volume of people with restraining orders agains them who shoot themsevles and others that they should have firearms.

    Is there any number of dead and wounded people that seems too high to you? I thought not - you put guns over people apparently.

    I haven't ever said there should be a prohibition on anyone owning a firarm ever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe,

    Your comment is so lacking in actual truth it really doesn't warrant a reply. DG never claimed to be a firearms ex[ert, she never asserted no one should EVER be allowed to own a firearm, or really anything else you said. I don't know who wounded whom in the NYC shooting, but there are certainly FAR more than enough circumstances of bystander casualties to WARRANT training police officers to restrain fire. Further, the TRUTH is, the undeniable FACT is THEY, the policeman and women, AGREE WITH DG, that's why they DO train. DG stated the further reality is that civilians don't get that truing, they don't practice even as often as police do with firearms. They don't suffer the consequences of improperly discharging their weapon, (improper being using a firearm in a situation where a police office is not allowed to do so). SHe makes the very basic and truthful point that the NRA stands in the way of requiring civilians to be competently trained, fights holding them accountable for using a firearm when they should not. She made no claim to prevent civilians from owning, but YOU use deceit to avoid facing having to answer why YOU don't support civilians being required to be trained and held accountable for their actions.

    Apparently you don't have anything better. So, again Joe, what would be wrong exactly with asking civilians who chose to carry firearms to take significant training and be subject to the same standards police are subject to? Why do you support the NRA fighting against that? THis time, try answering with truthful comments rather than sophistry and deceit.

    When you do, remember that no matter what you think of DG (or me), that the police believe in what DG is saying (that using firearms in the wrong situation is a problem) they believe in it SO much, they spend humoreds of thousands of training hours per year and MILLIONS of dollars training their officers in how to avoid killing or SHOOTING anyone but the intended target.

    Also, while I won't claim to be an expert, anytime anyplace you want to go and try to hit a target while I throw baseballs at your head (from the side of course and not hard enough to injure you), I'll be glad to see how well YOU do hitting that target. You can do the same with me, and then BOTH of us can go apologize to various police departments as, I'd bet, YOU and me, just like nearly all gun-toters I know, make fun of police marksmanship because we can hit paper targets in well lit rooms that aren't shooting back at us. THAT 's the point about marksmanship. I've tried to hurriedly hit dozens of targets with automatic weapons, it's hard, and I'm quite sure it's much harder when those targets are shooting back. Those were the points, Joe, not the ludicrous reply you made, but THOSE points. Try THOSE out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would add to what you've written Pen that if civilians want to assume the same responsibilities of shooting alleged criminals, including putting innocent people at risk they should be required to carry a substantial amount of insurance to pay for any mistakes they make.

    Law inforcement does.

    They should also be held accountable, and have their decisions to shoot reviewed by a panel of experts to determine if they acted properly or not, including according to the rules of firearm safety just like law enforcement does. If they make the wrong decision, they should lose their firearms permanently, because they represent a proven danger with them.

    The SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd amendment give people a right to firearms in their homes; they do not define that right as a right to carry in public. If people wish to do that they should carry appropriate insurance in case they make a mistake that injures people or property, similar to driving a vehicle. What should NOT happen is to allow them to make mistakes without legal consequences or financial consequences, which is part of the moral hazard in the shoot first laws. Moral hazard is a specific term, both a legal and a financial one.

    We require law enforcement to deal with dangerous situations; for civilians it is their choice to act as de facto law enforcement or vigilantes. They do not have the same duty or authority as LEOs. We should not give them more latitude to endanger others, but require less accountability, including excluding or shielding them from liability or wrongful death litigation.If they choose to use lethal force, then they must take the responsibility for all that goes with it - OR, don't use lethal force.

    It appears that the New York City police, as is true with other law enforcement DOES have a policy about restraining from shooting in situations where it is a clear danger to other people. One of the items to be reviewed in assessing if these officers acted properly will be to apply that policy and to evaluate if the officers did comply.

    My point above is that we haven't got the angle of view that the officers had nor do we have any indication if the people who were hit ran into their line of fire AFTER they began shooting in the chaos, but possibly had a clear line of fire when they began.

    The fact that the majority of injuries, were from fragments and bits and pieces of building etc., and ricochets that struck people rather than direct bullet hits suggests, on a preliminary basis, that the officers DID have a relatively clear shot at the gunman.

    But we don't know enough at this point for any conclusion to be definitive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Statement: “It is too easy for disgruntled individuals to get their hands on firearms, and to use them.”

    Implication: If this disgruntled individual had no firearm, he wouldn’t have shot his boss and the cops wouldn’t have had to shoot him and nine other people.

    Causation: this individual bought this firearm in Florida 20 years ago in a legal sale.

    Obvious Solution: nobody should be allowed to buy firearms because 20 years later and 1,000 miles away, they might use them in a crime.

    Blame: NRA – the one organization that consistently opposes the Obvious Solution – is composed of and supported by millions of law-abiding firearms owners. They are to blame.

    Denial: “Where did I blame this on millions of law-abiding firearms owners?”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alternate Statement: "If the NRA hadn't been anti-gun regulation, the cops would have known this guy had a gun, and could have required he turn it in due to that restraining order."

    Same Blame: The NRA is composed of and supported by millions of firearms owners. They are to blame.

    Do I have to do all the work around here?

    True, you didn't finish the chain of logic in your posts, but I'm not clear whether that was because you didn't want to admit where it led, or because you didn't understand your own arguments. Neither inspires confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe,


    I read both your replies and they are making at least two leaps which are either illogical in one case and doesn't exist in the other. If that's doing "all the work", well, please feel free to try a different approach, your chose "vocation" isn't working out so well.

    The illogical leap is this, by saying that she wasn't attacking all "law abiding gun owners", that doesn't preclude attacking the shooter here, he wasn't law abiding now was he?

    The "doesn't exist" one is this, not all "law abiding gun owners" are members of the NRA, in fact that VAST VAST majority aren't. Blaming the NRA isn't blaming all law abiding gun owners, nor are all members of the NRA law abiding.

    Your obfuscation here does not further the conversation, the root of which is, Do you feel that making it more difficult to know of and to control access to firearms by the mentally unstable is correct (as the NRA has sought successfully to do)? Do you support standing in the way of making people have to pass certain hurdles to be allowed to own firearms? If not, which hurdles do you support? Only the current ones? The point is the current ones aren't working.

    The NRA deserves blame for preventing improvement in law. The NRA doesn't represent all law abiding citizens, it represents a handful of millions of generally very zealous people, many of whom don't understand the Constitution from Brawny Paper Towels, sorry, but I've spoken to FAR too many of them to feel otherwise. Their grasp of "general welfare", of the commerce clause, of a host of other concepts, including due process, the right to restrict government intrusion, the rights of incorporation, and the like, is so dwarfed by a blindered desire to "have guns at the ready" that they are no longer operating without such bias that their stance becomes extreme/irrational. Standing in the way of allowing the "state" to prevent people like James Holmes from having firearms is like standing in the way of letting Ted Bundy have a car and a knife.

    Further, and more importantly even than screening Holmes, your party supposedly is the party of personal responsibility. I laugh at that every time I think about it since you blame the government for everything, but anyway, supposedly it is. Why is it you don't support holding people personally responsible for misuse of firearms? Shouldn't they be held to the same standards law enforcement is held to if they want to carry around a gun? Shouldn't they be subject to civil penalty, loss of privilege, exposure to lawsuit, expectation of proper use not shielded by ludicrous "stand your ground" standards? If not, why not? Why should people who shoot other people improperly not be held to the same standards police are held to?

    Please, again, try, try hard, to stay ON the subject rather than simply obfuscating on minor points like "DG attacked all gun owners" when in fact she didn't, but YOU have yet to address the larger point at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe wrote:
    Blame: NRA – the one organization that consistently opposes the Obvious Solution – is composed of and supported by millions of law-abiding firearms owners. They are to blame.

    The NRA is not law abiding, as evident by the fact they have Ted Nugent on their board, who has multiple convictions for disobeying the law with firearms, and who has gotten in trouble for advocating political violence with firearms.

    But you claim the NRA is representing law abiding gun owners. I would argue they are not, as evidenced by the recent Luntz poll - and he's as far right as a pollster can get (from just last month):
    NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

    But since you are apparently oblivious to the lack of representation of members wishes, I will separately post this morning the study link and the results which prove my point that in blaming the NRA I am NOT - emphatically NOT - blaming all lawful gun owners.

    You make these errors of fact and attribute false claims to me on a frequent basis Joe; you really do need to pay closer attention to facts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for the reply, Pen. One quibble: when you use quotation marks, it's to indicate you are responding to the speaker's actual words. But when you add a modifier before the quotation marks, you've changed the deal without admitting it.

    I didn't say Dog Gone was blaming ALL law-abiding gun owners. I said she was blaming millions of law-abiding gun owners. She was, and did again, in the comment immediately above. Neither of you refute my point by refuting an different point.

    Dog Gone says one of her co-bloggers has a degree in logic from a world class institution. I hope it isn't you.
    .




    ReplyDelete
  14. Changing the subject after time passes doesn't refute me, either. Dog Gone's exact words were [no, really, scroll back up and read them yourself]: "It's far too easy for disgruntled individuals to get their hands on firearms . . . ." There is nothing in that sentiment about mental illness or spare magazines or Ted Nugent. After-the-fact rationalization makes you look childish; the adult thing to say is "you're right, I mis-spoke."

    Since I can't even get that, I'm outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joe wrote:Dog Gone's exact words were [no, really, scroll back up and read them yourself]: "It's far too easy for disgruntled individuals to get their hands on firearms . . . ." There is nothing in that sentiment about mental illness or spare magazines or Ted Nugent.

    I believe we have a difference of definition here Joe.

    All of the sources I've looked at, and the range is considerable, define a disgruntled employee as one who makes threats, AND either owns a firearm or indicates a desire or effort to obtain one, so as to act violently.

    It would appear you use the term differently, but that is how it is used in the literature and research and scientific papers about avoiding workplace or workplace related homicides.

    Approximately 1/3 of all workplaces, including both public and private types of operation, have to deal with either actual violence or threats of violence every year. An estimated 80% of workplace homicides are from firearms.

    In the case of the shooter in Manhatten, the shooter had made threats and had acted violently, sufficient for a restraining order to be issued. He had threatened to kill the man he later shot to death.

    What problem do you reasonably have with objecting to someone like this having a firearm, when there is a clear and evident problem with people in those situations acting on those threats?

    It isn't like this was an isolated incident. Did you miss the fact that the copy cat 'Joker' killers each had indicated that they were going to kill a former employer who had fired them, and had the means to do so, and was at some stage of acting on their threats?

    WHY in the name of all that is rational would you object to that? Disgruntled in this sense is not used regarding the merely grumpy; it refers to people who have made a credible threat and either have the means to act on it, or can get the means to do so.

    Sorry, but you are wrong, again, and I'm rational here. Maybe you should do some reading on what is and is not the current standard for intervention in human resources, the CDC stats and recommendations, and a number of professional studies designed specifically to reduce these kinds of shootings.

    Or do you consider this event in Manhattan something we should just shrug off as 'the price of free-dumb'?

    If you have a beef with the term disgruntled, seek a common definition. I've used it correctly, and I'm applying the concept consistent with law enforcement and business practice.

    And fyi - the majority of mass shootings, which include workplace violence, involve spare magazines, large capacity magazines, and often assault-style weapons when someone has this kind of obsessive fixation on harming a co-worker or former co-worker.

    I didn't mispeak, but apparently you did.

    Do you REALLY think that people who threaten to shoot others should have guns? Or does making a death threat put them in the category of being dangerous people who shouldn't have guns, hmmmmm?

    And that is true regardless of whether they bought a firearm last Tuesday, or ten or twenty years ago. What should be the determinant is when the threat was made, not when the firearm was purchased.

    ReplyDelete