Gunman Kills 21 on Virginia Tech campus

[DickHardman]

Yet another going postal incident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070421/ap_on_re_us/nasa_evacuation

HOUSTON - A
NASA contract worker took a handgun inside an office building Friday at the Johnson Space Center and fatally shot a hostage before killing himself, police said. A second hostage escaped with minor injuries.

The gunman was able to take a snub-nosed revolver past NASA security and barricade himself in the building, which houses communications and tracking systems for the space shuttle, authorities said.

NASA and police identified him as 60-year-old William Phillips. He had apparently had a dispute with the slain hostage, police said.

NASA identified the slain hostage as David Beverly, a civil servant who worked at the agency. Beverly, who was shot in the chest, was probably killed "in the early minutes of the whole ordeal," police said.

A second hostage, identified by NASA as Fran Crenshaw, escaped after being bound to a chair with duct tape, police Capt. Dwayne Ready said.

"Right now we're trying to understand why this happened, how this happened," Mike Coats, director of the Johnson Space Center, said at a news conference. He said they had reviewed their procedures earlier this week because of the Virginia Tech shootings.

"But of course we never believed this could happen here to our family and our situation."

NASA spokesman Doug Peterson said the agency would review its security.

To enter the space center, workers flash an ID badge as they drive past a security guard. The badge allows workers access to designated buildings.

The gunman, an employee of Jacobs Engineering of Pasadena, Calif., shot himself once in the head more than three hours after the standoff began, police said.

Reports indicated two shots were fired about 1:40 p.m. and another shot was heard about 5 p.m.

John Prosser, executive vice president of Jacobs Engineering, confirmed that the gunman was a company employee but declined to release any information about him.

Police said homicide investigators searched the gunman's house where he lived alone and found no guns or any evidence at all about the shooting. Police Chief Harold Hurtt said there was apparently a dispute between Phillips and Beverly, but didn't elaborate.

"I do not know what occurred between the two gentlemen today," Hurtt said.

He said Crenshaw, who worked in the same general area, was presumably taken hostage after Beverly was shot.

"She was very courageous, a calming influence in this whole issue and apparently was a very positive relationship between her and the suspect because he at no time that we know of threatened to do injury to her," Hurtt said.

Beverly's wife, Linda, said her husband was an electrical parts specialist and had recently celebrated 25 years of service with NASA. She said her husband had mentioned Phillips to her before, but she declined to say in what regard. She said it wouldn't be fair to Phillips.

Coats said Phillips had worked for NASA for 12 to 13 years and "up until recently, he has been a good employee."

During the confrontation, NASA employees in the building were evacuated and others were ordered to remain in their offices for several hours. Roads within the 1,600-acre space center campus were also blocked off, and a nearby middle school kept its teachers and students inside as classes ended.

Doors to Mission Control were locked as standard procedure.

NASA employees and contract workers were kept informed of the situation by e-mail.

Michael Zolensky, who studies cosmic dust, said workers were gathered around a television watching news reports of the situation.

President Bush was informed about the gunman as he flew back to Washington from an event in Michigan, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Jacobs Engineering provides engineering for the international space station, space shuttle and other spacecraft programs, and conducts research and development for new technology. In 2005, the company received a five-year contract with the space center worth up to $1.15 billion.

i heard on bbc radio that the guy was really upset over NASAs suppression of free energy that has been gained from crashed interplanetary ships visiting our planet. the stress of living with such a secret supposedly drove him to commit such an act.

[bigred389]

I read in one of those warrior books, I think On Combat, that the more you have thought about a situation the less likely you are to freak out when it happens. Or maybe it was the opposite--if you experience a situation you have never visualized, you are more likely to freeze up from fear when it does happen. So visualize it, train for it.

Well, how closely have you read Grossman?

You should also recall, if you read it thoroughly, that it is important to simulate the situations with high fidelity.

If you've also read On Killing, you'll also recall what he said about the "unnatural fear" that arises when you're staring another human being intent on killing you in the face. Humans are apparently the only species that regularly does this...and it is rather "unnatural."

The instincts of hiding under a desk, he links to the submission response in all mammals. When two members of the same species fight, if one feels it is overmatched(someone brandishing a GUN) typically submits, which leads to the other walking away(in mammals...or taking your money). Unfortunately, we humans have both sociopaths(a psychological definition in itself) and crimes of passion(which overrides natural programming).

This is why the military has instructors acting as if they absolutely hate and loathe trainees. According to him, for most, it's their first encounter with someone who appears to have no care how much they suffer, and is intent on making them suffer.

I honestly feel this is why the professor who was a Holocaust survivor was able to react the way he did. He's already been faced with hostile intent and survived it. When someboy started shooting, it may have just been "another" Nazi, another person who wanted him dead.
To those students however, this was the first time they ever experienced pure malice.

Furthermore, he also states that in order to get someone to KILL another, or face them with hostile intent of their own, you need to absolutely desensitize their natural resistance to such actions.
By the way...as for the "common link"...a very small proportion of soldiers in the US Army in WW2(<5%) were capable of killing easily, and did most of the killing. Studies also indicate that of this naturally desensitized type, there's a very fine line between those who go on to become ideal soldiers, and those that become sociopathic killers.
In order to do so, the military restructured it's training to make "killing" a part of training. That's how they've gotten just about evey infantryman in his first combat action since Vietnam to return aimed fire.

[Tant01]

Well, how closely have you read Grossman?

You should also recall, if you read it thoroughly, that it is important to simulate the situations with high fidelity.

If you've also read On Killing, you'll also recall what he said about the "unnatural fear" that arises when you're staring another human being intent on killing you in the face. Humans are apparently the only species that regularly does this...and it is rather "unnatural."

The instincts of hiding under a desk, he links to the submission response in all mammals. When two members of the same species fight, if one feels it is overmatched(someone brandishing a GUN) typically submits, which leads to the other walking away(in mammals...or taking your money). Unfortunately, we humans have both sociopaths(a psychological definition in itself) and crimes of passion(which overrides natural programming).

This is why the military has instructors acting as if they absolutely hate and loathe trainees. According to him, for most, it's their first encounter with someone who appears to have no care how much they suffer, and is intent on making them suffer.

I honestly feel this is why the professor who was a Holocaust survivor was able to react the way he did. He's already been faced with hostile intent and survived it. When someboy started shooting, it may have just been "another" Nazi, another person who wanted him dead.
To those students however, this was the first time they ever experienced pure malice.

Furthermore, he also states that in order to get someone to KILL another, or face them with hostile intent of their own, you need to absolutely desensitize their natural resistance to such actions.
By the way...as for the "common link"...a very small proportion of soldiers in the US Army in WW2(<5%) were capable of killing easily, and did most of the killing. Studies also indicate that of this naturally desensitized type, there's a very fine line between those who go on to become ideal soldiers, and those that become sociopathic killers.
In order to do so, the military restructured it's training to make "killing" a part of training. That's how they've gotten just about evey infantryman in his first combat action since Vietnam to return aimed fire.

Perhaps a less condescending wording of your questions is in order but you bring up a (some) good point(s).

It seems clear that this event is outside the experience of most folks (including martial artists)

At least one student mistook the gunshots for "construction noise".

How many of us train with real weapons? Exposed to live fire? Can we still do the dirty deeds with our ears ringing? Blinded by muzzel flash?

I wonder?

[bigred389]

Perhaps a less condescending wording of your questions is in order but you bring up a (some) good point(s).

It seems clear that this event is outside the experience of most folks (including martial artists)

At least one student mistook the gunshots for "construction noise".

How many of us train with real weapons? Exposed to live fire? Can we still do the dirty deeds with our ears ringing? Blinded by muzzel flash?

I wonder?

Sorry, I'm a little testy when I've been called "defeatist", "politically correct", and "morally insane."

And I feel if someone's going to cite a source, then it'd only be fair to present the rest of the material given by that source.

[treelizard]

Here's a critic of Grossman:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html

The same author really takes apart S.L.A. Marshall's argument about 75% of WW II soldiers not shooting -- a claim Grossman relies on heavily:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pageone.htm

Also think about the 55,000 that were killed in the Battle of Gettysburg. Do you think all that killing was done just by artillery?

[treelizard]

To those students however, this was the first time they ever experienced pure malice.

Furthermore, he also states that in order to get someone to KILL another, or face them with hostile intent of their own, you need to absolutely desensitize their natural resistance to such actions.

One student who never experienced pure malice pushed a table against the door... how do you explain that? Also, the professor in question didn't kill anybody. So I don't know how good your analogy is.

Lastly, my not citing a different source by the same author is different than not giving both side of the source I mentioned. Not to split hairs.

[Troll Virus]

By the way...as for the "common link"...a very small proportion of soldiers in the US Army in WW2(<5%) were capable of killing easily, and did most of the killing. Studies also indicate that of this naturally desensitized type, there's a very fine line between those who go on to become ideal soldiers, and those that become sociopathic killers.
In order to do so, the military restructured it's training to make "killing" a part of training. That's how they've gotten just about evey infantryman in his first combat action since Vietnam to return aimed fire.

That's very interesting, in terms of your viewpoint.
Sources?

[bigred389]

Here's a critic of Grossman:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html

The same author really takes apart S.L.A. Marshall's argument about 75% of WW II soldiers not shooting -- a claim Grossman relies on heavily:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pageone.htm

Also think about the 55,000 that were killed in the Battle of Gettysburg. Do you think all that killing was done just by artillery?

The critic seems much more inclined towards disproving the claims that video games are effective tools to turn children into killers. Which I don't entirely disagree with.

However, some of his counterpoints stick out to me as poorly researched, or misinterpreted. For example, he cites panicked wild firing during WW2 as a "counterpoint" to Marshall's research.

However, Grossman goes into GREAT detail describing the differences between killing at various ranges, unseen, silhouettes, and up close and personal.

He also brings up various cultures(ie the Aztecs) that were known for their savagery as another "counterpoint." This seems almost a moot point, as we all know how malleable children are when influenced from an early age. I think the Spartans are another pretty good example of that.

As for the 55,000 at Gettysburg, Grossman also presents another excellent point regarding the "black powder age." When considering the infantry v infantry tactics of the day, it is actually quite shocking battles went on as long as they did.
They were essentially marchd up within very close range, where they could not POSSIBLY miss, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons of the age. Then they were trained with repetitive drill to take AIM and fire at their targets. When considering the rate of fire involved, it makes absolutely no logical sense that armies did not absolutely mow each other down within minutes.

Those would be the flaws I see in those arguments at least...

[bigred389]

One student who never experienced pure malice pushed a table against the door... how do you explain that? Also, the professor in question didn't kill anybody. So I don't know how good your analogy is.

Lastly, my not citing a different source by the same author is different than not giving both side of the source I mentioned. Not to split hairs.

Pure chance. Just one. Out of hundreds. Some people are perhaps mentally "ready" whether by genetics perhaps, or life experiences. How many others successfully overcame their stress response in that room?

As for the professor, like I said, he had faced pure hatred unlike what damn near ANY group of people has ever faced. And he survived. So he didn't freeze up in the submission reflex.

Again, I'm personally uncomfortable "criticizing" anything the victims did, as I feel it's very disrespectful, but given your argument, i'd point out he did not seem to attempt to "kill" the threat.

[bigred389]

That's very interesting, in terms of your viewpoint.
Sources?

Grossman summarizes it fairly well(IMHO) in On Combat and On Killing.

He derives a lot of it from studies by Marshall(WW2), the experience and anecdotes from the Falklands, Vietnam, and the modern day.

As well as countless other anecdotes...not the best scientific evidence, but I found it fairly convincing.

[bigred389]

1)I'm not quoting him word for word. The point is you need to overcome that response.
2)A mother defending her child arguably has at least one MAJOR natural instinct directing her to fight.
3)A soldier is indoctrinated into defense of his nation, and commitment to the Army and all his fellow soldiers.
Civilians do not get the same experience.
4)Well of COURSE we can't quantify moral and ethical character. The point is that the data at the very least indicates that it is DIFFICULT to overcome the natural reluctance to kill, unless there is a strong overriding influence.

It's interesting that in all the cases of heroism you mention, and we saw from the VT incident, involve service to others rather than mere survival...which is what your average shooting victim is more likely to experience...right?

[Garland]

...well...fuckin' DUR. I could've told you this much...not "psychopath," ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER...just a little lower functioning than the ones we tend to associate with the malady. (like Ted Bundy, not to be confused with Al Bundy).

THIS is from the article somebody posted up from "Slate" magazine;

http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/

"In popular usage, almost any crazy killer is a 'psychopath.' But in psychiatry, it's a very specific mental condition that rarely involves killing, or even psychosis. 'Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders,' writes Dr. Robert Hare, in Without Conscience, the seminal book on the condition. (Hare is also one of the psychologists consulted by the FBI about Columbine and by Slate for this story*.) 'Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised.' Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse. But it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drove him to mass murder...He lied for pleasure, Fuselier says. 'Duping delight'—psychologist Paul Ekman's term—represents a key characteristic of the psychopathic profile.
Harris married his deceitfulness with a total lack of remorse or empathy—another distinctive quality of the psychopath. "


Antisocial Personality Disorder

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx7.htm

SYMPTOMS
This disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people's rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. This pattern of behavior has occurred since age 15 (although only adults 18 years or older can be diagnosed with this disorder) and consists by the presence of the majority of these symptoms:

*failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
*deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
*impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
*irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
*reckless disregard for safety of self or others
*consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain *consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
*lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

------------------------------------------
but...there can be crossovers (comorbidity) with other personality disorders...see if this one kinda sorta fits the bill for these kids too... (it has been what you guys have been claiming they have)

Narcissistic Personality Disorder
SYMPTOMS
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
-----------------------------------------------------------
personally...I think this might be up in the house too ->

HARRIS
Antisocial & Narcissism

CHO
Schizoid Personality Disorder
SYMPTOMS
A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
*neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
*almost always chooses solitary activities
*has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
*takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
*lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
*appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
*shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity

KLEBOLD
Avoidant Personality Disorder
SYMPTOMS
This disorder is characterized by a long-standing and complex pattern of feelings of inadequacy, extreme sensitivity to what other people think about them, and social inhibition. It typically manifests itself by early adulthood and includes a majority of the following symptoms:

*avoids occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact, because of fears of criticism, disapproval, or rejection
*is unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked
*shows restraint within intimate relationships because of the fear of being shamed or ridiculed
*is preoccupied with being criticized or rejected in social situations
*is inhibited in new interpersonal situations because of feelings of inadequacy
*views self as socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others
*is unusually reluctant to take personal risks or to engage in any new activities because they may prove embarrassing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poor fuckers, for sure. You can kind of get a sense of what they were from this, right?

To the above PERSONALITY DISORDERS...throw these up there as probabilities:

Cho & Kleibold: (Social Phobia) http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx35.htm
From watching Cho's video...I have a hunch-> (PTSD) http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx32.htm




AND YET!!! this is the one that has pissed me off the most;

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx49.htm

I don't have it...but someone I knew...intimately...did.

[bigred389]

As for the Grossman quotes, I understand that you were speaking in generalities. But when you use an exaggerated generality (like "absolutely desensitize") to support a conclusion that's dubios and incomplete to begin with, you're presenting an exaggerated argument as well. My correction was more for the sake of accuracy than for criticism.

Thanks, I don't exactly have my copy with me, and have to go on memory alone.

A mother defending her child is functioning on instinct? As opposed to training and desensitization? That would seem to support my argument and damage yours, would it not? People reacting in an extreme emotional situation (like, for instance, and active shooter trying to kill them) have the very same instincts that drive that mother. My illustration was simply to show that the potential is there for all of them to react similarly, even if they don't actually do it.

Fair enough...though I'd say a mother defending a child is in popular lore considered the single most powerful force in the universe. There's always though unbelievable stories of women lifting cars to save babies and what not.

Finally, you mentioned overcoming the reluctance to kill. You said that it's ectremely difficult without some strong overriding influence. Wouldn't you consider a psychotic gunman murdering your friends around you a "strong overriding influence?" I would. And if you go back and read your Grossman (On Killing, specifically) you'll find he did too. He repeatedly illustrates a soldier's willingness to kill in defense of his friends. Make no mistake - that gunman was not just going after a bunch of individuals. He was shooting a group; he was shooting the friends and classmates of the guys next to the victims. Again, your choice of source supports the other side as much as it supports yours.

See, I guess we just disagree on how we see people. Again, maybe I'm just more of a cynic, but in my experience, speaking as a whole, most college students do not have the same close bonding experiences that I would expect to spark such a group mentality.

Please understand, I am not taking shots at you or criticising your points for the sake of criticism. I am speaking from the point of view of a guy who's been personally faced with the decision to shoot or not shoot, to injure or not injure, and to maim or not maim. I've been in the position many of you are theorizing about, and so I think it's fair to say that I might have some valid perspectives on the matter as well.

Thanks, and I respect your opinion and experiences. However, I feel your experience and capabilites are out of the ordinary, to put it lightly.
As you've no doubt noticed, I have a hard time believing the average Joe could do the same.

[treelizard]

I think being ready to fight back when attacked is not something that should be left to chance, genetics or life experiences. As I see it, it boils down to a decision to act. And it can improve with training. Maybe people need to decide to act and get some more training.

As for the professor who acted, one could make the opposite argument if he hadn't acted--that he had faced enough pure hatred unlike what anyone has faced and so he knew the extent of it better than anyone and would therefore be more likely to freeze up.

I think quoting statistics on close quarter killing is inaccurate in discussing this type of scenario because even if people had fought back chances are it would have been more like disarming/restraining the guy, not shooting rows of people one by one as he did.

As far as "criticizing" anything the victims did, I think the fear of this is something we as a society need to get over. I remember when I first posted about my friend who was basically murdered by some thug in a pub and Mike immediately responded with "he could have done X, Y and Z." Sure it pissed me off at the moment, but he was right. And I prefer this to self-defense instructors, usually women's self-defense instructors, who insist that "if you got home safely you did the right thing." Which is bullshit. You could have done every wrong thing possible and still gotten home safely because of luck or chance. I think being prepared for future situations is more important than sparing people's feelings.

As for the article (the second link I posted, not the first one), it points out that Marshall was relying on anecdotal evidence, not fact. It further goes on to shed light on some credibility issues and lack of interview notes. "The only interview notes unveiled to date were found by Leinbaugh in an archive of a Maryland National Guard division. In them, GIs repeatedly testify to firing their weapons in action. The notes do not contain a single question about the ratio of fire." and "So Marshall's findings about combat in the one battle he really did subject to his famous scrutiny run exactly contrary to what he published in Men Against Fire." Hmmm. Read this again more closely:

http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/amheritagemarshall1989pageone.htm

Pure chance. Just one. Out of hundreds. Some people are perhaps mentally "ready" whether by genetics perhaps, or life experiences. How many others successfully overcame their stress response in that room?

As for the professor, like I said, he had faced pure hatred unlike what damn near ANY group of people has ever faced. And he survived. So he didn't freeze up in the submission reflex.

Again, I'm personally uncomfortable "criticizing" anything the victims did, as I feel it's very disrespectful, but given your argument, i'd point out he did not seem to attempt to "kill" the threat.

[Tant01]

Congratulations on your fourth greenie Treelizard!!!