Category: General News

One difference between the recent shooting at the mall in Omaha and the religious facilities in Colorado is that, in Omaha, the murderer stopped himself (before the police could reach him). As Laura Bauer reports for the December 8 Kansas City Star, the murderer “opened fire at the mall, killing eight before taking his own life.”

Yesterday’s murderous rampage ended differently. Kieran Nicholson reports for today’s Denver Post:

The two killed at [New Life Church] are sisters Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16, police said. … Also shot at the church Sunday were David Works, 51, Judy Purcell, 40, and Larry Bourbannais, 59, police said. …

The shooter was shot and killed by a volunteer security guard at the church, said [Pastor Brady] Boyd.

Boyd said the security guard, a woman with a law enforcement background, and his personal bodyguard, encountered the gunman in a hallway at the church and fired on him, saving many lives.

“He had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage,” Boyd said.

The security guard’s name has not yet been released.

Whatever else can and will be said about the murders, that woman, the volunteer security guard, is a true, courageous hero who deserves our thanks and praise.

I’m also impressed that Nicholson and the Post fairly reported the facts. However, it is odd that Nicholson refers to the murderer as “gunman,” but she does not refer to the security guard as a “gunwoman.” (Indeed, while the media are filled with references to “gunmen,” I do not remember every reading the term, “gunwoman.”) Bauer also refers to “a gunman.” But the relevant fact is not that the man carried a gun, but that he used it to murder people. Thus, he is properly called a killer or a murderer. The bare fact that a man carries a gun — is a “gunman” — is legally and morally neutral. Police officers, security guards, and numerous civilians, both male and female, carry guns legally and responsibly.

But of course the means of murder is the minor issue. The big question is this: why are moral monsters running around murdering innocent people they don’t even know? Any murder is a heinous crime, the ultimate evil. But a murder of strangers adds an additional level of senselessness. Some will find symbolism in the fact that the murderer attacked a church; they will see the murders as a symptom of our (allegedly) Godless culture (though religion is on the rise). The religionists are correct that the murders are a symptom of cultural nihilism, the destruction of human reason, values, and morality. But the antidote to nihilism is not religion, which sacrifices human reason to faith and human values to the whims of a mythological being. A culture of human reason, values, and morality rejects both nihilism and religion.

The Denver Post published a photo that adds some detail to the story about the recent Denver shootout.

While the Post does not explain the photo, which shows the layout of the restaurant where the confrontation took place, the general idea seems clear. The circles marked “O” appear to be the officers, while the circles marked “C” appear to be customers. That would make “X” the bad guy.

Previously, I theorized that one of the officers may have shot a bystander in the ankle because the officer shot prematurely because he had his finger on the trigger too early. The distance between the officer and the bystander was about 30 feet, and the hight of a gun in a normal stance is about 5 feet. That makes the downward angle from the gun to the ankle about 10 degrees. My wife held a string that ran from her gun position past me (standing at point “X” relatively) to approximately point “C;” the string passed my thigh. (That squares with the geometric calculations.) So the officer definitely shot low.

Why is this? I can think of three possible reasons. First, the officer shot prematurely because his finger was on the trigger as he brought his gun up. Second, the officer lowered the gun after the recoil from a previous shot. Third, the officer shot after suffering “shards of glass in his eye,” making his aim low. Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman said, “That officer was shooting and was being shot at, almost simultaneously,” according to the Post. However, there’s a lot I don’t know here, such as the positions from which the officers fired and which officer shot the bystander in the ankle.

But the photo brings up another obvious point: the officers were shooting directly in the direction of five innocent bystanders. Obviously, that is extremely dangerous. Such action is justified only in the most dire circumstances. However, the criminal “was pointing the shotgun at restaurant patrons and two plainclothes officers in an attempt to rob them.” I don’t know what he said or how he acted. But, obviously, he posed an extreme danger himself. Whitman said that two of the bystanders who were shot were “very supportive of the officers’ actions.” Here’s another point: the officers may not have been able to comply with the robber’s commands without revealing their identity as officers. And the bystanders probably weren’t able to duck for cover without drawing the attention of the criminal. I for one am not in a position to second-guess the officers’ decision in that very messy, very dangerous situation. Even if, in light of more complete information, the officers were judged to have acted rashly, that wouldn’t change the fact that the ultimate responsibility for the danger and for the injuries rests with the criminal.

Here’s another important part of the story reported by the Post:

The gunman, Phuong Van Dang, 26, was a halfway-house inmate who had served a portion of a prison sentence for assault with a deadly weapon, court documents revealed.

Dang was convicted of the felony charge in Jefferson County in 1998 and sentenced to 18 years, according to Colorado court records. But he was released from prison and placed in a community corrections program. …

Dang, 26, was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in Jefferson County in 1998 and sentenced to 18 years. The conviction was for shooting a victim in the back at the Penny Lane Arcade.

At that time, he was awaiting trial for robbing a fellow high school student at gunpoint in 1997. He received a 10-year sentence for robbery.

The Rocky Mountain News adds that Dang, age 16 when he shot “an arcade worker in the back,” “was in a violent gang, facing multiple felonies.”

I’m all for encouraging people who commit less-serious crimes to rehabilitate themselves. But when you threaten people with guns and then shoot somebody in the back, you have demonstrated that you are incapable of living in civilized society. The perpetrator’s actions certainly do not bolster the case for leniency for highly violent minors of sufficient age to know better.

John C. Ensslin, Jeff Kass, and Alan Gathright wrote an article for the Rocky Mountain News November 14 about a Denver shooting.

A masked man with a high-caliber, long-barreled gun and really bad timing picked the wrong Denver Vietnamese restaurant to try and rob over Wednesday’s lunch hour.

With his car parked in the back alley, the suspect barged in through the back door of Ha Noi restaurant at 1033 S. Federal Blvd. and ordered the cook to lie on the floor.

What he didn’t know was that just outside the kitchen door two plainclothes Denver undercover narcotics officers had stopped by to grab some lunch.

Within seconds, bullets and shards of glass were flying over the green vinyl chairs. …

When the shooting stopped, five people were wounded. The suspect, slumped in the front doorway, was critically injured. Three people who were caught in the crossfire, a middle-aged couple and their adult son, were also injured.

And one of the officers was cut around his eyes by the shards of glass.

The article clarifies, “One of the bystanders also underwent surgery. A third person remained in the hospital in fair condition. The officer and the third bystander were treated and released.”

Now, if it’s obvious that somebody with a weapon is only after cash and nothing else, the situation is highly dangerous, but in many circumstances the best bet is to hand over the money so that the criminal will leave as soon as possible. But, in this case, when a masked man with a rifle barges into a restaurant, it’s reasonable to suspect the worst. So, from the limited details available, its seems like the officers — “Sgt. John Pindar and Det. Jesse Avendano.” — made the right call.

The article reports that Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said of the officers, “Having them in there may have saved people’s lives today… I think we were fortunate these two officers were there.”

(Incidentally, the reporters don’t mention how they know the caliber of the gun, but, judging from the photo that accompanies the article, it doesn’t look like a very high caliber to me, though it’s hard to tell from the photo. Nor does the Denver Post article shed light on that matter. Instead, the Post reports that “an automatic weapon could be seen inside the restaurant, Jackson said,” which I highly doubt, as automatics are rare and very expensive.)

Yes, a man used a gun to injure several people. And two men with guns stopped the criminal. It appears that the criminal sustained the most serious injuries. If “we were fortunate” that those two armed men were there, if “they may have saved people’s lives,” then wouldn’t it be even better if more responsible, trained people carried concealed weapons in public places?