Another Shooting, Close to Home

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This sort of thing is not unprecedented here. Some years back, an individual in a divorce hearing smuggled two pistols into the courtroom (there being no screening at the time).
He shot his estranged wife, her attorney, the judge, and then ran amok in the courts building amid general panic until officers who were present in the building shot him.

Kenneth Baumruk. I was a member of the grand jury that indicted him!

 

[Policenaut]

In think armed guards would be viewed as a very oppressive policy here that severely discomfited people and was a curtailment of civil liberty that effectively placed the public under suspicion of intent to commit lethal acts.

CCTV on every street isn't oppressive though?

 

[MaverickPLM]

Did anyone hear the statement his brother made? Basically said the council members, etc... had it coming. Wow. Saw it on CNN too tired to search for it online.

 

[Beerina]

It doesn't matter how often it happens or in what circumstances, the usual suspects will post away about how this has nothing at all to do with easy access to firearms.

Technically speaking, from that insane man's point of view, and the point of view of his brother, this is exactly why the people reserve the right to own guns -- so they can take out governments out of control.

The issue is due to an unstable man being thwarted by a government refusing a license for something they probably shouldn't be in the business of licensing.

I suppose all the usual suspects will try to pretend it's a simple gun control issue though.

 

[Francesca R]

CCTV on every street isn't oppressive though?

CCTV cameras don't kill people.

 

[Beerina]

Do you mind if I ask where this was? The rural Missouri town i grew up in, population ~2,500, has 3 cops total. If anything big happens, they have to call the county troopers. I can't imagine the entire local police department being required at something like traffic court.

Reminds me of where I live, a rural area in Michigan, with 1 cop. Some idiot had decided to plow his plow through some trees on his land and knocked them down, then started tearing up other people's land, including ours, being a confused old man. The cops, sorry, cop couldn't look into it because he was too busy with a mountain of paperwork because someone had chased some suspect halfway across the state that evening, and he had happened to crash in this area.

 

[Minadin]

Close to home for me too.

I have some friends with parents in Kirkwood. One of them is a city attorney. It took me a moment to remember that he is not an attorney in the township he lives in, so he probably wasn't there. (This morning they released some names which verified that.)

As Minadin said, this was a zoning and planning meeting. My wife, the nearly-fully-licensed architect, attends those kinds of meetings all the time and sometimes at Kirkwood. I knew she wasn't last night, but she could have been if the butterfly had flapped its wings differently.

and people say that St. Louis city is dangerous.

I'm in roughly the same situation as your wife, Upchurch. I could have been there. My boss could have been there. It freaks me the heck out still.

My boss was telling us this morning that the guy who was the shooter used to interrupt meetings he was at by saying, "Blah, Blah blah. Blah, Blabbity-blah." for several minutes when they asked for community comments before voting on various issues, or in some cases he would imitate the hee-hawing of a donkey for a while and then leave. I hadn't been to any meetings he interrupted, but your wife might have.

Both of the people I was worried about when I posted last night are now confirmed dead.

One was Ken Yost, he was the director of Public Works in Kirkwood and was a guy I liked to disagree with, because he was the type to focus on working toward the best solution possible given the roadblocks, rather than on the roadblocks themselves, as many people do. He was an all around nice guy and a gentle man.

The other was Connie Carr. She was a councilwoman who was well liked in the town and was always very pleasant and reliable to me, personally. If she hadn't helped us get our bank through all the city red tape, it's quite possible we might have been at the meeting last night.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I spent all my childhood in Kirkwood, Missouri, or as we used to call it, Jerkwood, Misery. I went to public schools and graduated from Kirkwood High. One Christmas season, I even had a job keeping an eye on the public address system as it played carols thru the speakers in the cupola -- yes the same colonial City Hall building you see in the news photos. I had to make sure the Luboff Choir and Mantovani LPs didn't get stuck in the changer and the needle didn't get hung up in a bad groove.

I now have a part time job in another city where I operate the video cameras for live and recorded council meetings in a similar City Hall. We air all council meetings over our local cable channel. Apparently Kirkwood doesn't have that kind of system -- strange for an upscale community. I often wonder what I would do if something like that happened as the meeting started.

Although I am under orders NOT to follow any action taken by spectators should a riot break out (on the theory that doing so would encourage disruptive behavior), I think I would immediately try to get as much as possible recorded if a gunman started firing. I'm behind glass, but not bulletproof glass, and I would have to watch my ass, but I could let recorders run and escape. If the gunman were targetting council members, would he notice my presence in the video booth? Would he care? Would he think the glass was invulnerable?

Should I run downstairs to the police department or call 911? The police dept closes their doors at 5PM (stupid, stupid!), so that would be useless. Celphones don't work in the brick building. The closest phone to any of the council members would be the one near my elbow, so I'd probably try to use that.

We have had disruptive people come to meetings, although you could sleep thru most meetings without trouble. But even the most disruptive elements didn't require police action, and police are rarely in council chambers during meetings. Even the police chief, who shows up for agenda items that concern him, often is dressed as a civilian, not in uniform (although it's possible he carries a concealed gun, I don't know).

I suspect there will be a movement nationwide to install metal scanners in more government offices (we have none anywhere in my county except the new courthouse) and uniformed officers will become a standard fixture for all meetings. While that's not a bad thing, it will increase expenses and therefore, taxes.

 

[Garrette]

It seems that the price of that liberty is "armed guards at town hall meetings", which is not heard of in the UK as far as I know.

Better phrased as "the price of that liberty is armed guards at some town hall meetings."

There is no standard, and I have no idea what the common practice is. My experience which includes several small to medium towns (30,000 + population) encompasses these practices:

1. No "armed guards" in the sense that it implies hired security
2. Standing request to have a sheriff's deputy present
3. Situation-dependent request to have a sheriff's deputy present

It is my impression that #3 is most common. Open meetings, generally no armed personnel, but the option to have an armed officer there when trouble is expected.

In think armed guards would be viewed as a very oppressive policy here that severely discomfited people and was a curtailment of civil liberty that effectively placed the public under suspicion of intent to commit lethal acts.

I can understand that, but I suspect that it as much a function of the public knowing that firearms are available only to the guard as it is a function of the guard's presence itself. Given that the "guard" in this story were likely either bailiffs or a sheriff's deputies and given that they were likely armed with revolvers, the general feeling toward it is one of nonchalance. Certainly the shooter felt less impressed by the weapons than he did by the council decisions.

I can't think why it would be welcomed unless people really believed they needed such protection, and that it was the lesser of two assaults on their liberty (the other assault being a potential threat of murder etc).

Per above, I think the norm is to have armed presence by exception. Could be wrong, though. I don't think the mere presence of armed security is widely seen as an assault on liberty at all.

For all the talk about the ability to resist an oppressive government, Ami's tend to trust armed law enforcement to act in the best interest of the community.

So do you think that the price of this oppression/implied suspicion (you may of course not see it as oppression at all) for easy gun access is a good one?

Situation dependent. I personally have no problem with the presence of armed officers at town hall meetings, even highly armed ones. I tend to get wary of behavior before weaponry.

(Note I am completely neglecting the small risk of being shot up in public as weighing in on the question here)

Much appreciated.

 

[Sherman Bay]

I have been looking for a complete list of those injured or dead, but haven't found any names other than Swoboda, Yost, and Carr. Does anyone have a link to the names of the rest?

Although I haven't been in Kirkwood for many years, it occurred to me that I might know some of the council people.

 

[Garrette]

CCTV cameras don't kill people.

This is where we get to cultural differences. Perhaps issues of gun control are like religion: Our beliefs are those of our parents and our community.

I find the idea of ubiquitous CCTV far more intrusive and oppressive than I do the idea of armed security at a town hall.

 

[Policenaut]

CCTV cameras don't kill people.

Yet.

Anyway the question or remark rather was oppression. You say the guards would be seen as oppressive. I say cameras spying on you 24/7 are more oppressive. Has nothing to do with killing people.

 

[Francesca R]

This is where we get to cultural differences. Perhaps issues of gun control are like religion: Our beliefs are those of our parents and our community.

I find the idea of ubiquitous CCTV far more intrusive and oppressive than I do the idea of armed security at a town hall.

Anyway the question or remark rather was oppression. You say the guards would be seen as oppressive. I say cameras spying on you 24/7 are more oppressive. Has nothing to do with killing people.

Points accepted. What is culturally acceptable is probably what you're used to. A lot of the UK public does see CCTV as oppressive, though personally I am not particularly bothered by it.

 

[Minadin]

I have been looking for a complete list of those injured or dead, but haven't found any names other than Swoboda, Yost, and Carr. Does anyone have a link to the names of the rest?

Although I haven't been in Kirkwood for many years, it occurred to me that I might know some of the council people.

In the story I linked above from www.stltoday.com there are most of the names.

The most accurate information I have is:

Injured:
Mayor Mike Swoboda - critical
Reporter Todd Smith - minor

Killed:
Ken Yost - Director of Public Works
Connie Carr - Councilwoman
Bill Biggs - Police Officer
Tom Ballman - Police Officer
Michael Lynch - Councilman

The shooter's name was Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton - he was killed by police.

 

[baron]

Perhaps if the victims had had guns they could have protected themselves. I own guns myself and this wouldn't have happened to the crowd I hang with.

No, sure it wouldn't. Several dozen people all firing their guns in an enclosed space - a certain recipe for a safe outcome.

 

[fuelair]

He shot them first. But this is a pretty quiet town and there aren't usually officers there when I go, or maybe one only. It's right across a very small parking lot from the Police Station.

There aren't any metal detectors or anything, it's open to the public. You don't have to have an appointment or be on the agenda or anything to attend. You just walk in, go up some stairs, and right into the council chambers. The last time I went, in November, I was the first person in the room when I showed up for the meeting and there wasn't anyone downstairs.

I read tonight that the only reason there was an officer inside tonight was because the shooter was known to be disruptive and had needed to be escorted out in the past. Apparently the city knew that he would be back tonight and had asked the police to be there. He just lost a federal court case earlier today against the city. But, he hadn't been violent in the past so they were probably just there to keep him from being overly disruptive or interrupting their scheduled business.

The officer who was shot outside was the first victim and apparently just getting off duty and was headed across the parking lot to get some pizza when he was murdered.

What really bothered (besides certain security problems that helped allow it, and the deaths that should never have happened)me was that, if the PBS report on it was correct, why was an idiot like that who constantly disrupted meetings, had thousands of dollars in fines unpaid and prior arrests not under a jail cell since, say, the third occasion. Freedom of speech is not freedom to disrupt (your freedom of speech does not trump mine).

 

[Minadin]

I have been looking for a complete list of those injured or dead, but haven't found any names other than Swoboda, Yost, and Carr. Does anyone have a link to the names of the rest?

Although I haven't been in Kirkwood for many years, it occurred to me that I might know some of the council people.

The Post-Dispatch website has an article with brief bio's of most of the victims now.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...BDC575945A776060862573E9001BDBAE?OpenDocument

 

[Darth Rotor]

Better phrased as "the price of that liberty is armed guards at some town hall meetings."

A year and a half ago our homeowners association had a meeting that was attended by four cops (cops hired for security off duty, not uncommon) due to the known bitter feuds between a few of the parties and the issues involved.

As it was, a few tempers flared, and a few people were asked to leave. Two got shirty, and were politely escorted from the building by said cops.

Most homeowner meetings don't have anyone but the usual blowhards show up. That one did for the reasons of prudent planning. Something about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, etc.

FWIW

Beerina, I like the point you made.

DR

 

[baron]

A year and a half ago our homeowners association had a meeting that was attended by four cops (cops hired for security off duty, not uncommon) due to the known bitter feuds between a few of the parties and the issues involved.

As it was, a few tempers flared, and a few people were asked to leave. Two got shirty, and were politely escorted from the building by said cops.

Most homeowner meetings don't have anyone but the usual blowhards show up. That one did for the reasons of prudent planning. Something about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, etc.

If you don't mind me asking, how is this a good thing? Surely the point being made previously is there should be no necessity to have multiple armed guards present in a public discussion forum.

I doubt anyone would disagree that overwhelming firepower would cause most people to think twice before causing trouble. The question is, when you've reached a stage where such measures are necessary, wouldn't it be a good idea to stop and think, to say, "Hold on a minute, this is meant to be a civilised society and people are packing guns at a public meeting. This isn't right!"?

 

[Francesca R]

I doubt anyone would disagree that overwhelming firepower would cause most people to think twice before causing trouble. The question is, when you've reached a stage where such measures are necessary, wouldn't it be a good idea to stop and think, to say, "Hold on a minute, this is meant to be a civilised society and people are packing guns at a public meeting. This isn't right!"?

I must admit I don't know any good method to down the ante. Once the stakes have been moved to the level where people routinely pack heat to attend their neighbourhood association meeting then I can see why some kind of equilibrium exists where many people have their own weapon and nobody is letting theirs go.

What is curious is the near total lack of anyone expressing a wish that the stakes could be lowered. To honestly prefer a high equilibrium gun concentration over a low one seems weird to me.