St. Louis Mayor and Police Officers Shot 2/7

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TexasRifleman

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
18,301
Location
Ft. Worth
Must be an election year, these things always start to happen more around that time, this is the second one of these I've posted today.

And once again, a shooting in a victim disarmament zone.

Headline says 2 officers dead, nothing in the article itself but this is just happening now.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329767,00.html

KIRKWOOD, Mo. — A gunman opened fire at a city council meeting in this St. Louis suburb Thursday night, hitting several people, including the mayor, a newspaper reported. There was no immediate word on whether anyone was killed.

Police shot the gunman, who had hit Kirkwood Mayor Mike Swoboda, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

Kirkwood police told The Associated Press that no one was available to provide any information.
Click to expand...
 
Just announced: 5 dead.

Shooter had a long standing dispute with city officials with a long series of failed legal challenges against the city.

Yes the city council meeting was a gun free zone.
 
What a mess, seems like something like this happened in Kirkwood a few years ago. Plus that Devlin guy that had kidnapped the kid and held him for four years (or was it 8?), then got caught when he attempted a second kidnapping, was in Kirkwood. If you've ever been there, you wouldn't ever see things like this happening. Kirkwood is a nice suburb with lots of old money, I lived there for several years.
 
A little more:

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23059784

KIRKWOOD, Mo. - A man known for confrontations with city officials killed five people at a city council meeting in suburban St. Louis Thursday night before being shot to death by police.

At least two police officers were confirmed among the dead in the carnage at a meeting of the Kirkwood City Council, St. Louis County police spokeswoman Tracy Panus said. In addition to the five killed by the gunman, two other people were wounded.

Among those shot were the mayor and two council members, but it was not clear if they had been killed.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The gunman was identified by NBC affiliate KDSK of St. Louis as Charles "Cookie" Thornton, known for confrontations with city officials.

Thornton was barred from City Council meetings but had made it known he would be at Thursday night's zoning meeting, and extra police were assigned ahead of time.

At 7 p.m. the suspect approached a police officer in an adjacent parking lot and killed him. Then he went into the meeting and opened fire.

Kirkwood Mayor Mike Swoboda, council members Michael H.T. Lynch and Connie Karr, and Public Works Director Kenneth Yost were shot, St. Louis Post-Dispatch correspondent Janet McNichols told the newspaper.

The reporter said the man entered the chambers yelling "shoot the mayor" while walking around and firing, hitting a police officer first, the reporter said.

KDSK said the shooter fired at City Attorney, John Hessel, who tried to fight off the attacker by throwing chairs. The gunman then moved behind a curved desk where council members sit and fired at them.

He fled the room and was then shot to death by police.

Thornton was frequently at odds with the zoning commission, KDSK reported. He ran a contracting business from his home and was often cited for storing materials that didn’t meet code.

About 30 people were in the council chambers, the Post-Dispatch reporter said.

Dozens of emergency vehicles were on the scene, and an area of several blocks was cordoned off along a busy north-south corridor around City Hall.

Kirkwood is about 20 miles southwest of downtown St. Louis. City Hall is in a quiet area filled with condominiums, eateries and shops, not far from a dance studio and train station.

Mary Linehares, a teacher who lives about four blocks from City Hall and who walked down to the scene with her husband, described the town as quiet and eclectic.

"It's like a small town in St. Louis," Linehares told The Associated Press. "You can call it Mayberry."
Click to expand...
 
ARRRGHHHH :cuss::banghead:

Once again, why can't these people go home, get drunk, fall down and get the fu.....get over it and move on.

Bad stuff happens to all of us from time to time. I have been laid off, I have had the shaft with women etc. but I have never thought about gunning down a bunch of folks.

Arrrrgggghhhh. I just don't understand people.

Prayers and sympathy to all involved.
 
According to Fox News's article, the gunman, Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton, had an apparent motivation that's eerily similar to the almost-SuperBowl-shooter. Thornton was a contractor and got cited for doing work without the proper paperwork. He sued the city over it and lost. (There's a racial component to this one, too; Thornton, who was black, claimed that the city's citations were discriminatory and violated his civil rights.)

Man. Weird to see two angry-at-government-shooter stories so close together. Some weird contrasts: Thornton's grudge seems more long-term than the Super Bowl guy's, but Thornton targeted the people in power he hated, rather than random civilians. Looks like emotionally distraught impulsive vs. emotional but slow burn, at this point. (And, of course, the guy who thought about opening up on a crowd at the Super Bowl had second thoughts, went to his family, and then turned himself in, while Thornton murdered five people.)

(Edited to add: thread was brought up to speed already; sorry to reiterate. I do think the contrast between the two perpetrators is interesting, though.)
 
Jeez, how horrible. Tragic for all the victims and their families and friends.
Click to expand...

This is horrible and tragic, but these types of events are going to continue as long as there are people and guns on this earth.

I don't want to sound callous, but check out these idiot laws regarding firearms and conceal carry permit holders in good old Kirkwood, Missouri. If you or I had been sitting in this meeting with a concealed weapon, we would have been breaking the law. But it is ok for a city councilman to carry according to this. Amazing. When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that:

1. Everyone has a right to self defense.
2. That right is good anywhere you have a legal right to be.
3. The only thing that stops a gunman is equal or greater firepower.

The gun laws in this country and in particular in some areas are just plain assinine. These are from the actual city website for Kirkwood. Enjoy.

Sec. 17‑132. Concealed weapons.

(a) No person who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement by the Missouri Director of Revenue under Section 571.094 R.S.Mo. or who has been issued a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state, shall, by authority of that endorsement or permit, be allowed to carry a concealed firearm or to openly carry a firearm into:
(1) Any police station without the consent of the Chief of Police of the City of Kirkwood. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the police station shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises.

(2) Within twenty-five feet of any polling place on any election day. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the polling place shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(3) The facility of any adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison or jail. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any adult, juvenile detention, or correctional institution, prison or jail shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

[B](4) Any meeting of the Kirkwood City Council, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the Kirkwood City Council, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the City Council provided that it is not otherwise prohibited herein. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;[/B]

(5) Any building owned, leased or controlled by the City of Kirkwood which is clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the building or at the restricted area to indicate that carrying a concealed weapon in the building or in a restricted area is prohibited. However, firing ranges, any building used for public housing by private persons, and any private dwellings owned, leased or controlled by the City of Kirkwood are exempted from this restriction unless carrying of a firearm is otherwise prohibited by federal law. All persons violating this subdivision shall be denied entrance to the building, ordered to leave the building, and if any person refuses to leave the premises, such person shall be deemed to be trespassing upon City property and shall be subject to the penalties prescribed under Section 1-8 of the Kirkwood Code of Ordinances in addition to being issued a citation for violation of this section as provided for herein. If such persons are employees of the City of Kirkwood, they may also be subjected to disciplinary measures;
(6) Any establishment licensed to dispense intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating beer for consumption on the premises, which portion is primarily devoted to that purpose without the consent of the owner or manager. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the licensee of said establishment. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty persons and that receives at least fifty-one percent of its gross annual income from the dining facilities by the sale of food. This subdivision does not prohibit the possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the establishment and shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement to possess any firearm while intoxicated;

(7) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law;

(8) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(9) Any portion of a building used as a child care facility without the consent of the manager. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm or a driver's license or nondriver's license containing a concealed carry endorsement;

(10) Any gated area of an amusement park. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the amusement park shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(11) Any church or other place of religious worship without the consent of the minister or person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(12) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

(13) Any sports arena or stadium with a seating capacity of five thousand or more. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(14) Any hospital accessible by the public. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of a hospital shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises.

(b) Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location prohibited by this section by any individual who holds concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to this section shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for a violation of this section in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense in addition to citation(s) for violation(s) of other provisions of the Kirkwood Code of Ordinances. If a second citation for a similar violation of this section occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation of this section is issued within one year of the first citation such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit the issuance of citations for violations of any other provisions of the Kirkwood Code of Ordinances.

(Gen. Ords. 1959, §52.19; Ord. No. 9397, §2, 5-20-04)
Click to expand...
 
I've never been in a situation like this...so I have a poor frame of reference.

I do know that sometimes stuff happens faster than we can react to it....


But he got a head-shot on one of the officers...and then went on to shoot a bunch more - killing 5 total and wounding two more before officers put him down.


All this talk about being armed in public places is going to fly out the window when even police officers can't take a guy down quick enough. (Brady campaign is gonna have a hayday with this one. :mad: )


How could this have happened?


Irritating...to say the least...
 
5 killed vs. 32 killed

The armed officers made a difference, but reducing it to just numbers will never fly in an emotionally charged debate.

But then, it looks like he wasn't indiscriminately killing either, so it's kind of a moot point.

What's with all the shootings today anyway? o_O
 
This tragedy will once again stir up the antigun nuts to try and attack the Second Amendment?

It is sad what happened and when you read about this guy, there were signs of mental illness.
 
And once again, a shooting in a victim disarmament zone.
Click to expand...

...the shooter fired at City Attorney, John Hessel, who tried to fight off the attacker by throwing chairs...
Click to expand...

:barf: Ever notice there are NEVER any mass shootings at Gun Shows, Gun Shops or NRA Conventions? It seems as if they ONLY happen in "Criminal Safety Zones". When are the law that insure the criminals safety and free reign going to end? :banghead:

When I was in high school there was NEVER any school shootings. Of course, back then schools were not "Gun Free Zones". Many Teachers and Students had shotguns and hunting rifles on gun racks in their trucks.
 
That place should have been like the scene in blazing saddles where sheriff Bart receives his laurel and hardy handshake.

You would be deterred from doing this if you knew that possibly everyone in the room was armed.

But, I'm preaching to the choir.
 
Well, this guy knew he was wading into a well-armed place anyway. With numerous police officers present, firearms were already there. This guy did not plan to come out alive. As the saying goes about the impossibility of stopping an assassin who does not care about surviving.

If more people were armed, I still doubt lives could have been saved in this instant. Several sucker shots were taken and then he wades in, shooting. Even if folks were armed, I can't imagine this guy would have been stopped much sooner, if at all. This is not a comment against CCW, just an observation that this Thornton guy must have planned to go down shooting. That kind of guy can very rarely be stopped.

How long it took I don't know, but the city attorney was indeed brave by fighting back. The guy who said he was pitiful is ignoring the fact that this guy did stand up and fight back with all that he had. What would anyone here have done in such a proceeding, disarmed? Throwing a chair is one of the few things you CAN do, if you choose not to hide under a table.

Ash
 
I don't think the original poster was calling the attorney pitiful, but rather that all he had was a chair to defend himself. If he had time to throw an unwieldy chair, he most certainly would have had time to return fire had he been armed; and it could have been over right then. If most people in the room had been armed. I don't think he would have been able to to walk around the room shooting one person after another.
 
. The guy who said he was pitiful is ignoring the fact that this guy did stand up and fight back with all that he had. What would anyone here have done in such a proceeding, disarmed?
Click to expand...

I think you missed it pretty big there. It's pitiful that the guy was only legally allowed a chair to defend himself. He clearly had the will to live in him by fighting back but was denied use of the proper tool by the government. And clearly that government couldn't protect him. If government admits they cannot protect us, yet continually fights to deny us the tools to do it ourselves, what does that say?

I think pitiful describes it pretty well.

That kind of guy can very rarely be stopped.
Click to expand...

You may never stop a guy like this from heading down that path but it's simple math. One gunman, 30 people only 3 of them cops and armed is chaos. Take that scene and play it out with one gunman, 30 armed people and see how long it lasts. And yes there is a danger of bystanders getting shot but really, is that worse?

I'd rather get shot by some guy trying to help me than sit there and have some insane dirtbag shooting me in the head because I've been denied the right to take care of myself.

The word is "mitigation".
 
You all completely mistake what I say, too. I am not against. I am hard core for CCW. Man, I'm for the right to carry concealed without permits! But in this case, with what he was doing, how many shots you suppose it would take to put him down? I doubt one shot would have done it. I'm saying this guy did not want to survive (like most mass-shooters). But what ever. If you think 30 people would have been armed, you are mistaken. How many members in that meeting had CCW licenses? That is how many you would have had armed if the proceedings would have allowed legal carry. How many? Missouri has CCW. City officials often are allowed to carry - like Judges. Even if it was a gun-free zone with all its idiotic notions, how many in that room had a CCW? I'll wager none of them did. But even if some did, most did not. Therefore, CCW carry in such a situation would have made very little, if any, difference.

Now, we can argue that they should have been able to carry, but most citizens don't, including in Alaska and Vermont where no permit is required.

Ash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Yet another shooting...
Replies
0
Views
378
stellarpod
S
B
  • Locked
Why Why Why
Replies
1
Views
1K
average_shooter
A
T
  • Locked
Shots fired at police, firefighters in Maplewood (near St Louis)
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
clarence222
C
U
  • Locked
Man opens fire at MO manufacturing plant / Standoff in St. Louis (merged)
Replies
7
Views
932
TheEgg
T
B
  • Locked
Man overcomes robber, beats him with gun, police say
Replies
12
Views
952
BluesBear
B
Back
Top