Categories
Uncategorized

Open Thread for discussion of San Bernardino mass shooting

The scene outside the Inland Regional Center
The scene outside the Inland Regional Center

At least 14 people have been killed in a mass shooting at a center for people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino, involving multiple shooters in combat gear and using assault weapons. Police say that two suspects have been killed, one man, one woman; a third suspect has been detained. As I write this it’s not clear who the attackers were, what motivated them.

Please post any relevant information you find in the comments below.

See here for ongoing coverage.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

160 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Falconer
Falconer
4 years ago

@lightcastle, what I heard was the third person was observed fleeing the scene, and was apprehended, and it turned out they were very sensibly fleeing the scene because motherfuckin’ flying bullets, but unfortunately they were the subject of an outstanding misdemeanor warrant unrelated to the shooting, so they get to be a guest of the San Bernardino taxpayers for a day or two.

raysa
raysa
4 years ago
Reply to  David Futrelle

YAY I CAN REPLY TO YOU.

That’s all. Much better for me, since my intellect is very limited.

weirwoodtreehugger
weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Oh good. It’s back. I’ve been going through Mammoth withdrawal!

Testing to see if the Blockquote Mammoth has at last been defeated.

Falconer
Falconer
4 years ago
Reply to  David Futrelle

@David:

It’s a tweet by Grasswire:

https://twitter.com/GrasswireNow/status/672835250121129984

that I found in this Gawker article, it’s practically the first thing:

http://gawker.com/msnbc-reporter-rifles-through-san-bernardino-shooters-a-1746220523

Apparently the landlord was escorted away by the police at some point:

https://twitter.com/passantino/status/672855452795834368

LG.
LG.
4 years ago

David, I honestly and earnestly fear that the new “reply” option will be the death of the WHTM community as we know it. No, really. I’ve noticed that close-knit comments communities tens to form on blogs where this is not an option and die when it is.

Cerulean (Miss A)
Cerulean (Miss A)
4 years ago

I never had the chance to give you all an update over here since WHtM was down yesterday. (Nice job on the site move, David! Looks awesome!)

So I told you all about my friend’s friend? The one who was said to have been shot and recovering? Turned out that was an error; he was one of the fatalities. Understandable, my friend (along with everyone else who knew this person) took it extremely hard. And it hurt just reading about it.

For those who haven’t read it, the article about my friend’s friend. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-daniel-kaufman-boyfriend-20151203-story.html

lightcastle
lightcastle
4 years ago

@Falconer – That tracks more or less with what I heard, explaining why they were picked up, held, and then released.

Virtually Out of Touch
Virtually Out of Touch
4 years ago
Orion
Orion
4 years ago

Honestly, I don’t mind “reply.” It’s true that it seems to prevent communities from *forming* (though Captain Awkward has replies), but I’ve seen communities like Slacktivist move to threading after they were well-established, with no particular harm I could see.

PieterB
PieterB
4 years ago

@Cerulean (Miss A) We weren’t actually friends, but I knew him; I worked at Ale I for about a decade. Never saw him without that sunny smile. Taking on the NRA just hit my “Things to do for the rest of my life” list.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago
Reply to  Orion

The Mary Sue is another example of a nested comments section with a great community. However, it’s heavily moderated, and I’d hate for the mods here to have to work harder if nested comments make it more prone to trolls. Also, it’s easier to get caught up on the most recent posts if the comments are flat.

guy
guy
4 years ago

FBI now believe it was a terrorist attack.

Media reports that there was a Facebook post by the wife pledging allegiance to ISIS that got deleted before the shooting; no official confirmation or denial. ISIS is claiming responsibility now, but they’re usually faster, so I’m guessing that this wasn’t planned by the group as a whole.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
4 years ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/04/attorney-for-san-bernardino-attackers-family-floats-hoax-theory/

And then there’s this….(sigh) The washington post should be ashamed, the attorney should be informally reprimanded as a state bar member for the appearance of impropriety and being a jerkface about the ethics here…a conspiracy theory? Really mr. lawyerdude? That’s what you want to start on?! No! Wait until you’re hired as a legal consultant for faux news shows, they’ll love that stuff.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago
Reply to  David Futrelle

Since I needed to do some WP stuff anyways, I checked 🙂

From the sidebar on your admin page, settings -> discussion.

If you guys need more eyes, let me know, I’d rather be debugging this than “why am I still maintaining your site you can update your own damned plugins or pay me” (aka this is why working for your friends for free can be really iffy)

chagrin
chagrin
4 years ago

I’ve come to a grim thought today. Whatever one’s perspective on gun control, I wonder what comes to mind when people say “good guy with a gun.” We have all heard this argument, that disarming law-abiding citizens makes them easy pickings for criminals who don’t respect the law in the first place. I’m not going to speak to whether that is true, or if it justifies allowing shooting after shooting even if it is.

What I’m more concerned with is the consequences of potentially mainstreaming Open Carry, an objective that seems to cause lots of NRA-boners.

Specifically, can a black man be a so-called “good guy with a gun?
In a nation where unarmed black men are frequently killed by trained law enforcement officers with near impunity, will Open Carry save or doom us? Think about what will happen if during a shooting all the people licensed to carry guns take them out to fire back. What will the authorities see when they arrive to contain the situation? They’ll see targets to neutralize.
“Oh but wait,” gun advocates will say. “That’s why licensed carriers can order Carry Badges to put on their belt.”
Leaving aside that this necessitates never appearing in public with an untucked shirt again, it never seems to occur to them that law enforcement authorities who see a black man with a gun in his hands are not liable to check to see if he has a Carry Badge.
This means that if Open Carry becomes mainstream, every person of color who chooses to do so will put themselves at risk. And anyone who doesn’t will essentially surrender themselves to being surrounded by white people with guns.
This, I fear, is the ultimate consequence of normalizing Open Carry. America will go from having subversive pockets of white supremacy to having scores of people screaming it in the open to spite their powerless counterparts.
I could be wrong. I really hope I am.

Sorry I said so many words.

Nazrala
Nazrala
4 years ago

You know that Syria have been going through this s*** for over 4 and a half year, right?

That happened because the US governement and its “allies” have been supporting the modern-day equivalent of the banderists, croatian ustases and Kwantung army.
Since 2011, the “democratic rebels” have been comitting a long series of bestial atrocities that even includes hanging 4 years old boy and taking a bite off a man´s heart. The “democratic” rebels in Benghazi butchered civilians like animals and Gaddafi was raped, thousands of black workers in Libya were killed or tortured.
Your president have not only carried out even more deadly drone strikes than Bush Jr, he even lied about the Syrian governement carrying out a chemical attack in order to start a war and destroy it, now the fear is that ISIL is about to use chemical weapons in european cities.
Even now, Saudi Arabia is waging a murderous war against Yemeni rebels, Yemen was the poorest arab country before the Saudi-lead intervention, kudos to the brave fighters resisting those murderous Saudi demons and their lackeys.
Your president knew that Erdogan was buying massive amounts from ISIL and Erdogan would never have ordered the downing of that Russian aircraft without the prior approvale from the White House.

Even before Obama took power, how many governements have the US & UK govs subverted? How many coups? How many bombing campaigns? How many economic dictates? How much has the war on drugs cost? How many millions have been in prison in the last decades? How many has been killed by the police with near impunity? Is the 18 trillion debt going to pay itself?

Yet some of you people seriously expects the US governement to safeguard and protect you by disarming the law abiding citizenry? How paternalistic and naïve!

Not only that, you outright insult those who would warn you of the dangers as being themselves dangerous, barely litterate, paranoide right-wingers.
Yet, local gun-control laws did not prevent this latest tragedy and the one in Paris, it only ensured the attackers could kill at will.
On the other hand, getting a single bullet between the eyes would have stopped Elliot Rodger cold.
How will Anita Sarkeesian protect herself if someone breaks into her home? Or David Futrelle himself for that matter, if he is attacked by that unemployed a***hole from Alabama?
The police cannot unrape and unmurder you.

Gun-control advocates did not even wait until the bodies were cold and stopped bleeding to push their agenda… they have my utter and utmost contempt.

Well no, sorry to disappoint you, there are left-wingers who supports the 2nd amendment. -)

http://orig13.deviantart.net/5b27/f/2015/209/4/9/pro_gun_far_left_by_americansfr-d9381m3.jpg

scarlettpipstrelle
scarlettpipstrelle
4 years ago

I don’t usually pay much attention to rants about the evil our government may have done, because the people who are doing these attacks aren’t attacking our government. They’re deliberately attacking ordinary people whose only crime was to try and live out their lives. They went to a party, went to work, got on a plane, etc. The victims aren’t being chosen for the degree of their guilt or power. Nor are they dying accidentally as a result of some action targeted elsewhere. Even the planes flown into the Pentagon didn’t take out any high-ranking generals,. They attacked ordinary Americans, and we have the right to feel how we feel about that.

So, how many of our people are they going to kill before they’re happy? There were children on the planes. So, we have to sit still and accept the deaths of our loved ones and fellow citizens because somebody is mad at our government?

As a mother and grandmother in America, no I’m not going to accept the tribal notion that revenge is somehow justified. It has to stop somewhere. They complain about drones, then send sleepers after us. I’m not going to hand over ordinary Americans, not even theoretically, nor do I respond to guilt trips, ever, not for any reason.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Someone help me out: what is Nazrala on about? The first half of that seems to be a “well, y’all are asking for it by being Americans” sort of rant, while the other half is a “well, y’all are asking for it by not packing heat everywhere you go so you can play Rambo on the street” kind of thing.

How do these two rants connect? I’m not getting it.

scarlettpipstrelle
scarlettpipstrelle
4 years ago

Policy, I think you were right the first time. A general guilt trip and threat, all wrapped up in one package. Trying to make us feel bad and insecure.

Falconer
Falconer
4 years ago

Oh look, illiterate, paranoid, free-gun left-wingers.

Virtually Out of Touch
Virtually Out of Touch
4 years ago

““Oh but wait,” gun advocates will say. “That’s why licensed carriers can order Carry Badges to put on their belt.”

Misogyny much? How many women wear belts on the regular? Oh I guess “our men” are supposed to wear them and accompany us wherever we go, eh?

Falconer
Falconer
4 years ago

I think the two paragraphs are connected by a theme of “can’t trust the government,” but there’s a twist in it.

Like, in the first paragraph, Nazrala is claiming that our government is imperialistic, meddling, violent and immune to reprisals, and that it could turn its wrath on any of us, so we can’t trust it to have our best interests in mind.

The second one is boilerplate “police are useless!” ranting, which also fosters the idea that we can’t trust our government — in the sense that it claims we can’t rely on them to protect us.

The unspoken conclusion is that an armed individual is protected from the government; but it hand-waves away the preponderance of the evidence, which is that in this country you don’t shoot a cop and live to tell about it.

Virtually Out of Touch
Virtually Out of Touch
4 years ago

“The unspoken conclusion is that an armed individual is protected from the government; but it hand-waves away the preponderance of the evidence, which is that in this country you don’t shoot a cop and live to tell about it.”

Yeah the gun lovin’ folks never quite explain how carrying is supposed to protect us from the government. So how exactly would brandishing a gun have helped this woman and her child?

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
4 years ago

I don’t have anything to do with drones flying in other countries, I have never been a government official making decisions to bomb, invade, or economically sanction the citizens of another country. However, in my home my firearm is something I know that I only have the right to respond with use of force commensurate to the seriousness of the threat….if my life is not in immediate and absolute peril I don’t get to shoot an intruder in the head without facing a potential murder charge. If I chase an intruder out of my home who has not acted in a violent manner towards me but is instead fleeing the premises and shoot them with the intent to kill or maim I can expect to face criminal charges. My weapon is not the size for concealment, its purpose is to protect my life, the lives of anyone I’ve willingly invited into my home, and my property. It doesn’t mean I’m any safer than a neighbor who is unarmed, and I still must regularly practice loading, using and keeping it in the proper condition. But should someone break in and become a threat it’s there and may make all the difference between my life ending or not.

Our country contains the people of many other nations, how can our government not hear the cries to help those who have – for whatever reason – remained behind in places beyond our borders? To share the wealth and encourage wealth building in other countries? Humans have always had a violent side, and the brains to create all sorts of methods to commit violence against each other. We shouldn’t make that the only thing that ties our whole-world civilization together.

Falconer
Falconer
4 years ago

On second thought, the first paragraph is probably intended to establish Nazrala’s bona fides by listing a whole bunch of left-wing talking points from wherever they live (not the US, judging by their use of “your president”), which unfortunately includes paranoia about how Turkey won’t say boo to a goose without Obama’s say-so.

Then the second para is the usual tired pro-gun talking points.

It’s like a mullet.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago

Well, to be fair, I wouldn’t say boo to a goose either. In fact, I recommend avoiding geese in general, fuckers have a very short temper and a very nasty bite!

(No, I don’t have anything on topic to say, but seeing as I’ve been bitten by far too many things, thought I’d weigh in on geese)

adudeinthewoods
adudeinthewoods
4 years ago

I actually have four Emden geese, the big white ones. And while they are chummy with me, the kids and my wife they are awfully unpleasent to everyone/thing else besides the chickens. They’ve even driven the cats from the barn.

Better then a dog for a watch animal, people don’t know how to take a 25lb obnoxious bird.

Paradoxical Intention
4 years ago

Argenti Aertheri | December 5, 2015 at 9:40 pm
Well, to be fair, I wouldn’t say boo to a goose either. In fact, I recommend avoiding geese in general, fuckers have a very short temper and a very nasty bite!

Here’s a good reason why: The fuckers have teeth on their tongues.

comment image

The eyes of the Devil. o.o

Falconer
Falconer
4 years ago

We here at Falconer Industries, LLC do not condone or encourage any behavior that is likely to lead to drawing aggro from large waterfowl.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
4 years ago

And I thought the extremely persistent about getting food and attention group of ducks living in the ponds in the community I reside in were bad. They’ve learned to knock on patio doors with their beaks, and if one or two don’t get your attention, you soon have six or more there knocking. We had someone dump a goose off one year, looked like it had had an individual try to pluck large areas of feathers off it – a mama duck took the poor thing under her wing after realizing the goose was willing to sit on her eggs for her, and babysit the ducklings without trying to kill them after they hatched.

Later some stupid jerkface decided that ducks were enough, and the goose was removed. They’d get rid of the ducks too if they weren’t prevented from it by municipal codes enforced by the area department of animal care and control.

scarlettpipstrelle
scarlettpipstrelle
4 years ago

I live in a state where, if an intruder who invades your home is a stranger, it is perfectly legal to kill him (or her). It has to be a stranger, not a domestic or neighbor dispute, and they have to not be fleeing, but if you have an intruder you are allowed to assume that they mean you and yours deadly harm, and you may blow them away without further concern. When enacted, this was called the “Make My Day” law.

BTW, the United States already gives out more aid, more jobs, more work visas, and more local wealth-building assistance than all other countries combined. We let in more immigrants than all other countries combined. And this has been the case since the end of WWII. The presence of the shooters in our country, living as middle class people, is one example of that. Some of the people they shot had given them a baby shower.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
4 years ago

PI — three hours of supposedly true horror stories and not true creepy pasta and that tongue is the real nightmare fuel!

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@Virtually Out of Touch
The Godboldo story is terrifying.

If Maryanne Godboldo had been a rich white woman with access to alternative doctors, you can bet everything you’ve got that this wouldn’t have happened.

And of course if she had brandished a gun, she might well be dead. Then her daughter would have no mother and be forced to take a drug that made her violent.

dhag85
dhag85
4 years ago

We let in more immigrants than all other countries combined.

Is this really true? It’s certainly not true per capita, right? According to a Forbes article from 2012, even in absolute numbers the next two countries on the list (Germany and Spain) had a larger combined immigrant inflow than the US.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@dhag
Like all Americans who are not Native Americans, my ancestors, not so long ago, were immigrants. So I take this whole controversy about immigration personally.

My understanding is that the story of US unparalleled generosity to immigrants is a myth. It’s certainly not true for those immigrants without papers who slip across the border from Mexico, hoping to find work as farmworkers, nannies, house cleaners, roofers, or dishwashers. They are hunted and hounded by the border patrol. Some die in the desert heat. All because they want to feed their families, something that the North American Free Trade Agreement makes difficult.

And Wikipedia agrees with your per capita argument:

On a per capita basis, the United States lets in fewer immigrants than half the countries in the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development].[1] Prior to 1965 [that is, prior to Civil Rights legislation], policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe.

1. Among the thirty four OECD nations, the United States ranks 18th considering solely permanent-type immigrants. (“Does the U.S. admit more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined?”. PolitiFact. Retrieved March 7, 2014.) On a global scale, considering all forms of immigration, the United States ranks 34th with 19,148.45 immigrants per 1 million citizens. (Source: “All countries compared for People > Migration > Net migration per capita”. NationMaster. Retrieved March 7, 2014.)

dhag85
dhag85
4 years ago

@Kat

Thanks.

I found it interesting that apart from per capita calculations, from what I can see, the statement “more immigrants than the rest of the world combined” is also not remotely true.

In other news, our Sweden Democrat Party is literally doxxing refugee shelters through official channels, while proposing that permanent residence permits be revoked. Permanent! Do words mean things anymore?

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@dhag
Good point! I had forgotten that this argument (the United States takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined) had been made.

It’s just not true.

I’m off to bed now.

scarlettpipstrelle
scarlettpipstrelle
4 years ago

Numerically more immigrants, definitely, and numbers are what this is about. Most other countries throw up a lot more barriers than we do. While the shooter was born here, his parents weren’t, nor was his bride. I do not buy arguments that we, as a nation, have been cruel or stingy towards immigrants. Right now I live in a neighborhood that was once white working class. It’s now Hispanic working class and mean recent immigrants. Back in the ‘aughts I lived in a neighborhood where many people from Africa were coming in. Not American Black people, Somalis and Ethiopians. There were also Marshall Islanders, Asians, and all sorts of others. The neighborhoods were not contentious, we all get along and there are no riots or racial incidents, we’re all just working folks.

dhag85
dhag85
4 years ago

@scarlettpipstrelle

There’s a huge difference between “numerically more than the next country on the list” and “numerically more than the rest of the world combined”. And I also don’t agree that the absolute numbers are more significant than the per capita numbers.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Let’s not fool ourselves: the state of states is the state of nature. To some degree it is Hobbesian and to some degree it is Lockean, but every state operates in a state of nature with respect to other states.

The US does a lot of things worth criticizing, but any state that found herself in the same position as the US (having no other state that can coerce her into doing something she doesn’t want to do, or not doing something she wants to do) would behave in a similar way. You can see it easily on local scales, and throughout history.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

And I also don’t agree that the absolute numbers are more significant than the per capita numbers.

Yeah, I have to disagree with your disagreement. If a country with a population of 100 accepts 1 immigrant, and the US with a population of 300 million accepts 1 million, the US has done 1 million times more absolute good for migrants, even though she is 1/3rd as generous per capita.

dhag85
dhag85
4 years ago

@PoM

That was not actually a disagreement with my disagreement.

dhag85
dhag85
4 years ago

I guess I’ll expand on that previous comment.

We agree that 1 million is a larger number than 1. This has not been questioned.

I just don’t believe it’s useful in reality to compare absolute population flow between countries of such varying sizes. When you say the US has done one million times more good than some fictional country with a population of 100, you really haven’t said much of anything other than “the USA is a large country”. Again, this has not been questioned. We agree that the US is larger than Germany.

We can just as well say the European Union as a whole has done “more absolute good”, but these are word games. In reality, what difference do we make by arbitrarily changing the scope? None, in my view.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
4 years ago

…If I never hear another person who doesn’t live in California, never has lived in California, and may not even reside in the United States go on about what it’s like in California, what the people in California do and act like (especially if they’ve not once in their whole lives met someone from California…which is the case more than one would think!) in a variety of situations, before concluding with a call for “the big one” (earthquake) to come and cause California to break off from the rest of the continental United States, then sink to the depths of the Pacific Ocean with all her residents – usually because we’re all a bunch of left-wing fruits and nuts led by hippies and ‘ill-E-GUHls’ who deserve the wrathful judgment of religious conserv- I mean ‘God’ – I think I could die happy.

Yes, it’s sort of O/T, and I should quit clicking on ‘news’ articles on certain subjects because I know what awaits within their poisonous comment-communities, but DAMN there are so many who don’t seem to have a grasp of the basics let alone realize that the state of California is geologically NEVER going to become an island or break off and sink…at least not according to the current prediction models on tectonic movements. That and I’m sick of people telling me what it’s like here and complaining about life here when they’re NOT HERE nor have they ever been!

scarlettpipstrelle
scarlettpipstrelle
4 years ago

I was sitting in Civics class on the date and time that Cali was supposed to break off and fall into the ocean. We still had to sit through class and turn in our homework.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

I just don’t believe it’s useful in reality to compare absolute population flow between countries of such varying sizes.

What I’m saying is that it is. The 999,999 people who are unable to get into Fictional Small Country because it is small are not going to be comforted by the fact that, per captia, Fictional Small Country is extremely generous. If they can’t get out of their current, undesirable and possibly very dangerous situation, the relative generosity of Fictional Small Country versus the relative generosity of the United States is irrelevant. What matters is the absolute, in raw numbers, generosity of the United States (or any other very large state). What matters is whether or not Given Immigrant #947,821 is able to get into a better situation.

dhag85
dhag85
4 years ago

@PoM

What matters is whether or not Given Immigrant #947,821 is able to get into a better situation.

Yes, and the way we make sure this given immigrant can indeed get into a better situation is by expecting countries to do their fair share in terms of per capita, not in absolute numbers. You’re gonna sit around hoping that Liechenstein will agree to double their population every year? I’m not. This is why I specified I’m talking about reality.

I’m trying to figure out why you’re making the obvious point that accepting more immigrants is better for immigrants than accepting fewer. Has anybody argued the opposite? Because if not, that’s the definition of a strawperson.

My problem is this: In reality we have the USA as one nation with a population of, what, 320 million? Let’s say this specific country has an inflow of 1 million immigrants yearly. If instead we had four different countries where the USA is now, with a population of 80 million each, and they still have a combined inflow of 1 million immigrants yearly, what difference does this scenario make as compared to reality? None! But you would say these 4 countries are now doing less good than the 1 country in the other scenario, even though there’s literally no difference.

This is why it makes zero sense focusing on absolute numbers. Presumably, Given Immigrant #947,821 doesn’t give a shit about where exactly the arbitrary national borders are drawn. What matters is how many immigrants the world can help as a whole. A huge country like the US accepting fewer immigrants per capita than other countries is actually doing the opposite of helping.