Hospital Gunman Intended to Kill Others

Hospital Gunman Intended to Kill Others

There was a shooting on 2014JUL25 and it went something like this:

A psychiatric patient ranted about a hospital gun ban before opening fire at the suburban medical complex, killing his caseworker and grazing his psychiatrist before the doctor pulled out his own weapon and fired back, authorities said Friday. Dr. Lee Silverman emptied his chamber, striking patient Richard Plotts several times. Plotts by then had shot the caseworker in the face and fired several shots at Silverman, including one that grazed his temple and another that struck his thumb, official said.

So in essence we have a medically diagnosed crazy guy illegally carrying a gun into a 'Gun Free Zone' who then starts shooting up the place. Suddenly his psychiatrist brandishes an equally illegal concealed weapon (as per 'Gun Free Zone' laws) and shoots the gunman, who is then subdued and apprehended.

Hospital policy bars anyone except on-duty law enforcement officers from carrying weapons on campus, a Mercy Health System spokeswoman said. She otherwise declined to discuss why Silverman was armed at work.

I hope this turns out to be a case of two wrongs making a right. I am of the opinion the the main idea of a CCW is that nobody knows you're carrying, that's what one of the C's in CCW stands for. Hell I CCWA'ed (concealed carry anyways) for years prior to doing the paperwork shuffle, paying the legislated extortion and getting licensed. Guess how many people knew...

IMO he saved lives and serves as a great counterpoint to this thread here: Think that CCW permit holder is a safe individual? Maybe not:

originally posted by: Lipton
Hospital policy bars anyone except on-duty law enforcement officers from carrying weapons on campus, a Mercy Health System spokeswoman said. She otherwise declined to discuss why Silverman was armed at work.

I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Loss of ones job is nothing compared to saving lives by acting in a responsible manner.

Props to the Doctor for acting instead of watching.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Very true. But he made the worst mistake when it comes to acting in self defense; leaving the assailant alive = crocodile tears on the witness stand.

If I have to go to trial I only want one version of events to be heard. Mine.

Loss of ones job is nothing compared to saving lives by acting in a responsible manner.

Props to the Doctor for acting instead of watching.

Agreed 1000%. Far too often we have the 'Kitty Genovese effect' (aka the 'Bystander effect'). What the world needs is few more people with what this guy has.

Only a Gun can neutralize a gun - Paper, Rocks or Sissors just won't cut it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I hope you know I want to bug you about that last sentence.

originally posted by: Lipton
Very true. But he made the worst mistake when it comes to acting in self defense; leaving the assailant alive = crocodile tears on the witness stand.

You shoot to stop the threat. You do not shoot to kill the guy (legalese jargon / mindset).

Once the threat is neutralized / deescalates the victim must do the same. Going beyond that line moves a person from victim to suspect.

Dont get me wrong I understand what you are saying and for the most part agree. When I stated the doctor was responsible it goes beyond him shooting the guy. The Doctor stopped when the suspect went down.

As a side note this would be another example of gun control arguments being off base, specifically the suspects criminal history and how he obtained a gun.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Xcathdra

I hope you know I want to bug you about that last sentence.

Sure.. go for it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

U2U + smoke break.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

You shoot to stop the threat. You do not shoot to kill the guy (legalese jargon / mindset).

Once the threat is neutralized / deescalates the victim must do the same. Going beyond that line moves a person from victim to suspect.

Respectfully, I disagree with the idea of not shooting to kill. Please read this article, as the reasons listed are loosely the same reasons I have, but this saves me typing it up: Why Are Law Enforcement Officers Taught Shoot to Kill and Not to Wound?

As a side note this would be another example of gun control arguments being off base, specifically the suspects criminal history and how he obtained a gun.

I am also curious about how he acquired his firearm. Store? Stolen? Friends/Family?

a reply to: Lipton

You're not understanding what was said by X. It's the same thing, one is more palatable.

a reply to: Lipton

Law Enforcement has a very narrow window when it comes to using a firearm. In Law Enforcement a firearm can be used when the situation is of life and death.

Using a deadly force weapon as a "warning shot" says the situation was not life and death.

Here is an excellent video that touches on the "myth" verse "reality".


No idea about how he got the gun.. I was wondering that as well.

For the most part civilians have a bit more leeway than law enforcement.

originally posted by: Domo1
You're not understanding what was said by X. It's the same thing, one is more palatable.

If that's what X was surreptitiously driving towards I apologize.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lethal force is only acceptable when lethal force is acceptable. Shooting a gun at someone is ALWAYS considered lethal force. Shooting to wound is a myth.

There is a reason cops only shoot to kill. It's because if you are at the point where you have to shoot, you might miss. Aim for a knee and you might hit something vital that will cause someone to bleed out before help gets there. If you really look at the human body, and really understand just how hard it is to hit a spot with adrenaline pumping, a moving target, and a host of other variables you start to understand.

A gun is ALWAYS lethal force. If it gets to that point and you aren't trying to kill someone you shouldn't have brought out the gun.

I'm betting there are some awesome shooters on ATS. I'm betting they would all agree they wouldn't risk a shot to hobble someone. They wouldn't shoot unless it was imperative they killed the person they were shooting at.

Shooting to wound is aiming at a lawsuit and some VERY troubling personal revelations. Not to mention jail time.

I'm a pretty good shot with a pistol and I wouldn't trust myself to hit a guy in the leg from 5 feet and not kill him.

The doctor deserves an award.

I am on a jobsite right now waiting for my fellow workers. It is a college campus. Every single door has a sticker with a gun and an x through it. They advertise no gun zones heavy. if someone were to go crazy, it would be a mess.

Ignorance knows no boundaries.