Two journalists killed in shooting during live newscast at Smith Mountain Lake

originally posted by: tnhiker
On a semi positive note, the person being interviewed is still alive, although in surgery with a gunshot to the back.

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 2m2 minutes ago

Vicki Gardner, who was subject of WDBJ interview, was shot in the back and is in surgery - @roanoketimes http://(link tracking not allowed)/1NBhz3T

I am thinking her being shot was accidental for the shooter. He seemed to have been targeting the news people only. Anyone know how many shots were fired? From the pics it almost looks as if he is shooting with a revolver and not a semi-auto, which would limit the number of shots he would have and could explain why the interviewee was spared...not enough bullets.

I am going to venture a guess that the killer was someone they knew, or at least one of them knew....scorned lover or something of the sort. Seems like a planned attack to me....whomever killed them had to know where they would be reporting from.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The shooter could have just used the live reporting incident just to take advantage of instant media attention. Lately, it seems like shooters who are mentally ill, are mimicking shootings that gain a lot of media attention.

I can't imagine what their parents are going through. Parents are always proud to see their kids land a great job after graduating from college. I wouldn't be surprised if her parents were watching this as it unfolded.

These shootings are becoming way to common in this country.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: masqua
This incident is all over the news within minutes. What I don't as yet know is who was being interviewed or why.

Until this information comes out, we have no possible motive for the shooting (if there was one).

In before the second amendment crowd pipes up.

It was a fluff piece about a water park. As soon as the interviewee says "safe for tourism", the shots rang out. That's enough for someone to kill people, right? At least the interviewee survived and can provide eyewitness descrip of the perp.

That is another reason I think the shooter knew one or both of the victims....he left the interviewee alive.

Hmmmm. Good point.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: tnhiker
On a semi positive note, the person being interviewed is still alive, although in surgery with a gunshot to the back.

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 2m2 minutes ago

Vicki Gardner, who was subject of WDBJ interview, was shot in the back and is in surgery - @roanoketimes http://(link tracking not allowed)/1NBhz3T

I am thinking her being shot was accidental for the shooter. He seemed to have been targeting the news people only. Anyone know how many shots were fired? From the pics it almost looks as if he is shooting with a revolver and not a semi-auto, which would limit the number of shots he would have and could explain why the interviewee was spared...not enough bullets.

Its a semi-auto. You can see the shell casings being ejected in the videos.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
I know it is because of poor image quality.... But DAMN he looks creepy.

Smith Mountain Lake is a huge area. It heavily wooded around it as well. The Bridgewater Marina contains everything from food courts to a gas station dockside. There are tons of campers in the area as well. It would have been easy for just anyone to be there and not be noticed. The place is a hub of family friendly activities... It's hard to imagine something like that occurring there.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

I am going to venture a guess that the killer was someone they knew, or at least one of them knew....scorned lover or something of the sort. Seems like a planned attack to me....whomever killed them had to know where they would be reporting from.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The shooter could have just used the live reporting incident just to take advantage of instant media attention. Lately, it seems like shooters who are mentally ill, are mimicking shootings that gain a lot of media attention.

I can't imagine what their parents are going through. Parents are always proud to see their kids land a great job after graduating from college. I wouldn't be surprised if her parents were watching this as it unfolded.

These shootings are becoming way to common in this country.

Would be a really odd coincidence I think, for the shooter to happen upon an interview that early in the morning and decide this is the time to make a statement.

Seems much more likely to me that the shooter knew someone on the scene and knew they were going to be there at that time and purposely went there to kill.

Lets hope the interviewee pulls through. Hopefully it's not a serious injury and she can help with the identification.

I was leaning toward this being a jealousy crime, but now hearing about the third victim being in surgery I'm not too sure of that.

If the third person was shot in the back, that would seem to be a deliberate act as she turned away after the shots started iirc. So, if it was a personal grudge against the two journalists then why did he shoot the interviewee?

It seems he deliberate shot at all three of the victims, which would suggest there wasn't a personal motive and he was targeting all of them.

That would mean that this has the potential to be a radicalized lone wolf shooter rather than a targeted killing.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: tnhiker
On a semi positive note, the person being interviewed is still alive, although in surgery with a gunshot to the back.

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews 2m2 minutes ago

Vicki Gardner, who was subject of WDBJ interview, was shot in the back and is in surgery - @roanoketimes http://(link tracking not allowed)/1NBhz3T

I am thinking her being shot was accidental for the shooter. He seemed to have been targeting the news people only. Anyone know how many shots were fired? From the pics it almost looks as if he is shooting with a revolver and not a semi-auto, which would limit the number of shots he would have and could explain why the interviewee was spared...not enough bullets.

Its a semi-auto. You can see the shell casings being ejected in the videos.

Then that really makes me believe that both of the ones killed were targeted and intended victims of the shooter, and the interviewee was accidentally hit because she was in the line of fire of the reporter or in front of the cameraman who was shot from behind it would appear.

a reply to: Rocker2013

The person who wrote that is very far from being 'pro-gun' and used poor taste and judgment to grandstand during this tragedy.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The original news reports coming out here did initially state that they were together. That has since been corrected here and the local news.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Lets hope the interviewee pulls through. Hopefully it's not a serious injury and she can help with the identification.

I was leaning toward this being a jealousy crime, but now hearing about the third victim being in surgery I'm not too sure of that.

If the third person was shot in the back, that would seem to be a deliberate act as she turned away after the shots started iirc. So, if it was a personal grudge against the two journalists then why did he shoot the interviewee?

It seems he deliberate shot at all three of the victims, which would suggest there wasn't a personal motive and he was targeting all of them.

That would mean that this has the potential to be a radicalized lone wolf shooter rather than a targeted killing.

I don't think she was an intended target. The cameraman is facing her and is obviously shot from behind as the shooter comes up....the interviewee is in front of him and likely took a shot intended for the cameraman on accident. I believe both the reporter and cameraman were shot multiple times, and the interviewee only once, which would suggest to me the shooter wanted the news people dead and the interviewee happened to get in the way of a missed shot.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I wonder if the reporter could have stopped the shooter if she was armed?

And here come all the gun nutters who think life is a scripted action movie.

Yeah, having a loaded gun off safety in your bag, always on your body, is absolutely practical and of course will save your life when someone completely UNEXPECTEDLY shoots you!

/sarc

Seriously, are the pro-gun nuts really this f-ing insensitive and idiotic?

Pretty sure the member you're responding to is anti-gun.

But don't let that stop you from hurling insults at the pro-gunners!

The local news just released the photo posted here live. They are currently urging everyone to stay out of the area (no problem) while they continue to search.

Not much goes on around here. They will find their shooter as they usually have little else to do. Hopefully they can find him before he hurts anyone else.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Would be a really odd coincidence I think, for the shooter to happen upon an interview that early in the morning and decide this is the time to make a statement.

Seems much more likely to me that the shooter knew someone on the scene and knew they were going to be there at that time and purposely went there to kill.

I agree with you that it would be coincidental, and incredibly unlikely, but if the person is a radicalized nutter he could quite easily have planned this and followed them from the station.

He doesn't need to have been in the right time at the right place, he could have simply followed them and waited for them to be on air.

The shooting of the interviewee is what gets me thinking this might not be anything personal to those victims. From what I recall of the video we see the interviewee to the right, with a good foot or so of space between them, and she turns to take cover as the shooting starts.

In my opinion, that seems to indicate that the shooter wasn't targeting anyone specifically, he was just shooting. He could have shot the two victims within seconds and never touched the interviewee, but she was shot in the back.

I don't know, it could be either a personal thing or a random attack by a nutter, but something about that third victim being shot too tells me this wasn't about the two journalists.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
If the third person was shot in the back, that would seem to be a deliberate act as she turned away after the shots started iirc. So, if it was a personal grudge against the two journalists then why did he shoot the interviewee?
.

He probably thought that the third victim could potentially identify him. That alone seems a likely reason for why he did that. He didn't know or expect to be caught on camera.

Hopefully they catch him before the day is out.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Rocker2013
If the third person was shot in the back, that would seem to be a deliberate act as she turned away after the shots started iirc. So, if it was a personal grudge against the two journalists then why did he shoot the interviewee?
.

He probably thought that the third victim could potentially identify him. That alone seems a likely reason for why he did that. He didn't know or expect to be caught on camera.

Hopefully they catch him before the day is out.

I would say he would have figured he WOULD have been caught on camera, being that this was a live interview. There would have been some set up, a van, a light or two and the interview happening when he walked up.

Shooter is now being chased on I-81 North apparently. LEO has name and license plate of shooter as well.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

He clearly wanted the shooting to be on camera, but he did approach the cameraman from behind. I don't think he wanted to be seen on camera or potentially identified.

Why shoot during an interview with the risk of the camera capturing his identity? I mean, why not wait until after the interview? If it's a targeted killing then I admit this has me confused.

Unless it was such an insane jealousy thing he wanted the family to see the murder on the air?