One person shot at Texas Tech university, campus on lockdown

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Black_Fox

So, was this some "shooter", or just someone who shot once, and is labeled as such to cause panic? I have heard of cases, including where we live, of a fleeing criminal causing all schools in a town to be on lockdown, for one bad guy fleeing cops, and no threat to schools at all, save entering a college campus to flee.

Hope this one is caught, either way.

You know how this goes.

Everyone is a shooter today and every incident where more than one person is killed no matter the motive or reason is a "mass shooting" because you have to inflate those stats.

Gun laws *will* be changed because the public *will* be convinced that they are about to be gunned down every minute of every day.

a reply to: ventian

Texas Tech is a major university with its own police force

Ive never seen a four year university without one. Even ones with less than 10k enrollment

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Nothing to see here folks.

No brown skin. No Mexicans. No Muslims.

Move right along.

Next.

Yeah let's pretend there isn't a 100+ page thread on the Las Vegas shooting, done by a white man.

Any other false narratives?

a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, a shooting is only called a "mass shooting" if 3 or more people are shot during the incident. Some won't even label it "mass shootings" unless 4 or more are shot in that single incident.

Here's one of my favorite sites for tracking mass shootings. It gives stats on how many people were injured and how many were killed, as well as links to a local article about the shooting. It only lists the shootings where 4 or more people were shot.

www.massshootingtracker.org...

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, a shooting is only called a "mass shooting" if 3 or more people are shot during the incident. Some won't even label it "mass shootings" unless 4 or more are shot in that single incident.

Here's one of my favorite sites for tracking mass shootings. It gives stats on how many people were injured and how many were killed, as well as links to a local article about the shooting. It only lists the shootings where 4 or more people were shot.

www.massshootingtracker.org...

Up until recently the definition commonly used was if 4 or more people, excluding the shooter, were killed. Media recently started using the definition you quoted because it yields bigger numbers.

Remember there was a "study" a few years ago where they came up with a ridiculous number of "school shootings", where they were including gang-violence that didn't even happen on school grounds but was merely "near" the school, like half a mile down the road and completely unrelated to the school or anyone in it.

Keep your skeptic hat on.

a reply to: face23785

You're referring to the FBI's definition of "mass murder", not the definition of "mass shooting".

And as for the school stats, that depends on the school district's policies. When I was in high school, a student could be suspended for violence/fighting even if the student was off of school property. Our school district's policy said we were in the school's jurisdiction until we were accompanied by another adult. If you you were a bus rider or walked home from school, you were still counted as "under school jurisdiction" until you made it to your front door or the supervision of other adults.

And that was in high school. I have no idea if that's how other school districts are, but that's how it was for us. One of my best friends even got a 10 day suspension for fighting like that. The other guy intentionally missed his bus stop, they both got off at my friend's bus stop, and the other guy followed my friend halfway to his house. My friend turned around and beat him down, then got suspended the next day.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for the info, was it ever found out if the one shot was a LEO or a SO?

a reply to: ventian

LEO. They only have LEO on campus as far as I know.

lubbockonline.com...

From what I understand, he was uncuffed and had not been searched before being detained. One of the police left the room after noting that he wasn't cuffed...but didn't act to amend. While he was out of the room, the other officer (who was doing paperwork) was shot by the suspects own weapon.

I feel terrible for the kids parents.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

From another source:

Officers were reportedly performing a wellness check on Daniels while on campus when, upon entering his room, officers reportedly found evidence of drugs along with drug paraphernalia, according to a statement by Texas Tech spokesman Chris Cook.

When Daniels was brought into the department for questioning, he reportedly pulled a gun and shot an officer in the head before fleeing on foot. It is unclear if Daniels had the weapon on him upon entering the campus police station.

Texas Tech student accused of shooting, killing officer tackled during arrest

So not a "shooter", just a fleeing bad guy with a gun. I wonder how he managed to get a gun intot he station, or if he took one while there?

Something similar where we live, they put all the local schools on lockdown, even though the person was nowhere near most of them! I can see the campus he ws on, for safety, but sheesh!

Appreciate the added data.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Black_Fox

So, was this some "shooter", or just someone who shot once, and is labeled as such to cause panic? I have heard of cases, including where we live, of a fleeing criminal causing all schools in a town to be on lockdown, for one bad guy fleeing cops, and no threat to schools at all, save entering a college campus to flee.

Hope this one is caught, either way.

You know how this goes.

Everyone is a shooter today and every incident where more than one person is killed no matter the motive or reason is a "mass shooting" because you have to inflate those stats.

Gun laws *will* be changed because the public *will* be convinced that they are about to be gunned down every minute of every day.

Yes, and every story with a gun is pushed ahead in the news, where before, we wouldn't have heard about most of them if not local, because it's not that big of a story.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wait, how did you conclude that he wasn't a shooter when it literally says "When Daniels was brought into the department for questioning, he reportedly pulled a gun and shot an officer in the head before fleeing on foot"? If I'm reading that correctly, he literally shot and killed a campus police officer. Does "shooter" have a different definition in this context?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I am wondering if this is just a misread of the data provided.

If not, it would indicate that only mass shootings count now, which would be a damned sorry state of affairs to be in, if you ask me.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well...when someone is in custodyand uses their own gun to kill cops....its more about the cops not following very basic and common semse procedure.

A "shooter" is a made up BS, fear stoking term coined by media.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It has nothing to do with media, after he shot the cop, he ran on foot.

From that point forward, cops were looking for the 'shooter'. Not the media.

I honestly can't believe the logic that stems from the idea 'shooter' is a made up term by the media, that's pretty absurd.

If you shoot(verb) a gun, you are a shooter(noun). Plain English, no conspiracy involved. Criminals that simply fire a gun and don't even hit anyone are, and have been referred to as a shooter before.

a reply to: NotTheCIA

Ive always heard terms like perpetrator from LEO.

Media latches on to buzzwords to create emotive response. No conspiracy. Just marketing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's just horrible. It is a sad fact that as our collective iqs decline, so too, do those around us. The police have not only become a danger to others, they have become a danger to themselves. My father is a LEO so this kind of story always hits home for me.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

No I'm referring to the definition that was used in numerous studies, and by the Congressional Research Service, which was based on the FBI's definition of mass murder. It was changed by media types who wanted the number to sound bigger. I'm aware of school districts having different policies. But a gang shooting a half mile from the school in which neither the victim nor the perpetrator are students or faculty, nor have been to the school, is clearly not a school shooting. I'm just trying to help you avoid being lied to.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sure.

But the word shooter, and what it implies, is older than our media, so.

What you are doing is projection.

Falsely giving them the very power you claim to 'dislike' that they have over words, in the first place.

I agree it's marketing, but at least meet me half way and acknowledge the idea "shooter" as a 'BS term coined by the media' is a ridiculous concept. No, they didn't. No, it's not.

originally posted by: NotTheCIA
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sure.

But the word shooter, and what it implies, is older than our media, so.

What you are doing is projection.

Falsely giving them the very power you claim to 'dislike' that they have over words, in the first place.

I agree it's marketing, but at least meet me half way and acknowledge the idea "shooter" as a 'BS term coined by the media' is a ridiculous concept. No, they didn't. No, it's not.

Citation needed for the bolded above. Any etymology of the word I have found that would predate the modern era relates to marksmen. Not a wild gunman on the loose. If you can find any usage prior to say 2000 of that particular use, im interested in seeing it. I don't mind being wrong, as it makes me better informed. But i've looked into it, and don't see that I am.

ETA: prior the recent times, "shooter" was called "gunman" by media. In my youth, usage of that term would imply a large marble.

a reply to: NotTheCIA

If you shoot(verb) a gun, you are a shooter(noun). Plain English, no conspiracy involved. Criminals that simply fire a gun and don't even hit anyone are, and have been referred to as a shooter before.

Thanks. I was beginning to think that we've hit a point of no return when it comes to logic. Today's political environment has already reached an unprecedented level of absurdity. But now we can't even call someone a "shooter" after they literally shot and killed someone?