Press Bias in Sutherland Springs Reporting

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I thought there was bias in the initial coverage. I know for the first 48 hours I kept reading these stories where the shooter spontaneously threw down his rifle, fled and the shot himself. Even after it had been reported the shooting was stopped by Stephen Willeford, almost no story even acknowledged that he had fired his AR15.

However, in my usual disappointment with the press, I missed another slant in the reporting that Carl Arbogast caught: Observe how the media describes Stephen Willeford’s firearm vs. Devin Kelley

Devin Kelly’s weapon is described as a “Ruger AR556” or “assault rifle.” We’ve been treated to entire articles just about his weapon. Yet, Willeford’s weapon is repeatedly described as only a “gun” or “rifle.” You have to dig pretty far to find out he was also using an AR15 in most articles.

[Aguila Blanca]

I did pick up on that, but not at a sufficiently high level of consciousness to comment on it.

Here's another slant:

The impression I've gotten from virtually all articles I've read (with ONE exception) left me with the impression that Willeford was still across the street when the shooter exited the church, and that Willeford fired on the shooter outdoors, from across the street (or, at least, from across the parking lot). BUT ...

The one exception was an article quoting one of the survivors who was inside the church. It was a woman, and she said that she was certain she was going to be the next one killed ... and then Willeford shot the killer and the killer dropped his rifle and ran.

So, what can we draw from this? The anti-gun types are claiming that Willeford didn't end the carnage, that he shot the killer after the massacre had ended. Based on the testimony of this woman -- who was certainly in a position to know -- that's not true. It seems that Willeford actually DID end the attack, so Wayne LaPierre's rule did apply: It took a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I suggest you listen to Charles Willeford's own account of his confrontation with the shooter. It did, in fact, happen outside of the church, and the shooter was no longer holding the AR. He says the shooter was holding a pistol when the confrontation began.

[Buzzcook]

The shooting was not stopped by Stephen Willeford. The shooter was possibly stopped, but he had already killed his victims.

It is a biased statement to say that Willeford stopped the shooting just as it is biased to not reveal that both the shooter and Willeford used similar guns.

[mehavey]

So you propose that (and remember primary targets -- the ex in-laws --) weren't at
service that morning) he wan't going to continue his killing spree at his next stop?

My belief? W & L stopped a continued/extended slaughter.
No bias at all....

[JohnKSa]

The shooting was not stopped by Stephen Willeford.

Correct. The church shooting appears to have been over by the time Willeford arrived. Willeford's account indicates that the shooter was already across the street at his vehicle, and without his rifle when Willeford first encountered him.

So you propose that (and remember primary targets -- the ex in-laws --) weren't at service that morning) he wan't going to continue his killing spree at his next stop?

It is possible that the shooter intended to perpetrate another attack at another location, and it's fairly likely that even had that not been the case, there would have been a shootout when the police eventually encountered him. So what Willeford did likely prevented an additional shooting that would have happened later and elsewhere.

But in terms of the church shooting, Willeford's own account indicates that it was probably over before Willeford arrived on the scene.

[44 AMP]

Absent a written agenda from the killer detailing his plans for after the church shooting, one cannot say with certainty that further murders were planned.

One thing we can be certain of, that after the killer was opposed by an armed citizen (and shot), he killed NO ONE ELSE other than himself.

[mete]

Before we are overwhelmed by details -- we must remember that these cases usually follow a pattern .
Mentally ill person which was known to many .
Had easy access to guns.
locations were "gun free zones .

I have not seen info about what if anything did the wife do about her husbands condition .
The TX case also helped by USAF screw up.

[mehavey]

“It was surreal to me,” Willeford said of the moments when he responded, barefooted, to the sound of gunfire at the church. “It couldn’t be happening. I couldn’t believe it. We exchanged gunfire. I know I hit him. I don’t know where, but I know I hit him. He got into his vehicle, and he fired another couple of rounds through his side window, and I fired another round at him as he was pulling away.”

"I saw the shooter come from around the vehicle, and this time he had a handgun in his hand," said WIlleford. "My daughter said he had an AR-15, but when I saw him he had a handgun." Willeford said that Kelley was wearing black tactical gear, including a helmet with a dark-shaded visor and a Kevlar bulletproof vest.

With about 20 yards between them, the two men began to exchange fire, Willeford using a neighbor's truck as cover.

Willeford said while he could not be sure what Kelley's intentions were, he was heavily armed and drove in the direction of another church. [the AR was left at the church, while he still retained/used a Glock 9mm and Ruger 22]
_______________________

My sure & certain professional opinion would be more shootings/deaths had Willeford not engaged/shot him, twice, right then/right there.

No, Willeford did not stop that church shooting while in progress.
He stopped the aftermath.

[TailGator]

I saw an interview with a woman who survived the shooting, probably the same one referenced by Aquila Blanca. She said that the shooter was methodically moving through the church shooting everyone, basically finishing off everyone who was down, and that he stopped just before he got to her. She said she initially thought it was because the police had arrived, but later discovered that it was Willeford.

I remember thinking that it was not clear whether the interruption was because of Willeford shooting, or verbally challenging the shooter, or what exactly, but the lady interviewed had a strong impression that the shooting was interrupted by Willeford's arrival. The shooter's intentions afterward cannot be known, it is true, but I doubt it was flower arranging or quiet meditation. There seems little doubt that at least some lives were saved by Willeford's actions, at least at the church, and very likely afterward.

I have had conversations with gun control advocates about this incident, and pointed out that the shooter and the hero used very similar firearms. Their answer, of course, was that the hero wouldn't have needed an AR if the shooter hadn't had one. I stumped them with a two-fold answer. First, if ARs had been outlawed, which of those two men do you think was most likely to have turned his in, and which most likely to have defied the law? Second, if someone of that evil intent had not had access to an AR, what makes you think that he would have inflicted less damage with a different rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, a truck, a firebomb, or a fertilizer/diesel bomb?

Neither had an answer, and one of them actually acknowledged that both points would make AR confiscation ineffective in preventing the incident.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TailGator

I saw an interview with a woman who survived the shooting, probably the same one referenced by Aquila Blanca. She said that the shooter was methodically moving through the church shooting everyone, basically finishing off everyone who was down, and that he stopped just before he got to her. She said she initially thought it was because the police had arrived, but later discovered that it was Willeford.

I remember thinking that it was not clear whether the interruption was because of Willeford shooting, or verbally challenging the shooter, or what exactly, but the lady interviewed had a strong impression that the shooting was interrupted by Willeford's arrival. The shooter's intentions afterward cannot be known, it is true, but I doubt it was flower arranging or quiet meditation. There seems little doubt that at least some lives were saved by Willeford's actions, at least at the church, and very likely afterward.

I'm sure we're referring to the same woman. It's obviously speculation, but it seems fairly certain at this point that the shooter was after his wife's family, so I am personally convinced that if he had not been shot by Willeford that he would have proceeded to the in-laws' residence and continued the killing there.

[JohnKSa]

I remember thinking that it was not clear whether the interruption was because of Willeford shooting, or verbally challenging the shooter, or what exactly, but the lady interviewed had a strong impression that the shooting was interrupted by Willeford's arrival.

I read that article too, however the problem is that it directly contradicts Willeford's account.

According to Willeford, the attacker had already exited the church and was across the street from the church first time he saw him. He was not still inside the church finishing off victims.

Willeford's account indicates that his first sighting of the attacker was when "I saw the shooter come from around the front of the vehicle" (a gray SUV parked across the road from the church with its motor running) "and at this time he had a handgun in his hand".

Willeford's account clearly indicates that he reached the scene after the shooter had left the church and had already reached the gray SUV parked across the street from the church.

If I had to guess about why the shooter left the church, I would say it was probably one of two things

1. He had run out of ammo for his rifle. Willeford indicates that the rifle had already been discarded by the time he arrived on the scene, lending some credence to this speculation.

2. He decided he had killed/shot everyone at the church he wanted to--maybe he even thought he had killed/shot everyone. At least one account suggested that only 4 people in the church remained uninjured by the time the shooter exited the church.

Here is Stephen Willeford's full account of the shooting and his part in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HEchh0XD8

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Reportedly, the shooter had 450 rounds in magazines... if he fired even 300 of that in 7 minutes, that rifle was awful hot. That might account for why the rifle was discarded.

[JohnKSa]

That might account for why the rifle was discarded.

Meaning that he wanted to keep shooting but the rifle got too hot to hold?

Willeford indicates that when he encountered him, outside the church, he was still armed with a working handgun with rounds in it. If he wanted to keep shooting he could have used the handgun.

COULD the shooter possibly have meant to continue the attack at the church? It's possible. Maybe he was going out for more ammo. Maybe his rifle jammed. Maybe he decided to take a quick break. Who knows.

All we can say for certain is that from Willeford's account the shooter had already left the church and was across the street at his vehicle without his rifle, armed with a handgun, when Willeford arrived on the scene. That doesn't seem consistent with the idea that the attack was still in progress.

[Double Naught Spy]

Before we are overwhelmed by details -- we must remember that these cases usually follow a pattern .
Mentally ill person which was known to many .
Had easy access to guns.
locations were "gun free zones .

The problem with such proclaimed patterns is that they have proven utterly useless in a predictive sense and are biased in an of themselves.

Mentally ill? By the standard we assess these shooters to be mentally ill (having dealt with a psychologist or psychiatrist, maybe on or had been on meds for the issue) would qualify a big chunk of the population as mentally ill. Unfortunately, there are a lot of such "mentally ill" people that lead normal lives as members of IDPA, the NRA, and who hunt on the weekends. They all have easy access to guns. Some are even real jerks, curmudgeons, outcasts, who never do anything wrong other than not being socially well loved. It is a terrible stereotype, but I can think of some gunsmiths that I have dealt with that would qualify, LOL.

Gun free zones? Well, they often top the media and gun board discussions, no doubt, but there is also a very real bias in the gun community of playing down the Guns Allowed Zones that have hosted these shootings as well. Just a few examples...
Wisconsin Hunters 2004
Tacoma Mall 2005
Brookfield Hotel 2005
Tyler Courthouse Square 2005
Trolley Square 2007
Church Shootings, Colorado 2007
Lakewood Coffee Shop, WA 2009
Tucson (Giffords) 2011
IHOP, Carson City, NV 2011
Café Racer, Seattle, 2012
Houston (actually had 2 mass shootings out on the street, months apart) 2016
Sutherland Springs 2017

There are plenty of others, but I actually stopped looking into the matter actively a long time ago. These were all public location, non-GFZ shootings. Most we tend to forget about or dismiss as being somehow exceptions to the rule of mass shootings, but they are not as rare as people seem to think, and some are quite notable.

I see where a lot of folks don't wish to classify most mass shooting events if they involve interpersonal conflict, such as familial mass murders. That would disqualify the vast number of school and workplace mass shootings performed by angry students and (often former) disgruntled employees who have interpersonal beefs. Granted, most are in GFZs, but they are interpersonal conflict-based, which would also disallow Tyler Courthouse and also Sutherland Springs where the idiot shooter seemed to be after his former wife/in-laws who were mostly not there.

[44 AMP]

These were all public location, non-GFZ shootings.

I would point out that while the areas were not legally "posted" gun free zones, they were areas where people, other than police, do not usually carry guns.

Which, has approximately the same effect. People gathered in public, the mall, a coffee shop, etc, and most are not armed. Often, no one is armed, except the killer. And this is in places where arms are not specifically prohibited.

And, the presence of arms in the "victim pool" really doesn't guarantee anything, unless those arms are effectively used. And that is dependent on the people carrying them, and the situation.

The Seattle area coffee house where a paroled felon killed 4 armed cops is an example. He caught them totally by surprise, having coffee before beginning their shift, and only one was able to shoot back before being killed.

The attacker ALWAYS has the advantage. They choose where, and when. ALL we can do is respond in the best manner we can. I can't praise those guys in Texas enough, for doing what they could, when they could, and not hiding and hoping the evil would pass them by.

To think (let alone say) they aren't heroes because they didn't stop the killing before it started is simply a lie.

[NateKirk]

Press bias? What do you expect? Think of the kinds of people who want to be journalists

[Double Naught Spy]

I would point out that while the areas were not legally "posted" gun free zones, they were areas where people, other than police, do not usually carry guns.

Well, let's carry that one step further if we are pointing out things. Let's note that at any given time, regardless of where they are, most gun owners are not carrying anyway, even if they legally can. Extrapolating that makes just about everywhere a VGFZ (voluntary gun free zone).

However, that wasn't what mete was talking about, or me, or the countless other posters here who claim such events happen in GFZs, some of the same folks bemoaning "if just one person could have been carrying a gun."

No, there is a HUGE difference when it comes to this issue. The "man" isn't keeping law abiding gun owners from protecting themselves. That is totally on them if they choose not to carry where they are allowed to carry.

GAZs are not GFZs just because people don't bother to carry, LOL

[RaySendero]

Double Naught Spy wrote:

na, nana, nana.....

"These were all public location, non-GFZ shootings."

na, nana, nana.....

This is nothing but rhetoric that puts doubt in readers mind and divides.
It is very divisive and seems to have that intent!

A GFZ is a zone with out guns!!!

Took you paragraph after paragraph to try to tell us that its not.
I sense something more than rain running down my back!

[jmr40]

The shooting was not stopped by Stephen Willeford. The shooter was possibly stopped, but he had already killed his victims.

What if he planned on going to another location and continuing his shooting spree?

Maybe it is just the news outlets I saw, but everything I've seen clearly stated that both the bad guy and good guy were using AR pattern rifles.

[JohnKSa]

A GFZ is a zone with out guns!!!

Not exactly. In this context, GFZ has a specific meaning--it is not just a zone without guns, it is specifically a zone where guns are prohibited.

The difference between the government prohibiting firearms in an area and people voluntarily choosing not to carry there is quite a significant difference.

What if he planned on going to another location and continuing his shooting spree?

It is possible he meant to continue the attack at another location--also, one presumes that at some point the police would have caught up with him and a shootout would have resulted.

Willeford's actions prevented any of that from happening.

[RaySendero]

Why does it matter how/why a gun free exists?

If the shooter(s) knows he's bringing the only gun into a zone free of guns (ZFG)
and he/they kill the unarmed victims, How is this not a gun free zone (GFZ).

Just look into a mirror, Your picking at details and missing the whole point!

[SonOfScubaDiver]

The term "Gun Free Zone" does have a specific usage.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by RaySendero

Why does it matter how/why a gun free exists?

If the shooter(s) knows he's bringing the only gun into a zone free of guns (ZFG)
and he/they kill the unarmed victims, How is this not a gun free zone (GFZ).

Just look into a mirror, Your picking at details and missing the whole point!

Respectfully, you are the one missing the whole point. For a couple or three decades, the term "gun-free zone" has been used to describe places where the presence of firearms in the possession of civilians is prohibited, either by law or by decree of the property owner. That means a would-be assailant can approach such a venue with a very reasonable expectation that there will not be any armed people within that venue.

By contrast, in a location where personal carry of firearms is not prohibited, a would-be assailant has no way of knowing whether or not the people inside are carrying. In a non-GFZ church holding 50 people (in Texas), an assailant would have no way of knowing if there will be no guns waiting for him (which you want to call a gun-free zone), or one gun, or ten guns, or fifty guns.

That's a significant difference in practical terms. However, that aside, the term "gun free zone" is used to refer to places where carry is prohibited, and coming along at this point in time to argue that it means something else is just shoveling water against the tide.

[vito]

And regarding the additional risk of "Gun Free Zones", I don't dispute that many shootings have taken place in places where guns are NOT prohibited, but that doesn't mean that somehow a place where they are prohibited is safer or even as safe as the unposted location. And we all know of at least one mass shooting, the movie theater in Aurora, CO where the shooter Holmes chose the ONLY movie theater in the area that was posted as "No Guns Allowed". He bypassed other theaters that were showing the Batman movie that he apparently was obsessed with, going to the one where he could be fairly confident that he would not be opposed by armed patrons. "Gun Free Zones" are obviously not going to deter a criminal with a posted sign on the door, but may cause a shooter to choose that as a relatively "target rich environment" with the assumption that law abiding citizens will be unarmed.