DeWayne Craddock was violent with co-workers before Virginia Beach shooting: report
Source: NYPost
The gunman who shot dead 12 people at a Virginia Beach municipal building had been facing disciplinary action for a violent fight at work, according to a report.
DeWayne Craddock, 40, was still employed as an engineer with the Department of Public Utilities when he went on his shooting rampage Friday, killing 12 and injuring several others, including a cop.
But he recently started showing serious behavioral problems and got into physical scuffles with other city workers, a source told The New York Times.
The source told the paper that the troubles had escalated in the week leading up to the mass shooting and Craddock was involved in what it called a violent altercation on city grounds.
Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/06/02/dewayne-craddock-had-been-getting-violent-with-co-workers-before-virginia-beach-shooting-report/
dhol82
(9,352 posts)Brain lesion of some kind?
Not being snarky, just curious. In unusual behavior this is always suspect.
I was thinking.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,174 posts)Charles Whitman. He had no history of violence either.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)The rest of them didn't.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)Anybody bother to look?
DeminPennswoods
(15,278 posts)like that for no reason. I wonder if investigators will find something similar if/when they talk to his immediate family?
LisaL
(44,973 posts)As far as I know they never figured out the exact motive, and he had no brain tumors.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)Vast majority of mass shooters didn't have any brain tumors.
dalton99a
(81,453 posts)The person said that tensions had escalated in the past week, adding that the man had gotten into a violent altercation on city grounds and was told that disciplinary action would be taken.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/us/dewayne-craddock-virginia.html
Sancho
(9,067 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)make gun control fast - ONE crazy person with guns going into the halls of power in DC. If the politicians were subjected to ONE episode like this, gun control would be enacted PRONTO. As it stands now, they have the same mindset as Mick Mulvaney. When asked about this he said "You can't save everybody" Now that the NRA is going broke and can not afford huge donations to gop politicians, maybe changes are in order?
BumRushDaShow
(128,857 posts)although not inside the Capitol building... Remember this?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/14/reports-congressman-others-shot-baseball-practice/102838314/
There are many who didn't care then and don't care now. Even if it happens to them. "Freedumbs".
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,394 posts)Date: July 24, 1998; 20 years ago
3:40 p.m. 4:00 p.m. (UTC-4)
Target: United States Capitol
Attack type: Shooting
Weapons: .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver
Deaths: 2
Non-fatal injuries: 3 (including the perpetrator)
Perpetrator: Russell Eugene Weston, Jr.
The 1998 United States Capitol shooting incident was an attack on July 24, 1998, which led to the deaths of two United States Capitol Police officers. Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were killed when Russell Eugene Weston, Jr., entered the Capitol and opened fire. Chestnut was killed instantly and Gibson died during surgery at George Washington University Hospital. Weston's exact motives are unknown, but he has a mental disorder and maintains a strong distrust of the federal government. He remains in a mental institution due to paranoid schizophrenia and has yet to be tried in court.
Shooting
On the day of shooting, Officer Chestnut and another officer were assigned to operate the X-ray machine and magnetometer at the Document Door entrance located on the East Front of the Capitol, which was open only to Members of Congress and their staff. Detective Gibson was assigned to the dignitary protection detail of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and was in his suite of offices near this door. Weston, armed with a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson six-shot revolver, entered the Document Door at 3:40 p.m. At the same time, Officer Chestnut was providing directions to a tourist and his son while his partner escorted another tourist towards the restroom. Weston reportedly walked around the metal detector just inside the entrance; Chestnut requested he go back through the detector. Weston suddenly produced the gun and without warning, shot Chestnut in the back of the head at point-blank range. According to witnesses, he turned down a short corridor and pushed through a door which leads to a group of offices used by senior Republican representatives including then Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Representative Dennis Hastert, future Speaker of the House and a close protégé of then Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Detective Gibson, who was in plainclothes, was shot after the suspect entered DeLay's office. Despite being mortally wounded, Detective Gibson was able to return fire and wound the suspect, who was apprehended in that office. A female tourist was grazed by bullets on her shoulder and face. She was treated for her injuries and released. Also injured was USCP Officer Douglas McMillian. Future Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, a heart surgeon who had been presiding on the Senate floor just before the shooting, resuscitated the gunman and accompanied him to D.C. General Hospital.
BumRushDaShow
(128,857 posts)And that was not long after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and helped to expedite my field office building getting magnetometers installed post haste (they had already closed the side entrances to the building permanently after Oklahoma City).
Cosmocat
(14,563 posts)is the only thing that would make them do anything (not that I would recommend any actually do it, cause their life expectancy would drop drastically) but unfortunately, we are about at the point where they would pass laws that would differentiate gun rights by color, and yes, I know that what that means, but they don't care ...
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)And I bet they have them at the supreme court too. They do not want that to happen there.. They can afford armed guards and schools cannot. Imagine all the armed guards that you would have to have just in your school district alone. You have several elementary schools, 2-5 jr. hi schools and 3 or 4 high schools. 10 guards per school and you have a hundred guards to pay.
oldsoftie
(12,531 posts)Or am i reading it wrong
Sancho
(9,067 posts)"Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.)."
If everyone "carries", then we have the Wild West plus mass shootings. Why not restrict dangerous people from easy access to possession of guns? No one cares if perfectly trained and rational people have guns, but unless you hang around in bad neighborhoods with piles of money in your pocket, the only people "carrying" for protection now are mostly emotionally ill, drug dealers, and gang members!
Yes, it would mean everyone would have to present a valid license to buy, possess, or transport guns or ammunition. It would not prevent 100% of crimes and there would be plenty of examples of shootings anyway...but it would greatly reduce easy access to guns by dangerous people!
If you have a better way (other than a serious license) to reduce shootings except give everyone a gun and let them shoot it out, then I'm open to suggestions.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Since it sounds like he instigated it, and he had been involved in several scuffles? That's not normal behavior for a worker.
I don't understand these disgruntled employees killing randomly, whether co-workers who had nothing to do with the shooter's problems, or esp. non-coworkers. It's just unbridled anger at the world, I guess.
Grins
(7,212 posts)A violent altercation. On city grounds. This was not a problem for HR. It was a problem for the police. Were they called...?