Active shooter, reports of multiple victims in San Bernardino, Calif.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

Here's some background on our one identified suspect.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspect-involved-calif-massacre-identified-article-1.2453471

New York Daily News wrote:EXCLUSIVE: Father of San Bernardino shooting suspect Syed Farook says son worked as health tech inspecting restaurants, hotels

ONE OF the suspects in Wednesday’s mass shooting in California was identified as a young father who worked for the county agency that had been holding a holiday party when the carnage unfolded.

Syed Farook, believed to be 30, was linked to the horrific slaughter that left 14 dead at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

Farook’s father was shocked to learn of his son’s possible involvement in the attack.

“I haven’t heard anything,” the elder Syed Farook told the Daily News. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

The shell-shocked dad said his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels and graduated from La Sierra High School in 2003.

After police announced two suspects — a male and a female — were dead following a car chase and shootout with police, the FBI began a search of a nearby Redlands apartment linked to the younger Farook’s family.

Police said that there had been a dispute during the San Bernardino County Department of Health holiday event at the Inland Regional Center

The Los Angeles Times reported Farook bolted from the holiday bash after arguing with another attendee, and then returned a short time later with the other two shooters.

The elder Farook said he hasn’t seen his son in some time.

“He’s married and has a kid. We’re estranged because my wife got the divorce, and they are together,” the dad said. “She doesn’t want to see me.”

Longtime neighbors in Riverside were shocked to hear Farook could be involved with such a brutal attack.

“He was quiet but always polite,” Maria Gutierrez told The News. “Maybe two years ago he became more religious. He grew a beard and started to wear religious clothing. The long shirt that’s like a dress and the cap on his head.”

“I know he was very smart. He went to college early. He and his brother were always working in the garage on cars. Until like 11 p.m. at night. I think his mom was a nurse and his older brother was in the military.”

“If it’s him, I’m very surprised. Can you imagine? They were my neighbors for so many years. I never would guess.”

**Tactical_Spam**

Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

**Breotan**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.

**Tactical_Spam**

Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.

Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later

**Breotan**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.

Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later

Oh, Boston was still extremist Islamist terror. It just wasn't sponsored by Al Qaeda or anyone like that. It was basically those two Tsarnaev brothers who radicalized themselves and decided to do "defend Islam" from the USA. The surviving brother was tried, found guilty, and is sitting on death row waiting for appeals to run out.

I'm positing that this may be a similar situation where we have these three but they don't have any obvious connection to ISIL or anyone like that.

**Tactical_Spam**

Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.

Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later

Oh, Boston was still extremist Islamist terror. It just wasn't sponsored by Al Qaeda or anyone like that. It was basically those two Tsarnaev brothers who radicalized themselves and decided to do "defend Islam" from the USA. The surviving brother was tried, found guilty, and is sitting on death row waiting for appeals to run out.

I'm positing that this may be a similar situation where we have these three but they don't have any obvious connection to ISIL or anyone like that.

We don't have any connection to anything really

**Breotan**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.

Was there any political motive behind that bombing? Or did we shoot first and never got to ask later

Oh, Boston was still extremist Islamist terror. It just wasn't sponsored by Al Qaeda or anyone like that. It was basically those two Tsarnaev brothers who radicalized themselves and decided to do "defend Islam" from the USA. The surviving brother was tried, found guilty, and is sitting on death row waiting for appeals to run out.

I'm positing that this may be a similar situation where we have these three but they don't have any obvious connection to ISIL or anyone like that.

We don't have any connection to anything really

We know two of them were muslim (and brothers like in Boston) and one had become "very religious" over the past two years according to the news article I posted above. It's the woman we don't know anything about. No terror organization has claimed responsibility although news reports say ISIL has been seen celebrating.

**Tactical_Spam**

I don't think ISIS would endorse a woman...

**Breotan**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
I don't think ISIS would endorse a woman...

I dunno, either. Like I said, I'm just getting the same "feel" or "vibe" that these are home grown jihadies like Boston and not some sleeper cell or anything.

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
Perhaps not history's greatest monster, but he did put out a statement while the situation was still unfolding in San Bernardino.

(snip) I don't know about you but the idea of abridging a civil right based on a pre-generated list (criteria unknown) scares the hell out of me more than any terror incident.

Not trying to rekindle this, but 2 people responded to what I said earlier and I felt I should close that loop. All snark aside, the President was totally wrong to milk an incident in progress in the way that he did, especially when it was so wrongheaded on it's face - California already has the "common sense" measures he has frequently referenced. Also, using the phrase "common sense" is stupid because it presumes that the other side of the debate is unreasonable when that might not be so. Finally, I also agree that the way the no-fly list works is totally asinine, desperately needs to be reviewed, and in it's current form is almost certainly unconstitutional - it's a de facto punishment without recourse. That's a pretty bad place to start building from, so I'd oppose what was suggested just as strongly as you do.

**Tactical_Spam**

Good to see NY times have become donkey caves

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-candidates-call-prayers-calf-massacre-article-1.2453261?utm_content=bufferf42c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Prayers aren’t working.

White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.

But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.

Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer.

GUNMEN KILL 14 INSIDE SAN BERNARDINO CENTER FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

“Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino who willingly go into harm’s way to save others,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted.

Edit: I am not sure why people jump at prayers so much. Baffles me that the prayers of peace from the Repubs are getting booed over the political agenda of the far left Dems

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Good to see NY times have become donkey caves

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-candidates-call-prayers-calf-massacre-article-1.2453261?utm_content=bufferf42c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Prayers aren’t working.

White House hopefuls on the Democratic side of the aisle called for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino that left at least 14 dead.

But after yet another mass shooting in America, GOP presidential contenders were conspicuously silent on the issue of gun control.

Instead, the Republicans were preaching about prayer.

GUNMEN KILL 14 INSIDE SAN BERNARDINO CENTER FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

“Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino who willingly go into harm’s way to save others,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted.

Edit: I am not sure why people jump at prayers so much. Baffles me that the prayers of peace from the Repubs are getting booed over the political agenda of the far left Dems

Because it's grotesque to mouth platitudes when you don't care to address the causes of violence.

**Tactical_Spam**

Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.

Same argument. Same BS.

Edit: I would also accuse the Dems of mouthing platitudes because they always say "We need more gun control" and never do

**Ouze**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Because it's grotesque to mouth platitudes when you don't care to address the causes of violence.

Or, as an author once so eloquently put it; "Pray in one hand and poop in the other, and see which one fills up first."

Shrugging helplessly and impotently is not an inspirational leadership trait.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.

Same argument. Same BS.

Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.

(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)

**Tactical_Spam**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.

Same argument. Same BS.

Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.

(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)

Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.

Edit: I also found this picture

Don't attach nonwargaming images to Dakka, You need to use offsite hosting if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.

Same argument. Same BS.

Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.

(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)

Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.

The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?

I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.

**Tactical_Spam**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.

Same argument. Same BS.

Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.

(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)

Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.

The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?

I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Neither party is capable of passing any law that is "sensible." Both are stupid in this area by a long shot.

Taking away guns won't help

Saying we need Psyche evals but not providing them is equally unhelpful

American politics is like a fething preschool: Neither party can agree on who gets to play with the "toy" and then it gets taken away and they both throw tantrums.

**WrentheFaceless**

So the consensus is that nothing can be done about these and any future shootings and the tree of liberty now requires constant watering of blood from these shootings that are now inevitable and unpreventable?

I refuse to belive that nothing can be done. But what do i know.

How did the 2nd amendment become the most sacred one anyways?

**Ouze**

Intense lobbying over decades.

**Spetulhu**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
How did the 2nd amendment become the most sacred one anyways?

Lobbying, as said. Not lobbying by those law-abiding citizens that want guns, mind you. Lobbying costs big money. Gun manufacturers (who sneakily fund the NRA too) worried about their own right to sell guns lobby for the 2nd since they can't sell if you can't buy.

But that's a bit beside the point. What isn't quite as beside the point is the ease of getting guns in societies where they are common. The Paris shooters had to make a lot of preparations in order to secure weapons for themself - most criminals that are likely to have guns would prefer small easily hidden things like handguns, and if you want something bigger you steal either a hunting rifle or some military hardware. A guy in the US who wants a gun can buy a lot of stuff legally and there's also a lot of stolen/illegal guns floating around. IIRC the flow of illegal guns is actually from the US to Mexico, not the other way around...

**Goliath**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ah yes, let us all enforce stricter laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire fire arms while criminals, who don't follow the law, can get fire arms illegally and the law abiders have a harder time defending against it.

Same argument. Same BS.

Look, I don't want to make an argument about gun control. What would be nice is doing absolutely anything to try to reduce gun violence. Praying is not doing something unless you follow it up with action. When these things happen again and again and the same people make the same hollow, pious noises every time, it just gets more and more disgusting.

(Okay, I do want to add that these people weren't criminals until they went and shot a bunch of people.)

Feel free to notice both parties don't get anything done, ever. Real tired of political games.

Edit: I also found this picture

Don't attach nonwargaming images to Dakka, You need to use offsite hosting if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n

I agree with the photo you posted (before it was removed). It was a good day when they repealed every single law because criminals will just ignore them anyway.

**CptJake**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
I don't think ISIS would endorse a woman...

And yet DaIsh recruits females...

**Dreadclaw69**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The Republicans control the house right now, right? Am I wrong that would prevent the Democrats from passing sensible laws?

I mean, my understanding is the go-to excuse for a while from the Republicans has been "guns don't kill people, we need better mental health care to prevent gun violence" but at the same time they appear to oppose mental health services and measures to reduce inequality that might cut down on violent crime.

California is the model of "sensible" gun laws. What laws do you think would have prevented this?

WrentheFaceless wrote:
So the consensus is that nothing can be done about these and any future shootings and the tree of liberty now requires constant watering of blood from these shootings that are now inevitable and unpreventable?

I refuse to belive that nothing can be done. But what do i know.

What laws do you feel would have prevented this?

WrentheFaceless wrote:
How did the 2nd amendment become the most sacred one anyways?

They are all sacred. But we don't hear anyone looking to issue permits for the right to free speech.

**CptJake**

It seems Farook met his wife Malik on line and traveled to Saudi to meet her, came back married.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-mass-shooting-profile/index.html

Also reading the Feds are dismissing an argument at the event as a cause, and don't think there was an argument.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets not all say it was ISIS... We don't know about the others

No connection to any group has been found yet. I'm still going with the Boston Bomber simile in which this little group decided on their own to do this. Although, like everyone else the reason behind their target is a mystery.

I don't think the target is a mystery. He was familiar with the people and event, knew it would be a soft target.

Local bad guys, probably self radicalized (though the trip to Saudi may turn up different evidence) chose a local target.

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
So the consensus is that nothing can be done about these and any future shootings and the tree of liberty now requires constant watering of blood from these shootings that are now inevitable and unpreventable?

I refuse to belive that nothing can be done. But what do i know.

How did the 2nd amendment become the most sacred one anyways?

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. All the "common sense" laws you people bark about are already in place and then some. Some of those laws I am ok with on a nationwide basis. But if you want to confiscate guns you need a Constitutional convention. Be careful though, other rights might be adjusted too.

Some laws can be enacted, but they should focus on fixing the background check system: forcing complete reporting on mental health issues and charged crimes. Additionally if charged with certain crimes laws should be in place that confiscate firearms until those charges are resolved. Third the ATF should actually freaking prosecute straw byuers and not throw their hands up and scratch their butts while eating donuts.

More importantly, we need a strategic level review of the mental health system here. Many of these nutjobs were true nutjobs and had been spotted by many people.

Finally we need to realize we are in period of time of domestic terrorism. Mass attacks related to that may increase in frequency, either from other directed or self directed terrorism(I'd bet good money this is that). The US has been through far far worse and come through the other side.

**jasper76**

The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back with his wife and perhaps a third person/

I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were a methodically planned act of political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back.

I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.

It had to have been planned to have the gear and weaponry and wife (or others waiting). Remember the racist shooter sat through a whole church session before standing up and starting shooting.

**jasper76**

Frazzled wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back.

I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.

It had to have been planned to have the gear and weaponry and wife (or others waiting). Remember the racist shooter sat through a whole church session before standing up and starting shooting.

Sure. I guess what I'm a bit confused over is if this was a planned attack, why come unarmed, leave, and then come back armed? Maybe to scope the place out, I guess...

**CptJake**

jasper76 wrote:
The male suspect apparently was at the party, got in a tiff, left, and came back with his wife and perhaps a third person/

I'm not saying this wasn't religiously motivated, but if this were a methodically planned act of political terrorism, why come to the party in the first place? Doesn't seem to add up.

Police dispute the 'tiff' theory. One FBI guy said Farook was casing the event. There was a lot of planning involved (you don't leave in a tiff and go load magazines and make pipe bombs and return a short while later).