Shooter at University of Texas confirmed dead after library shooting

Published: Monday, September 27, 2010

Updated: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:09

The university of Texas is currently locked down following a campus shooting. All organized classes for today, Sept. 28, are canceled. Students are encouraged to stay off campus. Everyone on campus is being told to lock their doors and not to leave the building.

The gunman involved in this morning's shooting on campus has been confirmed dead on the sixth floor of the Perry-Castañeda Library from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound police and university officials said.

FOX-7 Austin reported one account by a student who was at the library during the incident who claimed to see an "odd individual wearing a black suit and wielding an AK-47 automatic rifle, mentioning apparent layoffs at the PCL."

University spokeswoman Rhonda Weldon confirmed that no one else was injured. The university and police officials are investigating reports of a second suspect.

The university's alert system warned students, faculty and staff to stay in place or off campus. The alert system includes the emergency siren and loud speaker system on campus, emergency text messages and online communications.

For more information, visit the university's emergency page online at www.utexas.edu/emergency and the university's home page at www.utexas.edu.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

Anonymous

Fri Oct 8 2010 16:10

In deference to the police, they are more likely to fire a warning shot or two first. As a civilian, I will only draw my weapon when I intend to kill. Apprehension of the "suspect" is not high on my to-do list. Not so with the cops. They will prefer to defuse the situation which can often be done with brandishing or a warning shot.

Raw statistics like hit rates tell you very little about the real effectiveness of the police. In fact, a low hit rate along with a high apprehension rate would be ideal. I'm not sure I like the idea of a "rush in with guns ablazing" police tactic!

Anonymous

Sat Oct 2 2010 12:34

The Cop said "having a weapon in your hand makes you a target for police. As an officer, I have less than 3 seconds to make a decision on whether to use deadly force against an unknown suspect with a weapon. While I understand that you might want to help, I don't know that - I can't know that - because what distinguishes dangerous suspects from citizens in need of protection is the presence or absence of a weapon. I have less than 3 seconds to decide if taking you out will save more lives, and to be honest, I WOULD LIKELY DECIDE TO ASSUME YOU ARE A THREAT."

So you can see, I didn't take out of context what the Cop said. He said he would likely decide to shoot a citizen just because he had a gun. That is a loose cannon, by definition. Nobody has the Right or Authority, by the true Law, to shoot someone, just because they are armed. We all have the Right to be armed in this country, regardless of the existence of local ordinances or policies or statutes which unlawfully go against the Common Law and our God given and Constitutional Rights to be armed (a Right canNOT be turned into a mere privilege by permitting or licensing, etc.)

Yoda knows the path to the dark side

Sat Oct 2 2010 09:13

15:38 - calling an officer a "loose cannon" and assuming that they would shoot "any civilian with a gun" is again taking something out of context, and following a completely different argument than the one the officer made. In fact, it is clear that the officer is noting that people with guns in an area where guns are not supposed to be are USUALLY a clear indication of them being bad people. To mess with the relative certainty of that situation increases the danger to everyone, and there is no statement made by the officer to support your assumption that they are a loose cannon. The officer does not indicate that potential behavior anywhere in their statement - and in fact they seem to support the right to carry concealed - they are clearly presenting an argument about the potential dangers of conceal/carry laws on college campuses. Had the officer completely disagreed with the stance, they would have attacked it (as clearly people commenting in this forum have done to that very officer). Instead, they make a rational (even if you don't agree, they are using rational sense) argument instead of a blind attack against a law or stance. This is not a question of who gets to protect people, it is simply a question of using caution about a social issue. And in all honesty, having been on several campuses that have had these discussions, it is not productive to attack people's character when they disagree with you - having a calm, empathetic discussion about social issues is the way to convince people of your side (not force them into it). The best discussions I have seen did not include angry men waving their empty holsters - they included rational arguments made by both sides, and consensus between the groups - in these cases the colleges did agree to have limited conceal carry in certain areas (no conceal carry allowed in buildings that are actually federal buildings, which every college campus has, but allowed in on-campus apartments and some offices).

Anonymous

Fri Oct 1 2010 15:38

10:54: I didn't miss anything in what the police officer said. But you sure did. He said he would probably shoot any civilian he saw with a gun. That is a serious crime, and that officer is a lose cannon. What I said is that the cop has no more lawful authority to shoot someone than any citizen does. If a cop shoots someone just because they have a gun, it is no different from me shooting someone such as a cop, just because he has a gun. We all carry a responsibility by the law, to not harm innocents. The highest courts have ruled over and over and over agaIn that cops have NO responsibility to protect citizens, and common sense and experience proves they don't and can't, mainly because they aren't there when trouble hits.

Anonymous

Fri Oct 1 2010 11:08

The fact that a student In Israel managed to stop a shooting by himself with a weapon is enough to convince me that CC on campus is justified.

I would love to see some statistics to back up the Officers claim that a majority of Police and Military are in favor of restricting CC on bases and campus. Sounds made up to me, to be honest.

If we as a state allow people to carry off campus, what's the difference between carrying on campus? There literally is no difference but a useless "gun free zone" sign and a false sense of secuirity.

Boom, roasted.

Anonymous

Fri Oct 1 2010 10:54

Wow. Way to completely miss the point made by the officer - yes, guns are a right. But they are also come with responsibility. If you had faith in the goodness of your fellow man/woman, then you wouldn't feel the need to carry a weapon, which clearly the office isn't arguing against as your right to carry. I think the officer is making the point that there is a heavy burden to carry when faced with the task of deciding to take a life, and that they wouldn't want to mistakenly take a life because the person with the gun *could* have been a threat. To attack them because you don't get the point of the message is a gut reaction to a tough social issue. No one should have to face the decision to take a life, and I think the officer was actually showing some empathy for the potential internal struggle of a civilian. I think its the desire NOT to have to be faced with the reality of killing someone that separates good civilians and this officer from the psychos using guns to kill innocents. Don't attack someone for wanting to be able to do their job in the least complex manner possible - to protect and serve without having to guess which armed person is the *dangerous* one in the midst of shooting, running, and scared people.

Anonymous

Fri Oct 1 2010 09:55

I agree totally with the 15:47 post. We have the God given Right to carry a gun, as well as a second amendment Right. Any "law" against this Right is NO REAL LAW AT ALL. The courts have held repeatedly that the police have NO responsibility to protect any citizens, and they generally don't. If you can't protect yourself, or have a friend nearby who can protect you, then you are in trouble, if a predator chooses to pick on you. A cop has no more actual lawful authority to shoot anyone, than I do. If a cop shoots an innocent citizen just because he has a gun, it is no different than if I shoot a plain clothes cop, just because I see he has a gun. We are hearing that cops aren't very smart, that some departments will not hire anyone to be a cop who has an IQ of over 100. There are some good cops, but there are many stupid and bad cops, and even the good cops tend to follow the gang mentality of their crew, which often isn't a good mentality.

Anonymous

Thu Sep 30 2010 15:47

You may be a police officer, but don't think for a second that automatically means you are superior at handling a weapon to me or any other citizen. Police shooting qualifications are a joke, and you know it. The only way you can be proficient with a firearm is to constantly practice, which I do and many officers do not. It is funny how when you look at the statistics citizens have a better hit rate than law enforcment in defensive shootings. And as for citizens being confronted by uniformed officers in an active shooter scenario, the same type of concerns play out if it would happen to be an off duty police officer. So are you saying that if you were off duty with a weapon and you had the chance to intervene in an active shooter situation on campus you wouldn't, with the possible consequence that the would be more bloodshed than there otherwise would have to be? I will continue to carry my gun everywhere regardless of those stupid signs. My life and innocent life is more important than a possible $50 fine and your ego.

Anonymous

Thu Sep 30 2010 11:38