Breaking News–Shooting at New Castle County Courthouse

UPDATE:From WDEL

Five people were shot Monday morning at the New Castle County Courthouse. Two of those shot are police officers.

The first reports came after 7:30. One person is reported dead. The conditions of the police involved are unknown.

Reports from the scene are that a suspect is in custody.

Delaware Online reports:

Shots were reported fired this morning at the New Castle County Courthouse in Wilmington, according to police radio reports.

Police and medical crews are responding to the scene.

Several injuries are reported.

More News

This entry was posted in Crime by David Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.

About David Anderson

Councilman David Anderson is a citizen activist who has served the community in several areas. He is a member of the Academy of Dover Charter School board of directors, a former Dover Human Relations Commissioner, past Chair of Delaware Right to Life PAC, Proud member of the Delaware Army National Guard, former Because We Care Inc. alternative school board member, Republican committee person, and co-founder of the Delaware Initiative and Referendum Coalition. He is currently Huck PAC state coordinator.

32 thoughts on “Breaking News–Shooting at New Castle County Courthouse

  1. Shooter was killed by Capital Police. Once again NRA was right, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

  2. What a wonderful formula! Should every bad guy get to kill two innocent people before the good guys stop him? Or should we, just maybe, put estranged husbands on the list of people who shouldn’t own firearms?

  3. From TNJ: “It was unclear whether the shooter was killed by Capitol Police officers or he took his own life, according to state police spokesman Sgt. Paul Shavack.”

  4. Geezer writes: “should we, just maybe, put estranged husbands on the list of people who shouldn’t own firearms?”

    Statistics show that most domestic violance — surprisingly — is committed by women, not men. Women when angry are less experienced at restraining their emotions.

    So do you want everyone who has ever broken up with someone to have their Constitutional rights infringed?

    But leave it to a liberal to POLITICIZE a routine criminal act.

    Geezer, why don’t we make it illegal for people to shoot other people? If we make it againt the law for people to shoot anyone, won’t that solve the problem?

  5. But if is unavoidable that liberals will sensationalize and politicize every crime — if it suits their purposes — let’s expose the nonsense:

    To our national shame, our culture and even our churches do not value teaching or encouraging or REINFORCING inter-personal skills such as working out disputes, forgiveness, effective communication, valuing otehr people rather than viewing people like disposable styrofoam cups. God will judge, and severely, at the end of our lives.

    So, to our national shame, 50% of marriages end in divorce.

    Well, now, liberals: WHAT PERCENTAGE of marriages result in a shooting incident with a gun?

    Would you say that no more than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of estranged husbands and estranged wives commit violence with a gun?

    Would ou say that you are more likely to be hit by lightning or a meteorite than being shot by an estranged husband or estranged wife, or boyfriend or giflriend?

    Are you more likely to be trampled by a deranged girafffe than involved in a gun inciden from an estranged husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend?

    REMEMBER: FOR LIBERALS WHO WERE TAUGHT “FEEL GOOD MATHEMATICS” (it’s how you FEEL about 4 + 4 = ??? that matters not whether you get the right answer).

    The quantity of estranged husbands and wives is GIGANTIC, since 50% + of all marriages end in dvorce, some multiple marriages for the same person.

    So the denominator of the fraction is somewhere around 100 million failed marraiges, certainly if you include non-marriage break-ups.

  6. It was a question, Jon, not a statement. But of course your insecurity causes you to see it as an attack.

    Reports are that this is the same guy who kidnapped his kids and took them to Central America. He was found “unstable” by a court-appointed shrink at the time. If we’re talking about background checks to determine people who shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, shouldn’t people like that be on the list? (Please note the question mark).

    Meanwhile, I doubt the veracity of your statistics. According to multiple sources, on average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. That doesn’t sound to me as if men are in more danger than women.

    Or have you already forgotten the arguments about women in battle?

  7. Geezer, report the facts and not what the NJ assumes. He was shot by the Capital Police, the good guys.

  8. Geezer writes: “Should every bad guy get to kill two innocent people before the good guys stop him?”

    What do you mean “GET TO?” Isn’t it against the law in Delaware?

    Maybe Delaware needs to pass a law prohibiting people from shooting other people?

  9. And one other thing, Geezer, if he had kidnapped his kids and taken them out of the country, he is a convicted felon. Maybe he was another criminal that obtained a gun illegally.

  10. Geezer writes: “Reports are that this is the same guy who kidnapped his kids and took them to Central America”

    Well, if that is TRUE — not a false rumor — why wasn’t he prosecuted for kidnapping?

    Is kidnapping illegal under Delaware law? Yes parental kidnapping is different from kidnapping for ransom or the like. But it is still illegal even if a different species of kidnapping.

    So if Delaware failed to do anything about the kidnapping, and you are searcing for a policy prescription, maybe you should start there.

    Again, if you are simply spreading RUMORS that are not factual, well, that’s part of the problem, too.

  11. And what is the point of zeroing in on whether he commited a crime that wasn’t followed up on?

    Because the perhaps 100 million estranged husbands and wives WHO HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG should not be lumped in with someone who has already broken the law.

    So it is important to make a distinction between those who are actually at high risk of further violence, based on heir actual actions, and not punish the rest of the population for the actions of criminals.

    GEEZER, WHAT LIBERALS ARE LONGING FOR IS “PRE-CRIME” ENFORCEMENT.

    Everyone who is commenting on this topic, shouldrent the Tom Cruise movie “THE MINORITY REPORT” concerning the newly created (future) Department of PRE-CRIME.

    3 psychics predict who is going to commit a murder, and they are arrested ahead of time, before they commit the murder.

    That is what liberals are really saying. You want to punish people whom you imagine might commit a crime, which hasn’t happened yet.

    Of course, the rampant inaccuracy of the system is exposed when Tom Cruise, a police officer, is found guilty of a future crime and ends up in a man hunt when he “runs” (“they always run” he previously lamented).

  12. There is no excuse for any inter-personal violence nor for our society’s widespread failure of “anger management.”

    Indulging emotions over personal responsibility is part of the degeneration of our cultural standards.

    There is no excuse for allowing emotions to dominate how inter-personal conflcits are dealt with. Of course, temporarily, we all have emotions, but we also have a mature responsibility as adults that all of us must vigorously struggle towards not to let those emotions control our actions or thoughts. Emotions are unavailable and should not be submerged, buried, or hidden. But we cannot be ruled bythem, either.

    However when you, Geezer, want to infringe the Second Amendment rights of “estranged husbands” it is important to point out that women are actually more likely to commit violence in a relations than men.

    This obviously does not excuse or minimize even one incident by anyone.

    But your policy proposal to take away the Second Amendment rights of estranged husbands would hae to be etended to estranged wives, as well.

    FAMILY VIOLENCE SOARS
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    11:25 p.m., Thursday, May 11, 2006
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/11/20060511-112526-4029r/print/

    But the study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, may also reopen a long-festering ideological argument about whether men or women are the most violent in the home.

    The study found that, contrary to public perception, women committed more acts of violence than their male partners in 11 overall categories of violence. Specifically, women were more likely than men to throw something, push, grab, shove, slap, kick, bite, hit or threaten a partner with a knife or gun.

    When minor and major acts of violence were tallied, female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence and 7.5 percent of severe violence. Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence

  13. Jon, you are apparently under the mistaken impression that I’m in favor of taking guns away from people. I am not. But that doesn’t make your myths more true. Two men with guns failed to stop the shooting until four, including the two officers, were hit by bullets. Good guys with guns can limit the damage, but they cannot prevent the violence.

    My position is simple: You can own whatever you want (OK, maybe not nukes), but you have to register it, license it. and prove you know how to use, care for and store it.

    anon, I repeated something from the Delaware State Police, as reported by the News Journal. The name of the individual is being reported by Fox News. If it was that man, he was prosecuted for kidnapping and served one year. These are not rumors, they are news reports based on still-incomplete information. If you don’t want to read it, don’t.

  14. Thank you for the link, Jon.

    You will note that even that study found that males are responsible for the majority of the “severe” violence, which is why the murder rate of wives is triple that of husbands.

    I brought the subject up because background checks are only as good as the information available. If this is the man Fox 29 says it is, he was a convicted felon. But he could have purchased the gun before the marriage fell apart.

    I don’t have the answers, Jon. But I know this status quo is no way to live in a civilized country, and it still wouldn’t be even if we all walked around armed at all times.

  15. delacrat…. I would not call this guy (a convicted felon by the way) a responsible gun owner. In fact the original PFA along with the 4 years he spent in jail should have been enough to stop him from attaining a firearm. But alas he forgot to go get his back round check which he was sure to fail, so he opt’d for either a straw purchase or perhaps a little back alley transaction either way none of the new purposed gun legisalation would have done anything to stop this idiot from getting a gun. So back to the only thing to stop him from making it worse would be a good guy with a gun.

  16. Now being reported that the shooter was the father of the optometrist, which might explain his obtaining the gun.

  17. Dave… Whoever provided him with the gun thought he was “responsible” enough.

    The fact is “responsible gun owner” is as absurd a concept as “responsible IED owner”.

  18. Geezer, I have said and will be fair to keep saying at necessary that while someone’s right to KEEP (buy) and BEAR arms shall not be infringed, I think it is (legally / constitutionally) fair and allowable to say IF you have a gun, you have to have training. We’re not stopping you from having a gun. But once you have one, you must go through training.

    It is controversal with some here, but I think the same applies to keeping it secured so that children or others can’t get at it. That bothers some people because the technology is cumbersome and can interfere with self defense. But it is constitutionally reasonable, even if the pragmatic tecniques are not up to peopl’s desires.

    However, what you wrote (early reports to be sure) would indicate that the shooter at the NCC Courthouse SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED a gun if he had been formally adjudicated as mentally unstable.

    So, wut up wit dat?

    Geezer writes that: “You will note that even that study found that males are responsible for the majority of the “severe” violence”

    No, slightly more, not a majority.

    Reflecting biological realities, which liberals were scoffing at in another thread, women are more likely to rely on expressions of anger like throwing things than by a physical assault. And the damage done by a stronger person is greater than the damage done in the otherwise equivalant attack by a weaker person.

    And yet in spite of the full awareness that men are stronger, women STILL physically attack men in domestic violence more often.

    This suggests that women lose control of their emotions and in spite of KNOWING that it is not a smart thing to do, a weaker woman attacks a stronger men, in disregard of common sense and caution. That is EMOTIONS TAKE OVER and the brain shuts down.

    But the study reports a 7.5% occurence by women compared with an 8.6 percent occurence for men of severe violence. Not a huge disparity.

    I have to admit I don’t undestand what the pecentages are percentages of in this particular study.

  19. @ 15:42 “I think it is (legally / constitutionally) fair and allowable to say IF you have a gun, you have to have training.”

    What a brain fart. The only difference “training” would have made in this shooting is fewer bullets would have missed their mark.

  20. I am not a fan of requiring training for a constitutional right. Should we have training to speak? Training to minister or worship? Training before we get petitions? As I stated before, I am opposed to requiring gun safes or locking guns away. In general, if you need a weapon you don’t want to have to run to the safe to get it. I want it where I can use it. Trigger locks are not so bad.

    Anyway, I think the real tragedy deserves our thoughts and prayers to victims.

  21. “But leave it to a liberal to POLITICIZE a routine criminal act.”

    You mean like conservatives did to help get Bush 1 elected?

  22. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Period. End of story.

    Go ahead. Shoot yourselves in the foot!

  23. “If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.”

    So what ? If bank robbery is outlawed, then only outlaws will rob banks.

  24. No, if we pass a law against it, then it will magically disappear.

    You, see there is a magic button in the White House and if the President pushes the magic button than evething bad in the world will go away magiclly.

    All we have to do is bow down and worship the Government and forsake all other gods, and the government will magically make all bad things in the world vanish.

    But the Republicans wont’ let the President press the magc button and make all the bad things in the world go away.

  25. Moseley is correct. That magic button he speaks of, is to… eliminate all Republicans out of office..

    everything bad in the world will go away

  26. So what ? If bank robbery is outlawed, then only outlaws will rob banks.

    The way things are looking these days, only criminals capable of creating money/debt from nothing own banks in the first place. But they’re never outlawed. Because, oddly enough… people actually seem to want others to create debt/money over them instead of ruling themselves and taking responsibility for their capacity to create wealth.

    “It’s a crappy deal… but at least it comes with a few trinkets like a happy meal.”

  27. That magic button he speaks of, is to… eliminate all Republicans out of office..

    everything bad in the world will go away

    The Right and the Left have been around for thousands of years, so all that would happen is the Democratic party would split up based on the same patterns into different types of corrupt politicians, psychopaths and narcissists.

  28. Meanwhile:

    Some heavily built, bald black men in the Los Angeles area have even begun wearing shirts with messages proclaiming they are not Christopher Dorner (see image above). Signs have also been placed on vehicles which read, “Don’t shoot, I’m not Chris Dorner. Thank you.”
    Last week, LAPD officers mistakenly opened fire on Emma Hernandez and her daughter, Margie Carranza, blazing their vehicle with bullet holes and prompting questions as to how two hispanic women could be mistaken for a black man. Carranza suffered minor injuries but Hernandez was shot in the back and remains in hospital.
    The LAPD’s answer was that Hernandez’ blue Toyota Tacoma “resembled” the truck being driven by Dorner, despite the fact that it was a different color and obviously had a different license plate.
    “The vehicle is a different color. The license plate doesn’t match. There’s nothing there for you to start shooting people. And even if they had the person in question… Mr. Dorner… you still have to give them an opportunity to get out. You can’t just start administering street justice,” said Attorney Glen Jonas.
    “LAPD cops just flat-out OPENED FIRE on the vehicle without even identifying who was driving it! How did it “resemble” Dorner’s truck? Well, it was a truck! That sucker had four wheels and a bed for hauling stuff!” writes Mike Adams.
    LAPD officers also shot at David Perdue as he was surfing in another case of mistaken identity.
    “I don’t want to use the word buffoonery but it really is unbridled police lawlessness,” said Perdue’s attorney Robert Sheahen. “These people need training and they need restraint.”
    Meanwhile, CNN host Erin Burnett asked if Chris Dorner should be targeted for state-sponsored assassination by a drone strike. The Obama administration is already killing Americans abroad via drone strikes with no due process, leading many to fear that it’s only a matter of time before extra-judicial killings are carried out on U.S. soil. Link

    I’m glad that Delaware’s police seem to have better “gun control” in general.

  29. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Period. End of story.

    Go ahead. Shoot yourselves in the foot!

    Have to leave that to the LAPD, apparently.

    I wonder if some form of IQ test would be fitting for any citizen owning a gun, including the police. That would be something. Probably too late now that Obama and DHS have managed cause trends in which there are no guns and ammo left to buy in general.

    Not that some form of IQ test included in yet more paperwork would really change much, not anymore than making marijuana illegal means that people don’t have it. But some people into the idea of Big Government seem to like their useless signing “ceremonies,” their collective rituals and their inane political theatrics about things. And maybe there’s something to it, even if it’s nothing more than a form of collective entertainment that makes ignorant and stupid people feel safe in their good little lemming hearts?

    The only problem in reality being that the show and the theatrical production of Democrats/corrupt politicians keeping people safe by engaging in more signing ceremonies seems to be very expensive.

    So invest in Corrections Corporation of America until the debt/money they’re creating has its value looted and finished off, it would seem. It probably depends on when you’re planning on dying and what trends you think will come to fruition in your lifespan. Even a main stream imbecile/journalist can see the trends at this point, yet it’s the knowledge of more specific or exact timing (e.g. 2008) that would be worth a fortune.

    In any event, we’re a long way from the Founders or a ruling class interested in taking risks to gain for themselves or even sacrificing for the sake of posterity now. That’s why they gave us the Second Amendment while the current corrupt ruling class and the banksters that own them want to take it away. After all, how can they move toward trying to collect on their creation of imaginary paper ponzi if people still have guns in reality?

    And even after Aurora and Sandy Hook and more NYC/Gotham programming in the military industrial or “main stream” media about how much central forces of wealth in NYC and DC care about people… people now have more guns than ever.

    Random note, if the multinational corporations and the banksters and the Big Government (Inc.) that they finance care so much about your health and wealth at a local level then why do many members of the ruling class (inc.) often gather and entertain themselves with the idea of the Cremation of Care? It seems to be an odd choice in entertainment… for the credible and “main stream” people that obviously care more about your health and wealth than you do. I wonder who made the last ceremony there… and if they attacked the Boy Scouts later. (It’s because they care!)

Comments are closed.