Talk:Washington Navy Yard shooting

What drug was he taking?

What drug, or combination of drugs was he taking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.102.48 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So far, there is no information that he was taking any drugs. The only thing I saw that he sought help, nothing about receiving treatments of any kind, to include medications.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is information in a NY publication, stating the shooter had been seeing a psychiatrist. In Aurora and in Newtown, we had the same thing, with media stating the shooters were being treated for mental health issues, and nothing else, and only later it surfaced, those shooters were medicated with antidepressants. Upon finding this shooter had been seeing a psychiatrist, at this point, I would say the likelihood of this shooter taking such medications also is, "very high". But of course, we don't want our stock plummeting, so...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/navy-yard-gunman-struggled-mental-issues-officials-article-1.1458281 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.102.48 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If a person sees a psychiatrist, one isn't immediately placed on medications. The psychiatrist must evaluate and make a treatment plan that may or may not involve psychiatric medications. Indeed, there is nothing in any story I've read so far that he was under the care of a mental health care professional, only that he saw a psychiatrist. If he didn't follow up with the psychiatrist, discontinued treatment or only had one visit, the story would read the same way. Again, he was already disassociated before he saw the psychiatrist, hearing voices and claimed to be attacked with some mythical microwave beam. But no, it's all part of the vast conspiracy of the space aliens or something, can't be anything like a mentally ill paranoid man with delusions of some conspiracy against him doing an insane thing. We stick with cited facts, not leaps of the imagination. The only thing in your article is the same that is referenced in many other stories about him, all saying he "saw a psychiatrist", but nothing about being under the care of a psychiatrist, taking any medication or fairies dancing in the woods. The same stories are being repeated in the press to keep selling their news product, but have no new information. If and when such information does become available, it can be placed into the article and cited.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. But in this case, as with so many others (as in, nearly every), this is the way it unfolds. By now, it's standard operating procedure. In the course of our conversation here, the death toll in this incident climbed from 12 to 13. This guy walks into a secure military installation, Steven Segals a security guard, steals his gun, then goes on to kill a dozen more people. This (and the preparation for it) - in terms of energy expended by the killer - is comparable to that of the energy expended by Cho Seng Hui @ VT, which, if you go to VT and walk in his steps as I have, you will see, that energy expended was pretty much superhuman. These guys were jacked way up. Then there's the premeditation/preparation; clearly, this guy was thinking in terms of no regard for consequences, others, or self preservation, and far more often than not, this is a state induced by pharmaceuticals. As, these days, thankfully, their own literature states (as if that's enough). So as far as "leaps of the imagination", I don't think I'm leaping very far, but instead, coming to a conclusion based upon the few cited facts available; albeit prematurely, this is all too familiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.102.48 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Muslim?

The article suggests that one shooter is dead and the shooter was described as a Muslim and has two references. Neither reference has the information that the guy was described as a Muslim. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it fails WP:V.JOJ ^Hutton 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just a vandal. Just like the ones who keep changing the page with NO CITATIONS of anything official. I am ready to report the bunch.Kennvido (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've applied for the page to be semi-protected. Meanwhile, we urgently need to replace any citations to Twitter with more reliable sources - the Twitter account may possibly be official, but it seems to be used to cite comments from random Twitter users... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is best not to speculate about the motive/identity/religion of the perpertators, and early guesses are often wrong. Remember WP:BLP applies to any suspects.Martin451 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

'Reactions' section

I've removed this for now, as it wasn't properly sourced, and didn't really tell us much. It can maybe be restored when the dust has time to settle and politicians have more to offer than platitudes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton at 1422 said "There is NO indication as of yet that this is terrorism related," and that it may have "nothing to do" with the business of the Yard itself (government concentrated). badboyjamie talk 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't sourced? It is perfectly well sourced to RS. IDONTIKEIT is not a reason to remove (not to mention deception that it wasn't sourced)(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)).

Math

If fourteen were shot and twelve are dead (all news media orgs reporting the twelve figure) with three injured wouldn't it be fifteen shot? badboyjamie talk 18:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The event is ongoing, and so things are confused facts are unclear, things change etc. and there will be much speculation. One of the injured may have died, there may have been 15 of more shot, or the numbers might have been misreported.Martin451 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The DC police chief said a person was injured but not shot. We have to wait for clarity and RS. Could be a fall during the evac or heart attack. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Persons may injured in their flight from the perp, for example by not exercising sufficient caution in going down a staircase due to their panic. At the horrible Utøya incident 22/7 2011, for example, two of the fatalities were one boy falling down from a ledge he had himself on, and a second boy drowned because he didn't have the requisite swimming skills.Arildnordby (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspect's name redirect

I've re-directed the alleged (deceased) suspect's name to this article. People are going to be searching for the article using his name (like I did), and its better that it redirect's here then sits there as a red-link.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And if it turns out he is not the perpetrator? Then its not a notable link to be here period.(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)).

Its already a name that's been connected to this incident by the media. If it turns out he's not the shooter, there will still potentially be a reason to keep a small mention of him in the article, and thus keeping the redirect reasonable. --Umbralcorax (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Shooters update needed

The "shooters" section needs updating. Police have informed the press that the "white male wearing khaki military fatigues and a beret" has been contacted, is cooperating with police efforts/questions. Live coverage on all channels is focusing on the "single gunman" topic. I do not have a link per se, but based on what's being said as well as that brief police confirmation, this only involved one perpetrator GokuSS400 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever source we find for the number of shooters, the infobox needs to match the article. Right now, it does not, though that's less of a problem than the out-of-date information in general. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Brundidge misquote

It's really titled the "NavAL Seas Systems Command", not "Navy..." This was a reporter variant is my guess, is it allowable is the question? I would change it, as per Googling "Navy Sea Systems Command" and getting nothing but Al Jazeera & Detroit Free Press re: this event, so the 2nd occurrence of "Navy..." was likely sourced from the Al Jazeera article. Anyway, google "Naval Sea Systems Command" and get the full official site, other sites that all call it that. Phaedrx (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)).

NSSC or NAVSEA?

Bahooka just reverted NAVSEA to NSSC. NSSC *IS* indeed in the article, but is the article erroneous? I personally believe NAVSEA is the correct formal (abbreviative) title to the largest materiel organization of the navy. NAVSEA is all over the official .mil .us .gov sites etc. nowhere is NSSC found. except these foreign journalist's apparent variations. Are they acceptable? I think not, but since I am involved and BOTH NSSC and NAVSEA were my edits, I recuse and present this on the talk page. It's NAVSEA. (see prev. section for same exact logic which was granted). Phaedrx (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to self revert. As it is the same organization, we should be consistent with abbreviations. I will also add the abbrevation to the full name used earlier. Thanks for bring the discussion here. Bahooka (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you help as I am still learning (as evidenced by my punctuation and talkpage signing errors just now) but yeah, sometimes the abbreviations and titles etc. and even body counts sadly get all mixed up in the media reports Phaedrx (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(see below)?

See what below? This sentence is the only mention of the suspect being killed. How? Cops? Self inflicted? Vampire bite? Ebola virus? --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Self-inflicted Ebola infected vampire bite. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

High velocity lead poisoning, secondary to weapons fire from the police.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Assault" rifle?

An AR15 is not an assault rifle, the M16 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdworldshooter (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

True. No AR-15 except for the original Armalite manufactured ones were built as assault rifles. However, the article being used as a source does say "AR-15 assault rifle". Because an AR-15 could be converted into an assault rifle or the source could have mistaken an assault rifle variant of the AR-15 (i.e. C7, M16, M4 etc.) for an AR-15, this article should simple say "AR-15", rather than "AR-15 assault rifle" until it is more clear exactly what rifle was used.

"Assault rifle" is a media term invented by activist types to demonize an inanimate object. They have used the phrase to describe semi-automatics and just about any type of firearm that suits their fancy. 99.9999% of those who own such a weapon have never assaulted anyone and have purchased the weapon with defense in mind. Q. So why don't they call it a defense weapon? A. Because it would let the hot air out of the balloon the media is trying to get off the ground. I have heard the military doesn't refer to any weapon as an "assault" rifle. They refer to it in terms of mechanics i.e.semi-auto, fully-auto, and by make and model. And to further the irony here, the weapon used to kill and wound everyone wasn't a so called "assault rifle". If anyone is thinking about using the term "assault rifle" in this article it should read -- a so called "assault" rifle. (With quotes.) Now, having said that, I'd like a box of deadly bullets please. -- Gwillhickers 08:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: On the Assault rifle page, the reference used for the term "assault rifle" is Encyclopædia Britannica Online, not the US Army or other such authority. -- Gwillhickers 09:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that Encyclopædia Britannica is, in and of itself an authority for information. Still, it's advisable to just get over it. Griping about the misuse of the term by the media won't fix the issue. I do agree, I far prefer deadly bullets to rubber bullets. They're far more accurate.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Insert : "griping" about issues often brings about their resolution -- and the Encyclopedia Brit' is a general source for general information. They are an authority on nothing. As an encyclopedia, they (should) direct or make reference to authoritative sources. -- Gwillhickers 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers - No, "assault rifle" is not a "media term invented by activist types" but rather the accepted description in the arms industry and military for a specific type of firearm, i.e. a long gun firing an intermediate cartridge, and having - most importantly - a full-automatic or burst fire capability. The media frequently misdescribed semi-auto-only rifles as "assault rifles," but not the same as them making up the term themselves. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case then the media has reinvented the term, as they typically refer to semi-auto's as "assault rifles". Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate that myth. Let's hope we don't here. -- Gwillhickers 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Its also not our job to educate or fix such illusions. We report what the references state. Now if you find a relevant reference involving this situation and the misuse of the term feel free to add it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Injuries

Didn't the last press conference say 8 people were injured, not 14?108.207.39.39 (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

'background' should be moved to 'aftermath'

There is some discussion regarding poor security in RS (see [1] and [2]). But this is an 'aftermath' topic. The non-RS source that is the only basis for 'background' is not clear regarding whether security for this type of seemingly 'terrorist' act had been reduced before the shootings.Haberstr (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Reference the following line: "After shooting a police officer, Alexis took a semi-automatic handgun from off the officer's body and used it."

"From off the..." is terrible English. Please remove the unnecessary "off". Thanks 213.218.219.96 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)RFN B

213.218.219.96 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done WWGB (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Source of weapons

Here is an NBC article about the source of the weapons. According to the article, it seems the shooter only entered the base with a shotgun, and picked up the other weapons (Glock handgun and AR15-type rifle) along the way from victims and some sort of storage locker: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-kills-at-least-12-at-washington-navy-yard-gathering-weapons-along-the-way?lite Zenmastervex (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Had he acquire an AR on the base, it'd be either an M-16 or M-4. That said, those are not typically carried by installation security, an M9 pistol normally is. On typical installations, the only place one would find security armed with rifles and even machineguns is at the weapons storage area, where nuclear weapons are stored and the ammunition storage point.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

AR-15 semi-auto rifle was not used in the shooting.

"The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial investigation information that an AR-15 rifle was used may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when." http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/ Cobracommand0 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

The gunman did not use AR-15 rifles as originally reported. Kindrun (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~HueSatLum 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/ --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What we know: Federal law enforcement sources say authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe he brought in to the compound. The other two weapons -- handguns -- the sources say, may have been taken from guards.

What we don't know: The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial investigation information that an AR-15 rifle was used may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

From "suspect" to "perpetrator"

Since Alexis is dead and not subject to any legal action, there will be no conviction for these murders. Haven't the investigators consistently declared him to be a perpetrator in the briefings, and no longer refer to him as a suspect? Isn't that the criterion we have used in the past to change characterizations of dead suspects/perpetrators in similar mass killing articles? patsw (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Use of "suspect" is awkward. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Legally purchased shotgun was the main weapon used

"Authorities said Alexis entered the base's Building 197 with a shotgun that was legally purchased in Virginia. Alexis may have gained access to a handgun after entering the building but he did not have an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, as had been reported initially"

"A federal official said the 34-year-old contractor recently paid about $540 to buy the 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition at a gun store in Virginia and took them to the Navy Yard Monday morning.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation is continuing, said investigators believe that Alexis stopped in a men's room and assembled the law-enforcement style shotgun, then proceeded to a spot on the third or fourth floor of the building that overlooked an interior atrium." Cobracommand0 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Some images

There are some images (including one of the building where the shootings took place) here at [Category:Washington Navy Yard shooting] on WikiCommons. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis in the Reserves? Not!

Although official statements from U.S. Navy sources regarding Alexis' 2007-2011 naval service list him as a member of the U.S. Navy reserves, this appears to be highly misleading. Alexis does not appear to have been a Reservist in the normal sense. All of his nearly 4 years of service was taken-up by his initial boot camp training, followed by his specialized "A" School training as an Aviation Technician, and then he was assigned to a naval aviation detachment at Fort Worth, Texas. At no time after he separated from the service (January 2011) did he ever serve weekend duty in a reserve unit. His status as a member of the reserves appears to be hyper-technical designation, based on the fact that all who enlist in the military are administratively classified as belonging to the reserves for their first 5 years. Once a candidate enlists in any branch of the U.S. military, s/he is carried on the rolls as a member of the reserve for 8 years: at the end of a typical 4-year active duty enlistment, members who are discharged are administratively enrolled in the inactive Reserves for an additional 4 years. Alexis was on active duty for his entire (nearly) 4 years, and never performed Reserve duty after he separated. Naval boot camp (Recruit Training Command at Great Lakes) and "A" School (specialized) training take up the first 5-to-6 months of enlistment, followed by a 3-year assignment to the fleet. Junior enlisted personnel who do not plan to re-enlist, are usually allowed to extend their their assignment so that they serve-out their final months at their command, rather than be transferred to a new assignment for their last few months.

Aaron Alexis enlisted in May 2007 and entered boot camp at the relatively advanced age of 27, nearly 10 years older than most of his cohorts. He as promoted to Petty Officer 3rd Class (E-4) in December 2009, which is typical for most ratings. However, at the time of his early discharge in January 2011, he had earned only the two awards given to all service members at the end of their first enlistment (the National Service medal, and the Global War on Terrorism medal). It is very notable that he did not receive a Good Conduct medal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.249.162 (talk)

The allegations of disciplinary issues has been reported on. Insubordination and disturbing the peace were mentioned in several stories, which could be anything from talking back to a more senior sailor to simple drunk and disorderly. But, any way you slice it, he did serve in uniform in the US Navy. To judge by his lack of the usual medals, he was likely a five star screwup, but that isn't too uncommon in any branch of service. Some just never manage to adapt. That was why his commander was originally trying to get him discharged under a general discharge, but that got bogged down and he asked to leave later. Without justification, the commander was forced to give him an honorable discharge.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Motive coverup?

It seems the motives for the shooting is getting the usual treatment. "mental disorders", etc. Don't all cold blooded mass murderers have a "mental disorder"? How many mass murderers were ever considered normal people? Did the shooter himself ever say he was "hearing voices"? So why isn't anyone asking the tough questions? How many of the victims were black? If the shooter was white and all or most of the victims were black the talking heads would be having a parade with the issue and race would be the central theme coming and going. If wikipedia can only parrot what the media is saying why do you even bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.215.12.158 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)