CDZ I don't know whether Hodgkinson actually sought to kill someone.

[usmbguest5318]

Preface:

• If you are a professional who has credible insights to share on how one might obtain and ascertain the answers to the central or explicit inquiries I've below expressed, please keep reading. I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?
• If you're not a professional who has legitimately expert insights to offer, well, I'm not interested in what you think was in the man's mind or why you think it. I can speculate arbitrarily just as well as the next person having no expertise on the matter, i.e., people in the "peanut gallery," which, for this topic, I'm part of the "peanut gallery."

Thread Topic Content:
I'm wondering whether James Hodgkinson intended to kill people or whether he, by some machinations of mental midgetry, sought more, without fatal effect, to make a point more so than to assassinate people. I'm wondering that because I hear the man used an "M4-like" rifle, and he didn't kill anyone, yet managed to hit five people. In addition to using an M4-like rifle, I hear the guy had with him "a lot" of ammunition.

So far, I know three of the five injured people did not sustain life-threatening injuries. I don't know the status of the other two.

I'm just wondering how one who hits five people -- I don't know how many shots were in total fired -- using a rifle, has plenty of ammo, and kills none, while at the same time having been of a mind to kill someone.

• Did the guy hit five while trying for someone or some few in particular?
• Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?
• Did the guy seek to hit as many targets as possible without regard to whether his shots were fatal?
• Did the guy start out desiring one objective and upon being "in place" change his mind?
• Did the guy seek to commit suicide by cop?
• Did the guy view himself as a slayer? An assassin? A murderer? A mere killer? None of those things?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I just know that in other widely publicized shooting incidents, shooters using weapons like the one Hodgkinson used seemingly had little or no difficulty actually killing people.


Note:

• Before some nitwit here asks, of course, I would not have preferred the guy killed someone. I don't know WTF it takes for someone to conjure such a question, but I do know it's the misanthropic type of thought that occurs to some of the twisted people who post on here.

 

[JoeMoma]

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

 

[Compost]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

 

[task0778]

Not a pro, ok? But when a guy shows up and fires that many shots and wounds only 5 you gotta think this guy can't shoot for shit. To think the guy wasn't trying to kill as many as he could is IMHO nonsense. This was a guy who hated Trump and the GOP, and he specifically asked if the men out there were repubs or dems. Since he's now dead we may never know his state of mind, maybe the guy was mentally ill. (Undiagnosed?) I've heard no mention of that possibility though.

 

[Meathead]

He was just trying to make them dance, like in the old cowboy movies.

 

[TNHarley]

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.
why try to downplay it? We have no idea what the motivation was. All we know for sure is that it was terrorism.
Frankly, I am upset you put this malarkey in the CDZ

 

[usmbguest5318]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

 

[JoeMoma]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

Since the shooter is dead, we may never know.

 

[Meathead]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

You're point would be ludicrous even if this were a more stable kinda guy. These were not random people.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.
why try to downplay it? We have no idea what the motivation was. All we know for sure is that it was terrorism.
Frankly, I am upset you put this malarkey in the CDZ

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.

There is no doubt in my mind the man wanted to hurt someone. My questions have to do with whether he intended to fatally hurt people. That distinction went over your head, it appears.

Did the guy intend to hurt but not kill?

It's not naive or moronic to not recognize and apply the difference between "hurt" and "kill," but I'm going to leave it to you to figure out just what be the right term for describing what it is. The rest of us already know.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

Since the shooter is dead, we may never know.

We may not.

Still I wonder, just how poor a rifleman must one be to shoot 50 odd bullets and kill nobody? That, to me, seems fairly hard to do, unless, of course, one intends to do that.

 

[Compost]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

We don't know how much time this guy spent practicing with his weapon.

Here's the thing. We know very little about the gunman. A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about a man before making a diagnosis. Don't you think?

 

[usmbguest5318]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

We don't know how much time this guy spent practicing with his riffle. Anyway. Here's the thing. We know very little about the gunman. A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

I agree with you. That is why I wrote the following in the OP:

I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?

I realize you may not have seen the second of those statements because I added it for clarity's sake after having posted the original OP text.

 

[Meathead]

Clearly, if you want to hurt, not kill, you don't use lethal weapons - a semi-automatic in this case.

 

[Darkwind]

I have to wonder if the OP has ever fired a weapon. 50 shots at how many targets, all moving left, right, diving to the ground. Trying to swing a rifle about, pull the trigger, pick another target, all the while trying to shoot through a chain link fence while walking to his right.

Unless he was professionally trained, it's amazing he actually hit anyone at all.

However, if you have a credible source that suggests he may not have been seeking to kill (this is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the political damage), I'd be willing to read it and entertain their conclusions.

 

[JoeMoma]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

Since the shooter is dead, we may never know.

We may not.

Still I wonder, just how poor a rifleman must one be to shoot 50 odd bullets and kill nobody? That, to me, seems fairly hard to do, unless, of course, one intends to do that.

Well, it's not like the guy was leasurely shooting at a target at a range. It probably did not take long before security personnel were shooting back at him. So many of the shots were probably made without taking good aim. Also, consider the adrenalin rush the shooter must have been experiencing. It makes it much harder to hit a target.

 

[Compost]

A professional in common sense observes that when somebody fires some 50 rounds at a bunch of people, he is looking to do harm. If he only wanted to get attention, he could have tossed crab apples, ya know?

Perhaps he was a terrible shot when it came to using the riffle.

Right....That the man was a poor shot crossed my mind. Ten bullets fired per person injured and no fatalities suggests that may be so. Be that as it may, the central question I'm asking here is did the guy merely aim to harm people, thereby making a/his point (Lord knows what it'd be, but still....), or did he truly intend to kill someone and was just "that" ill suited to doing so, and whichever it be, what information/behavior militates strongly for one or the other of the options being most likely the accurate inference about the nature of Hodgkinson's intentions.

We don't know how much time this guy spent practicing with his riffle. Anyway. Here's the thing. We know very little about the gunman. A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

A professional, even one on an anonymous online forum, would surely demand more information about the man before a diagnosis is possible.

I agree with you. That is why I wrote the following in the OP:

I'm interested in what you can offer that might militate for one's soundly (given the information available) concluding or "leaning" one way or another. That is to say, what behaviors or statements would in your professional opinion indicate/suggest the man meant to do "X" rather than "Y," and what in your professional opinion do you consider "X" and "Y" be?

I realize you may not have seen the second of those statements because I added it for clarity's sake after having posted the original OP text.

You know what else I may have not seen in your OP? How you define "professional" and your own "professional" status.

 

[TNHarley]

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.
why try to downplay it? We have no idea what the motivation was. All we know for sure is that it was terrorism.
Frankly, I am upset you put this malarkey in the CDZ

Sorry, but it seems extremely naive, if not down right moronic, to think someone that shot fiftyish rounds at a crowd of people didn't want to hurt anyone.

There is no doubt in my mind the man wanted to hurt someone. My questions have to do with whether he intended to fatally hurt people. That distinction went over your head, it appears.

It's not naive or moronic to not recognize and apply the difference between "hurt" and "kill," but I'm going to leave it to you to figure out just what be the right term for describing what it is. The rest of us already know.

I'm not going to argue semantics. You know dang well what I meant. Quit trying to downplay this lunacy.

 

[Missourian]

Liberals are lousy shots. Please keep the anti-gun plank in the democrat party platform. The more liberals terrified to be in the mere presence of a firearm, the better.

Liberals have been brainwashed to believe that just holding of a semi-automatic rifle means instant death to everyone in a one mile vicinity. No need for practice or training. This incident puts a damper on that myth.

A so called "assault weapon" is nearly worthless without hours of training and range time.

And good guys on the scene with guns saved countless lives. We can't all have a security detail...but most of us can get training and a concealed carry permit so the good guys with guns always outnumber the liberal lunatics.

A lot of lessons learned today...now to put them into practice. Carry your defensive firearm always. Be safe. Be aware.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I can understand a rookie shooter missing moving targets but his first shot should have been a kill shot.
I think he's just a piss poor marksman.