February 15, 2008

Shooter at Northern Illinois U. Had Stopped Taking His Medication, Authorities Say

DeKalb, Ill. — The man who gunned down five students at Northern Illinois University on Thursday had recently stopped taking medication and had begun acting irrationally, according to people close to him, the authorities here said this morning.

“He was taking medication, had stopped, and had become somewhat erratic,” Donald Grady, the university’s police chief, said at a news conference.

Mr. Grady reiterated that there was no apparent relationship between the shooter, Steven P. Kazmierczak, 27, and any of the victims. And he said the police have no idea what the shooter’s motive might have been.

Mr. Kazmierczak, who was attending the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, purchased two of the guns used in the shooting on February 9 at a local dealership, Mr. Grady said. On Thursday, Mr. Kazmierczak drove onto the Northern Illinois campus with those guns and two others. He then walked into Cole Hall with a shotgun in a guitar case and three handguns concealed in his coat.

Around 3 p.m., he kicked in a side door to the lecture hall where an ocean-science class was in progress and immediately began firing, Mr. Grady said. Police officers were on the scene by 3:03 p.m.

The university’s president, John G. Peters, praised the police response. The university had a response plan in place and did everything it could to respond quickly, he said.

“We were dealing with a disturbed individual who intended to do harm on this campus,” Mr. Peters said. “We did everything we could to ensure safety on this campus.”

Mr. Peters said he was now focused on helping the university heal. He kept repeating a single phrase: “We will get through this together.” —Libby Sander

Comments

1. At what point can we all agree that gun laws must be improved to prevent just anybody, including those with mental conditions, from purchasing them? At what point will we begin to care more about the safety of our youth then some outdated amendment to our Constitution?

   — Onenine    Feb 15, 02:22 PM    #

2. A-men to that, Onenine.

   — Deborah    Feb 15, 04:19 PM    #

3. It’s “than,” Onenine, and that’s a false dichotomy.

   — Dan Kirklin    Feb 15, 05:01 PM    #

4. I agree. I own guns and see no problem with legislation to control ownership or transfer of guns. MY guns were all given to me by my step-father.
   If someone needs guns, needing to wait for a check of some type is not a problem-even 30 days because you generally know ahead of time when you might have a need for guns.
   My 2 cents.
   Bubba

   — Good ol' Bubba    Feb 15, 05:02 PM    #

5. I agree. Perhaps they could have passed come kind of law or ordinance preventing persons from having weapons on campus. Surely that would have prevented this tragedy.

   — David    Feb 15, 05:03 PM    #

6. The problem with David’s suggestion is that most campuses are extremely open, in the sense that anyone from the community can walk onto college/university property. Especially when the campus is publicly owned, there are good and proper reasons to retain this open relationship between ‘town’ and ‘gown’. Add to that the fact that large universities can encompass many square miles of property and hundreds of buildings, no law or ordinance will, unfortunately, be so enforceable as to stop every person who wants to carry a gun onto campus from doing so.

   — barbara    Feb 15, 05:17 PM    #

7. I am heartened by the number of persons who have voiced support for reasonable gun control measures. I have advocated such for many years having grown up and lived in two cities in which guns were too easily available and caused too many tragic deaths.

   May I add the second piece? We need to be sure that we have properly provided the mental health care that would be linked effectively to gun control so that those who mental illness could make them homicidal threats to the community cannot easily or quickly gain access to guns.

   No law or service will totally eliminate this threat. Reasonable steps can reduce the risk for everyone.

   My heart goes out to those who lost family or friends at NIU. I know the pain.

   — Rick    Feb 15, 05:26 PM    #

8. There have been several school shootings wherein the gunman was stopped from killing many more people BECAUSE someone who was trained and licensed to have a gun was able to stop the killing. I was at New Life in Colorado Springs on Dec. 9, (and am a professor at a college there), and had Jeanne Assam not stopped the gunman that morning, he might have carried out his demented plan, and used the over 1,000 rounds he had with him, the death toll could have reached into the hundreds.

   In the U.S., there are an estimated 192 million guns. Chances are, we are not going to collect all of them in the near future, or stop illegal sales of guns by criminals. And, since the attack in DeKalb took place in just a few seconds, and since the police did not arrive until it was all over, only the presence of someone with a gun could have stopped the killing. One armed person could have quickly neutralized the shooters at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Louisiana, etc.

   We have placed armed Air Marshals and pilots on commercial flights, why not allow trained personnel to carry licensed firearms on campus? There has not been a single case of a person with a concealed carry permit committing a crime, but persons with permits have stopped literally thousands of crimes.

   — Dr. J    Feb 15, 05:28 PM    #

9. Dr. J’s last sentence is compelling but unsupported. I can’t help but note that the other Chronicle article today notes that the NIU shooter was a criminal justice major, and “…he had an interest in ‘corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice.’ “ Arguing that citizen peacekeepers are the answer might be a less persuasive stance after all the details come out about this fellow.

   — dr. j too    Feb 15, 06:20 PM    #

10. ‘Why not allow trained personnel to carry licensed firearms on campus?’ Sounds like police to me. Most campuses have them. Until we remove guns from the hands of troubled people – and handguns from the hands of almost everyone – we will continue to suffer violence from guns.

    — CB    Feb 15, 06:26 PM    #

11. My daughter was gunned down in French class at VT, 2.5 hours after the initial murders. I applaud the NIU leadership for their rapid notification and response. At VT, Pres Steger had the time & technology, but did not notify. He was fretting about negative publicity & the upcoming fund-raiser. God bless NIU Pres Peters & police for true leadership & caring about the students & faculty, not just money.

    — debster    Feb 15, 07:20 PM    #

12. Perhaps onenine considers the First Amendment to be outdated, too. Fortunately, it isn’t and onenine’s asinine comments are freely made. You knee-jerk gun control fanatics have no idea of how to solve this problem and simply use tragedies like these to further your own ideological agendas. If you don’t want to own a firearm, don’t buy one. But don’t think you’re going to eliminate the RIGHT that the Framers knew would keep us free. Declare a few more “gun-free zones”. That’s really working well, isn’t it?

    — Bubba from Texas    Feb 15, 07:31 PM    #

13. Nothing much separates one who kills from one who doesn’t. It’s time of war. Killing and lying about it – is normal. Torture is legal. The truth is – young people never lived in a peaceful society. You must understand – it’s not a big problem for them to kill or be killed.
    Do you know how many of the “suspected taliban” (this is simply a name for peaceful, traditional, religious people living in Afganistan for hundreds of years) were killed? I heard – certainly over a million, including women and children.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Feb 16, 12:52 AM    #

14. Bubba from Texas: name calling and ideological posturing are unhelpful and unneeded with respect to the issue of gun control and mental illness. Please refrain from name calling and ideological posturing. Our nation has suffered from handgun violence that has affected every segment of society. John Hinckley almost killed Ronald Reagan with a handgun. Another mentally ill person killed John Lennon with a handgun. The tragic killing of the Amish school children in Pennsylvania was done by a mentally ill person with a gun. It is not just us common citizens who face this threat. It is not just those of us in crowded urban areas. So, every one of us is a potential victim of this threat. We must get beyond name calling, ideological posturing and other unhelpful behaviors to focus on what really needs to be done: honor the declaration that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, noting well that life is first because without it the other rights won’t be able to be exercised.

    As to the repeated calls to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring guns to campus, all I can say is that I do not believe that more guns are the answer. Law enforcement leadership has already pointed out the problems that raises, and Dr. J too highlights other salient concerns. We do not need to re-create the “wild west” or our own version of Iraq with armed persons everywhere threatening harm more broadly. We need to begin the long, difficult, generations long task of reigning in guns in our culture. Our national problem with gun violence is not new, it took generations of neglect and conceding the issue to extemist views about gun ownership rights to achieve this state of affairs. Reasonable people need to take up the challenge to come up with reasonable solutions and stick with the effort for the long haul. We owe it to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I began that commitment about 10 years ago by joining and supporting Handgun Control, Inc. I have been disappointed by the unwillingness of a significant number of other reasonable persons to join in this effort to address our nation’s problem with gun violence.

    I hope that one of the changes that the new administration in Washington will make is the change to common sense and reason with respect to gun control and access to guns by mentally ill persons. That would be a blessing to our nation.

    — Rick    Feb 16, 07:40 AM    #

15. Why is the FACT, once again as usual, that the shooter had just stopped taking medication of no interest rather than his access to guns? This is highly likely one more case of withdrawal from a totally inappropriate and/or unmonitored psychoactive drug, many of which are known but hardly publicized to cause irrational and suicidal and violent behavior in a significant percentage of patients. Where is the OUTRAGE against pharma suppression of negative test results and the corrupt FDA that is controlled by the purely profit-seeking pharmas?

    — Lou    Feb 16, 12:56 PM    #

16. As a first reaction, the massacre at Virginia Tech last April shocked me. This event at Northern Illinois angered me. Probably the biggest difference between the two mass killings was the attention mainstream media paid to the latest event. Whereas Virginia Tech’s sad event permeated the television airwaves for days, the recent event at Northern Illinois was seemingly relegated to sound bites and secondary stories.

    These two universities are forever linked – not by the friendship of sporting events or academic competition – but by two horrific events that have reminded us of how fragile life is and, despite the intentions of two heartless assassins, how two diverse and proud universities and their people can unite and somehow remain focused on what is important in life. Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois stand tall as kindred spirits, united in their collective efforts to bring purpose out of chaos, hope out of tragedy, and light out of the darkness and pain that seemingly pervades educational institutions in an American 21st Century after the events of September 11, 2001.

    Other colleges and universities in U.S. higher education must remain vigilant and make any and all efforts possible to prevent this from occurring on their campuses. It’s not a question of if it will occur again, but when.

    — Robert Williams    Feb 16, 02:25 PM    #

17. Lou: if a mentally ill person stops taking his or her medications but cannot access guns, then that person cannot shoot innocent people. That is a separate issue from the legitimate question you raise about the appropriate vetting of psychotropic medication. I believe we need to first get gun access under control if we really want to curb this senseless violence. Mentally ill persons will always exist; we don’t have to make it easy for those with homicidal inclinations to be able to successfully kill many innocent people with guns.

    — Rick    Feb 16, 08:13 PM    #

18. Rick – you are wrong. As you said, there will always be mentally ill people, just as there will always be criminals. Abridging a fundamental human right – the right be armed and defend one’s self – “just in case” would put us in far greater peril and wouldn’t solve the problem.

    On Saturday morning on MSNBC.COM, there were articles about the students at NIU, but also about the 8 people in Maryland who were killed by a car hitting them, a psychologist in New York who was hacked to death with a meat cleaver, and a murder victim in Reno who was strangled. Those determined to murder will do so. The ONLY solution that could make any difference at all is the one most college’s fight against (proving that intellectuals are rarely as bright as they would have everyone else believe).

    In roughly 40 states, citizens have the right to carry a concealed weapon. Those who are licensed to do so are virtually never involved in crimes of any type, let alone gun crime. Liberals scream about the wild west, but do some research – you will find that those brady center lies have never materialized when a state enacted right to carry laws. NEVER! I have carried a gun for the better part of four decades. I’m trained and I know what I’m doing. The ONLY time I’m not armed is when I’m at work on campus. The potential irony of losing my own life or being unable to help others because liberals prefer to work in a free fire zone does not escape me. I obey the foolish rule, as do other law abiding citizens. Those intent on murder don’t care.

    — Bill    Feb 18, 07:33 AM    #

19. Bill: I disagree with your analysis. Guns allow individuals to kill more people more quickly than cars, meat cleavers, or knives. Explosives in crowded areas are the other principal means for mass murder – just look at Iraq.

    An armed civilian does not necessarily make situation safer. Why should I or anyone else have confidence that you, as an armed civilian, will make me safer? I recommend you go to your local police academy, participate in the firearms judgment training that professionals receive and then re-think your position. It is not such a simple thing to shoot another person no matter what we may think in the abstract.

    We have to exercise common sense and reasonableness in this matter. More guns are not going to make society safer, they will simply amplify the risk.

    If we, as a society, made a more concerted effort to provide appropriate mental health care AND took reasonable steps to limit access to guns, we could begin to reduce this real threat to our safety, not just on campuses but in our home communities as well.

    — Rick    Feb 18, 10:46 AM    #

20. Rick,

    You “…believe we need to first get gun access under control” and “…mentally ill persons will always exist; we don’t have to make it easy for those with homicidal inclinations…”
    MOST patients on psychoactive medication seem to benefit, are less suicidal and not at all violent. HOWEVER, a small but significant percentage of patients become MORE suicidal than before medication and often irrationally violent upon withdrawal. Along with any other pathological group, these people can have access to weapons of all kinds, legally or illegally, by many avenues that can probably NEVER be adequately limited, even under the most draconian, repressive measures. What CAN be done FIRST is to require full disclosure of the risks of such drugs for CAUSING suicidal slaughter, and requiring full and responsible monitoring of ALL such-prescribed patients – rather than the current negligent system that passes out pills like feel-good candy and ignores the consequences.

    — Lou    Feb 18, 02:40 PM    #

21. Rick: Thank you providing exactly the type of effete, pseudo-intellectual posturing I hoped to provoke. While excoriating me for supposed “name-calling”, you proceed to rail against “extremists” who wish to honor the Second Amendment and declare anyone unwilling to submit to the impotent propaganda of Handgun Control (didn’t they change their name?) as unreasonable. Puerile and naive viewpoints such as yours reflect an inability to process the reality that we must be prepared to defend ourselves. If you wish to negotiate with some thug who is attempting to rob or kill you, good luck, buddy. But I am trained and qualified to carry a personal defense weapon and would use it in such an instance. Have you noticed the absurdity of the almost total ban on gun ownership in Washington, D.C. Hasn’t that been a remarkable success??!! A cesspool of crime and murder (and that’s not even taking into account the politicians there…). Thank God the Supreme Court is about to uphold the unconstitutionality of that misbegotten law.

    — Bubba from Texas    Feb 18, 05:55 PM    #

22. Rick: You may not feel safer, but if that’s true, I’m guessing you were never in a situation where you were unarmed facing someone armed and acting in a threatening manner. You may feel incompetent to defend yourself and would rather be like a lamb in a slaughter house. You’ll understand, I hope, and pardon those of us who can defend ourselves for not wanting people like you to force us into the slaughter house with you.

    I told you I was trained. I followed your “advice” nearly 40 years ago. Military and law enforcement. A professional. I’ve made life and death decisions for real, not merely in the abstract. . . not just talked about them in an academic environment. But you know what? If my life is threatened and there is someone capable of eliminating the danger, I’m not going to check his or her bone fides before allowing them to save my life. I’m not worried that a law abiding, licensed civilian will make a mistake because there is no evidence that such mistakes happen. You may disagree with my analysis, Rick, but to disprove it, you will need to come up with some contradictory facts and the truth is, you can’t.

    I’m all for providing appropriate mental health care, and for reporting to authorities such cases as should result in depriving someone of their rights with regard to firearms. Felons should never be able to own a weapon . . . or ever vote, for that matter. But the right to keep and bear arms was not given to me by you or by a government . . . like freedom of speech or the right to be secure in my person and papers, it is an inalienable right guaranteed (not given) by the US Constitution. Reasonableness in this matter is for institutions to stop making their campuses more dangerous by disarming licensed civilians. As long as these cowards know they have even just one or two minutes without fear of being stopped, these tragedies will continue. The only way to deter them is to create the uncertainty that results from never knowing if someone else is armed and can stop them immediately.

    — Bill    Feb 19, 07:30 AM    #

23. Bill: first, it appears we agree on the prudence of providing appropriate mental health care and reducing the accessibility to firearms of mentally ill persons. That sounds reasonable to me.

    I respect the fact that you say you have served in the military and law enforcement. Having not done either, I can offer no first hand account of such experience. I can offer first hand accounts of growing up in inner city neighborhoods in two of the largest cities in the USA where gun violence took many innocent lives. I can also say that I have been fortunate to escape harm on the streets by gun (twice) and by knife (once) without resorting to the use of weapons, before I was 17 years old. I can assure you, I am not the type who is given to being a “lamb led to slaughter.” My perspective is informed by the experiencing and witnessing the tremendous harm caused by guns to innocent persons.

    Can mistakes with firearms be made by armed persons whose intentions are good? Conversations with active and retired law enforcement professionals (one of whom served on a SWAT team which was called into action in response to an armed robbery of a bank which included the murder of a citizen and the shooting at the scene of an officer) has made me aware of just how easily a mistake can be made by a trained professional (remember, it was 4 NYPD officers who mistakenly shot and killed Amadou Diallo. There have been seveal documented instances in which plaincothes police officers have been shot by uniformed colleagues who did not realize the armed, plainclothes officer was a colleague). If these professionals with experience in life and death situations recognize the risk of error as trained professionals, shouldn’t we be a little more cautious before presuming that other persons (who are not likely to be as well trained and active as professionals) are no more likely to make a mistake? I doubt all those who would like to carry weapons have the training and experience you indicate you received in the military and law enforcement.

    My point is simple: more guns will not make society safer, it will just increase the risks. As a society, we need to think much harder about how to combat gun violence without creating greater risk of gun violence. I don’t believe that is “effete, psuedo-intellectual posturing” as Bubba declares. I believe it is a call for finding reasonable alternatives to the proliferation of guns in our society.

    — Rick    Feb 19, 05:25 PM    #

24. Bill, it’s impossible to reason with people like Rick. His utopian view of human nature and solutions to societal problems exclude the possibility of reason. His “concerns” about supposedly trained individuals making a mistake are meant to camouflage his real desire: to deny us our God-given right to defend ourselves.

    And yes, Rick, your “alternatives” are indeed effete, psuedo-intellectual posturing. You neglected to respond to my comment about the abysmal failure of “gun control” in D.C. I rest my case.

    — Bubba from Texas    Feb 20, 05:33 PM    #

25. Now it seems (according to the shooter’s soulmate Jessica) that he was on withdrawal not only from Prozac (of HIGH risk in itself for some patients) but also from an appalling cocktail with Ambien and Proloft. If it’s really true that this incredible cocktail is commonly prescribed by mental health professionals with such little responsible followup, then it is INEVITABLE from such chemicals ALONE that there will be an endlessly increasing number of tragic mass suicidal-homicidal cases, not only in the US but more and more in Europe and Japan. OBVIOUS, PREDICTABLE, as well as INEVITABLE as long as such negligent practice is allowed, no matter how few weapons are allegedly “accessible” to these severely damaged, fragile, helpless and neglected patients.

    — Lou    Feb 21, 12:23 AM    #

Previous: Career Education Corporation Says It Will Close 9 Troubled Colleges
Next: Faculty and Students Vote Against U. of Colorado Presidential Nominee