- A shooter opened fire inside a municipal building in Virginia Beach on Friday, killing 12 people and injuring four others before being shot by police.
- In several press conferences from city officials and police officers, leaders chose to focus on the victims and heroes rather than the shooter, specifically saying the gunman’s name only once.
- Some are glad to see this become a regular practice after mass shootings, while others argue that knowing basic facts about the acts and actors is important.
Virginia Beach Shooting
Government officials and police officers have emphasized the need to focus on the victims of Friday’s mass shooting at a municipal building in Virginia Beach.
On Friday afternoon, a gunman entered the municipal building and opened fire. According to police, he shot and killed a victim in a car outside before entering the building. He then went into the building, killing 11 others and injuring four additional people.
The shooter was an employee of the city and as a result, he had access to the building. Police arrived shortly after and began exchanging fire with the attacker. After a while, the shooter was eventually shot by police and later died from gunshot wounds.
Authorities are still looking for the motive behind the attack. It was later reported that the shooter had sent in his resignation by email earlier that same morning, though he did not say why or allude to the shooting.
Friday Press Conference
Rather than focusing on the shooter himself, officials with the City of Virginia Beach and police officers chose to center their press briefings around remembering the victims of the shooting.
“Our process is always to notify family members prior to releasing names,” Virginia Beach Chief of Police James Cervera said in a press conference Friday. “We do know who the suspect is, we have not been successful in notifying certain family members.”
“Once we are able to do to that we will release his name once. We’re going to mention his name once, and then he will be forever referred to as ‘the suspect,’ because our focus now is the dignity and respect to the victims in this case and to their families.”
Cervera also recognized the police officers who responded to the scene, saying, “I want you to know that during this gun battle, basically, the officers stopped this individual from committed more carnage in that building.”
Saturday Press Conference
The sentiment of remembering the victims was also echoed in a longer press conference on Saturday.
“We want you to know who they were, so in the days and weeks to come, you will learn what they meant to all of us, to their families, to their friends, and to their coworkers,” Virginia Beach City Manager Dave Hansen said. “They leave a void that we will never be able to fill.”
Hansen then went on to give a detailed presentation of the victims, including their names, photos, job titles, and the cities or towns they lived in. Hansen also noted that of the people who died, 11 were city employees, and one was a contractor.
One of those people was Ryan Keith Cox, who has been hailed as a hero for rushing others to safety and helping barricade them in a room, before going to see if other people needed help. Cox died in the shooting, but he saved his co-workers who he helped hide.
Following Hansen’s presentation, he passed the mic off to Chief of Police Cervera, who talked about the investigation and then went on to discuss the suspect. As he promised, Cervera only said the suspect’s name once.
Shift in Narrative
Throughout all the many press briefings in Virginia Beach from government officials and the police, the victims, rather than the shooter, have been the intentional focal point.
“We wanted to control that narrative,” Virginia Beach’s deputy city manager of public safety Steve Cover told the Associated Press after Saturday’s briefing.
“We didn’t want it to leak out piece by piece through family and friends and so forth through the media. We felt it was kind of our obligation to get that message out.”
In fact, this idea of controlling the narrative is something we have been seeing more and more. After the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern refused to say the gunman’s name and urged people to say the names of the victims instead.
According to experts, refusing the name mass shooters and instead remember the names of the victims is a growing tactic that has huge implications for how we talk about mass shooters and could impact the motivations of future attacks.
“The goal is to kind of interrupt the cycle of new mass shooters citing previous ones, and the new mass shooters who are becoming role models for even more attackers,” Adam Lankford, a criminologist at the University of Alabama, told the AP.
“What the guy’s face looks like is not the sort of information that will help stop the next mass shooting.”
However, not everyone agrees with this tactic. James Alan Fox, a professor at Northeastern University who has studied mass shootings, told AP that it is appropriate for law enforcement to release basic facts.
“It is news,” said Fox. “We provide basic details on other types of offenders.” Fox also argued that it is the “act — not the actor” that influences other shooters, continuing, “The Columbine massacre, for example, inspired copycats, not the assailants’ names and faces.”
Fox did say there is a limit for how much should be reported, noting that reporting too much about a killer’s background can “humanize” them and turn shootings into a spectacle or a “celebrity watch.”
However, that concept presents a huge gray area. How can we draw the line between what the public should know and giving too much attention to shooters?
Regardless, it is important to remember and say the names of the victims instead of the shooter and it is refreshing to see officials and police officers doing just that in Virginia Beach.
Editor’s Note: At Rogue Rocket, we make it a point to not include the names and pictures of mass murders or suspected mass murderers who may have been seeking attention or infamy. Therefore, we will not be linking to other sources, as they may contain these details.
Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge to Affordable Care Act
In the 7-2 decision, the justices argued the Republican-led states that brought the challenge forth failed to show how the law caused injury and thus had no legal standing.
SCOTUS Issues Opinion on Individual Mandate
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the third Republican-led challenge to the Affordable Care Act to ever reach the high court.
The issue at hand was the provision of the law, commonly known as Obamacare, that requires people to either purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty: the so-called individual mandate.
The individual mandate has been one of the most controversial parts of Obamacare and it has already been before SCOTUS, which upheld the provision in 2012 on the grounds that it amounted to a tax and thus fell under Congress’ taxing power.
However, as part of the sweeping 2017 tax bill, the Republican-held Congress set the penalty for not having health care to $0. As a result, a group of Republican-led states headed by Texas sued, arguing that because their GOP colleagues made the mandate zero dollars, it no longer raised revenues and could not be considered a tax, thus making it unconstitutional.
The states also argued that the individual mandate is such a key part of Obamacare that it could not be separated without getting rid of the entire law.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument in a 7-2 decision, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
Majority Opinion Finds No Injury
In the majority decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Republican states had no grounds to sue because they could not show how they were harmed by their own colleagues zeroing out the penalty.
“There is no possible government action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs’ injury — the costs of purchasing health insurance,” he wrote, adding that the states “have not demonstrated that an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo.”
Breyer also argued that because of this, the court did not need to decide on the broader issue of whether the 2017 tax bill rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional and if that provision could be separated from the ACA.
The highly anticipated decision will officially keep Obamacare as the law of the land, ensuring that the roughly 20 million people enrolled still have health insurance. While there may be other challenges to the law hard-fought by conservatives, this latest ruling sends a key signal about the limits of the Republican efforts to achieve their agenda through the high court, even with the strong conservative majority.
While the court has now struck down challenges to Obamacare three times, Thursday’s decision marked the largest margin of victory of all three challenges to the ACA.
For now, the ACA appears to be fairly insulated from legal challenges, though it will still likely face more. In a tweet following the SCOTUS decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) vowed to keep fighting Obamacare, adding that the individual mandate “was unconstitutional when it was enacted and it is still unconstitutional.”
See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press)
Utah Student With Down Syndrome Left Out of Cheer Squad’s Yearbook Photo
The move marks the second time in three years that Morgyn Arnold has been left out of the school’s yearbook. Two years ago, it failed to include her in the class list.
Two Photos Take, One Without Morgyn Arnold
A Utah school has apologized after a student with Down syndrome at Shoreline Junior High was excluded from her cheerleading squad’s yearbook photo.
The squad took two official team portraits this year. The first included 14-year-old Morgyn Arnold, who had been working as the team manager but attended practices and cheered alongside her other teammates at every home game. The second imsgr did not include her and ended up being the photo the school used across social media and in its yearbook.
Arnold was heartbroken by the decision and her family believed it was made because of her disability.
In social media posts about the move, Arnold’s sister, Jordyn Poll, noted that Arnold “spent hours learning dances, showing up to games, and cheering on her school and friends but was left out.”
“I hope that no one ever has to experience the heartbreak that comes when the person they love comes home from school devastated and shows them that they’re not in the picture with their team,” she continued.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Poll also said this marked the second time in three years that her sister has been left out of the yearbook. Two years ago, the school failed to include her in the class list.
School Apologizes After Backlash
After Poll’s public call out picked up attention, the school said it was “deeply saddened by the mistake.”
“Apologies have been made to the family, and we sincerely apologize to all others impacted by this error,” it added. “We are continuing to look at what has occurred, and to improve our practice.”
The district issued a similar statement, claiming it was looking into why this occurred to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
But Poll said this isn’t the same response her family received when they initially contacted school administrators. Instead, Poll told the Tribune that an employee at the school “blatantly said they didn’t know what we were expecting of them and there was nothing they could do.”
The school has since contacted them again “to make the situation right.”
Meanwhile, Poll stressed that her sister’s teammates had nothing to do with the decision, defending the girls as amazing friends who have done everything to make Arnold feel included.
In fact, they too were disappointed to see that she was not featured in the image or even named as a member of the team in the yearbook.
Arnold’s family decided to speak up about the issue so that this school and others can improve the ways they interact with and include students with disabilities. Different forms of exclusion happen at schools across the country, and this story has prompted other parents of kids with disabilities to share similar experiences.
This kind of thing happens all the time. I can't count the number of times our son has been excluded, or nearly excluded, from events and pictures and related social activities in his 8 years of school. I know this fury.— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) June 16, 2021
A staff attorney at the Disability Law Center of Utah told the Tribune that it receives about 4,000 complaints each year. Some complaints stemmed from students with disabilities being separated into other classrooms without their peers. Others include name-calling or not allowing students on a team or in a club.
Thankfully, Arnold has not let this situation bring her down. According to her family, she has already forgiven everyone involved and plans to continue cheering alongside her friends.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Salt Lake Tribune) (NBC News)
Ex-Shake Shack Manager Sues NYPD Over False Milkshake Poisoning Allegations
The former manager is accusing the police department and its unions of false arrest and defamation relating to the viral incident last summer.
Former Shack Shack Employee Sues One Year Later
The former manager of a New York City Shake Shack restaurant who was falsely accused of poisoning several law enforcement officers’ milkshakes last summer is now suing the city’s police department, its unions, and individual officers.
On June 15, 2020, three officers monitoring the anti-racism protests in Lower Manhattan entered a Shake Shack location for milkshakes, which they later claimed had been poisoned, likely by bleach.
By the end of the night, investigators determined that no one had tampered with the drinks, and the New York Police Department declared there was “no criminality.” Police later said the officers were possibly sickened by a cleaning solution that had not been properly cleaned out of the machines, though Shake Shack claimed it did not find leaks of any foreign substances.
Before that lack of criminality was determined and while the inquiry was ongoing, the police unions and their leaders accused the Shake Shack workers of launching a targeted attack in a series of tweets, which were then shared and discussed widely on social media by prominent conservatives.
The resulting outcome was widespread condemnation and deleting of tweets. Now, almost exactly a year later, the former manager of that Shake Shack, Marcus Gilliam, has accused the parties involved of false arrest and defamation.
According to his lawsuit, the three officers — who are referred to as Officers Strawberry Shake, Vanilla Shake, and Cherry Shake — ordered the drinks via mobile app, meaning the employees could not have known cops placed the order.
Additionally, the documents state the order was “already packaged and waiting for pickup” when the officers arrived, making it impossible for Gilliam or any other employee to have added anything to the shakes when they saw the officers come in to claim them.
After the officers complained about the taste of the milkshakes and threw them out, Gilliam said he apologized and offered them vouchers for free replacements, which they accepted. However, they still told their Sergeant that Gilliam had put a “toxic substance” in their drinks, even though they had disposed of any evidence.
Claims of Wrongful Detainment
The court documents go on to say that another officer arrived and detained the employees, who cooperated with the officer’s investigation. That process included interviews, searches, and tests, which showed no evidence of bleach or other toxins.
The NYPD also conducted a review of security footage, which independently determined that none of the employees put any kind of toxic substances in the officer’s drinks.
Despite all that, and even after the three officers were released from a hospital “without ever showing symptoms,” the NYPD still arrested Gilliam and brought him into the precinct, the suit stated.
Once in the precinct, the former manager was allegedly “interrogated for approximately one to two hours” and detained for around three hours, putting the total time he was detained by police in both the store and the precinct at approximately five to six hours.
Gilliam’s attorney is arguing that the officers had no probable cause or warrants for his arrest. An arrest that the lawsuit says caused him to suffer “emotional and psychological damages and damage to his reputation,” as well as economic damages from legal fees and missed wages, for which he is seeking both punitive and monetary damages.
None of the defendants have responded to requests for comment from the media.