It used to be assumed that if an active shooter attack occurred that the shooter(s) would either commit suicide when they decided the time was right, or that they’d engage responding police and be killed “in a blaze of glory.” The attack that occurred at the Santa Fe High School on May 18, 2018 was another example of how such assumptions can no longer be made.
On that morning, prior to eight a.m. the alleged shooter, 17-year-old Dimitrios Pagourtzis entered the school armed with a shotgun and a revolver. That morning, Pagourtzis is reported to have committed the third deadliest high school shooting in the U.S. to date behind Columbine and Marjory Stoneman Douglas. With ten fatalities and thirteen more injured, the casualty count was 23 that morning.
There are some similarities between this event and others. The weapons used were allegedly taken by Pagourtzis without his father’s consent. As this article is prepared, at least one family has filed a civil action against Pagourtzis’ parents alleging neglect in properly securing the weapons. The other similarity is that Pagourtzis was reportedly bullied by a number of students.
The fatalities included eight students and two faculty members, and based on some entries in the attacker’s journals, as well as some social media posts, the investigative assumption was that he intentionally killed those he felt bullied by. Understandably, the school system categorically denied that any faculty or staff member had ever bullied Pagourtzis. That understood, the post even investigation also revealed that the attacker had made statements indicating he had carefully selected his victims; shooting some and not shooting others with the specific intent of letting some of his classmates or other students live. The apparent belief was that those he allowed to live would give witness to his having been bullied and paint him in a better light after the fact.
School Resource Officers were assigned to the high school and responded to the sounds of the attack, engaging the shooter. One of the SROs was wounded in the exchange of gunfire. After that engagement, two others officers engaged the shooter and a dialogue (of sorts) was opened. The attacker continued to fire rounds, apparently at random, during this period of time while the officers managed to talk him into surrendering. He surrendered after having been injured by gunfire and the reality of the situation may have sunk in. Reportedly, his journals indicated his intention to not only commit the attack but to also commit suicide afterward. The reality of immediate pending death can change a person’s outlook pretty quick.
From start to finish – first shots to surrender – the attack lasted approximately 25 minutes. It’s reported that officers on scene engaged the shooter within four minutes of the start of the attack. If that number is correct, with 23 killed or injured by gunfire, that’s an average of about one victim every ten seconds. With previous events we’ve seen injured-ratio-times as low as one every seven or eight seconds. One every ten is very efficient and this has to make people realize: if an attacker is determined, there’s little that can be done to stop them except 1) preemptive prevention (attack never occurs) or 2) immediate engagement by an armed individual.
Even with officers assigned to the school and assuming immediate response, 23 casualties is a big number that can be credited to the weapon(s) used and the determination of the shooter to inflict maximum damage. Reports indicate that one of the weapons used was a pump action shotgun. Depending on the ammunition selection, distance of engagement and the skill of the shooter, several people can be killed or wounded with a single shot due to the multiple projectile nature of the potential ammunition. If one assumes single projectile ammunition, then that’s a lot of energy delivered at close range and it would also penetrate through most school doors, as is indicated in the reports.
A further similarity between this event and others was the presence of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Although there is no report of any of them having been detonated, IEDs were found in and around the school and apparently caused sufficient concern for a general warning to the neighborhood to be issued for residents to be alert for suspicious packages.
True to form, as the politicians reacted and made statements, some issued condolences and encouragement while others did nothing but call for greater gun control. Given that this attack occurred in Texas, arguably one of the most armed per capita states in the country, the chances of a radical change in gun laws is minimal. The Texas Lieutenant Governor, in his statement regarding the event said, “…it’s not about guns. It’s about us.” The meaning is clear: guns aren’t the problem. People and what they hold in their heart is the problem.
It’s worth nothing at this point, given the number of school attackers who are in their late teenage years, that the challenge may be a combination of the attackers feeling bullied and not having developed the emotional maturity to mitigate the feelings experienced. With so many school attacks having occurred, the idea of committing such an attack combined with the ability to do so and access to the weapons necessary, may seem more than plausible to some in that age group today. That said, it’s obvious this problem isn’t limited to those in that age group as active shooter criminals have ranged in age from as young as 11 to as old as 60+.
Joshua Borelli
Joshua Borelli has been studying active shooter and mass attack events over the course of the past several years, commensurate with receiving training on response and recovery to natural disasters and civil disturbances. Joshua started to outline this series of articles in an attempt to identify commonalities and logistical needs patterns for response.
