Ever since terrorists took over Beslan Middle School #1, holding hostage before killing well over 1,200 people, including infants, attacks on any facility have been examined for potential terrorist motivation. It’s relatively easy to determine that terrorism – and we’ll list the formal definition momentarily – isn’t the motivation when a student attacks his own school and shoots/kills fellow students who he feels have bullied him or set him apart in some unacceptable way. However, when the attack is on a religious site and the attacker is 1) of a different faith, and 2) has made social media postings or other online statements referencing a socio-political difference between he and his victims, then it may or may not be considered a terrorist attack. When all parties involved are citizens of the same country, it would further be specified as domestic terrorism.
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. (dictionary.com)
Domestic Terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial or environmental nature. (as defined by the FBI)
Prior to his attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on the morning of October 27th, 2018, the alleged shooter – Robert G. Bowers – had posted statements online disparaging those of the Jewish faith. The synagogue is located in a community called Squirrel Hill just a few miles outside of downtown Pittsburgh and has been considered the center of the Jewish community for that city. It’s estimated that roughly one quarter of Pittsburgh’s Jewish community lives in that one area. While the community is considered relatively peaceful and boasts a lower than average crime rate, because it’s the “center” of Jewish life in Pittsburgh, it’s almost unavoidable that anti-Semitic crimes will occur in that area. Even if the primary cause or motivation for the crime isn’t religion-oriented, it’s easy to have that motivation questioned or implied after any crime wherein the victim(s) is Jewish.
On that morning at approximately 9:50a.m., Bowers entered the synagogue armed with a rifle and three handguns. He began firing either immediately before entering or immediately upon entering as his first two victims were standing right at the front door. The synagogue is a two story structure and Bowers, upon entry, went to the lower level first. Many congregants had hidden themselves but some left hiding to either investigate the situation or see if they could help those who had been shot. Of those hidden, several called 9-1-1 as the emergency call center began getting repeated calls at approximately 9:54a.m.
It’s reported that at approximately 9:50, after having “hunted” in the building for about ten minutes, moving from the lower level to the upper level and shooting more victims there, Bowers was on his way out of the building as the police were arriving. Immediately upon confrontation Bowers began shooting at the responding police who returned fire, driving back into the building for shelter and cover. At that time, since no more shots were being heard, the situation changed from an active shooter event to a hostage barricade situation and SWAT was called out.
The SWAT team reportedly made entry into the synagogue at about 10:30a.m. and were engaged by Bowers. In the exchange of gunfire, two SWAT officers were wounded as was Bowers who further retreated into another room away from the officers. At approximately 11:10a.m. Bowers finally came out of the room in which he’d taken shelter and surrendered to the SWAT officers. They began the immediate treatment of first-aid for his wounds.
It should be noted that many reports state Bowers made incriminating statements during the attack and immediately after surrendering to the police. Some believe that these statements can’t be used against him in court because he hadn’t been read his rights. These statements are referred to as “spontaneous utterance” and CAN be used against him in court as 1) he was not under arrest when he made them, and 2) he hadn’t been asked any questions to elicit a response. One of the greatest strengths of body-worn cameras for all law enforcement officers today is that, if activated in time, they clearly record that the officer hadn’t arrested the subject and hadn’t asked any questions, but there the subject is making incriminating statements.
In total, Bowers killed eleven people and wounded another six. Given that he had been in the building, actively shooting people for almost ten minutes before the police arrived, this casualty count could have been much higher. The relatively low rate (as compared to other active shooter events) can be attributed to people having hidden or run away. The eleven victims ranged in age from 54 to 97, including nine men and two women. The weapons used were one AR-style rifle and three Glock handguns, all chambered in .357Sig – which is relatively unique. Reports indicate that he fired all of the weapons but not mention is made of how many rounds he actually fired or if any reloads were required. Further, there was no information found about how much ammunition or how many loaded magazines he had on his person during the attack.
Prior to the shooting, while Bowers had no documented or reported mental / emotional health issues this author could find, he had a well documented history of involvement with anti-Semitic organizations. His social media and online presence / involvement with such groups for years.
As this is written, Bowers is still in federal custody awaiting trial on 36 state criminal charges on top of the 19 federal criminal charges he faces. In November 2018 he pled not guilty to all charges.
The only “lesson learned” that could be taken away – and this is NOT a criticism of the response in any way – is that the shooter, once engaged as he was trying to exit, was driven back inside by the engagement with the responding police. Responding law enforcement has no way of anticipating what the shooter is doing or will do, and simply has to respond as quickly as possible, developing a response strategy once on scene and keeping that fluid as the circumstances change. There has been some minor discussion about the wisdom of letting the shooter out of the building versus driving him back in. On the one hand, driving him back in puts him back into his hunting ground and the frustration of not being able to escape may drive him to further shoot/kill more people. On the other hand, letting him out opens avenues of potential escape and the entire surrounding neighborhood becomes a potential hunting ground for him. Not knowing his motivation or goals, keeping him contained is the best thing to do. Those who argue otherwise cannot articulate a good reason why beyond potentially sparing the attackers life. What they need to remember is that it’s not his life that is of foremost concern: it’s the lives of all of the potential victims that the police have to protect first, their own second and then his last.
