3 wounded in Houston-area college shooting
Updated 9:36 PM ET
HOUSTON A fight between two people erupted in gunfire Tuesday at a Houston-area community college, catching a maintenance man in the crossfire and leaving students and others cowering in classrooms.
No one was killed, but the volley of gunshots heard shortly after 12 p.m. on the Lone Star College campus sparked fear of another campus massacre just more than a month after 26 people were killed at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
The school's official Twitter feed said earlier the shooting was between two people and that the situation was under control. It had issued an alert on its website, telling students and faculty to take immediate shelter or avoid the campus.
"I saw two dudes basically get into an altercation and the dude that shot, he basically got angry and started shooting the other guy," student Brittany Mobley told CBS affiliate KHOU Houston. "A lot of people heard a lot of shots."
The shooting happened outside between an academic building and the library where Luis Resendiz, 22, was studying on the second floor. An employee called police and then herded the 30 to 40 people in the library into a small room and told them to crouch down, he said.
Keisha Cohn, 27, was in a building about 50 feet away and began running as soon as she heard the shots.
"To stay where I was wasn't an option," said Cohn, who fled to a building that houses computers and study areas. All the students eventually were evacuated, running out of buildings as police officers led them to safety.
Medics treat the wounded at Lone Star College on Jan. 22, 2013.
/ KHOUAuthorities offered no details about what led to the fight. One of the people involved had a student ID, and both people were wounded and hospitalized, Harris County Sheriff's Maj. Armando Tello said. A fourth person also was taken to a hospital for a medical condition, he said.
Mark Zaragosa said he had just come out of an EMT class when he saw two people who were injured and stopped to help them.
"The two people that I took care of had just minor injuries," he told KHOU-TV. "One gentleman had a gunshot to the knee and the (other) actually had an entry wound to the lower buttocks area."
The shooting last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School heightened security concerns at campuses across the country. Resendiz said the Connecticut shooting was the first thing he thought of when he heard gunfire and he wondered if a similar situation was happening on his campus.
"I didn't think something like this could happen. You don't think about it happening to you," he said.
Several school districts in Texas have either implemented or are considering a plan to allow faculty to carry guns on campus. While guns are not allowed on college campuses, the Texas Legislature this year may debate a bill that would allow them.
Richard Carpenter, chancellor of the Lone Star College System, said the campus is a gun-free zone that "has been safe for 40 years."
"We think it's still safe," he added. He also described the maintenance man, who was said to be in his 50s and listed in stable condition, as "in good shape."
Police evacuated and closed the campus after the shooting. It reopened in the late afternoon, with classes expected to resume Wednesday.
The noise that rang through the second-floor tutoring lab where Daniel Flores was studying initially sounded to him "like someone was kicking a door."
"I didn't think they were shots," said Flores, 19.
About 60 people were in the lab, and they began running out of the room once they realized the sound was gunfire, he said. They fled to a nearby student services center, where authorities kept them there for about 30 minutes before letting them go.
Cody Harris, 20, said he was in a classroom with about six or seven other students waiting for a psychology class to start when he heard eight shots. He and other students looked at each other, said "I guess we should get out of here," and fled.
"I was just worried about getting out," Harris said. "I called my grandmother and asked her to pick me up."
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
Photos: Underground shots of NYC's Second Ave. subway project New York City's Second Ave. subway was first conceived almost a century ago and when it is completed, it will extend all the way down the eastern side of Manhattan with 16 new stations. CBS News' Don Dahler reports on one of the most challenging public works projects in the country.
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Tornado briefly touches down on Denver airport runways
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"
- FAA approval sought for 650-foot-tall Vegas thrill ride
The following are part of the brief:
General John H. Tilelli
Lieutenant General Dutch Shoffner
Honorable Joe R. Reeder, 14th Under Secretary of the Army
Major General John G. Meyer Jr
Lieutenant General Ronald V. Hite
General William H. Hartzog
General Ronald H. Griffith
Lieutenant General Jay M.Garner
Lieutenant General Tom Fields
Lieutenant General Charles E. Dominy
Major General John D. Altenburg
(To clarify for certain reading challenged drunks everything in quotes below is from the pen of the aforementioned Generals - not one word of it is mine or claimed to be mine - unlike Outback_Plaigiarizer I will quote my sources - if some moron has a problem with George Mason I suggest you pick up a pen and paper and write each and every person above)
They state in DC versus Heller:
"And former military officers tell us that "private ownership of firearms makes for a more effective fighting force" because "[m]ilitary recruits with previous firearms experience and training are generally better marksmen, and accordingly, better soldiers." Brief for Retired Military Officers as Amici Curiae (hereinafter Military Officers' Brief). An amicus brief filed by retired Army generals adds that a "well-regulated militia — whether ad hoc or as part of our organized military depends on recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms - rifles, pistols, and shotguns."
Notice the "ad hoc" meaning unorganized and not part of a "well regulated" military group.
"For over a century, Congress has authorized and funded programs to promote the marksmanship of young Americans so that they might make the transition from civilian to military life more effectively and at less cost to our national defense."
"...recruits with prior pistol and rifle training tend to move through basic training with greater ease than those who lack that training and, subsequently, demonstrate superior performance in safety, marksmanship, and weapon maintenance. Every soldier has an inherent right of self-defense under the laws of war. Pre-military practice with firearms better enables our soldiers to exercise that right meaningfully."
"The notion that prior pistol and rifle experience is a significant factor in predicting the success of a recruit during his or her first year in the military should come as no surprise. History teaches that competence with weapons does not occur magically; it normally requires significant pre-military expertise honed through assiduous practice."
"During the constitutional ratification debates in Virginia, George Mason proposed the following reservations of rights and limitations on Federal power: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided." "
I wan to sue my local DA and my state government for allowing drunks to roam freely instead of being incarcerated for the rest of their lives as they should be.
If the government taxes alcohol it means they encourage its consumption, therefore, anyone making profits from alcohol should be liable for the consequences of "misuse" (as if beer, wine, or hard liquor has any real use other than intoxication)
------------
Nowhere else to go with your red herring rants about alcohol and "drunks", huh PAULGEORGE?
And this has what to do with gun rights or the perceived threat thereto?
Really, tell us what "drunks" have to do with this?
You won't answer the question, because your personal bias and life circumstances will prevent you, I would imagine.
1500-1830 - 46 massacre of Native Americans I left out the years 1830-1911
1887 - In Georgia Lizzie Borden killed 9 with an axe, called The Woolfolk murders
1782 - William Beadle of Wethersfield, CT attacked his family with a knife and an axe, killing his wife and all four of his children. He then committed suicide by shooting himself with a pistol.
1889 - a guy named Jim killed 7 in Florida
1915 - Phillip Monroe killed 7 wounded 30 in Geogia
1900 Charles Robet killed 7 wouned 20 in Lousiania
1902 - Reynolds Williams killed killed 7 wouned 2 Alabama
1916 - Akers Arthur killed 7 wounded 2 Akansas
1914 - Julian Carlton killed killed 7 wouned 1 Wisconsin
Between 1780 and 1840, at least seven American men committed acts of familicide, crimes that were widely publicized in sensational pamphlets
-----------------
And just how many mass shootings of children and others, at schools, places of worship, employment locations and social venues, were taking place in Mason's times?
Hardly any, if not to be none at all.
This IS NOT peacetime, get it? Not here, not over there. The above was in reference to the outcome you as a "People" strive for when ordinary others who represent yourself or someone like you are indentured and held hostage by a totalitarian or monarchial regime, one with foreign interests and power ABROAD. NOT here- AT HOME. Get it? What example of a "standing army did the like of Mason or George Washington have in their time, to go by?
None, if not to include a colonial army in COLONIAL times, which, if you want to really get into the facts, was the harbinger for advanced British forces that came by sea, with ample furnishings of munitions, rifles, cannons and swords much later, well after the latter half of the 17th century, in opposition to the organized resentments that had for decades brewed in those colonies. This is what standard was looked to, by the founders, by the end of the 18th century.
This historical excerpt you bring in, is nonsense to the current issues of our PRESENT time. To say nothing of how one defines a "well-regulated militia", so as to work legally and constitutionally, and in accord with an official army standing to protect against the high-handedness of slavery, serfdom, and taxation without representation, concepts that still live today, but only in much different societal contexts.
Fools like you probably don't see that though, huh?
Rather that repost what was clearly posted I will summarize....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are part of the brief:
General John H. Tilelli
Lieutenant General Dutch Shoffner
Honorable Joe R. Reeder, 14th Under Secretary of the Army
Major General John G. Meyer Jr
Lieutenant General Ronald V. Hite
General William H. Hartzog
General Ronald H. Griffith
Lieutenant General Jay M.Garner
Lieutenant General Tom Fields
Lieutenant General Charles E. Dominy
Major General John D. Altenburg
They state in DC versus Heller....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(everything I posted was word for word direct from the brief written by and supported by these high ranking officers - if you have an issue with THEM bringing up George Mason I suggest you write each one of these military experts and tell them how wrong they are - you think you're man enough to do that?)
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." — Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." — Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
"'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." — Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." — People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." — State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." — Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. The point of highlighting case law is that it is binding precedent, and has already been decided by the highest judicial authority in the land.
One of the driving forces behind LEAA's founding was to dispel the false impression that America's police favor more gun control.
We know, and research backs us up, an overwhelming majority of America's rank-and-file cops support private ownership of firearms.
That's because they know, better than most, that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime, but will deprive citizens of the means of defending themselves from violent predators.
http://www.leaa.org/Cops%20Versus%20Gun%20Control/copsversusguncon.html
An "e" goes on the end of that first "r" word of yours.
--------
"Recruits"?
You mean the extremist jackals that think like you do. Execute masses of people for various violent crimes and imprison tens if not hundreds of thousands for petty crap. Your direct inklings, MPG, as impliedly stated in earlier posts of yours.
That's why you never see stories about black kids being killed in gunfire on a daily basis in Chicago either.
The poster child of the ant-Second Amendment freaks is a middle class white kid going off the deep end and killing more kids.
I encourage victims of gun violence to sue Gun Manufacturers and the NRA. Gun Manufactures and the NRA have a right to their beliefs and opinions. They have a right to advertise their thoughts. But, when they use their money to influence laws and politicians, they implicitly take ownership of the consequences of those laws. I believe, due to moneyed pressure, on these law makers, they are legally accountable. It is reasonable to assume, in a court of law, that when you advocate (lobby) for laws that any reasonable human being would assume would put deadly force in individuals that are incompetent to decide whether to use that force or not, then you take on liability.
It would be like Toyota saying, "We oppose all laws restricting the ABSOLUTE right of individuals to use our products even if they are drunk"
Lawyers: WAKE UP!!
Gun Control™ - the only political movement where death is necessary in order to advance your beliefs. If nobody dies we can't take away your guns!
Hmmmm. Me thinks we have a Canadian Hypocrit among us.
Notice the Mini 14 poor mans assault rifle essentially the same gun, same round same function as an AR 15 "long used by hunters in Oh Canada"
Gun haters will probably want to do something stupid like that to us, Ban AR's but allow Mini 14's.
Erasimus. Point your long gnarled trigger finger back to the Great White North eh...