Hero School Bus Driver Shot Dead by Kidnapper

I hold my head, I hold my head… credible threat not taken credibly. Armed man, known menace, boards children-filled school bus.

News media across the nation reports as per AP,

A gunman holed up in a bunker with a 6-year-old hostage kept law officers at bay Wednesday in an all-night, all-day standoff that began when he killed a school bus driver and dragged the boy away, authorities said.

SWAT teams took up positions around the gunman’s rural property and police negotiators tried to win the kindergartener’s safe release.

The gunman, identified by neighbors as Jimmy Lee Dykes, a 65-year-old retired truck driver, was known around the neighborhood as a menacing figure who once beat a dog to death with a lead pipe, threatened to shoot children for setting foot on his property and patrolled his yard at night with a flashlight and a shotgun.

He had been scheduled to appear in court Wednesday morning to answer charges he shot at his neighbors in a dispute last month over a speed bump.

The standoff along a red dirt road began on Tuesday afternoon, after a gunman boarded a stopped school bus filled with children in the town of Midland City, population 2,300. Sheriff Wally Olsen said the man shot the bus driver when he refused to hand over a 6-year-old child.

Read the rest here at NPR newsite

  

Author: DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist

Share This Post On

25 Comments

  1. I’m waiting for the NRA to say armed guards are needed on all school buses as well.

  2. By the way there are about half a million school buses in the US.

  3. (“Little guys” in the real world we don’t want to burden them.) Today, like too many in the past we are seeing very little “little guys” in the real world and darn right they need to be burdened….

    “LaPierre’s exchanges with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grew testy at times, especially when LaPierre argued that universal instant background checks would place an undue burden on “the little guy” in the “real world,” while criminals would get the guns illegally.” Today Senate Judiciary committee

    1. Multiple people were wounded during a shooting at an office complex Wednesday morning in Arizona….Authorities are searching for a suspect described as a white male in his 60s, according to Fox 10. He was last seen driving away from the scene in a white SUV. Reuters report

    2. Chicago Teen Who Performed At Inaugural Events Fatally Shot …. Police say Hadiya Pendleton was shot in the back Tuesday in a South Side park and died at a city hospital. Authorities say Hadiya was one of about 12 teenagers sheltering from heavy rain under a canopy when a man jumped a fence, ran toward the group and opened fire. The man fled the scene in a vehicle. No arrests have been made. Huffington

    3. School Bus Hostage Situation: Man Fatally Shoots Driver, Kidnaps 6-Year-Old Passenger

  4. For a long time now, members of the “mainstream” media have been accused of being part of some giant liberal conspiracy to tilt the news in a direction favorable to their politics. The “liberal media,” or “the lamestream media” are terms routinely thrown about.

    It is of course fantasy. There is no secret cabal of people – liberal or otherwise – dictating the entirety of mainstream media in one direction or another. You don’t have to declare your allegiance to liberalism in order to get a media job. There is no requirement to join the Democratic party. There is no secret decoder ring.

    But if there was, I would want the sinister liberal media to find and report endlessly on every single story like this for at least the next year. Every crazed gunman who uses their firearms against children (as in this story), or innocent bystanders (like the shooting today in Phoenix just a few miles from my office), or the one in Georgia (a 22 year old shot dead for pulling into the wrong driveway) should be splashed across the national news as the top story each and every night.

    The sad thing is that there is enough of them to make such a thing possible!

    After having a “crazed gunman” story at the top of the national news every single night for a year, it would be very hard to argue there wasn’t a problem in this country with gun violence. It would be very hard to argue there wasn’t a solution needed. It would be even harder to argue that what was needed to solve the problem was more gunmen, crazed or otherwise.

    The really sad thing is that even if there were a liberal media conspiracy that decided to put a gun death story at the top of every hour’s newscast – 24/7 – there would still not be enough hours in the day to cover them all.

  5. This is obviously a very disheartening and disturbing story—to say the least! It is reminiscent of many classic American novels and sounds just as surreal and bizarre as any movie about frighteningly deviant psychopaths i.e. “The Lovely Bones.”

    It is another story involving a crazed person in possession of a gun, who uses it violently in order to get his way. Although it is certainly represents a valid argument in favor of more stringent background checks for those who would purchase deadly weapons, at this point, the type of gun used has not been described nor has the shooter been linked to any criminal record or history of mental illness—although one could legitimately surmise that someone who would do this, must be either a sociopath or mentally ill.

    But even though the perpetrator may not have used an assault weapon or weapon with a large capacity clip, it is still chilling to realize what any kind of deadly weapon, used by the wrong person, can do. It may not be an argument for banning certain types of weapons, but it is a reminder of how easily someone with a gun can commit a heinous crime like this!

  6. When I said the shooter had not been linked to any criminal record or history of mental illness, I should have mentioned that he was presently charged with dangerously threatening his neighbors by firing at them, and was due to appear in court. I assume that whatever else we know or don’t know will soon be determined by additional press coverage of the incident.

  7. cjjack,
    “There is no secret cabal of people – liberal or otherwise – dictating the entirety of mainstream media in one direction or another.”

    There was journolist. That wasn’t fantasy.

  8. Petew in one report i read…..

    The gunman, identified by neighbors as Jimmy Lee Dykes, a 65-year-old retired truck driver, was known around the neighborhood as a menacing figure who once beat a dog to death with a lead pipe, threatened to shoot children for setting foot on his property and patrolled his yard at night with a flashlight and a shotgun. CBS News

    That sounds really sick….

  9. Another one of the ‘little guys in the real world’, as reported by CBS today:

    (CBS/AP) LILBURN, Ga. – A 69-year-old suburban Atlanta man faces a murder charge after authorities say he shot and killed a 22-year-old man who had mistakenly driven into his driveway.

    An arrest warrant states that Rodrigo Abad Diaz of Duluth, Ga., was fatally shot in the head Saturday as he tried to drive away from Phillip Sailors’ home in Lilburn, northeast of Atlanta.

    According to Diaz’s friends, who were in the vehicle at the time of the incident, the 22-year-old had received incorrect directions from a GPS device which led him to Sailors’ driveway, the Atlantic Journal-Constitution reports. They were in the area to pick up a friend.

  10. We eliminated slavery from the constitution. We can eliminate guns from it as well. The constitution is a contract between the people and it’s government. But like any contract, it can be revised, as in the case of slavery.
    It needs to be revised again.

  11. At the time the second amendment was passed, the state-of-the-art personal firearm was a muzzle-loading Springfield rifle, capable of two rounds per minute in the hands of a competent infantryman who was not being otherwise distracted by nearby cops, teachers, kids, etc attempting to protect themselves with their bare hands.

    I wonder if the originalists on the supreme court would agree with my conclusion that that would appear to be a reasonable benchmark for the right to bear arms?

  12. I think if we as a nation don’t want to get serious about the real issue here, then we should stop pretending we are sickened by the slaughter, stop decrying the loss of innocent lives and just toss up our hands in a “whaddya gonna do” and go back to watching our TV shows OR actually DO something about it.
    The truth is, any nation that can have these types of rampant killings and then refuses to even pass bandaid legislation is itself, a very sick country.

    We all thought “after THIS the laws will change” at least 5 mass murders ago. There is no amount of dead people or children we find “unacceptable” apparently.
    Paranoid people have convinced America there is a need for these guns. WHY? because NOW there is, thanks to those very people who created this situation. A situation where anyone has access to all sorts of weapons freely…day or night.

    To blythly say, “well, they won this one” sounds like we are talking about a yacht race, not a life and death decision…and it is, for the next thousand or so who will lose their lives this year because no one in our government cared enough.

  13. What a world

  14. This guy could have done the same thing with a knife, so let’s wait for the whole story. One thing it is not is a mass murder with a semi-automatic. There are plenty of individual nut jobs out there and the reporting has ampted up because of the current gun control issue. If this guy killed the driver with a shotgun, do we start hollering for a ban on those? Just my 3 cents.

  15. Good point dd. Reporting is indeed amped up now that gun control is on everyones radar (once again) but people need to focus. One thing seems clear, a guy with a history of making threats and committing acts of violence shouldn’t have been free to run around and continue being a threat.

  16. dd, I was not referring to this particuliar incident. It is just one of innumerable ones we have in this country everyday. It is the reason we have these incidents in the first place.

  17. dduck thanks but perhaps you are not getting full range of the discussion…Yesterday in the hearing:

    “LaPierre’s exchanges with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grew testy at times, especially when LaPierre argued that universal instant background checks would place an undue burden on “the little guy” in the “real world,” while criminals would get the guns illegally.” Today Senate Judiciary committee

    Would say that many of us can agree that a person that beats to death a large dog with a lead pipe and threatens to shoot children for stepping on his property is someone that does not need clearance for a gun permit. (Any kind of gun) This same individual guards his property each night with gun. Recently i went through the list of mass murders in the last then years that Barky presented.. Would estimate 8 out of 10 had incidents of felonies or repeated incidents of psychopathy that had surfaced prior to the murders…

    We need a universal gun check that collects data on violent behavior from schools, local law enforcements, mental health and medical, as well as other gun owners. Just like we have a system to report child abuse we need a system that is mandated to report incidents of violent psychopathy that has threaten the safety of others. And with that report, there needs to be an assessment within 48 hours. Whether that be bullying, a gun, a knife, fists, arson, explosives, or any means that can bring harm another. If someone is prone to violence and has acted out at ANY level to bring harm to others, they do not need a gun and the permit needs to be rejected until that person goes through extensive assessment of mental health and public safety and oversight probation yearly face to face checks.

    And it would be expensive upkeep… then the politicians might reassess gun violence based on the government cost of maintaining a violent gun culture.

  18. SK said: “dd, I was not referring to this particuliar incident. It is just one of innumerable ones we have in this country everyday. It is the reason we have these incidents in the first place.”
    That’s the point, if the headline changed to: killed instead of shot dead, we would not be having a discussion on guns and would, as pointed out above, be on mental health issues, which are just being ampted up when a firearm is involved.

    OS, re range of discussion, I did make this comment yesterday: “LaP, said the criminals will not register. That is correct, but the straw men buying guns down south and sending them up to NYC could be traced and squeezed. Likewise for the guns going from Miss. to Chicago (500 murders last year in a city with the toughest gun control laws), etc.

    My point is if we start mixing in too much into the gun control debate, we are playing into the hands of the NRA which will maintain that we are not focused and to use the words of one funny person; “What’s the difference?”, it won’t do any good. Better to focus on the registration and magazine issues first.

  19. dd, could he have done it with a knife? Could the bus driver have had more of a chance to overpower him if he was just welding a knife? I don’t think you can just assume an outcome regardless of the weapon used. The attacker in China stabbed 22 children with a knife and they all lived.

  20. dd:

    “My point is if we start mixing in too much into the gun control debate, we are playing into the hands of the NRA which will maintain that we are not focused and to use the words of one funny person; “What’s the difference?”, it won’t do any good. Better to focus on the registration and magazine issues first.”

    I agree.

  21. dduck,

    I think that even if the 2nd Amendment does permit private citizens to “bear arms,” and this is interpreted as private ownership, it would be fine if we would also prevented sick individuals from obtaining guns. Obviously, someone like the person in this story who abducts a child after killing a bus driver, and who previously beat a 120 pound dog to death with a lead pipe, is not someone who should have been allowed to use any gun, period. We don’t have to deny shotguns or hunting rifles etc., to anyone who passes a thorough background check—only those with questionable criminal records or histories of mental illness.

    All this quibbling about how weapons are classified and which ones are permissible, should really be irrelevant. It is obvious that any weapon which is used by a madman in order to deliberately and efficiently kill others, should not have been placed in that persons hands—Just as it should be obvious that the average home-owner who uses a gun for self-protection, doesn’t need one that fires a large number of rounds in less than a minute, or one that has a barrel clip holding 100 rounds. As Shakespeare put it, “the rest is silence!”

    who is the NRA kidding by making impossible issues about things that could be changed relatively easily, if we really wanted to? And who are we to argue endlessly about assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, military type weapons, or fast and powerful handguns—continually questioning how each is defined and how each used before deciding if we can keep it out of he hands of mentally ill, or criminally insane killers? When we do this, we eat right out of their hands.

    We need to make background checks much more effective, and, prohibit those weapons that are ridiculously unnecessary! We can argue about and debate the meaning of every word in this last sentence or, the sentences used by many others and get absolutely nowhere. Come On! We all know the types of weapons we are talking about and, which have been a favorite of mass shooters for many decades. And we also know that, if we really wanted to ban them, we could! Too bad if the little guy has to endure registering his weapon, getting a license for it, and, submit to an effective background check! How much are the parents of Newtown enduring as a result of our political ignorance? We also have to register our cars, license them,and pass a periodic test to keep those licenses. We also need to carry adequate insurance and surrender our valid licences for verification upon an officers request.

    So far, after more than 40 years of driving, the government has never confiscated my car, or, used its power to deny its use unjustly, to me. The only reason for doing so, would involve numerous infractions committed, or perhaps many drunk driving charges accrued on my part—usually in addition to recklessly operating my vehicle. If we can regulate one dangerous possession in this way, we can certainly do the same for weapons that are used specifically to kill! Enough of the excuses already!!!

  22. To Yooper and Petew, yes it could have been done with a knife or his lead pipe. (Ever try to kill a 120 pound dog.)

    I’m not quibbling about types of weapons, I’m talking about news reports that are ampted up when a gun is involved and ignored or minimized when it is NOT a gun (the guys in China, yes), and generates TONS of words regarding guns when this is really a mental/nut-job story that we would only briefly comment on, if at all.

    And, careful with the he is mentally unfit (call in the Morality/Sanity Squad) so we must confiscate his grandpa’s shootin iron.
    We must calm down and not have the NRA portray us as a mob of liberal commies to people sympathetic to its views, even partly. If they get a bunker mentality, then they could influence their legislators.

    Nail the registration and ban the mega-magazines as a first step, not a humongous ACA type bill that could very easily fail; then the NRA wins.

  23. dduck, I believe that universal and thorough background checks along with banning mega gun clips would be an important first step—especially if that is the only position considered acceptable. However, the ideas of accepting weapons with extremely destructive power to be easily available makes no sense either, and, must also eventually be addressed. Of course, many “nut-jobs” as you call them can commit crimes with, knives, rocks or box-cutters, for that matter. But the people who go overboard in this way are usually jailed eventually anyway. However, in order to prevent abusing the types of weapons in question,they must be kept out of the wrong hands if we are to prevent the kinds of gun crimes which are usually much more severe and deadly in their scope. The way I see it, this involves a whole new level of concern, and therefore requires added restrictions in order to prevent the wrong people from murdering others. To say we should deny any one the right to throw a rock because it might be used as a blunt weapon to kill another, is only an irrelevant exaggeration that we know damn well, has little relevance to the dangers involved in the criminal use of assault weapons. So lets just quit playing that game!

    I understand that I, like many other comenters, sometimes cannot help but sound off in order to vent the frustration I encounter because of the use of such ridiculous talking points from the NRA or anyone who refuses to admit the real scope of this problem. Sorry if I sometimes lose sight of that handicap.

    The idea of psychological screening no longer involves an attempt by the “sanity squad” to arbitrarily decide who should be on which side of a locked door. Rather, it involves careful evaluations by professionals who do not take their responsibilities lightly. I believe it is also no longer possible to admit someone to a psyche ward without his or her permission, unless a strict set of rules is followed—including family input when pertinent. When all of these steps are properly followed, there is noting wrong with a Psychiatrist making an intelligent evaluation about the risks an individual might present to society. Similarly, there is no reason why a person who has a criminal history of incarceration for violent crimes, should be allowed to possess a weapon or be allowed to slip through the cracks of a competent professional evaluation. If you wanted to, you could argue that an ex-con has been rehabilitated and should, therefore be granted the right to buy a gun because that ex-con no longer desires to pursue violent social behavior. But whether this is true or not, it is far more important to raise definite red flags for to any gun dealer about to sell a gun to such a person. The rights to public safety—especially when regarding the lives of first grade school children, is obviously important enough to allow for a professional evaluation that could prohibit a potential dangerous gun buyer from obtaining a weapon. When a person is violent enough to beat a very large dog to death with a lead pipe, or to aim shots at his neighbors over simple disagreements, it is not a violation made by any “morality squad” if that person is denied a gun. Useless semantics and endless talking points won’t accomplish anything.

    The truth is, I don’t consider all gun enthusiasts crazy or ill willed, I simply grow tired of their apparent refusals to even admit that those of us who disagree, have many valuable points to make. Unfortunately, if is almost impossible never to let ones feelings of frustration be known considering the absurdity of the arguments they present.

Submit a Comment