Hospital Shooter Was Disgruntled Doctor Who Worked There

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jun 30, 2017 at 06:28:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Another incidence of a mentally troubled shooter:

A disgruntled doctor armed with an assault rifle and wearing a lab coat went on a rampage in the Bronx hospital where he had worked on Friday, killing a female doctor and wounding six other people — five of them seriously — before setting himself on fire and shooting himself in the head, the authorities said.

Who in their right mind sets themselves on fire? What a painful way to die.

Witnesses described medical workers ripping a fire hose from the wall to use as a makeshift tourniquet on one victim’s leg, while others recalled the horrific sight of the gunman, his torso aflame, running down a hallway.

Here's a photo of the shooter, Dr. Henry Bello. He resigned when he learned he was to be fired, apparently over a sexual harrassment allegation.[More....]

Hospital security did not catch him.

Dr. Bello was armed with an AR-15 rifle that investigators believed he sneaked in the hospital by concealing it under his lab coat, the two police officials said.

What's next? Metal detectors at hospitals? Doctors' offices? All buildings open to the public? I hope not.

< Thursday Open Thread | Friday Night Open Thread: Lifestyle Edition >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hospital Shooter Was Disgruntled Doctor Who Worked There | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

For what possible reason are A-15s (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Jun 30, 2017 at 08:55:40 PM EST

available to the public? Hospital patients are sitting ducks.

: Ultimately it's not the guns (none / 0) (#2)
by jondee on Sat Jul 01, 2017 at 01:02:44 PM EST

but until we figure out why so many people in this country want to shoot people, we shouldn't make it so easy for them to do.

Tangentially related (none / 0) (#3)
by smott on Sat Jul 01, 2017 at 02:35:34 PM EST

I am in PA and go regularly to a chain grocery store (Giant Eagle). PA's Safeway.

Yesterday at the sandwich/sushi bar right by the cafe where people eat lunch, I was in line and 2 guys walked up. One about 350lbs the other a bit smaller, wearing Tshirts saying "we leave on our feet or on our shields". Both were bristling with ammo, mace, Glock 9mms and Tasers. The really big guy had a badge on a string around his neck and a patch for the local PD "society".
Which when I later looked it up online, did not exist, so I called the PD to ask, and they asked for a description, which when I gave it, they were clearly aware of these guys and said "they were serving a warrant Ma'am". ... I.e. BOunty Hunters.

Who you'd think could get over themselves enough to put their firearms in the car before they go into the supermarket for lunch. The big dude was so overweight he couldn't walk up a flight of stairs much less chase down a bad guy. These bounty hunters are quite outside Miranda and other Constitutional protections, very loosely regulated. These guys gave a bad name to Cowboys.

Anyway, called the Market to let them know how disturbing it was and the manager agreed but said it's the Law, but encouraged me to call their Corporate re their Open Carry policy.

Life in our America.

is this a trick question? (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 10:54:11 AM EST

Who in their right mind sets themselves on fire?

no one, unless, i guess, if you're a Buddhist Monk during the Vietnam war. that was a fairly frequent occurrence then. then there's also the occassional candle in Tibet, protesting the Chinese. but no, as an ordinary thing, few rational people intentionally set themselves aflame. a few people, using deep-fat fryers, do it on Thanksgiving, but that's an entirely different issue.

obviously, this guy was, to put it nicely, a tad unhinged. makes you kind of wonder how he got into and out of medical school to begin with?

as to metal detectors in hospitals, etc., i honestly don't know what to say. if someone is well and truly bound and determined to cause mayhem, they will find a way.

Quaker martyr Norman Morrison (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Peter G on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 07:56:05 PM EST

set himself afire and died outside the Pentagon office window of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara on November 2, 1965, in a dramatic protest against the War in Vietnam. Roger LaPorte, a Catholic Worker, did the same at the U.N. about a week later. Neither was believed to be insane, only unusually devout and devoted to self-sacrificing pacifist action. The first American to engage in his form of protest was Alice Herz, an 82-year-old Jewish refugee from Nazism and committed pacifist, who had become a Detroit librarian. There is also no reason to think she was insane.


See today's NYT. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 12:31:09 PM EST

i dont know about that (none / 0) (#6)
by nyjets on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 02:42:40 PM EST

I my opinion, a person can be perfectly normal and still do 'crazy' stuff like setting themselves on fire and kill people.
All to often a person is labeled as crazy when more often than not they are just evil or selfish.


self-immolation (none / 0) (#7)
by linea on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 03:58:49 PM EST

if you're a Buddhist Monk during the Vietnam war. that was a fairly frequent occurrence then.

i was taught: the monk in the (iconic?) photo set himself on fire as a protest against the oppressive anti-buddhist policies of the catholic goverment which was being propped-up by the american government and catholic american president. [i'm not trying to start an argument. this is what i was taught.]

i read that: the foster "daughter" under the care of the james hodgkinson, the congressional baseball shooter, reportedly "committed suicide" by dousing herself with gasoline. apparently, an incinerated body of a young girl in your garage isnt enough to get you removed from the foster care program.

i realize this isn't popular, and it's just my personal feelings, but i feel older girls are safer in modern orphanages than in foster care. especially if there is free transition housing available for several years (preferably 4 or 5) when you age-out.


if i recall correctly, you are, indeed, correct, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 05:11:53 PM EST

with regards to the Buddhist Monk's self-immolating. he wasn't the only one, just the one that made the cover of Life Magazine (i think), along with papers around the world. what a lot of people conveniently forget is that the S. Vietnamese gov't was only nominally a democracy (the same was true of S. Korea), but it was a "domino" the US didn't want falling down.

i had not heard about the girl doing that recently. god, think of how absolutely desperate the poor thing must have been.

in the US, social services theory leans heavily on getting children into a "family" environment. the idea being that it is a more "normal" situation, than an orphanage, with two parents, maybe siblings. theoretically, that makes sense. unfortunately, as is often the case, theory and reality aren't necessarily the same.


I would not be surprised to find (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Peter G on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 07:36:57 PM EST

that statistics suggest step-parents (particularly step-fathers) are more of a danger to teenage girls than foster parents. Foster homes, after all, are screened by social service agencies before being approved. But the "bad apples" are not nearly common enough to condemn, ban or even suspect everyone in the category.


: Mom's boyfriends sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oculus on Tue Jul 04, 2017 at 11:06:48 AM EST

molest her kids.
In CA, foster care providers must be licensed. In several cases, I represented the state licensing agency which was sued by the guardian ad litem of molest victims.

: {{ hi }} (none / 0) (#11)
by linea on Sun Jul 02, 2017 at 08:51:19 PM EST

i admit my perspective is stongly biased and likely skewed (distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading). but i cant help myself from feeling abuse is rampant in fostercare.
i do realize younger children must be place in home-like settings to prevent reactive attachment disorder (the science is well-documented). but i feel older girls are better placed in girls residences or at least given the option. [not an argument, just my feelings.]