Illinois Army vet saves 16 kids from knife-wielding teen reportedly plotting mass murder

[sarisataka]

Illinois Army vet saves 16 kids from knife-wielding teen reportedly plotting mass murder

MORTON, Ill. (AP) — A 75-year-old Army veteran who fought off a knife-wielding man who was threatening to kill children at an Illinois library says training he received nearly five decades ago helped him in the scuffle.

James Vernon was teaching a chess class with 16 children at Morton Public Library when authorities say 19-year-old Dustin Brown entered the room with two knives. According to a court affidavit, Brown told police afterward that he "failed in his mission to kill everyone."

"He actually ran into the room yelling, 'I'm going to kill some people!' He was holding two knives," Vernon told the Pekin Daily News. Vernon described the knives as "hunting types" with "fixed blades about 5 inches" long.

Vernon, a retired Caterpillar Inc. employee, told the newspaper he remembered the knife-fight training the Army had given him. Despite his cuts, Vernon contended he won his "90 seconds of combat" with Brown, "but I felt like I lost the war." He suffered two cut arteries and a tendon in his left hand as he blocked Brown's knife swipe.

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/local/34137409-story

[cpwm17]

1. It's a good thing 19-year-old Dustin Brown didn't have a gun. n/t

[sarisataka]

2. That's all you can come up with?

[mythology]

5. It's certainly an example of the fact that it's easier to limit the capacity to commit harm

when it's a knife as opposed to a gun. The same situation where the guy has 2 handguns would probably have ended up with a bunch of dead people rather than a guy with some stitches. I'm not trying to diminish the fact that his act was heroic, but it was aided by the fact that the attempted killer was armed with a weapon that is harder to kill with than a gun.

[edgineered]

7. It is very easy to miss the point.

A man well qualified and experience with firearms did not resort to using one as a first response; his having or not having one on him at the time isn't being looked at here. The facts are that his reaction to an unlicensed knife bearer were not irresponsible and out of control. You do know that vets can get CCW (that's a conceal carry permit) because of their training, right?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. Vets can get a CCW?

Sure, they just have to go through the same training and background checks and maybe "local political discretion" as everyone else.

Army training is not exactly the same as civilian CCW training. Rules of engagement are different, among other things. Maybe Vets get preferential treatment in some states, not mine.

Maybe Trump got his because of his "military" high school experience. That, and his donations to local politicians.

[edgineered]

14. Florida resident here. Need I say more? nt

[CBGLuthier]

8. 100 percent valid point.

There have not been a lot of mass murders committed with knives. There have been a shit load of them with guns. Why does his totally valid point offend you?

[malaise]

9. +1,000

That fugging simple

[newfie11]

10. +++++++++++++

[sarisataka]

15. Offended?

Maybe because it dismisses the heroism of a septuagenarian who stepped up to face an armed attacker and protected the helpless children behind him.

Mr. Vernon is the reason this is not a mass murder article; not the presence, or lack, of a gun.

[tkmorris]

16. Couple of points here

Nothing the poster said detracts from this man's heroism. His actions remain, and there is no doubt that he prevented greater bloodshed.

Nonetheless, had the assailant been armed with a couple of guns instead of the 5 inch knives he did have it is a virtual certainty that this would have ended dramatically different. Therein lies a significant point. In a world in which guns were rarer, attacks like this would still occur but the victims would have far greater ability to defend themselves or simply disperse, radically decreasing the numbers of fatalities. That would be a good thing, don't you think?

[sarisataka]

18. Your question is essentially

isn't some dead victims better than more dead victims. Of course the answer is yes, but I really prefer zero dead victims.

If the assailant was armed with guns, it is not a virtual certainty of a different outcome. The fact that he {the attacker} hesitated when faced with opposition is the key element. Mr. Vernon may have talked the attacker into dropping a firearm and not received the serious injuries he took from the knife.

[tkmorris]

19. Far more likely he would have been shot, and the killer proceed with his plan

We cannot know of course, as it didn't happen but I think it is undeniable that across all cases where an attacker, particularly one whose goal is to kill multiple people, the death toll is exponentially higher overall when the assailant is armed with firearms versus knives. I think this is a simple and compelling point, and it does need to be made.

Nonetheless, let the conversation return to the actions of this man, in this case, and let us honor him.

[ThePhilosopher04]

20. If the offender had a gun ...

the septuagenarian would likely be dead, along with several children. Instead, he was able to be disarmed with minimal harm being caused. Guns are the common denominator in almost every mass killing in this country. Anyone who believes otherwise has blood on their hands. Guns kill. Period.

[Skittles]

21. no, the reason would be BOTH his heroism and the lack of a gun

[edgineered]

4. Given his age, and being an Army veteran,

odds are very high that the 75 year old was well trained in handling weapons. Maybe you meant to say, "It's a good thing 75-year-old ... didn't have a gun." I sometimes comment that I would feel safer handing some people a gun than I would giving them a tool. Apparently you are neither a mechanic, a chef, or a veteran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

1959–75 – Vietnam War: U.S. military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he falsely termed were attacks on U.S. destroyers, in what came to be known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing U.S. determination to support "freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia." Congress responded with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of conventional military force in Southeast Asia. Following this resolution, and following a communist attack on a U.S. installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.

[Snobblevitch]

3. Mr. Vernon is a hero beyond measure.

If he were active duty I would recommend him for a CMH, or at least a Silver Star.

[newfie11]

11. I so agree!!!

Let's hope he is is rewarded somehow.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. I hope he gets his medical expenses covered.

That's some expensive surgery, and a lot of physical therapy.

[Omaha Steve]

6. K&R!

[Eleanors38]

17. He ran toward the threat, and not away. ^^^