Mikael Gross on Appalachian School of Law shootings.

Posted by Tim Lambert on September 29, 2003
(6)
More »

(All of my postings on the shootings at the Appalachian School of law are here.)

Lott has a [report of a conversation with Mikael Gross](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/cgi-bin/johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/9-11-03.html) on his blog. In The Bias Against Guns Lott claims that Gross pointed his gun at Peter Odighizuwa:

Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Charlotte Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the attacker.

So does Gross confirm that he pointed his gun at Odighizuwa? Nope. Does he confirm that Bridges pointed his gun at Odighizuwa? Nope. The best he can do is:

What Gross knew of the attack was “consistent” with Bridges’ statements, though Gross was unable to see Bridges during a good portion of the attack.

So, although Bridges claims that he pointed his gun at Odighizuwa, there are no witnesses who saw him doing it. We have eyewitness accounts from Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, Jody Mitchell, Robert Deatherage, Jack Briggs and Todd Ross and none of them say they saw Bridges point a gun at Odighizuwa.

This bit is interesting, too:

Gross never really personally knew Besen when they were both at the law school, but he did get to know Bridges through their membership in the Federalist society

That is the same Federalist Society that is pushing a pro-gun agenda by sponsoring a speaking tour by Lott. It seems that Bridges and Gross have political motives to make the most of the role defensive guns played in the shooting.

Lott continues to insinuate that Besen changed his story, waiting two months and then adding the detail about Odighizuwa putting his gun down before Bridges arrived. In fact, it is Bridges who has changed his story. In his first version, told to the Today Show, Bridges mentions his gun, but says nothing about pointing it at Odighizuwa. Besen’s story has not changed. He didn’t mention that Odighizuwa put his gun down before Bridges arrived, because that fact was not important until Bridges starting claiming to have pointed his gun at Odighizuwa and Bridges did not make that claim until later.

(6)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Mikael Gross
    September 16, 2005

    You never talked to me. You never asked me one question. In the world of law we call all this hearsay. Your reporting is inaccurate. I did point my gun at Peter and I would have shot him. He dropped his gun before that became necessary. I testified at his trial, but you don’t seem to have posted that. Thanks for the weak article and the lazy reporting. You are exactly what the first amendment was meant to prevent. Weak minded men with weak ideas supported only by….” Gross could not be contacted….”….I was in the book you idiot.

  2. #2 Tim Lambert
    September 16, 2005

    Thanks for your comment, Mr Gross. If you told Lott that you pointed your gun at Peter O, then he did not report it, so you might want to chastise him for inaccurate reporting. My post was about the dispute between Besen and Bridges as to whether Peter dropped his gun before you and Bridges arrived with your guns. According to Lott, you were unsighted for part of the time so you don’t know what happened.

    I didn’t write about the trail because there wasn’t one on account of his guilty plea. [This report](http://www.legaled.com/shooting.htm) on a hearing doesn’t seem to add much:

    >After the shootings, student Mikael Ray Gross said he saw Odighizuwa put his gun down and pace back and forth outside the school. Gross, who also is a police officer, went to his car for his gun and body armor.

  3. #3 Chris Jarrett
    September 16, 2005

    Do you actually think the comment came from the Mikael Gross involved the Appalachian School of law shootings?

  4. #4 Tim Lambert
    September 16, 2005

    Chris, it is possible that his message is a hoax, but it is more likely really him.

  5. #5 Scott Church
    September 17, 2005

    Mr. Gross,

    1) “Your reporting is inaccurate. I did point my gun at Peter and I would have shot him. He dropped his gun before that became necessary. I testified at his trial, but you don’t seem to have posted that. Thanks for the weak article and the lazy reporting.”

    Tim did not state that you did not point your gun at Mr. Odighizuwa. He said that you had not confirmed this in Lott’s reported conversation with you. Having read that report over several times, I cannot find any statement on your part where you stated that you had. You only commented on Besen’s remarks and verified that you had secured Mr. Odighizuwa’s weapon after he surrendered it. I fail to see how this renders anything Tim said “inaccurate”. According to this report from the Legal Times, Mr. Odighizuwa’s weapon was already empty, and other witnesses have said he never even saw you or Mr. Bridges before surrendering. If you wish to make a case for arming citizens to the teeth as a deterrent to crime and you wish to avoid the “lazy reporting” you accuse Tim of, these are pretty glaring omissions. Perhaps a little more attention to your own case is in order.

    2) “You never talked to me. You never asked me one question. In the world of law we call all this hearsay.”

    Based on everything else I’ve been able to find on this incident, and Lott’s comments about it, there are no other witnesses to you or Mr. Bridges having pointed your weapons at Mr. Odighizuwa. There are however several who say they did not see you do it, that no one else saw you do it, and that even if you had Mr. Odighizuwa’s weapon was already empty anyway. From where I stand, it looks as if the whole thing boils down to your word and Mr. Bridges’ against that of multiple other witnesses. In the world of law Mr. Gross, this is known as hearsay. If there is a reason why so many media outlets nationwide did not report of your “pointing a gun” at Mr. Odighizuwa, I’ll bet my last $4.75 that this is it.

    3) “Weak minded men with weak ideas supported only by.’ Gross could not be contacted.’.I was in the book you idiot.”

    According to the same Legal Times article linked above, “Bridges and Gross could not be reached for comment”. Regardless of whether you were “in the book”, it seems that an awful lot of folks have had trouble getting ahold of you when details were required. I doubt they all have “weak minds”. In fact, from what I can see the only folks who consistently are able to get ahold of you for comment are Right-Wing extremists like Lott and the Federalist society. This isn’t going to win you any awards for forthright objectivity.

    And for the record, comments like “you idiot” accomplish little more than making you sound like the armed and enraged schizophrenic you claim to have stopped. I doubt that this is what you intend.

  6. #6 Chris Jarrett
    September 18, 2005

    If the post really is from Gross, it’s rather amazing. His comment “You are exactly what the first amendment was meant to prevent.” is just bizarre. Assuming he is referring to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the USA constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)

    It’s bizarre for a number of reasons. The US constitution doesn’t apply to someone blogging in Australia. It doesn’t apply to private citizens. It was “meant to prevent” the US congress from enacting certain types of laws.

    Perhaps he was referring to the current Republican controlled USA Congress and Senate in his comment “Weak minded men with weak ideas”.