UPDATE: Herkimer shooting suspect killed; standoff over
A police photo of suspected shooter Kurt Myers.
Update, 12:18 Police are continuing to investigate what may have motivated Kurt Myers to shoot six people Wednesday, and say they’ll continue to be a “noticeable presence” in Herkimer today.
Anyone who may have information on Myers is asked to call state police at (315) 866-7275.
The Utica Observer-dispatch reports today that state police are saying the two people who Myers shot and didn’t kill yesterday are in critical and serious condition. However, the paper reports St. Elizabeth Medical Center said one was in fair condition, and information on the other wasn’t available.
Update, 10:26 Not a lot of new information but a clearer picture emerging this morning of what happened yesterday in Herkimer. This from the Albany Times-Union:
Kurt Myers, the 64-year-old man who police said waged a shooting spree that left four dead the day before, was shot dead after opened fire on a police and FBI tactical team that swept into a building here Thursday morning, State Police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico said.
Authorities entered the building on North Main Street shortly before 8 a.m., he said, and were quickly greeted by gun shots from Myers.
One shot killed an FBI dog. Police returned fire, killing Myers.
“As unfortunate as it is that a canine lost his life, it could have easily been an officer,” D’Amico said.
The superintendent called the work of the officers “nothing short of heroic.”
Myers had been hiding inside an abandoned building on North Main Street since shortly after he killed people at a local barber shop in neighboring Mohawk and a car garage in Herkimer on Wednesday afternoon. Police kept the building under constant surveillance. Throughout the 17-hour standoff, Myers never communicated with police.
Nearly 24 hours after the rampage, police said they still have no clear explanation for why he went on a rampage that left two people dead in Mohawk and two more dead in Herkimer.
Update, 10:04 am: State police to start a press conference shortly. We’ll have more when we know.
UPDATE, 8:42am: The Associated Press reports that police have killed suspect Kurt Myers in a shootout. Trooper Jack Keller says police went into the building around 8am. He says the shootout occurred in a basement, where Myers shot a police dog. Keller says police returned fire, killing Myers.
SWAT teams have moved in on a row of shops in the village of Herkimer where they believe a gunman who killed four people and wounded two others yesterday may be hiding. According to the Utica Observer-Dispatch, loud bangs, alarms, and a PA system were heard early this morning.
Police are using a track-driven robot with a camera on top to try to apprehend 64 year-old Kurt Meyers, who they believe is still alive inside the building. The standoff began yesterday afternoon around 1 after the shootings at a barbershop in nearby Mohawk and a carwash in Herkimer. Around 1:30, there was an exchange of gunfire between police and the shooter. Watch a video of that moment here.
At a press conference yesterday, state police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico said police were prepared to wait the suspect out. Citing officer safety, D’Amico said, “we’re in no rush to bring this to a conclusion. We want to make sure no one else gets injured.”
Governor Cuomo was in Herkimer at the press conference yesterday. He called the situation “bleak” and said it would take New York “a long, long time to come to grips” with what is unfolding in Herkimer County.
All six victims are men. Two of the four who were killed were corrections officers. Michael Renshaw was a 23-year employee of the state corrections department who worked at Mid-State Correctional Facility near Utica. 57-year-old Michael Ransear was a retired prison guard.
Also killed were Thomas Stefka, who worked at the car wash and played guitar during services at a local church, and 68-year-old Harry Montgomery, who was a customer at the barber shop. The barber, John Seymour, was also shot and is reported in fair condition.
Follow the Inbox today for the latest updates at the top of this post.
Think car seat laws or helmet laws or crib spindle spacing laws.
And, as this tragedy was unfolding, many drug kingpins, other criminals, and extremists were sleeping, eating, and playing with their children. Then they went about their less innocent business.
Not much of a point, is it, Jeff?
Peter, I think if you want to make sure that a perfectly sane law abiding weirdo does not have access to a gun it seems like you would have to go beyond these precautionary measures, most of which I agree with.
Take the SAFE act. In my opinion it the “helmet or seat belt approach” something like requiring that people secure their firearms safely is perfectly constitutional. The idea of making a 10 shot clip illegal, basically making it so that almost any semi-automatic hand gun (again none of which I won or care to own) is banned in the state seems to start to look none to constitutional. This is based on the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment covers using arms for self defense and hand guns are primarily designed for that purpose? What am I missing? Laws allowing you to use something more safely (seat belts and helmets) seem to be fine. Banning the item seems like a different thing to me.
One persons law-abiding weirdo is anothers wacky uncle. Its probably not possible, even theoretically, to prevent their access to guns. But again – that doesnt mean we cant come up with common-sense safety rules. Admittedly some of those rules might inconvenience and seriously irritate the average gun owner.
Peter, I totally agree. Common-sense safety rules, in my opinion, are something different than crafting a law to ban access to a large class of guns, ones designed specifically for self defense (using a gun) which is protected by the constitution.
NY used to think that ten shots was reasonable, now they think that seven is reasonable. What is the logic behind any of this? The idea of banning larger capacity clips and guns that use them at least had some logic.
“The gun is not violent. ”
The gun is the number one weapon used to commit violence. It serves no other purpose, when used as advertised, than to intentionally kill or maim.
If guns don’t kill people, people kill people, then how come we don’t send soldiers into war zones with only the kind of arms used for hugging?
You can agree or disagree on NYSAFE. I have enough issues with it that I don’t support it. I support the right to self-defense. And you can argue about what exactly needs to be done. But let’s not pretend that instruments of violence are irrelevant to violence.
Come on what about Red Ryder and his Peacemaker!!
If you want to talk philosophically there is a very good argument that guns (as well as other weapons) prevent lots of violence.
I wish that people were inherently peaceful but they are not.
Paul – statistically speaking guns cause a lot more violence than they prevent. No one claims that they dont prevent violence, just that it is very rare – especially compared to all the well documented gun violence. People who own guns are much more likely to be shot than people who dont own guns (for example).
Peter, I agree with some of that in principle and my comment has little to do with gun violence we are seeing in the “civilian” part of the society. The statistics here in the US show us that gun ownership in the US has remained relatively flat at about 50% of the population over decades and that gun violence has decreased (yes decreased) dramatically over the past several decades. So statistics support that whatever we are doing on the whole is actually working to decrease gun violence overall. But doing more is always a good thing.
Walker- I didn’t see the course of the comments as anything in the line of sympathy or comfort but a side issue to the facts of the case and thus I made a comment on that side issue.
By the way regarding your comment:
“It’s also worth noting Jesus’ instruction that one’s prayers should be done in private.” Was in context with certain Jews who wore their boxes of prayers on their foreheads and and some prayed in public as a matter of pride and thus the fact that they took satisfaction in being seen by others was their reward and the point of Jesus’s comment. There is nothing wrong with praying anywhere, the issue is the motivation.
What no one has said in 60 comments is look at the misery this man caused by his selfish act. Do we care about the families of the dead and injured? In the same way Hoosier is making his bible thumping statements, others are using the emotional reaction to these events to claim moral justification. They leap over the death and misery and claim this or that will soothe their pain by preventing repeat events. Peter, Paul- my point was fine.
“In the same way Hoosier is making his bible thumping statements, others are using the emotional reaction to these events to claim moral justification.”
Sorry, I don’t get. What are you talking about? This is a blog where we can discuss anything we want not a sympathy card. It is a terrible tragedy, I feel bad for the victims and their families.
And Knuck did also make it sound like he felt bad about the dog getting killed?
Knuck, you know I am just kidding right? After I read that I realized that it made it sound like you only cared about the dog getting killed that was not my intent.
Paul, I knew people would read it that way, but I thought there were serious points to be read into the statement. For one thing, I think we are all a little bit hardened to these sort of violent acts – so much so that it takes some detail beyond what we have seen before to register more sharply. I am not being very eloquent in explaining this. I’m certain everyone feels badly for the families of the dead but we don’t know them personally and we hear about so many of these incidents that in a sad way the death of the dog – and we are all pretty certain that the dog is completely innocent – that the death of the dog becomes a focus of our anguish.
Like getting an inoculation against disease we have become inoculated against the pain that senseless violence causes in our culture.
Knuck, you are absolutely correct. It could be one of the issues that has led what seem like pretty normal people to snap. It is like a virtual world not the real thing. I am sure the folks around Herkimer are in shock. Now to see this incident and now this abduction, rape, and murder of a woman who was with her 10 year old child in Clay north of Syracuse makes it hit pretty close to home. Thank god that at least that little girl was able to escape but she is ruined for life. What an animal.
Jeff is right. In this discussion it jumped right past the incint to other issues like gun control. This is really what we learned from the aftermath of Newtown. We were told there was little time to mourn and that we should quickly move to things like how to deal with gun control issues while peoples grief and anger were still at the fore. Even here at this blog we saw comments against people who said now is not the time for sympathetic comments but action on things like the SAFE act.
“…that little girl was able to escape but she is ruined for life.”
Let’s hope not. Scarred, certainly, but not ruined.
I agree Walker and “we” have some ability to make that happen in the way we treat & support victims. Some of it is on their own. I think of Elizabeth Smart or the woman who was captive for umteen years.
To Paul’s point is it emotionally manipulative to utilize death and grief for a particular political stand? I honestly don’t know the answer, I see both sides. Sometimes it seems like we are not talking about supporting the victims as much as we are focusing on a particular bill. The SAFE act whatever you think of it will not have much of an impact on gun violence in NYS, I think this murder spree showed that, however concrete supports for victims can help right now. Then again you can say look the Gun control measures are about gun victims and we need to use this grief to push them through.
I don’t know?
I tend to agree that Andrew Cuomo used the New Town killings to advance his political career by appearing to be the first to take action after a tragedy, though that opinion is largely based on my considerable mistrust of his motives generally. And it is clearly true that nothing short of federal legislation and uniform enforcement is going to have a chance of reducing the level of gun violence in this nation.
That said, we do need to strike while the iron is hot, because we seem to have incredibly short memories. And I don’t think that anyone could accuse Gabrielle Giffords or James Brady of having cynically used a tragedy to advance political ends.
[When it comes to cynical manipulation of tragic news events, it’s hard to see this topping the use some have tried to make of Benghazi.]