Slashdot Mirror
Update: Possible Active Shooter Reported at YouTube HQ (theverge.com)
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30 GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number. Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Update 20:30 GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number. Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
YouTube would remove such a video, you'll have to check LiveLeak.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Maybe someone finally really showed looking up for their "Internet money". (South Park reference that I'm too lazy to attach.)
Live coverage as of about 1:30pm PDT.
California has pretty strict gun laws. How could anyone get a gun to YouTube HQ?
Isn't going into YouTube HQ with a loaded gun and shooting people a violation of the terms of service?
Does this gunman not understand that this will almost certainly result in a strike against his account?
Talk about reckless!
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering... but who knows the media always get this stuff wrong as they leap to be the first to provide info.
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
Then why does Texas have so much less? Or New Hampshire?
Imagine your job is to review cat videos.
All day, every day.
Cats sleeping, cats jumping, cats getting scared, cats attacking, cats fighting, cats hunting birds, etc.
Now, wouldn't that make you crazy and want to shoot the place up?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
Fuck you. That's never a justification for violence. Ever.
Asshole.
I don't respond to AC's.
Police were seen laying down evidence markers near the seating area of the cafe.
I've seen epic McDonald's fights over the lack of bacon on an Egg McMuffin. No telling what can happen if they put mustard on a burger when you said, "No Mustard"
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yes, you directly compared murdering people with guns to antagonizing people with terms of service.
It's just stupidity all around. People shouldn't shoot up offices and schools, and corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
I don't respond to AC's.
I didn't want to say anything until we were sure but yes it seems likely.
sbpd: we came as quick as we got the call. So you guys are saying your abundant coverage of Videogames has caused a violent shooting?
Youtube: what? no thats not whats happening at --
sbpd: So video games themselves have started shooting people? or the people inside are playing some kind of video game that makes you shoot people?
Youtube: we never mentioned video games at all guys, this is a real --
sbpd: I get it. some kind of twitch stream where the pokemans are in augmented reality...it was only a matter of time.
Youtube: thats nonsense...none of that makes any sense...
Homeland Security: so due to legislative prioritization we dont really have any ability to stop whats going on except with thoughts and prayers. Also we're technically not allowed to be here unless its some kind of copyright infringement.
Good people go to bed earlier.
As one of the most snarky people on Slashdot, and having even first-posted a Youtube joke here, I would like to in all seriousness express my sadness that people were attacked, injured, and I hope they all survive and recover. This is a tragedy, both for the individuals involved and their families, and for our society. I am sure that I can speak for many people, with many opinions about the societal implications and wildly differing views on the etiology of these kinds of attacks, when I say here that we give our condolences to the victims and their loved ones.
I wanted there to be at least one non-political non-asshole comment to this effect on Slashdot.
please don't be an AR
please don't be an AR....
OH wait, I don't think they allow regular ARs in CA anymore, right?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
By the way, it is ALREADY ILLEGAL to hunt humans. That is called "murder" and can result in the 2nd most severe punishment of any crime (only copyright violation gets harsher punishments).
But of course making it MORE illegal will surely work.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So... never, then.
Great plan.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Don't have links or citations, I'm watching local TV and radio news here in California. As with early reports of a breaking story, many or all of these details could be wrong. Take with a grain of salt.
- Shooter is described as a white female, wearing a dark headscarf.
- One witness says she shot her boyfriend, 10 times.
- Coroner has been called, so at least one person is dead
- Suspect also reported dead possibly from a self-inflicted wound
- At least 4 bystanders were hit by gunfire
You can apply the same logic to illegal immigrants flowing into the self proclaimed " Sanctuary State ".
Which is exactly why the rest of the US has problems with CA's stance on it because we know they're just going to end up everywhere else due to CA's high cost of living.
Ban all AR-15's
Ban all semi-auto rifles (same as above).
Ban all guns....
Think of the children!!
Wait....it's a chick that did the shooting?
#MeToo
Ban all bad boyfriends, they deserve what they get....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That does not seem to be true. The specifics depend on your definition of "gun", but if assuming you mean handgun, then google suggests you can definitely own that in Australia. Not in the US "I need this... because.. I just do, ok, gief all the guns!" fashion, but as an active member of a club you can apply for a permit. If "gun" includes rifles and shotguns, then you can own those in England too, as far as I can tell.
From where I sit, regulation seems to be the crucial factor, with bans applying only to categories of firearms. Along with regulation you seem to get a culture where guns are treated with proper respect as opposed to as throwaway items anyone can possess without question or training and toss loaded into their nightstand drawers.
I don't believe there's a single solution that will work for every nation, there are so many factors at play, but it seems fairly self-evident that a good start is to do something different from what the US has been doing.
Arm yourself — police have no obligation to defend you and even if they choose to do it, you may not be their top priority.
Self-defense is an inalienable human right — which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Easy answer: It requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Simply get Congress to sign off on it ( which will get them all voted out of office ) then get 75% of all States to do the same ( which will also get them voted out ) and you can make it happen.
Have fun.
That's the worst argument ever. I can save more than one life by tomorrow if I ban cars and liquor.
Apparently a woman shooter.
I wonder who pissed her off?
From what I have read elsewhere, she shot her boyfriend, and then herself. Other injuries may be due to panic and lack of information dissemination.
So why can't we use the same argument when it comes to stopping illegal immigrants?
How about lowering the speed limit to 55 nation-wide?
We could also use this as a justification for repealing the 4th amendment while we are at it. Let cops pull people over on a hunch. After all, if it saves one innocent life, it'll be worth it.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Ok..so, lets get rid of all semi-automatic weapons (after all that is ALL the AR-15 is, it is nothing more).
Even though millions of people own them and responsibly own them, just because a few idiots go off, we have to take away everyones ability to own them?
This is more a people problem than gun problem.
It wasn't that long ago (think 60's-70's) when you could easily buy a gun (pistol or rifle or shotgun) with no background check, at the local hardware store, or even mail order, no problem.
Hell, in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
So, with easier access, we had no real problem with mass shootings, and I never heard of one in schools then.
And if you want to go extreme...machine guns.
You know you CAN today own one legally, right?
All you have to do is fill out some ATF forms, pay your $200 tax stamp and you can own and shoot your own machine gun.
The only thing today is, as a civilian, you can only buy ones made before 1986. IN 1986, they snuck in a law (see the Hughes amendment) that said civilians couldn't own full auto weapons (which an AR-15 is not) made before 1986.
Prior to the Hughes amendment in 1986, you could freely buy a brand new machine gun easily. Just pay a tax stamp and fill out a form.
But tell me....can you list a bunch of machine gun crimes during that time period of the 50's and 60's?
Ok, I'll give you the roaring 20's with Al Capone, but there were also there circumstances going on then too.
So, it wasn't that long ago, that we have MUCH easier access to fire arms, even fully automatic ones, yet, we didn't have the problems with mass shootings we have now, in schools, etc.
And even with these.... gun violence overall in the US has been declining over the past years..
So, over all, things have gotten better, and yet...we're wanting to have law abiding Americans, the VAST majority of gun owners in the US, millions of them...give up their rights, to cater to the lowest denominator of a few whack-o's...right?
And we're wanting to do this and make things harder on the vast majority legal law abiding citizens, even though so many of the laws already on the books are NOT being enforced...?
Hmm....I just don't buy that argument. We do not need to start treating the law abiding more and criminals and deprive them of their rights and property, and the privilege of protecting themselves and their homes.
I won't even get into reasons pertaining to the founding fathers wanting us armed, against tyranny of government that could happen.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The government has no reason to know what property I own, and a gun is nothing more than property, a tool.
There is no good reason for registration other than for potential confiscation.
I don't think they need to know if you want to smoke pot either, none of their fscking business.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
so you have issues with vehicle registration as well?
Even California has relatively weak controls compared to most counties and compared to what people are asking for.
Noooooooooooope.
California has some of the most restrictive and nonsensical rules regarding guns, and loooooooves denying or just ignoring valid permit applications for no reason.
Unless you're a certain congress woman, then you get to pack heat while telling everyone else they can't.
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
Nope. The fact is people who are afraid of guns have an irrational phobia. And that is a mental issue.
No, it's another way of saying that if you want to reduce gun ownership, you're sweeping your own incompetence at background checks and law enforcement under the rug and scapegoating the 99.99% of people who own guns without causing trouble to anyone.
But you ignored the other examples. Only a small percentage of people every year are the subject of a search warrant or probable cause. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with such things, right?
The whole "if it saves even one life" can be used to justify a LOT of things...
Gun control has even CAUSED deaths. One case that I know of in New Jersey where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still in process when she was killed. Gun control killed her. If she did not have to get a permit, then it could have saved her life. Why is her REAL life not as important as a hypothetical "even one life?"
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the "convenient" rights or the rights of "most" people. It is there to protect ALL rights for EVERYBODY. The 1st amendment even allows horrid groups like the KKK to speak. While we COULD infringe in their rights, the unpopular speech is the one that needs the most protecting.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering
We should not jump to conclusions here, but given that description it is likely that she was a Catholic Nun.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Well, honestly, I don't see the need for it really.
It is there mainly as a means of tracking tax revenue IMHO...
However, if you buy a car and don't drive it on public roads, you don't need to register it.
So, as long as I don't use or shoot my guns illegally in public where restricted (analagous to not driving on public roads)....the govt. has no reason to know what or how many I have.
They don't require me to register my knives or hammers in my household, yet those are tools too...and they can even be used to harm or even kill people.
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and shooting someone or something by themselves.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We tried banning liquor. It didn't work out. We tried banning drugs, and that's not working out either. Read a history book.
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun.
Now, whether you commit a crime and use a gun to kill someone, that's what turns a tool into a deadly object in a criminal use.
It can be used to legally kill some things, like when hunting. But then again, you also can do this with bow and arrow, a crossbow, a slighshot....even a fishing pole.
So, unless it is used illegally, it is not purpose built to kill. (the exception being if you are using one in combat/war, and even then, they don't use the same weapons we civilians commonly use. The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is not fully automatic and is not used by the military).
I can attest that none of my weapons have come to life and spontaneously gone out and shot something or someone. I myself, have only used them for target shooting.
Well, car registraton, etc...seems to me to be primarily for taxation and tracking it so they can make you keep paying for it (property tax, etc)....
However, if you buy a car and do not drive it on public roads (keep to private property, etc), you do not have to register it, you do not have to have a drivers license.
IN analogy to that, I don't not shoot my gun in public areas where it is prohibited, only in sanction areas (gun range) or private land...therefore it is pretty much regulated as tightly as a car.
If, in fact I want to carry a gun concealed in most public areas, I DO have to take training, learn the laws and show proficiency in shooting it in order to complete the class and apply for a carry conceal license.
I think that pretty much makes the car analogy, no?
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
Nope. The fact is people who are afraid of guns have an irrational phobia. And that is a mental issue.
Nope. The fact is you're both full of it.
Neither ownership of a gun, nor a fear of guns, is a sign of mental illness.
It's possible to debate a topic without claiming the other side only holds their position due to a mental defect.
I stole this Sig
In most countries you can't even get a permit unless you have a really, really good reason. Compared to most developed countries even California is relatively permissive, just not relative to the rest of the US.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Statistically speaking, this woman had a RESTRAINING ORDER against somebody who had threatened her, which kind of skews the numbers. Shouldn't it have been up to her to make that choice about the relative risks, instead of having the government make her safe while allowing her murder?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
You realize that the NRA isn't some independent, maniacal entity that magically appeared from nowhere and just runs rampant on its own in the US right?
It is made up of US citizens, it is funded by US citizens to help represent them and their views. It lobbies on behalf of a large number of US citizens to help protect their gun rights.
I hope the government of the US never falls into tyranny, but just in case it does, do look at history and an armed guerrilla has often fought many a government to at least a standstill....and in the US, it would be a lot of people over a large area.
I hope it never happens, it likely will never happen, but with even a smidgen of possibility, I'd like have the armed citizenry would be a bit of a deterrent.
Also, if you have a criminal breaking in, a home invasion, they are likely armed. I'd like to have the option to also be armed,
These days, more and more you're seeing 2-4 criminals doing invasions as groups.
In the heat of fire, panic, I"d like to have the ability to fire at least 30 shots before having to reload. IN that situation, you will have a hard time hitting with single shots.
Hell, even trained, veteran cops, often are emptying their guns on criminals, look at the news, you see 4 to 1 cops to criminal, and they're all emptying their 13-17 round capacity magazines at one guy and often most of THOSE shots miss, so, just saying, I'd like to have my options.
I may not win, they may kill me, but I'd like to have my chance be better than if all I can do is yell at them and throw furniture their way.
If you don't want to own weapons, please, do NOT.
But no one should violate MY right to defend myself, and own weapons as long as I am a law abiding citizen, which the VAST VAST majority of gun owning Americans are.
We're not the rest of the world....with so many places out there that lost their rights, isn't it nice to be one place where it still exists?
And as you see in other parts of the world, once you give up your rights, they are GONE forever....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Then the whiners will piss and moan about "guns from out of country," but our government has no jurisdiction there. Q.E.D.
Uhhh... we have jurisdiction over our border. Mexican guns aren't much cause for concern as long as they stay in Mexico.
Breakfast served all day!
We tried banning liquor. It didn't work out. We tried banning drugs, and that's not working out either. Read a history book.
I so wish I could moderate up your post.
Banning alcohol didn't reduce crime, quite the opposite. I don't know why people believe a gun ban of any kind would be any more effective.
But we just want to ban the "assault weapons"! Hiram Maxim figured out how to turn a lever action rifle into a machine gun in the 1880s, and he wrote down how to do it. Repeating that feat today with internet access and modern power tools is near trivial. What are they going to do next? Ban every lever action rifle? The Gatling Gun was patented in 1861. Replicating that today with modern tools would be trivial as well. Back in 1861 there were no cordless power drills, so it had a crank. What would that Gatling gun look like with an electric motor and a lithium ion battery?
The government can ban something but that won't make it go away. Sometimes it's just better to NOT BAN STUFF.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So over the past few years we've seen article upon article about "white toxic masculinity" causing people to go postal with guns.
While I feel like a ghastly person for doing it, fuck those people who've done this over the years, shaming people for who they are.
Is it time for a 'toxic femininity' article? I doubt it.
> in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
In the same era, my school even had marksmanship classes for PE credit. We all got in a bus and they drove us to the police firing range and handed us .22 rifles.
when it's not a 90 minute drive to somebody to murder. Population density is a factor.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and shooting someone or something by themselves.
Bullshit! Yea, well nukes are nothing more than an inanimate tools as well. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and nuking someone or something by themselves. Yet I don't see anyone arguing that it should be okay for anyone to walk around with one.
off the road. And the reason you don't need to register if you're not driving on public roads is that it's assumed you're not really using it.
I suppose we could do the same thing. You can have your guns without regulation, but as soon as you take it in public it gets confiscated (carrying a gun is equivalent to using it, since as folks like to point out it's a deterrent). This would also mean you can't shoot unregistered guns at a range.
We don't register knives because they're not as dangerous. Same reason we don't register bikes. I crash into you on my road bike you've got a broken leg worst case (barring the occasional freak mishap). I'm alive today because a woman who ran a light while I was in a cross walk clipped the tire of the bike I was carrying instead of hitting me. That's the kind of difference we're talking about here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Jesus Christ. Just...just...hold on. Let me set down my drink.
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun.
A drill is purposely built to twist things, but I so happen to make bookcases with one. Guns so happen to kill people. Kind of what they're good at. Next.
I can attest that none of my weapons have come to life and spontaneously gone out and shot something or someone.
That's great, but not everyone is as responsible with their firearms as you are. Nor can you guarantee they will be just because you stand by your philosophy.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is not fully automatic and is not used by the military
Then what is it, exactly? You go hunting with that thing?
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
I'm not sure where you've lived, but everywhere I've been, they don't let you behind a wheel without having gone through Driver's Ed.
Your gun to car analogy has issues. Cars are a necessity for most Americans, whereas guns are recreational or defense tools for those who live in high-crime areas with little confidence in the response time for police. Or people who just think that maybe, at some point in time, they might be.
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun... So, unless it is used illegally, it is not purpose built to kill.
This is just silly, and makes it seem as though you are being intentionally obtuse. Firearm technology was invented and exists for the sake of causing injury to people or animals. More advanced firearms can cause more injury, faster, and with greater precision and consistency. The same can be said of swords, bow and arrow, or any of the other weapons you describe. The primary utility of any of these is killing something - a bow and arrow that couldn't kill a deer would be a failure for the hunter using it. The utility of a gun for self defense or hunting is directly measured by its lethality - otherwise you could defend your home with a slingshot, right? This is distinct from a technology like a car - a car that sucks at killing is a better car, a gun that sucks at killing isn't a very effective gun.
By your logic, a guillotine isn't purpose built to kill unless used illegally. After all, a guillotine can be used to slice watermelons! The ACTUAL USAGE of a tool IN NO WAY modifies what the tool is designed to do. If I use a hammer to murder somebody, that doesn't change the intent of the hammer builder.
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
Are you serious, or just trolling?
https://dmv.dc.gov/service/obt...
Here's the summary of requirements to get licensed:
Application
Documentation
Vision Screening
Knowledge Test
Road Test
Photograph
Fees