The Las Vegas Mass Shooting Case Analysis
Contents
Anticipating the Mass Shooting. 6
The response of Security and First Responders. 10
Introduction
The United States is not a stranger to the succession of public mass shootings recording about 28 of them since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. On October 1, 2017, a public mass shooting carnage at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada left 59 dead, 413 nursing gunfire wounds, and 456 wounded from the ensuing chaos (Lake, 2018). The staggering casualty count makes the shooting the worst case of gun violence by a lone gunman in the history of the country. The perpetrator was a 64-year-old man, Stephen Craig Paddock. Perched above unsuspecting party-goers from his hotel suite at the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino that overlooked the festival venue, he fired over 1000 rounds of ammunition at the party-goers (Lake, 2018). He also unsuccessfully tried to blow up a nearby jet fuel tank at the McCarran International Airport by firing eight bullets at it.
This paper presents a case study of the shooting event by providing an analysis of the perpetrator, Paddock, in a bid to understand the motive behind the shooting event. This analysis will be conducted against the backdrop of the criminal behavioral theory to explain how Paddock’s behavior before the shooting could have been flagged, and the proactive measures are taken that would have prevented the shooting. Secondly, the paper will analyze the events during and after the shooting event, such as the crowd’s reaction, whether it helped mitigate the effects of the shooting or not. The effectiveness and efficiency of the response by the security and the first responders and the ensuing investigation on the incident will also be analyzed. Finally, the paper will answer the hard question of who bears the responsibility for the shooting, if and how the shooting could have been prevented, the lessons learned by all the parties involved from the tragedy, and present recommendations on how to prevent such tragedies in the future.
Paddock’s Personal History
Stephen Paddock was born on April 9, 1953, in Clinton, Iowa. His family moved to Tucson, Arizona, and then in Sun Valley, Los Angeles, where he grew up attending the local High School. His father, Benjamin Paddock, appeared in the FBI’s most-wanted list in 1969 when he escaped the prison where he was serving a sentence for bank robbery (LVMPD 2018). As a result of the latter’s incarceration and escape, Stephen had limited contact with his father. In 1971, Paddock graduated from H. Francis Polytechnic High school and joined the California State University, Northridge, where he graduated with a business administration degree in 1977. Paddock was a two-time divorcee but had a cordial relationship with both his ex-wife’s.
Paddock held many jobs among them, an auditor for the Defense Contract Audit Agency, worked for the US Postal Service, and he also invested in real-estate and ran the business with his brother Eric. He was also a successful property manager owning apartment buildings in Mesquite, Texas, and Hawthorne, California. He sold one of his apartments in 2015, pocketing about $5-6 million in profits according to IRS records (LVMPD 2018). Paddock also owned two small planes and was an amateur pilot. He was also a high-stakes professional gambler preferring video poker, which he played at night. His winnings, although not clear, are speculated to be high since he earned comps such as free hotel rooms. Over the previous two years before the shooting, it is reported that Paddock had lost huge percentages of his wealth. However, he had paid all his debts from gambling before the Las Vegas shooting. Ironically, Paddock had no criminal record and only had minor traffic citations.
Paddock was a heavy drinker, and particularly in the months leading to the shooting, he was reportedly drinking all day. It is speculated that his substantial wealth loss may have contributed to his heavy drinking, and he may have been depressed. For instance, in 2013, Paddock had filed for three prescriptions of Valium, an anti-anxiety drug. He renewed this prescription again in 2016 and again in June 2017 when he requested 50 tablets of Valium. Paddock, who had initially been romantic, had changed months from the shooting, according to his girlfriend (LVMPD 2018). She reported that their intimacy and his affection towards her had declined significantly. However, she says that Paddock blamed his change in attitude and decline in warmth to his declining health (Lake 2018). Another significant behavior change in Paddock, leading to the shooting, was his increase in gun purchases. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reported that Paddock had bought more than 55 firearms between October 2016 and September 2017. This was a significant change in behavior since he had previously acquired about 29 firearms from 1982 to 2016. Paddock also acquired other firearm-related accessories such as bump fire stocks and high-capacity magazines.
The proponents of the criminal behavioral theory posit that behavior, including criminal behavior, is learned and is largely influenced by one’s life experiences, particularly those that one interacts with (Jeffery 2014). However, from Paddock’s personal life above, nothing from his earlier experiences predisposed him to violence of criminal activity. He had no political and religious affiliations, and as aforementioned, he had no trouble with law enforcement. The only logical cause for his heinous act on October 1 could be an underlying mental condition that had gone undetected for a long time and exacerbated by his wealth loss, drunkenness, and depression. For instance, his requests for the anti-anxiety Valium, especially the last dose four months to the shooting, was a clear indication that something was not right. His spike in firearm acquisition should have served as the first clear indicator that he may be inclined towards acts of violence. Paddock’s act presents a unique criminal behavior where there is no apparent motive for criminal activity and, therefore, impossible to cite a single factor as the sole cause of his act. Therefore, his act can only be explained as resulting from an imbalance between the id, ego, and superego fueled by an ongoing inner turmoil (Ling et al. 2019).
Anticipating the Mass Shooting
Paddock’s actions on October 1 could not have been easily anticipated, given his clean criminal record and quiet demeanor. However, if attention was paid to certain radical behavior changes he exhibited prior to the shooting, perhaps someone would have seen something was wrong with him and offer the help he might have needed. It was reported that he had remained friendly with both his ex-wives suggesting that their relationships did not end in violence, especially since his current girlfriend did not state any form of violence in their relationship. Similarly, his neighbors at Mesquite, Nevada, where he lived with his girlfriend, said that he kept a low profile and did not speak much. Paddock also never attended any local gun clubs or shooting ranges, further giving friends and acquaintances no reason to think that he was capable of violence (LVMPD 2018). Additionally, the law enforcement officers had no reason to suspect Paddock for any potential criminal activity. He was not associated with any known criminal gangs or activist groups. He was a typical successful businessman who loved cruise ship voyages.
One can, therefore, understand why some of his behavior changes that should have set early alarm bells among his friends, especially his girlfriend went unnoticed or simply ignored. For instance, when his girlfriend noticed that Paddock was buying a lot of firearms, she just thought this was his hobby, for he already had a significant number of them. Because Paddock had not exhibited any sign of violence, she was not concerned about this. Similarly, during the investigation, his doctor was interviewed and reported that Paddock was fearful of medication and sometimes did not take them. He also rejected antidepressants offered to him opting for anti-anxiety drugs. In retrospect, this behavior should have prompted the doctor to think something was wrong, but this is the typical behavior of many patients, and as such, the doctor was not concerned (Lake 2048). At his stay in the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, his interactions with the hotel staff were normal, and he did not act suspiciously. Therefore, his act on October 1 could not have been anticipated by anyone.
However, the general security alertness at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino was very lax. Paddock managed to get a total of 17 suitcases in his hotel suite during a 5-day stay, all with the help of the hotel bellmen (Shultz et al. 2017). If the hotel security paid close attention to the security detail, someone would have noticed something odd in the significant number of suitcases Paddock moved in. Given that he used these suitcases to smuggle his arsenal to the hotel, a simple check of the suitcases’ content would have prevented the attack from happening. From the investigation of his search history, it was evident that Paddock had taken time to prepare his attack. His hotel suite overlooked the Route 91 Harvest music festival venue making it an easy target to choose. Although his motive to shoot is still not officially determined, Paddock may have been envious of the 22,000 party-goers enjoying life while his own crumbled before him fueling his depression.
Early Signs of a Problem
The actions and behavior demonstrated by Paddock before the shooting should have signaled that he was descending into an unstable mental state. However, they were ignored by those who saw them because of their belief that Paddock was a model citizen who could not present any danger to people. For instance, his spike in firearm acquisition was ignored by his girlfriend, thinking that it was just a hobby. The intervention was also not possible since Paddock was well within his constitutional rights to acquire firearms. The main reason authorities were not alerted to Paddock posing a threat to others was because no one saw Paddock as a potential threat, to begin with. Although he was a heavy drinker and had taken to drinking excessively prior to the shooting, he did not give any indication of violence or utter any threatening remarks (Metzl & MacLeish 2015). His act must have come to a shock to those who knew him.
Crowd Reaction
At 10:05 PM, while Jason Aldean was performing on the main stage, Paddock fired his first shots at the party-goers at the Las Vegas Village from his hotel suite. The people first thought that the gunshots were firecrackers or part of the show. They did not suspect that a shooting was taking place. However, as Paddock continued unloading rounds of ammunition at the concert, it became evident that people were being shot and killed and that indeed a shooting was happening, people ran for their lives. For the next ten minutes, which the shooting lasted, chaos and fear dominated the concert venue (Lake 2018). People scrambled for the nearest exit, and the McCarran Airport’s chain-link fence was overrun as hundreds tried to flee from danger. This almost resulted in another disaster as the crowd ran down active runaways. For instance, a landing plane had to abandon the approach just before touching down.
As expected, people were confused and hysterical, and many of them had sustained serious injuries. Those who had escaped to the airport ground hid at its maintenance facilities, flight support hangers, and nearest airport buildings. Those who hid in the airport could not be immediately reached and helped by the first responders because that direction was within Paddock’s fire range (Shultz et al. 2017). First responders, therefore, had to find other safe entrances to the airport, which were longer delaying their response. Those who escaped in different directions took refuge in nearby churches, hotels, and convenient stores. These resulted in more calls about active shooters in different locations in the town, creating more confusion and alarm. This happened because for example if a person escaping from the scene shot or injured and collapses in another place seeking safety and help as a convenience store, the people there unaware of where the victim is coming from assuming that he/she has been shot there and calls the police to report a shooting (Lake 2018). This crowd reaction, while understandable, created more confusion as the police and paramedics responded to the different echo calls to make sure everything was fine. This significantly thinned the available resource personnel at the shooting scene. Most of the injured, however, used mapping applications on their phones to find the nearest hospitals and used ride-sharing services to take them to those hospitals (Gary M. Jackson 2018).
People helped each other with the survivors helping those injured. They used shirts and belts as makeshift tourniquets to reduce the bleeding of those injured. The strong carried or helped the injured to shelter. Some members of the crowd emerged as heroes and leaders during the shooting as they made quick decisions to save lives and direct other fleeing party-goers to avoid a stampede, which would result in more injuries and deaths (Shultz et al. 2017). Different organizations later awarded them bravery awards. For example, Trooper Woodward, an off-duty British soldier who helped move people to safety and treat those injured, was awarded the Queen’s Commendation for Bravery. Other heroes who were awarded were a navy officer Brian Mazi attending the concert with his wife, detective Conor O’Donnell attending the concert with his girlfriend. The bravery demonstrated by these officers served as an example to many other party-goers who mobilized and started helping people averting more causalities.
The response of Security and First Responders
In their final October 1 action report, FEMA recognized the immense bravery and effectiveness of the first responders after the shooting. The responding fire departments, paramedics, and law enforcement agencies coordinated quickly and effectively to secure the scene and provided the needed help and services to the injured. Because of the chaos following the first shots, with thousands confused and running for their lives, the initial phases of the response was challenging for both the law enforcement and emergency responders (Marks et al. 2020). There was a shooter still raining bullets in the scene, and the dead were spread in the scene, making coordination between nine law enforcement agencies, three private ambulance companies, and four fire departments hard.
The response by the hotel security was good and effective. Jesus Campo, a hotel security guard shot by Paddock while investigating the source of the drilling-like sound he had heard, was able to take cover and immediately reported the ongoing shooting to his dispatch center. After the police arrived, Campos was able to show them Room 32-135 and helped evacuate other rooms on the floor. Another hotel security agent was manning the hotel’s elevators, ensuring that they did not stop at the 32nd floor where Paddock was shooting from. The law enforcement personnel, although initially confused over the source of the gunfire, were able to quickly identify Mandalay Bay as the source and moved in to engage the shooter whom they found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound after they breached the hotel suite door. Shutting down the McCarran International Airport was a good call as it enabled paramedics to attend to the injured hiding in the airport premises. The law enforcement personnel were also dispatched to respond to various calls about other possible shooters (Lake 2018). In their response, they managed the situation calming the town residents and combed the area to ensure that there was no other threat.
The initial response challenges and failures were many, but the first responders did well under the circumstances given the large numbers of the concert attendees. One such challenge was the self-dispatching of law enforcement officers. Many off-duty officers self-dispatched to the scene the shooting was reported (LVMPD 2018). This was both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because they greatly contributed to the much-needed human resources at the scene and the surrounding areas. A curse because those who self-dispatched without reporting to the staging area were supposed to relieve the on-duty officers in the next operational shift. The off-duty officers responding to the emergency should have first reported to the staging area in order to have an accurate status on the teams in the field.
The number of injured people was overwhelming, and rapid triage decisions were required so as to help those in critical conditions first. Some officers adopted EMS roles and made triage decisions in their field areas (Lake 2018). This helped many critical patients get attention and transport to the hospital as officers coordinated with the private ambulances available. However, many officers did not coordinate with the wider response EMS teams, and that led to the underutilization of some resources. For instance, some ambulances carried only one patient when they could have carried multiple of them.
Investigation
The investigation of the shooting event was carried out by both the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). Given the high media coverage, political and public interest in the case, investigators were always under pressure to provide both preliminary and final reports. One of the main challenges the investigators faced was to come up with an accurate timeline of how and when the events unfolded (Caianiello, 2019). For instance, it was hard to establish the actual time the hotel security guard Campos arrived at the scene, and when he radioed his dispatcher to report the shooting. As a result of the pressure to release an official statement, the first timeline provided by the police had some errors, and when it was later corrected, it started speculation of a possible cover-up. Secondly, the investigators had to deal with a lot of emerging conspiracy theories and fake news about the shooter and his motive. For instance, ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting, although it was later established that Paddock had no affiliations with any terrorist organizations (Caianiello, 2019).
The biggest challenge for the investigators, however, was to establish the shooter’s motive on October 1. Both the FBI and LVMPD concluded the investigation without finding any motive or factor that had motivated Paddock to kill 58 people and injure a hundred others (LVMPD 2018). Paddock’s clean criminal record and low profile personality did not give any clues as to why he had committed the heinous crime. Besides, he committed suicide at the hotel before he was apprehended and had worked alone with no accomplice leaving the police with no one in custody to provide more insight into the investigation (Romo 2019). Most of these challenges could not be prevented because they came from external sources that could not have been controlled by the police. Nevertheless, the investigators did good work in handling these challenges and moved forward with the investigation.
Responsibility
Stephen Paddock, the man who planned and executed the shooting event on October 1, is responsible for causing massive loss of human lives and injuries that day. However, secondary liability also falls on Mandalay Bay for lax in security, allowing Paddock over several days to smuggle firearms and ammunition he used to massacre innocent party-goers (Franks, 2019). Victims of the shooting filed numerous lawsuits against MGM Resorts International that own Mandalay Bay for negligence. For instance, Paddock undetected was able to seal a stairwell door and install a camera to alert him of any incoming persons. This was all possible because there were no surveillance cameras in the hallway. MGM had initially tried to evade liability by a countersuit against the victims. This sparked a public outcry, and MGM consequently dropped the charges and agreed to pay about $800 million to settle the lawsuits against them (Franks, 2019).
Prevention
The Las Vegas mass shooting on October 1 could not have been easily predicted and prevented. However, this is not to say that it was impossible to prevent it. Paddock took advantage of security laxity in Mandalay Bay to stage his attack and carry it out. If security stringent security measures were present at the hotel at the time, Paddock could not have gotten all suitcases loaded with firearms without anyone noticing. Similarly, the lack of thorough background checks on gun purchases by sellers enabled the shooter to acquire 55 firearms within a one-year period (Rose, 2019). The shooting could have been prevented if it was noticed early that Paddock was amassing an arsenal and reports made to the relevant authorities.
Lesson Learned
As tragic and unfortunate as the shooting was, it presented a learning experience by the hotel and concert security as well as the first responders. The attack highlighted the vulnerable points and weaknesses in the hotel and concert securities. For example, although the LVMPD ambulance was on the scene as planned before the shooting, the event organizers and promoters had not included CCFD in the operations (Lin et al. 2018). Additionally, the Fire Alarm Office (FAO) was not notified that the Route 91 Harvest Festival would be happening and therefore had not put in place any proactive measures in case of an emergency. FEMA recommended that or future events, a monthly special events calendar should be circulated to all emergency responders within the jurisdiction of the event (LVMPD 2018). Event organizers should also hire both the fire departments and law enforcement to cover their events. Mandalay Bay also hired more undercover security personnel.
Recommendations
The shooting event renewed the debate on gun laws in the country. The Keep Americans Safe Act that banned the manufacturing and selling of high capacity magazines that could hold more than ten rounds of ammunition was passed by congress (Keep Americans safe act, 2019). This paper recommends the upholding of this act by all stakeholders, including gun manufacturers and sellers. The rationale behind this act is that the number of mass shootings casualties can be significantly reduced if the shooter has few rounds of ammunition in one magazine. Intervention is also more possible when the shooter is reloading. The media can also play an important role in reducing instances of mass shootings in the country. The paper recommends that media networks adopt a coverage of mass shooting events that is unlikely to cause imitation by others watching. For example, they present the perpetrator’s actions in negative light condemning the shooting and also reduce the news coverage duration of such events (Meindl & Ivy 2017). Furthermore, the paper recommends thorough background checks for people buying guns to prevent guns from falling at the hands of individuals with a history of violence or criminal record (Rose 2019).
Conclusion
In the paper’s case analysis of the October 1, mass shooting in Las Vegas, several aspects stood out from the rest. For instance, the understanding of the criminal behavioral theory was found to be pertinent in understanding some causes of crimes and help identify and predict certain behaviors that are a prelude crime. This would enable proactive measures to be adopted by friends and family, and a potential wrongdoer gets the help he/she needs. Additionally, the crowd response and first response to a mass shooting can either exacerbate or mitigate the shooting effects. For example, the crowd members who were brave enough to help others and control the chaos to a large extent helped reduce the number of injuries sustained by the fleeing concertgoers. Effective first response ensures that people quickly get the medical help they need, and those in life-threatening conditions can be saved. Finally, cases of a mass shooting in the U.S. can be prevented if stringent measures such as thorough background checks on gun buyers and gun laws are put in place and followed to the letter.
References
Caianiello, M. (2019). The criminal process faced with the challenges of scientific and technological development. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 27(4), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02704001
Franks, M. A. (2019, October 9). Our collective responsibility for mass shootings. The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/mass-shooting-responsibility.html
Gary M. Jackson, P. (2018). Surviving mass victim attacks: What to do when the unthinkable happens. Rowman & Littlefield. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/39209601
Jeffery, C. R. (2014). Criminal behavior and learning theory. Criminal Law and Criminology, 56(3), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9829-6_11
Keep Americans safe act. (2019, September 10). H.R.1186 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Keep Americans safe act. Congress.gov | Library of Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1186
Lake, C. K. (2018). A day like no other: A case study of the Las Vegas mass shooting. Nevada Hospital Association. https://www.ncha.org/2018/11/a-day-like-no-other-a-case-study-of-the-las-vegas-mass-shooting/
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. (2018). October 1 After-Action Report. FEMA. https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1-October-FIT-Criminal-Investigative-Report-FINAL_080318.pdf
Lin, P., Fei, L., Barzman, D., & Hossain, M. (2018). What have we learned from the time trend of mass shootings in the U.S.? PLOS ONE, 13(10), e0204722. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204722
Ling, S., Umbach, R., & Raine, A. (2019). Biological explanations of criminal behavior. Psychology Crime Law., 25(6), 625-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1572753
Marks, M., Cunningham, A., Bowers, C., & Beidel, D. C. (2020). Trauma management therapy for first responders. Advances in Psychology, Mental Health, and Behavioral Studies, 230-242. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9803-9.ch013
Meindl, J. N., & Ivy, J. W. (2017). Mass shootings: The role of the media in promoting generalized imitation. American Journal of Public Health, 107(3), 368-370. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303611
Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 240-249. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302242
Romo, V. (2019, January 29). FBI finds no motive in the Las Vegas shooting, closes the investigation. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689821599/fbi-finds-no-motive-in-las-vegas-shooting-closes-investigation
Rose, K. N. (2019, August 6). How can we prevent mass shootings? UC Davis. https://www.ucdavis.edu/curiosity-gap/how-can-we-prevent-mass-shootings%C2%A0/
Shultz, J. M., Thoresen, S., & Galea, S. (2017). The Las Vegas Shootings: Underscoring Key Features of the Firearm Epidemic. American Medical Association, 318(18), 1753-1754. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.16420