An ex-Marine — armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and an automatic pistol — fired indiscriminately in a New Jersey supermarket, killing two co-workers before turning the gun on himself on Friday, in the fourth major shooting incident in the U.S. in over a month.
The gunman was identified as 23-year-old Terence Tyler, an ex-Marine who worked at the Pathmark store for the last two weeks, the local WABC TV reported.
He fired shots which killed two people and then shot himself dead. Old Bridge mayor Owen Henry said.
“This is the worst phone call a mayor can receive,” Mr. Henry said.
“You can prepare for these things but you can’t prevent them. The gunman, an ex-Marine, had been working at the store for about two weeks,” Mr. Henry was quoted by the New Jersey Star Ledger as saying.
The employee opened fire at the Pathmarket store in Old Bridge in New Jersey at around 4 am (local time) on Friday morning as some workers were preparing to open the store, Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan said.
Authorities said the man left the store around 3:30 am (local time) and returned half-an-hour later with a handgun, AK-47 assault rifle and multiple ammunition magazines. The man fired the rifle at the first workers he saw, killing an 18-year-old woman and a 24-year-old man as other workers hid, Mr. Kaplan said. He fired at least 16 rounds and windows of the store were also smashed in the shootout. He then turned the gun on himself.
Authorities are investigating the motive of the shooting.
The victims were “not specifically targeted. I believe everyone in the store was a target”, Mr. Kaplan said.
Keywords: New Jersey shooting, US shooting incidents, Terence Tyler, ex-Marine, Pathmark
I don't understand the prime motif behind giving the citizens the
fundamental right to bear arms,it further exacerbates violence and make
common people susceptible to crime,but then everyone has a 'right' to do
anything on the promised land
The 2007 verdict of the Supreme Court of the United States on gun
laws which made it easy to possess arms is disappointing at least
for two patent reasons.
The majority opinion gave a go by to two important canons of
construction. Firstly the second limb of the relevant second
amendment article is torn out of context to hold that it gives a
right to every citizen serving in the military or not to keep and
bear guns. More than that, it seems to have ignored the fundamental
principle of first exhausting the literal construction of the
Article as a whole. The provision that fell for consideration reads
as follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
Its plain intendment seems to be merely to create and arm a well
regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free
state. The judgment requires reconsideration to stem the trend of
indiscriminate possession of guns.
Please Email the Editor