Image 01 Image 03

Multiple Fatalities in Shooting at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Multiple Fatalities in Shooting at Fort Lauderdale Airport

Lone shooter killed five people, injured eight others.

Authorities have reported five fatalities and ight injuries in a shooting at the Fort Lauderdale airport. Officers arrested the lone suspect.

TSA has stated that an active shooter remains at the airport, but no one has confirmed that yet.

The shooting took place in Terminal 2 near the lower level baggage claim area at 12:55PM ET. Officials said they have the lone suspect in custody:

Nearly an hour and a half after the shooting, scores of police and law enforcement officials descended on to the airport after reports of an unconfirmed second shooting inside of a parking garage, located between terminals 1 and 2.

Several heavily armored officers were seen running into this parking garage and ordering everyone to get on the ground and take cover. Around this same time, civilians were also seen running across the tarmac.

About a half hour later, about 60 people were lined up inside of the parking garage waiting to be searched by police.

They hav identified the shooter as Esteban Santiago. He had military identification on him, but authorities do not know the motive yet.

Witnesses spoke afterwards:

“It was very surreal,” John Schlicher, a witness, told Fox News. “He did not say a word.” He described the shooter as a slender man with dark hair, likely in his 30s, wearing a Star Wars T-shirt.

While speaking to Shepard Smith live on Fox News, Schlicher said he heard crews ordering passengers to take cover. He spoke over the phone while ducked down on the floor.

“He was shooting people that were down on the ground, too,” Schlicher said.

The gunman apparently got down on the ground and waited for police to arrive after he ran out of bullets, a witness told CBS News.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



In light of Obama/Jarrett/Clinton seeding the nation with middle east loons, let honest Americans carry concealed weapons – the threat of this kind of thing will be over.

    I little too simple, I’m afraid. There are only about 1.6 million Florida residents licensed to carry guns. And maybe 25-30 million people, nationwide, so licensed who could carry in Florida. So, what are the odds that a legally armed civilian would be available to thwart this attack? Also, this is an airport terminal. One would expect that there would be at least a single armed LEO readily available to stop this shooter. But, no LE was on scene until the shooter had emptied his pistol, reloaded, and emptied it a second time. Responding LE found the man lying on the ground waiting for them.

    This incident, as presently reported, points up a couple of BIIIIIG problems. One, there was inadequate security to deal with an active shooter in a sensitive facility. Two, the man was allowed to reclaim a firearm and ammunition, from checked baggage, while still inside the terminal area. We are all just lucky it was only a pistol and not a high capacity rifle with high capacity magazines. If it had been, then the body count would have been much higher.

      Mac, simple solutions are usually best.

      Responsible, trained armed citizens are our best bulwark against this kind of Obama/Jarrett/Clinton-grown terrorist.

        But, this “simple solution” is not quite so simple.

        Here you make several assumptions which are not accurate.

        The first is that there will be a private citizen actually carrying a firearm at every given location at all times. This is hardly likely to happen. And, if there is not one of your armed citizens present, there is no one to stop an attack.

        The second is that your armed citizen will be adequately trained to handle neutralizing a shooter in a crowded venue. Again, not likely to happen. The State of Florida only requires that a license holder attend an approved firearm safety course and successfully fire a single shot. This hardly produces a “trained” citizen.

        The third is that a trained armed citizen will not suffer any mental illness, become enraged or otherwise choose to attack others with intent to do them harm. And, such a person will be armed with a very efficient deadly weapon. The assumption that pro-gun people like to perpetuate is that “law-abiding” firearm carriers are simple harmless teddy bears, who are incapable of harming anyone. Yet, the purpose that they carry a firearm is to harm another person. People are dangerous animals. And possessing a deadly weapon, such as a firearm, makes them even more dangerous.

        In this case, the airport is recognized to be a high potential target for attack. As such, there should be a security force, comprised of LEOs, who, as a group, are more highly, sometimes far more highly, trained than the citizenry, to protect the facility from attack. The security force seems to have been lacking at this facility.

Henry Hawkins | January 6, 2017 at 4:39 pm

Given the level of security that is supposed to be in place, and given this guy walked into a baggage claim area and started shooting, when the dust settles, there should a lot of questions about what happened to said security.

And news sources are now saying the story about his flying in with the gun may NOT be true. New report says ISIS. But it’s so early I don’t know if we should believe anything yet, other than the casualties.

From various other sites I’ve looked at, like this, it looks like the Mohammad coefficient is above zero. But from this, it looks like the connection may be that of an insane person.

What we do know- the truth won’t be published in the mainstream media, and to find some semblance of what it is, you’re have to rely on blogs like this and links to non-MSM sites to find it.

Imagine if we had followed #NeverTrump’s advice and Hillary was about to take office.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to VaGentleman. | January 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    Why do you insist on being an ass? NTs were/are even more against Hillary.

      VaGentleman in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 6, 2017 at 8:59 pm

      Henry, I have to play the ass because you insist on playing the fool. Saying you are against both didn’t / doesn’t change the fact the fact one of them was going to be elected. Not voting for either did not change that fact. There was a clear difference between the candidates, and it is becoming more and more clear. It is also becoming clear that those who voted for Trump made the correct choice. As your churlish reply proves, many of you still don’t accept the reality of the election – that there was difference in the candidates, that Trump or Clinton would be elected, and that Trump was / is far better than Clinton.

      As regards your characterization of #NT. Let’s remember that #NT was created by republicans who refused to accept Trump as their candidate and were determined to destroy his candidacy at all costs. There were many posts here on LI by the anti Trump crowd which said that a president Hillary would be preferable to a pres Trump. If, as you say “NTs were/are even more against Hillary”, if you honestly believe that, why weren’t you (they?) supporting him? Did you believe that staying home would elect neither? Did you think that Gary or Jill could win? Did you think you would be exempt from a supreme court appointed by Hillary? If you honestly believe that “NTs were/are even more against Hillary”, why are you jumping on me for pointing out that defeating her was a good choice? (If they are even more against her, then he is, however slightly, preferable.) Or are you arguing that we would be better off with Hillary in 2 weeks?

Look at the photos of the shooter.

He’s wearing a Keffiyeh.

Muslim. Straight up. Again.

From the wisdom of the Florida Legislature, which enacts legislation that controls the lawful, but is useless against the unlawful until they are caught violating a law, like Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, here we have a Gun Free Zone where the lawful are unarmed in compliance with the law and the unlawful can kill with impunity until the ammunition runs out or the police arrive, sooner or later:

Florida Statute 760.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—

“(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:

12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;

14. The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.”

So, if you are picking up an arriving passenger, you may be armed outside the terminal, but must disarm before entering the terminal building. If you have a checked firearm, you are supposed to leave the firearm in the hard-sided case until after you leave the terminal building. The shooter here did not follow that law. It is also unclear whether the shooter had an out-of-state resident Florida CWP. However, since laws are only for the lawful, that is doubtful.

    You fall into the pro-gun advocacy trap of assuming that ALL lawful firearms carriers will remain lawful. Unfortunately, this is not true. A legally armed person is quite capable of using a firearm, or other deadly weapon, against others, unlawfully.

    Some facilities and venues should be firearms free to reduce the potential threat to those occupying the facility or venue. In the case of an airport terminal, all those traveling by common carrier will be disarmed, as they can not carry a weapon on board the common carrier [plane, train. bus, boat, etc.]. So, they are essentially disarmed. And, there is a good reason why we do not wish deadly weapons, especially firearms, to be introduced on board these types of transportation. So, it is not unreasonable to ban firearms from an airport terminal. In fact, it fits nicely with the argument raised by pro-gun activists that allowing one class of person to be armed while denying it to another is discriminatory. Firearms are banned to all, except active LE who are performing their duties.

    However, when such a ban is imposed, then the venue must provide some effective means of enforcing such a ban. And, this is where the system breaks down. Facilities where such a ban makes sense [airports, schools, churches, etc.] often provide NO means of enforcing such a ban. They allow for the illusion of safety, rather than providing a means to insure that safety. In the case of an airport, this would involve screening all persons entering the terminal building and not turning over checked weapons to arriving passengers until they had left the secured terminal.

“However, when such a ban is imposed, then the venue must provide some effective means of enforcing such a ban. And, this is where the system breaks down. Facilities where such a ban makes sense [airports, schools, churches, etc.] often provide NO means of enforcing such a ban.”

The problem is that the venue is NOT compelled to provide some effective means of enforcing such a ban. In the case of the Orlando PULSE nightclub, there was an off-duty law enforcement officer at the door, but once he was quickly gunned down, the slaughter of the defenseless commenced. Law enforcement personnel may react to a situation, not necessarily in the time required to be effective, but do not necessarily protect from a situation happening. The final effect of a law is to provide a reason to detain and arrest someone who has broken the law, not to prevent the undesired behavior.

Such a ban makes no sense. It forces all who are lawful to surrender the means of effective self defense to provide that illusion of safety for some. Wherever people gather to undergo screening to demonstrate that they are disarmed is a point of vulnerability. Shifting the point does not change the vulnerability, only the location.

    Mac45 in reply to Another Ed. | January 7, 2017 at 5:24 pm

    “Law enforcement personnel may react to a situation, not necessarily in the time required to be effective, but do not necessarily protect from a situation happening.”

    Yet, in the Pulse incident, the LEO WAS on scene when the incursion was occurring. Part of his job was to deal with with violations of the law, which openly carrying a rifle into a nightclub was. The problem was that he was ill equipped to stop such an incursion, just as Iraq was not equipped to stop a US invasion in 1991 or 2003. If a patron or even a few patrons, were armed inside the club, there is no guarantee that they would have been able to deal with the attack, either. In fact, given the crowding in the venue, it is reasonable to assume that there would have been friendly fire casualties. Effectively engaging a single armed individual in a crowded venue where people are running about madly in an attempt to escape is not an easy thing to do. The defender has to avoid hitting friendlies and non-combatants, while the attacker’s aim is to engage everyone he comes into contact with.

    People seem to make the assumption that simply having a firearm will allow them to efficiently neutralize any threat. This is, of course, a fallacy. In the Pulse incident, there was a sufficient number of people present to overwhelm the shooter and reduce the number of persons injured, if they had attacked en mass. They chose to attempt to escape, which allowed the shooter to massacre them at his leisure. And, there was no reason to believe that there was any threat of outside attack. Pearl harbor was heavily defended on December 07, 1941.

    “Such a ban makes no sense. It forces all who are lawful to surrender the means of effective self defense to provide that illusion of safety for some. Wherever people gather to undergo screening to demonstrate that they are disarmed is a point of vulnerability. Shifting the point does not change the vulnerability, only the location.”

    This is totally inaccurate. First, such a ban, if adequately enforced, forces ALL to surrender deadly weapons. Second, in order to enforce the ban, a search must be conducted, at some point. Third, it is entirely possible to provide adequate security, at the check point, to neutralize many attacks which may be attempted there. And, if no such enforcement effort exists, you allow the attack to occur anywhere, not just at a single point. Fourth, the number of people who actually carry a firearm is less than 10% of the population. In Florida, there are 1.6 million people licensed to carry a firearm. The population of Florida is a little over 18 million. While not all 18 million people would qualify for a license, licenses are also issued to out-of-state residents, which increases the total population of eligible persons. So, we can assume that the percentage of the population, who has any interest in carrying a firearm, is approximately 10%. Realistically, a significant number of these people do not carry a firearm every time they leave their dwelling. Some do, but many do not. This reduces the number of people who are actually carrying firearms even more. What this means is that the odds of an armed citizen being in place and able to stop an act of armed aggression is very small. As you point out, being armed is merely an illusion of safety for some.

      Another Ed in reply to Mac45. | January 8, 2017 at 3:49 pm

      The “illusion of safety” is not for those who are armed, but for those who believe that declaring that a Gun-Free-Zone makes that place safer. A Gun-Free-Zone disarms the lawful and compliant, but does not physically disarm the unlawful and non-compliant. Also, there are laws prohibiting the use of weapons to threaten and harm people, but that does not stop many from using those weapons to threaten and harm people.

      A properly concealed firearm does not make the bearer safer, but widens the response options to an imposed threat. I prefer having the widest possible set of options to deal with imposed threats. It is unwise for me to count on there being a sufficient number of trained, armed, law enforcement officers close enough to protect me and those whom I wish to be protected and for those officers to be able to quickly and adequately to respond to an imposed threat.