Example: [Collected via Facebook, October 2015]
Origins: Every mass shooting event in the United States recent years has been followed by debate about whether citizens with guns have or have not been successful in preventing or stopping such attacks. One example of the supposed effectiveness of armed civilians in halting such attacks has been bruited online ever since the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and involves a 1997 shooting at Pearl High School in Mississippi.
In that 1 October 1997 incident, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death with a butcher knife in their home, then drove to his high school in Pearl, Mississippi, with a .30-.30 rifle, where he killed two classmates and wounded seven more. Woodham was apprehended in his car by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who confronted him with a .45-caliber pistol he had retrieved from own vehicle (Note, the meme image above incorrectly identifies the site of the shooting as “Pearl River”).
Holding up this occurrence as an example of an armed civilian’s preventing (additional) shootings is problematic, however, for the same reason that nearly all such examples are: When a person is forcibly stopped before he can act, we can only surmise what that person would have done had he not been stopped; we cannot know for certain.
It’s undeniable that Joel Myrick played a key role in apprehending Luke Woodham, but Myrick didn’t prevent or curtail the shooting at Pearl High, as Woodham had already shot several people, broken off his attack, exited the school, entered the parking lot, and was attempting to leave the school in his car when he was finally confronted by the armed assistant principal:
“I said, ‘What? Why did you do this to my kids?'” Mr. Myrick continued. “And he said, ‘Mr. Myrick, I’ve been wronged. The world has wronged me and I just couldn’t take it anymore.'”
Putting the muzzle of his handgun to Woodham’s neck, Myrick ordered him out and held him until police arrived.
The claims that Myrick’s actions saved additional lives stem from reports that Woodham was on his way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting when Myrick subdued him, but he never admitted to having any such plans, and evidence documenting that he possessed such intent is not conclusive. One of the two victims whom Woodham killed at Pearl High School was his former girlfriend, Christina Menefee, and at his trial Woodham asserted that revenge against Menefee was the primary motivating factor behind the
school shooting. Although Woodham might have continued venting his rage by shooting more people at another location, his professed motive was not consistent with the notion that he would have sought additional victims outside of Pearl High School.
It’s possible Woodham could have driven to another school (or elsewhere) to continue shooting, and thus Joel Myrick did save an unknown number of lives by confronting him with a gun before Woodham could leave Pearl High School. But it’s also possible Woodham also might have gone off somewhere and killed himself, or ditched his gun and tried to flee before being apprehended by authorities, or simply returned home and awaited his fate — as with all “What if …?” scenarios, we can only speculate. But as for the facts of what actually happened (rather than guesses about what might have happened), Woodham was stopped only from leaving the scene after his shooting spree had already ended.
As for the usual claim that this event was something one would never “hear [about] in the mainstream media,” Woodham’s crime and his apprehension by Myrick were covered by such national news publications as The New York Times, People magazine, and USA Today, as well as a host of smaller news outlets.
A Word to Our Loyal Readers
Support Snopes and make a difference for readers everywhere.
- David Mikkelson
- Doreen Marchionni
- David Emery
- Bond Huberman
- Jordan Liles
- Alex Kasprak
- Dan Evon
- Dan MacGuill
- Bethania Palma
- Liz Donaldson
- Vinny Green
- Ryan Miller
- Chris Reilly
- Chad Ort
- Elyssa Young
Most Snopes assignments begin when readers ask us, “Is this true?” Those tips launch our fact-checkers on sprints across a vast range of political, scientific, legal, historical, and visual information. We investigate as thoroughly and quickly as possible and relay what we learn. Then another question arrives, and the race starts again.
We do this work every day at no cost to you, but it is far from free to produce, and we cannot afford to slow down. To ensure Snopes endures — and grows to serve more readers — we need a different kind of tip: We need your financial support.
Support Snopes so we continue to pursue the facts — for you and anyone searching for answers.