(CBS SF) — Police have confirmed an active shooter at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno Tuesday afternoon.
People near the area reported hearing shots fired, police activity and lockdown procedures.
ADVERTISING
San Bruno Police @SanBrunoPolice We are responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive.
4:28 PM - Apr 3, 2018 520 1,108 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy 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.
Vadim Lavrusik, who was working at that facility, wrote on Twitter shortly before 1 p.m. that he heard shots and saw people running while at his desk before barricading himself inside a room with other coworkers
Vadim Lavrusik ✔ @Lavrusik Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers.
3:57 PM - Apr 3, 2018 16.3K 21.3K people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy
4:10 PM - Apr 3, 2018 1,236 1,622 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy
Mr Raised Brow @MrRaisedBrow There is definitely some kind of police action / possible shooting at youtube in San Bruno. my brother just and others went running out of the building when hearing firecracker like sounds. 5 police cars came rushing to the scene...
4:02 PM - Apr 3, 2018 18 16 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy View image on Twitter View image on Twitter
Nas @Nasreen_and_I Now at @YouTube possible #shooting
4:05 PM - Apr 3, 2018 37 94 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy View image on Twitter View image on Twitter
San Bruno Police @SanBrunoPolice Police activity at 901 Cherry Ave, please stay out of the area.
4:01 PM - Apr 3, 2018 805 986 people are talking about this
6. "Reports are it is a woman. That's unique" In response to Reply # 0
Another law enforcement source confirms to ABC7 News reporter Dan Noyes that the shooter is a white, adult female wearing a dark top and head scarf. The source told ABC7 News multiple people have been injured, including a shot to the chest. There are no reported fatalities at this time.
7. "my wife works at youtube. " In response to Reply # 0
She was in San Bruno last week. She is in NYC today. They are freaked out of course. Trying to get her to leave already less it's some sort of coordinated attack.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
17. "Shooting people is not right ... but I can see this happening more" In response to Reply # 16
People are earning their livings now by posting videos to Youtube and getting a split of the money Youtube makes, and they are using that as their J-O-B.
Since Youtube holds ALL the power in this situation and they tend to change the rules wildly in their own favor with little notice it will deeply affect some people.
This goes for Apple, Twitter, Instagram/etc.
Rule #1: Don't shoot people.
Rule #2: Don't depend on a giant corporation for your income, especially when there is no employee/employer agreement where he you some labor protections.
The woman had some legitimate grievances (none rose to the level of violence) and since their were no protections for her she went into that end-of-life-Murder-suicide-mode that happens all the time in many of these cases. (Depression and anger seem to trigger this in some cases.) http://crimefeed.com/2017/09/psychology-of-murder-suicide/
Apple, Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, SnapChat/etc corporate policies have real effects on a growing number of people and it's a challenge they'll have to deal with going forward. I'd think that giving people a sense of predictability and fairness may help.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Wed Apr-04-18 02:03 PM
19. "not sure if she had any legit grievances..." In response to Reply # 17
just seems wild to shoot up the spot over your videos.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
>RE: not sure if she had any legit grievances... Well, there's legal, common sense, and situational grievances. (Yes, there are just insane people too.)
But from what I understand is; 1)She was making videos and posting to Youtube. 2)She was making money on advertising.
Then some things happen like: 1)Some of her videos got "Age restricted" (lowering the possible viewers) because she was doing workouts and someone reported them as inappropriate and Youtube agreed.
But she was able to point to multiple examples of things that were very probably much more inappropriate that were not flagged , like Nikki Minaj videos where she's shaking her tits and ass all over the place.
She felt that with that evidence that it was unfair for her videos to be restricted.
Youtube being Google there is no way to actually argue your point - they have all the power and they provide VERY SHITTY anti-consumer support - UNLESS you are making them A LOT of money.
2)Then Youtube unilaterally decide to change the rules on which channels could be monetized and it affected her income by making it nearly 0. And even before this google's alogrythms for paymouts was pretty crazy. But let's say her 300,000 view video used to net her $300 dollars - she posted that it now only netter her 10 cents.
Now, we know (because we are smart and not angry as fuck) that Youtube and Google are shit-heels that don't give a fuck about you - they just want their money. they've structure everything completely in their favor and you have nearly no legal mechanism to affect it.
That's why I don't try to make a living by posting videos.
But to someone who was doing that - the loss of income (think of a hard-working steel mill worker who is laid off so the mill owners could take all of his money) and not having any avenues for relief could make someone really angry.
And some people get angry and depressed and that can lead to them doing a workplace murder. Seems like there's between 400-600 of these murders a year.
I'd say 99.9999% of the murders should not happen - and it's definitely not helping anything- but this seems more like a mental health issue more than anything else.
"Real" employers have HR departments and programs to try to prevent these situations - but they still happen.
I think you can see how these divergences might be legitimate (shooting people is not the remedy to this.)
>just seems wild to shoot up the spot over your videos. Yes, but it seems she was doing it because of her money being cut off.
I agree - she should not have shot up the place.
But this type of thing happens hundreds of times each year - and its a problem that's likely to move to new technologies too.
22. "the thing is it doesn't even matter if they really are screwing you" In response to Reply # 17
via algorithm.
all that needs ot happen is for people to think it is.
and if you've talked to anyone who's posted a bunch of videos for more than five minutes, you'd probably think they're one bad day away from spraying youtube hq.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Wed Apr-04-18 02:01 PM
18. "I thought it was a nut job mad at Youtube censoring hate speech" In response to Reply # 16
I was almost right
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
i keep seeing stories about the shooter but i dont want to click on them
i think someone mentioned that she used a handgun which probably explains why no one died but her. i would say if anything that strengthens the argument that ar-15's should be banned.
the talk of censorship being the cause is kinda blah.
im a bit surprised there doesnt seem to be a lot of focus on her ethnicity, progress?
>i think someone mentioned that she used a handgun which >probably explains why no one died but her. i would say if >anything that strengthens the argument that ar-15's should be >banned.
27. "No one died but her because she was apparently a terrible shot" In response to Reply # 25 Fri Apr-06-18 02:08 PM by flipnile
At close range, the larger (presumably hollow point) 9mm bullets would do more damage to soft tissue than the .22 caliber 223 rem ammo an AR uses.
It's actually a COMPLETELY basesless idea (that an AR is inherently more deadly), considering that the Virginia Tech shooter that killed 32 people used a 9mm handgun.
32. "Jesus, what a disgrace" In response to Reply # 27
>It's actually a COMPLETELY basesless idea (that an AR is >inherently more deadly), considering that the Virginia Tech >shooter that killed 32 people used a 9mm handgun.
Your one of *those*.
But I'm with you--- ban all guns.
That's what you're suggesting right?
You're not focusing on nomenclature, or use a single specific example to say that multiple other examples aren't valid. (Like a shooter locking exits in a building and shooting people for 2 hours is comparable to a woman with a single gun shooting people for approximately 5 minutes.)
I sincerely hope your family or friend are never attacked by a madman with a gun - but if they are I sincerely hope it's a single handgun and not an AK.
35. "Besides the coded ad hominems, nothing else in your post makes sense" In response to Reply # 32
I thought this was an actual discussion we were having, and not a text version of Jerry Springer.
My point is that people are pointing at the technology, and calling for bans not understanding that the bans are effectively useless.
Instead of actually putting forth effort into the very difficult issue of solving the larger problem, the people screaming for bans want instant emotional satisfaction.
I'm here for logical debate bruh, not emotional arguments.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Mon Apr-09-18 10:07 AM
37. "not gonna happen here bruh" In response to Reply # 35
when folks say "check the stats on gun reform"
for what? we aren't doing what Australia or the UK has done so why waste the energy?
what we need is a conversation about how to cope/live/survive with all these damn guns in circulation because they aren't going anywhere.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
If your starting position that making of some classes of weapons and communications completely illegal will never be part of the solution then everything else you are suggesting will fail.
Your flippant post read to me as this: "Chick should have taken more lessons and used deadlier bullets if she expected to kill people-- what a loser."
Then you suggested that a weapon semi-automatic assault-TYPE (fuck your nomenclature argument I sense coming on) is actually LESS deadly than a hand gun.
First, let's agree on this - they are both meant for killing people - that's why they were made. Just the assault-TYPE weapon is meant to kill more people more quickly.
There's not ONE thing to do to stop this madness it's --- you have to do a lot of things.
And one of those things is to limit access to the guns meant to kill lots of people quickly - and also limit access of the bullets that blow people up.
Will this stop ALL murders everywhere? No. Would it have stopped this one Youtube incident? No.
But it can stop the quick mass slaughter of school children ,and people at office parties, or in churches that we are currently experiencing? It won't HURT. And it'd very likely help bring those incidents down.
I honestly do not understand your position. Reading it logically it means you want *NO RESTRICTIONS on any weapons.*
Fully autonomic machine guns are illegal - and guess what - they aren't being used in the school shootings.
WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE OUTLAWED.
So ask yourself - "Do I want all guns and all ammunition available?"
If not then it's a matter of where your mind says "I draw the line at X."
Where is your X line?
(And before you ask - yes, I'd personally be in favor in banning all guns in the U.S. permanently - but I'd go with the Constitution and allow any weapon that existed in 1788 - including canons (but only canon-hunting.))
36. "A logical law change would be to classify semi-auto rifles with..." In response to Reply # 34
...detachable magazines the same as handguns, meaning that one has to be 21 years old, pass a federal background check and be required to go through the state for all transfers (sales to other people).
Proposing something like that actually requires understanding how firearms work, as well as the current laws on the books and any potential loopholes due to the technology.
>i really dont see the logic for AR-15s. especially why you can >buy them at a younger age then hand guns.
39. "right now semi-auto seems to have more lenient rules right?" In response to Reply # 36
so you're saying semi-auto should have the same level of controls/regulations as hand guns which would make tighten the controls on semi-autos?
i think part of the problem is also a lack of control/co-operation between states/cities? you keep hearing that chicago has really strict gun laws but they still have big problems with gun violence. easy loophole is to just buy the guns out of state and bring them in. does that mean some of these controls need to be placed on a federal level?
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
