Talk:Howard Unruh

Howard Unruh likely did not have paranoid schizophrenia

Back in 1949 Unruh was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. This was the norm back then with many people who were violent. Today it is unlikely that diagnosis would occur.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borange (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

as an ironic side note

Unruh(e) is German and means riot, trouble. 77.132.55.137 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, German "Ruhe" is rest, repose, quiet, calm, silence, as in "Ruhe und Ordnung" peace and order; "Unruh" is the opposite. Given the number of people with names like "Butcher" and "Slaughter" who never make the nightly news, the name is ironic. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mass murderer or spree killer

Based upon the standard definition of spree killer, Unruh would not fit. When I removed that label, another editor put it back with a citation to a book by Robert Ressler. I tried to compromise by pointing out with sources that Katherine Ramsland calls it a mass murder and sources noting that he is known historically as the first mass murderer, with mention of Ressler's opposing view. The same editor then returned and edited to read spree killer so it looked like the sources supporting mass murder actually said spree instead and then still included Ressler's spree killer definition as if it were different from what was said earlier.

If multiple reliable sources disagree, I believe we should cite both views. In this case I think the mass murderer one should be listed first because more sources mention it, because Ramsland has degrees that Ressler does not, and because Unruh's main claim to fame as an important early mass murderer doesn't make any sense if he was a spree killer instead. DreamGuy (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Howard Unruh not meeting the definition of spree killer? Well, at least Wikipedia defines spree killer as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". Now, Unruh killed 13 people in about as many minutes, so we can assume that there was almost no time break between the murders. He also went into several separate buildings, shot people in the street, and others from the street in their homes, which, in my opinion, are more than two locations.

And the following sources comply with me

• Victimology: theories and applications
• Wicked deeds: murder in America
• American Murder: Homicide in the early 20th century
• Crime classification manual
• Delivered from Evil
• Crockett, Art: Spree Killers; Kensington Publishing Corporation, 1991.
• Pantziarka, Pan: Lone wolf: True stories of spree killers; Virgin, 2002.

And to quote the article by Katherine Ramsland

While the FBI manual says that because Unruh moved to different locations, his act was not classified as a mass murder, but other criminologists disagree. His spate of killings was one of the shortest on record, it was a contained neighborhood, and he did not travel in the way that spree killers like Andrew Cunanan or Charles Starkweather did. The manual calls Unruh a spree killer, but there is clearly disagreement on this classification. Since the Crime Classification Manual has not been universally adopted the way the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has been in psychiatry, exactly how to classify Unruh seems unclear. (...)
Given these examples of killers who move around in a fairly tight area, either we need to pinpoint a better distinction between mass and spree killers or develop a new category into which to place those who appear to be not quite in either camp.

The problem here is that many people use mass murderer and spree killer interchangeably, not to forget that the distinction itsself is outright stupid. The whole matter is one big clusterfuck and it can't be expected that anybody will ever bother to resolve it. Is Unruh a mass murderer? You could say so. Is he a spree killer? You could say so. Is Unruh's shooting spree a case of amok? You could say so. Is it a case of "Sudden mass assault by a single individual" (SMASI)? You could say so. Does the English language have a term that exclusively describes that kind of behavior. No, it does not. That's the crux here, and the reason we will have these kinds of discussions on Wikipedia forever, as long as we won't engage in a fundamental discussion about the topic to constitute definite rules which term to use when. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Description in lead section

Re this edit which describes Unruh as "the first single-episode mass murderer in U.S. history". It would be more accurate to say that this was the first single person mass shooting to kill more than ten people in the USA. Gilbert Twigg, who killed nine people in 1903 [2] is almost forgotten today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Howard Unruh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091030182248/http://www.philly.com:80/inquirer/local/nj/20090906__You_never_get_over_it_.html?viewAll=y to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20090906__You_never_get_over_it_.html?viewAll=y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Howard Unruh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090908000717/http://www.philly.com:80/inquirer/front_page/20090906__You_never_get_over_it_.html to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090906__You_never_get_over_it_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

great granddaughter of Cohens survived the Florida shooting in 2018

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-survivors-demand-action-gun-control-1.4538726

Somebody added this to the article earlier, but I removed it. The connection is coincidental and trivial in my opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting, but it runs into problems with WP:TRIVIA. It isn't notable enough for a mention here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible Motives for killings and other issues

Hello

I have made a few changes to this article, and would welcome any comments/input on this, and thought I would talk a bit here about the reasons for them.

The article as it was, was cited mainly on sources which date from the time of Unruh's death in 2009, some 60 years after the actual events concerned, and while this doesn't necessarily have to be a problem, a study of the sources contemporary to the so-called Walk of Death reveal that some significant details used in the later sources, in particular the Smithsonian article, appear to be either based on dubious contemporary sources, or were later creations. This article, in turn, was heavily reliant on a report filed on the day of the shootings by Meyer Berger, "Veteran Kills 12 in Mad Rampage" which, readable though it is, contains information which cannot be regarded as reliable. For example, the story about the killer threatening his mother with a wrench originates in the Berger story, and appears in no other contemporary sources. Unruh himself makes no mention of this, and Freda's only published comments regarding her last moments with her son prior to the killings were that she was concerned about him, because his "eyes looked funny", which does not support the version of him threatening her with a wrench.

The story of the stolen gate also appears to be a confusion of a story which appears only in the Berger article, that Freda was so distraught about her son's dispute with Cohen, that she had begged a neighbor to make a little gate in their fence. But there is no other evidence of a gate, made by Unruh or anyone else, and according to Unruh's own account, as released by the Camden County prosecutor, it was the following morning, not the previous night, that he made up his mind to kill.

There are many other problems with the Berger article, including his fundamental chronology of events which differs from all other contemporary sources including the account of Unruh, which are not relevant here, but given that much of the information in these sections derived either from this article or from much later sources, the sources I have cited are more reliable and also offer more revealing information about the killings and the background to them. Makercomms (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas shooting

Re this edit: I'm concerned that this is running into problems with WP:TOPIC and WP:TRIVIA. The use of the section heading "Miscellaneous" shows that this isn't directly related to the 1949 shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Unruh's Homosexuality and Motive for Shooting

I have added a sentence about this. It seems fitting. The Smithsonian profile on Unruh begins with the failure of a gay lover to keep a date and this being the trigger for the shooting. There is probably more material to be added here; a couple of the victims had apparently been aware of Unruh's homosexuality, and he seemed paranoid others were as well. I am surprised this was not in the Wiki entry.

References

It has been suggested that Unruh's homosexuality was a factor, but there is an element of media speculation. Nobody really knows what tipped Unruh over the edge, and his mental health had been poor for some time, as with many mass shooters. He had all sorts of perceived grudges with other people and the incident with the gate is often given as the trigger for the shooting. The article should be cautious about stating or implying that his homosexuality and the failed date was the motive because of the element of speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Policemen’s Army Info?

Why is there bracketed info about some of the involved policemen? What purpose does this serve? ElleBlair (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense.

One passage reads as follows:

"Approaching a bread-delivery truck, Unruh shoved his pistol through the door and shot at the driver. He missed his shot by a few inches and the driver unsuccessfully attempted to warn residents."

A later sentence says:

"Zegrino would be the only one of Unruh's intended targets to survive the rampage."

But that is contradicted by the first passage.