Man in Santa suit kills 8, then himself in California

Friday 26th December, 01:34 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 38 Total Comments Show All

Betzee at 12:12 AM JST - 27th December

The background story which led to this horrible and tragic incident likely includes an inability to deal with rejection, the economic impact of divorce, holiday blues, etc.

But the choice of weapon also played a role in the death toll. With 25 people in the home, Pardo would have been quickly overpowered had he used a knife.
Triumvere at 12:48 AM JST - 27th December

Overpowered by whom, exactly? Betzee, the man not only had a gun but a homemade device to douse the entire house in accelerant, and now - it is just being reported - had homemade bombs as well (though he didn't use them in the attack - nearly took out a policeman who was searching his rented van). If he had walked in hurling homemade grenades do you think this would have turned out differently?
USAFdude at 02:18 AM JST - 27th December

The leftists hit paydirt on this story - they get to trash guns and Santa. Moderator: The word "leftists" has no place in this discussion. A very poor contribution from you.

To the mod: Then why haven't you removed the post from the board?
SuperLib at 02:49 AM JST - 27th December

Betzee: With 25 people in the home, Pardo would have been quickly overpowered had he used a knife.

Overall I think far fewer people would be killed by attackers who wield knives than guns.

My point is to show the difference in the reaction to the crime, even when roughly the same number of innocent people are killed by a lone attacker. When it's a knife people talk about how crazy the attacker was and they express sympathy for the victims. When it's a gun people rush into a gun control debate. We have comments such as "land of the dead", a poorly drafted Constitution, Bowling for Columbine. I'm fiercely anti-gun but it seems that along the way we decided to simply use these incidents to instantly debate gun control, with some not even bothering to express any sympathy or outrage at all.
Betzee at 03:00 AM JST - 27th December

Truivere,

I got this from the LA Times:

As he had in years past, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo volunteered to serve as an usher at his church's midnight Mass on Christmas Eve.

Pardo, however, was miles away from the Holy Redeemer Catholic Church as the religious service got underway. He had driven a rental car from his home in Montrose to the Covina home of his ex-wife's parents. Shortly before 11:30 p.m., dressed as Santa Claus, he approached the front door with a large, wrapped package.

Inside the two-story home at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac, his ex-wife, her parents and about two dozen others were enjoying their annual holiday party.

An 8-year-old girl ran to answer his knock. When the door swung open, Pardo, 45, shot her in the face with a semiautomatic handgun, stepped into the house and opened fire on the revelers. Amid the chaos, he doused the house with a flammable liquid contained in the package -- a pressurized fuel tank, about 2 1/2 feet tall.

Obviously it was a well planned attack which makes it harder to prevent. And had he not had access to guns, he might have been able to exact the same type of carnage through any number of means. But that takes us into the realm of counterfactuals and away from the facts.
Betzee at 03:05 AM JST - 27th December

Superlib,

It's curious you left Helter_Skelter out of your condemnation of people who rush in with an agenda (sort of reveals your own) and ignore the victims.

I'm not sure exactly how you grieve for the loss of people you never knew. But suppose someone suggested that in the wake of 9/11 or Mumbai, let's not make this into a political issue and concentrate on the victims? Helter_Skelter came out swingin' on that one, just as he came out swinging preemptively at "leftists" here.
Betzee at 03:13 AM JST - 27th December

It will be interesting to learn more about the divorce settlement.

Many people posting on the Huffington Post assumed he'd been treated unfairly by the system. We don't know that, however. His ex wasn't partying with another man, she was with her family.

The children weren't his and that would have mitigated the involvement of Family Court and some stranger telling him he could only see them this often but was required to fork over this much for their support.
Betzee at 04:27 AM JST - 27th December

Few details have emerged yet about the gunman, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, of Montrose. Divorce documents show that he and his ex-wife, Sylvia Pardo, had been married for two years before divorcing, citing irreconcilable differences. The two had been married in January 2006 and divorced in February of this year.

Their last court hearing was Dec. 18, when a settlement was reached. Court records indicate that Pardo had been unemployed since July.

The fact the marriage was of such brief duration indicates she discovered he was a control freak and ended it. But that's just female intuition.
adaydream at 05:04 AM JST - 27th December

One poster here has the intelegence of the shooter here.

I hear that they are up to victom number 9, not including the murderer.

You can't condone this murderous killing, but can you imagine the depression he must have been going through to even think of a heinous crime like this.

I can only pray for the comfort of all families concerned. I can even see where these deaths affect JT posters. Horrible...horrible thing. < :-)

Pssst. This has no bearing in the gun control conversation. They weren't assault weapons used. Handguns. < :-)
adaydream at 05:05 AM JST - 27th December

excuse me: intellegence. < :-)
bebert at 06:47 AM JST - 27th December

Court documents show Sylvia Pardo got the couple's dog, the wedding ring and $10,000 in the settlement agreement, while he got the house. In June, the court ordered Bruce Pardo to pay $1,785 a month in spousal support and put him on a payment plan of $450 a month for $3,570 that was unpaid

Spousal support was suspended in December, because the guy didn't have a job. Still, $21,000 a year in spousal support after ony being married for less than 2 years (and the kid wasn't his). This could be the motive, or perhaps he really loved that damn dog. Animal lovers can be nuts sometimes.

Lesson for men - even a brief marriage can cost you half or more of your take home income for years.

Lesson for women - if the guy is a nut, sometimes the smart move is to just cut bait and move on.
Betzee at 06:56 AM JST - 27th December

Bebert,

I read this in the LA Times:

But one incident that led to that divorce was a long-held detail of his past that Pardo hid from his wife.

About nine years ago, he and a girlfriend had a child. As a 1-year-old, the boy fell into a pool, nearly drowning. As a result, the child was left physically handicapped. Although Pardo did not support his son financially, he claimed the boy as a dependent for seven years on his tax returns.

When Pardo's wife found out about it from a family member, she demanded he stop claiming his son as a dependent. The situation helped lead to the divorce, sources close to the family said.

This indicates they didn't know each other terribly well before tying the knot. And it strikes me as a strange reason to get a divorce, more like a pretext.
SuperLib at 10:31 AM JST - 27th December

The problem was in the guy's head, in my opinion, and nothing else. People go through divorces every day, lose their jobs, get sick, etc, and don't hurt others because of it. If you or I had lived this guys life in the past year I don't think any of of us would shoot a kid in the face.
Triumvere at 11:46 AM JST - 27th December

Betzee,

While I doubt it was the only reason for divorce, the choice to profit from his sons misfortune, while choosing to not support him (lets make a leap and guess that he has rejected his son and refused contact and support) makes the man into a moral monster. Would you want to be married to such a man?
Hotbox08 at 05:42 PM JST - 28th December

The problem was in the guy's head, in my opinion, and nothing else.

I agree with that point too. The gun may have not been all at fault, but it didn't help at all that he had one in the first place. Guns and whackos don't mix. And to all you pro-gun lobbyists out there, yes, maybe having a gun for protection may protect you, provided that you are well-trained in using it and are well-versed in keeping it safely locked up. However, most law-abiding citizens I know don't own one and will never want to. It is just too damn scary to carry one and there is a great chance that it will do more harm to you than to protect you.