This does not fit the typical terror profile for an attack - they are usually committed to, and resigned to, dying in the attack nor do they often break off an attack on their own. Once they make that decision that they will die they want to create as much death as possible.
There is no news saying he was confronted by anyone (although it’s early and still confused) - he entered a store - shot people - and left apparently on his own. Shootings like this are most often domestic or gang related (i.e. - target a specific person and shoot anyone else who happens to be in the way), but it could be sudden Jihad syndrome by another goofball. These are crazy times and we will eventually find out the who, what, and why.
Shootings like this are most often domestic or gang related (i.e. - target a specific person and shoot anyone else who happens to be in the way)
Three of the four killed were women. Was it a female gang then? Or was the perp a spectacularly bad shot who could nevertheless score several direct kills against these 'collateral' female targets?
Or maybe he was just targeting whoever happened to be in front of him?
“This does not fit the typical terror profile for an attack”
We need to throw away this idea that there is a “profile” for terror attacks. They change their tactic constantly, and in the case of individual jihadis, they are as varied as the terrorists themselves. The Boston Marathon bombers did not engage in suicide attacks...neither did the Paris attackers, except for the one failed bomb at the stadium. The bomb in New York last week didn’t fit that profile, nor did the San Bernardino attack - they all tried to get away. Let’s get rid of this idea that something has to fit a pattern to call it terrorism - jihadis are fighting a war of demoralization to conquest. The unexpected is their friend.
Plausible Deniability.