Police: Failed teen bomber had 'detailed checklist'
Published: Sunday, May 26, 2013, 8:54 p.m.
PORTLAND, Ore. — Authorities in northwestern Oregon said on Sunday that a teenager arrested for producing what authorities called explosives for a Columbine-style attack on his high school had meticulously planned his foiled bombing.
“He was definitely following a detailed checklist,” said Capt. Eric Carter of the Albany Police Department about the 17-year-old, Grant Acord. “It appears he had a systematic, well-documented plan. This was not just an errant note.”
Acord, a West Albany High School student, was arrested on Thursday night when police received a tip that he had produced a bomb and planned to detonate it at school. Carter said Acord was arrested at his mother's home on Thursday evening without incident.
During a search of the residence, police officers found six homemade bombs, including pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails and napalm bombs under the floorboards in the suspect's bedroom.
Carter also said the police discovered diagrams of Acord's school, which “led us toward the conclusion that he was planning a Columbine-style attack,” a reference to the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in which two teenagers shot a teacher and 12 other students to death before committing suicide.
“This was not driven by emotion. This was driven by a mission,” said Benton County District Attorney John Haroldson, whose office has jurisdiction in the case.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama, House Republicans trade accusations in thwarting immigration reform
- Denver wife killed 12 minutes into 911 call, sparking inquiry
- Vermont Senate OKs GMO labels as industry insists genetically modified crops are safe
- Hoax bomb case causes concerns in Boston
- Tea Party flap averted fraud probe by IRS, Justice, emails show
- Federal judge strikes down North Dakota abortion ban
- ‘Godfather’ of runaway salaries for elected officials sentenced in California
- US Airways’ pornographic tweet won’t cost anyone a job
- New York Police Department commissioner disarms post-9/11 intel program
- Bloomberg to spend$50M on gun-control initiative
- Census director defends changes, denies questions altered to inflate Obamacare success