[Updated at 7:09 p.m. ET] An armed police officer is assigned to the school but he wasn't at the school at the time of the shooting because snowfall in the area prevented his arrival, authorities said.
[Updated at 7:03 p.m. ET] A mother of a student witness recalls the moment that her daughter called her after the shooting: "She was telling me, 'Mom, get here, there’s blood everywhere," the woman CNN affiliate KERO.
[Updated at 5:55 p.m. ET] Here's more quotes from Kern County Sheriff Don Youngblood, from the news conference earlier this afternoon, about the teacher and the campus supervisor who apparently talked the suspect into dropping his weapon:
“When (the teacher) started a dialogue, the shotgun, he said, was pointed in several different directions. He is unsure how many rounds were fired … . He said as the dialogue started with him and the campus supervisor, who was just outside the room, the student was still armed with the shotgun. They, I think, probably distracted him in a conversation, allowing students to get out of the classroom and ultimately talking the student down.”
Youngblood added: "To stand there and face someone that has a shotgun – who has already discharged it and shot a student – speaks volumes for these two young men, and what they may have prevented. They could have just as easily tried to get out of the classroom and left students, and they didn't. They knew not to let him leave that classroom with that shotgun, and they took that responsibility on very serious, and we're very proud of the job they did."
The school district's superintendent told reporters that the school's staff had just reviewed lockdown procedures earlier Thursday morning.
[Updated at 5:42 p.m. ET] The news conference ended more than an hour ago, but we wanted to give you some longer quotes from officials about how a teacher and a "campus supervisor" - a campus monitor on the school's staff - talked to the suspect until, authorities say, the suspect put down the weapon.
After the suspect shot one student and missed another, "the teacher at that point was trying to get the students out of the classroom and engaged the shooter – who had numerous rounds of shotgun shells … in his pockets – engaged the suspect in conversation," Kern County Sheriff Don Youngblood said.
“A campus supervisor showed up, was outside the classroom, and together they engaged in conversation with this young man, and at one point he put the shotgun down, and police officers were able to take him into custody,” Youngblood said.
Here's what Taft Police Chief Ed Whiting said about the teacher and the campus supervisor:
"We want to really commend the teacher and a campus supervisor for all they did to bring this to a very quick resolution before anybody else was harmed. ... They did a great job in protecting the kids, and we can't thank them enough for what they did today."
U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, whose district includes Taft, also praised the teacher.
"I first want to commend the teacher. I think he saved many lives today. His actions, his time, his ability of what he did (to) protect the students there," McCarthy said.
McCarthy also praised law enforcement for responding quickly. Youngblood said Taft police officers were at the school within 60 seconds of a 911 call.
[Updated at 4:46 p.m. ET] Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in a 2011 shooting during an appearance in her home district in Arizona, made this comment on her Facebook page about Thursday's high school shooting:
"(My husband) Mark and I are saddened by the news out of California. Our thoughts and prayers are with the students and
families of Taft Union High School."
[Updated at 4:28 p.m. ET] U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, released this statement about Thursday morning's shooting:
"Today comes word of another tragic shooting at an American school. I have visited this school over the years-in fact, my own father attended Taft Union.
"At this moment my thoughts and prayers are with the victims, and I wish them a speedy recovery. But how many more shootings must there be in America before we come to the realization that guns and grievances do not belong together?"
[Updated at 3:58 p.m. ET] "What this teacher did was heroic," U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, whose district includes Taft, tells reporters at a news conference there.
[Updated at 3:55 p.m. ET] Classes are expected to resume on Monday, an official said at a news conference in Taft.
[Updated at 3:52 p.m. ET] The teacher apparently was struck in the head by a pellet, but appeared fine, Kern County Sheriff Don Youngblood told reporters.
Besides the student who was shot, a second student – suffering possible hearing damage because the gun was fired close to her – also was taken to a hospital, Youngblood said.
A third student sustained minor injuries when she "fell over the tables" trying to leave the classroom, Youngblood said.
[Updated at 3:41 p.m. ET] The 16-year-old suspect – a student who missed the start of his first class Thursday morning – walked into school in the middle of first period, walked into class and shot a 16-year-old fellow student with a 12-gauge shotgun, Kern County Sheriff Don Youngblood told reporters moments ago.
The shooter then said the name of a second student and fired at that second student, but missed, Youngblood said. The teacher in the class tried to usher students out of the class – there were about 28 students there – and engaged the shooter in conversation, according to Youngblood.
That teacher and another person – a "campus supervisor" – continued to talk to the shooter, and eventually the shooter put the shotgun down, Youngblood said. Police officers then arrested the shooter, Youngblood said.
The student who was shot was taken to a hospital and is in critical condition, according to Youngblood.
[Updated at 3:07 p.m. ET] Officials are preparing to allow the school's students to leave the property and connect with their parents, many of whom have gathered there, CNN's Kyung Lah reports from the scene.
[Updated at 3:05 p.m. ET] Ray Pruitt of the Kern County Sheriff's Office says he doesn't know whether there was any relationship or connection between the shooter and the victim.
[Updated at 2:35 p.m. ET] U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a Republican whose district includes Taft, released a statement:
"I am deeply saddened and troubled by news of the shooting," it said. "(My wife) Judy and I offer our prayers to the victims, their families and the entire Taft community."
[Updated at 2:19 p.m. ET] A student shot another student with a shotgun Thursday morning at a Southern California high school, said Ray Pruitt of the Kern County Sheriff's Department.
The shooting happened in the science building at Taft (California) Union High School near Bakersfield, Pruitt said. The wounded student was airlifted to a hospital, and a suspect is in custody, he said.
Earlier, the county's fire department said two people were hurt, though it also said the second injured person had "minor" injuries and refused medical treatment.
Details of what led to the shooting weren't immediately available. Pruitt said he didn't know whether the shooting happened in a classroom. Law enforcement officers were going through the school to "make sure we don't have suspects outstanding," Pruitt said.
Taft is about 25 miles southwest of Bakersfield and 100 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
[Initial post, 2:03 p.m. ET] Two people are hurt and a suspect is in custody following a shooting Thursday morning at a California high school, officials say.
The shooting happened at Taft (California) High School near Bakersfield, the Kern County Fire Department says. One person was transported to a medical center, and a second person – who is said to have suffered minor injuries – refused medical treatment, according to the fire department.
Kern County Sheriff's Department officials were going room-by-room to secure the school, according to CNN affiliate KERO.
Students at the high school "have been evacuated to another area of the campus," the fire department said on its Facebook page.
For more on this story, go to KERO.
I can't believe how moronic you all are. We all have "free will", God didn't or doesn't make anyone do anything. People with guns and contempt kill other people.
Good thing the school was a gun free zone.
it's a good thing we are bringing the troops back from Afganistan and Iraq...we will need every last one to sweep every city, town, suburb, small town, village, hamlet and trailer park to confiscate all the guns...and I mean all the guns...
I think somebody confiscated your common sense...
Oh look, another shooting at a school and no major headlines, just small print. Should have used a Bushmaster and CNN would have made up all kind of lies to amuse everyone.
People are getting their school shootings in before Biden bans them.
because people DO think that taking away guns is the solution...
Taking guns away from Americans is a great idea, but then you guys wouldn't have anything to do with yourselves and might accidentally contribute to the rest of the world.
They'll NEVER EVER in a million years bad shotguns.
Uhhhh, cuz they deliver the lethal projectiles?
and those people do not understand nor want to understand the true meaning of the 2nd amendment
I like the way CNN doesn't post any of the news where people have defended themselves and stopped bad guys with guns just in the last month.
Actually they do. But it happens a lot less frequently than people just plain getting killed by guns.
Georgia. Daytime home intruder breaks into a woman's house during the day. She hides her kids, gets her .38 hand gun out of her locked safe, the man comes at them, and she hits 5/6 shots. sheriff thinks he wouldve killed them all if she had not shot him dead. its actually on the front page of cnn.com. im very very impressed (surprised).
The last time I heard of a good guy with a gun shooting a bad guy with a gun was yesterday when I went to go see Django Unchained!!!
because the government is tryign to ban any semi auto gun, not just specific ones. they also wanna regulate caliber of bullets that are available. no one objects to better background checks. but there is a difference between outlawing 90% of guns and doing a better background check. the government is saying they wanna do background checks but their legislation bans any gun designed post 1900.
I would ban any gun post 1800. The drafters of the 2nd Amendment couldn't imagine the types of weapons we have today. I say, you can have a musket. It can fire once and you are done. That is all you need to kill an intruder. One shot, and done. Nobody needs to own a gun that can fire 100 rounds a minute, or hold 30 missiles; 30 lives potentially lost.
if the founding fathers didnt forsee gun evolution they would have written it, "the right to bear muskets." the ignorance of liberals is appauling. you all claim you're so educated and you can't even read the constution or study a history book. If we don't need guns then no one in the government should be allowed to have it either. in fact the us army should just go back to muskets and get rid of their nukes. we dont need them. i mean all they do is kill lots of people right?
Odd, that YOU, of all people, know exactly what the founders were thinking when they drafted the Second Amendment.
Funny how you of all people can defend something that you apparently believe no one person can clearly define.
So nobody knows what they were thinking.
But everyone can read what they wrote.
Its the libs who are now trying to second guess what the founders of the country meant.
Which WELL REGULATED militia are you member of , and how much REGULATIONS are you up for? I suspect your answer is none on both questions, hypocrite. Trying growing a dick instead of carrying a gun.
You are probably too stupid to realize that there were other "arms" than Muskets ate the time of the American revolution.
and yet you just showed your ignorance.
Yeah I want a couple of nukes according to the second amendment that is my right...
I'm a liberal and this is what I think: The 2nd amendment is for a well regulated militia. What is a militia? It is a military force, made out of private citizens, and trained by the states.
States should say this: If you want a gun, then join the militia. We will train you on how to use the guns, how to store them, and how to fight as a unit in the military. Should the need arise, we will call you to service.
If you want a gun, then you have to train with it, and you have to be willing to voluntarily put your life on the line for your country. If you just want to F around with a gun and shoot things up, then no, you don't have a right to own it. The 2nd amendment was written for the well being and safety of us all. If the founding fathers wanted people to have the right to play with guns, they would just have written that the right to bear arms should not be infringed. But no, they wrote that the purpose of bearing arms is for a well regulated militia.
You want a gun? Be a patriot and sign up to defend your country. Be a militiaman. And guess what? To join a militia, you should need to pass a mental health exam, and to remain in the militia you should need to not only keep training with the militia, but to be regurally screened to make sure that you are not a danger to society. Because that is not only common sense, but it is part of a militia being well-regulated.
Your spelling is appalling. I'd bet my education and knowledge against yours any day. Thanks for playing.
you really think they were so dumb as to think weapon tech would end at the musket? That it went from sticks and stones, to swords, to muskets, but it would end there? They didnt couldnt have imagined TV, Internet, or radio either. Maybe the first ammendment should be limited to hand pressed leaflets and newspapers?
If you were alive during the mid 20th century, I guarantee you that you couldn't have imagined the internet, something that seems obvious to every one of us today.
So no, I don't think that people who lived in an age where electricity and aerodynamics were only just barely understood would imagine that one day we would have weapons capable of such damage and rapid fire as an assault rifle.
what in the world are you talking about? how could they have foreseen even some of the advancements we have now? how can you include details about things 200 plus years from now? even now we can't do that.
I need them. Police in my city are out of control. Everybody I know has at least 5 illegal automatic assault rifles, two shotguns, and several high caliber handguns. We will not let police destroy our youth.
You obviously care more about the intruder's life than you do the victim's. What if the victim missed the shot? What if the intruder (doing as criminals do) breaks the law and has a bigger better gun than you? What then? All you anti-gun people are doing is disarming ordinary citizens and making them helpless from attackers. More innocent lives will be lost because the innocent person won't be able to defend themselves against violent attackers. Why can't you see that?
Get real Michael. Tell me when you have even heard about some home owner using his assault rifle to protect his property/family. NEVER has happened. If it had, the news media would have played that story over and over and over and over again. It hasn't happened. Have some common sense and help craft sensible, but strickt gun safety legislation, instead of being another a– who thinks the sky is falling because people see a problem and want do something that will reduce the problem.
How many acts of heroic acts do you know in teh past 200+ years of U.S. history, where people who have been allowed to carry arms have actually been able to help in a situation like this?
Your society reflects the mindset that you need to protect yourself against the evil boogeyman, while in most other countries you just carry on with your life, with the need of a pistol, ak-47, semi-automatic or perhaps a bazooka to defend themselves.
I would also point out that the invention of the semi-automatic weapon, which coincided with the first world war, likely led to more unnatural deaths than any other machine in history. The first and second world wars were blood baths precisely because of these deadly weapons. I would go so far as to call a semi-automatic and automatic weapon to be synonymous with weapons of mass destruction, since they are in fact weapons of war and not peace.
Honestly, how many of you gun owners have hunted a turkey with an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine? There is no justification to own these things except in the apprehension of killing a human being. And if you think you are going to kill a person in the near future, maybe you shouldn't own a gun in the first place.
You, and people like you just disgust me. Uneducated, misinformed, knee jerk reactionaries that never look at the whole picture. 300,000,000 + guns in the US, many owned by law abiding citizens, and there is never a problem. However, guns, or any other weapon (like hammers and clubs, which, according to the FBI were used in more violent crime attacks then guns last year) in the hands of a criminal will be used to break the law – that's why they are CRIMINALS. But don't let logic or facts get in the way of you making an informed decision about anything. Liberal thinking: destroying this country a little more day by day, hour by hour.
In the hands of sane lawful citizens those types of weapons are... ( anti- assault) weapons. That's why people have them.
I don't hunt turkey's with AR-15's but I hunt ferel hogs all the time with one. Best weapon for the job.
You make a great points, well said!
I wouldn't try to shot a Turkey with an AR15, I would use shotgun like everyone else in the field. That is what this kid used today. Understand that most hunters use semi-automatic shotguns hunting turkey. Please take sometime to educate yourself before you make comments.
Religious beliefs have killed more people then guns ever will. Ban Religion!
Better idea would to actually put decent security detterents in schools, how does a kid bring a 3 foot long shotgun into a school without anyone noticing? I'm mean seriously? I can't even board a plane without being searched, if you idiots care about kids so much I would imagine something like metal detectors, magnetically locked doors and bullet proof glass in window being placed in the school wouldve prevented this...
Please, tell us about your extensive training and experience where a single round fired from an antique was able to stop an attacker or multiple attackers (as most home invasions tend to involve more than 2 assailants).
Yep and back then the British did not have fighter jets, tanks, drones, lasers, bombs, RPGs, missiles etc. The individuals had a single shot musket but so did the British. So our founding fathers were afraid of tyranny and the only way to fight back was with a musket (which was the technology of the day).
Tell that to the people with the bow and arrows
The guys with bows and arrows wished they had the muskets
Well in recent news a lady shot a man 5 times in the head area – and he lived. He actually got in his car and kind of drove away for a bit.
So if she used a musket hopefully she had a bayonet on it – because superman was clearly her home invader that night.
It was not about the style of guns they were protecting, it was about the right to defend oneself and the prevention of the rise of tyranny. I think we can give them the credit for understanding that technology would improve. They were noted for their foresight.
Ok, you have a single shot and there are more than one intruders what do you do? Do you think they will stand still for the 45 seconds it takes to reload?
Just like that lady who fired 6 shots at a home intruder and connected with 5 and it still didn't kill the guy only needed one shot?
That's fine but the Founders could not have imagined the _other_ guy with a semi-automatic either.
I notice without comment that you exercised your First Amendment right to free speech on a computer interfaced to the internet, not on parchment with a single-sheet printing press.
Then you need to ban television media, social media, radio...anything that falls under journalism and freedom of the press that our founding fathers couldn't anticipate...Oh wait, that's one of those amendments YOU like, so I'm sure you're all for it being interpreted as is.
Our founding fathers hated the fact that reloading guns was a slow painstaking process. They absolutely could imagine that someone would invent a better way to reload a pistol or rifle. I'm sure they hoped every day for it. Everyone thinks they know what our founding fathers intended. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... so stupid.
What if you want to fire a warning shot or there is more than one attacker?
The insanity of the anti-gun community marches on.
The internet wasn't around in 1776 either. Should we eliminate the first amendment there too?
Yes, lets have muzzle loaders! that way the criminals will really take over the country, great idea! Idiot.
Do you know if you can buy these "missile guns" at Cabelas?
At the time of writing the First Amendment, the only methods of mass communication was to speak while standing on a soap box in the town square or hand out leaflets face to face that were printed on a hand operated printpress.
As soon as you use only those methods to advocate the removal of the rights of others, the sooner that your views will have a sliver of credibility.
Nicholas. do your homework. It isn't about muskets but self defense (says the SUPREME COURT). But if you think we should have just what everyone had in their personal possession during the 1790's then you wouldn't mind me having a couple of large cannons and mortars. Because those were privately owned as well.
Very rarely, if ever, does one shot equal one kill. Real life isn't the movies. Last week a guy broke into a house in GA. The woman landed 5 of 6 rounds from a .38 revolver. The guy still got up and ran away. So yes, you do need more than one round.
So you're out hunting ..... you take your one shot at a Deer ........ all of a sudden a Bear comes out of the Trees after you ..... I agree no one needs 100 round magazine ..... but single shot firearms aren't the answer.
Right, just like we should suspend the first amendment because the Founders had no concept of the Internet and other technology used to exploit that. Right?
Then I say we take away your right to use any freedom of speech on the internet. The drafters of the 1st Amendment couldn't imagine the types of media we have today and clearly wouldn't want idiotic statements like yours posted.
We shoukd ban any car that goes over 75mph..because they are designed to speed. We should ban alcohol because the founding fathers never guessed about drinking and driving. Gun deaths were about 9000 alcohol deaths 47000. Why arent you lib hippies wanting to ban alcohol?
you only need one shot Nicholas? Are you an expert sharp-shooter or something? What if you missed under intense stress? What if there are multiple intruders? You going to hope for your one shot to ricochet and hit all the other intruders? You do realize the intruders will have more than one shot back at you.
Hey Nick, I think we should limit what can be said on the internet and television. Obviously when the founding fathers framed the 1st amendment they had no idea how many idiots would be able to spew their ignorance using these new mediums.
By that logic, the 1st Amendment should be restricted to what can be printed on a hand-operated movable type press, thus outlawing the free flow of information by any other method. So let's outlaw the Internet, television, the radio, and any other modern mass media. Free speech only by hand-printed pamphlets for the 21st century! Sounds great, doesn't it?
I didn't think so. If you restrict one amendment, you open the door to placing similar restrictions on the others.
Actually I bet they would, but as they have said people dieing is part of living in liberty. It may not always be perfect but you can be safe and a slave or free and defend yourself if needed...
And a lady fired 6 rounds at an intruder the other day and the intruder ran off. 5 of the rounds hit the intruder, who was later found. Two children safe in the attic.
Muzzleloader: 3 people dead from intruder
You clearly do not understand what an intruder jacked up on PCP can do or the mechanics of a firearm.
Problem is the Militia mentioned in the Second Amendment isn't a regulated army it is there to protect the people from a tyrannical government....AKA Obama.......therefore the militia of today needs weapons of today to combat this dictator
Have you ever fired at a moving target ?
I'm not saying you need 30 rounds but it is quite easy to miss a moving target the first time.
The drafters never could have foreseen the internet and yet we protect it under the 1st amendment.
Because criminals only work by themselves, and never form groups to commit their crimes...
Tell you what, Nick, when you're ready to give up the internet, cell phones, fax machines, Skype, copy machines, radio, TV, etc., ie, all the First Amendment stuff you love take for granted, and switch back to only face-to-face communication, then.....I still won't be willing to register and/or give up my guns. Sorry bub.
It's your right to not own a gun. It is the rest of the nation's right to own them. Then there's this thing called Darwinism...
What legislation are you speaking of?
The government already has tanks, missiles, flamethrowers , and Blackhawk helicopters; were's doomed, and our AR-15s are no match for them. We need bazookas.
Right you are, how about atomic weapons too after all we wouldn't want to prevent citizens from protecting themselves against the big bad government (probably the most democratic country the world has ever seen).
What the hell are you talking about? Your government does not want to ban any guns designed after 1900, nor do they want to ban all semi-automatic guns. I'm in favour of some stricter gun control, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Actually the preliminary from Feinstein a month ago (before the school shootings started) was an intent to ban any semi auto weapon that could be configured to hold more than x number of rounds. That is what we are talking about.
Canada? Seriously? Dont you have some maple syrup to make or something?
They are going to have some issues with trying to get people narrowed down to specific guns and calibers. Current hunting laws require different calibers. You cannot hunt if you cannot get the right weapon.
..."their legislation bans any gun designed post 1900..." Source, please, or is this just your paranoid delusion.
Actually many firearms that are not semi-automatic have been designed post-1900. Just saying.
What legislation does that?
I can't imagine that they would actually ban ALL semi-automatic guns but who knows. I own 3 guns. A 1911 (102 year old design), a Remington Model 81 (107 year old design), and a newer autoloading shotgun that I use for hunting fowl and rabbits. All are semi-automatic.
Hunting rifle calibers are usually LARGER than so-called "assault rifle" calibers.
If they actually ban ALL semi-automatic weapons then you wouldn't be far off with your 1900 assertion. I own 3 guns: a 1911 (102 year old design), a Remington Model 8 (107 year old design), and a modern shotgun. All are semi-automatic weapons. If I really wanted to, I could even make the argument that double action revolvers (first developed in the 1850s) should be classified as semi-automatic since it will cycle and fire every time you pull the trigger..
If they actually ban ALL semi-automatic guns, then your 1900 comment wouldn't be far off. I own 3 guns: a 1911 (102 year old design), a Remington Model 81 (107 year old design), and a modern shotgun. All are semi-automatic weapons. I could even make the argument that double action revolvers (first developed in the 1850s) is a semi-automatic gun as it will cycle and fire upon each trigger pull. I'm all for more robust gun control but we need to make rational decisions that aren't based off of emotion. We don't eliminate rights because somebody abuses them.
I challenge you to provide any proposed legislation from the President that backs up your comment. Your comment is completely baseless
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS BROTHER
If LaPierre was the head of the atomic safety commission he would make sure all the nuclear arms where checking the other one to see who will explode first ...so when does the program decided "oh its my turn."
Guns in schools, theaters,malls, parks, on roads, shotguns, semiautomatic,assault rifles, so what's new?
I just hope & pray the wounded student survives.
This is why all schools need well trained and healthily armed guards. The USA is having problems getting good jobs for Vets returning from the wars, well guess what, send them into the schools!
If you can't see how armed guards will help schools, then go back to hippyville France.
Yeah, exactly what I want in every school is a PTSD vet armed with a semi. You're not crazy. Nope. Definitely not.
NRA wields more clout than whoever is up there on the Hill. And thats what would decide the issue.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" – (Heinrich Himmler)
"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" – (Adolf Hitler)
If God didn't want us to shoot each other, He would have made us out of kevlar.
So I guess that means he DOES want us to shoot each other. It's all good.
If only God (if he/she exists) had made a few of you .... intelligent we wouldn't be in that predicament.
This blog – This Just In – will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.