CASE NARRATIVE: The Scott Beierle Case

Scott Paul Beierle was a 40-year-old military veteran and former teacher who shot

and killed two people and wounded five others at a Midtown Tallahassee yoga studio

before committing suicide.

At around 5:30pm last November 2, 2018, Beierle was able to enter the studio by

posing as a customer for the studio’s evening class. He later on pulled out a handgun

from his black bag and started firing at the other people inside the room. He shot six

women, resulting in the deaths of two. The casualties were identified as Dr. Nancy Van

Vessem, a 61-year-old faculty member at Florida State University and Maura Binkley, a

21-year-old FSU student from Georgia. He also pistol-whipped another victim before

committing suicide.

Tallahassee Police Chief Michael Deleo said that Beierle was a disturbed

individual who harbored hatred towards women. This is apparently shown through his

history of sexual misconduct both in the military and the academe prior to the incident.

He was arrested at least two times for touching women in public. He was arrested once

when he told a woman lying flat on the poolside that she had a “nice butt” and asked her

if he could put sunscreen on it. Although told no, he still went ahead, grabbed, and

slapped it. At a campus event, he was caught inappropriately touching women which led

to the police being called and Beierle losing his job.

According to the Tallahassee article, he created music in his SoundCloud account

which were mostly songs containing hateful messages and violent acts. He also recorded

online videos of proclaiming himself as a misogynist and aligned himself with Elliot

Rodger, a self-described “incel” (involuntary celibate) who killed six people and injured
fourteen others in 2014. Aside from this, he was making racial and homophobic

comments everywhere online. His YouTube channel was said to have far-right extremist

content where he railed against women, black people, and immigrants. In 2014, he posted

a video on YouTube titled “The Rebirth of My Misogynism” where he listed the names of

some of his classmates and said that his hatred for women stemmed from his eighth-

grade class experience. Some articles say that the ending had content that suggests a

possible motive for the shooting. Quoting the article again, he said that “I believe in karma.

What comes around goes around, and those that engage in treachery ultimately will be

the victims of it. Hopefully there has been justice in some comparable regard.”

Analysis

According to Aristotle, the origin of a moral action is rooted in deliberate choice.

The human act is composed of the voluntary (to hekousion), and the involuntary (to

akousion). According to him, the praise or blame for the agent of the action is given only

to those that are voluntary (to hekousion) while those that are involuntary (to akousion)

can be forgiven or pitied upon. The act is voluntary if it originates from the agent and if

the agent knows the particular aspects of the actions, which pertains to the elements of

the mean such as the right time, place, and so on. In analyzing the case, it can be inferred

that Beierle’s acts are considered voluntary for they satisfy the conditions provided by

Aristotle. First, the shooting and murdering of the victims originated from Beierle alone.

He was the one who brought the weapon inside the studio, and it was his deliberate

choice to pull the trigger and fire at the women inside. Second, it was reported that he

posed as a customer in order to enter the premises of the scene without alarming any
civilian or person of authority. He, then, waited for the yoga class to start before

performing the crime. Given this, it can be assumed that Beierle had enough time and

knowledge to plan and carefully assess his actions. He already had an intention of

shooting his firearm because he brought it with him in the first place. He also had time to

gauge his targets. Therefore, it can be said that Beierle is to blame for the crime

committed because he did it voluntarily. Aristotle’s moral theory on voluntary acts can

also be paralleled with St. Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts on human acts.

Similarly, for Aquinas, moral acts are willed acts–what he calls human acts. Human

acts are made with reason and will, and are therefore conscious, deliberate, and voluntary.

Man differs from animals insofar as men are able rationally think and decide on a course

of action. Only then can an action be classified as either morally good or morally evil. This

is contrary to what he calls acts of man which are actions done out of the very nature of

human beings, like unconsciously breathing or blinking. In the case of Scott Beierle, he

was shown to bring out a gun from a bag and shoot at people, an action that can only be

seen as a human act. He consciously pulled out a gun, aimed at, and shot people.

Moreover, he entered the studio and pretended to be a customer. Although the news did

not mention anything, he surely planned this transgression by preparing a gun in advance

and deciding where to perform the crime.

Furthermore, Aquinas proposes three factors to consider when determining the

morality of an action. First is the objectum or the objective of the singular act itself. Some

acts can be morally good or morally evil in and of itself. There are morally neutral acts

however, which can be either good or evil depending on the other factors surrounding it.

In this case, Beierle shot to hurt and kill people. He committed murder, an act which is
considered inherently evil. Second is finis or the final purpose of the agent in doing an

action. A morally good act can become morally evil due to the evil intention of the agent.

Beierle committed suicide shortly after so his real intention cannot be determined.

However, from his previous records and history, he is shown to have a strong hatred

against women. We can assume that this is the case for this action. Third is circumstantia

or the circumstances surrounding the action. The circumstances are small, minor factors

that may contribute to the morality of an action. These include, but are not limited to, when

the action was done, where the action was done, and how the action was performed. An

action cannot be considered entirely good or evil without looking at its circumstances. As

what was previously mentioned in the paper, it was obvious that Beierle carefully planned

his actions. He posed as a customer before commiting the crime, so he was aware of the

people inside the yoga studio. He waited until the yoga class started before he pulled out

his gun and shot at the victims who were all women. It was clear that he intentionally

targeted the women, and he had the time to carefully assess whether he should proceed

with the shooting or not.

Similar with Aristotle’s moral theory, Aquinas believes that an act can only be

classified as morally good or evil if it was really intended by the agent himself. Aquinas

gives four modifiers of voluntariness that may affect the accountability of an action,

namely, violence, fear, concupiscence, and ignorance. Violence can be understood as

coercion, or an external force that makes a person do something against his will. For

example, when another person puts a person’s finger on the trigger and pulls it against

his will. Here, the action is clearly forced by the other party and is therefore involuntary.

Beierle went to the studio alone and pulled the trigger by himself. There is clearly no
outside interference. He used his own faculties to perform the misdeed. This is clearly a

voluntary act. Fear can be seen as a threat in order to make a person do something. The

reports did not mention anything about him being threatened. Even then, acts done out

of fear are completely voluntary. A person still has the freedom to choose whether to do

an action or not even when under pressure. This is not a case of concupiscence either

because he did not give any indication that he found pleasure from killing people, although

he clearly showed his distaste for women on several occasions. Being a 40-year old

citizen of the United States of America, a former teacher, and even a military veteran, he

must surely know the law. Therefore, the case that he is ignorant also cannot be made.

He knew fully well that murder is a serious crime and the consequences of it. All of this

points to his murder as a voluntary action.

Aquinas also believed that the morality of a human act can be determined by its

compliance with the eternal, human, natural and divine law. Eternal law simply pertains

to the design or plan in the eternal mind of God which serves as the ruling principle of all

activities of creation. Natural law is the portion of the eternal law that pertains particularly

to man and consists of broad general principles that reflect the divine intentions for man.

The third law is human law which includes the specific statutes of government derived

from the general precepts of the natural law. Finally, is the divine law which is meant to

direct man to its supernatural end through revelation and scriptures. If an act is in

accordance with these laws, then the act is considered to be truly moral. However,

humans do not have a moral obligation to all the rules all the time, for particular goods

come under deliberation and one is not required to pursue these actions but only at the

right time, place and context. For the purpose of analyzing the Beierle case, the premises
should be best looked upon in terms of natural, human and divine law. Aquinas would

argue that the murder committed by Beierle is against the natural law precisely because

the crime does not preserve and propagate life. The act also defies the human law

because it is stated in the law that murder should be penalized. Finally, "thou shalt not

kill".

Therefore, we can conclude, based on the theories of Aristotle and Aquinas, that

what Beierle did is morally evil. He is also responsible and should be fully accountable for

what he has done.