A man showed up at the Atlanta airport on Monday, looking to shoot up the terminal. He pulled up curbside in a Chevy flatbed pickup. But members of his family alerted the police of his plan – which he was livestreaming – and within 14 minutes he was apprehended.
Around 9:30 a.m. airport cameras show his truck pulling up. The driver, 49-year old Billy Joe Cagle, went inside door S1 and started checking out the TSA checkpoint area.
Ten minutes later family members called the police, telling them he was headed to the airport to “shoot it up” and had a rifle. Cartersville police forwarded the warning to Atlanta Police, along with Cagle’s photo which was pushed out to the phones of officers at the airport. At 9:42 a.m. police located Cagle near the TSA checkpoint.
At 9:54 a.m. — fourteen minutes after the tip – police arrested him without shots fired. They found a loaded ‘AR‑15‑style’ rifle in his truck at curbside, with one bullet in the chamber and 26 in the magazine.
Atlanta police chief Darin Schierbaum shared surveillance and body‑cam footage of the encounter by early afternoon in a press conference. Mayor Andre Dickens says “27 or more lives could have been lost today.” In this case, gun control didn’t work – Cagle is already a convicted felon, and shouldn’t have had the rifle under current law.
- Time from tip to arrest was ~14 minutes (9:40 to 9:54).
- Cagle spent about 23 minutes in the landside area of the terminal before arrest (9:31 to 9:54).
Police bodycam footage shows officer approaching Cagle after identifying the man matching the family‑supplied photo near the TSA checkpoint. They engage him verbally, then take him to the ground and handcuff him. He didn’t have his firearm in his possession at that time.
Online commenters offer,
“The toddler in him kicked in” (suspect’s scream)
“That fake-ass fall. He sounded like a toddler who wants attention.”
“His water broke at 1:27.”
“I’m surprised police didn’t notice that truck sitting outside unattended… outside police are ALWAYS not paying attention, standing around on their cell phones!”
He’s been charged with making terroristic threats, criminal attempt to commit aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
Landside risks have been significant since TSA checkpoints began attempting to secure airside areas. We’ve seen attacks at several airports from Istanbul, to Brussels, to LAX. Bottlenecks at security checkpoints create even greater risk. Here we fortunately had an unusual case of “see something, say something” – only it was the man’s family that saw something.
These trumptards are the biggest wussies on earth
Are we doing ‘tots and pears’ or can we finally discuss ‘gun control’? Knives and mere pistols cannot kill that many people that fast. Fellas, let’s do universal background checks, assault weapons ban. Common sense regulation. Enough of this horror.
Curbside police are about as useful as police at highway construction areas they are more concerned about their FarmVille then doing what we as taxpayers pay them to do
@1990: We already have background checks. This gun was clearly provided by a friend or relative or was stolen (as typical for gangbangers and other urban terrorists – the same people that liberal government entities release back onto the streets.
In this case, a person could do far more damage with a concealed SA pistol, rather than a rifle, if that was their intent. Rifle is hard to conceal – that is why it was reportedly still in the truck. There is nothing to indicate the AR-15 was converted to automatic (it would not be an AR-15 if it was).
@Mark — So, your plan is… do nothing about the guns, and just blame brown people (nice thinly-veiled there with ‘gangbangers’ and ‘urban’). Yeah, that’s not helpful or good enough.
@1990.
Background checks are ineffective unless the threshold is a bad temper or reports of a weird personality.
If background checks are so good, then Iran would be allowed to have nuclear weapons and just background check their leader to make sure he has no criminal convictions.
@1990 – Since he didn’t lawfully purchase this gun, and wasn’t lawfully in possession of it, what do you suggest? What type of background check or ban would have prevented him from getting this gun? I am not aware of illegal gun sellers that would abide by these types of checks and bans.
@derek — Wild straw-men you got there. And, a whataboutism on Iran. How many more disingenuous logical fallacies can one possibly add…
Friends, as Australia learned after Port Arthur, and the UK after Dunblane, both in the 90s, we can and should do more in the USA about the guns… Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and all before and since shoulda been the wakeup call, but money-over-people, every-time in this country it seems.
And if you’re now about to deflect/pivot to the ‘mental health’ crisis, then you gotta actually fund, not just talk, about providing that care. C’mon…
Lest we forget… The Mulford Act, a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party. So, the only time we, Americans, seem to care about guns is when the folks who have them are… Bueller? Bueller?
1990 sorry, it’s not possible to talk logic to people fixated on having weapons to “make themselves safe”…from other people who have weapons. I’m not talking about legitimate and careful hunters and target shooters, but this has gone far beyond any reasonable use and may be a permanent plague on America. When Obama was elected there was panic that he would take away firearms. Nothing happened but there was a big run on buying ammunition, which I’m sure nobody in this group wants to remember. It’s like when a neighbor disagreed with the sad fact that the leading cause of death for Americans under 18 is gunshots. I showed him articles from The Lancet and the CDC giving the statistics. His reply was, “You wrote and posted those things”. End of discussion.
@Michigan — You know better. It’s true that no law can stop a criminal determined to break it, but the goal of gun control isn’t just to stop the initial illegal act; it’s to dry up the sources of illegal guns and make it much harder for prohibited individuals to acquire it.
Perfection is not the goal. We can do so much better but aren’t really even trying anymore as a country on this topic. We just throw our hands up. Always been this way… no, it hasn’t. And, no, it doesn’t have to be, either.
@drrichard — It’s worse than ignorance. These folks know better. They may feign ignorance, but they’re trolling us all, and now using the federal government and the military to do so.
It’s wrong. It’s clearly an abuse of power and the law. Yet, when it comes to ‘gun control,’ they are so quick to turn the 2nd Amendment into an unlimited right to have weapons of war.
In 1791, the ‘right to bear arms’ and a ‘well-regulated militia’ had a very different meaning, think, mere muskets, not AR-15s or M-4 equivalents. So much for ‘originalism,’ yet another lie.
The most disingenuous thing is the good-ole-boys pretending “but, but… I need these guns to fight tyranny”… well, #47 is literally turning the military on US citizens with impunity, so, where are ya?!
Meanwhile, back in 2015, right-wing fear-mongers whipped up their base into a frenzy that #44 was going to declare martial law in Texas, all because of a Navy SEAL/Green Beret joint training exercise (not literally rounding-up people in LA, DC, Chicago, Portland, or elsewhere).
On a lighter note, @L737, do you recall Bojack Horseman, “Thoughts and Prayers” (Season 4, Episode 5)? Where Diane’s actions inadvertently lead to unanimous, sensible gun legislation being passed in California. Following a mass shooting, Diane became a gun enthusiast and wrote a viral blog post encouraging women to carry guns for self-defense against male sexual violence and harassment. She argued that arming women was a form of female empowerment and a way to level the playing field. The politicians, who had been unwilling to pass gun control after countless shootings by men, immediately passed a blanket ban on all guns. The joke, and Diane’s realization, was that the country “hates women more than it loves guns,” meaning that once a woman was perceived as the threat, the legislation was swiftly enacted. Basically, they were doing satire on The Mulford Act, but instead of the Black Panthers, it was women. *nervous laughter*
@Mark do you have any f’ing idea where Cartersville, GA is? It is not urban. In fact, it’s up in Marge’s district. Get your hate straight before you start spout off inaccurate BS to make some false argument only you and those watching Newsmax are gullible enough to believe.
Would this be considered a Premium mass shooter?
@Parker — Ironically, MTG is sounds pretty ‘woke’ these days… maybe she sees the writing on the wall… #47 won’t be around forever… so, she’ll go from ‘space lasers’ to ‘well, my constituents do need healthcare…’
Very scary stuff, glad they were able to nab him before he could go through with it. An ordinary day could’ve turned quite harrowing.
@1990 — Heh, I actually just watched that clip again when I was rewatching the Israel/Palestine scene when we talked about it the other day. Missed opportunity for Princess Carolyn to hit a “Really, Diane?” after she said the “I can’t believe this country hates women more than…” line.
@KittyKat — Where’s @Matt, ‘please consider…’
Norway
Sweeden
Switzerland
Finland
England
Ireland
New Zealand
Japan
Australia
Those are just some of the countries that can do it and you do not see their rights trampled on
You do not see mass shootings every week in these countries
You do not see kindergarten kids shot up
So do not say it can not be done cause it can be
You are just closed minded uneducated
Family.Might mean something.
Airports are one of the last safe places we have. So sad.
1990 Nice story. There is an argument that the 2nd Amendment was was written for three reasons. To be prepared to fight foreign powers, to help battle native peoples angry about losing their lands, and to justify patrols to monitor enslaved people and prevent them from revolting. The U.S. army was down to about 80 soldiers and there was no navy, so despite the repulsive second and third justifications there is a certain logic here. Obviously none of them hold true today, but you won’t find anyone who admits that. After all, I have a friend who thinks that in 1941 Japan didn’t invade California because they were afraid of the armed hunters here! And the “Wild West” had very strict ordinances against carrying guns in towns–taking and holding them was one of the big jobs of Wyatt Earp. Again, that’s not brought up by anyone in favor of being armed.
My guns haven’t shot anyone…
@drrichard — Ahh, so, two of our country’s original sins right there (slavery and the slaughter of the indigenous.) I suppose defending against foreign power is still somewhat noble. And, yup, I’ve heard that trope about Japan, North Korea, the Soviets, China, etc. It must be from those who took the original Red Dawn (1984) movie a bit too seriously. And, as for ‘frontier justice,’ yeah, you couldn’t enter the saloon without leaving your weapons outside, etc. Last thing a barkeep wanted was to have a buncha whiskey-infused fools with pistols. Ah, history is fun, except when we repeat the bad parts. Like I said, we do know better. It’s a willful ignorance, often motivated by complacency and profits. (Back to the whole class-war masked as a culture-war thing.)
@Dillon gets it. Thank you, sir. Well said. 100%. 10/10. Niccce.
He was convicted and sentenced to 8 years in prison, but only served a few months. Because he has a felony record, he had no legal right to possess a firearm; he is a criminal. On top of that, people claim he was having mental issues in addition to the fact that he apparently intended to break the law and shoot up a soft target where people are disarmed. Now, why does any of that determine that I shouldn’t have the right, a constitutional right, to own a firearm or that we need more laws for people like this to break?
Oh, wait, I need to go clean my musket because our forefathers could only imagine a world of the 1770s.
Consider the multiple morons…
#1 What took the “family” so long to report it? Lots of traffic around ATL, you just don’t waltz right into ATL in no time
#2 I can’t stop, discharge a passenger, open the hatch and get the luggage out before an “authority” is yelling at me to keep moving. How does 14 minutes pass?
From the Free Press. I don’t expect people like @1990 to get it, so swelled up in the sin of creating America.
America at 250 Saturday, 10.18.2025 View in Browser
The American Revolution was won with two things: a bold claim to self-determination and a fighting spirit. These two ideas, in essence, became the First and Second Amendments—the one-two punch that showed the world we don’t play around. “The First Amendment is what we stand for,” writes Katherine Boyle. “The Second is how we enforce it.”
For this month’s installment of America at 250, our yearlong celebration of America’s milestone birthday, we toasted to America’s technological revolution. Boyle’s essay traces the genesis of America’s love affair with technology back to the Second Amendment and urges us to recall how “FAFO is ingrained in our national ethos.”
@jack the ladd – yes, we should be very proud that most technological advances in killing and warfare over the last century have come from the US.
Well…whoop…f’ing…eee.
We have shown our society to be violent and concerned with human carnage. Religious leaders claim right to life when it comes to a fetus while embracing execution and sending thoughts and prayers every time a school is shot up and the very kids we sought to protect long enough to get them out of a uterus are dead.
You may not see the hypocrisy, but history will.
@jack the ladd — Yeah, that sure sounds like Boyle’s law… *toot*
I respect that you may be based in Indonesia, which experienced a horrific 32 year military junta under General Suharto (1966-1998), so I appreciate your genuine concern for self-determination, because you don’t really ‘understand’ what it means, until you lose it.
Now, a quick review of Indonesia’s gun laws, citing to Law Number 12 of 1951 (well-before the junta), restricts civilian gun ownership to self-defense purposes and requiring a stringent police process that includes background, medical, and psychological checks.
Would civilians having military-style weapons have prevented the junta? Honestly, I don’t think so. Well, what ended the military dictatorship? Nationwide protests and a severe economic crisis.
We’re already protesting in the USA; and an economic crisis is on the horizon.
B. J. Habibie (the leader after Suharto) was not perfect, by any means, but at least he accepted reforms and tried to steer the country back to democracy after decades of dictatorship (no easy task). My point remains, more guns wouldn’t have helped there or here.
@1990
“The most disingenuous thing is the good-ole-boys pretending “but, but… I need these guns to fight tyranny”… well, #47 is literally turning the military on US citizens with impunity, so, where are ya?!”
Exactly. The MAGA’s also said nothing about (or even actively cheered on) the extreme tyranny of throwing a (legally present) university student into an ICE gulag for writing an op-ed that criticised a foreign government.
As for shootings… the GOP which claims to be “pro-life” blames shootings on absolutely everything, literally including abortion. https://www.newsweek.com/billy-long-abortion-responsible-guns-mass-shootings-1713119
If a politician in any civilised country said that they’d probably be declared mentally ill.
@Samus Aran — It’s wild stuff, for sure. Recall in 2018, during His first administration, #45 suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” (Basically a revival of the bi-partisan bill drafted in 2013 in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.) That must’ve really pissed off the NRA…
Soon, the US Supreme Court will consider whether a law banning habitual illegal drug users from possessing guns violates the constitution. Ironically, the government is seeking to preserve the law and restore the charge, arguing it is necessary to prevent individuals who pose “unique dangers to society” from owning guns. So, it appears some gun control is still worthy. Phew. Hunter (yes, that one) was prosecuted and convicted under that law, then pardoned by his father. So, I wonder if this admin is supportive because their hate for their ‘perceived enemies’ is greater than their ‘love’ for guns. Oh, no end of irony in these times we live in…
@ Parker & 1990
Like I said, I don’t expect you guys to get it and you don’t. I support the Bill of Rights, all of it, no cafeteria style.
Don’t agree with the description of the Suharto years, but that is a long debate. Suharto won the Cold War for us. You disagree, and disagree winning it was a good thing. That is why the NYT always disparages Indonesia. The Asian Financial Crisis, caused in good measure by US pressure to open undeveloped markets to convertibility, hit many countries hard. I did think at that time about gun laws when students were getting shot, so you have that right although your conclusions are wrong or at least unproven (won’t make a difference if you can shoot back). If we have the same here it will be a debt bomb, more the fault of liberals. Habibie, in particular, should be recognized for his willingness to step down peacefully.
@Jack the ladd — Well, I guess you can thank the USA, Kissinger, etc. for Suharto. As with any junta, monarchy, or other dictatorship, if you’re in the ‘in’ group, yes, life can be good for you, but, usually just you. As for the Cold War, doesn’t it seem like there was merely a hiatus, but that in 2025, the lines are reshaping for global conflict, yet again. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea on one side, yet, now countries like India, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi, etc. are kinda in the middle. And who knows what our madman will do next, because he’s not reliably on the side of the West anymore (like Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc., still seem to be apart of the old club.) Anyway, I appreciate your views, even if they differ slightly from mine. Thank you for sharing and engaging on here.
@ 1990. Suharto rose to power while Kissinger was still at Harvard. The inciting incident has been variously blamed on the Communists, the Army, the CIA, etc. but is kind of like saying the Civil War was about Fort Sumter. Suharto did defeat the Communists, who if successful would have initiated the kind of bloodbath they always do, stabilized the economy, and set Indonesia on an economic growth path. While certainly authoritarian, the regime paved the way for a democratic system, a path other Asian nations have taken. I was in Indonesia often during his rule; there was not an atmosphere of fear. I think it fair to say most accepted his rule as preferable to chaos, something Asian societies seek to avoid, and as competent (a justification for rule), at least until the Asian Financial Crisis changed that calculation and the people expressed their dissatisfaction.