Back to Latest
News
Mar 23, 2026
Old Dominion ROTC Classroom Attack Kills Instructor; Students Subdue Attacker as Debate Over Self-Defense and Gun Policy Intensifies
On March 12, 2026, an assailant opened fire in an ROTC classroom at Old Dominion University, killing instructor Lt. Col. Brandon Shah and wounding two cadets before students subdued and killed the attacker. The episode — involving an assailant with a prior terrorism conviction, a disputed account of how he was killed, subsequent federal raids and charges, and a newly introduced Virginia firearms ban — has reignited debate over campus gun policies, law-enforcement decisions, and potential legal exposure for those who acted in self-defense.
By Stephen Halbrook
1,147 views
On March 12, 2026, a gunman entered a classroom at Old Dominion University (ODU) in Norfolk, Virginia, asked twice whether the class was an ROTC session, shouted "Allahu Akbar" and opened fire, killing the instructor, Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, and wounding two ROTC cadets. Authorities identified the shooter as Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, who was armed with a Glock 44 .22-caliber rimfire pistol. Students in the room subdued the attacker and he later died at the scene; media reports have said a cadet used a knife to stab the assailant, but no official source cited details confirming that account.
At a news conference on the day of the attack, Dominique Evans, special agent in charge of the FBI Norfolk Field Office, described the students' actions without specifying how the attacker was killed. "I'd like to acknowledge the students, who showed extreme bravery, by constraining the shooter and stopping further loss of life," Evans said. When pressed for more detail, she added, "There were students that were in that room who subdued him and rendered him no longer alive. I don't know how else to say it. But they were basically able to terminate the threat. He was not shot." The precise manner in which the attacker was killed has not been publicly confirmed by officials.
Jalloh, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Sierra Leone, had a documented history of radicalization and prior contact with law enforcement. He had been a member of the Virginia Army National Guard and, according to reported accounts, was influenced by online lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki. Jalloh is reported to have spent time in Nigeria in 2015–16, where he met with members of the Islamic State and became further radicalized. In 2016, he disclosed to an FBI confidential informant a plan to carry out a mass shooting similar to the 2009 Fort Hood attack. After attempting to acquire a rifle that law-enforcement sources say was rendered inoperable by the selling gun shop, he was arrested and later pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIL; he was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
According to the account in Reason, Jalloh was released early in 2024 after completing a drug treatment program, a decision the author described as inconsistent with his terrorism conviction. The article also notes that his probation office was required to visit him only every six months, with the last visit occurring four months before the 2026 shooting. These details have been raised in public discussion about post-conviction supervision, early-release practices, and whether authorities adequately monitored Jalloh after his federal sentence.
Federal agents conducted subsequent investigations into the origin of the Glock 44 used in the ODU attack. Based on probable cause found on Jalloh's cell phone, the FBI raided the home of Kenya Chapman, who investigators say sold the pistol to Jalloh. The weapon had a partially obliterated serial number and, according to reporting, was stolen from a vehicle; Chapman allegedly sold it for $100. Chapman was previously linked to straw purchases of firearms in 2021 and was visited by ATF agents who, per published accounts, issued a warning letter at that time. After the ODU shooting, Chapman was charged by the ATF with making false statements in prior firearm purchases and with engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license.
The attack and its aftermath have prompted political and legal reaction. Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney Ramin Fatehi, speaking at a press conference, did not characterize the shooting as an act of terrorism and instead called attention to what he termed a "cult of gun absolutism," urging lawmakers and the courts to enact stricter gun-control measures. His remarks have fed into broader debates over how shootings are labeled and how policy should respond to such incidents.
Legal commentators and the author of the account have also raised questions about the potential legal exposure of the students who subdued the attacker. Some media comparisons cited prosecutions in other cases, including the New York City subway incident involving Daniel Penny, and noted that prosecutors have in recent years pursued charges against individuals who used force in public confrontations. The Reason piece highlights Virginia regulations that broadly prohibit possession or carrying of weapons in university academic buildings, excluding specified small knives used for domestic purposes, and points out that additional state statutes criminalize carrying certain types of concealed blades. The type of knife, if any, used in the ODU incident has not been publicly disclosed.
Two days after the shooting, the Virginia General Assembly forwarded S749, an enrolled bill that would ban certain semiautomatic firearms described as "assault firearms" and restrict standard-capacity magazines holding more than 15 rounds, to the governor for signature. The bill targets purchase and sale of enumerated firearms and magazines but, as reported, does not apply to possession by persons with violent-crime convictions or address use of firearms in violent crimes.
The ODU attack has intersected with longstanding national conversations about campus security, the balance between gun rights and gun safety measures, supervision of individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses, and the legal protection afforded to those who use force to stop active killers. Officials continue to investigate the sequence of events in the classroom and the criminal and regulatory history surrounding both the attacker and the supplier of the weapon. The case is likely to inform debates at the local and state level over legislation, campus policies, and prosecutorial discretion in cases involving defensive force.
At a news conference on the day of the attack, Dominique Evans, special agent in charge of the FBI Norfolk Field Office, described the students' actions without specifying how the attacker was killed. "I'd like to acknowledge the students, who showed extreme bravery, by constraining the shooter and stopping further loss of life," Evans said. When pressed for more detail, she added, "There were students that were in that room who subdued him and rendered him no longer alive. I don't know how else to say it. But they were basically able to terminate the threat. He was not shot." The precise manner in which the attacker was killed has not been publicly confirmed by officials.
Jalloh, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Sierra Leone, had a documented history of radicalization and prior contact with law enforcement. He had been a member of the Virginia Army National Guard and, according to reported accounts, was influenced by online lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki. Jalloh is reported to have spent time in Nigeria in 2015–16, where he met with members of the Islamic State and became further radicalized. In 2016, he disclosed to an FBI confidential informant a plan to carry out a mass shooting similar to the 2009 Fort Hood attack. After attempting to acquire a rifle that law-enforcement sources say was rendered inoperable by the selling gun shop, he was arrested and later pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIL; he was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
According to the account in Reason, Jalloh was released early in 2024 after completing a drug treatment program, a decision the author described as inconsistent with his terrorism conviction. The article also notes that his probation office was required to visit him only every six months, with the last visit occurring four months before the 2026 shooting. These details have been raised in public discussion about post-conviction supervision, early-release practices, and whether authorities adequately monitored Jalloh after his federal sentence.
Federal agents conducted subsequent investigations into the origin of the Glock 44 used in the ODU attack. Based on probable cause found on Jalloh's cell phone, the FBI raided the home of Kenya Chapman, who investigators say sold the pistol to Jalloh. The weapon had a partially obliterated serial number and, according to reporting, was stolen from a vehicle; Chapman allegedly sold it for $100. Chapman was previously linked to straw purchases of firearms in 2021 and was visited by ATF agents who, per published accounts, issued a warning letter at that time. After the ODU shooting, Chapman was charged by the ATF with making false statements in prior firearm purchases and with engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license.
The attack and its aftermath have prompted political and legal reaction. Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney Ramin Fatehi, speaking at a press conference, did not characterize the shooting as an act of terrorism and instead called attention to what he termed a "cult of gun absolutism," urging lawmakers and the courts to enact stricter gun-control measures. His remarks have fed into broader debates over how shootings are labeled and how policy should respond to such incidents.
Legal commentators and the author of the account have also raised questions about the potential legal exposure of the students who subdued the attacker. Some media comparisons cited prosecutions in other cases, including the New York City subway incident involving Daniel Penny, and noted that prosecutors have in recent years pursued charges against individuals who used force in public confrontations. The Reason piece highlights Virginia regulations that broadly prohibit possession or carrying of weapons in university academic buildings, excluding specified small knives used for domestic purposes, and points out that additional state statutes criminalize carrying certain types of concealed blades. The type of knife, if any, used in the ODU incident has not been publicly disclosed.
Two days after the shooting, the Virginia General Assembly forwarded S749, an enrolled bill that would ban certain semiautomatic firearms described as "assault firearms" and restrict standard-capacity magazines holding more than 15 rounds, to the governor for signature. The bill targets purchase and sale of enumerated firearms and magazines but, as reported, does not apply to possession by persons with violent-crime convictions or address use of firearms in violent crimes.
The ODU attack has intersected with longstanding national conversations about campus security, the balance between gun rights and gun safety measures, supervision of individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses, and the legal protection afforded to those who use force to stop active killers. Officials continue to investigate the sequence of events in the classroom and the criminal and regulatory history surrounding both the attacker and the supplier of the weapon. The case is likely to inform debates at the local and state level over legislation, campus policies, and prosecutorial discretion in cases involving defensive force.