Mass shooting at church in Texas

[HerRealName]

How long before Dave identifies that driver as an extra in Friday Night Lights?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'll probably get bashed for this but I do think the media glorification of mass murderers hasn't helped. Mass murders happened before Columbine, but the event really seemed to spur on the celebrity status you get as one of these individuals.

Unfortunately, since this is so commonplace, these killers are now feeling the need to do more to standout which is leading to the huge casualty numbers. Killing 5 people would be plastered all over the news for a week back in 2000. I don't even know if the national media bothers covering it for more than a day if the numbers don't hit double digits (terrorism aside). It's crazy to me that the Vegas shooting, which was the biggest mass shooting in our nation's history, was just a month ago and practically forgotten from the public eye outside of some conspiracy nerds. You won't hear much about this church shooting in a week or two.

As mentioned earlier, these shooters almost always turn out to be men with a history of abusing women. And abusive men are profiled as being insecure with low self-esteem. The way our media treats the shootings and the way the public laps it up gives them a chance to be something in a world where they are nothings.

I don't know how that changes either. Maybe the public just gets bored with it and the media stops covering it so thoroughly. There was once a time when the public became obsessed with serial killers and that eventually seemed to just die off.

I completely agree with everything you said but also realize the catch 22. Just look at this board... are there any threads on 3-4 people dead? Which threads are popular? Terrorism, mass shootings with mass casualties. I think the news does have some leeway to back off unintentionally glorifying the killers (which they clearly aren't doing) but I think the news consumers are really the ones to blame. This is what they want to watch and read.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

How long before Dave identifies that driver as an extra in Friday Night Lights?

Well played.

I think with the internet the conspiracy theories lack a purpose nowadays. At least Kennedy, the moon landing, and 9-11 served a realistic purpose that our government might be involved. What exactly would be the purpose of the Vegas shooting or Sandy Hook? To take away guns?

I do think there are colossal human fuck ups that do get covered up in these big events but don't believe there was some mass conspiracy from the get go. (i.e. Flight 800 accidentally shot down by military, Flight 93 shot down by military which in hindsight was the correct thing to do but back then would look really bad, Mandalay security trying to handle situation themselves...)

[PilotMan]

This entire event is getting spun as "thank god that neighbor had a gun to chase (and possible, in full on movie justice mode, execute) him away from the church or things would have been much worse. Think of all the lives he saved!"

While completely accepting the fact that a person with a heavy semi auto gun will just walk in wherever they please and just start shooting and killing. That appears to be ok, or at the very least completely unavoidable on any level. It must be accepted.

If Texas (or any other place) were to arm everyone, you know what it would look like? Africa. It would look like bands of warlords and kids with guns all over. That seems a lot like social regression to me.

[CrescentMoonie]

Yeah, if that neighbor hadn't done something then everybody in the church might have gotten shot.

Oh, that's right, they did.

If the neighbor hadn't run this guy off then half the people might have died.

Oh, that's right, they did.

It's sad how this is getting spun already. Yes, the yokel did something good to stop things, but the problem is that a court martialed nutbag bought a gun at a place that should have been able to stop him from doing so.

[Edward64]

If the story is true, I'm giving credit where its due. Let's not message out or lessen the good that "yokel" did.

Now on the larger discussion ... rinse and repeat from the various other threads.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

While completely accepting the fact that a person with a heavy semi auto gun will just walk in wherever they please and just start shooting and killing.

First, an AR-15 is not "heavy" by any stretch of an informed imagination.

Second, that's reality. That it isn't true is an illusion we created a good ways back to allow ourselves to function (relatively) normally. If I wanted to walk into pretty much anywhere that doesn't have safeguards in place to control entry & start shooting, with a gun I acquired through illegal means for my illegal purpose, I could. And that's been true for as long as I can recall (I'm just past 50 for those keeping score).

Anything else is delusion.

[Logan]

Are we still unsure if the shooter killed himself, or if the "local resident" put the bullet into him?

I'm not actually trying to throw the guy in jail but I'm curious about the legality of that if it followed an 11 mile chase.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Logan

Are we still unsure if the shooter killed himself, or if the "local resident" put the bullet into him?

I'm not actually trying to throw the guy in jail but I'm curious about the legality of that if it followed an 11 mile chase.

Not sure the legality of this but fat chance that the "hero" will be jailed.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Logan

Are we still unsure if the shooter killed himself, or if the "local resident" put the bullet into him?

Sheriff is saying the gunman shot himself.

Sheriff: Suspect shot himself after he fled the scene | TheHill

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

First, an AR-15 is not "heavy" by any stretch of an informed imagination.

Second, that's reality. That it isn't true is an illusion we created a good ways back to allow ourselves to function (relatively) normally. If I wanted to walk into pretty much anywhere that doesn't have safeguards in place to control entry & start shooting, with a gun I acquired through illegal means for my illegal purpose, I could. And that's been true for as long as I can recall (I'm just past 50 for those keeping score).

Anything else is delusion.

Semantics. It's capable of heavy loss of human life.

Second, you can do all that when you get a gun legally too. No need for the breakout there.

You're basically saying we live in a free society, where shit happens. I actually agree with that. But that doesn't mean that we live in a society where we just accept that this is ok.

Aviation has found a way to make an already safe mode of transportation even safer by using science, smart regulations and training.

If we apply your logic to aviation and refuse to regulate intelligently in any way we would be willing to accept a plane crash a day as the price we have to pay for freedom. It's a stupid, willfully ignorant argument. I really wish that founders would have protected us from airline regulations in the Constitution. They should have known.

[CrescentMoonie]

A few years old now. I wonder if this still holds true?

We found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness or stress levels.

The Geography of Gun Deaths - The Atlantic

[ISiddiqui]

Seems like the shooting was because his mother-in-law attends that Church and he was trying to kill her?

Texas church shooting: Investigators say gunman Devin Kelley carried out massacre after 'domestic situation' involving his relatives - The Washington Post

[PilotMan]

Imagine if this guy was Muslim? What would he say if nothing else was different in this entire situation, except that he was Muslim?

I think we all know what trump would say. That's near the heart of everything too.

[Toddzilla]

If he was Muslim it would be "Enforce the Travel Ban!"

If he were Hispanic it would be "Build The Wall!

If he were Black it would be "Violent Thugs belong in proson!"

But since he's white, its "We must protect the Second Amendment!"

[RainMaker]

I want to know how he got the guns. A DD for that should have prevented him from owning firearms. Makes me wonder if the DoD screwed up some paperwork on his way out.

[cartman]

Turns out it wasn't a DD. It was a bad conduct discharge.

[cuervo72]

My guess is he already had them, or someone he knew was all "man, that's BS - Obama/the government/that bitch has no right to deny you a gun! I'll get you one, bro!"

edit: or he was just allowed to get one anyway

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Turns out it wasn't a DD. It was a bad conduct discharge.

Gotcha.

I wouldn't be opposed to a law saying "if you beat your wife and kid, you can't own a gun". Most of these nuts turn out to be abusive toward women anyway.

[ColtCrazy]

Best thing I have seen on Twitter today. You can get the AR-15 rifle in the US, but you cannot get a Kinder Egg.

Are we too stupid to figure out a chocolate egg, but ok to handle an assault rifle?

[RainMaker]

Remember how some kids in college got super drunk on caffeinated booze and the FDA had emergency meetings and banned the product from being sold?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Gotcha.

I wouldn't be opposed to a law saying "if you beat your wife and kid, you can't own a gun". Most of these nuts turn out to be abusive toward women anyway.

Lautenberg Amendment.

[BBT]

Or when a guy tried to blow up his shoe on an airplane so we now have to take off our shoes and get body scanned prior to boarding a flight.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Gotcha.

I wouldn't be opposed to a law saying "if you beat your wife and kid, you can't own a gun". Most of these nuts turn out to be abusive toward women anyway.

Samantha Bee had an entire segment on just this fact last week on her show.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

If he was Muslim it would be "Enforce the Travel Ban!"

If he were Hispanic it would be "Build The Wall!

If he were Black it would be "Violent Thugs belong in proson!"

But since he's white, its "We must protect the Second Amendment!"

Also, I would add: "Now is not the time for politics!" and "Mental illness!"

It's really quite sad that we have so many of these that we all know the media playbook based on the identity of the shooter. #thoughtsandprayers

[duckman]

If he was Muslim it would be "Enforce the Travel Ban!"

If he were Hispanic it would be "Build The Wall!

If he were Black it would be "Violent Thugs belong in proson!"

But since he's white, its "We must protect the Second Amendment!"

We shouldn't restrict the movement of people because of where they reside.

People should be able to move freely from country to country if their goal is to find a better employment opportunities.

The targeting of African Americans by the criminal justice system is serious problem in this country.

AND

We should all protect the 2nd amendment at all cost.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Here is a more in-depth article on some things:

Texas Church Shooter May Have Been Targeting His Mother-in-Law - NBC News

He had cracked his infant child's skull. He had also apparently been threatening the in-laws.

My questions are:

1) How did he get these guns and why would someone with that background be allowed to possess them?

2) Did these threats to the in-laws get reported and did the police not take it serious enough?

[molson]

Lots of people have illegal guns. Police will never come across them unless someone is carrying one and then is stopped and searched for some other reason, if there's a search warrant based upon some other crime executed on a house where guns are stored, or if there's probation and parole searches that come across them (and whether that kind of thing happens at all varies widely across the U.S. based on county wealth and how many probation officers they can employ). Limiting the 2nd amendment is one thing, you'd also have to limit the 4th amendment to reduce the amount of guns out there, either broadly or specifically targetting the bad people. There's more than 350 million firearms in the U.S. and the number is just escalating. 2016 was the all time best year for gun sales, again.

A lot of people with illegal guns got them before they were prohibited from buying them. There's no registry or anything so it's easy enough to hold onto to them after you get in trouble, or to leave them with a friend for a while if you're unlucky enough to have an aggressive probation officer. Or they got the guns through friends and family or people they know around town. Sometimes the background check doesn't catch something because of human error or the non-uniform way disqualifying factors might be reported, but I think that's a pretty minor factor considering how many guns are readily available in other ways, and how so many people have guns before they start getting in trouble with the law. People in rural parts of the U.S. can own a ton of guns, it's common for people to sell one if they need some quick cash. I know a couple of places where people target shoot outside city limits in the desert (which is legal), I bet I could get anything I wanted from people there through cash or trade without going through official channels and transfer fees (not legal).

[Drake]

In Indiana, private sales of guns to other people are legal (provided you're not selling to someone you know cannot legally possess one -- i.e., you avoid asking that question -- and you're not selling an assault weapon or a pistol to someone under the age of 18.)

In Texas, you just can't sell it to someone you suspect is going to use it unlawfully, an intoxicated person, or a child under the age of 18.

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Lots of people have illegal guns. Police will never come across them unless someone is carrying one and then is stopped and searched for some other reason, if there's a search warrant based upon some other crime executed on a house where guns are stored, or if there's probation and parole searches that come across them (and whether that kind of thing happens at all varies widely across the U.S. based on county wealth and how many probation officers they can employ). Limiting the 2nd amendment is one thing, you'd also have to limit the 4th amendment to reduce the amount of guns out there, either broadly or specifically targetting the bad people. There's more than 350 million firearms in the U.S. and the number is just escalating. 2016 was the all time best year for gun sales, again.

A lot of people with illegal guns got them before they were prohibited from buying them. There's no registry or anything so it's easy enough to hold onto to them after you get in trouble, or to leave them with a friend for a while if you're unlucky enough to have an aggressive probation officer. Or they got the guns through friends and family or people they know around town. Sometimes the background check doesn't catch something because of human error or the non-uniform way disqualifying factors might be reported, but I think that's a pretty minor factor considering how many guns are readily available in other ways, and how so many people have guns before they start getting in trouble with the law. People in rural parts of the U.S. can own a ton of guns, it's common for people to sell one if they need some quick cash. I know a couple of places where people target shoot outside city limits in the desert (which is legal), I bet I could get anything I wanted from people there through cash or trade without going through official channels and transfer fees (not legal).

I understand that. But if someone did sell him one of those guns illegally, I think they should be tried with accessory to murder.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

A lot of people with illegal guns got them before they were prohibited from buying them.

Now there is an interesting point that I don't know that I've ever seen raised specifically before.

But both probationers and parolees -- to varying degrees, best I can tell -- are not afforded the same rights of protection under the 4th amendment. Federal law creates a "prohibited persons" category for firearm possession, various state laws are sometimes more stringent.

It would seem in the best interest of society for probation/parole officers to be encouraged to be more active in their use of warrantless searches to help reduce the number of convicted felons who are illegally possessing firearms.

Among the interesting things I noticed while looking up some of the terminology was that the federal prohibited list doesn't kick in until a third violent felony convicted, and that you can still legally possess a firearm while awaiting trial even in those instances. You can still possess one you previously had, the restriction is only on receiving a new one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It would seem in the best interest of society for probation/parole officers to be encouraged to be more active in their use of warrantless searches to help reduce the number of convicted felons who are illegally possessing firearms.

Definitely. I know we have a few aggressive probation officer in my county that will identify potentially dangerous domestic batterers who are on probation and search their homes often to specifically look for weapons, but I think it's real hit and miss how often that happens in poorer counties who don't always even have probation officers. I think a lot of times when you're on probation, you're pretty much left alone outside of maybe a required monthly meeting and drug test.

Edit: Alaska had a really good system, I worked up there during law school. I'm not sure if it was state-wide or a Juenau thing, but they had two tracts of probation officers, one for mental health, and one for substance abuse. So if you had mental health issues and you were on probation, you were assigned a specific mental-health probation officer who made sure you stayed on your meds, didn't have weapons, etc. Of course, that takes money, and, it takes being on probation. And when a prosecutor insists on prosecuting someone who is mentally ill to the point of actually getting a conviction, there's often a ton of community backlash to that. But a lot of times, this is why they're doing it. The government only has power to control you and search you without specific cause if you've been convicted of a crime. Some states have statutes permitting people to be detained and regulated for mental health reasons alone, but, the standards are usually difficult to meet (imminent threat of death, etc.), and I think there's also societal reluctance there too.

[RainMaker]

Just curious, how do you not get more time for cracking an infant's skull? That's practically attempted murder. Shouldn't this guy have been locked up for some time? And shouldn't his threats to the in-laws triggered some probation violation?

[RainMaker]

Well this just broke. It appears the Air Force fucked up.

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons - The New York Times

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just curious, how do you not get more time for cracking an infant's skull? That's practically attempted murder. Shouldn't this guy have been locked up for some time? And shouldn't his threats to the in-laws triggered some probation violation?

He was probably lucky he was under the jurisdiction of the Air Force at the time. I'm not 100% sure how that works but I'm guessing that the incident happened in military-owned housing and that that's why he was only prosecuted in the military system. And I'm guessing he wasn't on any kind of military probation or supervision anymore after he was discharged.

I prosecuted a defendant or two who was active military. I used to get calls from their recruiters or supervisors asking me to take it easy on them and amend the charges because he couldn't drive this or that vehicle with a DUI or he couldn't take this or that particular training with a domestic violence conviction. So, limited sample there, but the military's interest in processing criminal activity is a lot different than the county government's is. I would always respond, paraphrasing "you're the military, you can bomb countries, I think you can do what you want with this guy regardless of his outcome is in lowly misdemeanor court, so this really isn't my problem."

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well this just broke. It appears the Air Force fucked up.

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons - The New York Times

Why am I not surprised...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And shouldn't his threats to the in-laws triggered some probation violation?

Wait, was he on probation? I thought he served his sentence & was then dismissed with a Bad Conduct discharge.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wait, was he on probation? I thought he served his sentence & was then dismissed with a Bad Conduct discharge.

This would be the case.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wait, was he on probation? I thought he served his sentence & was then dismissed with a Bad Conduct discharge.

I don't know. Not really sure how the military law enforcement stuff works. I'd hope that someone who cracked an infants skull would be on some form of probation or parole following their release.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know. Not really sure how the military law enforcement stuff works. I'd hope that someone who cracked an infants skull would be on some form of probation or parole following their release.

The military generally doesn't give parole with that short of a sentence.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well this just broke. It appears the Air Force fucked up.

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons - The New York Times

Not really an error.

But the military has no distinct charge for domestic violence, notes Grover Baxley, a former judge advocate general who now practices military law as a civilian. “We see this all the time,” Baxley said. “There is no specific domestic violence article.” Instead, military prosecutors charge abusers with other offenses, like assault.

A scan of active records shows that the Department of Defense has just a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence on file with the National Criminal Instant Background Check System, or NICS.

[CrescentMoonie]

What a freaking moron. Everybody in the place gets shot but gun control would have caused hundreds more to get shot in the church.

Trump: Gun Control Would Have Left 'Hundreds More Dead' In Texas Church | HuffPost

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

What a freaking moron. Everybody in the place gets shot but gun control would have caused hundreds more to get shot in the church.

Trump: Gun Control Would Have Left 'Hundreds More Dead' In Texas Church | HuffPost

Might be a stupid comment, but how about the headline butchering?

“you might not have had that very brave person who happened to have a gun or a rifle in his truck go out and shoot him and hit him and neutralize him. I can only say this: If he didn’t have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have had hundreds more dead.”

So he's saying that if the guy wasn't being pursued, he would have just gone to the next populated area to continue the massacre.

But they know that people don't have the attention span to actually read an article past the headline to read the actual quote, so they butcher it to make it sound like he said he would have killed hundreds more in the church.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Might be a stupid comment, but how about the headline butchering?



So he's saying that if the guy wasn't being pursued, he would have just gone to the next populated area to continue the massacre.

But they know that people don't have the attention span to actually read an article past the headline to read the actual quote, so they butcher it to make it sound like he said he would have killed hundreds more in the church.

No. The headline is a very accurate summary of what he said.

[dave731]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

How long before Dave identifies that driver as an extra in Friday Night Lights?

[BBT]

Paul Ryan on Fox News just now: "The right thing to do is pray in moments like this, because you know what? Prayer works!" pic.twitter.com/j2rzr35zHS

— Angelo Carusone (@GoAngelo) November 7, 2017

Um...weren’t the victims doing just that?

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No. The headline is a very accurate summary of what he said.

How so? The headline depicts that he said hundreds more in the church would have died if not for the other guy. That's not what he said.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

How so? The headline depicts that he said hundreds more in the church would have died if not for the other guy. That's not what he said.

It really is. The guy who confronted the shooter did so at the church. If the timeline that has been discussed is right, after getting shot by that guy, Kelley fled the scene and was chased by the neighbor and some random guy who was driving by. POtuS' comment suggests that, if not for the local guy coming in with a gun to stop the shooter that there would have been hundreds more dead at that scene even though there weren't hundreds more people.

[digamma]

There is a misquote in what you posted or you didn't post the whole thing. He said that "extreme vetting" of gun purchases may have led the good shooter to not having a gun. Then it picks up with the piece you posted.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It really is. The guy who confronted the shooter did so at the church. If the timeline that has been discussed is right, after getting shot by that guy, Kelley fled the scene and was chased by the neighbor and some random guy who was driving by. POtuS' comment suggests that, if not for the local guy coming in with a gun to stop the shooter that there would have been hundreds more dead at that scene even though there weren't hundreds more people.

CNN says that he was confronted as he left the church. So he was done in the church, still carrying his gun. Then he was confronted, dropped the rifle and fled.

So Trump's comments actually suggest what he actually said, not how the news site wanted to portray it. If the guy hadn't of been confronted as he left the church, he very well could have continued on. Again, he didn't say that hundreds more would be dead in the church.