Waffle House Shooting-Nashville

[QuackerSmacker]

17 hours ago, blueghost said:

On 4/23/2018 at 1:11 PM, QuackerSmacker said:

Breaking News:   Shooter in custody.

With a 2 million dollar bond.. Smh  wtf...

Bond has been revoked.  Maybe the judge heard that daddy was about to show up with $200,000.    Imagine letting that guy go!

[tntnixon]

Just now, QuackerSmacker said:

Bond has been revoked.  Maybe the judge heard that daddy was about to show up with $200,000.    Imagine letting that guy go!

Yeah, rich dad and grandfather could have covered that easily .

[bersaguy]

I don't see why he was given any bond what so ever in the first place!!!!!! It should have been Held without bond period!!!!!!!...............NOT MHO on this one

[tntnixon]

I don't see why he was given any bond what so ever in the first place!!!!!! It should have been Held without bond period!!!!!!!...............NOT MHO on this one

Only capital cases are held without bond . The DA should have specified that in the beginning that this was potentially a capital case .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[volshayes]

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/23/if-current-laws-had-been-followed-there-would-have-been-no-waffle-house-shooting/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell"&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRKaU4yUTROR016WVdKaCIsInQiOiJvQlNvcisxWEJtUEpDNFBNMnBVa0ViUkFDWk5aZHhtaytBVnJpUVQ5RjBrSWFGaEVicmI4cGxDNHVGMTdGcEoyR2J6VEZsT1lzazVocXhCUUhyNTBDa002azdYVElnSDYrNUhKVHBxcDR2akxydjMra1dZaXFhU2hYM2t4bmtZUSJ9

 

[Grunt67]

1 hour ago, volshayes said:

If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/23/if-current-laws-had-been-followed-there-would-have-been-no-waffle-house-shooting/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell"&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRKaU4yUTROR016WVdKaCIsInQiOiJvQlNvcisxWEJtUEpDNFBNMnBVa0ViUkFDWk5aZHhtaytBVnJpUVQ5RjBrSWFGaEVicmI4cGxDNHVGMTdGcEoyR2J6VEZsT1lzazVocXhCUUhyNTBDa002azdYVElnSDYrNUhKVHBxcDR2akxydjMra1dZaXFhU2hYM2t4bmtZUSJ9

 

That's quite true, but the Libs & media don't want to bring that up. "We need more gun laws" sounds much better to the masses. Lib politicians make a good living off this crap. They never allow a good mass shooting go to waste.

Certainly, this could easily have been prevented if all involved had done their job. Didn't happen. Hopefully, the loving, devoted Father will get a good chunk of his son's up coming pie. With his money, who's to say..........

[monkeylizard]

7 hours ago, tntnixon said:

Evidently this dude’s family is very wealthy. Between lawyers fees and civil suits, this will likely cease to be the case.
 

You would think so, but if they're wealthy, like for-real wealthy, then they'll likely have been smart enough to have assets squirreled away under different corporations and family members. Any wealthy person that has it all in their own name is a moron. Time will tell.

[gregintenn]

Until I beat something different, James Shaw Jr. has my utmost respect. What a guy!

[SWCUMBERLAND]

3 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Until I beat something different, James Shaw Jr. has my utmost respect. What a guy!

Indeed. His courage was officially noted by both houses of the Tennessee legislature. He started a gofundme drive on behalf of the families of the victims, and a gofundme drive was also started by another party on behalf of his daughter.

Must have pissed the newsies off royally that they couldn't impugn this man's character.

To whomever is running this site, if this brave man shows up here, I volunteer to front him for a year Benefactor membership.

SWC

Edited April 25, 2018 by SWCUMBERLAND
addendum

[DaveTN]

Quote

 

June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

 

I would like to find out “The Rest of the Story” behind this. Threatening someone with a deadly weapon is Aggravated Assault in Illinois, a felony. Not many Police Officers in any state would let someone like that go. I wonder if he was arrested and not charged, if this is the case where he got court supervision and then a dismissal, or if his family had the contacts to keep him out of the system.

I never saw a Judge in Illinois release a firearm to anyone that was charged with a crime. Any plea bargain always required that the weapons be destroyed.

But this is a case that shows even when laws are in place they won’t stop a criminal.

[DaveTN]

11 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

You would think so, but if they're wealthy, like for-real wealthy, then they'll likely have been smart enough to have assets squirreled away under different corporations and family members. Any wealthy person that has it all in their own name is a moron. Time will tell.

That won’t work anymore; forensic accountants will find everything he has and report it to law enforcement and the victim’s attorneys.

According to the news stories the father admitted giving the guns back to him. That makes him an accessory to the death and injuries that took place. The rest of the family will have their lives changed also. All because nothing was done when the obvious problems presented. The punitive damages will be huge.

[gregintenn]

42 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

I would like to find out “The Rest of the Story” behind this. Threatening someone with a deadly weapon is Aggravated Assault in Illinois, a felony. Not many Police Officers in any state would let someone like that go. I wonder if he was arrested and not charged, if this is the case where he got court supervision and then a dismissal, or if his family had the contacts to keep him out of the system.

I never saw a Judge in Illinois release a firearm to anyone that was charged with a crime. Any plea bargain always required that the weapons be destroyed.

But this is a case that shows even when laws are in place they won’t stop a criminal.

I've not yet disproved the theory that this guy was an example of what politicians refer to as a "useful idiot".

[KahrMan]

James Shaw Jr is getting a lot of love and attention from a lot of people right now, as he should be.

What I am wondering is, would he be getting the same love and attention from the national media if he had a carry permit and pulled his gun and shot the dude instead of disarming him.

[gregintenn]

10 minutes ago, KahrMan said:

James Shaw Jr is getting a lot of love and attention from a lot of people right now, as he should be.

What I am wondering is, would he be getting the same love and attention from the national media if he had a carry permit and pulled his gun and shot the dude instead of disarming him.

I can only speak for myself, but yes.

[tntnixon]

James Shaw Jr is getting a lot of love and attention from a lot of people right now, as he should be.
What I am wondering is, would he be getting the same love and attention from the national media if he had a carry permit and pulled his gun and shot the dude instead of disarming him.

Considering that the usher at Barnett Chaple church did just that , I’d say no. Definitely a difference in the way they’ve been covered. The church shooting didn’t fit the narrative, so it was largely ignored, relatively speaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SWCUMBERLAND]

21 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I can only speak for myself, but yes.

I vote YES.

[SWCUMBERLAND]

11 minutes ago, tntnixon said:

Considering that the usher at Barnett Chaple church did just that , I’d say no. Definitely a difference in the way they’ve been covered. The church shooting didn’t fit the narrative, so it was largely ignored, relatively speaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For which the yellow media should be ashamed, and that usher should be lauded.

Edited April 25, 2018 by SWCUMBERLAND

[bersaguy]

I don't know about all folks here but I have a problem with the authorities in most, not all but most of the mass shootings. At one time or another the shooters have been involved with the law be it local law enforcement all the way up the ladder in this case to the Secret Service and they all have admitted to having enteractions in some form or fashion that should have or would have prevented some not all of the mass shootings but in each case someone dropped the bal and didn't complete croassing all the T's and dotting all the i's that would have prevented maany not all of these shootings. In this case there were even doctors involved in this case that supposedly examined this shooter which clearly had major mental issues that turmed him normal and released him. Whether that was because of his wealthy fathers influence or just a stupid doctor that needs his license to practice his profession because he / she is cleaarly not a professional at their, job but an idiot. .......most all is JMHO

[tntnixon]

2 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I don't know about all folks here but I have a problem with the authorities in most, not all but most of the mass shootings. At one time or another the shooters have been involved with the law be it local law enforcement all the way up the ladder in this case to the Secret Service and they all have admitted to having enteractions in some form or fashion that should have or would have prevented some not all of the mass shootings but in each case someone dropped the bal and didn't complete croassing all the T's and dotting all the i's that would have prevented maany not all of these shootings. In this case there were even doctors involved in this case that supposedly examined this shooter which clearly had major mental issues that turmed him normal and released him. Whether that was because of his wealthy fathers influence or just a stupid doctor that needs his license to practice his profession because he / she is cleaarly not a professional at their, job but an idiot. .......most all is JMHO

This is one of the problems. At what point do you deny someone a constitutional right for the rest of their life? It’s really easy to say “ he had an interaction with the police , take them away “. Does that mean any and all interactions with police remove constitutional requirements rights ? Traffic stop ??? What about a cop who you pissed off? Can he interact with you and have your rights revoked indefinitely?

Mental health is another slippery slope . What point is someone considered so mentally ill they no longer can ever have rights ? Even psychiatrists don’t know the answer to this question. They have people with mental illness get better all the time . How do they decide which patients will never get better ? Are they now the final arbiters of constitutional rights ? 

These are very difficult questions to answer even though the knee jerk reaction is as stated above .

[Whisper]

I don't know anything about Illinois gun laws, but it seems to me likely that there's a process for having the FOID restored after it is cancelled.  In this guy's case I'd think a mental evaluation would be a condition for getting his FOID back.  So far there's no evidence that any process was followed; the cops just gave the guns back to the father (Why?  It wasn't his property) and the father, despite saying he wouldn't give them to his son, did exactly that.  Seems like the father should face some criminal and civil charges in Illinois, and whoever decided to return the guns to the father should be fired and permanently ineligible to work in law enforcement.

[bersaguy]

4 hours ago, tntnixon said:

This is one of the problems. At what point do you deny someone a constitutional right for the rest of their life? It’s really easy to say “ he had an interaction with the police , take them away “. Does that mean any and all interactions with police remove constitutional requirements rights ? Traffic stop ??? What about a cop who you pissed off? Can he interact with you and have your rights revoked indefinitely?

Mental health is another slippery slope . What point is someone considered so mentally ill they no longer can ever have rights ? Even psychiatrists don’t know the answer to this question. They have people with mental illness get better all the time . How do they decide which patients will never get better ? Are they now the final arbiters of constitutional rights ? 

These are very difficult questions to answer even though the knee jerk reaction is as stated above .

I can agree with you on most of your post but in this case I think all of the mistakes made by the authorities in this case stand out very clearly............JMHO

Edited April 25, 2018 by bersaguy

[monkeylizard]

4 hours ago, Whisper said:

I don't know anything about Illinois gun laws, but it seems to me likely that there's a process for having the FOID restored after it is cancelled.  In this guy's case I'd think a mental evaluation would be a condition for getting his FOID back.  So far there's no evidence that any process was followed; the cops just gave the guns back to the father (Why?  It wasn't his property) and the father, despite saying he wouldn't give them to his son, did exactly that.  Seems like the father should face some criminal and civil charges in Illinois, and whoever decided to return the guns to the father should be fired and permanently ineligible to work in law enforcement.

I saw one of the IL law enforcement folks on the news last night. He said what I was thinking was the case: They had no right to seize the firearms any more than they had the right to enter the home and seize the refrigerator. The son had not been charged (much less convicted) of a crime warranting the seizure of his firearms. But his FOID was revoked so they couldn't give them back so they gave them to a family member.

Think about our good buddy Voldemort. He had his HCP suspended because he showed what a judge (or TDOS official, not sure on the specifics) thought to be poor decision making in public with firearms. But his firearms weren't seized because he wasn't charged with or convicted of a felony.

What I'm still unsure of is if the father violated any ATF regulations. I think it's going to come down to who actually owned the firearms and where the transfer of possession took place. I'm also not sure the son would qualify as a "prohibited person" under Fed laws. They couldn't give to flips about whether or not Illinois revoked his state FOID card. Form 4473 Question 11.f says:

Quote

Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

I've not heard any reports saying either of those is true.

 

The civil suits will be brutal though. Negligence is going to be easy to prove in this one. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by monkeylizard

[monkeylizard]

4 hours ago, bersaguy said:

I can agree with you on most of your post but in this case I think all of the mistakes made by the authorities in this case stand out very clearly............JMHO

I don't know what "mistakes" you're talking about. Reinking never committed any violent crimes before this (that we know of). Illinois revoked his FOID because the FBI told them to after his White House trespassing, but Illinois had no right to seize his property. He wasn't a convicted felon.

If anyone dropped the ball on this one it was his father and any psych doctors who determined him sane, but even that's a sticky one because he may have been in his right mind and fully functional during his psych evals. Mental illness is difficult like that.

Edited April 25, 2018 by monkeylizard

[bersaguy]

18 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

I don't know what "mistakes" you're talking about. Reinking never committed any violent crimes before this (that we know of). Illinois revoked his FOID because the FBI told them to after his White House trespassing, but Illinois had no right to seize his property. He wasn't a convicted felon.

If anyone dropped the ball on this one it was his father and any psych doctors who determined him sane, but even that's a sticky one because he may have been in his right mind and fully functional during his psych evals. Mental illness is difficult like that.

I do agree some things were in the slippery slope area but the fact that all his family and a country/western female performer are stalking him and there was a lot of people heard him say that and the threat made with the AR at the swmming Pool wearing a pink dress and then putting the gun up , taking off the dress and jumping in the pool  and they don't take away his guns. If I acted like that I would expect them to come to my door for sure knowing I possess those weapons..............JMHO

[QuackerSmacker]

On 4/25/2018 at 7:42 AM, SWCUMBERLAND said:

I vote YES.

As to love and attention from the media, if the hero had just shot the perp, I vote yes for the attention, which would be brief, and no for the love.  I don't see any hint of media ever making any defensive gun use look good.