El Paso Mall shooting

[A.J. Holst]

55 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

guess since he willingly surrendered to police

After 5 years of active shooter awareness seminars, presenters are sharing a new trend of escape / surrender is emerging.

[A.J. Holst]

55 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

guess since he willingly surrendered to police

After 5 years of active shooter awareness seminars, presenters are sharing a new trend of escape / surrender is emerging.

[Erich]

The case for media blackouts outside giving the perp what he wanted (shooters name did appear so he got his 15+ minutes) on top of the clear and irresponsible political bias. Never taking credit for their role providing incentives, or driving division without addressing anything about the poor victims.

First sentence of the article via ABC news about Ohio:

" In the second mass shooting in less than 15 hours, at least nine people were killed and 27 injured early on Sunday after a gunman in body armor and wielding an AK-47-style assault rifle opened fire in downtown Dayton, Ohio, according to police. "

Soon after, though its not about this story, but hey.....lets get folks fired up:

"The mass shooting in Dayton followed a mass shooting Saturday morning in El Paso, Texas, where 20 people were killed and more than two dozen injured when a gunman, also wearing body armor and armed with an assault rifle, opened fire without warning.

The back-to-back massacres came a week after a gunman killed three people and injured more than a dozen others at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Northern California."

OK...so was the media thinking it would would have somehow been better if the El Paso whacko first issued a warning before firing? Now that we got the Libtards all fired up foaming at the mouth screaming at their monitors for bans, lets get back to our Ohio story with another with more gratuitous mentions so they know specifically what to go on about...

" the shooter wore armor and was carrying a .223-caliber rifle similar to an AK-47 and additional high-capacity magazines."

While there was superfluous mention about officers killing the shooter in less than a minute, where it actually happened, time and such, those items seem to only get mentioned once and not emphasized.  And nothing about the victims of note.

[DaveTN]

3 hours ago, Erich said:

Social Media is the is the real epidemic.

The amazing thing about this is there is ZERO mention or focus on that fact that all of this whackadoodles post up on social media before they go do this and their AGE. Outside the Las Vegas shooter, they are all young social media addicts who are clearly insane. Its so simple. Shut down Facebook, Twitter, and related social media platforms and this pretty much goes away. Or at a minimum, shut them down in the US.

What you are suggesting; shuts down this forum.

We are in the most politically charged times I have seen in my 65 years. People want to talk about it, and they are going to do it on social media; its freedom of speech. You can’t control it you can only react when a line is crossed.

I suspect however you are going to see changes. I have said before that the Police have the ability to put a major dent in drug abuse without violating anyone’s rights. I say the same thing about those that openly make threats, expressed or implied. Freedom of speech does not include threats of violence; and I think you are about to see that kick in. The American people want these people arrested and jailed when they make threats. For the very few that think threats are covered by the first amendment; they can make that argument in front of a jury of their peers.

Mental heath is the biggest problem. These people are not normal; they are sick. And when their writings bring them out into the light they need to be taken out. The problem is by the time that is attempted; its usually too late.

Red flag laws are a part of this. Yet you see the hard line 2nd amendment folks that seem to see having their guns taken away for violent threats a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. Some are the same folks that want to blame the cops because they didn’t take someone’s guns. I believe we will see Red Flag laws passed that have clearly defined due process.

Edited August 4, 2019 by DaveTN

[Erik88]

These shootings have been on my mind as I'm in Chicago at the Lollapalooza music festival. I've never seen security like this. I've lost count of how many guys with AR's are walking around. Anything can happen but this place feels really secure. They have helicopters overhead, mounted police, cops on segways, etc. Pretty sure I saw some guys that we're SWAT team or similar.  

[OLDNEWBIE]

2 hours ago, Fourtyfive said:

A .jpg of the manifesto that might have been written by this scum...

 

I read that last night.. Can't read that jpeg well but from what I remember....

Shooter's motives were also "save the planet" enviromental as well as anti open borders and race mixing.

Seems he was into population control, (correct me if I'm wrong) as I only read it once last night.

He blamed both political parties but especially the Dems for encouraging the illegal immigration to eventually get votes and one party rule.

Sounds nothing like the MSM cherry picking of the manifesto twisting him into a Trump Fan. I mean who's to say what % of this nuts motives were all the doomed planet rhetoric the left is spewing? This guy was all over the place. Maybe he saw all the Dem Presidential candidates declaring they want to decriminalize illegal border crossings and that set him off because of how that might effect the enviroment with all the new consumers in the US.

[DaveTN]

Quote

"The state charge is capital murder and so he is eligible for the death penalty," District Attorney Jaime Esparza said Sunday. "We will seek the death penalty."

I wonder is this will get slowed by the Feds sticking their nose in?? 

[Erich]

20 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

What you are suggesting; shuts down this forum.

We are in the most politically charged times I have seen in my 65 years. People want to talk about it, and they are going to do it on social media; its freedom of speech. You can’t control it you can only react when a line is crossed.

Mental heath is the biggest problem. These people are not normal; they are sick. And when their writings bring them out into the light they need to be taken out. The problem is by the time that is attempted; its usually too late.

Red flag laws are a part of this. Yet you see the hard line 2nd amendment folks that seem to see having their guns taken away for violent threats a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. Some are the same folks that want to blame the cops because they didn’t take someone’s guns. I believe we will see Red Flag laws passed that have clearly defined due process.

Excellent points Mr Dave, as always.  I believe some brevity ends up with my making generalizations that leave out the refined scope. Such as anything on the internet being considered Social Media, but I personally dont characterize very niche places as such. But it does still give a limited audience I imagine. 

It is a very hard time and we all are on board with this being mental health. Unfortunately, most will not support steps necessary to identify and address those with such issues. To do so would be seen as encroaching on freedoms and would be highly unpopular. One of the biggest obstacles is seeing mental health as either curable or able to be kept under control.

The idea that analytic engines and AI allowed to consume the data online to identify and flag (though we know it goes on) is so frowned upon. No doubt what you see as the next step coming. It rightly gives a sense of fear, few can accept it happening though they are unaware. I do hope that due process comes with red flag laws. Current ones have been abused. Its a slippery slope for sure.

No simple answers, that was probably a bad turn of phrase. Some very tough had to swallow answers perhaps? Some freedoms will be lost at the end of the day, we just have to wait to see what those are.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Erich

[beebee233]

13 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

 

Red flag laws are a part of this. Yet you see the hard line 2nd amendment folks that seem to see having their guns taken away for violent threats a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. Some are the same folks that want to blame the cops because they didn’t take someone’s guns. I believe we will see Red Flag laws passed that have clearly defined due process.

The problem with such legislation, as in ALL legislation, is that it will inevitably have differing interpretations and unintended consequences.

Additionally, as you have stated, we already have laws on the books that address these situations. They are just not enforced. Probably due to having different interpretations and unintended consequences.

Reminds me of a movie about a WWII B-25 bombardier.

[OLDNEWBIE]

18 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

What you are suggesting; shuts down this forum.

We are in the most politically charged times I have seen in my 65 years. People want to talk about it, and they are going to do it on social media; its freedom of speech. You can’t control it you can only react when a line is crossed.

I suspect however you are going to see changes. I have said before that the Police have the ability to put a major dent in drug abuse without violating anyone’s rights. I say the same thing about those that openly make threats, expressed or implied. Freedom of speech does not include threats of violence; and I think you are about to see that kick in. The American people want these people arrested and jailed when they make threats. For the very few that think threats are covered by the first amendment; they can make that argument in front of a jury of their peers.

Mental heath is the biggest problem. These people are not normal; they are sick. And when their writings bring them out into the light they need to be taken out. The problem is by the time that is attempted; its usually too late.

Red flag laws are a part of this. Yet you see the hard line 2nd amendment folks that seem to see having their guns taken away for violent threats a violation of their 2nd amendment rights. Some are the same folks that want to blame the cops because they didn’t take someone’s guns. I believe we will see Red Flag laws passed that have clearly defined due process.

They do it already but....Expect the monitering of these websites like 4Chan as well as Stormfront type sites, Reddit , Facebook and little old sites like TNgunowners to be more scrutinized. I'm sure I have a profile somewhere in a database that an alarm would go off if I was posting more extereme violent thoughts. All right leaning posters have I'm sure. I just hope they watch the lefties as well!

I'm ok with this to a point as these are open forums with no expectation of privacy. It won't stop every mass killing but it could help.

[DaveTN]

17 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

The problem with such legislation, as in ALL legislation, is that it will inevitably have differing interpretations and unintended consequences.

Additionally, as you have stated, we already have laws on the books that address these situations. They are just not enforced. Probably due to having different interpretations and unintended consequences.

Reminds me of a movie about a WWII B-25 bombardier.

But they are enforced. If you make a threat in Tennessee the cops can come and seize your guns. Is that not true?

What I don’t see is a clearly defined set of rules or “Due Process”. It appears to me they do whatever they want or whatever they can get away with. Lacking specific instructions; that's all they can do.

Everyone that is a gun owner needs to know what is going to happen if they make violent threats and the cops get called, or if they threaten suicide and the cops get called. If family members and friends can’t handle the situation and call for law enforcement; guns are going to get seized if there is probable cause to do so. Anything less and the liability is simply too high, and the danger to innocent people too great.

[Erich]

The irony is, in effect, your first amendment rights kind of fly out the window to some degree.  You have to be very careful what you say as it could be misinterpreted. And you have the burden of proof, not your accuser. Essentially you get someone who has a grudge against you and they can claim you said something in a threatening manner and you don't feel safe.

 

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Erich said:

The irony is, in effect, your first amendment rights kind of fly out the window to some degree.  You have to be very careful what you say as it could be misinterpreted. And you have the burden of proof, not your accuser. Essentially you get someone who has a grudge against you and they can claim you said something in a threatening manner and you don't feel safe.

 

Your 1st amendment rights don’t fly out the window unless you throw them there. It’s always possible that you could be falsely accused of threatening someone. But it’s rare for an innocent person to be accused. Cops usually know the whole story (or at least hear all sides); we rarely do. But with threats in Social Media; they are there in writing for Cops, DA’s, Judges and/or Juries to decide on.

People threatening suicide is usually a cry for help. The only “help” the cops can give them is to get them to a medical or mental health facility and remove their firearms. Sorry; but that’s what’s going to happen. The rest is up to Doctors, Mental Health workers, clergy, and the family. Some of whom are usually who called the Police because they were in a situation they couldn’t deal with.

[gregintenn]

When is the media going to start taking some responsibility for stoking and promoting these lunatics?

Glorifying these cowards may sell ad space, but it does our country a great injustice.

I do not blame the media alone, but they do hold a percentage of blame each time these things happen in my opinion.

I'll not hold my breath.

[Quavodus]

3 hours ago, bersaguy said:

I guess since he willingly surrendered to police they figured he was no longer a threat. He had done what he set out to do and I am willing to bet if he would have tried anything stupid the escort officer would have killed him.....JMHO

The cop may've of been hoping he would try something. LMAO.

[Erich]

8 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Your 1st amendment rights don’t fly out the window unless you throw them there. It’s always possible that you could be falsely accused of threatening someone. But it’s rare for an innocent person to be accused.

Not true at all for red flag situations, as well as a few others. Accusation is all it takes, you can be "mis-quoated" on top of the  what the person reporting it said their perceptions of a statement meant and how it made them feel unsafe. You are assuming folks are not malicious or vindictive and you bring it on yourself. I was involved in a case 3 years ago as witness. Total miscarriage of justice.

While the victim (the person who was claimed to make statements they did not) got his firearms back, it cost over 20k on top of damage done to many of the firearms. From what I was told, no recourse to go after the person who falsely accused him or get that back, While this was in CA, I dont think that behavior is relegated to that area or rare. If you are a known gun owner, anyone with a beef can mess with you if they choose. So you have to use more caution and cant speak without your gopro going.  Which of course, no one does unless they have reason to believe its about to happen.

You only need to see a case in person to know just how little your rights mean in certain situations.

 

 

[Dirtshooter]

2 hours ago, Erich said:

The irony is, in effect, your first amendment rights kind of fly out the window to some degree.  You have to be very careful what you say as it could be misinterpreted. And you have the burden of proof, not your accuser. Essentially you get someone who has a grudge against you and they can claim you said something in a threatening manner and you don't feel safe.

 

Exactly why I don't have an NRA or any other gun sticker on my truck. Anyone can call 911 and say a guy in red chevy tag# just pointed a pistol at me. Most folks with NRA sticker probably has a pistol in truck. Cop stops you and you have pistol. Lawyer fees may be least of your worries.

[beebee233]

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

But they are enforced. If you make a threat in Tennessee the cops can come and seize your guns. Is that not true?

What I don’t see is a clearly defined set of rules or “Due Process”. It appears to me they do whatever they want or whatever they can get away with. Lacking specific instructions; that's all they can do.

Everyone that is a gun owner needs to know what is going to happen if they make violent threats and the cops get called, or if they threaten suicide and the cops get called. If family members and friends can’t handle the situation and call for law enforcement; guns are going to get seized if there is probable cause to do so. Anything less and the liability is simply too high, and the danger to innocent people too great.

They  are enforced when they want to be enforced.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Erich said:

Not true at all for red flag situations, as well as a few others. Accusation is all it takes, you can be "mis-quoated" on top of the  what the person reporting it said their perceptions of a statement meant and how it made them feel unsafe. You are assuming folks are not malicious or vindictive and you bring it on yourself. I was involved in a case 3 years ago as witness. Total miscarriage of justice.

While the victim (the person who was claimed to make statements they did not) got his firearms back, it cost over 20k on top of damage done to many of the firearms. From what I was told, no recourse to go after the person who falsely accused him or get that back, While this was in CA, I dont think that behavior is relegated to that area or rare. If you are a known gun owner, anyone with a beef can mess with you if they choose. So you have to use more caution and cant speak without your gopro going.  Which of course, no one does unless they have reason to believe its about to happen.

You only need to see a case in person to know just how little your rights mean in certain situations.

As a former Police Officer I know that we don’t have a justice system we have a legal system. I’ve been involved in these cases as the responding officer. I know without a doubt that people lie. I have no idea why you think I would assume any different.

I don’t know how or why you were involved in a case that cost someone $20K in legal fees. But I would bet they had a hand in making the person make claims against them.

I’ve told all my friends and family; don’t call the cops for help in your BS family/friend/neighborhood situations. They aren’t hand holders that will make you feel okay about yourself or arrest your whole neighborhood because you got disrespected.

They are law enforcement. If you can’t handle your own problems; they will send out a 20 something year old kid to handle it for you. They aren’t going to hold court on the street, or in your living room, let you call witnesses and cross examine all the other people involved. They will make decisions on the fly based on what they have and how the interpret the law and their discretion. Don’t be upset if you don’t agree with the outcome. I’m kidding….. of course you will be upset with the outcome. 

Oh and as far as your rights in certain situations…. I’m sure there are people on this forum who have experienced first hand a spouse or girl/boy friend lie to get an order of protection to get them out of the house. It happens all the time….but they had a hand in it.

[Alleycat72]

So Trump is going to address the nation tomorrow at 10:00.

[DaveTN]

9 minutes ago, beebee233 said:

They  are enforced when they want to be enforced.

My point exactly. I would guess they change department to department and even Officer to Officer.

Those laws need to have due process. Folks need to know exactly what is going to happen, and when it is going to happen, and when they get to be heard.

The time for a person to be heard needs to be defined in hours, not days weeks, or even months.

[Garufa]

33 minutes ago, alleycat72 said:

So Trump is going to address the nation tomorrow at 10:00.

It will be interesting to see what he proposes.  I have a feeling he’s going to do something and just a few options are:

1.  Universal background checks.

2.  National “red flag” law.

3.  Mental evaluation for all firearm purchases.

4.  Banning “the brace” or high capacity magazines.  Fox News is showing a pictures claiming to be the Ohio shooter’s weapon.  It is an AR pistol with some variation of a brace (that can easily be shouldered) and big drum magazine.

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Garufa

[Erich]

9 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

As a former Police Officer I know that we don’t have a justice system we have a legal system.

You said it there. Absolutely. With a corollary of How much lawyer you can afford = How much truth you can buy

I appreciate the experience of wearing a badge and seeing many domestic disputes leads to cynicism and that all parties are guilty or have something to be guilty about. I'll kindly disagree that is always the case. Sometimes, people just suck. But of course...you know that all too well.

[Erich]

9 minutes ago, Garufa said:

It will be interesting to see what he proposes.  I have a feeling he’s going to do something and just a few options are:

1.  National background checks.

2.  National “red flag” law.

3.  Mental evaluation for all firearms purchases.

4.  Banning “the brace” or high capacity magazines.  Fox News is showing a pictures claiming to be the Ohio shooter’s weapon.  It is an AR pistol with some variation of a brace (that can easily be shouldered) and big drum magazine.

 

Its something how they continue to focus on the gun, but if that is the case, how lucky they got him so fast. The Mayer claimed it was an AK but in 223 which would be better explained by an AR. Probably threw the media if it were a pistol because it does not match the silhouette they like to use.

1. is an easy sell, and been on the table for a while

2. that is the trend, harder sell for due process and ability to be abused

3. wow...what would that test be and identify future behavior. And who pays, what kind of professional adminsters? While we like it as we dont want nutbags to have guns, cant see it

4. so much case law on it. In CA a federal judge shot down the CA mag ban as unconstiutional, though it was stayed pending appeal. And are we granfathering those with or all have to be turned in? All those mags just got lost in boating accidents

 

 

[Johnny Rotten]

44 minutes ago, Garufa said:

.

4.  Banning “the brace” or high capacity magazines.  Fox News is showing a pictures claiming to be the Ohio shooter’s weapon.  It is an AR pistol with some variation of a brace (that can easily be shouldered) and big drum magazine.

 

Do you have a link to this?