CHL Stops Church Shooting

[Psychedelic Bang]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I've said that he lied, but the more I think about it ... did he? What question on the 4473 should he have answered "Yes" to?

To answer this, we have to look beyond the questions themselves, and go to the instructions. Under the instructions for question 11.b we find the following:

He lied. Look at question 11 c - "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation."

Military court may not classify crimes as felonies or misdemeanors, but for this question, that is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is, "could the judge have imprisoned him for more than one year."

Furthermore, the instructions from 11.b and 11.c --

"A member of the Armed Forces must answer "yes" to 11.b. or 11.c. if charged with an offense that was either referred to a General Court Martial, or at which the member was convicted."

We know he was convicted of a crime for which he could have served far more than a year.

The Government Agencies are admitting there was, "no way he should have, "passed," the NICS." Logic dictates there was no way for him to truthfully fill out the paperwork and pass the NICS.

And I understand what you are saying about, "all kinds of court martials," but again I am just looking at comma - convicted - sentence could have been more than a year

[rickyrick]

This is one time that I don’t care what the law is, wording or whatever says; a serial domestic abuser that has caused significant injuries should not have been able to buy a gun, own a gun or even touch a gun.
I know the government, this isn’t the only guy that has slipped through the cracks. If there’s one we know about, there’s probably thousands more.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Psychedelic Bang

Military court may not classify crimes as felonies or misdemeanors, but for this question, that is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is, "could the judge have imprisoned him for more than one year."

Furthermore, the instructions from 11.b and 11.c --

"A member of the Armed Forces must answer "yes" to 11.b. or 11.c. if charged with an offense that was either referred to a General Court Martial, or at which the member was convicted."

We know he was convicted of a crime for which he could have served far more than a year.

The Government Agencies are admitting there was, "no way he should have, "passed," the NICS." Logic dictates there was no way for him to truthfully fill out the paperwork and pass the NICS.

And I understand what you are saying about, "all kinds of court martials," but again I am just looking at comma - convicted - sentence could have been more than a year

No, whether or not he could have been sentenced to more than one year is NOT the only relevant question. The instruction clearly states that it applies if the service member was referred to or convicted by a GENERAL court martial. At the time I wrote my post, I didn't know if his court martial was a general, or one of the other types.

In fact, a subsequent article clarified that it was, in fact, a general court martial. Whether the shooter fully understood the law and lied, or whether he read the part about "dishonorable" and thought that because his discharge was upgraded from dishonorable to bad conduct the prohibition didn't apply, we'll never know. If that's what he thought, then he didn't lie -- he made a mistake.

In the end it doesn't really matter if he lied or if he made a mistake. What matters to me is that the usual suspects are again clamoring for more gun control laws, when the laws we already have would have prevented him from buying guns IF THE AIR FORCE HAD FOLLOWED THE RULES. No matter how many laws the politicians put in place, they're of absolutely no use if the people who are supposed to follow them don't do the paperwork.

Bottom line: the system that should have prevented him from possessing a gun ... failed. That's not a reason or an excuse to pass new laws. That's a reason to start asking why the system didn't work, and what needs to be fixed to ensure that it does work in the future.

[JohnKSa]

Does anyone know if the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX, had declared itself as a gun-free church?

Under the law, they would have to post a 30.06 and/or a 30.07 sign to make such a declaration. I have not seen any such signs in the photos of the front of the church and since they are quite large (per the mandated letter sizing in the law) it seems unlikely that it was off-limits for carry.

Not that it was very likely to begin with in a small town in TX.

I wonder if this will prompt them to start posting?

I think that even the most diehard anti-gunners have to realize that a no guns sign on the front door wouldn't have stopped this guy--or any other person bent on mayhem.

[Buzzcook]

Are you saying a domestic violence conviction under military justice does not make one a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)? Because I do not think that is correct.

It depends on what news source you hear. The latest I've heard is that the necessary paper work was not filled out to get the shooter's name in the instant check data base.

An earlier source indicated that military sentences are treated differently than civilian and that's were the problem happened.

Whatever the screw up was, it can probably be fixed with some simple legislation...so that ain't happening.

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think it needs legislation to fix. It needs training.

What appears to be the problem is that on appeal his discharge was changed from dishonorable to bad conduct. From what I've gathered, the Air Force protocol is to automatically report dishonorable discharges to NICS. His came through as a bad conduct, and my guess is that whatever clerk was handling it didn't read far enough (or flat out didn't know) to see that it was for a domestic violence conviction and therefore should have been reported even though it wasn't a dishonorable.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, he was a prohibited person at least three or four different ways if reporting is to be believed:

1. He was confined for twelve months by the general courts martial (922(g)(1))
2. He was dishonorably discharged (922(g)(6)) later changed to bad conduct on appeal.
3. There was a protective order against him (922(g)(8)). So, the USAF is not the only one to drop the ball.
4. He was convicted in a court of a crime of domestic violence (922(g)(9)).

He is also not the first nor last spree shooter to pass the NICS check. As mentioned earlier the Trainwreck and Charleston church shooters both passed NICS checks despite being prohibited persons. The VA Tech shooter was prohibited under federal law but not state law and therefore was not reported to NICS by VA. Not that ATF would have done anything if he had failed the NICS check multiple times anyway - he’d be free to just go buy on the black market.

[Psychedelic Bang]

From what I understand the Academy Sport purchases were at least a year older or more. One gun may have been purchased through the FFL two years ago.

People recently close to him must have known his violent past, also that he was in possession of guns, also there was plenty of time to contact the police.

The USAF isn't the only negligence here.

--> This from the LA Times of all media https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...cid=spartanntp


Ok - its all coming out now. He was living with his family. The family must of known of his violent past. The family knew he had guns. There is just no way to deny it - -- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/break...cid=spartanntp

There is no plausible deniability for the members of his family.

[divil]

In the end it doesn't really matter if he lied or if he made a mistake. What matters to me is that the usual suspects are again clamoring for more gun control laws, when the laws we already have would have prevented him from buying guns IF THE AIR FORCE HAD FOLLOWED THE RULES. No matter how many laws the politicians put in place, they're of absolutely no use if the people who are supposed to follow them don't do the paperwork.

Well I'm as upset as anyone of the clamouring, I have to point this out - no they wouldn't. The existing laws would have prevented him from buying that gun from an FFL. But he could just buy one privately without any difficulty.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by divil

Well I'm as upset as anyone of the clamouring, I have to point this out - no they wouldn't. The existing laws would have prevented him from buying that gun from an FFL. But he could just buy one privately without any difficulty.

True.

I fell into my own trap -- I extrapolated. I live in a state where all (legal) firearms purchases must go through a background check, even private party sales. I forgot that it's not that way in the free USA.

That does not, however, negate my point, which was that if he had been prevented from buying guns he very likely would have simply used some other weapon, such as a bomb, a match, or a truck.

[44 AMP]

There is no plausible deniability for the members of his family.

Plausible deniability for what???

For not being psychic enough to know the future?? The killer is dead. We aren't the kind of people who blame the weapon, instead of the shooter, so what's left, blame the family who "knew"? Or blame them because they "should have known?", and didn't turn him in??

Things aren't that simple, and its very, very easy to judge, AFTER the fact, and from outside the situation.

His Uncle said "never in a million years" would he have thought his nephew was capable of doing what he did.

People often show one kind of behavior in public, and to their family, while having something entirely different in their hearts. Even in cases where someone states (sometimes repeatedly) that they are "going to kill that so and so" it is very seldom that such threats are taken seriously.

Also remember that there are two sides to every story, and while the side being reported on today is "he had a history of domestic violence" and therefore was a bad person, the side the family might have heard could have been he was a victim of the system, who got in a fight with his wife, one time, and the system railroaded him, etc.

The information we are seeing about him is being shown to us by investigators, people who find the pieces of the puzzle, and put them together to show the real picture, I find it entirely plausible that while the family might have had all the pieces, they didn't have the ability to put them together.

I read both the linked articles, and a couple of things in the Washington Post article bothered me a bit. The big one was that they said "After fleeing the scene, he was confronted by at least one armed resident and took his own life soon after, police said."

"After fleeing the scene" is quite different from what others are reporting. The other thing that bugged me might just be my opinion about proper journalistic style, but saying "at least" one armed resident, and later saying that police recovered "at least" 4 guns, simply tells me the author doesn't have verifiable FACTS, and is just writing to hear themselves speak, not to pass along factual information.

The investigation is ongoing, there may well be more pertinent information disclosed. I think that blaming the family, or the background check system is the wrong approach. The person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger, who is currently dead, and appears will remain so for the foreseeable future.

I do think we need to point out to people that an "AR style" rifle was used to STOP the attack. That they aren't just the "weapon of mass murders" but they are also the weapon of the defenders, as well.

[5whiskey]

Excellent post 44amp

The investigation is ongoing, there may well be more pertinent information disclosed. I think that blaming the family, or the background check system is the wrong approach. The person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger, who is currently dead, and appears will remain so for the foreseeable future.

I will say that almost every source now states that per existing law, he was a prohibited person. Even the USAF has admitted that and has launched an internal investigation into why he wasn't reported to NICS. At any rate, I digress. You are correct in the end. There are tons of people who aren't spouse abusers who, at some point, were placed into a precarious situation where it could appear as if they are. I've responded to a number of domestic calls where one spouse could have (very technically) been arrested just for pushing the other spouse (or significant other) off of them. Many states are "shall arrest" states for domestic crimes, no matter how minor. No officer discretion allowed. For all we know this is the story heard by the shooter's family, and I agree we don't have enough facts to try and throw them under the bus or smear their name.

[rickyrick]

Looks like the shooter spent most of his air force career in some kind of legal trouble. He escaped a mental facility in 2012 for threatening to kill his superiors and trying to smuggle guns on base.

[thallub]

Looks like the shooter spent most of his air force career in some kind of legal trouble. He escaped a mental facility in 2012 for threatening to kill his superiors and trying to smuggle guns on base.

Good post.

The shooter escaped from the mental health facility and was arrested in El Paso.

The USAF gave the shooter a pass on some serious charges. They could have put him away for many years.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-c...-wife-stepson/

[Psychedelic Bang]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Plausible deniability for what???

I am offering another take. Instead of, "Gun Control, and new legislation." Maybe negligence exists, maybe criminal negligence exists.

If anything, maybe there is enough here for a wrongful death lawsuit.

The facts as I interpret them from the way I have read, what has been reported: The shooting occurred during an ongoing domestic situation, the shooter sent texts threatening the in laws, the shooter lived with his wife/infant on property owned by his family, the neighbors would hear gun shots but thought nothing of it.

If we can believe the neighbors would hear gun shots, we must assume the family knew who on their property had access to firearms.

This ongoing domestic situation with threats et al seemed unreported to police.

I do not think the family can plausibly deny they knew: this guy had a violent past, had firearms illegally, and was exhibiting off the fringe behavior.

I am willing to admit I could be 100% wrong. I just wanted to answer your question, "plausibly deny what." Cause obviously I was unclear.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

His Uncle said "never in a million years" would he have thought his nephew was capable of doing what he did.

Maybe true. Maybe his uncle never thought his nephew would be, "so brutal and monstrous."

Did the uncle know the nephew's violent past? Did the uncle know the nephew had arms?

Because that is where I think negligence exists.

These people were totally oblivious. If not, they were negligent, or perhaps criminally negligent, or perhaps did not want to involve the police in their domestic disputes.

Perhaps they were just totally oblivious.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

People often show one kind of behavior in public, and to their family, while having something entirely different in their hearts..

I think that is kind of a generalization it does not describe the vast majority of people I know. I am willing to admit that some people present the world with a façade. I also think psychopaths are a subsect of general human behavior. Sociology would seem to say that people are the sum of their culture and their upbringing and are very much representations of that out in the world.

I think in the case of psychopaths particularly with this shooter his behavior was known. I am saying he was, "known to be violent." I don't think he had a façade he showed to his family, friends, certainly not the USAF.

I don't think he was a, "good hider," of his violent tendencies, I don't believe it could be well argued that people were oblivious to his violence.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

the side the family might have heard could have been he was a victim of the system, who got in a fight with his wife, one time, and the system railroaded him, etc.

You believe they were misinformed to the facts of the case. And they just went on believing whatever they were told because they are oblivious type peoples?

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I find it entirely plausible that while the family might have had all the pieces, they didn't have the ability to put them together.

Right, they had to be oblivious. Where we disagree, and not plausible.

That being said, I am willing to admit my assessment of the situation could be way off. I could be totally wrong.

Maybe I am looking for things that are not there. I am just trying to get some understanding on a psychopath and the situation. I think that is what most of America is trying to do as well.

It just seems that a 911 call Saturday could have totally prevented this situation, and why didn't that happen? And we can only say, "because his family are kind of oblivious peoples, they just had no idea, never in a million years."

That doesn't add up. Human beings talk to each other. People gossip. People know things about other people.


Anyways, I am going to drop this here. And I am going to recuse myself from further postings in this thread as I have no real understanding of this situation.

I just wonder why

[44 AMP]

That doesn't add up. Human beings talk to each other. People gossip. People know things about other people.

I'll agree with this, BUT, do keep in mind that "there are none so blind as those who will not see", and when it comes to family members a lot of people go blind.

They simply "cannot in a million years" imagine the child they once knew growing into an adult who does evil. There are likely millions of cases where "everyone in the family knows", and no one does anything about it.

Ever see the mother of a killer state how they knew he was bad, and was going to do something bad, and come to a bad end?

Not very often. It's nearly always "he was a good boy...etc.,"

At what point are we "our brother's keeper??"
Morally? Legally??

What if you're just the kind of person who doesn't really pay attention to what others say, or do, unless it personally affects you? Lots of folks like that, and its not a crime, to not be the watchdog of the community, until the rare case when it is...

Or the other side of the coin, what about the watchdog who sends the authorities to someone who isn't doing wrong?? Just because they think he might?? There are legal consequences for doing that, as well.

Lets say you are told that there is a bomb, and that it is likely to go off, soon. You're not told where, or when. You are given a 1,500 piece jigsaw puzzle, and on the back of each piece is a code. ONE of the codes tells you where, another one tells you when, and another one will disarm the bomb, but only if the first two are entered before the last one. (and to make it really interesting, if you enter a wrong code, the bomb gets moved, and you get a new puzzle, with more pieces)

Your job is to stop the bomb going off.

GO!
tick, tock, tick, tock..

BOOM!!!

too late!

Now, everyone turns to you and says "WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP IT??? YOU HAD ALL THE INFORMATION!!!!!"

Are you responsible for the bomb going off?? Do you deserve jail for failing to stop it?? I say no. You are, of course, free to disagree.

It a very slippery slope, punishing people for what they didn't do, and you think they ought to have done. There are standards in law, people have been convicted and sent to prison for not reporting a crime before it can happen, but its a pretty rare thing.

[thallub]

i like dailymail.co.uk because that organization does some extra research. The timeline covers the shooters run ins with law enforcement after the USAF booted him.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-ordeal.html

[Mainah]

The USAF failed, the NICS failed, and the courts and mental health systems failed. If someone who knew this loser had expressed concern to law enforcement what reason is there to believe that this tragedy would have been prevented? Do we really want to rely on a system of informants instead of a better system?

[thallub]

The shooter attended church fest five days before he killed 26 parishioners.

(Deleted) ... attended a fall festival at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs five days before he killed 26 people inside the church and wounded 20 others, the San Antonio Express-News reported Tuesday.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tex...id=HPCOMMDHP15

[5whiskey]

There are standards in law, people have been convicted and sent to prison for not reporting a crime before it can happen, but its a pretty rare thing.

Rare indeed. It typically goes against the common law system of requiring mens rea UNLESS you prove that someone had specific knowledge that he was going to harm others. Even then, you would not be culpable of the actual murders, but instead you would be obstructing justice. Knowing that he is unstable, and owns firearms, is not enough. Heck you can ride with your buddy to a convenience store, watch him rob it, and not stop him; and not be guilty of a crime. You better have compelling evidence that you had no fore-knowledge that he was going to do this, but if he walks in and robs the joint and you back off saying "no I'm not part of this," and aid police in the investigation, then you aren't culpable in any crime.

If the family knew that he should be a prohibited person, knew that he had a firearm, and allowed him to stay on their property and possess/practice with those weapons... well there may be some criminality there.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Mainah

The USAF failed, the NICS failed, and the courts and mental health systems failed. If someone who knew this loser had expressed concern to law enforcement what reason is there to believe that this tragedy would have been prevented? Do we really want to rely on a system of informants instead of a better system?

The existing system failed but I get the impression that the "solution" will likely be to expand that system and without showing how that expansion will actually help improve it.

[Sequins]

A lot of people on every forum I post at are clinging to the private sale / "gun-show-loophole" as a reason why this would have happened anyways even if his 4473 forms had been denied. Statistically speaking that seems quite implausible and I haven't yet found a mass shooting perpetrated by a killer who acquired his guns via private sale.

So far I've only found cases of the guns being stolen or legally purchased. Closest I can get is San Bernardino where the neighbor provided the guns to the shooters, but in that case I believe the FBI determined the neighbor was actually a co-conspirator so it's not quite the same as the Wal-Mart parking lot stranger-to-stranger private sales we're generally thinking of when we say private sale.

Despite this, I'm coming down on the opinion that it might be best if we simply open the NICS system to the general public and allow all citizens to call and run a background check at no personal expense, and mandate that they do so. No 4473 or anything just the NICS check. This change would silence the private sale critics with no real reduction in rights or burden imposed if handled properly.

I think the greater issue we need to work to address is how to prevent the bad actors who can legally pass a 4473 but who intend harm, like the Vegas shooter, without reducing our rights.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Sequins

Despite this, I'm coming down on the opinion that it might be best if we simply open the NICS system to the general public and allow all citizens to call and run a background check at no personal expense, and mandate that they do so. No 4473 or anything just the NICS check. This change would silence the private sale critics with no real reduction in rights or burden imposed if handled properly.

So basically, anyone could access the system whether there was a firearm transaction or not? How would you be able to prove that you ran the transaction through the system?

[RAEIndustries]

I always carry here in church in Florida and Georgia unless posted otherwise which Ive yet to see anywhere I've attended

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I haven't yet found a mass shooting perpetrated by a killer who acquired his guns via private sale.

The Columbus shooters received their firearms through a straw purchase by a friend who was of legal age to purchase through FFLs. IIRC, the friend was not charged and went on the Brady tour speaking out for background checks in 1999.