FOCUS ON THE CRIMINAL

[Rivoak]

I saw this news article on CNN.

At least 28 people have been arrested over threats to commit mass attacks since the El Paso and Dayton shootings - CNN

It talks about how at least 26 people have been arrested for making threats since the latest episodes of terroristic shootings. This goes to show that real police work with an involved community can stop these crimes.


It seems a common thread of a number of these deranged gunmen is that they hope to seek notoriety for their worthless loser lives, and they often want to make threats before they commit crimes, or post some stupid delusional manifesto. They can be stopped before they can act, if their threats and/or conduct is taken seriously.

It seems to me that stopping them is not enough. If they are arrested for terroristic threatening of human life, they need to be incarcerated for a long long time. We need to increase the penalties for making threats, and we we need to set up some of these idiots as examples to the nation why a person should not even think of this sort of thing. As it is now, generally the maximum penalty that can be imposed on an offender is 5 years for an online threat. Seems to me a maximum penalty should be more in the neighborhood of 50 years for people who make serious threats.

Also, I believe the court system should fast track these offenders by creating a court of appeals for terrorist offenders. That would allow an offender about a month to appeal a death penalty conviction, then the court could render a decision on the appeal a couple weeks after the appeal. A civilized execution could follow the next day if a person is found guilty of mass murder.

I have always thought it insane that someone can kill dozens of people, play the crazy card, and then live at taxpayer expense for 15 years while the lawyers play games in court. If there are a dozen witnesses, and one man with a gun, it really ought to be a 10 minute trial and a noose.

Allowing insanity in domestic terrorism cases shows we as a society are insane. If a mad dog was killing people, we would just put it down. Society should provide the same protection from deranged shooters.

I am not saying deny them justice. I am just saying when the facts and circumstances are clear, justice should fair and be swift.

Am I wrong?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muss Muggins]

Well, one of the enumerated "known threats" in that article is a young man who, legally, walked into a Wal-Mart in Springfield, Missouri with a slung AR. He was filming himself to see if Wal-Mart honored legal open carry. They apparently do not, and even though the young man made no threats, he's been charged with "Making a Terrorist Threat . . . "

I don't have specific knowledge of the others, so I can't speculate. The one described above is specious at best . . .

 

[fredj338]

IMO, no such thing as not guilty by insanity. You still did the crime, the fact you don't think it a criminal act shouldn't save anyone. We have far too many crazy people running loose. reason enough to CCW when/if you can.

 

[Protected One]

I saw this news article on CNN.

At least 28 people have been arrested over threats to commit mass attacks since the El Paso and Dayton shootings - CNN

It talks about how at least 26 people have been arrested for making threats since the latest episodes of terroristic shootings. This goes to show that real police work with an involved community can stop these crimes.


It seems a common thread of a number of these deranged gunmen is that they hope to seek notoriety for their worthless loser lives, and they often want to make threats before they commit crimes, or post some stupid delusional manifesto. They can be stopped before they can act, if their threats and/or conduct is taken seriously.

It seems to me that stopping them is not enough. If they are arrested for terroristic threatening of human life, they need to be incarcerated for a long long time. We need to increase the penalties for making threats, and we we need to set up some of these idiots as examples to the nation why a person should not even think of this sort of thing. As it is now, generally the maximum penalty that can be imposed on an offender is 5 years for an online threat. Seems to me a maximum penalty should be more in the neighborhood of 50 years for people who make serious threats.

Also, I believe the court system should fast track these offenders by creating a court of appeals for terrorist offenders. That would allow an offender about a month to appeal a death penalty conviction, then the court could render a decision on the appeal a couple weeks after the appeal. A civilized execution could follow the next day if a person is found guilty of mass murder.

I have always thought it insane that someone can kill dozens of people, play the crazy card, and then live at taxpayer expense for 15 years while the lawyers play games in court. If there are a dozen witnesses, and one man with a gun, it really ought to be a 10 minute trial and a noose.

Allowing insanity in domestic terrorism cases shows we as a society are insane. If a mad dog was killing people, we would just put it down. Society should provide the same protection from deranged shooters.

I am not saying deny them justice. I am just saying when the facts and circumstances are clear, justice should fair and be swift.

Am I wrong?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You aren't wrong.

 

[Protected One]

Well, one of the enumerated "known threats" in that article is a young man who, legally, walked into a Wal-Mart in Springfield, Missouri with a slung AR. He was filming himself to see if Wal-Mart honored legal open carry. They apparently do not, and even though the young man made no threats, he's been charged with "Making a Terrorist Threat . . . "

I don't have specific knowledge of the others, so I can't speculate. The one described above is specious at best . . .

If he really wanted ONLY to see if Walmart "honored" open carry he could have carried a pistol (which I've seen several of there without incident) or at best an unloaded AR. No one would have know it was unloaded and thus it would have served his purpose without potentially representing a threat to the public at large.

No. While that may be his "stated" purpose now that he's been picked up, I suspect that he really wanted his "fame"...which may have caused him to escalate the situation.

In any event. while he may not have been a terrorist threat in the truest sense of the term, he is at the very least a museum grade moron.

 

[gman51]

I have one question for the guy that walked into WalMart with an AK slung over his shoulder. Why did you have so many loaded magazines on your person when you walked into the store? I don't see his needing anything but the AK to make his point. If he hadn't had any ammo for the gun that would have proved what his real intention was.

That sort of makes me wonder could he have planned a mass shooting but then for some reason aborted his mission? Just plain stupid any way it is looked at.

I believe if there is absolute proof a person committed murder than the death penalty needs carried out immediately. Temporary insanity is such an insane excuse for committing any mass murder.

 

[Muss Muggins]

In any event. while he may not have been a terrorist threat in the truest sense of the term, he is at the very least a museum grade moron.

Being a museum grade moron, while irritating if one has to associate with one, is not illegal. If it were, we'd have to fence off some big empty state we don't use much just to house the population. I agree that he made a very poor decision, but the fact remains that what he did was not illegal in Missouri. I hope that the charge does not stand, for all our sakes . . .

 

[ISCS Yoda]

In any event. while he may not have been a terrorist threat in the truest sense of the term, he is at the very least a museum grade moron.

In law school we would have probably called that "first degree stupidity", a very heinous offense. OTOH, walking around in a Wal-Mart with an AR strapped on to see if Wal-Mart honors "open carry" is not just moronic, it is something that a grown up person should KNOW will cause panic.

According to Springfield NBC Station KY3, police responded to the Walmart: Neighborhood Market at Republic Road for an active shooter call at around 4:30 p.m. When they arrived, they found the man wearing body armor and military fatigues. Police said he was also armed with tactical weapons, according to the report.

Police said the man was recording himself walking through the store, which alarmed an employee. The employee then pulled the fire alarm to evacuate the store.

KY3's report said the man used an emergency exit but was spotted by a firefighter, who held the man at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

"His intent was not to cause peace or comfort," Lieutenant Mike Lucas told KY3. "He's lucky he's alive still, to be honest."

© Provided by TEGNA Inc.

And there is more:

Open carry and concealed carry are legal in Missouri for anyone 19 years or older who can legally possess a firearm, with or without a concealed carry permit (CCP).

Business owners can post signs to restrict open and concealed carry.

© 2003-2019 Delta Defense, LLC

So, while it is an unknown whether that Wal-Mart had a no guns sign or not, and I will presume there was no sign, from a police standpoint, especially the week after 22 people were killed in a Wal-Mart somewhere else, dressing in "body armor and military fatigues" and carrying what can be described as a "tactical weapon" just to see what happens is the type of behavior that easily crosses the line into "terroristic threat", REGARDLESS of the legality of the clothing, the armor, and the weapons. The person need not literally MAKE a threat verbally; his demeanor and manner of dress ARE the threat.

I'm not asking anyone to like that concept; it is merely a sign of our time. Legally carried weapons can be misconstrued, especially in a store like a Wal-Mart, and if one does it then the risk that the police will arrest you, or worse, is all on the performer.

 

[LPD256]

CNN has a list of 22 school shootings in 2019. Take out few pretty random incidents, it looks like about two school kids have died in school this year. One would never know it if they watched CNN. But of course they have to refer to events like Parkland and Sandy Hook to stir the emotions, and scare the **** out of school kids of today. If you want your kids to stay safe, buckle up on the way to school. Likelihood of death by car wreck is significantly higher. A well-kept secret.......

 

[SMSgt]

If you want your kids to stay safe, buckle up on the way to school. Likelihood of death by car wreck is significantly higher. A well-kept secret.......

I don't think it's a "well-kept secret," more like an ignored fact.

 

[Wise_A]

OTOH, walking around in a Wal-Mart with an AR strapped on to see if Wal-Mart honors "open carry" is not just moronic, it is something that a grown up person should KNOW will cause panic.

I'd be kind've surprised if there wasn't a "disturbing the peace" law on the books.

But whatever. Allow the dead horse to be beaten.

I don't think it's a "well-kept secret," more like an ignored fact.

I believe LPD is using the ancient art of facetiousness.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

But whatever. Allow the dead horse to be beaten.

I beat the horse because it wasn't quite dead yet. I wanted to ensure that despite the legality of the technical situation that it was clear that even legal acts can lead to criminal consequences due to poor judgment.

 

[Muss Muggins]

The "legality of the technical situation" is the focus of the law, best I recall . . .

I beat the horse because it wasn't quite dead yet. I wanted to ensure that despite the legality of the technical situation that it was clear that even legal acts can lead to criminal consequences due to poor judgment.

 

[fredj338]

If he really wanted ONLY to see if Walmart "honored" open carry he could have carried a pistol (which I've seen several of there without incident) or at best an unloaded AR. No one would have know it was unloaded and thus it would have served his purpose without potentially representing a threat to the public at large.

No. While that may be his "stated" purpose now that he's been picked up, I suspect that he really wanted his "fame"...which may have caused him to escalate the situation.

In any event. while he may not have been a terrorist threat in the truest sense of the term, he is at the very least a museum grade moron.

Yet there are the 2A ideologue/attention whores that just want to scare people. Terrorize or scare, a thin line for sure. You cant fix stupid. While I don't agree he committed a terror act, domestic terror is waaaa over used, we really don't know why he did it, innocent until proven guilty, or better safe than sorry?
I don't really know. I have lines I don't like people to cross. Since many mass shootings are done with long guns carried openly into a public space, I tend to target anyone doing just that as a potential threat. I am obviously not taking any action but it becomes time & distance observation.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I'd be kind've surprised if there wasn't a "disturbing the peace" law on the books.

But whatever. Allow the dead horse to be beaten . . .

There might be. It's likely that the law reads "knew, or should have known . . . " Not sure how one should know that a legal act would cause a kerfuffle . . .

 

[murphydog]

I do not have any specific insight into the mind of the person involved in the recent incident in Springfield, MO or any knowledge of the charges brought against him, but for a little context...

There are no signs prohibiting firearms carry in any Walmarts in that area. Sightings of those open carrying are few but usually someone in regular clothing, or occasionally carrying a badge. Not an everyday occurrence, but also not something that tends to draw much attention, or even a second glance from many.

So what would you think if you saw someone in body armor, carrying two weapons (including a visibly loaded rifle) and several magazines, filming his surroundings (not shopping), five days after a mass murder in a (you guessed it) Walmart?

It seems to fall somewhere in the continuum of "peaceful expression of Constitutional rights" and "about to commit multiple shootings". Since the responding officers could only look at capabilities, not intent, it is no wonder that he was arrested. The prosecutor's office now gets to sort out the whole mess.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I do not have any specific insight into the mind of the person involved in the recent incident in Springfield, MO or any knowledge of the charges brought against him

Duly noted. . . .

There are no signs prohibiting firearms carry in any Walmarts in that area.

Agreed . . .

. . . (including a visibly loaded rifle)

Not sure what a "visibly loaded rifle" means? Magazine inserted? Who knows if it has rounds? Bolt closed? Again, who knows? Bolt open, dust cover closed? Again, who knows? Loaded chamber indicator visible from the produce aisle? Unlikely. Help me out with that statement . . . ?

Since the responding officers could only look at capabilities, not intent, it is no wonder that he was arrested. The prosecutor's office now gets to sort out the whole mess.

Again, the action of the moron, on the face of it, without a threat, a verbal statement, an aggressive action, etc. . . , was perfectly legal. I don't understand what looking at capabilities means. My Jeep has the capability of raging through the front door of Wal Mart. If I park facing the door, am I a threat?

We're never going to agree on this, and that's fine. I think that people who think arresting this fella' is perfectly okay are falling into the trap that the gun grabbers have set. If you don't, that's fine as well. Thankfully, I lost all my guns, ammo, and accessories in a tragic boating accident at the Ohio/Mississippi River Confluence, so I don't have to think about it . . .

 

[Oldfrt]

This is third party information from a retired police officer.

There are only two laws needed in this country.

1. Misdemeanor stupid in public.
2. Felony stupid in public.

 

[Muss Muggins]

That's silly and unhelpful . . .

This is third party information from a retired police officer.

There are only two laws needed in this country.

1. Misdemeanor stupid in public.
2. Felony stupid in public.

 

[prplbkrr]

There might be. It's likely that the law reads "knew, or should have known . . . " Not sure how one should know that a legal act would cause a kerfuffle . . .

The phrase "common sense" comes to mind.