Texas shooting

[Deacsfan27]

This is what i'm talking about right here. We don't know if Devin Kelley had "mental illness". We basically know that he was not formally diagnosed with any condition. The fact that he killed a bunch of people doesn't mean that he had some illness presentation that would have been diagnosable. So turning this conversation into a debate about health care funding is stupid, IMO.

I think there is a case to be made that anybody who goes into a church and murders 27 people is certainly mentally ill.

That being said, not all cases of gun violence are due to mental illness and I think it's a cop out by folks who want to blame anything but gun control to just say "we need better mental health awareness and funding" (which is ironic given the party arguing this is also the one actively defunding the Affordable Care Act even when it could not pass anything in Congress).

I want gun reform and I want it before anything else is done, but there are a lot of other things that are causing people to resort to violence using guns too. In order to try to get at the crux of the problem every aspect needs to be examined. Guns need to be harder to access, and we need to make a serious effort to help with mental illnesses as well.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Post is way too long if you want someone to answer

Even without going to my "extreme" of just getting rid of all guns since that obviously clashes with the 2nd Amendment, can somebody please tell me why we aren't at least looking into legislating any of the following:

Reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Expanding Universal Background Checks
A national gun registry
Tracking/limiting ammunition purchases
A buyback program similar to Australia

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Gun restrictions to domestic assaulters makes a lot of sense on its face, but its equivalent to sticking your finger in the dyke to plug a leak. Wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, San Bernadino, or any of the murders committed by people with no record. On top of that, it will be defacto racially discriminative.

 

[Deacon923]

Depends on circumstances. They didn't "chase him down and shoot him". From all accounts, the civilian fired on him as he left the church. At that point the guy is an armed active shooter and a danger to everyone around. I think they were in their rights to defend themselves and everyone around them.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Ethics/heroics aside, is chasing someone down and shooting them legal?

reason #3 rubes dislike iberals. Ask stupid questions.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Ethics/heroics aside, is chasing someone down and shooting them legal?

In South Carolina there is the altar-ego clause for self-defense. I am unsure if this would pass that test (or if it would even apply as I don't know all the facts in this case):

South Carolina also has the “alter-ego” clause with respect to the defense of others, under which a person who uses deadly force to defend a friend, relative or bystander will be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense if that plea would have been available to the person requiring assistance if they had been the one who used deadly force. In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. To claim self-defense, a person has to be in a place they have a legal right to be, not be involved in any illegal activity, must not have started the confrontation, and must be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

I don't think chasing after somebody with a gun who has killed 26 people and is no longer in harm can legally claim the above under the current law.

 

[warak]

So, if we are being honest here, the "good guy with a gun" didn't necessarily save lives, but he rather pursued vengeance/justice, is that correct?

agreed, this guy really could have hurt a lot of people trying to be a hero. it worked out this time but next time a guy with a gun tries to be a hero an innocent person may get hurt. double edged sword for sure.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Trump literally signed a bill that rolled back Obama-era limitations on gun ownership for people with mental illness.

Trump is a douche. And Obama forced states to release thousands, per state, of mentally ill people from in-patient facilities to "transition" them into normal society with literally no support structure in place to manage their conditions. The completely stupidity runs on both sides of the political aisle.

 

[avalon]

Not to downplay the tragedy because domestic violence is tragic in and of
itself, but the facts that have emerged about this case make Kelley out to be a typical domestic abuser. This is what escalation in the age of (basically) unencumbered access to firearms looks like, unfortunately. A lot of people got caught in the crossfire. I’m not sure that anybody with a clear pattern of domestic violence on their record should have access to firearms of any type.

From seriously a few days ago:

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I challenge you to post a link explaining how any mass shooting since 1999 (the date of the Olmstead decision) would have been any different without the cited action by the Obama justice department. I'll even settle for something from infowars or whatever just so I can understand how anyone could reach such a conclusion.

I'm not a millennial rube who needs someone to post something on the internet as fact for me to parrot it as gospel. I draw my own conclusions.

 

[Strickland33]

Gun restrictions to domestic assaulters makes a lot of sense on its face, but its equivalent to sticking your finger in the dyke to plug a leak. Wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, San Bernadino, or any of the murders committed by people with no record. On top of that, it will be defacto racially discriminative.

I’m not saying that it would have stopped other tragedies. I feel like you’re arguing like 12 different points right now.

I’m offering support to your point that the mental illness hedge is inappropriate in this case and commenting that nobody with domestic violence on their record should have access to a firearm. Domestic violence always follows a pattern of escalation and access to firearms greatly increases the likelihood of murder and, in this case, mass murder.

There’s obviously a big difference between the degree of mental illness motivating the Sandy Hook shootings and this case. Abusers are mentally ill in a textbook sense, but I’m not sure that people in Kelly’s life would have labeled him mentally ill (without the press’s [and NRA’s] urge to change his motive to something more “palatable”) to the point where authorities could have intervened and prevented the tragedy from occurring.

I’m not sure how it would be de facto racially discriminative, either, but would like to hear more.

 

[warak]

Ethics/heroics aside, is chasing someone down and shooting them legal?

No it is not legal. you can only use lethal force as a civilian if you life is in danger and if you are "chasing someone down and shooting them" your life is not in danger, you are the aggressor.

we might see odd legislation come out of this or every yahoo will try to do vigilante justice.

 

[RChildress107]

A couple of points worth considering when discussing the intersection between mental health and gun violence.

1. 99.99% of individuals with a diagnosed or diagnosable mental illness have/will never commit mass murder.

2. While there is certainly something to the idea that anyone capable of shooting up a church has a mental illness it isn't a very useful observation when talking about ways to avoid gun violence. I'm not aware of any research that shows a correlation between diagnosed mental illness and gun violence/violence in general. (Please share if there is).

3. The range of mental health is at least as broad as the range of physical health. Any discussion linking mental health and gun violence, to the extent it is worth having, should use more precision instead of associating all mental health issues with ones that are more likely to lead to include violence as a symptom. Anything less simply perpetuates the stigma.

4. Fuck any politician that calls this a mental health problem while also voting to cut Medicaid and eliminate mental health services as an essential benefit under the ACA. That goes for those that voted for any such politicians as well.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I’m not saying that it would have stopped other tragedies. I️ feel like you’re arguing like 12 different points right now.

I’m offering support to your point that the mental illness hedge is inappropriate in this case and commenting that nobody with domestic violence on their record should have access to a firearm. There’s obviously a big difference between the degree of mental illness motivating the Sandy Hook shootings and this case. Abusers are probably mentally ill, but I’m not sure that people in Kelly’s life would have labeled him mentally ill (without the press’s [and NRA’s] urge to change his motive to something more “palatable”).

I’m not sure how it would be de facto racially discriminative, either, but would like to hear more.

Well, black people - particularly men, are more likely to be charged and convicted for crimes than white people, so basing gun restrictions on the results of a racially biased legal system will result in racially biased gun restrictions.

 

[Deacon923]

In South Carolina there is the altar-ego clause for self-defense. I am unsure if this would pass that test (or if it would even apply as I don't know all the facts in this case):

South Carolina also has the “alter-ego” clause with respect to the defense of others, under which a person who uses deadly force to defend a friend, relative or bystander will be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense if that plea would have been available to the person requiring assistance if they had been the one who used deadly force. In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. To claim self-defense, a person has to be in a place they have a legal right to be, not be involved in any illegal activity, must not have started the confrontation, and must be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

I don't think chasing after somebody with a gun who has killed 26 people and is no longer in harm can legally claim the above under the current law.

Again, they didn't chase him and shoot him. They apparently engaged him when he came out of the church. I think that is fair game. Then they pursued him. Now, if they started shooting at him from their truck that would fall outside the self defense rules. I'm not sure what would have happened if they had caught him and engaged in another gun battle there. This being Texas, maybe it's a "citizen's arrest", who knows.

Also I think I read they were going very fast (over 90) and I would argue that if they caused an accident while in hot pursuit of this guy they would at least be civilly liable as "hot pursuit" is not a thing civilians are allowed to do. no law against following a perp while you call the police, but also no self defense or other privilege if you drive recklessly and hurt someone in the process.

 

[Deacon923]

I'm not a millennial rube who needs someone to post something on the internet as fact for me to parrot it as gospel. I draw my own conclusions.

So you've got no evidence at all, just your own personal #hottake. that's par for the course but thought I'd give you the opportunity.

 

[Strickland33]

Well, black people - particularly men, are more likely to be charged and convicted for crimes than white people, so basing gun restrictions on the results of a racially biased legal system will result in racially biased gun restrictions.

Are black men (or black women, or people of color more generally) more likely to be charged with forms of domestic or intimate partner violence than white men/women/people? I honestly don’t know.

In this instance, though, a ban on selling guns to people with domestic violence convictions would have saved lives.

 

[CallowayDeac04]

According to this blog (link), a two-part test in Texas is used to determine whether a third party was allowed to use deadly force in defense of another on the basis of two reasonable beliefs.

Texas Penal Code 9.33
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Section 9.31 deals with self-defense (which may or not apply - I haven't followed the case), but Section 9.32 states that "[...](b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:[...]
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used."

Somewhat related, but Texas also passed in 2014 a "Threatened Use of Force” bill, which allows an armed citizen to display, or point, their defensive firearm at an assailant without criminal charges, assuming the threatened use of force is justifiable. (link)

Ethics/heroics aside, is chasing someone down and shooting them legal?

 

[Deacsfan27]

So you've got no evidence at all, just your own personal #hottake. that's par for the course but thought I'd give you the opportunity.

Why use the opportunity for facts, statistics, and reality when he has anecdotes and feelings?

 

[tiltdeac]

Are black men (or black women, or people of color more generally) more likely to be charged with forms of domestic or intimate partner violence than white men/women/people? I️ honestly don’t know.

In this instance, though, a ban on selling guns to people with domestic violence convictions would have saved lives.

My understanding is that ban does/did exist, but he was able to buy the gun legally anyway. He lied on the background check form he had to fill out, but I assume there was some other process the store should have gone through that they neglected. Hopefully there is a massive penalty for not doing/screwing up a background check.