Crazyass gunman killed in Dallas, Texas

[TurkeysGhost]

Good point but I think some sort of pervasive background check could help uncover these sort of things. Not that I believe edgy language in and of itself is enough to deny a person weapon ownership but a sort of interview or mental health evaluation along with a preliminary background check could help these sort of maniacs from attaining high powered, military style weapons. There is no perfect system but something is better than nothing.

Another thing to consider is that a person can be pretty darn nutty and not be considered "mentally deficient" sufficiently to warrant involuntary treatment at a mental institution. Your average Alex Jones conspiracy nut is not a candidate for state intervention, at least not in the US.

I can think of plenty of things a person could do online that would be generally concerning, but not legally actionable, even in countries with more restrictive speech rights than the US.

Maybe a person sends a $10 donation to Richard Spencer, the open white-nationalist. Is that legally actionable? What is someone joins some alt-right facebook group? What if someone is a proud UKIP member and thinks foreigners are destroying western society? There's a lot a person can do that is "concerning", especially in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, but are not actually uncommon or outstanding as they occur in real time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it's worth noting this photograph does not depict an unlawful activity. Everything about the gunman, every single thing he's wearing and carrying - the weapon itself, the multiple high-capacity mags strapped around his waist, the body armor, the face mask - and the manner in which he is carrying and wearing it all: all 100% legal in Texas.

Yea this is what people wear there to the grocery store, that is the point of open carry after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't have a problem with these items individually being legal but the problem I have is the absence of any vetting process to acquire these items. Particularly the high powered rifles. The Republican belief that transforming America into the wild west where everybody is armed will provide the impetus to dissuade any perpetrator from acting is horrendous.. This doesn't mean much when your perp is suicidal.

As a veteran why shouldn't he have had all that? What specific reason should he have had his constitutional rights for what ever the purpose of the 2nd amendment is violated?

 

[Giordano]

I have come to believe that our willingness to allow people such as Brian Clyde to play act by dressing up and festooning themselves with guns and gun paraphernalia, is just plain stupid. Sure, one should be free to indulge oneself in many different ways. You like to collect old cameras, even if one can no longer find film for them: okay! You like to dress up as a cat with feline ears and tail and meow: fine! But come on, does the Second Amendment, or our desire to have an expansive definition of personal freedom, really demand that this sort of lethal play acting must be permitted without more rigorous regulation than we have now?

I do not post this to initiate a general discussion of gun control - it belongs in other threads and I know the direction it would take anyhow. But I would like to see more discussion of "Big Gun Brian" in the now famous photo and if there should be ways of interfering with the ability of crazy people to assemble themselves into (failed) attempts at action movie stars.

 

[Ranb]

….I think it's worth noting this photograph does not depict an unlawful activity. Everything about the gunman, every single thing he's wearing and carrying - the weapon itself, the multiple high-capacity mags strapped around his waist, the body armor, the face mask - and the manner in which he is carrying and wearing it all: all 100% legal in Texas.

I think the manner in which he was carrying could be illegal.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm#42.01

PENAL CODE
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

I'm certain that his actions prior to opening fire were alarming to some people.

It's not even disorderly conduct in Dallas?

I'm sure it is.

Ranb

 

[Checkmite]

I'm pretty sure you can't walk around with an unslung rifle in your hands even in Texas. Here that would at least be brandishing if not intimidation with a weapon.

You might be right. Flip the strap up over his head and he's golden, then.

 

[Juniversal]

As a veteran why shouldn't he have had all that? What specific reason should he have had his constitutional rights for what ever the purpose of the 2nd amendment is violated?

Not saying he shouldn't be able to arm himself. I'm not even saying if he was already in possession of a high powered rifle that it be forcibly removed from his possession. I'm saying it may be prudent to create a vetting/incensing process at the point of sale specifically for high powered assault style rifles (including mental health evaluations).

If a guy says he's purchasing an assault weapon to rain down hellfire and brimstone on the miscreants of society (never underestimate the stupidity of humans) than MAYBE you should temporarily prevent him from purchasing an AR-15. Maybe. Again there is no perfect solution or system but it's better than nothing.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm certain that his actions prior to opening fire were alarming to some people.

"In a manner calculated to alarm" - how would anyone know that it was calculated to alarm? You'd need to know his thoughts to know what he was calculating.

 

[William Parcher]

"In a manner calculated to alarm" - how would anyone know that it was calculated to alarm? You'd need to know his thoughts to know what he was calculating.

The photographer said that he was pointing the gun at various people.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't know if he shot at anyone other than the police.

I've read a lot of the stories now. What I gather is that he pointed his rifle at various people including a woman with child - but he didn't shoot at them. He did shoot up the glass revolving door. But he didn't go inside.

I'm not sure what happened when police arrived... whether they immediately began shooting at him or him at them or what. He was shot down in a nearby parking lot.

He came equipped to kill many but shot nobody. He could have gone straight into the building but didn't. What was his plan, or did he have a plan?

ETA: The ski mask suggests that he wanted to get away unidentified or to have that as an option.

 

[Ranb]

The photographer said that he was pointing the gun at various people.

I've heard of various incidents wherein the police were called because someone was open carrying a rifle slung over their shoulder or a handgun in a holster. Even though the persons in question were acting for the most part in a benign manner, people were worried enough to call for help.

Add in this crank holding a rifle in his hands in front of his chest, it is a recipe for an arrest for brandishing according to Texas law. If I saw this guy walking around the street like this, I'd be on the phone calling 911. While carrying like this is common on a shooting range during a match, this is not what open carry is intended to be in any state where a person can legally carry.

 

[arthwollipot]

The photographer said that he was pointing the gun at various people.

I was referring to the legislation rather than to this specific event, but even him doing that doesn't mean that the action was calculated to alarm. After all, he could say that he was just holding the gun and it happened to be pointed at people.

 

[Pope130]

I was referring to the legislation rather than to this specific event, but even him doing that doesn't mean that the action was calculated to alarm. After all, he could say that he was just holding the gun and it happened to be pointed at people.

That would have been up to a jury to decide, had he survived. While proving actual intent is impossible in logic, it is proper for a jury to infer intent, using their own best judgment, based on the defendant's actions.

 

[arthwollipot]

That would have been up to a jury to decide, had he survived. While proving actual intent is impossible in logic, it is proper for a jury to infer intent, using their own best judgment, based on the defendant's actions.

I was going somewhere with this, but I forgot where.

 

[jimbob]

I was going somewhere with this, but I forgot where.

Well in England, in absence of any other laws, there is behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

 

[Darat]

I was referring to the legislation rather than to this specific event, but even him doing that doesn't mean that the action was calculated to alarm. After all, he could say that he was just holding the gun and it happened to be pointed at people.

Thankfully our laws and our criminal and justice systems don't work via such pedantic points.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thankfully our laws and our criminal and justice systems don't work via such pedantic points.

Yeah, I'm just going to back away from this line of argument. It was dumb.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think the manner in which he was carrying could be illegal.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm#42.01

I'm certain that his actions prior to opening fire were alarming to some people.


I'm sure it is.

Ranb

Ah so it really is illegal for blacks to use their second amendment rights.

 

[Ranb]

Ah so it really is illegal for blacks to use their second amendment rights.

Well, if you were wrong, then this group would be unlikely to exist. https://blackgunownersassociation.org/

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, if you were wrong, then this group would be unlikely to exist. https://blackgunownersassociation.org/

And yet people find seeing them armed threatening enough to simply cause the police to open fire. So trying to open carry would clearly violate that being threatening with a firearm.

Philando Castile shows what happens when blacks get too used to the idea that they have second amendment rights, and how being black and owning a gun is fundamentally threatening and hence illegal in texas. If it was not the case killing him would have been illegal.