Shooter at DC Shipyard

LTC8K6 said:
I think the error was with the police who basically did not prosecute the vehicle shooting incident. So the incident did not end up on his records as it should have.

I really can't imagine shooting up a car in a rage and getting away with it.
Click to expand...

LEO's apprehend, DA's charge and prosecute.

No fault on the part of the LEA in this case.

On enforcing existing laws -

It's one of the most frustrating parts of actually knowing how prosecutions are conducted wrt criminal firearms possession or use.

Locally, time and again convicted felons in possession are never charged under the strict federal statutes unless the Feds initiated the investigation in the first place and the actor is part of a targeted criminal group - lone bad guys get a pass - and in many cases if the actor in question is on probation or parole they're simply remanded to custody w/o a separate criminal indictment for the firearms violation.

There has been a maximum enforcement program called Project Exile that has worked in other jurisdictions, but when it was implemented in Oakland California it was rejected quickly by city hall because of complaints from city residents, "It's racist law enforcement!" all the standard "how dare you send my Johnny to jail just because he was carrying a gun..." ********.

I can't remember the author's name OTT, but there was a law journal article studying California's mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements for firearms possession or use during the commission of a crime, and it was determined that judges would hand down a lighter sentence on the underlying criminal charge in order to drop the total time served down to near what the criminal charge w/o the gun enhancement would be - and of course the sentences are served concurrently...

Even here at JREF when the subject of gun control came up after Sandy Hook, I wrote a post about how I'd go about restructuring gun laws across the board and the part that many other posters had an issue with was the part requiring strict mandatory minimum prison sentences (consecutive only) for criminal possession or negligent use or storage of firearms.

I just don't understand how the general consensus can be that a bad actor with a firearm shouldn't face a heavy penalty, but some guy up in Alaska or Idaho that never had anything more serious than a parking citation should stand on one foot, hold his tongue and spell rhinoceros before they purchase a firearm (and of course the firearm shouldn't be too small, too big or black and scary looking)
 
dudalb said:
Don't go out into the Great Outdoors much, do you?
Camo has become standard hunting and hiking gear (a couple of people I know whose hobby is wildlife photography wears camo gear for the same reason hunters do:less chance the animal will notice you and run away).
Click to expand...

And I've seen plenty of hunters wearing camo and a bright orange safety vest. Most non-primate mammals have limited color vision, so I doubt that wearing camo would provide any more concealment than wearing ordinary hiking clothing. Animals that flee normally react to any motion rather than a definitive identification of what is approaching them, and few commonly hunted species instinctively view humans as predators.
 
BStrong said:
....

It's one of the most frustrating parts of actually knowing how prosecutions are conducted wrt criminal firearms possession or use.

Locally, time and again convicted felons in possession are never charged under the strict federal statutes unless the Feds initiated the investigation in the first place and the actor is part of a targeted criminal group - lone bad guys get a pass - and in many cases if the actor in question is on probation or parole they're simply remanded to custody w/o a separate criminal indictment for the firearms violation.

...
Click to expand...

Why do you think this is? Who is dropping the ball? The prosecutors? Why? Do they feel the law is too harsh? Is it lack of prison space?

In New York City there is a highly-touted law that MANDATES a prison sentence for illegal gun possession. Yet only about half those arrested are sentenced to prison. In New York one problem is supposed to be a giant loophole in the law.

Prison sentences are mandatory except where the interests of justice would dictate otherwise.
Police say that unless someone is a gang member or has a criminal background, judges do not like to send people to prison for simple gun possession. Especially when the person is a) married, b) employed and c) has no criminal background or only a minor one.

Under this criteria Aaron Alexis would probably have not gotten a prison sentence in New York for shooting out tires. At least in New York I think he would've been prosecuted.
 
For a country that talks tough on crimes such as drugs and locks up more of its population and executes more than most other countries, the USA is remarkably soft on gun crime.
 
gumboot said:
The purpose of camouflage is to disrupt the identifiable "pattern" of the human body. This is highly effective in humans, because we're very familiar with the human body, and therefore very good at picking up its "pattern" unless it's concealed.

Wild animals are not familiar with the human body's pattern, thus wearing camouflage is pointless. It's even more pointless when you consider that very few animals rely primarily on sight for detecting predators.

Hunters in New Zealand normally wear high-visibility clothing to prevent them being shot by other hunters. This clothing in no way hampers their ability to surprise their prey.

Anyone who tells you they wear camouflage so they can sneak up on animals is an idiot.
Click to expand...
well noted!!! On the other hand, if they smear their bright orange with a touch of deer feces or Rut for Him perfume, not so much...........:D:D:D
 
BStrong said:
LEO's apprehend, DA's charge and prosecute.

No fault on the part of the LEA in this case.
Click to expand...

The police report indicates that a police detective and a sergeant prepared the case and then referred it to the Seattle Municipal Court, for Property Damage, and Discharge of a firearm.

It's the last line in their report. It's also shown on an earlier page.

There is no indication of a DA signing the report as far as I can see.

City Attorney's office says they never received the case from the police, and so never proceeded with those charges.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/09/washington-navy-yard-shooter-once-lived-in-seattle/
 
LTC8K6 said:
The police report indicates that a police detective and a sergeant prepared the case and then referred it to the Seattle Municipal Court, for Property Damage, and Discharge of a firearm.
...
City Attorney's office says they never received the case from the police, and so never proceeded with those charges.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/09/washington-navy-yard-shooter-once-lived-in-seattle/
Click to expand...

It's also stated the police locked him up -"Was booked into jail for investigation of malicious mischief..."

That sounds to me like the cops did their part. If he was jailed there had to be some record of the charge filed. Sounds like a classic case of pass-the-buck.
 
newyorkguy said:
It's also stated the police locked him up -"Was booked into jail for investigation of malicious mischief..."

That sounds to me like the cops did their part. If he was jailed there had to be some record of the charge filed. Sounds like a classic case of pass-the-buck.
Click to expand...

That's just what they first booked him on prior to the investigation.
 
Last edited:
Both the Hungerford and Dumblane massacres in the UK resulted in tighten up of the background checks for applications and renewal of firearms certificates. The aim being to further reduce the chance of an unsuitable person from getting a gun.

I predict no such thing will happen in the USA. There will be no tightening of procedures and unsuitable people will be able to keep on buying guns legally.
 
If we redefine mentally ill, this can all be worked out.

"Do you want to buy a gun?"
"Yep."
"Sorry, that makes you unfit to buy one."

(Full credit to Joseph Heller.)
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think somebody may have bought his PTSD story and canned the case.
Click to expand...

I said that two days ago.

newyorkguy said:
...
I see in the first incident in 2004 his father told Seattle police his son suffered from PTSD a result of his working at the World Trade Center following the Sept. 11th attacks. That sounds like a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card.
...
Click to expand...

And if he's in jail and charged, trust me, someone somewhere in the DA's office knew about it. I doubt there would be any written record verifying the charges were dropped. If they release him the paperwork trail just stops. And nine years after the fact who in the DA's office is going to remember.
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
Both the Hungerford and Dumblane massacres in the UK resulted in tighten up of the background checks for applications and renewal of firearms certificates. The aim being to further reduce the chance of an unsuitable person from getting a gun.

I predict no such thing will happen in the USA. There will be no tightening of procedures and unsuitable people will be able to keep on buying guns legally.
Click to expand...

I thought UK gun laws were already quite strict before Hungerford and Dunblane wrt firearms licences.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I thought UK gun laws were already quite strict before Hungerford and Dunblane wrt firearms licences.
Click to expand...

It has been the same law since 1968. But I am referring to the background checks, which in the 1968 Act was up to the local chief of police. There used to be a referee who was a local dignitary like a doctor or Justice of The Peace and a check of previous convictions.

Now it is two referees who have to know and vouch for the person, background checks involving all police systems, a signed agreement for the police to consult with the applicants doctor and an ability for the police to refuse even if the person has not been convicted of any crime, subject to approval of the courts if the applicant chooses to appeal.

So someone with Alexis's history of trouble with the police would have him refused in the UK, despite no conviction. The police could also used the circumstances of his discharge from the navy and would have spoken to his doctor and had his mental health issues to further justify the refusal.

That in the USA all of his issues did not stop him from being able to purchase a gun is staggering and a big reason why there are so many deaths.
 
Nessie said:
Both the Hungerford and Dumblane massacres in the UK resulted in tighten up of the background checks for applications and renewal of firearms certificates. The aim being to further reduce the chance of an unsuitable person from getting a gun.

I predict no such thing will happen in the USA. There will be no tightening of procedures and unsuitable people will be able to keep on buying guns legally.
Click to expand...

It seems to have taken a while for this fellow to crack, or for people around him to notice.
 
newyorkguy said:
I said that two days ago.



And if he's in jail and charged, trust me, someone somewhere in the DA's office knew about it. I doubt there would be any written record verifying the charges were dropped. If they release him the paperwork trail just stops. And nine years after the fact who in the DA's office is going to remember.
Click to expand...

Sorta' looks like he was never actually charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom