He always hated women. Then he decided to kill them.

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Mar 3, 2018
9,691
6,528
1,030
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
One would hope that by studying these incidents that eventually law enforcement would become better at detecting and preventing such events. This article does an excellent job of detailing why this doesn't appear to be the case.

About this series
As hate crimes soar across the country, The Post examines those who commit acts of hatred, those who are targets of attacks, and those who investigate and prosecute them.​

TALLAHASSEE — The first thing Kate Pierson did after unlocking the yoga studio that November afternoon was set the mood, plugging in the soothing waterfall, selecting a cheery lemongrass oil for the scent diffuser. The thermostat was turned up to 98 for the 5:30 class.

Hot Yoga Tallahassee was styled as a calming haven for a mostly female clientele. The men who practiced there, Pierson said, were men at ease with the “light and love” mission of the place.

But the man who walked in about 5:15 that Friday was different. Pierson was still alone in the lobby when he entered, a big guy whose maroon Florida State University T-shirt was stretched over a paunchy belly, the wrapper still on the yoga mat under his arm. A black Planet Fitness bag was strapped across his chest. Inside, she would learn soon, was a Glock 9mm pistol.

The man wasn’t on the list of 11 students preregistered for the evening class, and he seemed disappointed so few were expected. Handing over a debit card for the $12 walk-in fee, he identified himself as “Scott . . . Paul,” hesitating between the two words.

His name was actually Scott Paul Beierle, a 40-year-old former FSU graduate student who had driven 250 miles for a yoga class in the town where he had twice been arrested for groping female students and banned from campus.

Beierle was an avowed hater of women, a man who repeatedly grabbed women in real life and fantasized about raping and killing them in the horrific collection of lyrics, poetry and novels he began writing as a teenager. His interactions with the opposite sex had gotten him fired from teaching jobs, booted from the Army and hauled before the principal of his high school. He traced his fury at women — “Just beneath their blushing lashes and their innocent smiles lies the most rancid and putrid, sickening essences” — to the girls who both aroused and frustrated him in eighth grade.

It is a kind of hatred that experts in extremism warn is becoming more common and more dangerous, providing what amounts to a new feeder network for white supremacy and neo-Nazi groups.

“More and more, we see misogyny as the gateway drug for extremists,” said Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of more than 20 people interviewed to compile this account of Beierle’s history and the phenomenon it represents.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...led-by-male-supremacy/?utm_term=.4f1049459155
 
It's time to face the fact that there are some boys who claim to be heterosexual but who hate their would-be heterosexual partners. Some men claim to be heterosexual but hate females. It's difficult to figure out. Is there such a thing as a "neither sexual"?
 
Yikes, this guy was ..the other guy in Fl..dammit, what was his name? It ruined the NCIS show guy's career? Mark Harmon? Ted Bundy-ish. Not Bud or Kelly Bundy, Ted Bundy-ish.
 
Why are so many "conservative" guys neither sexual? They don't like men. They don't like women.
 
My reason for posting this story is primarily due to the fact I've been partipating in a discussion about the Broward County school resource officer Scott Petersen who was recently arrested in connection with the Parkland shooting at Majorie Stoneman Douglas high school.

The person I've been communicating with is a staunch gun control advocate who blames the entire incident solely on the fact that Cruz was able to legally purchase the weapons he used and doesn't appear to place much credence in the theory that perhaps Cruz would have simply obtained a weapon unlawfully if his initial lawful attempt had been thwarted.

My position is that had Cruz been made a prohibited person due to this mental state (Petersen attempted to get him committed under Florida's Baker Act) or had he been arrested and tried on any of the numerous assaults that it's been reported he committed AND had the FBI viewed his online threats more seriously when viewed in light of the totality of the 37 contacts with law enforcement that he/his family had, then maybe they could have adverted this tragedy.

The thing I found most interesting about this article is how they detail the numerous complaints and discipinary actions taken against Beierle and how none of them resulted in any criminal charges being filed against him. This means that on paper he looks clean as most background checks look for criminal history, specifically convictions and sometimes arrests as well, but there were none for this guy. So that means in spite of all of his aggressions against a multitude of women in a variety of locals, and his violent writings indicating his desires to harm women, he was not a prohibited person who was able to walk into a gun store and legally purchase the weapon he used to commit this crime.

Just like in the Parkland case, everyone knew about his propensity for aggression & violence. And in both this case & Parkland, these individuals not only wrote about their desires for violence or aggression, they actually committed some of these acts before they actually graduated to murder.

So do our laws need to change, should there be a threshold for specific acts before automatically requiring being charged with an actual crime? I'm don't the answer but this is what I'm thinking.
 
Even with all his ranting, raving and hatred towards women, what could police do? It's very unfortunate that police must wait for a law being broken, or see the crime developing before they can do anything. Too many victims pay with their lives.
 
Be careful what you wish for. If you think law enforcement should have the power and the resources to prevent crime you would be entering into the realm of socialist dictatorships.
 
Be careful what you wish for. If you think law enforcement should have the power and the resources to prevent crime you would be entering into the realm of socialist dictatorships.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. There was plenty of documentation in both of these cases to indicate that the individuals involved were committing criminal aggressions. Once it got past 3 separate offenses, in my opinion something should have been put in place or someone should have began working on a case so that when it happened again our system could have intervened.

You don't think that had something been done early on that perhaps Cruz would have never made it to offense 38 which was the Parkland shooting? Isn't it possible that had someone intervened at some point before they got into the 30s that maybe the shooting could have been adverted even if for no other reason than because he was locked up for a crime less significant than murder?
 
My reason for posting this story is primarily due to the fact I've been partipating in a discussion about the Broward County school resource officer Scott Petersen who was recently arrested in connection with the Parkland shooting at Majorie Stoneman Douglas high school.

The person I've been communicating with is a staunch gun control advocate who blames the entire incident solely on the fact that Cruz was able to legally purchase the weapons he used and doesn't appear to place much credence in the theory that perhaps Cruz would have simply obtained a weapon unlawfully if his initial lawful attempt had been thwarted.

My position is that had Cruz been made a prohibited person due to this mental state (Petersen attempted to get him committed under Florida's Baker Act) or had he been arrested and tried on any of the numerous assaults that it's been reported he committed AND had the FBI viewed his online threats more seriously when viewed in light of the totality of the 37 contacts with law enforcement that he/his family had, then maybe they could have adverted this tragedy.

The thing I found most interesting about this article is how they detail the numerous complaints and discipinary actions taken against Beierle and how none of them resulted in any criminal charges being filed against him. This means that on paper he looks clean as most background checks look for criminal history, specifically convictions and sometimes arrests as well, but there were none for this guy. So that means in spite of all of his aggressions against a multitude of women in a variety of locals, and his violent writings indicating his desires to harm women, he was not a prohibited person who was able to walk into a gun store and legally purchase the weapon he used to commit this crime.

Just like in the Parkland case, everyone knew about his propensity for aggression & violence. And in both this case & Parkland, these individuals not only wrote about their desires for violence or aggression, they actually committed some of these acts before they actually graduated to murder.

So do our laws need to change, should there be a threshold for specific acts before automatically requiring being charged with an actual crime? I'm don't the answer but this is what I'm thinking.
Just like any cocksucker liberal. Goes from THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE to a political agenda. Disguised under this "care" for the victims.

He was on the fbi watch list. They knew he was a powder keg. The democrats, the world globalists smile from ear to ear across their scumbag socialist faces when it happens. Get their professional politicians out in front and their pets in the media deliver the well prepared speeches to the world.

Go ahead and explain why they ignored all the warnings. Why did that obvious left wing Sheriff have that absurd policy? How was the BBT Center rented out for cnn townhall meeting that all about and only about bashing America, the 2nd amendment and the NRA? Who funded that? How were so many buses organized for a trip to Washington so quickly?

Poignant questions, right?
 
the old ''hate whitey'' agenda --when it's really blacks who are the jackasses
 
So do our laws need to change, should there be a threshold for specific acts before automatically requiring being charged with an actual crime? I'm don't the answer but this is what I'm thinking.

Laws can change, but any law must be balanced against an individual's constitutional rights. That's were problem falls. Many states are, or already have, red flag laws to use to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are unbalanced. These laws though are like any other, somebody must stand up and notify authorities, or press charges. DA's must take the time to find out if there are these kind of hateful writings, recordings, etc. While they may be legally protected speech they can be used to show state of mind and potentially get restrictions on the individual from possessing or purchasing firearms. Minimally the DA can chose to prosecute whatever charges are against the individual to begin the paper trail that could remove his right and ability to access firearms.

Will this keep these types of shootings from occurring? Maybe some, but if a person really wants a firearm they can and will find a way to get them. The suspects in the May 2019 school shooting in Highlands Ranch, CO, are under 21 and could not legally buy handguns. Instead the broke into the gun safe of one of the suspects parents and took weapons (of which 2 or 3 were handguns) that they used in the shooting.

So what is the answer? What laws, short of totally disarming the nation (good luck with that and they can't have mine), will prevent mass shootings?
 
It's very unfortunate that police must wait for a law being broken, or see the crime developing

I don't think that's unfortunate.

By unfortunate I meant that some innocent person may die because until the law is broken they can't act - and rightly so. I spent my career in public safety. I am not now, nor have I ever been, any kind of proponent of preventative detention.
 
It's very unfortunate that police must wait for a law being broken, or see the crime developing

I don't think that's unfortunate.

By unfortunate I meant that some innocent person may die because until the law is broken they can't act - and rightly so. I spent my career in public safety. I am not now, nor have I ever been, any kind of proponent of preventative detention.
But they can act. We have laws against harassment, and making threats, and touching people without their consent (the numerous instances of groping that Beierle was banned from several campuses/worksites for)

My point is if they would take action on the lesser act which are still crimes, then maybe neither one of them would have had either the opportunity (due to a criminal history) or mindset to carry out these murders.

I'll never forget the first time I saw Cruz standing before the court with his public defender by his side, she had her arm around him and presented him to the court as this poor victim who our legal system let fall through the cracks and were oblivious to his cries for help.

This alfter he had just slaughtered 17 of his classmates and other school personnel.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Be careful what you wish for. If you think law enforcement should have the power and the resources to prevent crime you would be entering into the realm of socialist dictatorships.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. There was plenty of documentation in both of these cases to indicate that the individuals involved were committing criminal aggressions. Once it got past 3 separate offenses, in my opinion something should have been put in place or someone should have began working on a case so that when it happened again our system could have intervened.

You don't think that had something been done early on that perhaps Cruz would have never made it to offense 38 which was the Parkland shooting? Isn't it possible that had someone intervened at some point before they got into the 30s that maybe the shooting could have been adverted even if for no other reason than because he was locked up for a crime less significant than murder?


I'm all in favor of 3 strikes and you are out, but dems and minorities scream bloody murder.
 

Forum List

Back
Top