Waffle House shooting, at least 4 killed

[kaz]

I've never heard the term "13% problem" and neither had the Internet. But I agree that raises a question of what "problem" he is referring to. And I don't know him, this is the first time I ever saw his posts. So I read further. The only thing he said was that accurately murder rates among blacks is higher. That's true unless data is racist. It is in black and white ...

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

Try reading my post where I just responded to that point. Hint, you quoted it. This is just like the discussion you were talking about that you didn't read either

I did read it, dope. I responded as well.

Your response ignored what I said, so no, you didn't read it

Stop Kazzing.

See ya

 

[OKTexas]

I already told ya, see post 844.


.

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge.


.

 

[KissMy]

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge. .

Thanks to Repubtards there is a shortage of Judges & a 2 year backlog. So wackos are free to kill US at will, because the NRA Republicans want's them Armed with Guns. Repubtards closed down insane asylums, medicated the retards, armed them & set them free to kill US.

 

[kaz]

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge. .

Thanks to Repubtards there is a shortage of Judges & a 2 year backlog. So wackos are free to kill US at will, because the NRA Republicans want's them Armed with Guns. Repubtards closed down insane asylums, medicated the retards, armed them & set them free to kill US.

So Democrats slow walking and impeding judges is the Republicans causing a shortage of judges? Wow, you're really stupid

 

[KissMy]

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge. .

Thanks to Repubtards there is a shortage of Judges & a 2 year backlog. So wackos are free to kill US at will, because the NRA Republicans want's them Armed with Guns. Repubtards closed down insane asylums, medicated the retards, armed them & set them free to kill US.

So Democrats slow walking and impeding judges is the Republicans causing a shortage of judges? Wow, you're really stupid

Hey STUPID, Repubtards are in charge & can't get the job done. Trump failed to even nominate most judges & the ones he does, are dumber than dirt & never tried a case! They are letting violent criminals roam free to kill US!

 

[kaz]

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge. .

Thanks to Repubtards there is a shortage of Judges & a 2 year backlog. So wackos are free to kill US at will, because the NRA Republicans want's them Armed with Guns. Repubtards closed down insane asylums, medicated the retards, armed them & set them free to kill US.

So Democrats slow walking and impeding judges is the Republicans causing a shortage of judges? Wow, you're really stupid

Hey STUPID, Repubtards are in charge & can't get the job done. Trump failed to even nominate most judges & the ones he does, are dumber than dirt & never tried a case! They are letting violent criminals roam free to kill US!

He STUPID, Leftards were in charge under Obama & couldn't get the job done. And you blamed the Republicans then too. You're a moron and a liar

 

[OKTexas]

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge. .

Thanks to Repubtards there is a shortage of Judges & a 2 year backlog. So wackos are free to kill US at will, because the NRA Republicans want's them Armed with Guns. Repubtards closed down insane asylums, medicated the retards, armed them & set them free to kill US.

A two year backlog, where? This guy interacted with agencies of 3 states and 2 of the feds. Any one could have involuntarily committed him.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Same topic, but a bit of a side note, I ran into this sign at a local business today.

.

 

[Faun]

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

Try reading my post where I just responded to that point. Hint, you quoted it. This is just like the discussion you were talking about that you didn't read either

I did read it, dope. I responded as well.

Your response ignored what I said, so no, you didn't read it

Stop Kazzing.

See ya

Who doesn't call you a kazzer?

 

[JQPublic1]

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

I never said anything about legality. I said he was culpable.

This case shows very clearly why this must be a federal law rather than a state matter.

You have yet to present any case for his "culpability" because it is a legal term. There is federal law, it appears to have been followed.


.

Ostensibly, it does appear that way. But I'm wrestling with the probable cause for weapon confiscation and how adjudication is involved in that process...if at all. Even a temporary confiscation is subject to due process. My point being that if a revoked FOID was based on mental instability as assessed by competent authority, that would satisfy the application of federal, illinois and Tennessee law...since each jurisdiction is connected via USC 18:922g. The rickety wheels of my premise turns upon the ambiguous interpretation of the term Adjudication, but, I may still arrive at my destination even if i have to repair my wheels along the way.

The way I've heard it, the local sheriff revoked the FOID simply because the FBI asked them to. Nothing has been made public more than that. That is not due process.


.

BINGO!...looks like a civil right's violation to me. Not that I'm siding with the killer or his father..I'm just being real.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.
.

Just more proof you & the NRA want crazies & terrorist to have guns!

Yep, you're crashing and burning alright. LMAO

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.[1]

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia


.

See...there you go....the left wingers don't care about pieces of paper that were written on by old white guys over 200 years ago......they just get to say how things are and if you don't do what they say they will lie, cheat and steal to get the power to punish you for it.....

When did I say that, dope? I said there needed to be a federal law that would have covered this case. There is not.

There is a federal law that highlights a list of people prohibited from possessing firearms.
I posted a copy of the law in post #844. But since I consider you a friend I'll give you a better link:

Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

I ask that you direct your attention to
this excerpt from the USC.

"The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

• convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
  
  
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
  
  
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
  
  
• who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  
  
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
  
  
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 992(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition"

I invite you to observe the highlighted blue and underlined phrase. That phrase is also included in the Tennessee gun statue . note also, if you care to look it up, that Title 18 USC 922 is duly referenced there. If adjudicon can be established citing mental instability in regards to the revocation of the son's FOID card , then the father cannot escape liability for returning the guns to his son who he knew was mentally challenged. Adjudication forms the bridge that connects federal law to the Tennesee state law in framing a prosecutorial discretion in either venue, federal or state.

Thank you for the post but I already read it.

Nothing here applies to the shooter at all.
He had not been, as most people aren't, adjudicated as a mental defective. Did any court even have the authority or standing under their guidelines to involuntarily commit the shooter for psychological asssessment over his previous disturbances? Obviously, until or if at all that were done, he still has rights to his guns.

Obviously there should be some sort of new category added to the law that allows for temorary confiscation to create a "cool down period" wherein the subject can be evaluated, treated if necessary and work to get their shit together and meet the standards set for the return of their guns. Also, if the guns remain in the custody of a family member, they should be criminally liable if they arent properly secured.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

You pointed to one quote. You took that one quote, found it sufficient to spin how you wanted to read it and left. None of the rest of the conversation supports your claim. No, you didn't read it

There is no spin. There's only one way to take his meaning, dope.

No, there are two ways.

1) Blacks are a problem

2) Black murder rates are a problem.

The second is true unless you're claiming that facts are racist. Nothing in his posts after that supported the first one, only the second.

Your justification for the first one is that's what you want him to have meant. He has 4K posts and I only read about 20 of them. So find more than one

It's about race. That was the first post to mention race in the thread. That was the point, dope.

Yet you can't point to a single other post that he wrote that confirms that while he immediately followed up that quote with a statement about black murder rates. Facts aren't racist, homey.

Here's what happened. He wrote a post that I wouldn't have phrased that way but isn't definitive.

kaz: I wanted to know if it was racist. So I read the rest of the conversation and saw nothing to back up racism

HutchStarsky: You wanted to make the case he's racist. You decided the post was close enough and stopped satisfied you'd achieved your objective.

I don't know if you're racist or not, but you have no problem supporting policies like open borders, government dependency and minimum wage that are devastating the black community. But you just go and word parse your rationale

I never made a case about anyone being racist, dope. That came from your damaged mind and poor comprehension.

Fuck, dude. The whole premise of this line of discussion was that the left always bring race into it. I simply pointed out that the first reference to race in the thread was by a righty. Nothing more.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

I never said anything about legality. I said he was culpable.

This case shows very clearly why this must be a federal law rather than a state matter.

You have yet to present any case for his "culpability" because it is a legal term. There is federal law, it appears to have been followed.


.

Ostensibly, it does appear that way. But I'm wrestling with the probable cause for weapon confiscation and how adjudication is involved in that process...if at all. Even a temporary confiscation is subject to due process. My point being that if a revoked FOID was based on mental instability as assessed by competent authority, that would satisfy the application of federal, illinois and Tennessee law...since each jurisdiction is connected via USC 18:922g. The rickety wheels of my premise turns upon the ambiguous interpretation of the term Adjudication, but, I may still arrive at my destination even if i have to repair my wheels along the way.

The way I've heard it, the local sheriff revoked the FOID simply because the FBI asked them to. Nothing has been made public more than that. That is not due process.


.

BINGO!...looks like a civil right's violation to me. Not that I'm siding with the killer or his father..I'm just being real.

Yes, for good cause though. That's why I said there needs to be a category in the law that fits these people who have not been adjudicated but are still a threat.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nothing there. Post it.

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge.


.

You don't know if any court could have involuntarily committed him for evaluation or if they had, the determination would have made him ineligable.

BTW, a judge cannot simply deem someone as mentally deficient. That must be determined by professionals.

Do you even know how any of that works?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge. .

Thanks to Repubtards there is a shortage of Judges & a 2 year backlog. So wackos are free to kill US at will, because the NRA Republicans want's them Armed with Guns. Repubtards closed down insane asylums, medicated the retards, armed them & set them free to kill US.

A two year backlog, where? This guy interacted with agencies of 3 states and 2 of the feds. Any one could have involuntarily committed him.


.

ny one could have involuntarily committed him.

Really?

Prove it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Same topic, but a bit of a side note, I ran into this sign at a local business today.
View attachment 190177


.

Did you chubb up?

 

[OKTexas]

It's a list of federally prohibited persons.
View attachment 190040

You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does.


.

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge.


.

You don't know if any court could have involuntarily committed him for evaluation or if they had, the determination would have made him ineligable.

BTW, a judge cannot simply deem someone as mentally deficient. That must be determined by professionals.

Do you even know how any of that works?

In every State that I'm aware of, the police can require a 72 hour psychiatric hold on anyone they deem a danger to themselves or others. It's up to the pros to keep him form there.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Which is applicacable?

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge.


.

You don't know if any court could have involuntarily committed him for evaluation or if they had, the determination would have made him ineligable.

BTW, a judge cannot simply deem someone as mentally deficient. That must be determined by professionals.

Do you even know how any of that works?

In every State that I'm aware of, the police can require a 72 hour psychiatric hold on anyone they deem a danger to themselves or others. It's up to the pros to keep him form there.


.

72 hrs is not enough to adjudicate someone as mentally deficient.

Maybe you should find out what the standard is for doing so rather than posting supposition.

 

[OKTexas]

Same topic, but a bit of a side note, I ran into this sign at a local business today.
View attachment 190177


.

Did you chubb up?

Nope, but I did let them know I appreciated it, and asked if I could take the photo.


.

 

[OKTexas]

None, that's the point. Of course you being the commie you are, you think the bill of rights should only apply in situations you approve of. It's doesn't work that way, life liberty and property can only be taken through due process, you want a short cut, they don't exist in the Constitution.


.

Huh?

You said there was a law that applied and the feds dropped the ball.

So, WTF are you talking about?

He should have been prosecuted when he violated the restricted area at the WH, the FBI knew he was a whack job, why didn't they have him involuntarily committed for evaluation? Police in CO had interactions with him and wrote him off as a whack job, they could have committed him. Hell he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress with his AR, put his AR in the truck and exposed himself to the lifeguards, no charges. If any of these LE agencies had done their job, instead of passing him to the next guy, he would have been a prohibited person. BTW adjudicated in criminal law means as decided by a judge.


.

You don't know if any court could have involuntarily committed him for evaluation or if they had, the determination would have made him ineligable.

BTW, a judge cannot simply deem someone as mentally deficient. That must be determined by professionals.

Do you even know how any of that works?

In every State that I'm aware of, the police can require a 72 hour psychiatric hold on anyone they deem a danger to themselves or others. It's up to the pros to keep him form there.


.

72 hrs is not enough to adjudicate someone as mentally deficient.

Maybe you should find out what the standard is for doing so rather than posting supposition.

It's enough for an initial evaluation and possible involuntary commitment.


.