Active Shooting in Progress Midlands-Odessa, Tx
- Thread starter MTT TL
- Start date
OneFreeTexan
New member
25 shot in Chicago this weekend,,,, 7 dead........??
He was fired earlier. Company AND the shooter called 911, so they knew they had a problem as they were looking for them. Just weren't ready when they stopped him. THAT was a law enforcement issue. Should have killed him right then in felony stop. Why they didn't needs to be explained.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
What problem did they know they had with him? I read that his 9-1-1 call was jumbled and incoherent, but that's not a crime, and certainly not a felony.elsancudo said:
Were they "looking for him"? Where has that been reported? He wasn't stopped on the highway because of the company's 9-1-1 call, he was pulled over for not having signaled for a left turn. That's not even a crime -- it's a motor vehicle violation.
Apparently the guy was already melting down when he was fired.
The implication of the following article is that he was fired because of his meltdown, not the other way around.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/02...-before-rampage-he-was-on-a-long-spiral-down/
The implication of the following article is that he was fired because of his meltdown, not the other way around.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/09/02...-before-rampage-he-was-on-a-long-spiral-down/
FBI Special Agent in Charge Christopher Combs said the shooter, Seth Aaron Ator rambled on about his “perceived life’s tragedies,” in the tipline call. Ator didn’t make any threats during the call either. Combs also said that the FBI’s investigation shows the 36-year-old “was on a long spiral going down” and that his home “is a very strange residence.”
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As far as I'm concerned, that's just another article that's long on innuendo and short on information.
IMO: This guy had severe mental problems. He lived in a hovel without electricity or running water.
A neighbor had previously called the police. The police failed to respond because there was no GPS address. How did they ever find anything before GPS was invented?
The neighbor said the guy would sleep in his car with the engine running on cold nights.
A neighbor had previously called the police. The police failed to respond because there was no GPS address. How did they ever find anything before GPS was invented?
The neighbor said the guy would sleep in his car with the engine running on cold nights.
I must say that is the first time I have ever heard anyone complain about the police NOT killing someone during a traffic stop.
There were also reports of him climbing on top of his roof at night to shoot nocturnal animals at random through the night. While many of us might see it as rational pest control, such behavior in the current context could be seen as a warm up. Serial killers often times practice killing animals before moving up to people.
The GPS comment is unclear. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could not find it without GPS. People under 40 rarely have land lines these days. If you disable the GPS features on your phone the local police (also fire, rescue, etc) may never be able to find you.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Simple, they weren't looking for him. DPS pulled him over for a simple traffic violation. They did not pull him over as a result of a 911 call. The was no APB for him.
Odessa Shooter Illegally Obtained Firearm in Private Sale
> The lone gunman who killed seven and injured 22 in a series of drive-by shootings
> in Odessa and Midland, Texas on Saturday obtained the firearm he used in the attack
> through an illegal private sale.
>
> Local police told ABC News and other outlets that the shooter, 36-year-old Seth Ator,
> previously attempted to purchase a firearm from a licensed seller but was denied after
> failing a background check due to his history of “mental illness.” He then purchased
> the “AR-15 type” rifle that he used in the attack from a private seller who was under
> no legal obligation to conduct a background check on him.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...review.com&utm_term=68980&utm_content=8011453
Someone smarter than I will -- of course -- explain the National Review's breathtaking inability to present even an internally-consistent false message here.
And Aquila .... remember.... Truth is no defense in this race to the bottom of the intellectual well.
It's all about loud enough, often enough -- and facts be damned -- soon to be enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even the most ill-educated and simplistic reading of the 2nd Amendment cannot find protection of hunting & target shooting.
It's all about weapons of war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
> The lone gunman who killed seven and injured 22 in a series of drive-by shootings
> in Odessa and Midland, Texas on Saturday obtained the firearm he used in the attack
> through an illegal private sale.
>
> Local police told ABC News and other outlets that the shooter, 36-year-old Seth Ator,
> previously attempted to purchase a firearm from a licensed seller but was denied after
> failing a background check due to his history of “mental illness.” He then purchased
> the “AR-15 type” rifle that he used in the attack from a private seller who was under
> no legal obligation to conduct a background check on him.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...review.com&utm_term=68980&utm_content=8011453
Someone smarter than I will -- of course -- explain the National Review's breathtaking inability to present even an internally-consistent false message here.
And Aquila .... remember.... Truth is no defense in this race to the bottom of the intellectual well.
It's all about loud enough, often enough -- and facts be damned -- soon to be enough.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even the most ill-educated and simplistic reading of the 2nd Amendment cannot find protection of hunting & target shooting.
It's all about weapons of war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm not the person who cited that article, but I think that's the point. They call it an "illegal" sale while acknowledging that the seller had no obligation to conduct a background check (and, in fact, probably had no means to do so, since private parties can't call up NICS).USNRet93 said:
The interesting nuance is that, if the shooter had been reported to NICS as a prohibited person, we have an interesting dichotomy in which his purchase was illegal, but the seller's sale was not illegal (unless the seller knew that the buyer was a prohibited person). I don't recall the exact language of the federal law, but it essentially says you can't sell a firearm to someone you know of have reason to believe is a prohibited person. The law doesn't spell out what might give a seller reason to believe a prospective purchaser is prohibited, and the [federal] law doesn't impose any affirmative duty on the seller to make any effort to find out. Basically, it just says, "If you know, don't go."
I don't know what Texas state law says on this topic.
We also don't know why the shooter was [reportedly] prohibited. The articles are saying vague things about "mental issues," but the law is specific. You are prohibited if you have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. We need to know more specifics before we can assess the accuracy of what we're reading in the news.
This is correct. As per the ATF:
Unless the seller knew the shooter was prohibited, he's not liable. The state would have to prove he had some knowledge to that effect.
That said, I don't envy the poor guy. If the media finds out, he's going to be hounded to no end.
The situation is also going to be easy fodder for people who say we need background checks on private sales.
Here's a point everyone (and always the media) seems to ignore...
Lying on the 4473 form is a crime. Therefore so is attempting to purchase if you are a prohibited person. Almost no one is every arrested, let alone prosecuted for that. No less than Vice President Joe Biden said publically "we don't have time for that".... (and yes, he was VP when he said that, I saw him say it on camera)
Seems like it is treated as "ok, you broke the law, but since you didn't get a gun, (today, from this dealer) no harm, no foul, go about your business, have a nice day"
If you try to buy dope from an undercover cop, (because we are all prohibited persons when it comes to illegal dope) you get arrested, AND you don't get the dope. Seems like a huge double standard there, to me....
Lying on the 4473 form is a crime. Therefore so is attempting to purchase if you are a prohibited person. Almost no one is every arrested, let alone prosecuted for that. No less than Vice President Joe Biden said publically "we don't have time for that".... (and yes, he was VP when he said that, I saw him say it on camera)
Seems like it is treated as "ok, you broke the law, but since you didn't get a gun, (today, from this dealer) no harm, no foul, go about your business, have a nice day"
If you try to buy dope from an undercover cop, (because we are all prohibited persons when it comes to illegal dope) you get arrested, AND you don't get the dope. Seems like a huge double standard there, to me....
When Biden said that the Feds don't have time for it; was one of the few times he actually came close to saying something without getting his facts too mixed up. Given the large number of people that lie on the 4473 and the few numbers of federal officers to investigate such things they really don't have time for it. Although it is not so much time as it is officers and resources. On a long enough time line they could all be investigated. By I imagine SOL would apply before they got through with the case load.
44AMP said:
So, if we've a law that isn't enforced, this issue isn't really about law enforcement at all. It's about regulating people who willingly submit themselves to regulation. That's you and me. It's not anyone determined to hurt others.
Of course, identifying people who do bad things, prosecuting them and incarcerating them is real toil. People don't like toil. As Chief Wiggum noted, "I'd rather let a thousand guilty men go free than chase after them".
"Sources" are stating Ator was "adjudicated mentally defective" (hence the earlier NICS denial)
-- BUT --
even that statement "by authorities" is internally refuted by "other authorities"
It's just my humble opinion, but there's a whole lotta OMG/CYA/Spin delay going on.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/us/west-texas-odessa-shooter/
That he should have been Red Flagged (there's that term again) long ago is undeniable in retrospect.
(As Isaac Trimble moaned apocryphally... "A blind man should have seen it....")
.... but it's too late now. The mindless torch-carrying lynch mob* is marching through the street screaming for confiscatory blood -- anyone's will do....
*
My father, as a deputy sheriff in his early days of the 1930s,
stated that the only thing that he ever feared was a mob
"... for a mob has no brain... a mob has no soul....."
-- BUT --
even that statement "by authorities" is internally refuted by "other authorities"
It's just my humble opinion, but there's a whole lotta OMG/CYA/Spin delay going on.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/us/west-texas-odessa-shooter/
That he should have been Red Flagged (there's that term again) long ago is undeniable in retrospect.
(As Isaac Trimble moaned apocryphally... "A blind man should have seen it....")
.... but it's too late now. The mindless torch-carrying lynch mob* is marching through the street screaming for confiscatory blood -- anyone's will do....
*
My father, as a deputy sheriff in his early days of the 1930s,
stated that the only thing that he ever feared was a mob
"... for a mob has no brain... a mob has no soul....."
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
So we still don't know the truth.
"Adjudicated mentally defective" and "committed to a mental institution" are both terms that appear in question 11.f of the 4473. If we then turn to the instructions for question 11.f we find the following:
So "adjudicated" has a clear meaning under the law, but that doesn't mean reporters, or the people talking to the reporters, understand it. Remember, both the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration were reporting people to NICS as "mentally defective" solely on the grounds that they had trouble managing their finances and had designated someone else to receive their benefits checks. In both cases, the agencies claimed that their administrative actions constituted "adjudication." IIRC, courts disagreed.
People can be confined to a mental institution for a short stay (around here I believe it's three days) for observation if it is believed that they might be a danger to themselves or to others. Even though such confinements are ordered by a judge, the instructions on the 4473 are clear that such "temporary" confinements do not constitute being adjudicated mentally defective, and thus do not prohibit the person from buying or possessing firearms.
So ... was this guy actually involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective, or was he admitted for observation and then cut loose without being either involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective? Somebody must know the answer to this but, at the moment, it seems to me that "they" are trying very assiduously to NOT tell us.
"Adjudicated mentally defective" and "committed to a mental institution" are both terms that appear in question 11.f of the 4473. If we then turn to the instructions for question 11.f we find the following:
[Note: Blue added for emphasis]
So "adjudicated" has a clear meaning under the law, but that doesn't mean reporters, or the people talking to the reporters, understand it. Remember, both the Social Security Administration and the Veterans Administration were reporting people to NICS as "mentally defective" solely on the grounds that they had trouble managing their finances and had designated someone else to receive their benefits checks. In both cases, the agencies claimed that their administrative actions constituted "adjudication." IIRC, courts disagreed.
People can be confined to a mental institution for a short stay (around here I believe it's three days) for observation if it is believed that they might be a danger to themselves or to others. Even though such confinements are ordered by a judge, the instructions on the 4473 are clear that such "temporary" confinements do not constitute being adjudicated mentally defective, and thus do not prohibit the person from buying or possessing firearms.
So ... was this guy actually involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective, or was he admitted for observation and then cut loose without being either involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective? Somebody must know the answer to this but, at the moment, it seems to me that "they" are trying very assiduously to NOT tell us.
There was a bit more to it than that. Though it was a bureaucratic SNAFU.
I don't recall about the VA, but I remember that the people reported by Social Security had applied for disability benefits, due to mental problems AND had asked for someone else to be appointed to handle their financial affairs.
The Obama administration ordered this information reported to NICS, and under their process, NCIS had only one "box" to put these people in, which resulted in their being classified as prohibited persons, without PROPER due process. The SS administration's qualification process for "mentally disabled" does not meet the legal standard for being adjudicated mentally deficient and therefore a prohibited person.
I had not heard that this matter made it to court, since the Trump administration ordered the problem corrected shortly after taking office.
Of course, the press reported it as "Trump allows insane to buy guns" but that was never the truth.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As a veteran, I followed the VA situation more closely than I followed Social Security. You may be right that it didn't make it to court -- I forgot that Trump had intervened to cancel that out. But I do remember the VFW printing editorials in their monthly magazine about the lack of due process. And, in the case of VA benefits, it wasn't at all a case of people applying for disability due to mental problems. These were disabled veterans who were already receiving a pension as a result of service-connected disability. If the veteran signed a document allowing his/her pension check to be paid to a "designated payee," the VA automatically and unilaterally reported the veteran to NICS as being mentally defective. There was absolutely no due process, but the VA maintained that their administrative determination was the equivalent of "adjudication."