Federal Judge Finds USAF Responsible For Texas Church Massacre

Then there was also a general failure of his wife and others who never reported his behavior to authorities. What percentage are they accountable for; why aren't they factored into the equation?
Click to expand...

This is something often brought up, but its a slippery slope and while there are some situations where people may actually be at fault, there are others where they actually aren't but are FELT to be, and sometimes, that "feeling" gets them convicted. Particularly when when the "you knew, or should have known" argument is accepted by the jury.

The people who housed the OKC bomber before the bombing got 10year sentences from the GOVT because they didn't turn him in before he did anything. Their defense was that they simply never believed he was serious. The jury didn't buy it.

(I've heard) One of the mass murdering kids that killed at Columbine had a web page that was all sweetness nd light, brotherhood, and can't we all get along?....

the point here is that people talk trash all day long, and odd or weird behavior isn't a crime, until an actual crime is committed. Do we toss sports fans in jail for urging their team to "kill the other guys!"
No.

With the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter was "evaluated" by mental health professionals (or at least one) and and they did not turn him in. Later reports said he was found to have problems but (at that time) they did not consider him a viable threat.

A while back, there was a guy in CA, who was "turned in" by his mom, and the cops did show up and talk to him. They found him sane and rational and not a threat. The NEXT DAY, that guy shot a few people, stabbed a few more and ran over a few with his car.

The point here is, that no matter how strange or how normal someone acts, NO ONE but they know what is in their heads, and I think blaming wife, family, friends, or even any shrink he talks to for not knowing (with certainty) what is inside the guys head is just ...wrong.

Suppose you own a gun (or a lot of guns) and something happens and you lose your job. That's life, and you pick up the pieces and move on, right?

OK, now suppose someone you used to work with calls the cops and tells them that you just lost your job and you have guns and so are a danger to the public....

Tough to pick up the pieces and move on when, thanks to a meddling idiot the cops have busted into your house, taken your property, possibly arrested you and now you're facing all kinds of crap and totally unwarranted expenses to defend yourself from the system, when you did nothing wrong and didn't plan to but someone THOUGHT you MIGHT....

(sure that's a worst case but it could happen)

Hindsight is always 20/20 and the only reasonable judgement on people's actions is in light of what they knew and believed at the time. Personally, I don't want trouble with the system because some wackjob thinks I'm a nut and he isn't, nor do I want people convicted of crimes they didn't commit because they didn't think and report someone who LATER turned out to do something evil.

One should NOT punish people for not being accurately clairvoyant. No matter how badly you want to find someone else to blame, no one but the guy who actually pulled the trigger is responsible. No one. Not the gun maker, or the store, or his 4th grade teacher or some yammerhead on UTube, no one but the shooter is actually the responsible party.

Looking for someone with deep pockets to blame, after the fact simply isn't honest, in my opinion.
 
101combatvet said:
Then there was also a general failure of his wife and others who never reported his behavior to authorities. What percentage are they accountable for; why aren't they factored into the equation?
Click to expand...
Are you certain that she knew of his activities? How could she know that he was planning to kill her mother and family? They were no longer living together. Furthermore, even if she knew, did she have a statutory duty to inform the authorities?

The USAF, on the other hand, had a clear statutory duty to report his conviction for domestic battery and his dishonorable discharge to the NICS system, and the USAF has acknowledged that they failed to do so -- not only for this particular shooter, but also for numerous other cases. The USAF also acknowledged that they (as an organization) knew that they had a statutory duty, but they (as an organization) didn't have processes in place to ensure that they carried out that statutory duty.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Are you certain that she knew of his activities? How could she know that he was planning to kill her mother and family? They were no longer living together. Furthermore, even if she knew, did she have a statutory duty to inform the authorities?

The USAF, on the other hand, had a clear statutory duty to report his conviction for domestic battery and his dishonorable discharge to the NICS system, and the USAF has acknowledged that they failed to do so -- not only for this particular shooter, but also for numerous other cases. The USAF also acknowledged that they (as an organization) knew that they had a statutory duty, but they (as an organization) didn't have processes in place to ensure that they carried out that statutory duty.
Click to expand...
If she did, I'm sure she would deny it. The point is that this guy had a history of violent behavior, and it is likely that she knew his history and that he was purchasing firearms. matches + gasoline = a bad outcome

Here's another thought, did the church have an Emergency Operations Plan? If not, then maybe they also share some of the responsibility.
 
101combatvet said:
If she did, I'm sure she would deny it. The point is that this guy had a history of violent behavior, and it is likely that she knew his history and that he was purchasing firearms.
Click to expand...
Of course she knew his history. She was the second wife he abused. They were separated -- he was living in a barn on his parents' property. Please explain exactly how she was supposed to know what he was doing and what he was planning?

And whether or not the church had an emergency response plan, why should the church share any of the responsibility?
 
We have a deeply imbedded belief in this country that, when something bad happens, someone is responsible, and that, someone should compensate (pay) the victims (or surviving family, etc) for their suffering.

And, when the individual actually responsible cannot pay (as often they are dead) that someone else still must be responsible, and they must pay.

They go down a list of all parties involved in any degree, looking for the ones with the deepest pockets and claim they are responsible and so should pay.

Actual moral and ethical responsibility for the act seems to take a back seat, or even be ignored in the pursuit of "making someone pay".

Is this true 100% of the time? No. Is it true some (or even most) of the time? sure looks like it to me.

Likewise we have a popular idea that we should know what a person is going to do, based on what they have done. In my mind, this is a bit stupid, and fails entirely to account for the concept of free will.

Why is it that we are constantly told NOT to judge future performance of a stock based on its past, and we are often told not to judge members of certain groups based on the behavior of SOME members of the group, yet we are expected to "know" what an individual is going to do, and act on that, and are somehow responsible for his actions, if we do not???

I forget who said it (or when) but "the mind of man is as trackless as a bog at midnight" is an apt statement.

Even the mental health professionals can only judge an individual by what that person TELLS them, in addition to what they actually do.

SO, anyone who is a good enough liar, and who has not yet committed a crime can pass any check, test, or interview. We all are, "innocent until proven guilty" are we not???
(actually not, but we're supposed to be...:rolleyes:)

Another (small) point to consider when asking "why isn't the wife to blame for not telling the authorities" is the fact that she is the wife /ex-wife and generally speaking the authorities consider the word of an ex to be potentially biased.

And, then there is also the risk of legal consequences from "false accusations" and false statements. One may "know" he's a bad guy, nd you may "know" that sooner or later he's going to do something criminal. BUT, where's the proof?? And, if they haven't done it YET, they MAY never do it, and you may be open to charges for accusing them "falsely".

This does matter when one is talking really serious stuff. Its human nature to CYA, so going out on a limb about something without concrete proof is fairly rare. It is my understanding that some "mental health professional" didn't classify the Virginia Tech murderer as dangerous (prior to the killing spree) due to the risks to their professional standing if they were wrong.

This may or may not be true, but if true its a common human failing, and while understandable, I don't think its forgivable.
 
Does anyone know if the Army opened it's pockets for the MAJ Nidal Hasan shooting at Ft. Hood?

I agree, Americans have been conditioned to expect somebody to pay and not just be held guilty.
 
10-96 said:
Does anyone know if the Army opened it's pockets for the MAJ Nidal Hasan shooting at Ft. Hood?

I agree, Americans have been conditioned to expect somebody to pay and not just be held guilty.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the Army paid anyone. I don't even know if any of the victims or their survivors sued the Army. But I'm not seeing the parallel. The Air Force had a statutory duty to report the shooter to the NICS system and they failed to carry out that duty.

What statutory duty did the Army fail to carry out in the case of Major Hasan?
 
What statutory duty did the Army fail to carry out in the case of Major Hasan?
Click to expand...

In my opinion (and not a legal one) the duty the Army failed was failing to Court Marshal the SOB for "conduct unbecoming" well before he went on a killing spree. (and or failure to repair, disobeying orders. and any other charges that could be brought)

This is, of course, a much different situation than the Air Force failing in its legal administrative responsibility to share information with the appropriate criminal agencies, not just once or twice but a significant systemic failure.

So, I would agree that what the Air Force failed to do was a significant contributing factor, and, for that, they have a responsibility, but, personally, I don't think assigning them a percentage to pay of any damages sought is the right thing to do.
 
44 AMP said:
So, I would agree that what the Air Force failed to do was a significant contributing factor, and, for that, they have a responsibility, but, personally, I don't think assigning them a percentage to pay of any damages sought is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the ones doing the shooting be responsible for their actions or does big pockets determine that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top