OR - Nine killed in Umpqua Community College shooting, Roseburg, 1 Oct 2015 - #2

[CARIIS]

This would make a huge difference in schools

http://acestoohigh.com/2012/04/23/l...oach-to-school-discipline-expulsions-drop-85/

TY really neat article human! I never understood suspension except as a reason for not trying to help -- most acting out is related to something! And the ones that were suspended were usually the ones that were already behind .

That makes sense, someone is struggling already and you give them less education- plus what exactly is a troubled youth going to do with no school for two weeks no supervision, the child is already acting out - he/she is going to get into trouble . Except out of school it usually ended up with LE , drugs crime etc

great post thanx!

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I have thought the same thing. There is NO WAY NL would have gotten a "free pass" from the media or authorities. Not only would they have charged her but many areas would have instituted laws holding people responsible when they provide an arsenal for a mentally ill family member.

But in this case the mother is handled with kidd gloves and allowed to hide away.

The mother isn't obligated to speak to the media and I doubt she will ever be charged with anything. Maybe she should have severed ties with her adult autistic son like the dad appears to have done. Jmo

 

[Sonya610]

Why would Lanza's mother be arrested because of his age? He was 20.

Why do you think the mother in this case is handled with kidd gloves? The media seems to have done a good job of exposing the mother-son relationship and the love of guns.

Lanza had handguns on him during the massacre, he shot himself with a Glock. That was NL's firearm as he was too young to purchase a handgun.

In addition the Bushmaster used for the massacre was NL's firearm.

Had she lived she likely would have (and should have) faced charges for reckless endangerment etc...

 

[Sasquatch]

UCC shooting victim Chris Mintz shares his story of survival and about the first responders on the scene.

KPTV - Portland Oregon - “An EMT I am friends with was one of the first responders on the scene. I looked up and saw him walk up to the classroom door and said ‘hey buddy’ he looked at me and responded ‘hey.’ When I saw him, I knew we were all going to be ok,’” wrote Mintz. Mintz said he was shot 5 times, but is recovering well. He wants to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers, along with staff at the hospital. Mintz said they are the real heroes."

(link to the full FB post of his encounter, is in KPTV's article)

http://www.kptv.com/story/30284473/ucc-shooting-hero-chris-mintz-shares-story-of-survival?autostart=true

 

[Sasquatch]

Treven Taylor Anspach's services will be held tomorrow, Saturday, October 17th, 2015 at 1:00pm at Sutherlin High School. A memorial scholarship fund has been set up in his name. http://trevensfund.org/

Treven's Basketball Coach, Daniel Leeworthy, wrote and performed a song in Treven's memory.
Daniel Leeworthy - Vocals, Acoustic Guitar & Kelly Quesada - Cello
Here is the tribute video that they made in his honor:
https://youtu.be/cBZc_4GyUTU

 

[Montjoy]

But in this case the mother is handled with kidd gloves and allowed to hide away.

I'm not sure that she has been -- but why do you think that she's been handled with kid gloves?

 

[Sonya610]

I'm not sure that she has been -- but why do you think that she's been handled with kid gloves?

None of the authorities OR politicians have suggested any charges against her and the media has NOT hounded her.

The only reason we know much about her is because the media was desperate for more info to report on and she had posts online so they published the posts. It took days to even find photos of her (the big networks were not posting her photo, some were even altering his photo so that may explain why).

In contrast do you believe NL would have gotten away with NOT being charged had she survived? Because at the very very least I do believe there would have been calls to consider charging her OR to make her the poster child for new gun restrictions.

 

[human]

This mother seems to have been very careful about her whole self re pics etc.

What is the crime she could be charged with?

if only there was! There has to be a law. What law did she break?

 

[Sonya610]

This mother seems to have been very careful about her whole self re pics etc.

What is the crime she could be charged with?

if only there was! There has to be a law. What law did she break?

I posted a link a few days ago discussing this, the person interviewed on fox said she could be charged with reckless endangerment (or something like that).

 

[bluesneakers]

I posted a link a few days ago discussing this, the person interviewed on fox said she could be charged with reckless endangerment (or something like that).

I searched back and couldn't find it. Would you mind reposting? I'm curious too. Thanks.

 

[Sonya610]

I searched back and couldn't find it. Would you mind reposting? I'm curious too. Thanks.

I can't find it either now, and I don't feel like looking for ages. It was in response to Human when she asked the same question. It was a foxnews.com clip. It was also a generic charge, nothing specific to gun ownership.

 

[bluesneakers]

I found it. It was on the 8th.

I can't find it either now, and I don't feel like looking for ages. It was in response to Human when she asked the same question. It was a foxnews.com clip. It was also a generic charge, nothing specific to gun ownership.

Yes, she could possibly be charged. If she knew he was mentally ill and she helped him acquire weapons OR knew he had weapons she could be held responsible.

Investigators probe Oregon gunman's relationship with mother:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/45266400...mans-relationship-with-mother/?#sp=show-clips

He talks about if she knew he had mental issues and if she acted recklessly, and says "We hold people accountable under certain circumstances. And this... I don't know if this is one, but it may be."

There's no specific mention of a crime or what she did that was illegal, just they have "Cases like this" or something. I don't think she could be charged with anything if he got any guns himself legally. I believe people who have mental illnesses can buy guns under most circumstances, it's only when they've been committed or somehow found mentally defective. (I think this would refer to being found not guilty by mental defect, or having someone legally take power of attorney or be responsible for someone's care.)

Under a federal law enacted in 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.”
http://csgv.org/issues/guns-and-mental-health/

If he was unable to legally buy weapons and she supplied him with them then I could understand her being charged, but if he got his own legally what did she do wrong? How much did she know?

eta: The link I provided was the first one I found wrt people with mental illnesses buying weapons, but I'll keep looking.

 

[bluesneakers]

via National Conference of State Legislatures

Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Oregon O.R.S. §166.250

No person shall possess a firearm if he or she:
Was committed to the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 426.130;
Was found to be mentally ill and subject to an order under ORS 426.130 that the person be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm as a result of that mental illness; or
Has been found guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.295 of a felony.

When did they move? California laws are a little different, but none of them would apply, even if he had inpatient treatment at some point:

Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

[human]

via National Conference of State Legislatures

Federal Law


Oregon O.R.S. §166.250


When did they move? California laws are a little different, but none of them would apply, even if he had inpatient treatment at some point:



http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

I can't see where there is a law that can be applied to her. He legally purchased weapons.

 

[bluesneakers]

I can't see where there is a law that can be applied to her. He legally purchased weapons.

I agree. It would be different if he wasn't legally allowed to buy weapons and she knew it and purchased them for him or kept them around where he could get to them.

At first I thought being discharged from the military after a suicide attempt would be enough but I don't see anything about previous suicide attempts in California or Oregon laws.

 

[Sonya610]

I can't see where there is a law that can be applied to her. He legally purchased weapons.

I think you both are focusing on "gun laws" and this wouldn't be a gun law issue, but an issue of knowing someone could be a danger to themselves or others and knowing they have access to a large amount of weapons.

Let's say he purchased supplies and started building pipe bombs in his bedroom, or he purchased rope and hung a noose in the middle of is bedroom ceiling (he bought everything on his own, and she knew about it).

She knew he had a history of suicide and she knew he was very depressed lately, so she should have known there would be a risk to himself OR others if she saw a noose, pipebomb, OR arsenal of legally purchased firearms.

 

[bluesneakers]

I think you both are focusing on "gun laws" and this wouldn't be a gun law issue, but an issue of knowing someone could be a danger to themselves or others and knowing they have access to a large amount of weapons.

Let's say he purchased supplies and started building pipe bombs in his bedroom, or he purchased rope and hung a noose in the middle of is bedroom ceiling (he bought everything on his own, and she knew about it).

She knew he had a history of suicide and she knew he was very depressed lately, so she should have known there would be a risk to himself OR others if she saw a noose, pipebomb, OR arsenal of legally purchased firearms.

But even if he knew he was at risk I don't understand what she could be charged with. A pipe bomb would be different, I think, than if he bought cold medicine or a rope or a gun. She couldn't just tell him "Don't do that." He's an adult and not breaking any laws. Did she know he was at risk? What law did she break?

 

[Sonya610]

But even if he knew he was at risk I don't understand what she could be charged with. A pipe bomb would be different, I think, than if he bought cold medicine or a rope or a gun. She couldn't just tell him "Don't do that." He's an adult and not breaking any laws. Did she know he was at risk? What law did she break?

She told a neighbor a few days earlier that he was staying in his room 24/7 and didn't want to talk to her. With his history of depression and suicide she SHOULD have known he was having real problems.

When I read that it sounded very much like Adam Lanza (sans the gruesome stories) before he went nuts. That was also posted here, she told a neighbor that gave her a ride. Please don't ask me to go find it.

 

[bluesneakers]

She told a neighbor a few days earlier that he was staying in his room 24/7 and didn't want to talk to her. With his history of depression and suicide she SHOULD have known he was having real problems.

When I read that it sounded very much like Adam Lanza (sans the gruesome stories) before he went nuts. That was also posted here, she told a neighbor that gave her a ride. Please don't ask me to go find it.

I agree she should have known and she should have done something and it's amazing he didn't do something to her, but I don't know what she can be charged with.

 

[human]

I agree she should have known and she should have done something and it's amazing he didn't do something to her, but I don't know what she can be charged with.

Exactly, There is no law . No law, no charge. Even if it is wrong or seems wrong. If there is no law to address this, then there can be no charge,