TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #42

[ZoriahNZ]

Did this person move away from the area soon after or am I confusing it with someone else.Thanks reference Zoriahs post above

This person has not moved out of state, afaik.

 

[SteveS]

I know we need to be careful not to discuss religion so hopefully I won't transgress. But Steve, people twist and misinterpret their religion's teachings and scriptures all the time. They're called extremists.

For example, someone who believed a person was tearing apart their parents' marriage could twist Mark 10:9 into something to suit their needs (What God has joined together, let no man put asunder). That's merely an example.

The point is, it's not that the religion or a religious view endorses bad behavior. It's an Individual distorting the religion in order to justify their bad behavior.

You say that religious "extremism" that can even go to the point of murder happens "all the time" and if you had a situation where members of CCoC and Cowboy Church and churches in Midlothian and the like were hacking people to death and saying it was justified for supposed "religious" reasons, then I could perhaps accept the premise that this has some religious bent. But they aren't, and neither Midlothian, Ellis County, or Texas have a history of such aberrant nonsense, so I feel compelled to disagree with such a defamatory notion.

When you get past the caricature promoted in popular culture today regarding people of faith, what you find is people who are being encouraged by their church and faith to be better, kinder, more God-like people, rather than the opposite. I can accept that the perp may have had selfish views of life and relationships, where he decided he was going to kill for some reason or another because that's what he wanted to do, but he didn't get that in the Bible or in a church, from a "religious view," as was being claimed in the post I responded to.

And respectfully, Mark 10:9 has no meaning - not even close - to the idea of murdering anyone. It's nothing more than a broad exhortation to make marriage last. It doesn't refer to murder in even a slight way, nor does it include even a hint of an instruction to go murder someone who is less than perfect, either in marriage or in anything else. To say someone could see that verse as justification for murder based on a "religious view" is about as absurd as saying someone could see a violation of a speed limit law as justification for murdering a speeder based on a "respect of government."

 

[Cannonball3804]

You say that religious "extremism" that can even go to the point of murder happens "all the time" and if you had a situation where members of CCoC and Cowboy Church and churches in Midlothian and the like were hacking people to death and saying it was justified for supposed "religious" reasons, then I could perhaps accept the premise that this has some religious bent. But they aren't, and neither Midlothian, Ellis County, or Texas have a history of such aberrant nonsense, so I feel compelled to disagree with such a defamatory notion.

When you get past the caricature promoted in popular culture today regarding people of faith, what you find is people who are being encouraged by their church and faith to be better, kinder, more God-like people, rather than the opposite. I can accept that the perp may have had selfish views of life and relationships, where he decided he was going to kill for some reason or another because that's what he wanted to do, but he didn't get that in the Bible or in a church, from a "religious view," as was being claimed in the post I responded to.

And respectfully, Mark 10:9 has no meaning - not even close - to the idea of murdering anyone. It's nothing more than a broad exhortation to make marriage last. It doesn't refer to murder in even a slight way, nor does it include even a hint of an instruction to go murder someone who is less than perfect, either in marriage or in anything else. To say someone could see that verse as justification for murder based on a "religious view" is about as absurd as saying someone could see a violation of a speed limit law as justification for murdering a speeder based on a "respect of government."

it's adorable that you actually expect people to always act rationally. You look at the example verse I gave you and use your own rational thinking to say, "No one could see that verse as justification for murder based on a religious view."

But obviously, people do. People bomb abortion clinics. Islamic extremists do what they do. White nationalists. Black Panthers. Dylan Roof. They commit heinous crimes and believe their own twisted religious view justifies those actions. It isn't the fault of the church they probably don't attend anymore. It isn't the fault of the religion they have appropriated. It's their fault.

But for you to say that no one could possibly do bad things based on their religious views boggles my mind. Have you seen all the corruption in Ellis County? And that's among LE, many of whom are in church every Sunday. So what do you think that non-LE are capable of? That area of Texas is no different from anywhere else.

 

[SteveS]

1 You look at the example verse I gave you and use your own rational thinking to say, "No one could see that verse as justification for murder based on a religious view."

2 People bomb abortion clinics. Islamic extremists do what they do. White nationalists. Black Panthers. Dylan Roof. They commit heinous crimes.

3 But for you to say that no one could possibly do bad things based on their religious views boggles my mind

1 Of course. There is no mention of anything murderous, or even harmful, in that verse. Nor are there men in our pulpits preaching murder as the proper resolution for a shaky marriage.

2 Could there be a person somewhere who doesn't like women, or doesn't like workout instructors, or any number of other such hatreds? Sure. But that's not a RELIGIOUS view issue. It's a hatred issue of someone's own invention.

3 I didn't say a person couldn't do such things who has gone to church. Church is about sinners trying to get instruction and help to become better, not about perfect people who gather together.

But what I do see as amiss is your disparaging assertion that such evils - if someone who went to church did them - would happen "based on their religious views." That's wrong.

A person who goes to church is taught, and then can choose to act in accord with what they are taught, or they may not. But the fact they have gone to church doesn't make their actions, whatever they may be, somehow "religious" ones. In fact, when they act opposite to what is taught, it is not a "religious view" on display but rather an ANTI-religious one, where they are making a choice to go against those religious concepts. Breaking into a church, perhaps trying to steal, and murdering someone are not someone acting out religious teachings, but blatantly deciding to discard religious/moral norms and violating them.

If you come across some pastor or imam in the area who is actually teaching followers to kill women, or workout instructors, or any number of other objects of their personal preference, I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think they exist, and instead would wager churches offer moral instruction, and at least adhere to the concepts we see in the 10 Commandments, which are very much opposite to the actions by perp vs MB. If someone is actually religion-group-instructing to kill, that's such an extreme and outrageous claim that it demands rock solid proof before being accepted.

 

[Cannonball3804]

1 Of course. There is no mention of anything murderous, or even harmful, in that verse. Nor are there men in our pulpits preaching murder as the proper resolution for a shaky marriage.

2 Could there be a person somewhere who doesn't like women, or doesn't like workout instructors, or any number of other such hatreds? Sure. But that's not a RELIGIOUS view issue. It's a hatred issue of someone's own invention.

3 I didn't say a person couldn't do such things who has gone to church. Church is about sinners trying to get instruction and help to become better, not about perfect people who gather together.

But what I do see as amiss is your disparaging assertion that such evils - if someone who went to church did them - would happen "based on their religious views." That's wrong.

A person who goes to church is taught, and then can choose to act in accord with what they are taught, or they may not. But the fact they have gone to church doesn't make their actions, whatever they may be, somehow "religious" ones. In fact, when they act opposite to what is taught, it is not a "religious view" on display but rather an ANTI-religious one, where they are making a choice to go against those religious concepts. Breaking into a church, perhaps trying to steal, and murdering someone are not someone acting out religious teachings, but blatantly deciding to discard religious/moral norms and violating them.

If you come across some pastor or imam in the area who is actually teaching followers to kill women, or workout instructors, or any number of other objects of their personal preference, I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think they exist, and instead would wager churches offer moral instruction, and at least adhere to the concepts we see in the 10 Commandments, which are very much opposite to the actions by perp vs MB. If someone is actually religion-group-instructing to kill, that's such an extreme and outrageous claim that it demands rock solid proof before being accepted.

Steve, it seems that you continue to set up a straw man and then knock it down. I haven't seen anyone here say that a church has taught an individual to have distorted views that would lead them to commit evil acts. Obviously not. But that doesn't stop some individuals from hodge-podging some aspects of things they learned in church or read, and then stirring those things together with other psychological conditions or environmental stimuli to create a recipe for evil.

You obviously have a problem with the term "religious view". But as I see it, your definition of the term is different from how others are using it here, including me. Synonyms for "religious" can include "devoted" or "committed". A person who has distorted the good teachings of a religion is not anti-religious. He is still devoted or committed to his own twisted version. That commitment leads him to do the bad thing.

 

[SteveS]

Cannonball, it was the attempt to falsely and carelessly connect such evil choices to some sort of religion or teaching that was imo being made, and that I object to. When you say "religious" can include "devoted" or "committed", that's a very broad meaning but not the one clearly intended by the context nor by what you yourself have been saying - instead what I have been answering has clearly been about some supposed motivation from church, religion, faith, teaching, etc.

If you want to say in a general way that this perp did things that he had self-justified, I can see that, but that's not a religious view, but rather the self-centered game we all play with self when doing wrong ...we tell ourself it's ok, it doesn't matter, it was acceptable because _____. (And to be honest, that's not even any sort of unique motivation that would point us to a suspect.) But that's sort of self-gratifying focus is not what Scripture, faith, church etc teach, where we are taught about accountability and actual right and wrong, and sin, and the responsibility we have to God and others.

 

[GutInstinct]

Yes, to the former. No, to the latter, as far as I know. I mentioned before that I was curious as to who exactly were on scene for the aftermath of the crime. In terms of the FD and PD (MFD EMTs arrived first as I recall). But I don't think that information is public.

This person, has publicly admitted to a bi-polar episode which resulted in major consequences to his career path. Just one more thing that to me, paints a picture of someone who might have underlying mental issues that could trigger extreme behavior. This person appears strongly committed to public service and conservative family values. My speculation would be that Missy Bevers was targeted due to her perceived damaging influence on my potential suspect's family unit.

JMO, MOO.

I am attaching an image of the stance from the MPD video which drew my attention, since that doesn't violate the TOS.

1st paragraph. 4th sentence in NZ's post. IMOO.

 

[Cannonball3804]

Cannonball, it was the attempt to falsely and carelessly connect such evil choices to some sort of religion or teaching that was imo being made, and that I object to. When you say "religious" can include "devoted" or "committed", that's a very broad meaning but not the one clearly intended by the context nor by what you yourself have been saying - instead what I have been answering has clearly been about some supposed motivation from church, religion, faith, teaching, etc.

If you want to say in a general way that this perp did things that he had self-justified, I can see that, but that's not a religious view, but rather the self-centered game we all play with self when doing wrong ...we tell ourself it's ok, it doesn't matter, it was acceptable because _____. (And to be honest, that's not even any sort of unique motivation that would point us to a suspect.) But that's sort of self-gratifying focus is not what Scripture, faith, church etc teach, where we are taught about accountability and actual right and wrong, and sin, and the responsibility we have to God and others.

Literally all ZoriahNZ said was " I believe he has a strong motive for his actions due to his religious views and close connections to said familial tie."

You inferred everything else, and you made religion and religious views the same thing when you asked, "What religion, or religious views..." I don't believe it's what she meant (though she can certainly speak for herself) and it's definitely not what I meant. No one ever said a religion or a teaching from a religion taught this person that it was okay to kill Missy. I'm done.

 

[SteveS]

No one ever said a religion or a teaching from a religion taught this person that it was okay to kill Missy.

I certainly read that " I believe he has a strong motive for his actions due to his religious views..." has a direct mention of something arising from his religion, and felt you were jumping into the conversation to support the same idea. If you now say you weren't talking about actual religion at all, nor of the perp supposedly being inspired by a church, teachers, or religious tenets or beliefs to take the actions he took, okay, so be it, no reason to debate about it since we are saying the same thing. Thanks for saying so.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

I apologise for stirring up a hornets nest with my ill-chosen words. I meant it more as a way the SP may have (wrongly) rationalised his/her extreme actions. I did not intend to imply in any way that any particular religion or sect was directly responsible for warping the perp's views or encouraging his actions through its teachings.

This person does have ties to the CCoC, which for me, gave me a sense of why that location was perhaps used.

It might be best to ignore that part of my speculation, and concentrate on the latter part of the sentence you partially quoted.

 

[Bobbyshortcakes]

I apologise for stirring up a hornets nest with my ill-chosen words. I meant it more as a way the SP may have (wrongly) rationalised his/her extreme actions. I did not intend to imply in any way that any particular religion or sect was directly responsible for warping the perp's views or encouraging his actions through its teachings.

This person does have ties to the CCoC, which for me, gave me a sense of why that location was perhaps used.

It might be best to ignore that part of my speculation, and concentrate on the latter part of the sentence you partially quoted.

Hi any chance you could pm me who you think it is.A certain le who is pictured working the crime scene is strong on my list

 

[darring21]

I apologise for stirring up a hornets nest with my ill-chosen words. I meant it more as a way the SP may have (wrongly) rationalised his/her extreme actions. I did not intend to imply in any way that any particular religion or sect was directly responsible for warping the perp's views or encouraging his actions through its teachings.

This person does have ties to the CCoC, which for me, gave me a sense of why that location was perhaps used.

It might be best to ignore that part of my speculation, and concentrate on the latter part of the sentence you partially quoted.

Most of us understood your context and appreciated your post.

 

[KayCherry]

I have a suspect in mind who matches the height of the SP (I think), has close familial ties to one of the original POI. Has connections to LE and, more specifically, firefighting. I've seen several SM pictures of him which show a distinctive resting pose which is identical to the SP in the video with the weight on one foot which some describe as feminine stance. He appears to have a turned out right leg, no idea of an injury or not. I can't find video of his walk, however. He is of slight build, but that supports my theory of the perp having on heavy gear and a front pack which makes him look heavier than he actually is. He's also young and I believe he has a strong motive for his actions due to his religious views and close connections to said familial tie. He also has connections to the church where the crime was committed.

I can't elaborate or post evidence of my suspicions due to the TOS. However, I wonder if anyone else is following a similar sleuthing path at present.

PM me who you think ~ would love your ideas

 

[Tippy Lynn]

PM me who you think ~ would love your ideas

PM me too please

 

[PainExpress]

We all do!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Moshimo]

never mind

 

[Bobbyshortcakes]

never mind

sorry what does that mean

 

[Oregonmama]

What religion, or religious views, do you think endorses murder, and bludgeoning a young wife and mother to death? "Go murder someone who sins" is not taught at CCoC, at Cowboy Church, or any other church I know of in north Texas, so I seriously question the idea that it was "perp's religious views" that motivated this act. If perp had any actual faith and religious views, these actions were done in complete contradiction to them, not arising from them.

If any individual has a strong belief with their religious views then there is no stopping them with their actions. All denominational faiths do not endorse crime but if a church member felt another person was being disrespectful to their faith then they will solve their personal problem to their liking. Most ppl do not act on their impulses but apparently the sp in this case acted on them. Christians are human and commit crimes as well. Jim baker, a well known evangelist was indicted on federal charges for his crimes. No one is immune from the personal hell that causes them to act. In the way beginning threads I thought maybe a congregational member was angry because a fitness class was held at the church, their place of worship. So many organizations use churches today for their meetings but back in my time it was unheard of. JMO

 

[SteveS]

If any individual has a strong belief with their religious views then there is no stopping them with their actions. All denominational faiths do not endorse crime but if a church member felt another person was being disrespectful to their faith then they will solve their personal problem to their liking. Most ppl do not act on their impulses but apparently the sp in this case acted on them. Christians are human and commit crimes as well. Jim baker, a well known evangelist was indicted on federal charges for his crimes. No one is immune from the personal hell that causes them to act. In the way beginning threads I thought maybe a congregational member was angry because a fitness class was held at the church, their place of worship. So many organizations use churches today for their meetings but back in my time it was unheard of. JMO

Unless they are views being taught by a religion, church, religious leader, etc, what you describe are simply personal views/whims/preferences, not religious views. We all have views and attitudes that lead to behavior, but they come from everywhere, not just our religious teachings. Some behaviors - and of course the thinking that leads to them - are even ANTI to pretty much every religion, and to ascribe such behaviors as due to a "religious view" is of course quite incorrect. That was my point.

You mention Jim Baker. What he did wrong wasn't a religious view. Instead it was just wrong, selfish, sinful behavior. Same would be true of this murder, no matter who did it. No religion condones this stuff.

 

[janesmith787]

I think people use their religion to justify their behaviors...not that their religion encourages/condones, however you want to say it. I think that’s the point others are trying to make...JMO

Someone could feel such strong convictions about what someone else is doing, that they justify their actions in “handling it.” But yet, it’s a double standard because their faith may tell them murder is wrong...MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk