Bitter clinger shoots TV after Bristol Palin performance

posted at 2:36 pm on November 17, 2010 by Cubachi

According to Wisconsin authorities, Steven Cowan, a 67-year-old man originally from Vermont, shot his television set after watching Bristol Palin perform on “Dancing with the Stars.” The police were contacted and it led to a 15-hour standoff until Cowan finally was convinced to come out of the house.

Is this what it comes down to? BDS (Bristol Derangement Syndrome)?

I never seen such a level of attack on this young woman for appearing on a dancing show. This certainly dispels the notion that conservatives are “bitter clingers to their guns.”

Cowan was charged second-degree reckless endangerment and could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison if convicted. Authorities say he has bipolar disorder.

He may have a mental illness, but the man was drunk according to his wife. Though she doesn’t attribute it to this outburst. So is this a case of an angry liberal?

According to the Smoking Gun the complaint reads:

Cowan “jumped up and swore, saying something to the effect of “the  —-ing politics.”The complaint added,  “Steven was upset that a political figure’s daughter was dancing on this particular show when Steven did not think she was a good dancer.”

Cross-posted at www.cubachi.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If you watch the video of the decision you can see that no one was more surprised than Bristol. Mark and her were both gazing downward as if expecting the worst. Mark was giving Bristol comforting hugs as he also expected them to be eliminated from the finals. Her jaw dropped and she looked stunned as she turned towards Brandi & Max.

scrubjay on November 17, 2010 at 6:43 PM

Just a head’s up, I was quoting Fighton there. Those aren’t my words.
crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

So your point is that it was Fighton who didn’t read the story?
Not you who didn’t who didn’t read the story.

According to the Smoking Gun, the complaint reads:

“However, unlike other viewers, Cowan, 67, allegedly became so enraged by Palin’s success that he actually fired a shotgun round into his television, triggering a 15-hour standoff with Wisconsin cops.”

Notice it says “

fired a shotgun round

”. A “shotgun” is not a “hand gun

Wisconsin gun laws

It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm if:
Convicted of a felony or found not guilty of a felony by reason of mental illness.

Committed to a mental institution and ordered not to possess a firearm.

Subject of a domestic violence, child abuse or tribal restraining order.

If adjudicated delinquent on or after April 21, 1994, for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony.

Obviously Cowan intends to use the “nuts” excuse.

DSchoen on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

On the “Group Dubya Bench.”

davidk on November 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

LOL

Good stuff.

ButterflyDragon on November 17, 2010 at 6:57 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I detect a law student. I’m guessing a 2L at a third-tier school.

Proof positive that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Wisconsin gun laws

It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm if:
Convicted of a felony or found not guilty of a felony by reason of mental illness.

Committed to a mental institution and ordered not to possess a firearm.

DSchoen on November 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM

There you go.

———

For what its worth, I recently purchased my first couple of firearms. I noticed the “mental health” question on the application – but short of a court-ordered stay at the loony bin, I’m not exactly sure what stops someone from just checking the “no” box on that particular question.

Professor Blather on November 17, 2010 at 6:58 PM

The Virginia Tech guy had no history of violence, but he was declared mentally ill.

I don’t know. I personally don’t have a problem with people like those two being denied a weapon more dangerous than a steak knife. If we can legally lock someone up without his consent, then I think we should be able to legally prevent him from buying a gun.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Seung-Hui Cho was declared mentally ill because he had social personality disorders and was repeatedly accused of stalking.

In eighth grade, Cho was diagnosed with severe depression as well as selective mutism, a social anxiety disorder that inhibited him from speaking. Cho’s family sought therapy for him, and he received help periodically throughout middle school and high school.

The Virginia Tech review panel detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho’s junior year of college that should have served as warning signals of his deteriorating mental condition. Several former professors of Cho reported that his writing as well as his classroom behavior was disturbing, and he was encouraged to seek counseling. He was also investigated by the university for stalking and harassing two female students. In 2005, Cho had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice and ordered to seek outpatient treatment.

The Virginia Tech review panel report faulted university officials for failing to share information that would have shed light on the seriousness of Cho’s problems, citing misinterpretations of federal privacy laws. The report also pointed to failures by Virginia Tech’s counseling center, flaws in Virginia’s mental health laws, and inadequate state mental health services, but concluded that “Cho himself was the biggest impediment to stabilizing his mental health” in college.

Cho’s underlying psychological diagnosis at the time of the shootings remains a matter of speculation. However, the lack of speech that resulted in the diagnosis of selective mutism could have been an early indication that Cho was developing schizophrenia. One symptom of schizophrenia is what is known as “poverty of speech,” referring to a marked deficit in the amount of talking the person engages in. In addition, Cho’s manifesto provides evidence of both paranoid and grandiose delusions. Such symptoms are also associated with schizophrenia, and it has been argued that Cho was schizophrenic.

Had he been barred from purchasing firearms, one of my friends (and 31 other people) would have been alive today. I might not have spent 2 years dealing with survivor’s guilt (I was 1 building away) and horrible nightmares/anxiety issues.

Conversely had Tech not had the inane policy of barring those with a legally purchased weapon and/or CCP/CCL from carrying on campus that probably would also have saved lives. The policy is still in effect today :(

I personally purchased a firearm almost a year after that for personal protection.

But yes although I am a strong 2nd Amendment believer I also believe that refusal to be treated for your diagnosed mental disease/disorders or the diagnosis of a SEVERE mental disorder such as the schizophrenia you describe should disqualify you from that right.

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 6:59 PM

I thought the Left loved single mothers.

SouthernGent on November 17, 2010 at 7:02 PM

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Thank you for posting. I’m very sorry for your loss.

I always appreciate hearing first-hand, directly involved opinions. Debates often focus on the abstract and the philosophical. It helps when someone with personal knowledge steps in.

Had he been barred from purchasing firearms, one of my friends (and 31 other people) would have been alive today. I might not have spent 2 years dealing with survivor’s guilt (I was 1 building away) and horrible nightmares/anxiety issues.

For what its worth, that’s only true if you believe that someone willing to commit mass murder wouldn’t break the law to get the instrument of murder. There are many felons (and others) barred from owning weapons who somehow find them when they want them.

Cho might have had a harder time. Or he might have chosen some other type of violence. Or he might have just found a gun, anyway.

Conversely had Tech not had the inane policy of barring those with a legally purchased weapon and/or CCP/CCL from carrying on campus that probably would also have saved lives. The policy is still in effect today :(

My experience in Iraq taught me the value of being armed at all times. When I came home, I got my carry permit. I carry everywhere and at all times. I cheerfully (and quietly) ignore laws (and signs) declaring weapons-free zones.

Nobody is going to see the .380 in my pocket. And – God forbid – if I ever need it, its there. I’ll deal with the legal system afterward.

I found it fascinating overseas that every – single – person was armed at all times … in a difficult, frustrating, hostile environment … and there wasn’t a mass outbreak of violence.

It still baffles that military bases are largely gun-free zones … when almost everybody on the base has deployed to an area where carrying is MANDATORY at all times.

Strange world.

Professor Blather on November 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Bristol will get voted off next week.

The Disney kid will get the Brandy vote (like American Idols’ final three a few years ago.

Still she worked her patooty off……she should be proud.

PappyD61 on November 17, 2010 at 7:10 PM

I detect a law student. I’m guessing a 2L at a third-tier school.

haha, nope. 2L at a T14.

Now, I’d guess you’re a second or third-tier law school graduate who was unable to secure employment after graduation, and is now underemployed in an entirely different field.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

You do seem to be coming around to us more lately. Night.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM

I’ve been pleased to come across some interesting, intelligent posters lately. You’re one of them.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Now if he had just had the common sense to save his ammunition for “The View”…

onlineanalyst on November 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Maybe we need to change question 12f on the 4473 to read

Are you mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Should take care of the liberal ‘problem’.

clement on November 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM

I’ve been pleased to come across some interesting, intelligent posters lately. You’re one of them.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I’ve noticed the same! Oddly enough it appears to have coincided with rightaboutnothing going absolutely batsh!t insane. Maybe it’s just the universe balancing itself out? |-]

Even the recent abortion thread has resulted in some extremely intelligent discussion and open acknowledgment that there are no easy answers. For such a hot-button issue on a political site, that’s nothing short of a minor miracle!

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Hmmmm, am I the only one disturbed by the fact that despite all of our “common sense” gun laws, a Bi-Polar man was able to purchase a handgun?

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Quite possibly. It was a shotgun.

Barnestormer on November 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I must admit, I didn’t click through. egg on my face. I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet but I suspect that my point may have been missed.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

For what its worth, that’s only true if you believe that someone willing to commit mass murder wouldn’t break the law to get the instrument of murder. There are many felons (and others) barred from owning weapons who somehow find them when they want them.

Cho might have had a harder time. Or he might have chosen some other type of violence. Or he might have just found a gun, anyway.

It still baffles that military bases are largely gun-free zones … when almost everybody on the base has deployed to an area where carrying is MANDATORY at all times.

Strange world.

Professor Blather on November 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM

I don’t doubt that he would have figured out how to get access to the guns if he wanted to kill people. What I should have said is how he would have been barred from purchasing firearms-namely that he would have been locked up or committed:

By a judge who cowardly refused to do so when he demonstrated mental instability and violent tendencies.

Or by the police-after his stalking issues when the university declined to press the matter onto the police.

Or by his professors-who asked that he be removed from their classes because they felt he was a threat to their safety yet did not take any further action to ensure he didn’t harm anyone else.

I also agree with you about the sheer STUPIDITY of gun-free zones, including military bases and colleges especially. The man I knew, Matthew J LaPorte, who died, was a PoliSci major and we were both members of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets.
He was a member of AFSOPT-Air Force Special Operations Preparation Team.

We both KNEW how to use weapons.

He was KIA, and yes I am using that term here, assaulting Cho with a desk. As LaPorte charged Cho he was hit once in each leg and twice in the chest and was unphased although probably mortally wounded continued charging the gunman until Cho finally shot him in the head. This was in standard Cadet uniform no personal protective devices whatsoever, IBA, SAPI plates, etc.

A white cotton shirt with woolen grey pants, what we called “White Shirt”

Seconds later Cho put the weapon to his own head and fired. The police/SWAT would not even achieve entrance to the building for another 2 minutes.

Cho was methodical and detailed in his planning. What MANY MANY people do NOT know is that Cho called in multiple bomb threats to the Norris Hall area 2 weeks and then again 1 week before the assault. He measured police reaction times, response forces, etc, etc. Another thing that he did, whether intentionally or unintentionally was stage his assault on a bitterly cold and windy day-so windy in fact that MEDEVAC choppers were unable to land for immediate CASEVAC and motorized ambulances had to be used instead delaying lifesaving treatment. This increased the death toll as well as delaying any response.

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

OK, read through the posts. Nice arguments, but i guess I didn’t set the stage right. As I recall, in the PRK you must certify that you are not under care for any mental disorder. My main point was that gun control laws are ineffective in their stated purpose.

I did make some assumptions (handgun, under care, etc), but then I really didn’t want to click through to a story about DWTS.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 7:57 PM

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

From what I read about Tech was that Cho’s purchase should have been declined but someone dropped the ball.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Is this clown going to use his one phone call to vote for Palin?

Wade on November 17, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I’ve noticed the same! Oddly enough it appears to have coincided with rightaboutnothing going absolutely batsh!t insane. Maybe it’s just the universe balancing itself out? |-]

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 7:42 PM

After the midterms I actually predicted (or maybe just hoped?) the tone of the discourse would improve a bit here. I think when you give both sides a seat at the proverbial table, the hysterics die down a bit.

In contrast, when you have absolutely no power, all you can do is scream.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 8:28 PM

After the midterms I actually predicted (or maybe just hoped?) the tone of the discourse would improve a bit here. I think when you give both sides a seat at the proverbial table, the hysterics die down a bit.

Interesting theory…and it looks to have come true!

In contrast, when you have absolutely no power, all you can do is scream.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Yeah…that brings the Bush era to mind. Bleaugh. Enough liberal screaming to be heard on Pluto.

I’m probably gonna want to boycott a few politically-oriented places in the upcoming years if the Republican counterattack gets as big as I think it may.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 8:37 PM

10 years for shooting his own tv set? WTH? It’s his private property and it sounds like he had a license. What is illegal about this??

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on November 17, 2010 at 8:44 PM

If the Palin daughter with the least intellectual firepower can do this, imagine how Willow and Piper, especially Piper, can drive the left crazy.

bw222 on November 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Hey! Careful when writing headlines. I only scream at the TV, never shoot.

BitterClinger on November 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM

haha, nope. 2L at a T14.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Princeton? :)

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM

I heard Elvis did that once …. anyone else hear that ??

cableguy615 on November 17, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Typical Violent Liberals!

canopfor on November 17, 2010 at 9:18 PM

haha, nope. 2L at a T14.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Princeton? :)

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Brown, obviously.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Brown, obviously.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Honestly I’m guessing upenn or cornell. You’d have told us if it was Harvard or Yale. :)

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Honestly I’m guessing upenn or cornell. You’d have told us if it was Harvard or Yale. :)

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Meh. I’ve never actually said it’s an Ivy. You guessed that yourself.

I think the only things I’ve admitted on HA are that it’s a T14, and that it’s not Gtown or Cornell. And I think that’s an appropriate degree of specificity, in that it protects my anonymity while still giving you an idea of the level of school I go to. I’d really prefer we just leave it at that.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 9:32 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Lol! You got it.

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Guys Gov Palin has offered to buy this guy a new TV. I love it.

unseen on November 17, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Gads, he’s just a typical drunk with a gun. They always are raging at their TV’s over something.

AnninCA on November 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Gads, he’s just a typical drunk with a gun. They always are raging at their TV’s over something.

AnninCA on November 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM

The worst thing is that Bristol isn’t even worth the expended bullet, much less the TV. This is like protesting
Ford Motors by setting your car on fire.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Authorities say he has bipolar liberalism disorder.

That’s more like it.

infidel4life on November 17, 2010 at 10:41 PM

From what I read about Tech was that Cho’s purchase should have been declined but someone dropped the ball.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Yea the someone who dropped the ball was the “special magistrate” who offered Cho the choice of voluntary commitment after finding that he was a danger to himself & others instead of immediately committing him involuntarily.

Essentially he said to Cho” “I know you’re dangerous, but if you swear to me that you’ll seek treatment I’ll take your word for it.” So Cho says “Of course your Honor you have my word.” Doesn’t do it anyway and no followup is made then a little less than 12 months later he shoots up Tech.

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 10:44 PM

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 10:44 PM

From what I recall, it didn’t even require that. There was enough of a record in the system that his application to purchase should have been rejected.

But that was the point of my original post. That gun control laws will fail, and a ‘reasonable person’ should not place faith in them.

Fighton03 on November 18, 2010 at 1:22 AM

The worst thing is that Bristol isn’t even worth the expended bullet, much less the TV. This is like protesting
Ford Motors by setting your car on fire.

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 10:18 PM

It’s a frickin’ TV show. Is that ever worth a bullet? Or in this case bird shot (I hope). That’s the main reason I didn’t bother to click through and read the rest of the story.

It’s a TV show for Christ’s sake!!

Fighton03 on November 18, 2010 at 1:24 AM

He may have a mental illness, but the man was drunk according to his wife.

-
Well duh…
-

RalphyBoy on November 18, 2010 at 2:39 AM

haha, nope. 2L at a T14.
Now, I’d guess you’re a second or third-tier law school graduate who was unable to secure employment after graduation, and is now underemployed in an entirely different field.
crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:23 PM

And I’m an electrician who pointed out that you didn’t read the story or have a clue what you were talking about and backed it up with the proof by ACTUAL reference to the Wisconsin gun laws.

If your in law school, you fail, as you didn’t do the bear minimum to support your claim.

I see “public defender” in your future, or not.

In the real world you get the test first then the lesson.

DSchoen on November 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM

WHY WAS THIS GUY ARRESTED ??? A 15 hour police standoff ??? Elvis used to shoot his TV with a gun quite frequently and HE was never arrested for it. WTF ???

LODGE4 on November 18, 2010 at 7:38 AM

And I’m an electrician who pointed out that you didn’t read the story or have a clue what you were talking about and backed it up with the proof by ACTUAL reference to the Wisconsin gun laws.

You’re right, I didn’t read the story. I got in a discussion with MC and Esthier about gun control laws generally. No one gives a sh*t about the specifics about Wisconsin gun laws except for you, apparently.

If your in law school, you fail, as you didn’t do the bear minimum to support your claim.

DSchoen on November 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM

What claim? You’re freaking out over nothing.

crr6 on November 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Ha, yeah they do. Scalia gave this completely twisted argument as to why the “prefatory clause” doesn’t “limit” the following clause.

Really, what is your evidence that the prefatory clause disqualifies an individual right to own a firearm? Are you saying that the constitution guarantees the rights of assembly, speech, religion, the press and to petition, and according to Roe v. Wade a right to privacy; but we don’t have a federal right to defend our life and property with a firearm, unless we join a militia?

celtnik on November 18, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Ha, yeah they do. Scalia gave this completely twisted argument as to why the “prefatory clause” doesn’t “limit” the following clause.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Scalia is/was correct – link

mnealtx on November 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I must admit, I didn’t click through. egg on my face. I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet but I suspect that my point may have been missed.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Before wiping too furiously, a local story reported that Cowan also owned two handguns, which a daughter had removed from the house following Cowan’s bipolar diagnosis.

Barnestormer on November 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Had he been barred from purchasing firearms, one of my friends (and 31 other people) would have been alive today. I might not have spent 2 years dealing with survivor’s guilt (I was 1 building away) and horrible nightmares/anxiety issues.

I’m so sorry. I can’t even imagine what that was like. I realize it’s still possible that he could have gotten one illegally, but I’d think in general that the mentally unstable are less likely to be able to do so.

But yes although I am a strong 2nd Amendment believer I also believe that refusal to be treated for your diagnosed mental disease/disorders or the diagnosis of a SEVERE mental disorder such as the schizophrenia you describe should disqualify you from that right.

SgtSVJones on November 17, 2010 at 6:59 PM

My feeling is really just that if you’re so mentally unstable that it’s legal to have you locked up without your consent and without charging you for a crime, then you’re so mentally unstable that you need a doctor’s note to buy a steak knife.

I just don’t believe that it should be easier to lock someone up without their consent than to prevent them from purchasing a weapon.

If someone wants to argue that we shouldn’t be able to lock them up unless they’ve actually harmed one, I can see that point.

Esthier on November 18, 2010 at 6:37 PM

I’ve been pleased to come across some interesting, intelligent posters lately. You’re one of them.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM

I thought I might be growing on you. For what it’s worth, that’s mutual. You’ve been significantly more respectful of others here in the last few months, and it was very classy of you to post congrats on the election results.

Esthier on November 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM

I must admit, I didn’t click through. egg on my face. I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet but I suspect that my point may have been missed.

Fighton03 on November 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Before wiping too furiously, a local story reported that Cowan also owned two handguns, which a daughter had removed from the house following Cowan’s bipolar diagnosis.

Barnestormer on November 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Thanks for the find, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t click through. However you brought a new point to the discussion and something I didn’t consider, namely that he purchased his weapons prior to his diagnosis.

Fighton03 on November 18, 2010 at 7:30 PM

but the man was drunk according to his wife. Though she doesn’t attribute it to this outburst.

Yeah sure, had nothing to do with it.

Greed on November 19, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3