Assault weapons, poor base security, untreated mental illness: No easy scapegoats yet in Navy Yard shooting

posted at 11:21 am on September 17, 2013 by Allahpundit

Usually after a horrendous shooting, the conventional wisdom on what’s “really” to blame has congealed 24 hours later. Not this time. Alexis didn’t use an “assault weapon,” as you already know if you read Ed’s post. He used a shotgun, the weapon of choice of the vice president of the United States. He was, apparently, seriously mentally ill — paranoia, sleep disorder, hearing voices — but had been treated since at least last month and hadn’t (yet?) had his Navy security clearance revoked on grounds of mental unfitness. Time magazine published a mini-bombshell last night about a Pentagon IG report that accused the Navy Yard of cutting corners on screening contractors who might pose a security risk (52 convicted felons received routine access), but as far as I know Alexis has never been convicted of a felony. On the contrary, his boss told Reuters that Alexis passed a background check in July after the firm re-hired him and that he had a “secret clearance” and a common access card for the Navy Yard. Presumably that explains how he got into the otherwise highly secure Naval Sea Systems Command building, which houses lots of classified information. Simply put, he had a right to be there.

Here’s the closest thing I’ve seen to an obvious red flag, but even this has problems:

The former Navy reservist identified by authorities as the gunman in the massacre at the Washington Navy Yard was cited at least eight times during his Navy career for misconduct, officials said Tuesday, including insubordination, disorderly conduct and multiple excessive absences from work.

The Navy also gave Aaron Alexis, 34, an administrative sanction after he was arrested by civilian authorities in DeKalb County, Ga., in 2008 and held for two nights in jail, a Navy official said…

The Navy on Tuesday corrected its initial account of the circumstances under which Alexis left the service. He received an honorable discharge, effective Jan. 31, 2011, a Navy official said. On Monday, the Navy mistakenly said that Alexis had received a general discharge, a less-desirable category that would have indicated to future employers that there was something amiss with his performance.

The official clarified that the service had originally sought to kick out Alexis with a general discharge because of his pattern of misconduct while in uniform, in addition to his arrest by Texas authorities in 2010 for shooting a gun into his neighbor’s apartment. But those proceedings were moving slowly, and it was unclear whether the Navy had sufficient cause to approve a general discharge, the official said.

They knew he was trouble, but not so much trouble that they were prepared to discharge him dishonorably and not even so much that they’d refuse him an honorable discharge on principle. Hard to tell given the paucity of detail here, but it sounds like the misconduct itself in each case was minor; it was the accumulation of incidents, perhaps, not the alarms raised by the severity of any one of them, that forced him out.

As for his motive, to the extent that someone who’s been hearing voices might have a coherent motive, the feds haven’t found one yet. The usual suspicions when a military base is attacked don’t seem to apply: As noted last night, this guy was apparently a fairly devout Buddhist, not a homegrown jihadi like Nidal Hasan, and his best friend and roommate says he doesn’t know of any grudge Alexis might have had against the government. The closest thing to a grievance that the roommate’s aware of was Alexis grumbling a bit after he got back from an assignment from his employer in Japan because he felt he hadn’t been paid the right amount. In fact, the roommate’s leading theory of what drove him over the edge was, uh, violent video games, the default scapegoat when all others have failed. So look forward to an especially stupid debate about that in select media outlets this week.

The best the feds seem able to do right now on motive comes from NBC:

After having been discharged from the Navy, Alexis served as a naval reservist and had been working as a civilian contractor for a division of Hewlett-Packard that was upgrading equipment used on the Navy/Marine Corps intranet, the company confirmed Monday. Investigators said he may have recently lost that job, giving him a grudge to nurse.

Under a new support contract, all HP hardware at the Navy Yard was relocated to Denver last month — leaving few if any support jobs needed in Washington. It wasn’t known whether Alexis’ job was one that was moved to Colorado — and if so, whether he declined to move or was let go as part of the reorganization. HP wouldn’t say Monday whether Alexis was still on its payroll.

Interesting, but that completely contradicts what Alexis’s boss told Reuters. He said that the HP division had just re-hired Alexis in July after he had left the firm in January following the Japan job, and it sounds like he was indeed assigned to work the Navy Yard, not Colorado. Which leaves us stuck at square one.

Exit question: According to NBC, “a shotgun used in the shootings was bought at a Virginia gun store within the last few weeks.” Alexis, as noted above, was being treated for severe mental illness since last month, at least. How was a guy in that condition nonetheless able to purchase a shotgun? Like Jonah Goldberg says, gun-control fans would have an easier time of it if they focused on dangerous gun owners rather than “dangerous guns.”

Update: WaPo updates with more detail on Alexis’s military misconduct: “Aaron Alexis was cited at least eight times for misconduct for offenses as minor as a traffic ticket and showing up late for work but also as serious as insubordination and disorderly conduct, according to a Navy official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the gunman’s personnel record.” He received administrative punishments three times, but not a single court-martial.


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

But you can’t be Title 32 FTS and a contractor. As for Army, they have ARG and dual-status technicians. But you still couldn’t be swinging a contractor gig on the side.

M240H on September 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Title 32 is a National Guard thing (the Navy doesn’t have one of those). The Navy Reserves is all Title 10. You could be a drilling Naval Reservist (not FTS) and a contractor at the same time. But I really think that he simply was discharged from active duty and didn’t affiliate as a Navy Reservist.

In fact, the closest I’ve heard to motive is that he was bitter about his Navy experience for some reason. The roommate in Texas said he didn’t think he was getting the benefits he was promised (slow VA process???).

Happy Nomad on September 17, 2013 at 12:41 PM

In fact, the roommate’s leading theory of what drove him over the edge was, uh, violent video games, the default scapegoat when all others have failed. So look forward to an especially stupid debate about that in select media outlets this week.

I won’t say that the video games caused this, but when you have someone already mentally screwed up playing violent games 16 hrs a day it has to have some effect.

Barred on September 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM

The shooter is responsible. The entity that looked the other way repeatedly and failed to do it’s job is the US Government… at multiple levels.

Wendya on September 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Just got off the phone with my favorite FFL gun dealer. You’re correct if he had a D.C. address there is no way they would have sold him any firearm. A bordering state they can sell hunting rifles and shotguns. Tennessee they’d have to check closely because Tennessee has some strange regs. Apparently there is an ATF manual that they reference for out of state sales too. Handguns must be purchased in the state of residence. D.C address they wouldn’t even consider selling a weapon to you.

Oldnuke on September 17, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Thanks for the information. I honestly think that the whole “bought an assault rifle in VA” narrative is false, no matter what address he would have provided. VA is a thorn in the side of the gun-grabbers who have MD and DC in full anti-Constitution mode. They hate the Old Dominion for not going along with O’Malley and the DC government.

Happy Nomad on September 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Is the Federal Government out-sourcing too many critical security checks and balances that could have prevented this disaster? Let’s ask Hillary. She seems to be proficient at deferring responsibilities.

Rovin on September 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM

As reported, his main weapon of choice in the shooting, it seems, was his SHOTGUN.

Diane ‘DumbMass’ Feinstein is now calling for even STRICTER laws in America’s Capital, a city with some of the most strict laws in the nation, adding she believes more laws would have prevented the shooting. Talk about someone who is as dumb as dirt! Obama, more than eager to seize ANY opportunity to push his agenda, is – according to his media mouthpiece – thinking of using his positional power to dictate new laws regarding gun safety.

Considering the one report citing his shotgun as his weapon of choice, are the Liberals going to outlaw shotguns?

The guy left alive who is really in trouble right now is the investigator responsible for conducting a new background check required for renewing his Security Clearance & having the access he did. In recent years the process has been reduced to ‘If you have a clearance, you are good to go…almost no real investigation.

easyt65 on September 17, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Now you’re being just a bit disingenuous.

In Seattle, he was arrested for property damage and discharge of a firearm. Both of which are misdemeanors. Even if convicted of these crimes, would he have been legally able to purchase a firearm?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 12:40 PM

What he was arrested for does mean that is what he may have been charged with. He could have been charged with a felony. Of course he wasn’t charged at all. And so it doesn’t really matter, does it? If laws aren’t enforced there is no opportunity to flag this man as someone who shouldn’t own a firearm. Speaking of being disingenuous.

No felony convictions (or misdemeanor convictions that I’m aware of Mr. Disingenuous), honorable discharge, and no record of voluntary or involuntary commitment. How could he be stopped from buying a gun?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 12:52 PM

What he was arrested for does mean that is what he may have been charged with. He could have been charged with a felony. Of course he wasn’t charged at all. And so it doesn’t really matter, does it? If laws aren’t enforced there is no opportunity to flag this man as someone who shouldn’t own a firearm. Speaking of being disingenuous.

No felony convictions (or misdemeanor convictions that I’m aware of Mr. Disingenuous), honorable discharge, and no record of voluntary or involuntary commitment. How could he be stopped from buying a gun?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Are you arguing that despite being arrested for a misdemeanor, he should have been charged with and convicted of a felony for the purpose of restricting his access to guns?

Again, what law, if enforced, would have prevented this man from legally purchasing a gun? What current law would have prevented that? Specifically.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:00 PM

They knew he was trouble, but not so much trouble that they were prepared to discharge him dishonorably and not even so much that they’d refuse him an honorable discharge on principle.

Only a general court-martial can adjudge a dishonorable discharge. Further, if he had over six years service and the Navy tried to separate him, he would have been entitled to a separation board. If that board recommended an honorable discharge, then the GOSCA or the Navy could not give him anything worse.

Bravesbill on September 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM

What law wasn’t enforced though? He was arrested. And even if convicted of the misdemeanor, that wouldn’t have prevented him from buying the gun because misdemeanors don’t count.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Read the questions on the questionnaire to purchase a gun in VA or pretty much anywhere else. You are required to disclose if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor. That is a red flag that typically either stops the gun purchase of requires additional scrutiny.

Conviction of a class a or b (which I believe the Seattle incident was) misdemeanor would also have prevented him from obtaining a concealed carry permit in TX.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I’m not a conspiracy guy by any stretch, but this seems awfully ‘convenient’ after the Colorado recalls last week…

affenhauer on September 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM

So a guy with mental health issues, and two prior incidents of unlawful discharge of a firearm was able to LEGALLY purchase a weapon.

So the “solution” is to pass more laws?

Yeah, sounds about right coming from flaming stupid liberals.

GarandFan on September 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I’m guessing that those responsible security will be put on paid administrative leave for ten years or so.

cajunpatriot on September 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Are you arguing that despite being arrested for a misdemeanor, he should have been charged with and convicted of a felony for the purpose of restricting his access to guns?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:00 PM

You’re all over the map, aren’t you? Typical leftist argumentation style. Can’t win on a point, change the subject.

I’m arguing that what he did could be construed as a felony. Simple as that.

Again, what law, if enforced, would have prevented this man from legally purchasing a gun? What current law would have prevented that? Specifically.

It doesn’t matter. No laws were ever enforced when it came to this man, apparently. You’ve got no leg to stand on. You can’t argue that a previous firearm conviction (felony or not) should disqualify him from owning a firearm because he has no previous firearm convictions! Hypotheticals are nonsense that do nothing to keep us safe.

But what if he was charged with a misdemeanor and had to face the courts? We have no idea what the result of that might have been. Considering he claimed to have blacked out during the Seattle shooting maybe he would have been involuntarily committed for a mental health evaluation at the very least. But because the law was never enforced when it came to this man we’ll never know. All we know is that he has no felony or misdemeanor (as far as I know) convictions, honorable discharge, and no voluntary or involuntary commitment.

How he is kept from buying a gun?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I got one better than the freshman philosophy 101 student Sega’s q.

What law or laws, if enforced would result in the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama?

Murphy9 on September 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Even though 93% of ALL guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY and ‘assault weapons’ were associated with less than 323 of the 12,664 homicides (from all causes) committed in 2011, let’s pass MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS for Obama NOT TO ENFORCE!!!

‘We don’t have time to prosecute everybody who lies on background checks.’

- Vice-President Joe Biden

Without LibLogic®, life would be utterly boring…

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Conviction of a class a or b (which I believe the Seattle incident was) misdemeanor would also have prevented him from obtaining a concealed carry permit in TX.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM

In Michigan as well. But seagullbrain’s problem is that he wants to argue a slew of hypotheticals that have no bearing on this current situation. More laws solve nothing if current laws aren’t enforced. And if current laws aren’t enforced there is no reason to ever deny Alexis the ability to purchase a firearm.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM

How was a guy in that condition nonetheless able to purchase a shotgun?

Because if you punish people for seeking treatment by red flagging them and taking away their rights, they simply won’t seek treatment.

kaltes on September 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Read the questions on the questionnaire to purchase a gun in VA or pretty much anywhere else. You are required to disclose if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor. That is a red flag that typically either stops the gun purchase of requires additional scrutiny.

Conviction of a class a or b (which I believe the Seattle incident was) misdemeanor would also have prevented him from obtaining a concealed carry permit in TX.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM

The VA Firearms Purchase Eligibility Test(http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm) asks if you currently have an arrest warrent, if you’ve been convicted in VA of specific misdemeanors, if you have been convicted of domestic violence, or if you’ve been convicted of a misdemeanor “punishable by more than 2 years”. The only one that he potentially could have fallen into was the last one.

According the WA sentencing manual, it’s a level 5 crime that has a sentencing guideline of 12 months.

So far, there has been no law that I’ve found that would have precluded him of legally buying a gun in VA.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

How do you prevent him from buying a gun?
 
NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 11:51 AM

 
Draft and enforce smarter laws.
 
Will those laws make it more difficult for everyone to buy a gun? No doubt. But if we can’t keep the criminally insane from buying guns, why have any laws prohibiting the sale of guns at all?…
 
segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM

 
Here’s your opportuinty to verify your sincerity, consistency, and deeply-held moral position, segasagez:
 
HIV-AIDS is directly responsible for matching 80% of the annual number of firearms deaths

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/aids-hiv.htm
 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

 

The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year
 
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

 
Remember:
 

Is it illegal to buy a gun when the purchaser has a history of mental illness?
 
Also, I remember an uproar about a database of this information potentially being collected.
 
segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM

 
Ready?
 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save thousands of innocent non-carriers from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

My choice is untreated mental illness (P.C. run amok?).

Alexis, Assad (I’m pretty sure), Colorado Batman Premiere guy, the elementary school guy that killed his mom first…

they all seem to run together.

socalcon on September 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM

It doesn’t matter. No laws were ever enforced when it came to this man, apparently. You’ve got no leg to stand on. You can’t argue that a previous firearm conviction (felony or not) should disqualify him from owning a firearm because he has no previous firearm convictions! Hypotheticals are nonsense that do nothing to keep us safe.

But what if he was charged with a misdemeanor and had to face the courts? We have no idea what the result of that might have been. Considering he claimed to have blacked out during the Seattle shooting maybe he would have been involuntarily committed for a mental health evaluation at the very least. But because the law was never enforced when it came to this man we’ll never know. All we know is that he has no felony or misdemeanor (as far as I know) convictions, honorable discharge, and no voluntary or involuntary commitment.

How he is kept from buying a gun?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Notcoach, I notice you keep avoiding the question, but what specific law was never enforced?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

So far, there has been no law that I’ve found that would have precluded him of legally buying a gun in VA.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

The stupid just simply drips off of that sentence.

There are many laws that would preclude him from buying a gun anywhere in the United States if he were ever convicted of said laws. But no state precludes firearm ownership for simply not being convicted of any law at all, which Alexis apparently never was himself.

No conviction of any sort. Honorable discharge. No voluntary or involuntary commitment. What non-hypothetical precludes him from owning/purchasing a firearm?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

The good news is that with ObamaCare electronic records requirements, mental health and other medical issues can be added to the background checks (that ought to save at least one child). It will also cut down on all of the misinformation and confusion after an event like this because journalist will have ready access the records so experts can make an accurate diagnosis on the air.

deadman on September 17, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Presumably that explains how he got into the otherwise highly secure Naval Sea Systems Command building, which houses lots of classified information.

Waaaa, wait! I thought the MSM told me it was another guy (first) and THEN, no, it was this guy with a stolen ID? Now(?) it’s poor ‘vetting’? Due to the sequester cuts, I suppose.

WTF ? Where’s Cronkite and Rather when you need ‘em?

socalcon on September 17, 2013 at 1:32 PM

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

HIV-AIDS is directly responsible for matching 80% of the annual number of firearms deaths

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Ready?

Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save thousands of innocent non-carriers from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

They do. It’s illegal to knowingly pass on the HIV/AIDS virus. People who know they have the disease cannot freely do activities that people who do not have the disease(or do not know they have the disease) can do.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

They knew he was trouble, but not so much trouble that they were prepared to discharge him dishonorably and not even so much that they’d refuse him an honorable discharge on principle.

Um, wouldn’t ANY discharge be RACIST?

socalcon on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Notcoach, I notice you keep avoiding the question, but what specific law was never enforced?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

That one hypothetical law where, hypothetically speaking, he, hypothetically, was kept from owning a hypothetical weapon.

What conviction or commitment was he ever subjected to?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

The stupid just simply drips off of that sentence.

There are many laws that would preclude him from buying a gun anywhere in the United States if he were ever convicted of said laws. But no state precludes firearm ownership for simply not being convicted of any law at all, which Alexis apparently never was himself.

No conviction of any sort. Honorable discharge. No voluntary or involuntary commitment. What non-hypothetical precludes him from owning/purchasing a firearm?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Then this should be an easy exercise.

Name one law that would have precluded him from buying a gun that was not enforced.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM

What conviction or commitment was he ever subjected to?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

I have already said that even if convicted, he would still have been able to legally purchase a gun. I have provided evidence for this. The fact that he was or was not convicted(which we don’t know yet) is a moot point.

You’ve arguing a straw man.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:36 PM

They do. It’s illegal to knowingly pass on the HIV/AIDS virus. People who know they have the disease cannot freely do activities that people who do not have the disease(or do not know they have the disease) can do.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Rocket surgery, I tells ya.

People cannot murder other people either. Of course that isn’t what rogerb is asking. Rogerb wants to know why you don’t apply gun control logic to those infected with HIV. Why don’t we have a background check before sexual relations? Why don’t we have a national registry of infected individuals? Why don’t we bar infected individuals from sexual contact altogether?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM

That is a red flag that typically either stops the gun purchase of requires additional scrutiny.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Considering the number of ‘passes’ Alexis received, there’d have been little to no additional scrutiny.

We don’t want to appear racist, now, do we?

socalcon on September 17, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted in an attempt to save thousands of innocent non-carriers from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?
 
rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

 
They do. It’s illegal to knowingly pass on the HIV/AIDS virus. People who know they have the disease cannot freely do activities that people who do not have the disease(or do not know they have the disease) can do.
 
segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

 
Wait, you mean it’s illegal the same way murdering people with guns is?
 
Stop being coy, segasagez. You brought up the database. You’re smart enough to understand the question.
 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted (think database) in an attempt to save thousands of innocent non-carriers from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

They do. It’s illegal to knowingly pass on the HIV/AIDS virus. People who know they have the disease cannot freely do activities that people who do not have the disease(or do not know they have the disease) can do.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 PM

You can’t seriously be this stupid.

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I have already said that even if convicted, he would still have been able to legally purchase a gun.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Hypothetically speaking of course.

I have provided evidence for this.

Hypotheticals are now evidence. Wonderful…

You’ve arguing a straw man.

Yes, because I’ve been arguing endlessly about hypotheticals that don’t actually exist as fact.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

According the WA sentencing manual, it’s a level 5 crime that has a sentencing guideline of 12 months.

So far, there has been no law that I’ve found that would have precluded him of legally buying a gun in VA.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Let’s see, sport. Washington State could have charged him with assault with a deadly weapon and/or criminal negligence both felonies.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

You can’t seriously be this stupid.

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Don’t underestimate him.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Don’t underestimate him.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

How could you sleep with all that cognitive dissonance?

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Rocket surgery, I tells ya.

People cannot murder other people either. Of course that isn’t what rogerb is asking. Rogerb wants to know why you don’t apply gun control logic to those infected with HIV. Why don’t we have a background check before sexual relations? Why don’t we have a national registry of infected individuals? Why don’t we bar infected individuals from sexual contact altogether?

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I just said that we do. We do apply gun control logic to those infected with HIV.

In areas where HIV can affect others, there are restrictions. For example, people with HIV can’t donate blood.

There aren’t any background checks of sexual relations. Are you saying that we should add background checks on sexual relations? I’m not sure what your point is here?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Update: WaPo updates with more detail on Alexis’s military misconduct: “Aaron Alexis was cited at least eight times for misconduct for offenses as minor as a traffic ticket and showing up late for work but also as serious as insubordination and disorderly conduct, according to a Navy official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the gunman’s personnel record.” He received administrative punishments three times, but not a single court-martial.

Sound like the kind of guy that’s enjoy shooting up an Afghan village with Robert Bales.

socalcon on September 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Let’s see, sport. Washington State could have charged him with assault with a deadly weapon and/or criminal negligence both felonies.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

How could Washington State charged him with assault with a deadly weapon? You recommend that they just make up a crime? Where was the assault at all in that case?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Let’s see, sport. Washington State could have charged him with assault with a deadly weapon and/or criminal negligence both felonies.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

But hypothetically they could have charged him with jaywalking while discharging, and that isn’t a felony! So hypothetically he couldn’t possibly be charged with a felony!

He’s too thick. I already covered this just to be nice, but he’s stuck on stupid. No conviction of anything, means no conviction of anything. We can’t rewrite history to suit our political aims.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM

There aren’t any background checks of sexual relations. Are you saying that we should add background checks on sexual relations? I’m not sure what your point is here?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I guess you seriously are that stupid.

Don’t underestimate him.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I’m sorry. You were right.

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted (think database) in an attempt to save thousands of innocent non-carriers from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

You’re conflating two points.

What value would a database of HIV+ citizens have in terms of restricting freedom? In other words, what freedom would be better restricted by the creation of a database of HIV+ citizens?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Yes, because I’ve been arguing endlessly about hypotheticals that don’t actually exist as fact.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Name one law that would have precluded him from buying a gun that was not enforced.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM

You can’t.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Maybe if one of your loved ones dies of gun violence you won’t be quite so cavalier. Oh forget it. You don’t give a sh*t anyway. Back to the Fritos!

lostmotherland on September 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

According to the CDC, ’112 million times a year alcohol-impaired drivers put you at risk.

But, but, but, we have drunk-driving laws and they prevent drunk-driving or something!

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

To put that into perspective, there were 11,078 gun-related homicides that year.

A difference of 850 lives…and, yet, we have infinitely more gun control laws on the books than we do drunk-driving statutes.

So, according to the emotion-driven logic of some, we should reinstate Prohibition – after all, it worked out so well the last time.

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I just said that we do. We do apply gun control logic to those infected with HIV.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

No, you said it is illegal to knowingly infect others. And like I said, it is also illegal to murder someone. And blood donation is not illegal for the infected. Not using their blood is an administrative and legal procedure that has nothing to do with the infected persons rights.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

No, you said it is illegal to knowingly infect others. And like I said, it is also illegal to murder someone. And blood donation is not illegal for the infected. Not using their blood is an administrative and legal procedure that has nothing to do with the infected persons rights.

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I didn’t say blood donation was illegal. I said it was restricted.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:50 PM

How could Washington State charged him with assault with a deadly weapon? You recommend that they just make up a crime? Where was the assault at all in that case?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Wow, you are an imbecile.

Assault With a Deadly Weapon

In Washington, assaulting someone with a deadly weapon is second degree assault. (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.021.)

A defendant commits assault by:

intentionally touching or striking another person, in a harmful or offensive way

attempting to touch or strike another, so long as the defendant has the apparent ability to do so, or

any physical act that intentionally places another person in apprehension of harm.

nah, A guy coming out and pumping lead into my car doesn’t give me any apprehension.

At minimum he should have be charged and convicted of this:

Criminal negligence is the failure to be aware of the substantial risks to others created by your behavior and is always a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would act in the same situation.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

any physical act that intentionally places another person in apprehension of harm.

nah, A guy coming out and pumping lead into my car doesn’t give me any apprehension.

At minimum he should have be charged and convicted of this:

Criminal negligence is the failure to be aware of the substantial risks to others created by your behavior and is always a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would act in the same situation.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Ha. Ok then.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

HIV-AIDS is directly responsible for matching 80% of the annual number of firearms deaths
 
rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

 
Should HIV+ citizens have their abilities and freedoms restricted (think database) in an attempt to save thousands of innocent non-carriers from HIV/AIDS death and injury each year?
 
rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

 
You’re conflating two points.
 
What value would a database of HIV+ citizens have in terms of restricting freedom? In other words, what freedom would be better restricted by the creation of a database of HIV+ citizens?
 
segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:47 PM

 
Thanks. You couldn’t have proven my point better.

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Thanks. You couldn’t have proven my point better.

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Which was what? What exactly did I prove? That databases are an ineffective way at identifying risk? That freedoms should not be restricted based on the attributes of an individual? Neither? Both?

What is your point here?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Ha. Ok then.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Ha. Yeah, thanks for confirming you’re a moron as aptly demonstrated throughout this thread.

Sorry scooter. WA State had the opportunity to stop the dude who came out and randomly shot a car in a threatening manner while people where around.

Which was a physical act and intention act that gave others apprehension for their safety.

He also acted in a criminally negligent manner. Which is also a felony.

And he confessed to police that he “blacked out”. You think that maybe should have been a red flag to the authorities?

Seriously, phuck off. I’ve wasted enough time on a ignorant little scroat sucker like you.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Anyone want to help segasagez out?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Sorry scooter. WA State had the opportunity to stop the dude who came out and randomly shot a car in a threatening manner while people where around.

Which was a physical act and intention act that gave others apprehension for their safety.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’m curious. Who would be the victim in of this assault?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I find it deliciously ironic that the only weapon Alexis actually took the scene was the one recommended by none other than Uncle Joe Biden. Remember his comments after Sandy Hook and during the gun grab discussions ? “Buy a shotgun.”

mdavt on September 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Anyone want to help segasagez out?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

No. He seems quite content digging that hole deeper and deeper.

I’ll just sit here and eat my popcorn.

(Snickering quietly to myself.)

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Patrick Dollard ‏@PatDollard 3s

Navy Yard Shooter: Racist Navy Denied Me Promotions ‘Because Of The Color Of My Skin’

I predicted it yesterday!

Resist We Much on September 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I’m curious. Who would be the victim in of this assault?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Gee azzhole, maybe the owner of the car he shot up. The construction workers he was trying to intimidate. People walking down the street. The neighbors. It really doesn’t matter. He used a DEADLY weapon in a criminally negligent manner.

Are you really that phucking retarded?

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM

And because I realize you’re a farking moron.

This…

“…any physical act that intentionally places another person in apprehension of harm.”

Does not mean you have to actually have been shot by the perp.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Are you really that phucking retarded?

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

A wise man once told me….

Don’t underestimate him.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM

LOL

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Gee azzhole, maybe the owner of the car he shot up. The construction workers he was trying to intimidate. People walking down the street. The neighbors. It really doesn’t matter. He used a DEADLY weapon in a criminally negligent manner.

Are you really that phucking retarded?

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Wow. So to better enforce the laws we have on the books, we should charge people with crimes they didn’t commit.

I won’t even get into the fact that it wouldn’t even be negligence(shooting at the car and accidentally hitting a person is negligence, shooting at the car and hitting the car isn’t).

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM

bigmacdaddy, do you think he should have been charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon for shooting at the empty car while the construction works were inside the house? The construction workers whom didn’t even see him shoot the car.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Wow. So to better enforce the laws we have on the books, we should charge people with crimes they didn’t commit.

I won’t even get into the fact that it wouldn’t even be negligence(shooting at the car and accidentally hitting a person is negligence, shooting at the car and hitting the car isn’t).

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM

LOL..dude you’re a phucking moron. Keep digging.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Honorable Discharge: check
Criminal Convictions: none shown
Committed for Mental Health Problems: nope

I’m not seeing an identifiable problem with this individual that would merit depriving him of rights, or denying him employment.

claudius on September 17, 2013 at 2:33 PM

bigmacdaddy, do you think he should have been charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon for shooting at the empty car while the construction works were inside the house? The construction workers whom didn’t even see him shoot the car.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Gee. I dunno. Let’s see. Is firing a weapon

a (any) physical act?

And, if so, could that be construed as

intentionally placing another person in apprehension of harm?

I’m not a rocket surgeon, so I’m going to have to mull this over for a bit.

Excuse me whilst I go finish my popcorn.

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM

What you can construe, and what you can convict someone for are two different things.

claudius on September 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I’m afraid that segasagez is one of those people who thought Biden’s advice to shoot a shotgun randomly out into the dark was good advice, and not advice on how to get arrested.

Fenris on September 17, 2013 at 2:40 PM

For the tard sega

In Seattle in 2004, a construction worker told police that Alexis had stared at him and fellow workers every day for a month — and occasionally brandished a handgun — at a construction site next to Alexis’ residence. The worker said he had never spoken to Alexis, but Alexis suddenly fired three shots from a Glock 30 handgun into the worker’s parked car one day in May 2004.

Alexis later told police that the worker had “mocked” and “disrespected” him. He said he had experienced an anger-fueled “blackout” and did not recall the shooting until an hour later, according to the police report.

So guy brandishes a gun and then fires a gun into a car because another dude supposedly dissed him. And the other dude shouldn’t be apprehensive about his safety? Seriously? Sorry scooter, that constitutes assault with a deadly weapon.

Another component of assault/threat with a deadly weopan?

…Even waving a gun at someone could be considered assault if the defendant intended to make the victim afraid.

Those pesky WA State Laws!!!

Oh and by the way..firing a gun into a street in a residential neighborhood is criminally negligent and simply firing a gun in city limits is typically criminal..period.

And let’s take a look at what happened in TX.

A woman who lived upstairs from Alexis in Fort Worth told police in September 2010 that he had harangued her about supposed noises from her apartment and confronted her in the parking lot. Police said Alexis fired a shot into the woman’s floor from his apartment below. He told police his handgun had gone off as he was cleaning it, but the woman said she thought the shooting was deliberate.

“She is terrified of Aaron and feels this was done intentionally,” a police report said.

Seems this is standard practice with this guy.

Another opportunity that the authorities could have used to prohibit this dude from obtaining weapons.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM

What you can construe, and what you can convict someone for are two different things.

claudius on September 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM

The question wasn’t “should he have been convicted of ADW” it was “should he have been charged.”

bigmacdaddy on September 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Anyone want to help segasagez out?

rogerb on September 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I’d try, but I think he digs faster than I could shovel dirt back on him.

questionmark on September 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM

MEDS PRESCRIPTION PSYCHOTROPIC MOOD/MIND ALTERING DRUGS.

Got good money that says he was on scripts depression, sleeping problems, anxiety, etc….. the one common of all these illogical lone gunmen mass killings and/or attempts they all are on headshrinker drugs.

Look to the DRUGS prescription headshrinker drugs to be precise. Pushing dope in the form of psychotropic drugs into people that lack the skills to control their emotions to begin with is insanity. These drugs are mood/mind altering that have wild side effects in a percentage of peoples biological chemistry, in the right environmental circumstances, and especially when mixed with other legal and/or illegal drugs.

-Columbine
-Virginia Tech
-Connecticut
-the attempted church slaying some time back
and on and on

Then consider all the less dramatic reactions were instead of mass shootings they just blew up on someone randomly, assaulted someone, or maybe just ran around buck naked (no joke common side effect).

C-Low on September 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

bigmacdaddy, do you think he should have been charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon for shooting at the empty car while the construction works were inside the house? The construction workers whom didn’t even see him shoot the car.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM

From the police report:


At about 8 am that morning, two construction workers had parked their 1986 Honda Accord in the driveway of their worksite, next to a home where Alexis was staying in the Beacon Hill neighborhood.

The victims reported seeing a man, later identified by police as Alexis, walk out of the home next to their worksite, pull a gun from his waistband and fire three shots into the two rear tires of their Honda before he walked slowly back to his home north of the construction site.

mmm working right next door and reported seeing the man walk out of his home next to their worksite, pull a gun from his waistband and fire three shots…but according to segadumbazz..they didn’t even see who shot the car. Who should we beleive segadumbazz or the police report???

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM

and that comes back to what you can reasonably expect to convict on. The court takes a dim view of inflated charges that waste the courts time —unless you’re Zimmerman or something.

We just had some kids here in town shoot some car windows out with a BB gun. If it were just one car and couldn’t be shown to be with malicious intent, they probably wouldn’t even be charged. As it happened they did this to over a hundred cars. They are being held on felony criminal mischief charges for starters.

claudius on September 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Firstly, the police report doesn’t ‘say’ that, but that summary of it is accurate. However, that’s the initial report. The follow-up says:

“After firing the shots, Alexis stood next to the vehicle long enough for works to investigate the shots and observe him conceal the firearm under his jacket”

In the original, they saw him taking the shots. In the follow-up, it changed to them investigating the shots and seeing him conceal the gun.

At some point, the story changed. In neither circumstance, it is assault with a deadly weapon.

Both the original report and the followup can be found at http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Alexis.pdf

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM

LOL you idiot. Did you even read the police report. The followup doesn’t contradict what the initial report said. It confirms it. It’s a recap/summary of the initial report summarized by another officer. The story didn’t change. Geezus you truly are an imbecile.

And yeah, you stupid phucktard…according to Washington State Law it is. And it’s also criminal negligence. Both felonies.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

So far, there has been no law that I’ve found that would have precluded him of legally buying a gun in VA.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Where did he live?

Oldnuke on September 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Well, good thing he is not white, or we would have heard all of the major news networks proclaiming that it was The Tea Party’s fault, or that Sarah Palin caused it to happen because her website once had some painted targets.
We don’t need gun control. We need nut control.
This guy was a loaded gun waiting to go off. Multiple arrests for gun violence, multiple disciplinary actions while in the Naval Reserve, and he still obtained a coveted job as a government contractor in a sensitive area?
Does our government PURPOSELY hire losers for contract positions?
Or would have denying him the job have been raaaacist?

maryo on September 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Hey, you are a liar.

In Washington, assaulting someone with a deadly weapon is second degree assault. (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.36.021.)

A defendant commits assault by:

intentionally touching or striking another person, in a harmful or offensive way

attempting to touch or strike another, so long as the defendant has the apparent ability to do so, or

any physical act that intentionally places another person in apprehension of harm.

nah, A guy coming out and pumping lead into my car doesn’t give me any apprehension.

RCW 9A.36.021 actually says:

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first degree:

(a) Intentionally assaults another and thereby recklessly inflicts substantial bodily harm; or

(b) Intentionally and unlawfully causes substantial bodily harm to an unborn quick child by intentionally and unlawfully inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child; or

(c) Assaults another with a deadly weapon; or

(d) With intent to inflict bodily harm, administers to or causes to be taken by another, poison or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

(e) With intent to commit a felony, assaults another; or

(f) Knowingly inflicts bodily harm which by design causes such pain or agony as to be the equivalent of that produced by torture; or

(g) Assaults another by strangulation or suffocation.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, assault in the second degree is a class B felony.

(b) Assault in the second degree with a finding of sexual motivation under RCW 9.94A.835 or 13.40.135 is a class A felony.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.021

You based your entire ridiculous argument on a lie.

And where’s this statute on “criminal negligence” you keep mentioning too?

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Hey you’re a phucking moron

And once again moron. The below constitutes the definition of assault in WA and most places. It’s called a legal theory.

“An act done with the intent to create in another apprehension and fear of bodily injury, and which in fact creates in another a reasonable apprehension and imminent fear of bodily injury even though the actor did not actually intend to inflict bodily injury.”

Call any lawyer in Washington State and tell them you waved a gun and shot out your girlfriends tires. Ask them if she can bring 2nd degree assault charges against you. Once again dumbazz no injury has to be received. We were talking about an assault with a deadly weapon.

Regarding criminal negligence, Here you go.

RCW 9A.08.010
General requirements of culpability.

(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.

(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:

(i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or

(ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

(3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM

“Assault weapons!!!”

I wonder if it was one of Obama’s and Holder’s several thousand assault rifles from their illegal Fast & Furious program.

Has the media asked Obama or have they done their own research to learn if the gun(s) were from Fast & Furious?

RJL on September 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM

And once again moron. The below constitutes the definition of assault in WA and most places. It’s called a legal theory.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 5:08 PM

You’re completely full of crap. What you just said doesn’t even make sense.

What constitutes the definition of assault in Washington is RCW 9A.36.021, not some random “legal theory” that you probably made up.

A defendant is WA very specifically DOESN’T commit second degree assault by “any physical act that intentionally places another person in apprehension of harm”. The damn thing says very clearly:

A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if

and then it goes on to describe those actions.

You literally just made stuff up.

And now, when I ask you to define the statute on “criminal negligence”, you reference the statute on culpability, which does nothing but describe if a person can be charged with a crime at all. The title, “General requirements of culpability” should be a hint to you. There is no “felony criminal negligence”. There not even a crime of criminal negligence(in WA).

Stop making up stuff that makes no sense.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Stop making up stuff that makes no sense.

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM

NotCoach on September 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM

segasagez on September 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM

OMG..you continue to be such a phucking moron. How old are you? 18 19? Seriously, you are perhaps one of the dumbest posters I’ve encountered on any website.

I’m sorry you are too stupid to understand how the legal system works or what those big words like culpability mean. Maybe you can read for comprehension in small doses.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

Guess what, you can be charge with criminal negligence in the commission of another crime. Especially, reckless endangerment with a gun.

Legal definition of assault (no something made up): Assault

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

So just because it is spelled out specifically in RCW 9A.36.021 doesn’t mean it’s not a viable charge. A gun threatens me with a gun on numerous occasions and then shoots up my car? Yeah, I’m assuming he has the ability and the desire to cause me harm.

Mmmm here’s a few cases for you to study up on.

Dude, brandishes a gun. Doesn’t actually assault anyone. Charged with a form of assault/harassment.

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2013/08/12/man-with-a-gun-threatening-others-quickly-taken-into-custody-in-greenlake/

Dude, threatens with a gun. Charged with assault. But didn’t actually assault or cause injury. WTF? Where in RCW 9A.36.021 is this covered.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2012/11/07/tacoma-man-jailed-after-allegedly-threatening-wife-with-gun-over-fathers-ashes/

Well known village idiot promotes felony criminal behavior.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/19/bidens-shotgun-advice-invoked-as-defense-by-man-arrested-for-shooting-gun-in-air

Sorry, phucktard. You lose. There was several things WA State or Seattle could have done to punish this guy for brandishing a weapon, threatening people, possessing a gun without a permit, recklessly discharging a firearm, discharging a gun within city limits, concealing a weapon, trespassing on private property, destruction of private property, etc…which was the whole point of this exercise to begin with.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM

How to expose a leftists inner fascist.

http://theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-typical-lefist-exposes-their-inner.html

LCT688 on September 18, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Stop using the fabricated assault-weapon term. They don’t exist, specifically to any one device.

In GENERAL any weapon someone uses in a crime to assault someone is, an assault weapon.

Duh !

TX-96 on September 18, 2013 at 6:38 AM

No one will say it – The Navy Yard shooter was not given the same level of scrutiny that a white male would have been given. Period.

redguy on September 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Sorry, phucktard. You lose. There was several things WA State or Seattle could have done to punish this guy for brandishing a weapon, threatening people, possessing a gun without a permit, recklessly discharging a firearm, discharging a gun within city limits, concealing a weapon, trespassing on private property, destruction of private property, etc…which was the whole point of this exercise to begin with.

HumpBot Salvation on September 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Yep, the Navy Yard shooter looks like Eric Holders son. The DOJ frowns against scrutiny of their types.

redguy on September 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Obama’s EEOC is discouraging background checks or using them in hiring since blacks are disproportionately over represented on criminal records. This is a very dangerous sort of “affirmative action”, and I suspect this policy might have something to do with this tragedy

http://herit.ag/K0KyZq

I doubt if any investigation will look into or report on this.

Chessplayer on September 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Can anyone tell me, when was the last mass killing we had that did not take place in a “gun free zone”? All I can think of is Waco.

Zorro Olmer on September 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM

When was the last mass shooting in which the shooter was not already diagnosed or under outpatient treatment for mental illness.

Background checks are worthless if pertinent data is not reported to authorities or never passed to the FBI.

Nomas on September 19, 2013 at 7:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2