The Duluth News Tribune has the full report including video of the press conference. Don't bother watching the whole thing if you're looking for some information on the gun, there is none. The interesting thing is the police chief and everybody else seem perfectly OK with the fact that a guy like this, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting young women and who has such an explosive anger problem that he could do a shooting like this, had a gun in the car.
I find that unbelievable. That should be one of the main points of focus. This is an obvioulsy unfit gunowner with access to a gun.
Maybe it's a Northern Minnesota thing. Dog Gone can tell us.
Mikeb writes: The interesting thing is the police chief and everybody else seem perfectly OK with the fact that a guy like this, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting young women and who has such an explosive anger problem that he could do a shooting like this, had a gun in the car.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the videos, I wouldn't say that the police chief or anyone else 'was ok' with this guy having a gun, but more an absence of details about the weapon. I don't know how much of the sex charge was about the female victims being underage versus violence as a factor in the sex charges, so it is not clear to me from this how much the police may or may not have known about an anger issue with the guy.
I was more struck by the fact that he was not remanded into their custody after being convicted, which would have precluded him going to his car for a gun. THAT struck me as pretty lax as well.
This is an area that is part of what we call the Iron Range, there has been a lot of economic depression in the area where the main industry is mining.
I will expect more details about this guy to emerge with a sentencing hearing later today, or if not today, then when he goes to trial.
It does seem to me from the videos and the article that there were quite a few people, including the mother of one of the shooting victims / subpoenaed witness who struggled with the shooter.
The lack of substantive details but lots of trivial information was more frustrating to me than anything else
I find that unbelievable. That should be one of the main points of focus. This is an obvioulsy unfit gunowner with access to a gun.
This seems to me more a lack of information at the time of the press conference which was the day after the shooting, than anyone being 'ok' with any aspect of this. I would suggest rather that in an area with a small pool of potential jurors, the sheriff and BCA guy are moving carefully until the AG's attorney can get in place, so they don't screw up anything.
It's part of Minnesota nice to tend to understate things,so far as there is any regional characteristics here.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteI know that Greg Camp would applaud it, but I wonder why, if the guy had been arrested for assaulting women why the police hadn't taken his gunz away from him.
It must be a tremendous dilemma for poor Greg, wanting to be sure that an obviously violent person will go to jail, FOREVER while ensuring that he has his gunz right up until the moment he has to, or decides not to, go to prison.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteYou stupid, goddammed fuck! Don't you remember that you're the one who attacked me for saying that this pervert belonged in jail?
Under no circumstances will you find me saying that this goblin deserves to have a gun. I made the point several days ago that said exactly what Dog Gone just said today: He should have been remanded immediately. He was convicted. Why was he wandering around?
Problem is that Greg wants the Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean what he thinks it means.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, reality comes crashing down on poor Greg.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou're supposed to be smarter than that. You know as well as I do that convicted felons lose some of their rights--voting, firearms, freedom during their time of incarceration, etc. Are you saying that it was appropriate for a convicted sex offender to be walking around with the freedom to get a gun?
"Are you saying that it was appropriate for a convicted sex offender to be walking around with the freedom to get a gun?"
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
Perhaps you have handy a copy of the General laws of the state of MN and whatever sort of courtroom procedural rules there are for the courthouse in which this shooting occurred. Otherwise you're just, you know, spewing bullshit out of your piehole (something you do regularly).
This case had been on the books for five years, at least. He apparently hadn't given any indication that he was going to go on a shooting spree. So, according to your warped sense of gunzloonz rights why wouldn't he have had a gun in his car. You're Mr. CCW and the "I kin haz all teh gunz" proponent here. What, everybody but this guy should be able to have his gun in his car?
I would point out that he had made a plea which did not admit guilt, retracted his plea while he was serving time, and that the case then had to go to trial.
ReplyDeletePending that trial, he went back to being considered innocent under the law; so unless he had other convictions that prohibited him from firearm ownership, having a gun in his car would not necessarily be illegal, as a technicality, until AFTEr he was both convicted and sentenced.
Sounds to me like this all happened before sentencing took place.
I still don't know why this guy wasn't remanded to law enforcement before sentencing but I doubt that would happen if he was known to be violent.
dog gone:
ReplyDeletePer the omniscient and sagacious Mr. Camp's endless caterwauling on the subject we KNOW that the RIGHT to have gunz is inviolable until such time as the holder of the armz is judged a felon or otherwise legally disqualified from owning lethal inanimate objects.
In the instant case did the cops know that the defendant had a gun? Was it registered? These things are important to know. It would be really nice to know them BEFORE a few people get shot.
Gun availibility was key.
ReplyDelete