It's too early for details like the motive and whether or not he was a legal gun owner, but Im sure Dog Gone is on the investigative job and that information isq forthcoming.A man who shot four people, killing two, at a utility office east of Los Angeles before turning the gun on himself was a 48-year-old company employee from Southern California, authorities said Saturday.
Investigators identified the shooter as Andre Turner of Norco in Riverside County and ruled that his death was a suicide, Los Angeles County coroner's Lt. Larry Dietz told The Associated Press.
The two other men killed were Henry Serrano, 56, of Walnut and Robert Scott Lindsay, 53, of Chino Hills, coroner and company officials said.
Both men were managers in the information technology department and longtime Southern California Edison employees, the company said in a statement Saturday. Lindsay had worked for the company for 29 years, Serrano for 26.
I figure it's like this. Either he was a legitimate gun owner and should have been subjected to better screening and qualifying requirements or he was a criminal who got his gun from a legitimate gun owner and should have been subjected to better screening and qualifying requirements. The answer is always the same.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Are they SURE it was a suicide, Greg Camp will want the forensics report (or perhaps two, one by the LA authroities and one by an independent lab) before he...oh, wait, he did KILL two other people and wound a couple more, so he knew what happens and in which direction lethal force was distributed when the discharge lever on the inanimate object was pulled.
ReplyDeleteAnother gutless piece of shit, getting even with a gun.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI take it that you're a fan of science fiction? I ask because you seem to have the notion that we can screen out criminals before they commit their crimes. I, on the other hand, don't have your faith that we can convict before the commission, without a whole lot of false positives.
An author that I enjoy reading said the following. While financial matters inspired the thought, it applies to all matters of life:
ReplyDelete"Freedom and security are not the same ideals. In fact, in many ways, freedom and security are exact opposites. The people who have the most security are people in prison. Prisoners have the least freedom and the highest security. People in prison do not need to provide housing, food, recreation, health care, or education for themselves. They have a lot of security but at the price of their freedom."
In a free society, people will sometimes use that freedom to harm others. Unfortunately no one ever really knows for sure what someone will do until they do it and then it is too late.
Now don't get me wrong. If a person is demonstrably mentally unstable -- and there would have to be some pretty high "bars" to clear to arrive at that decision -- then I favor removing many of their privileges or freedoms such as driving and weapon possession.
The down side to that last statement is that anyone can quickly and easily make weapons from readily available raw materials ... which greatly reduces the effectiveness of any effort to "de-weaponize" someone. And remember, a few dollars at the hardware store for a couple tools and metal stock and the sky is the limit.
This:
ReplyDelete"I take it that you're a fan of science fiction? I ask because you seem to have the notion that we can screen out criminals before they commit their crimes."
is from the same guy who said--seems like it was just yesterday; oh it WAS just yesterday (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=8977267289059086272)--that we should just keep teh perps in jail, with no regard for the type or severity of offense. Got it.
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteThis sort of argument:
"If a person is demonstrably mentally unstable -- and there would have to be some pretty high "bars" to clear to arrive at that decision"
differs little from the ones we used to hear for sexual abusers, spousal abusers and various other offenders. Those offenses are no longer treated as if they spring from a vacuum. Gunzloonery also does not spring from a vacuum.
Gunzloonz who haven't (and may never) commit a crime in a moment of passion or despair are impervious to logic on this issue--gunz don't kill people; mean, KKKrazzee, stupid, deranged people with gunz kill people.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteEven you can do better than that. The person in the earlier article was a convicted sex offender. Let me reiterate: convicted. Not suspected, not anticipated, convicted.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteI did not say the person was NOT a sex offender, convicted or otherwise.
You, like so many other freedomformebutlaw'n'orderforeveryonelse numbskulls are ready to lock up anyone who commits a crime. Okay, let's lock up that dangerous gunzslinger Meckler for the rest of his life.
Must I observe again, convicted sex offender? Doesn't a sex offense conviction warrant some time behind bars?
ReplyDeleteGreg, I'm not suggesting we can detect future crimes like the Minority Report. I'm suggesting we can screen gun owners better and identify some of the worst, most unfit. Wouldn't you want that?
ReplyDelete"Doesn't a sex offense conviction warrant some time behind bars?"
ReplyDeleteMust I observe again that you're a FUCKING LIAR?
This:
"The answer here is to keep this lowlife locked up and not running around the free world.
December 17, 2011 7:39 PM'
was typed by you.
Excuse me if I can't find any words that indicate "some time behind bars" is the same thing.
You, like a LOT of gunzloonz, are all about punitive detention and summary execution of implied or perceived threats to YOUR personal safety. You MUST cart around your personal equalizers to make sure that you're not the victim of one of the millions of potentiperps that are skulking behind every tree, bush and billboard (not to mention lurking in darkened doorways) all over MurKKKa!
Otoh, you have no problemo with saying, "fuck due process". Asshole.
Why I would I have thought this comment was made by Greg:
ReplyDelete"Doesn't a sex offense conviction warrant some time behind bars?"
No, Greg, quite a few offences don't result in actual jail time since it costs quite a bit to house criminals in jails, prisons, etc.
Greg, your ignorance seems boundless, but you happily continue to demonstrate that other than the diffence between "lay" and "lie" and that "criteria" is the plural of "criterion" is pretty much the extent of your knowledge.
You are kind of a useless person.
And some idiots decided to let you run around carrying a concealed firearm.
I live for the day that you cause a disaster.
Can you say "probation", greg?
ReplyDeleteDo you know what that means or is it outside of the boundaries of the "lay" and "lie" and that "criteria" is the plural of "criterion" thing?
Nothing like criminals out on the street with easy access to firearms.
But, that's no problem to Greg since he knows that the holy objects called firearms only work for law abiding citizens.
Gimme a break, Dickhead.
When it comes to sex offenders, a life sentence is appropriate. I'm not talking about someone who takes a leak behind a bush. I mean someone who commits rape, molestation, or other serious sexual offenses. To me, those crimes are the moral equivalent of murder and should be treated in the same manner.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
I can't answer your question until I know the screening criteria and how you define "worst" and "unfit."
GC wrote: When it comes to sex offenders, a life sentence is appropriate. I'm not talking about someone who takes a leak behind a bush. I mean someone who commits rape, molestation, or other serious sexual offenses. To me, those crimes are the moral equivalent of murder and should be treated in the same manner.
ReplyDeleteThey're bad, but they're not murder and they are not necessarily equivalent to murder. You like to take away other people's rights,and you demonstrate a problem with proportionality as well.
The circumstances of the crime should determine the sentencing. I'd like to see the courts lock up the seven men who raped Jaime Leigh Jones, where KBR and Haliburton contrived for them to get off scott free - and themselves free from corporate liability as well. For that one, not only the rapists but the corporate executives should be behind bars. In contrast, Minnesota's so-called sodomy laws which prohibited oral sex even between consenting adults made sex crime criminals of people who should never have had to explain their conduct, much less be in court.
But there are many gradations of conduct, and they should be considered in the sentencing. You fail to consider the costs of incarceration to our society; we already incarcerate too many people.
We need more treatment programs and more and better determinations of when those programs work and when they don't.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteCan you read? Did I say that someone who engages in oral sex deserves a life sentence? I'm talking about rapists, child molesters, and the like. Such people deserve to be locked away in a bad place with a lot of other felons. (Yes, I am aware that child molesters don't fair well in prison.) I don't have any desire to rehabilitate that class of criminal. Some acts are too far beyond the limits of morality to deserve a second chance.
You want to solve prison overcrowding? Change our drug laws. That's what puts too many people behind bars.
And you're a fine one to talk about taking away people's rights. It's natural, though, to care only about the rights that you believe in.
GC wrote I'm talking about rapists, child molesters, and the like. Such people deserve to be locked away in a bad place with a lot of other felons. (Yes, I am aware that child molesters don't fair well in prison.) I don't have any desire to rehabilitate that class of criminal. Some acts are too far beyond the limits of morality to deserve a second chance.
ReplyDeleteAnd many of those who grow up to molest or harm others were themselves abused and traumatized such that their sexuality is twisted and damaged.
If someone CAN be rehabilitated, if they can receive treatment for what is wrong with them, they should.
You have an ignorant view of humanity and human sexuality.
That's a cop-out, Greg.
ReplyDelete"I can't answer your question until I know the screening criteria and how you define "worst" and "unfit.""
You just told us how you feel about sex offenders, not the peeing in public guys but the really bad ones. In the same spirit, without nitpicking it to death, can't you agree with wanting to screening out the most unfit gun owners?