from the Minneapolis City Pages:
Beginning with a comment that ranked 'comment of the day', for humor at the expense of Fakes News:
and continuing with the actual story as covered by legitimate journalism, in this case, still the City Pages:
However this guy seems to be the perfect example of why such laws are needed, and not just in California. Odegard seems like exactly the kind of gun owner -- and it appears there is a concern he owns more than a BB gun -- who presents a danger to himself and others. You have to be a little nuts to carry around a BB gun while just wandering down the street for no particular reason and then start shooting up people.
Beginning with a comment that ranked 'comment of the day', for humor at the expense of Fakes News:
and continuing with the actual story as covered by legitimate journalism, in this case, still the City Pages:
 |
| another NRA-type gun nut - old, white, flabby, and crabby - and a little nuts |
Wayne Odegard Allegedly Called Saloon Patrons "Faggots," Shot One with BB Gun
Around 11:15 p.m. last Thursday, Wayne Odegard was walking down the sidewalk outside the Saloon's patio in downtown Minneapolis when he saw a gay couple kissing. Since the Saloon is one of the city's best-known gay bars, you wouldn't expect anything else, right? But Odegard was so incensed by the gay PDA that he allegedly called the couple "fucking faggots," broke out his BB gun, and started shooting.Recently, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a bill that permits family members or others with a similarly close relationship to request that dangerous people have their guns removed.
Or at least so say Hennepin County authorities, who have charged Odegard, 43, with a felony count of making terroristic threats.
According to the charges, a security guard heard Odegard utter the slur and saw him shoot one of the men, hitting him in the leg. The guard then gave chase and wrestled Odegard to the ground before calling police.
When officers arrived on the scene, they saw Odegard, on the ground and handcuffed, looking at the person he shot as well as other Saloon patrons and allegedly calling them "faggots."
The victim later told authorities he heard Odegard mumble something.
"The next thing [he] remembered was hearing loud pops and feeling pain on his shin," the charges say.
After he was arrested, Odegard told authorities he saw the men kissing in public and "wanted it to stop."
"Defendant admitted to saying 'faggots' before the shooting, and said that seeing men kissing pisses him off," the complaint adds.
In an interview with Fox 9, the security guard involved in the incident, Tyler Erickson, said Odegard "told me multiple times that I'm going to go to hell and he's going to bring me with him."
"He recited a biblical passage -- I think it's a Deuteronomy passage," Erickson added.
Erickson told Fox 9 the gay couple involved live in Brooklyn and Philadelphia.
"They both joked that they came to progressive Minneapolis and got shot for being gay," he said, adding that the victim wasn't seriously injured.
In a subsequent report, one of Odegard's siblings told Fox 9 they're concerned that if he's released from jail, "he will escalate this behavior and seriously injure or kill a member of the gay community."
Hennepin County jail records indicate Odegard remains in custody this morning on $75,000 bail.
Assembly Bill 1014, by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, was the Legislature’s central response to the lethal shooting in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara. It will allow family members of someone who is displaying signs of mental instability to request a court order temporarily barring gun use and purchase.Pro-gunners are having fits of the vapors.
Families of people killed in Isla Vista had lobbied for the bill at the Capitol, and Skinner cheered Brown’s action Tuesday.
“Family members are often the first to spot the warning signs when someone is in crisis,” she said in a prepared statement. “AB 1014 strengthens our mental health and gun control laws by providing an effective tool which family members and law enforcement can use to help prevent shootings before they occur.”
However this guy seems to be the perfect example of why such laws are needed, and not just in California. Odegard seems like exactly the kind of gun owner -- and it appears there is a concern he owns more than a BB gun -- who presents a danger to himself and others. You have to be a little nuts to carry around a BB gun while just wandering down the street for no particular reason and then start shooting up people.
Oh good, you're back. A couple of us had a question on how you feel about this plagiarist, since you have such a huge problem with Wehby:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/tn-democratic-senate-nominee-plagiarized-almost-everything-w#3jmhxr1
Can we get a statement?
Maybe Dog Gone can create a post about that. Or perhaps you can do it, since it's really a topic of its own.
DeleteYup -- he's wrong and he should go.
DeleteThe title seems to be a bit misleading as he did not shoot at the bar or hit the bar. The guy shot a BB gun at another person and it is not even clear whether or not the person shot was inside the bar as the shooter was outside the bar.
ReplyDeleteThe title states the shooter called someone a faggot, and then shot one --shot a gay person.
DeleteThe shooting took place on the sidewalk and the patio of the bar adjoining the sidewalk -- envision a sidewalk cafe scenario.
What, in your view would that change about the story, particularly the part where the shooter's family members fear an escalation of gun violence?
It seems a constant characteristic of comments by the pro-gunners that you all seem to be distracted by relatively unimportant details to the exclusion of the important points. Like someone yelled 'shiny', and you all looked.
At least he didn't cut their heads off, like the religion of peace did again today.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Yeah, like that observation is a plus for sanity on the shooter's side?
DeleteThe religion of peace did not cut off anyone's heads today, if you are referring to ISIS. The clerics in the middle east and elsewhere have been pretty emphatic about repudiating ISIS.
We can always count on you to be in the running for dumbest comment Orlon fluff-for-brains.
For the record, someone is leaving comments using my name. An example of such would be the one you just replied to, Beheaded, shot, stabbed, stoned, hung, it makes no difference - dead is dead. And I certainly wouldn't call any religion one of peace.
DeleteDon't be so easily fooled by cheap imitations and amateur impersonators.
orlin sellers (the real one)
How could that possibly be? You give your name so it couldn't possibly be confused with anyone else. How about that SS? Is giving a name a certainty of identification?
DeleteAnyone can be an Anon and type a name on a comment. Registered IDs are much more reliable. Everyone decides what is best for them.
DeleteMore reliable for what? Their opinions? You are nuts, but if it will satisfy you, you go ahead and name me, I will use it.
DeleteWhere is your registered ID SS? Clicking on your name shows no blog, or site, just a picture of a guy a a small girl. TS's shows the same thing. What do you consider registered? What does it matter? I don't respond to your name, but what you say.
Delete"Where is your registered ID SS?"
DeleteRight where you looked Anon. Registered with Google. This allows you to go back in time on this blog and cite my previous comments. It works for the purposes of this blog.
There is no registered account, no contact imfo, no site, no blog, you as anon. as I am. You never in your anon. rant mentioned being able to search this, or any site. On to your next lie......
DeleteSo SS when you said you searched this site for "Sandra" and found nothing, yet, she had commented 3 times in two weeks, were you lying? Maybe Mike's search doesn't work? HA HA HA HA
DeleteAnd what does a name matter when you continue to mistake named people for anons, and vice/verse? Again, my point, you pay no attention to who you are talking to you just push those gun loon talking points. Next lie....
"You never in your anon. rant mentioned being able to search this, or any site."
DeleteYou mean like I did here? Can we say oops?
"Being Anon does however facilitate you not having to be accountable for your past comments. If I say something inaccurate, it can be cited, and then I have to answer for it. You however can easily avoid it. Yes, I did notice you didn't answer my question as to whether you made that statement. It wasn't a rhetorical question."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/are-you-really-constitutional-militia.html
Right, I can count on your lies like you searched Mike's blog and found no comment by Sandra for over a year. Next lie SS.........
DeleteHi Laci, lets start by looking at your comment.
ReplyDelete"Recently, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed a bill that permits family members or others with a similarly close relationship to request that dangerous people have their guns removed. "
"However this guy seems to be the perfect example of why such laws are needed, and not just in California. Odegard seems like exactly the kind of gun owner -- and it appears there is a concern he owns more than a BB gun -- who presents a danger to himself and others"
I'm not understanding how this would apply in this case unless you have some information you're not sharing about the family needing protection. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest I'm not seeing any kind of close relationship between Odegard and the people he assaulted.
We could also take a look at the charge sheet in the article and see he's being charged with at least one felony. I've also seen some articles listing second degree assault and gun possession. Want to bet that one of the conditions of any release on bail will include a restriction on possessing firearms?
He then goes straight to jail, forfeits his bond and gets an additional charge. At least I'm thinking that's how it works. Any other legal types willing to weigh on my thinking?
That was Dog Gone.
Delete1. I'm not Laci.
Delete2. The family members do not necessarily report someone being a danger because of their own safety, but when they fear and expect from what they observe that the gun owner is a danger to him/herself and/or others.
See the sibling's comments to KMSP.
In a subsequent report, one of Odegard's siblings told Fox 9 they're concerned that if he's released from jail, "he will escalate this behavior and seriously injure or kill a member of the gay community."
Odegard should not be let out on bail, but if he gets out, he is a danger between now and his trial to the gay community.
So.....is it your understanding that the California law was passed ONLY for the PROTECTION of the immediate family? That would seem to ignore the context I provided:
"Families of people killed in Isla Vista had lobbied for the bill at the Capitol, and Skinner cheered Brown’s action Tuesday. "
That describes the families of the mass shooter (and 3 people stabbed) in California earlier this year. None of the victims were related to the shooter.
Further, since this was a BB gun, and the injuries were relatively minor, a good defense attorney will quite possibly be able to argue this down from a felony. Which means this dangerous nutjob keeps his guns, in spite of claims by his family that he will escalate the violence.
So your scenario of how this works seems badly flawed.
OR, the shooter is convicted of his felony charges, and then after doing jail time turns around and gets his gun rights back, (in MN it's a cottage industry in the legal profession), regardless of the danger he presents, and THEN shoots someone else. Because thanks to the efforts of the NRA, it is SOOOOO much easier to get your gun rights back even if you are a violent person, or a violent AND crazy person, and those people then have a seven times higher rate of committing violence, especially firearm violence.
You make the comment 'any other legal types' willing to weigh in -- I assume you are still referring to Laci as the primary 'legal type' here, and not yourself?
" I'm not Laci."
DeleteYou are correct DG, sorry.
"See the sibling's comments to KMSP."
Yep, you're right, they said this,
"In a letter to Fox 9 News, Odegard's sibling wrote, "I fear if released from jail, he will escalate this behavior and seriously injure or kill a member of the gay community."
Laci, the current protection order process revolves around dealing with threats to family members. One thing that isn't mentioned is whether they spoke with the police at all about their concerns.
Keep in mind, that if the protection order recently passed in California wouldn't have had any effect on preventing this assault from occurring since BB guns aren't formally firearms. And there seems to be no mention in this letter from a sibling of him owning any.
It would have been much more effective for the family member to address this letter to the presiding judge for this case since he's the one determining pretrial release. He is also the one that determines restrictions during pretrial release. Things like not possessing firearms, monitoring technology use, etc.
"Which means this dangerous nutjob keeps his guns, in spite of claims by his family that he will escalate the violence."
Again, I'm not seeing any mention of real firearms owned by the nutjob.
"OR, the shooter is convicted of his felony charges, and then after doing jail time turns around and gets his gun rights back, (in MN it's a cottage industry in the legal profession), regardless of the danger he presents, and THEN shoots someone else."
There is also a "cottage industry" in regards to what is called "family law", which is what these gun violence restraining orders would fall into. And there would still need to be due process and evidence.
SS, A sibling DID speak up and voiced concerns about a possible escalation of his behavior, it was part of the article.
DeleteAnon, would it make a difference if he was shot inside, or outside the bar?
I see you still have no clue who you are talking to, so again your rant about anons is specious.
ReplyDelete