WI: New Details on Azana Spa Shooting

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    All I see on this entry is a blank blue field. I suppose I could comment on the blue field. It seems entirely adequate as far as blank blue fields go. Still, I would have liked to have something gun related to discuss.

  2. avatar Moonshine says:

    Not loading on iOS, either. Could we roll back whatever changes were made in the last week or so? Please?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      It’s yet olde Flash Mac problem. I’ll be posting about this and the newly ressurected comment and post notification system later. Meanwhile I’ve removed posts related to the issue (to keep everyone on point). If you have any issues with TTAG’s editorial stance or style pleas send them to guntruth@me.com. Thanks.

  3. avatar Pascal says:

    Raise your hand if you are shocked that a “restraining order” did not work?

    1. avatar JPD says:

      I am sure most of you have noticed how many incidents.are from lax enforcement of existing law, or letting known, violent criminals back on the street.

      This one however, with a restraining order, are much harder to prevent or predict.

      Must agree about restraining orders in general. Basically a waste of time in many cases.

  4. avatar sindaan68 says:

    Restraining order and not allowed to possess firearms? How did this happen!?!?!!?

  5. avatar sanchanim says:

    I know here in CA, if you have a restraining order for abuse, or violent confrontation no gun for you. That being said it sounds like they simply let things go. The original restraining order was given on October 4th. Police were also aware, and had arrested the shooter for domestic violence recently. Was he arrested but never charged? So how did he get his gun??

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      My understanding from following the coverage thus far was that he was ordered to give up his firearms but he had not voluntarily complied with that order, and the sheriff’s deputies had not (yet?) visited his home to confiscate them.

      It raises interesting questions about how quickly the subject of a violence-related restraining order should be disarmed. Seems to me that if the subject doesn’t relinquish voluntarily within 24 hours of the ruling, they should have a couple of deputies at their door with a warrant within a few hours of the grace period running out.

      Yes, I’m advocating legal confiscation for people at high risk of committing violent acts. Cue the strict-reading Constitution scholars shouting “shall not infringe! shall not infringe!” Sigh.

      1. avatar JoshinGA says:

        You wouldnt need legal confiscation if every citizen had the un-infringed right to carry. See, most of the violent spree killers are cowards. Knowing the probability that someone will be armed is astronomically high will deter most of these a$$holes. Or they can be ventilated by a good guy much more quickly than the cops can show up. Yes, Im advocating that politicians accept that people are violent, and we all have the right to protect ourselves. It shouldnt matter if a few petunias get their panties in a bunch if it saves lives

      2. avatar Wyatt says:

        If your suspected gunman-to-be has his weapons confiscated, does it seem likely that his intent will be extinguished? Or will he simply obtain another weapon illegally in order to accomplish what he wants?

        Furthermore, how do you make sure you get all of his weapons? Searching all of his premises? Shared databases? What about private sales?

        What’s the bar for setting this seizure in motion? What defines “high risk? A restraining order only? Does getting into a fistfight count?

        Do you ever get your weapons back, or are you effectively branded ‘dangerous’ for life, like felons?

        There’s just too many questions for me to agree with you, but ultimately, I just don’t see it being effective. If you really think someone is a risk like this guy, why not try to detain him somehow?

        1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          I struggle with many of the same points that you raise. I don’t think there’s a perfect solution to this, just doing the best we can as society to ensure that we mitigate the risk of harm by someone who is known to be violent towards another specific person. I do believe that failing to take action in situations where we know there’s a proven elevated risk of harm is unacceptable.

          When it comes to executing a confiscation order, if it’s worth doing at all (a point that I concede is worth discussing) then it’s worth doing right. Perhaps the subject of the aforementioned restraining order should receive a visit from sheriff’s deputies with a search warrant for his home, personal storage and vehicle(s). It would certainly give the deputies something better to do than service questionable foreclosure/eviction notices to folks fighting a mega-bank for a mortgage adjustment.

          In CA, there’s a defined process for regaining possession of firearms after a restraining order is no longer valid. That’s the part that worries me the least.

  6. avatar -rsh says:

    There are too many questions this MSM report simply doesn’t even ask.

    1. How did the shooter acquire a firearm when he would have been ineligible under current law/regulatory regime? Was it a straw buyer? Did he steal it? Did he lie on the forms?

    2. Did the victim — the estranged wife — have any sort of protection tools (firearm, mace, taser, anything) or seek them prior to this tragedy?

    3. What was the security, if any, at the spa or the adjoining mall? The Brookfield police appear to have responded quickly, but clearly, it was too late. What about on-scene security?

    4. What is the process in Wisconsin of enforcing restraining orders?

    This sad incident makes me think that a restraining order should be accompanied by a court-issued temporary CCW license to the person asking for the restraining order. Coupled with a court-mandated firearms safety and use class for the petitioner. If you’re feeling so threatened that you go to the courts to get a restraining order, then you can certainly take some self-defense courses just in case the perp decides on a murder-suicide route, as he did here.

    1. avatar ZM says:

      I live in this area, the spa was a “gun-free” zone. The mall which is across the street usually has police patrolling the parking lot and what not. Also the location of the spa is fairly close to at least two different police stations. On another note the entire area is still blocked off.

    2. avatar MLF says:

      1. People who murder others don’t obtain firearms legally.
      2. Should she have to get a firearm to protect herself? If restraining orders were taken a little more seriously, she and others would not need a firearm to protect herself. The police need to take matters more seriously. Restraining orders don’t do anything for people like this.
      3. Azana Spa is just like any other Spa. Why would there be security? This is Brookfield!

  7. avatar ST says:

    Ex Marine eh?

    That’s why LE went all Judge Dredd yesterday with the tactical gear and military assault vehicle from the FBI. As a historical truth,a police vs ex military bad guy standoff usually goes to pot for the police. Observe the 1986 incident with the FBI.

  8. avatar Chris Dumm says:

    Restraining orders probably deter some low-level mayhem, but the threat of (eventual) arrest or imprisonment is only an effective deterrent to the handful of non-sociopaths who value their liberty and their jobs and who actually *have something to lose* if they ignore the order and get caught.

    Court orders are completely useless against psychos like this guy, until courts start issuing them printed on level III-A body armor. Even those would only be helpful if the protected party can shoot back.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      Chris, I think you meant psychopaths. Sociopaths are more commonly found in political office and corporate leadership positions. Sociopathy is especially common among startup founder types. (I’m the voice of experience on that last example.)

      http://www.diffen.com/difference/Psychopath_vs_Sociopath

  9. avatar Splashman says:

    On a pedantic note, didja notice how the reporter pronounced the shooter’s last name? “Haw-en” (i.e, he didn’t pronounce the “t”). One doesn’t often hear that glottal-stop speech pattern in news reporting, and for good reason.

  10. avatar jenni says:

    Did anyone ever think he also couldve had guns illegally, as most who commit crimes do? I agree restraining orders are a joke and someone with this mentality prob will not be stopped. He was a coward. Truly. My condolences to all involved. Im from milw and I am well aware that whether legally registered or illegally in the streets anyone….ANYONE can get a gun. conceal and carry just made it easier to carry. Not sure whats best at this point, too many ill-intended people carry. Sheriffs definately should have stepped into the home and removed what he had. But he wouldve found another way.

  11. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Statistically, restraining orders almost always guarantee violence will occur or at the very least escalate the situation… it’s all covered in The Gift of Fear by Gavin deBecker.

  12. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

    Ex Marine eh?
    “That’s why LE went all Judge Dredd yesterday with the tactical gear and military assault vehicle from the FBI. As a historical truth,a police vs ex military bad guy standoff usually goes to pot for the police. Observe the 1986 incident with the FBI.”

    …as well as the very high profile incident between John Rambo (a former Green Beret and Congressional Medal of Honor awardee) and Sheriff William Teasel that took place in and around the mountain town of Hope, WA. Thank God for Col. William Troutman.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email