Florida State’s Attorney Declined to Prosecute Yoga Studio Shooter, Allowing Him to Legally Purchase Firearm

Florida Tallahassee Yoga Studio Shooting

courtesy thestate.com and AP

A Tallahassee man opened fire in a yoga studio on Friday. He killed two, wounded four more and pistol whipped another man. The shooter then killed himself. As The State reports,

Early Saturday morning, the Tallahassee Police Department identified the shooter as Scott Paul Beierle, 40.

The department identified the two slain as Dr. Nancy Van Vessem, 61, and Maura Binkley, 21.

Van Vessem was an internist who served as chief medical director for Capital Health Plan, the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper reported.

The Democrat also reported that Florida State University President John Thrasher said Van Vessem and Binkley had ties to the university.

It isn’t clear whether any of the victims were specifically targeted by the shooter, who were both associated with FSU, but he’d been arrested a number of times for harassing people on and near the campus. Despite the arrests, though, prosecutors dropped charges in at least four prior cases against him.

From wctv.tv:

40-year-old Scott Beierle was arrested in 2012 and again in 2016 on misdemeanor battery charges. Court records show in both cases, he was accused of grabbing women’s buttocks.

The 2012 incident happened in a dining hall on Florida State’s campus. Court records show a woman accused him of grabbing her while she was at a soda fountain and a second woman said he’d done the same to her three times in the past month. Court records show those charges were later dropped.

The 2016 incident happened at the University Trails apartments where Beierle lives. Court records show he asked a woman sunbathing by the pool if he could rub sunscreen on her buttocks. When she said no, court documents say he grabbed her buttocks and left. Beierle signed a deferred prosecution agreement in that case and charges were ultimately dropped six months later.

Court records also show Beierle was arrested for trespassing at an FSU dining hall in 2014. Those documents show Beierle had an active campus-wide trespass warning against him at the time.

The shooter is believed by investigators to have purchased his gun legally, something he likely couldn’t have done if some or all of those cases had been fully prosecuted.

Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum, who’s running for governor in Florida, had this to say last night:

No comment yet on why the city’s criminal justice system failed to fully prosecute the shooter at least four times. Though given Gillum’s full-throated attacks against the National Rifle Association and gun rights in general, it seems a sure bet that he’ll be using this tragedy as support for his anti-gun position in the last couple of days of the campaign.

 

comments

  1. avatar the perp says:

    Scott Beierle: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
    https://heavy.com/news/2018/11/scott-beierle/

    1. avatar Bearpaw says:

      So an army vet, a republican, a repeat offender, a Regan-hugging conservative, a guy with a butt fetish, and a member of the ugly brown shirt club.

      Motive?

      1. avatar MouseGun says:

        Coo-coo as cocoa puffs, more’n likely

      2. avatar Aleric says:

        Oh look a Democrat Shill TROLL

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      NICS/background checks are not intended to actually accomplish anything, and they don’t.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        On the contrary. They show that what the government does is ineffective; and, that government doesn’t actually do what it undertakes to do.

        Would those of us who engage in lawful commerce and use of guns be better off if NICS was NOT there – on the front lines – taking the fall for every failure? Would you rather that every gun-shop being blamed for its salesmen selling guns to people who are later convicted of crimes? Would you rather there be no officially sanctioned system for distinguishing criminal users from law-abiding users?

        As NICS is run today, I can’t defend it. It really ought to be remediated in a number of ways. Nevertheless, even if the NICS BC at the gun-shop were not in place, there would remain a list of prohibited-persons.

        When a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop he usually runs a BC on you that hits many (though not all) the same databases that NICS hits. If you are a prohibited-person you are likely to be identified as such, depending on the basis for being prohibited. Thus, even if NICS disappeared, there would still be a national database of most prohibited-persons.

        Our objection ought not be about NICS per se; nor, that there are databases. Our objection ought to be two-fold:
        1. – that the legal criteria for making one a Prohibited-Person need a fundamental over-haul; and,
        2. – that the FBI ought to adequately staff and fund a system for a law-abiding person to clear his record in its databases PROMPTLY and EASILY.
        If we invested our effort in these two efforts we might accomplish something and would solve most of our objections to NICS.

        In any case, NICS is security theater that serves our purposes far more than it inconveniences us.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In any case, NICS is security theater that serves our purposes far more than it inconveniences us.”

          Really? “Theater” is just fakery of life; illusion, not real, requires suspension of disbelief.

          Would you mind detailing just how NICA “serves our purposes”? And also explain why you see government intrusion (obliteration) on a constitutionally protected civil right is mere “inconvenience”?

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          “If you concede that the government the Second Amendment was intended to allow you to protect yourself from, should it become necessary, has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of their lists?” – Cliff Heseltine, ©2015 (permission granted to use this quote, with attribution)

      2. avatar CZ Rider says:

        They are, and they do. They’re intended to harass and impede people trying to buy a gun, which they do. They’re also intended to make it look like politicians care about “solving gun violence” to the ignorant and/or uninterested out there, which they do. Since they aren’t actually very (if at all) effective, and since the target audience is too ignorant and/or uninterested to actually follow up on and hold the politicians accountable for their ineffective ideas, they get to keep doing their little “just one more law then we’ve got it this time for sure” act.

        If anything, the background check law is working great. It just wasn’t designed, intended, or publicly advertised for the use that it’s working so great at.

      3. avatar Rick says:

        NICS is irrelevant in this case since he was convicted of nothing that would have made him prohibited. I think that’s the point of the article.

        Also, a mayor has little say in a criminal prosecution, especially when they’re not in office, Gillum was only in office beginning in 2014, so incidents in 2011 and 2012 wouldn’t apply, and I can’t find when the 2014 one was. Regardless, not a mayors purview.

      4. avatar nyglockowner says:

        Funny you should write that. I bought two guns three weeks ago. I went to pick up the first one, and got delayed by NICS. Thirty minutes later, I was at the second shop, passed the NICS, and took possession of the second one. Why a licensed gun owner needs to go through NICS is another question.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Why a licensed gun owner needs to go through NICS is another question.”

          Let’s stick to the mechanics, and pretend NICS checks actually prevent every prohibited person from buying a gun anywhere, including “the street” (I said this was pretend). Thus we have a condition where only non-prohibited persons could possess guns.

          With the table set, we note that prohibited persons exist, and do not have guns. We note that non-prohibited persons are “law-abiding”, therefore upon examination and proof of “law-abiding” status, a “law-abiding” person may purchase and possess firearms. However……not every law-abiding person remains so. Some commit acts that would make them, between firearm purchases, a prohibited person. This change in status would go unnoticed if non-prohibited persons did not submit to a background check at each purchase. Thus, a background check at each purchase would identify a prohibited person, and prevent acquisition of a firearm, subsequent to having legally purchased firearms prior. The result is protection of the public from prohibited persons from purchasing firearms, and preventing a formerly permitted person from buying guns again.

          Remember, this is pretend…make believe…theater for the child-like mind.

    3. avatar 22winmag says:

      HEAVY?

      Get that shit website out of here!

  2. avatar Binder says:

    So it is NOW the opinion of TAG that a person should be stripped of their gun rights for “grabbing a women’s buttocks” (not one, but twice in 4 years) Wow, just wow.

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      If you don’t have consent to grab said buttocks?… I’d honestly support public hanging

      1. avatar Rovky says:

        Good idea
        Let’s begin st the top…

      2. avatar Binder says:

        Lovely, advocating the death sentence for misdemeanors. Any more bright idea’s? Keep it up and you may end up on some “list” too.

        1. avatar Bearpaw says:

          Pwrsrg is gonna hate this one as much as he hates women. Can’t wait for his take on it. Well just have to wait till the Saturday morning cartoons are over and he can use his mom’s ipad. Stay tuned!

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Binder, you might be speaking too soon. I have it on good authority that if he’d been hung then, 2 innocent people would not be dead, today.

    2. No. He was repeatedly charged with battery and criminal trespass. And the charges were dropped every time.

      We’re for enforcing the laws that are on the books. Instead, they’ll use this case to push more gun control laws.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        So you are advocating the removal of gun rights for this level of criminal activity? That is what is sounds like. Or do you recommend lengthy prison terms instead?

        I understand that the “other side” is for removing gun rights for anything. But it kind of sounds like you are going for the same thing. Remember you are advocating removal of gun rights for EVERYONE who would have a similar record.

        The “repeat” criminal acts in this case are NOT what I would consider at level that should result in the removal of gun rights, do you?

        1. No. I’m not an attorney. I don’t know if battery in Florida is a felony. I’m just advocating that the existing laws be enforced. This guy was allowed to skate repeatedly.

          If he’d been prosecuted he might have been in jail yesterday rather than out on the street. And now that he’s done something awful, all the usual suspects will blame it on the gun.

        2. avatar Luis Valdes says:

          If he was placed on probation, as what would have happened if his cases weren’t dropped bhe would not have been able to pass FDLE’s Firearm Purchase Program background and not been approved.

          Much like with Parkland, a system is in place to prevent such from occurring. But the system doesn’t work when the government doesn’t actually enforce the laws on the books and put the information into the system.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So you are advocating the removal of gun rights for this level of criminal activity? ”

          Why are you not?

          Every violation of any law should be a felony, with non-modifiable mandatory first-time sentence of ten years. Third offense – mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, I could get along with that if we first eliminate about 90% of all the “laws” on the books. Example; speeding is breaking the law, currently, and I don’t think 10 years in prison is an appropriate response.

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          We PotG need to figure out what is actually – on balance – in our interests and what might do a disservice to our interests.

          The first point to consider is whether we are – in principle – favorably disposed to enforcing the laws on the books uniformly, fairly and with due discretion for all the surrounding facts and circumstances. We claim to be law-abiding and responsible; if we want people to believe that we are so then we can’t afford to use rhetoric that makes us indistinguishable from anarchists.

          Second, we insist on being Constitutionalists. There is no basis to respect a law that is UN-Constitutional; but, we strive to obey all laws that ARE Constitutional. Where there might be some legitimate basis for doubt, we ought to favor abiding by the law until we can persuade the courts or Congress to find the law un-Constitutional.

          Third, the Prohibited-Person law criteria should be reconsidered from the ground up. There are two legitimate viewpoints. One is whether a criterion is Constitutional/or-NOT. Another is whether the criterion serves a useful purpose and can be enforced cost-effectively. These are both legitimate and distinct. As an example, a person who was once an American – but has renounced his citizenship – becomes a prohibited-person. Is that law Constitutional? Absolutely so! I challenge anyone to explain how such a person retains any claim to remain a member of the class “the People”. Does this criterion serve any useful purpose? Can it be enforced cost-effectively? Nope. Well, then, why have it?

          Fourth, what useful purpose is served to our cause to cultivate a situation where a person is found to have committed a crime with a gun who was not already a prohibited person?

          Imagine a world where we disposed of all the prohibited-person criteria. Now, in such a world, every person found to have committed a crime with a gun would be – by definition – a “law-abiding individual exercising his 2A rights in possessing a gun”. That is, we would fully embrace such a criminal as a full-fledged member of our class “the People of the Gun”. Every such person would tar all of us with his crime.

          Alternatively, imagine a world where we figured out – as well as possible – which people would eventually commit a crime with a gun. By way of a frivolous illustration, suppose that everyone who failed to return a library book had an overwhelming propensity to commit a crime with a gun and almost no one who failed to return library books in a timely manner ever committed a crime with a gun. Well, then, what we should try to do is make failure to return a library book the criterion for making one a prohibited person. Then, to the maximum extent possible, we could claim that government failed to put this prohibited person in prison and keep him there before he committed a crime with a gun. “He is NOT one of US; he was a prohibited person before he committed a heinous act with a gun!”

          Perhaps it is so that individuals who – without permission – grab women’s butts eventually go on to commit crimes with a gun. I don’t know; and, I doubt that anyone on TTAG has persuasive data on the topic. Perhaps many of us have been charged with such a crime but will never commit a crime with a gun. I don’t know that either. In any case, we ought to take a sincere interest in figuring out which crimes empirically distinguish those who will use guns in crimes (or otherwise irresponsibly) from those that don’t.

          If we made that investment I suspect that we would learn that some misdemeanor crimes of violence precede eventual gun crimes; while others (some Domestic Violence misdemeanors) do not. Likely, there are lots of non-violent felonies that don’t presage eventual gun-crime. What ever the results might prove to be, we ought to move the law in the direction of conforming to the evidence.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If everyone, no matter who, was armed with a gun, things would rather quickly sort themselves out, don’t you think?

      2. avatar TomC says:

        Clearly the author doesn’t understand the laws about owning or buying guns in the United States (which is no surprise since he writes here).

        The guy had been charged with misdemeanors (does Dan Zimmerman even know what a misdemeanor is?) Even if he had been prosecuted and convicted on all four occasions, none of those convictions would have made him ineligible to own or purchase a firearm.

        1. avatar Dan Zimmerman says:

          There is such a thing as felony battery in Florida.

          https://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/battery/felony-battery.html

          I don’t know the details behind of each of those battery charges.

          Again, if he’d been prosecuted for each, even if they were all misdemeanors, he might be in jail or on probation today and unable to legally purchase a firearm.

          Not that he couldn’t have gotten one illegally.

        2. avatar RetLEO says:

          Not exactly correct. GCA 1968 defined ‘prohibited person’ among other things, as someone convicted of a misdemeanor with a possible sentence of > 1 year. So, if any of these offenses carried a possible sentence of 366+ days, and he was convicted, he would have been prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So, if any of these offenses carried a possible sentence of 366+ days, and he was convicted, he would have been prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm.”

          It is easy to misunderstand (intentional confusion?) that nuance of the law. Some think that if they are sentenced to 90 days in the lock up, they dodge the law. The wrinkle is the “possible sentence”. Doesn’t matter if the judge sentenced a person to a weekend, the possibility existed.

        4. avatar RetLEO says:

          That’s correct. A misdemeanor battery conviction would not have rendered him a prohibited person ( in Florida, incarceration is ‘not to exceed 1 year’). However, a second offense is charged as a 3rd degree felony and, if convicted, would have made him a prohibited person.

      3. avatar Rocketman says:

        There’s enough of these kinds of cases “Yea, we should have stopped this guy from legally buying a gun but…” that makes me wonder if some socialist criminal prosecutors don’t have some sort of agreement that they leave borderline nutcases alone so they will shoot someone and further the advance of civilian gun abolishment. Before you say “that’s impossible” think about the real reason behind “fast and furious” under Obama.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          “… that makes me wonder if some socialist criminal prosecutors don’t have some sort of agreement that they leave borderline nutcases alone…”

          That is _exactly_ what happened with the Parkland, Fl. school shooter.

          The Leftists wanted to “break the pipeline to prison” by blowing off crimes committed by kids.

          And look what that got them.

          I’m in favor of making kids ‘serve time’, but not ‘hard time’. Meaning, the best way to make an impression on a kid is to take their free time from them. Have them spend their weekends picking up trash or whatever. Get into fight at school? 3 months trash duty for the first offense, 6 months second offense. All day, Sat and Sunday…

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          We don’t have to be conspiracy theorists to construct plausible rationales for such outcomes.

          First, what is the appetite for taxpayers to pay more taxes to build and operate prisons? As long as taxpayers express their preferences to keep taxes lower than they would be with an ample supply of prisons, our legislators will abide by the will of the voters. Perhaps the taxpayers are making a wrong judgement. If we kept more criminals in prisons the savings in crime-costs would pay for keeping bigger prisons full. But, this is an error-in-judgement that we the taxpayer-voters are making.

          Second, what is the appetite for “rent seekers” for government patronage? Do companies that contract to build and operate prisons have more or less influence than road-building contractors or teachers?

          Third, are the voters convinced that the rehabilitative results of prisons are cost-effective?
          Fourth, are the voters convinced that criminals don’t refine their craft in prisons?
          Fifth, are the voters convinced that it is cheaper to keep a criminal in prison vs. allow him to ply his craft at liberty?

          Sixth, are the voters convinced that persons convicted of crimes are really guilty vs. unjustly prosecuted or excessively punished?

          Seventh, are politicians more fearful of voters who demand crime reductions? Or, more fearful of voters sympathetic to the plight of the school-to-prison pipeline?

          It is reasonably likely that our police and criminal-justice-system is operating somewhere near the point of diminishing returns. We could always choose to spend a lot more money on them; but, might not see a positive return on our marginal investment. Likewise, we might try reducing – by a substantial amount – what we spend on police and prisons – and discover that we pay a disproportionate price in additional crime costs.

          It is reasonably likely that marginal investments in something other than police and prisons would produce a higher yield. Perhaps more people taking individual responsibility for their own security. Perhaps investing in early-childhood care (cradle to school) so that those individuals in the demographics most likely to pursue a life of crime are less likely to follow that path.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “First, what is the appetite for taxpayers to pay more taxes to build and operate prisons?”

          The statement above, and the rest of your explanation is full justification for eliminating all laws. No laws, no law-breakers, not criminals. The entire amount of money spent on the legal and “correctional” system can then be used to fund more social welfare programs. Which is morally superior: punishing people, providing that no one ever faces the loss of food, clothing, booze, smokes, transportation, big-screen TV, inconvenience of being somewhere at a designated time in order to generate their own funds. President Obama had it right when he noted that all the people who lost their jobs to other nations faced a wonderful time to explore their interests, hobbies, fantasies that were suppressed because of the oppressive need for a job.

          If you think laws are good for society, you are a cruel and heartless conservative, libertarian, or gun owner.

      4. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        So we don’t have a “gun problem”. We have a JUSTICE PROBLEM.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          That would be, like, uuuhhhmm, you know, correct.

          All along the line.

        2. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

          The justice system is a problem that could be made better, much better. However the bigger problem is the person determined to do harm even if it means loosing their life. And this determined person will find a way no matter how many laws exist or how flawed the justice system.

          There are solutions to making life better and safer. How? How to get people together in agreement is another issue, indeed!

      5. avatar A man of God says:

        I am a drafted 1969 V/N and Korean DMZ Veteran, and 27 years retired in law enforcement. I have been around. My statement is if you do the crime you do the TIME. So why do we have laws if we are not going to enforce them. We as a Country are decaying because let’s look back on a little time. A President I need not call names opened up the Government we have and was set up by our Four Fathers. Under the name of God The Father The Son Jesus and The Holy Spirit. We are even kicking them out of the Country. This Country is on the way because we have Muslims already in the House and someone let 30 or more ISIS Camps are already in Country I need not call that name again. They are not here to pat us on the back and tell us we are such good Americans. The end time are here hope you get it right. The veterans are 33 million in Country don’t think we will stand by and let them take over.

    3. avatar H says:

      I can’t speak for all of TTAG.
      This guy didn’t have self control.
      The way you frame it his rights are superior to everyone else’s.
      What if this was your daughter, sister, girlfriend or wife?

      No people shouldn’t lose their rights over little things. Yet we want mental illness identification instead of more gun laws. So which way do you want it?
      So he wasn’t prosecuted and now kills innocents. How did your plan work out for the dead, injured or our gun rights?

      1. avatar Binder says:

        Honestly, life sucks and it is dangerous.

        The other option is what level of police state do you want to live in.

        If you want to go down the road of what the government should and should not be able to do, keep the argument honest. Anything you want the government to do will apply to EVERYONE, and never think for a moment that any powers government has will not be abused. Hell, the government will even abuse powers is doesn’t have.

      2. avatar RA-15 says:

        Dan and H both make good points.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          “that’s a good point too, skipper.”

      3. avatar Elaine D says:

        What H said.

        Not everything is a mental illness problem. I say this as a mental health professional. Some people are just mean, violent jerks who don’t respect others and never will. With a gun or without a gun, these are the people you don’t want living next to you, your kids, or your grandkids. These are the people you don’t want dating your daughter. These are the people you don’t want to see hanging around your house or your school. Mental health can help people who want to change. Not everyone wants to change, and you can see through a person’s actions whether they want to change or not.

        People who stalk and grab others repeatedly have demonstrated that they have no respect for the boundaries of others.

        The frustration I feel about the way this keeps happening and not knowing exactly where the problem is – it seems to be an enforcement problem for the most part – makes me long for the old old days I keep hearing about down here in Texas where if you were a vile jerk, they’d just tie or chain you to a tree in the town square and leave you there until the Texas Rangers showed up to sort you out. Which could take weeks.

        (I’m assuming the townsfolk would take away your guns as well.)

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The frustration I feel about the way this keeps happening and not knowing exactly where the problem is – it seems to be an enforcement problem for the most part – makes me long for the old old days I keep hearing about down here in Texas where if you were a vile jerk, they’d just tie or chain you to a tree in the town square and leave you there until the Texas Rangers showed up to sort you out.”

          So now we don’t excuse all behavior? Your profession is built upon the premise that it is inexcusable to force values onto others. That everyone is the same, only different. That what is unacceptable behavior for one part of society is acceptable in another, and cannot be judged deficient. We are living the life that your profession (starting with Dr. Spock) foisted on the rest of us through the idea that permissiveness is the best means of organizing a society.

          As to tying someone to a tree due to their bad behavior, your professions and their sycophants decided long ago that shame, ridicule, and public punishment are barbaric, not to be tolerated. Fact is, your profession (and it acolytes and hangers-on) believe humans are perfectible, that the nature of humans is benevolent, kind, sympathetic, empathetic, gracious and basically “good”. That “bad” behavior is created by “bad”, restrictive, coercive society (as in one that punished “bad” behavior).

          And no, it is not an enforcement problem. The problem is the mindset that believes that compassion heals all minds, and relieves all suffering. The “everyone deserves a second chance” is just oatmeal for the brain. But it a central part of tolerating everything, and condemning nothing. Enforcing law required making judgements; anathema to your profession and the social justice movement. You reap what you sow.

          There is an old bromide about the difference between liberals and conservatives: Three conservatives come upon a battered victim of a beating on a public street. While tending to the wounds, one says to the other, “We gotta call the cops and find the attacker – get them arrested before they can harm someone else.” On the other hand, liberals (and your profession) look at the victim and tell one another, “This is terrible. Someone must be in need of serious counseling and therapy if they would do this. We gotta find the attacker and get him/her into a program to change this sort of behavior.”

        2. avatar Loving It says:

          @ Sam I Am

          If your gonna talk to her that much, you should at least have the decency to pay her by the hour. You do realize the Irony that your verbose comments and overall participation on this forum ( but especially to her) is just a form of self talk therapy right? Granted a largely counter productive form, but a form none the less. Just below the surface you would like to talking to a counselor. That’s overall what forum and comment section participation is. I think you know that though. I’m pretty sure your a parody, but I can’t quite tell yet. either way good stuff, digging it.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanks, but your counseling is worth precisely what I paid for it.

          If you are content to give a pass to political (and mental health) drivel, fine; go with it. Don’t expect to be treated with kid gloves.

          I have no objection to Elaine being a shooter, gun owner or being new to the blog. I just refuse to accept that a “liberal” with a gun is POTG, ever will be. I do object to the idea that Elaine has a unique perspective on the politics of gun ownership (I could be wrong, but she refused to identify what that perspective is, and generally ignores pointed questions about the self-conflicting position that one can be a 2A supporter, but align with a political party determined to wipe out, via legislation, our natural right to own firearmes.

        4. avatar Kahlil says:

          @sam
          I am also employed in the mental health field. I have never once said we should give up the victim to care for the perp, which is what you implied that those in our profession do. The proper response to your “bromide” would be let’s care for the victim and then find and hold the perp accountable. Accountability could mean many things can involve incarceration along with treatment, but you never ignore the action/crime.

          In my work with teens I have no qualms about encouraging the family to involve courts or press charges when a kid is out of control and I also have no issue involving our local court service unit for situation where a child is running amok and not being held accountable.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I appreciate your response. What is puzzling is how your peers permit you to remain in the field. Life is supposed to have no consequences because we are special and unique. We are not responsible for anything because we are victims. All behavior accepted and explained as self-actualizing, perhaps needing guidance and a sympathetic ear. There is no evil, only misjudgement.

          As noted earlier, I had three psychiatrists at a financial planning conference tell me all behavior can be explained as some sort of mental disorder needing treatment.

        6. avatar A Man of God says:

          This I say to you because I know what I talk about been there and done that. I have seen more than a person should. I know you are thinking he has P.T.S.D and you are right. Two combat missions and 27 years as a Law Enforcement officer. But the V.A tried to help but the only thing that got me on course again was The Lord Jesus Christ he came in 1995 and it was all supernatural I was liven alone and divorced. But I had always played music to make extra money in all the jobs that was my escape. But I was not a believer I thought maybe something was their. Jesus knew this and He reached down and touched me. The demons came out of my wall that night and jumped on top of me. I remember what my Grandmother said call the Lord Name three times. I did and it was gone. Jesus opened up a dark door that I could see the demons for a year he knew I was a fighter and to me it was just another fight. I was called one even and they asked me if I could come to Montanan to a Kids Christian camp to help them to set up camps the right way. They found me on the internet by looking up retired law enforcement and they found me because I, in my last 6 years I was a Juvenile investigator. I was respected in the field. I had a lot of Cases and put a lot of people in jail in the State of Ga. because of the Kids. I said OK so I went in may for the summer. I bought a camper on the way up, then shot on up. When I arrived I was the only one on the property the kids and staff would be in a week. I hooked up the camper and it was so beautiful the stars were out never seen it that way. But I was so happy I had forgot what was happening to me. That night I had a panic attack one of my problems with the P.T.S.D. I drove around all night then went to bed that morning. The second night it happened again I did the same. But I could feel it coming the third night and the Holy Spirit told me to anoint myself and the inside of the camper. I did when I got to the last wall I anointed it I said In The name of The Name of Father The Son and The Holy Spirit this black shadow came over my head and shoulder and out the wall. Then the Holy Spirit told me to get in the Word of God and learn how to fight them the right. wow. I think this was all done to show what we contend with ever day. He let me see them and fight them so I would never leave him. This was a hard teaching but like now I will tell my meeting with Jesus I have seen things that are from the dark side people would not believe ever day. I know what I have seen and it can’t be taken away from me. I still see them from time to time and I got my battle plan together. All I can is The Lord Jesus is with us and He will come I am trying to get to as many people my story as I can. The Lord tells me some times a person is in need in Wal-Mart check out line so in the name of Jesus I help them and I know it came from Him because the person and cashier praises Him to. God bless all He will come soon. I am a drafted 1969 V/N and Korean DMZ Veteran, and 27 years retired in law enforcement. I have been around. My statement is if you do the crime you do the TIME. So why do we have laws if we are not going to enforce them. We as a Country are decaying because let’s look back on a little time. A President I need not call names opened up the Government we have and was set up by our Four Fathers. Under the name of God The Father The Son Jesus and The Holy Spirit. We are even kicking them out of the Country. This Country is on the way because we have Muslims already in the House and someone let 30 or more ISIS Camps are already in Country I need not call that name again. They are not here to pat us on the back and tell us we are such good Americans. The end time are here hope you get it right. The veterans are 33 million in Country don’t think we will stand by and let them take over.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It takes some courage to layout a testimony like that, in a forum like this.

          Here is something from someone who knew nothing about the purpose of our constitution:
          “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
          – – John Adams (you know, THAT John Adams)

    4. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      That’s assault brotha. Fvck yeah you should be prosecuted as violent offender for assaulting someone sexually. Especially if you do it 4 or more times and didn’t say “good game” a single one.

    5. avatar Huntmaser says:

      Maybe the women should have shot him….

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        Don’t count on it.

        Women ‘in love’ with dirtbags have been known to put up with nearly _everything_ a dirtbag can and will dish out…

    6. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      That’s the schizophrenic nature of TTAG: after the shooting spree, they want to go back in time and throw the book at someone for whatever offense they committed beforehand that would have disqualified them from possessing a firearm. Beforehand, however, before anyone actually does commit any such spree shooting, both TTAG and the POTG shriek and wail in high dudgeon at the mere thought of anyone’s gun rights being infringed.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        So much fail here. What pablum.

        First, for those with adult reading comprehension skills, it is obvious that postings you disdain are examples of failure of the government promise that the public has no need to protect itself; that failures of government that result in the death of innocents are just the price of living in a “free” society.

        Second, the failed government, which proves it cannot protect its citizens has no moral or other authority under our constitution to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone because of what “might happen” (and it is strange that such pre-crime thinking by officials seems to be heavily focused on guns, rather than any other tool of crime – or maybe not so strange).

        TTAG is amazingly consistent, while presenting a variety of viewpoints.

        1. avatar Loving it says:

          Love what you’re doing here. Good stuff! You’ve got the logic and word jumble of the 70 something year olds mixed with the buzz words and trite phraseology of the 30 something bachelor man children. Loving it.

  3. I don’t know what the exercise of this is articles about… But if it’s to suggest that it will show the Liberals and their agenda the of the error of THEIR ways… I’d say Not even close… this will just help the liberal agenda ramp-up it’s attempt to Stranglehold and regulate the Second Amendment out of existence… It will be back to the good old days of the monarchy… Where only the rich, the privileged, the king and the Knights of the realm we’re the only ones able to keep and bear arms for their own defense… That’s what the Liberals have in store for us… By the time THEIR it done with the second… They’ll be already working on all the other ones that pertain to the people… Guaranteed THEY will be amending a lot of them…

  4. avatar Aven says:

    I don’t think the dropped charges would have been felonies so if they were prosecuted, it would not have prevented him from buying a gun legally.

    1. avatar Mr Lizard says:

      Yes but like they said above, it should have led to long stretches on probation. Especially after the 4 charge. Misdemeanor probation ‘should’ have prevented him from buying. Granted he could have waited until right after he got off and done the same thing, then we would just be talking about this next year instead.

      Anyways misdemeanor probation is usually given out like candy, cuz the state makes money off the deal (the offender has to pay a monthly fee). And they get to keep at least a loose leash on some knucklehead*

      *i understand there’s plenty of vagrants that blow off their probation, but it doesn’t get them off the prohibited list.

  5. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    More background checks won’t help if indicators don’t get into someone’s background.

    We keep having “known wolf” incidents – or w this guy, “known yipping pocket-dog with issues” – if we’d bothered to know what we already know … and can know plenty after some tragedy.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You sound like you are inching your way toward prior restraint, which is a living horror story. If he had not earned a prohibition on firearms ownership, now he has. If you want protection from someone who has never been convicted of a felony, then buy and carry a GUN! Pretty simple!

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Naaah. Just noting that checking to prior-restrain for more things won’t even work, if we can’t restrain for the things we’re already checking for.

        In practice, bureaucratic prior restraint is a poor approach: it inconveniences everybody, gets selectively enforced, and misses bunches of the folks you’re trying restrain. Then there’s the affront against rights, ethics and approaches to law, but who’s counting.

  6. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    A repeat offender, recent charges dropped. We still allowed this piece of dreck to buy a handgun.
    Even I at this point. I have to believe ones rights vs their past has to come into consideration during the NICs check.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      I hear you Jay In Fla, but…Grabbing someone by the ass (not convicted by the way) negates rights??? That’s not how rights work. Even bad guys have a right to self defense (actions or tools). Not liking someone’s speech (gun grabbers) does not negate their right to speak. Not liking someone’s political affiliation (demtards) does not negate their right of choice. Nothing in the above article comes even close to justifying a loss of rights other than temporary detention. And how about NCIS checks? Does “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed…” ring a bell?

      1. avatar Jason says:

        It doesn’t matter what you think about NCiS checks. Like many other gun owners, you agree these rights shall/may be infringed when you purchase a firearm in a gun store, or when you get you license/permit if your state requires one. If you buy any NFA item, file the documents and send the check, then again you agree that under some circumstances your right to bear arm may be infringed.

        1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          Your both right it doesn’t matter during a NICs check. We shouldn’t have a NICs check. We do. At some point some ones proclivities towards what some consider deviate behavior should be addressed. Because the laws on the books aren’t enforced and a lot of people go scott free or have charges reduced. They in turn slip through the checks that shouldn’t be there to purchase a handgun. They are there. I believe in enforcing the law when its deviant behavior. I don’t care in how minor it is. That might just be me though. Id like to think not. More so when its repeated over a period of time. Grabbing a womens butt while may not seem much to some of you. If it were your wife’s or girlfriends butt being grabbed you would feel different and Im sure would act on it if you were there at the time.

        2. avatar Baldwin says:

          Jason…I agree only in the context of complying with a regulation that would otherwise prevent me from legally purchasing a firearm. I do NOT agree with the pretext that NCIS prevents crime or that it is not an infringement on my RTKBA.

        3. avatar Baldwin says:

          Jay in Fla…Grabbing someone’s butt has NOTHING to do with RTKABA.

  7. avatar Cletus Bigsby says:

    But but but shall not be infringed, ever, period! I want to drive without a DL, everyone should be able to buy firearms without any kind of background check. That’s what the Founding Fathers wanted. Also, cops should be disarmed.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Spot on! You go, guy!

  8. avatar Bunny Keane says:

    Let’s see, do I think someone should have their guns rights stripped for four separate occasions of Misdemeanor sexual battery?

    Yes, absolutely. While there is clearly an inherent flaw with taking away gun rights for single incident domestic battery that uses any level of unwanted touching as a criteria, this is not that whatsoever. Anyone who is trying to equate these two is being intellectually dishonest at best.

    Many states do not allow people to own firearms while on probation or for misdemeanor sex offenses. It’s completely plausible he would have been prohibited from legal purchase if he fit into either category, although I have not looked up Florida’s penal code in this case.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    A serial ass-grabber turns into a multiple murderer? Hey, I’m appalled that people have been murdered by that POS, I’m glad that said POS is dead, but let’s be honest — nobody could see this coming.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Not quite correct. The guy next to him when he pulled out a gun could have seen it coming, and could have stopped him, if he was armed.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      A serial ass grabber or breaker of society’s norms has a problem. After going through the arrest, fingerprinting, the stern talking to by the police or judge a first or second time shows that the offender has no self control. Someone like that has no business with firearms unless he is trying to help himself to stop said offenses. Not allowing him/her to purchase firearms for a set period of time(until he/she got their head straight) might be a good idea.

      Making the good people that do not have history like this jump through hoops just to purchase a firearm is not a good idea, but this is the agenda.

      When I was a serial(every day) drinker, I supported people’s rights to owning and carrying firearms, but I knew that I was not in control, so I did not own or carry firearms. That was my choice and I wish others would also make the choice if they can not handle their tempers.

      More laws will not help, but teaching personal responsibility could help.

      1. avatar Elaine D says:

        @RT66

        If only it were so easy.

        Character is pretty well cemented in place by the time you are 25. Anyone over the age of 25 exhibiting antisocial behavior isn’t likely to change because the window of time for them to develop empathy and respect for social norms has pretty much passed.

        College campuses are terrible at coordinating data with law enforcement outside the university to track stuff like this. They’re afraid of being sued if something happens to a student so they often fail to share information with local police, leading to a broken trail of incidents. Campuses, churches, concerts and clubs are magnets for all kinds of predators. Always have been. Always will be.

        Some people don’t have any sense of personal responsibility and never will.
        The Inuits used to just take them fishing and push them into an ice hole…so I’m told.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          they don’t push them. i saw a documentary.
          they kick them in the icehole.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      Ralph, off topic but quick glance at the current threads at NES tells exactly why gun rights are disappearing without a whimper in Massachusetts. They’re allowed by the moderators to talk about Halloween, Felines, pickup trucks, faded license plates, leasing cars, and maybe a few posts about reloading. What a joke. God Forbid they actually discuss anything “controversial” or politically relevant.

  10. avatar Robb says:

    None of those charges would have prevented him from purchasing a firearm. They weren’t domestic battery charges.

  11. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    “No comment yet on why the city’s criminal justice system failed to fully prosecute the shooter at least four times.”

    So? And then what?

    The fact is that in cases like this shooter, deferred adjudication is a common sentence. Basically, don’t screw up for the next, say, six months, by doing anything worth getting prosecuted for, and we’ll drop the original charges against you.

    In the trespassing case, being issued a trespass warning is equally common. A public college campus is open to the public, after all. What justifies a trespass warning is if you’re on campus for no articulated reasons and you’re acting suspicious. You get escorted off campus and issued a warning. You don’t get tossed in jail and stripped of your gun rights. In the other cases, for all you know, the ladies declined to press charges and the case was dropped; also a very common occurrence.

    Regardless, what would you expect to happen even if he had been thrown in jail? These aren’t life sentence offenses, you know. He’d still get out in a few months and he’d still be a murderous misogynist.

  12. avatar Loving it says:

    Am I too late to be the first? Has anyone victim blamed yet? Anyone? I’ll give it a go, why not. Why weren’t these women carrying guns while practicing hot yoga? When will the sheeple ever learn it’s irresponsibly naïve to not be carrying a gun while practicing hot yoga. There ya go ,now we’ve got a real TTAG comment section.

  13. avatar Elaine D says:

    Something I’ve certainly been noticing in all of the recent cases is that the perpetrators posted violent racist or misogynistic content online repeatedly. This seems to be a strong indicator that someone is in the category of “person that should be talked to and checked for illegal guns.” It’s a common theme, and the fact that the social media platforms that these folks use often react only by shutting off the account and not reporting to law enforcement is a huge part of the problem.

    Personally I think that if you’re going to post vile shit online, you need to stand by it and expect a visit from someone if you do it often enough. If you keep on doing it after a visit or two, maybe you need to be prevented from purchasing firearms until you’ve been screened for empathy and the ability to follow social norms.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Someone should visit and talk to people like the perpetrator? On what grounds? Might, maybe, coulda, shudda, wudda? Thought police? Pre-crime detention? How is it any different from being allowed to call 911 and claim “Joe Schmuckenheimer made fun of me, and he has a gun; I feel threatened”? Are we happy to see Joe served with a TRO, and relieved of his firearms?

      The world is a dangerous place. Pretending it can be made safe with enough laws and enough counseling deprives people of their natural instinct for survival, weakening them mentally. Just like safety nets for being a layabout robs people of the dignity of being whole persons, responsible and capable of managing their own affairs.

      1. avatar Elaine D says:

        The difference, Sam, is that when people post violent content online, they’re doing it THEMSELVES. Their name is on it. Their face is on it. Their words and picture are on it. It’s no case of “word vs. word.” They wrote it; so if it’s all about free speech, they need to be ready to take the consequences of it, the same way you’re free to write online about wanting to molest a kid – and you can fully expect consequences to follow from doing so. Personal Responsibility.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” They wrote it; so if it’s all about free speech, they need to be ready to take the consequences of it”

          OMG, you did it. You actually put out your leftist politics, loud and clear. Consequences of writing something? Hate speech much?

          People are free to write anything they want, unless they cross an unconstitutional line. A visit by the gendarmes for talking about fantasies? Police at your door because you write that all (whatevers) should be burned at the stake? A direct, pointed and unmistakable threat is one thing, but wild ravings are something else.

          Just to be crude, what if I write that “Ms. Really Hot is someone I would like to take liberties with, given half a chance”. What law does that violate? If I write, “Dear Ms. Really Hot, I will be following you everywhere you go because, HOT!”, it that actionable (probably, because it is an identifiable, direct threat to a single person. Making direct threats is illegal in almost any venue. But general statements are not.

          If a person crosses the line into direct threats, that person should not be visited for conversation, but to be arrested. If a person has not committed a crime, police have no authority to drop by and harass people. I would demand a warrant and an attorney, or even refuse to open the door.

          In your world, anything insulting can be considered hate speech (and I am surprised you haven’t made that claim here – considering some of the responses you get), justifying a “visit” by police. That my friend is tyranny, plain and simple. That is where YOUR party is in headlong pursuit.

          BTW, grabbing a person uninvited is trespass at least, and assault at worst (which it was in Texas in 1985). Law violated, send in the cops. Offended by something said/written, find the smelling salts.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Sam, you falling for chickbait again?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Nah. I’ve made it my mission to not let gun-grabbers (no matter the disguise) post in peace.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          @Sam, Wise decision. I’ve taken a lot of heat on this gun forum for rebutting phony Constitutionalists(always disguised as 2A supporting gun owners) who post liberty stealing nonsense.

    2. avatar L says:

      “People who have different views from me and express those views should have their rights taken away”

      Yeah, no.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        There ya’ go.

  14. avatar mark1955 says:

    Another FBI STAGED ( where no one actually got hurt ) Friday False Flag!

    Prove that it happened FBI?…Where are the videos!!!

    The fact that No one here questions actually questions whether these more than “convenient” mass “shootings” actually happened is appalling!…Where the bleep are the HD, time stamped, start to finish videos FBI?

    After the RIGGED elections, where the votes have already been counted showing the democrats “Win” in a landslide, what do you lemmings think, the number one concern of American citizens, in the equally rigged exit polling will Lyingly show…GUN Control!

  15. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The bottom line is the government is not there to protect you in any way.

  16. avatar L says:

    “Early Saturday morning, the Tallahassee Police Department identified the shooter as…”

    No. No! NO!! Stop doing this.

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