"There are no words.."
Well...how about a picture?
Posted on 12/25/2008 7:11:48 AM PST by mylife
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- At least three people were found dead after a man dressed as Santa Claus started shooting at a Christmas Eve party in suburban Los Angeles, police said Thursday. Bruce Jeffery Pardo is a "person of interest"
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I could understand freaking out in a situation like he might have been in, but no matter what, no matter how bad the hurt, you can't do a sick thing like this.
Because -- and you have to admit I'm right -- nothing is funnier than mass-slaughter.
It could have kept him from being allowed in to the party, cause the cops to be called sooner, stripped him of his weapon, caused him to have been locked up earlier at some point when he violated the order, could have caused her family to increase security—or it could not have prevented anything.
“I’ve always wished the perps of murder-suicides would do it in the reverse order.”
No kidding.
Bad Santa!
“You have to work in a hospital ER and OR to appreciate the fact that members of the knife and gun clubs perform their best on Christmas and New years Eve.”
Well, you don’t have to work in an ER to know this, but those who do (and my sister did and I have two good friends who still do) do see it firsthand. Other days for such bad acts are Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, with revenge and vengeance obviously being the motive. Some people just need to chill and get on with their lives.
He had to disguise himself in order to get close enough to the people he wanted to shoot.
"There are no words.."
Well...how about a picture?
Well, not necessarily. Some people carry all the time. The article doesn't mention the type of weapon. Could have been a handgun. But it also could have been a long gun, which would make your "premeditated" theory more credible.
California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) defines domestic violence as threatened or actual abuse from someone with whom you have had a close relationship.
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act is designed to protect you or your children under the age of 18 who live with you from actual or threatened violence, such as:
Under the DVPA, abuse can be physical, sexual, or verbal. It can include spoken and written abuse....
A Domestic Violence Restraining Order may:
If you and your abuser have children together, you may also ask the judge to grant additional things such as:
From the Huff Post article linked earlier:
"The gunman arrived at the party in Covina late Wednesday and immediately opened fire with a handgun, Buchanan said. Witnesses told police that the man took off the Santa suit and left the scene in street clothes.
Buchanan says three bodies were found after the fire was put out. He could not say how the fire started or how the three people died."
Restraining orders only affect those not likely to do something like this. For this type only countervailing force will do it. But both LA and NYC "discourage" law abiding women, and men, from being prepared to apply that.
Aren't DVROs routinely issued in many divorce cases these days even where no domestic violence has taken place?
“And I’d bet money that two of the three dead victims turn out to be his estranged wife and her new boyfriend.”
Her “not so new” boyfriend
Domestic Violence Victims Need Self-Defense
July 6, 2005
Wendy McElroy
iFeminists.com
...most anti-DV advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to DV. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.
When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, “Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day.”
In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers—always defined as men—to own weapons.
That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-DV and women’s groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.
The current mainstream of feminism—from which most anti-DV advocates proceed—is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.
In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending.
I’m a 2nd Amendment advocate, and I’m not sure whether restraining orders are a help, a hindrance or neutral. But there sure are a lot of women who know their lives are threatened, and I don’t fault the state for taking measures to protect them.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the first thing a woman is told by the divorce attorney is to get a restraining order on her husband just as a matter of course.
Which of course means that even if the guy hasn't done anything wrong (divorce could be because she found anew boyfriend and he decides to let her go rather than fight about it, etc.) suddenly he is served with a restraining order and can't go home, can't have access to guns, can't talk to her, etc.
Probably any time it looks like a guy is going to be going through a divorce, no matter how friendly she seems to be, step one probably should be for him to get an attorney ASAP and determine what steps to take to be ready to deal with this (I would assume get his own checking account, find a place to stay away from home if he needs to move out in a hurry, take needed personal belongings, etc.
These Domestic Violence laws do seem to give an awlful lot of power to the woman, just on her word alone. Unfortunately, typical of liberal do-good schemes, it gives a lot of power to a woman who is willing to lie in order to put the screws to her husband, but doesn't at all protect against someone who is really bent on violence.
And I'm just curious. I am in no way trying to infer that this guy might have had good reason for doing what he did or that all DVROs are unwarranted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.