Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide

SC Church Shooting


planeflyer21

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

   If someone or one of his supposedly friends ,would have said something to LE about his desire to shoot people , maybe they could have Baker acted him & got a Psych. exam . Not sure what they call a LE or Dr's. forced admission to a Hospitals Psych. ward in other States , but here in Florida its called a Baker act admission . Its controversial , because it can have the possibility of abuse ,but it may have saved someone or maybe get the help this creep needed.

Edited by survivalshop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you start getting into "thought crime" territory. I know there is a big difference between someone saying "I'd love to...." and "I'm going to...." but it does open us to the possibility of pretty serious abuse as you said. Takes a lot of trust in the system to agree with that, and I'm lacking that trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you start getting into "thought crime" territory. I know there is a big difference between someone saying "I'd love to...." and "I'm going to...." but it does open us to the possibility of pretty serious abuse as you said. Takes a lot of trust in the system to agree with that, and I'm lacking that trust.

It already happens. It is a 72 hour evaluation. All states have the mechanism in one form or another. While I see the concern over thought crime and abuses, there is a distinction between thought crime and someone who is having a psychiatric episode, a severely altered state of reality or mental disturbance. As far as abuse by the state, that is why the 72 hour limitation is placed on the evaluation. Sometimes the involuntary evaluation is the only solution since the individual is expressing the desire to hurt themselves or someone else, but there is no crime that has been committed.

It should be noted that hospitals and family members seek and obtain these involuntary evaluations at an exponentially higher rate than Law Enforcement.

Edited by StainTrain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of difference between "I'm going to shoot a bunch of black folks minding their own business," and "Our government officials not following the Constitution need to be tried for treason and hanged by the neck until dead," and "People should be afforded a means to work their way off welfare/government assistance and become a valued, contributing member of society."

 

Sadly, the last one is most likely to get you labeled as a "right-wing extremist lone wolf terrorist" by TPTB these days.

 

The middle one not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all that video successfully did ws show that a child actor went on to become a Marine, and was in aviation training at some point...  That bull$hit couldn't even link the child actor to the fuckhead that shot up the church...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all that video successfully did ws show that a child actor went on to become a Marine, and was in aviation training at some point...  That bull$hit couldn't even link the child actor to the fuckhead that shot up the church...

 

  They sure were stuck on that actors accomplishments , I feel sorry for him , where ever he is , after that video, set him up good !  Maybe they want a hit on him <laughs>  , because he was a bad actor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW ... This received today from the Texas State Rifle Association regarding carrying weapons in church in Texas;

 

 

 

"Handgun Licensees in Texas Churches 
Yes, We can carry in Church!

 

In 1995 when CHL law passed, Penal Code 46.035, Unlawful Carrying of Handgun By License Holder, prohibited license holders from carrying in church. 
 

( B)(4) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

 

In 1997, the Legislature added line (i) to PC 46.035 which reversed the prohibition on churches and certain other locations such as "governmental meetings".

 

Subsection (i) reads: 

(i)Subsections ( B)(4), ( B)(5), ( B)(6) and © do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

 

This allowed churches to be treated as they are, as private property. A church has been able to post PC 30.06 since 1997 .

Effective notice
 could also mean that a person in authority representing the church asked the licensee to leave. The net result is Texans have had access to this important form of personal protection in church for over a decade. 

The last attempt to prohibit licensees from carrying in church was during the 1999 Legislative session. 

Pastor Willard Rother, a Lutheran minister, testified against the bill saying the peace of God was not disturbed by law-abiding citizens exercising their right to personal protection. He also told the committee that he did not need help from the State of Texas with managing his church or his congregation. 

 

The measure to reinstate the prohibition never received  a committee vote and that was that. 

 

Most Texas licensees enjoy the right to carry including the opportunity to carry at church if they chose.  Again, this has been possible for over a decade."

 

 

 

Again ... this is from an e-mail I received this date from the Texas State Rifle Association.

Edited by GRA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

CONVICTED.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/15/dylann-roof-convicted-in-charleston-church-massacre.html

Dylann Roof convicted in Charleston church massacre

A jury in South Carolina Thursday convicted Dylann Roof in the shootings that killed nine black church members during a Bible study in Charleston last year, a verdict that could lead to a death sentence for the self-avowed white supremacist.

The jury of nine white people and three black people deliberated less than two hours before returning a verdict, finding him guilty on all counts against him. Roof, 22, faced 33 federal charges, including hate crimes and obstruction of the practice of religion.

Roof just stared ahead as the verdict was read, much as he has throughout the trial. Victims's relatives held hands and squeezed one another's arms. One woman nodded her head every time the clerk said "guilty."

The same jury is set to return Jan. 3 to consider whether Roof should be sentenced to die for the June 2015 attack at Emanuel AME Church. He is slated to face another death penalty trial in state court early next year.

Minutes after the verdict was read, Roof told U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel he wanted to represent himself during the penalty phase.

He said at the start of the trial that he wanted attorneys in the guilt phase, but not in the penalty phase. His lawyers said in a court filing they feared he wanted to avoid embarrassing testimony that the defense might have presented to try to get a jury to spare his life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...