Murdered journalist's father is anti-gun zealot.

shootbrownelk

The father of the murdered journalist vows to get "reasonable & common sense" gun laws passed. I'll just bet O'bummer wet himself when he heard about the father's rant in an interview. I'm sorry for his loss, but it was a mentally ill person who killed his daughter, not a gun. If the madman had used a car to run her over, would he want Buicks banned. He's vowed to take on the NRA as well. His grief and anger are misplaced.

NN

I saw the interview on TV and have seen what the TV reporters say he said.

The take on guns I heard him say was not gun control, but, was better control of keeping the guns out of the hands on people with mental illness.

Each report that references his statement starts out with the father is against guns because it is sensational not true.

Big Chief

He is striking out at what he can after losing his daughter................wrongfully when he said "Loopholes" skirting background checks need to be closed. Killers Glocks (he had 2) were bought legally after he passed a background check.

Yep, gun grabbers see their chance now and have a grieving poster dad to exploit. Lets face it, what the hard core gun grabbers want is NO guns of any kind owned by any citizen for any reason and they keep shamelessly chipping away at our 2nd A in any way they can. Even if they get laws passed that had nothing to with or would have prevented the killings they rant about.

They claim these "Common Sense" gun laws are wanted by most Americans...........they lie, as usual.

You wait Obammy will have the poor father in the WH surrounded by butt kissing police chiefs or ones who were forced to go showing support for whatever scheme he will try and shame Congress to pass into law.

KSU Firefighter

For it or against gun control, common sense or otherwise, does not change the fact that the killer's gun was purchased going through a background check. Geraldo was on spouting the same old drivel about "universal background checks". :roll: Wouldn't have changed the fact that the killer was crazy.

coolgunguy

I'm guessing he was anti-gun before this tragedy and the pain of the incident just fortifies his beliefs. I won't question his zeal, God knows how I'd react under that pain.

DoctorWho

Funny how after all the Brady bill Hoo Hah, and the anti gun folks don't understand that we now have comprehensive background checks for gun sales and permits, and that Interstate handgun sales could now be possible now that we have full background checks in place.

Big Chief

Geraldo is on the 5 spouting the same nonsense. Munchkin Greg Gutfeld said (more or less) let Obammy and others who have security details protecting their precious butts go around like the rest of us who have to protect ourselves and see how they then feel about gun control.

Gene L

I think I heard him say he owned guns and was a hunter. He's reacting to the death of his daughter in the only way he knows to strike out at low-hanging fruit.

The problem is no law or no proposed law could have kept the gun out of the hands of the shooter. I don't think the father has a political agenda, I think he's just pissed. All "common-sense" safeguards were in place and acting. The guy was crazy and had a system of values that were divorced from reality.

A good video either on Youtube or Netflix is "The Virgin Killer." A rich white kid filmed himself in detail and his thoughts before killing several people because he couldn't get laid. In the only other interaction he filmed, a woman at a park, he seemed quite normal. It was his fault he couldn't get a girlfriend; he was a nice-looking kid but devoid of personality. And very cold. But he blamed the world instead of himself.

JerryBobCo

Every time something like this happens I hear the "mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to own guns" mantra. That may be well and good, but no one knows how to identify the mentally ill until they go off the rails and do something like this. There are cases where someone is adjudicated as mentally unfit, and that's public record. Those people should not pass a background check until/unless they can demonstrate to the court that they are ok.

But, the majority of loons who buy guns do so legally, and I can't think of a way to prevent it short of denying everyone. Needless to say, I'm against that.

snake284

I don't blame the guy, but we need to stand strong. We can't let emotions rule over the Constitution. If there is a way to do something to prevent crazies from getting guns without taking rights away from sane, law abiding citizens, I'm all for it. But we already have background checks. If there could be a registry of people who have mental issues that are believed to be capable of doing something like this, that would be great. Then when they do the background check they would be flagged and not eligible to purchase a firearm. The only problem the government would use such a list to block law abiding citizens from buying firearms. People in grief like this father are at the point they don't give a damn about our rights. They just want results. All the laws in the world won't bring his daughter back. The left dreams of scenarios like this so they can make some kind of law where they can eventually outlaw firearms altogether. That's the lefts ultimate goal, and they will use any situation to get there.

snake284

Big Chief wrote: »

Geraldo is on the 5 spouting the same nonsense. Munchkin Greg Gutfeld said (more or less) let Obammy and others who have security details protecting their precious butts go around like the rest of us who have to protect ourselves and see how they then feel about gun control.

HaHaHaHaHa!!! I love Greg Gutfeld, but where the hell did he get that name?????_____:roll2:

Yeah I saw Jeraldo's Rant a while ago. I kinda like Jeraldo, but he's got too much sleezeball Lawyer in him.

snake284

JerryBobCo wrote: »

Every time something like this happens I hear the "mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to own guns" mantra. That may be well and good, but no one knows how to identify the mentally ill until they go off the rails and do something like this. There are cases where someone is adjudicated as mentally unfit, and that's public record. Those people should not pass a background check until/unless they can demonstrate to the court that they are ok.

But, the majority of loons who buy guns do so legally, and I can't think of a way to prevent it short of denying everyone. Needless to say, I'm against that.

I agree. That's why I've said before, The constitution should rule. It's just a fact of life that there's always going to be crazies out there and there will be some incidents like this, ours is not a perfect world. You can't legislate something like this 100% without violating some people's rights given by the Constitution. And violating our rights should NOT be an option. When people go to vote, this should be foremost in their mind. That this is not a perfect world, but it's a lot more perfect with the Constitution in tact. And they should vote for people that will keep it like that.

Gene L

Crazy people shouldn't have guns, wife beaters shouldn't have wives, drunks shouldn't have drivers licenses. But they do and they always will. It's the price of living in a democracy.

breamfisher

Probably the only way for mentally ill to be kept from owning guns will violate doctor/patient confidentiality. Something I'm not sure the courts can do.

Gene L

Doctors don't enjoy a formally recognized confidentiality with patients. That's a myth perpetuated by TV and the AMA. They can be compelled to testify or go to jail for contempt if they don't. Nor do reporters and their sources, and they not infrequently go to jail for not revealing their sources. (There has to be a crime involved.) The only federally recognized confidentiality is between a lawyer and a client and between spouses. State laws may vary but generally do not.

No priest confidentiality, either, although priests are never imprisoned for contempt for not testifying. Had a case down here back when where a mental patient killed a girl. He'd told his mental health worker he wanted to. She didn't report it, was required not to do so by the terms of her employment, and when told that, she went out and bought a handgun. She was subpoenaed and testified to what he told her. She received some peer pressure, but made a great witness.

knitepoet

Gene L wrote: »

Doctors don't enjoy a formally recognized confidentiality with patients.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT
WRONG ANSWER :nono:

HIPPA allows for fines upwards of $100 for EACH violation of a patient's personally identifiable information.

Protected Health Information.
The Privacy Rule protects all " individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)" “Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:
•the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
•the provision of health care to the individual, or
•the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe can be used to identify the individual.
Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number)

from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf pages 3 & 4

knitepoet

Civil Money Penalties.
HHS may impose civil money penalties on a covered entity
of $100 per failure to comply with a Privacy Rule requirement.

That penalty may
not exceed $25,000 per year for multiple violations of the identical Privacy Rule
requirement in a calendar year. HHS may not impose a civil money penalty under
specific circumstances, such as when a violation is due to reasonable cause and did
not involve willful neglect and the covered entity corrected the violation within 30
days of when it knew or should have known of the violation.

from page 17 of the same link in my previous post

Gene L

I don't see where that privacy is recognized in court and where a crime is committed. Only, I assume, from employers, etc. or where a crime has NOT been committed. Which was my point. The privacy rule is not absolute. While they may not voluntarily give information, they are not protected from subpoenas. Nor are, as I said, reporters.

snake284

knitepoet wrote: »

from page 17 of the same link in my previous post

Don't believe everything you read. There's even conditions Attorney-Client confidentiality can be violated. For instance if someone's life may be endangered.

If I had access to Lexis Nexis like I did when I was in School, i could do some searchs and find some cases.

If a client killed someone and told his lawyer after the fact, the lawyer is bound by that confidentiality rule. But if the client discloses he plans on killing somebody else (in the future), the lawyer has a duty to report it. I believe that holds with doctors too. Or if the doctor suspects he/she might the doctor should do what's necessary to prevent further crime from being committed. If the doctor or lawyer doesn't then they are an accessory to the crime.

TrueTone911

A young man on my staff was diagnosed as depressed many years ago and took medication for depression. Hasn't been on medication for years. He was denied when he tried to purchase an AR lower a couple years ago.

If he had never sought treatment, would he still be "unstable"...and own firearms?

Many years ago, long before I became a gun owner, I saw 6 different doctors looking for the source of my chronic pain. From the very beginning, they suggested the pain could be a result of depression and wanted to prescribe medication. All 6 doctors over the course of 3 years tried to go down the same path. I absolutely would not let them prescribe anti-depressants or pain killers. Because I knew I was not depressed and wanted them to find the source of the pain.

Well they never found the source of the pain, told me I had Fibromyalgia and there was nothing they could do for me except prescribe pain killers. Since I'm not a pill popper, I turned them all down and decided to live with the pain.

Fast forward to a couple years ago when purchased my first gun. What if I took the easy route and let the docs diagnose me as depressed and took the pills. Would I have been denied had I taken the pills all those years ago? Happened to that young man on my staff.

How to keep firearms out of the hands of those too unstable to be trusted with them is a problem for which there may be no answer. Gene may be right.

breamfisher

Gene L wrote: »

Doctors don't enjoy a formally recognized confidentiality with patients. That's a myth perpetuated by TV and the AMA. They can be compelled to testify or go to jail for contempt if they don't. Nor do reporters and their sources, and they not infrequently go to jail for not revealing their sources. (There has to be a crime involved.) The only federally recognized confidentiality is between a lawyer and a client and between spouses. State laws may vary but generally do not.

No priest confidentiality, either, although priests are never imprisoned for contempt for not testifying. Had a case down here back when where a mental patient killed a girl. He'd told his mental health worker he wanted to. She didn't report it, was required not to do so by the terms of her employment, and when told that, she went out and bought a handgun. She was subpoenaed and testified to what he told her. She received some peer pressure, but made a great witness.

Seems you're talking about testifying post-act. I'm referring to turning over medical records before an act occurs. Saying "it looks like this guy will pop" before he does so. I do believe that is privileged information right up to where said whack-a-doo voices intent.

tubabucknut

Gene you would be wrong. We had to Lawyer up last year, and the hospital shut up real quick, even with the state demanding info. Once it was conveyed to the hospital that we would consider any release of info a hippa violation, they told they state to pound sand. There is an absolute patient confidentiality.

N320AW

NN wrote: »

I saw the interview on TV and have seen what the TV reporters say he said.

The take on guns I heard him say was not gun control, but, was better control of keeping the guns out of the hands on people with mental illness.

Each report that references his statement starts out with the father is against guns because it is sensational not true.

Just watched his interview 5 minutes ago. You're exactly right.

Gene L

breamfisher wrote: »

Seems you're talking about testifying post-act. I'm referring to turning over medical records before an act occurs. Saying "it looks like this guy will pop" before he does so. I do believe that is privileged information right up to where said whack-a-doo voices intent.

Right. A shrink is compelled to report any statement of intent to commit a crime of violence. They will tell you this. There are certain professions which are mandated reporters of crimes of violence that have already occurred. Like doctors in ERs in cases of crimes against children. And IIRC, domestic violence. There are MANY exceptions and few confidences.

Tubabucknut, the standard answer to any request for medical records is to pound sand...until a lawyer subpoenas the records and testimony. And there are, as I said above, mandated reporters, which are protected and compelled by law. And this is true with almost any institution.

I don't know what you do, but I know what I used to do for more than 30 years. I don't suppose you'd want me telling you what you've been doing all your career is absolutely wrong based on a single personal incident.

breamfisher

And that was what I was getting at: the only possible way to get firearms out of the hands of crazy people would be to have their docs report them based on suspicion: something that would violate all sorts of confidentiality, standards, and ethical rules. I don't think that's going to happen.

tubabucknut

Gene I know what you did, and I know what my attorney does. At $400 an hour I think maybe he know just a little more than you. Just sayin.

Gene L

Asking a lawyer if you need a lawyer is like asking a gunstore if you need a gun. Part of the reason they make $400 an hour is convincing you that you need to pay them $400 an hour. I have NEVER had a lawyer keep me from arresting a criminal or convicting a felon after a case goes to court. It just doesn't happen. Lawyering up is as effective as putting a "No Guns" sign in your place of business.

tubabucknut

Gene L wrote: »

Asking a lawyer if you need a lawyer is like asking a gunstore if you need a gun. Part of the reason they make $400 an hour is convincing you that you need to pay them $400 an hour. I have NEVER had a lawyer keep me from arresting a criminal or convicting a felon after a case goes to court. It just doesn't happen. Lawyering up is as effective as putting a "No Guns" sign in your place of business.

I am impressed Gene. In 30 years you have a 100% conviction rate on your felony arrests. You should certainly have a medal or two.:roll2::worthy:
Now where is that shoveling manure smiley when you need it.

Buford

:popcorn::popcorn:

Linefinder

Gene L wrote: »

Crazy people shouldn't have guns, wife beaters shouldn't have wives, drunks shouldn't have drivers licenses. But they do and they always will. It's the price of living in a democracy.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

Mike

Gene L

tubabucknut wrote: »

I am impressed Gene. In 30 years you have a 100% conviction rate on your felony arrests. You should certainly have a medal or two.:roll2::worthy:
Now where is that shoveling manure smiley when you need it.

I see you're a fan of TV Crime/Trial programs. Perhaps this is why you hired a $400 an hour attorney. In reality, very few cases go to trial (mostly the felons plea) and a jury acquittal in my county is a very rare occurrence. This is because the evidence in almost all crimes is overwhelming. Take the Boston Bomber trial, for example. And those $400 per hour lawyers understand ten or twelve hours before a jury in which they're probably going to lose and probably not get paid for is not financially astute. They will go for the best deal they can get for their client.

The last trial I was involved in was a murder trial and we got a conviction. It was because of great LE work, almost all of it on our investigators. I had little to do with it except initially.

I can't remember ever losing a felony trial. Lost a misdemeanor trial and a DUI, but that's about it. But 99.5 or so of the cases I made didn't go to trial, the defendants plead out. A trial was a VERY rare thing. Hearings, yes. Trials, nah. You probably won't believe this, though I have no reason to lie.

IF a LEO loses more than a trial or two, it's either because he's incompetent or because the DA is. Or because there's a lack of evidence, like in the Casey Anthony trial or the jury has been nullified, like the OJ trial. It's not good for a DA's resume to lose a case, and they won't go for iffy cases unless there's public pressure, like the George Zimmerman case. Very poor chance of conviction. And he didn't get it. Had there been zero public pressure, that case would never have gone to court.

The second biggest case I ever made was against Richard Savage (google it) and I never testified in this case which went Federal and went through several Federal trials in other jurisdictionis. Because my charge was an attempted murder, it was lost in the jumble of higher crimes. He and Sean Trevor Dutre either died in prison or are serving life. Our arrest of Dutre started the ball rolling in far more serious crimes than the one in Athens, GA.