Multiple people killed in Maryland newsroom shooting

[churchmouse]

The people who murder people are responisible for murdering people. People can be incited to violence, like, say, they say, someone chants, punch a Nazi, and then calls you a Nazi, and then someone punches you, or throws a bike lock at you.

If Trump said, someone should shoot reporters, I’d say he bears some responsibility for that. But just calling them names, no. Clearly this nutbal needed no incitement to do what he did. He’s just nuts. He’s nuts just like the Dallas cop shooter was nuts.

It seems that so many are twisting things around to point a blaming arrow at Trump regardless. Ignoring his accomplishments.

 

[KellyinAvon]

We've seen this too many times. If anything this is testament to restraining orders being not worth the cost of the paper they are printed on.

What would I do in a similar situation? The answer is still "I don't know." The article below shows that the concerns and fear aren't confined to the individuals, family members can be potential targets of people like (bag of **** murderer's name redacted). I'd like to say I'd push for every legal option available. "It could make things worse" makes it a hard decision when you have young nieces/nephews and elderly parents/in-laws.

Police investigated Capital Gazette shooting suspect (bag of **** murderer's name redacted) in 2013, but concluded he was no threat, while the newspaper didn’t want to pursue a legal case against him for fear of putting “a stick in a beehive," a police report released Friday said.

(bag of **** murderer's name redacted), 38, was investigated that year after a barrage of Twitter messages aimed at Gazette staff members. But the paper didn't want to press charges or seek a restraining order for fear of inflaming the situation, the 2013 police report says.


This week Tom Marquardt, the paper's retired former publisher, said he talked with the newspaper's attorneys about seeking a restraining order in 2013, but didn't because he and others thought it could provoke (bag of **** murderer's name redacted) into something worse.

"We decided to take the course of laying low," Marquardt said Friday.


The Laurel, Md., man had filed a defamation lawsuit against the paper in 2012 after it ran an article about him pleading guilty to harassing a woman who was his former high school classmate. A judge dismissed the case in 2014.
Afterward, (bag of **** murderer's name redacted) allegedly posted angry, profanity-laced tweets about the paper, its reporters and editors, often using the hashtag #CapDeathWatch.

(bag of **** murderer's name redacted) is also linked to a 2011 harassment case involving a former high school classmate, authorities said.


Brennan McCarthy, the lawyer who represented the former classmate, said (bag of **** murderer's name redacted)’ harassment of her was malicious and that it was the “worst case of harassment and stalking I have ever encountered in my career,” according to USA Today.


(bag of **** murderer's name redacted)’ alleged victim, who is not named in court documents, fled Maryland, with McCarthy adding, “I don’t think she had a choice. He’d have killed her.”

McCarthy told USA Today that he too became a target of (bag of **** murderer's name redacted)Â’ rage, as he began harassing the lawyerÂ’s sister and family. McCarthy constantly worried that (bag of **** murderer's name redacted) might come after one of his 19 nieces and nephews, the report said.

"The moment I heard there was a shooting at the Capital, I told my wife, 'That's (bag of **** murderer's name redacted),'" McCarthy told the USA Today. "It did not surprise me in the least. The only question was where he would stop by first: My house or their office."

Maryland suspect declared 'not a threat' in 2013 case; paper opted against charges: police | Fox News

 

[jamil]

Restraining orders aren’t without value. It gives the cops a reason to arrest and prosecute a person who’s harassing someone but isn’t breaking a law. But if someone is determined to kill you, then no. A restraining order is not going to stop that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Restraining orders aren’t without value. It gives the cops a reason to arrest and prosecute a person who’s harassing someone but isn’t breaking a law. But if someone is determined to kill you, then no. A restraining order is not going to stop that.

Restraining orders and NCO certainly have their value. Some people push their luck, trying to be clever, or because they simply can't help themselves, and then theres a reason to arrest them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Restraining orders aren’t without value. It gives the cops a reason to arrest and prosecute a person who’s harassing someone but isn’t breaking a law. But if someone is determined to kill you, then no. A restraining order is not going to stop that.

Breaking a different law, but yes. The court order is a layer in a layered security. It shouldn't be dismissed as useless, it shouldn't be counted on to be the entirety of your defensive planning. More layers = better defense.

 

[KLB]

I don't see anything here that was "missed". Unless there is something much more recent, I don't see how you can predict violence based upon those incidents from 5-7 years ago.

 

[BugI02]

At an individual level, people need to recognize their own tribal tendencies. I don't think people can really overcome the lure of tribalism. But maybe we can shift the tribe. If my tribe is "truth" as far as I can accurately perceive it, then I think that's a good thing. There'll still be tribes along the lines of perception, but they don't have to be violent.

Alas, I am not so sanguine. It seems to me both (all) sides in every religious conflict, ever, were representing the tribe of "truth" as they knew it. The results were no less bloody

I think the fractal nature of groups and circles within twitter or facebook are more likely to bring a return to posses and lynchings, where angry individuals act first and worry about the facts later

 

[KellyinAvon]

I don't see anything here that was "missed". Unless there is something much more recent, I don't see how you can predict violence based upon those incidents from 5-7 years ago.

The guy didn't just go away in 2014. There were profane rants directed at the paper. The hard part is telling the harmless profane ranters from the ones bent on killing because of... whatever reason.

 

[KLB]

The guy didn't just go away in 2014. There were profane rants directed at the paper. The hard part is telling the harmless profane ranters from the ones bent on killing because of... whatever reason.

That is exactly the issue. We have no way of telling who WILL be violent as opposed to the vast majority that never are. Do you then assume anyone that rants like that will become violent and lock them up? Do you strip them of their rights? If you do, is there some mechanism whereby they can get them back?

People being violent is horrible. Punishing people because they might be violent at some point in the future is wrong though.

 

[jamil]

That’s not the “truth” I had in mind. Someone makes a claim. The question to ask isn’t “is it true?” It’s “what is true about it and what is not true about it?” I would argue that the people who would do violence because of religious “truth” didn’t really go to war over truth. That’s mostly a cover for what was mostly political motivations.

 

[BugI02]

That’s not the “truth” I had in mind. Someone makes a claim. The question to ask isn’t “is it true?” It’s “what is true about it and what is not true about it?” I would argue that the people who would do violence because of religious “truth” didn’t really go to war over truth. That’s mostly a cover for what was mostly political motivations.

Then who will make up "team truth". I would mention "climate change" before you go with scientists and the scientific method here. Scientists are not immune to their truth displacing objective truth, although they may be somewhat more resistant to it than the general public

I will submit (again) that as people allow companies such as facebook, twitter and google to not only provide their news but now edit its content, it will become even harder to find the objective truth because newsfeeds that don't support/conform to the desired narrative will be quashed; and the more pervasive the acceptance of these gateway feeds the more that narrative will prevail

The current battle has some aspects of fighting to retain the enlightenment, although it doesn't seem very enlightened from within the thick of it. The previous enlightenment fought to curtail the pernicious influence of the church and aristocracy on critical and scientific thought. The current one seeks to curtail the influence of PC, our "permanent record" and mob shaming as a mechanism to control thought and behavior

Orwell saw the danger, he was truly prescient; he could not accurately visualize the mechanisms because of the state of technology in his day

 

[OakRiver]

Reporter Resigns After Claiming Annapolis Shooter Had MAGA Hat - The Truth About Guns

 

[churchmouse]

Reporter Resigns After Claiming Annapolis Shooter Had MAGA Hat - The Truth About Guns

What is wrong with these idiots.

 

[KellyinAvon]

That is exactly the issue. We have no way of telling who WILL be violent as opposed to the vast majority that never are. Do you then assume anyone that rants like that will become violent and lock them up? Do you strip them of their rights? If you do, is there some mechanism whereby they can get them back?

People being violent is horrible. Punishing people because they might be violent at some point in the future is wrong though.

The task becomes more difficult when the bad guy knows where the line is and rarely crosses it. Everything cycles back to being vigilant and taking things seriously. When does providing relevant information to the Police become "crying wolf"? Everybody not being stalked/harassed/threatened can play the odds, not so much if it's you. No easy answers here.

 

[OakRiver]

What is wrong with these idiots.

We live in an era when news have moved from information providing to being agenda driven entertainment.

Even though the, now former, reporter recanted his Tweet and deleted it I expect someone to use it as an argument against this Administration or its supporters at some point in the future.

 

[Ski]

What is wrong with these idiots.

Sounds like he's just polishing his resume for a job with a national news network.

 

[jamil]

The task becomes more difficult when the bad guy knows where the line is and rarely crosses it. Everything cycles back to being vigilant and taking things seriously. When does providing relevant information to the Police become "crying wolf"? Everybody not being stalked/harassed/threatened can play the odds, not so much if it's you. No easy answers here.

First read that as "the task becomes more difficult when the bald guy..." At first I was like . Then I reread it and was like, yep. Eyes are getting old. Carry on.

 

[singlesix]

What is wrong with these idiots.

Isn't his action the definition of being an idiot? They come in all shades and stripes, the left doesn't have a monopoly on idiots, I see plenty of them on gun ranges and gun shops, oh I hear Lifetime carry is going away by the way.

 

[IndyDave1776]

First read that as "the task becomes more difficult when the bald guy..." At first I was like . Then I reread it and was like, yep. Eyes are getting old. Carry on.

Aren't the spookiest evildoers always bald?

 

[churchmouse]

Isn't his action the definition of being an idiot? They come in all shades and stripes, the left doesn't have a monopoly on idiots, I see plenty of them on gun ranges and gun shops, oh I hear Lifetime carry is going away by the way.

Good points.