Montana Man Slams 13-Year-Old to Ground, Fracturing His Skull, for Not Removing Hat During Anthem

[Paladin3]

Can we take away guns from anyone who commits assault? (As opposed to the mental illness nonsense.)

Yup. And keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill isn't nonsense.

 

[WelshBloke]

**warning** haven’t read the thread

I heard on the radio this guy had a traumatic brain injury while in the service. Someone said it impacts decision making and (I forgot the word) makes him take directions very literally.
His lawyer argued that the brain injury caused the slamming from being in the military and flag respect plus the Presidents words “you ought to....”

The guy is obviously troubled and not a normal person regarding decision making.
Should he be free and roaming around to clock someone else, absolutely not but he is absolutely different than most.

This absolutely should not be used as a legal defense for the guy.
Jailing someone is done for a couple of reasons. Punishment, rehabilitation and removal of an individual from society for the safety of the public. After a period of time the criminal is thought to have suffered enough punishment, been rehabilitated enough, or deemed to not be a danger to the public any more.
If this guy has a traumatic brain injury which leads him to unprovoked violent acts then he needs to be incarcerated indefinitely or be supervised at all times.

 

[DrDoug]

which leads him to unprovoked violent acts then he needs to be incarcerated indefinitely or be supervised at all times.

Whelp, if that's the case then there goes the Republican base... eh, I can live without it.

Seriously, if this guy is a threat to others then he shouldn't be free. His injuries are no defense if the result will be to put him in a position to offend a third time, maybe this time resulting in death(s).

Unfortunately the conservatives pretty much dismantled our state level mental health systems decades ago. They believe that it costs too much and human life is cheap, easy to replace.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This absolutely should not be used as a legal defense for the guy.
Jailing someone is done for a couple of reasons. Punishment, rehabilitation and removal of an individual from society for the safety of the public. After a period of time the criminal is thought to have suffered enough punishment, been rehabilitated enough, or deemed to not be a danger to the public any more.
If this guy has a traumatic brain injury which leads him to unprovoked violent acts then he needs to be incarcerated indefinitely or be supervised at all times.

If the court allows this argument, and the evidence proves it out, then it is a proper insanity defense. The court would then order him institutionalized in a mental health facility until such time as his doctors decide he no longer is a danger to himself or others, which if this condition is permanent would be never.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wonder what would happened to him if he kneeled.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wonder what would happened to him if he kneeled.

ISIS style decapitation

 

[feralkid]

In terms of people who do bad things, I think of the guy who thought he was going to stop Pizzagate, but got there, reflected on everything and then DID NOT shoot up the place or himself or anyone else.

He's one of the few I cling to as an example of someone breaking free of the cult, but I'm saddened by the lengths to which he had to go to get there.

Agreed.

He could have phoned ahead and asked if they had a basement/checked public records.

Poor dope.

 

[WHAMPOM]

On probation for a former assault, commits second assault and gets let out with no bail? Kidding me, right?

 

[jackstar7]

Yup. And keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill isn't nonsense.

It is without explaining if you're talking about depression, eating disorders, or just liberals. We know who likes to describe liberalism as a mental illness, right? If you said the same people who don't want to talk about the guns, you are 100% correct!

 

[Lanyap]

According to his lawyer he has mental issues from a head injury while in the military and thought he was following orders from Trump:

https://missoulian.com/news/local/s...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

His defense attorney, Lance Jasper, told the Missoulian Wednesday the president's "rhetoric" contributed to the U.S. Army veteran's disposition when he choke-slammed a 13-year-old, fracturing his skull, at the Mineral County fairgrounds on Aug. 3.

"His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished," Jasper said. "He certainly didn't understand it was a crime."

Looks like his attorney screwed up. Trump didn't tell him to dump 13 year old kids on their head for not removing their hat for the anthem.

 

[Paladin3]

It is without explaining if you're talking about depression, eating disorders, or just liberals. We know who likes to describe liberalism as a mental illness, right? If you said the same people who don't want to talk about the guns, you are 100% correct!

You must live in a very sad world if to you everyone is either a stereotypical liberal or a stereotypical conservative. I like to decide issues based on their merits alone, not to keep in step with any political party or group. And I've never once registered as a member of any political party during the 33 years I've been able to vote. Unaffiliated all the way.

Anyone who would shoot or harm another person without sufficient cause is either mentally ill, morally corrupt or just plain old evil. Doesn't mater which, we need to keep guns out of their hands.

But I do respect your attempts to label me a dirty conservative while you play the noble liberal.

 

[jackstar7]

You must live in a very sad world if to you everyone is either a stereotypical liberal or a stereotypical conservative. I like to decide issues based on their merits alone, not to keep in step with any political party or group. And I've never once registered as a member of any political party during the 33 years I've been able to vote. Unaffiliated all the way.

Anyone who would shoot or harm another person without sufficient cause is either mentally ill, morally corrupt or just plain old evil. Doesn't mater which, we need to keep guns out of their hands.

But I do respect your attempts to label me a dirty conservative while you play the noble liberal.

If you don't consider how people will twist your noble stance to work against others, please do.

If it's noble to want citizens and cops to all be disarmed so we can find out what happens, then yeah, I guess I'm noble.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Looks like his attorney screwed up. Trump didn't tell him to dump 13 year old kids on their head for not removing their hat for the anthem.

hah, who said it needed to be specific? Maybe Trump will pay his legal fees too.

 

[Paladin3]

If you don't consider how people will twist your noble stance to work against others, please do.

If it's noble to want citizens and cops to all be disarmed so we can find out what happens, then yeah, I guess I'm noble.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Don't do good because someone could twist your actions to evil? What? I hope to fuck you're not advocating the mentally ill be allowed to guns, all so some rabid conservative can't keep guns from liberals by calling liberalism a mental illness. You are so far gone you are making absurd arguments now.

And it's indeed noble to want guns to cease to exist and everyone play nice, just not very realistic.

And stop dodging the fucking question: why does your argument always devolve into "YOU DIRTY CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN!!"

 

[JSt0rm]

What the fuck are you even talking about? Don't do good because someone could twist your actions to evil? What? I hope to fuck you're not advocating we give the mentally ill guns so some rabid conservative can't keep guys from liberals by calling liberalism a mental illness. You are so far gone you are making absurd arguments.

And it's indeed noble to want guns to cease to exist and everyone play nice, just not very realistic.

And stop dodging the fucking question: why does your argument always devolve into "YOU DIRTY CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN!!"

you arent doing good. You advocate policy that results in the deaths of thousands of americans every year. You are an examples of the worst of humanity.

 

[jackstar7]

What the fuck are you even talking about? Don't do good because someone could twist your actions to evil? What? I hope to fuck you're not advocating we give the mentally ill guns so some rabid conservative can't keep guys from liberals by calling liberalism a mental illness. You are so far gone you are making absurd arguments.

And it's indeed noble to want guns to cease to exist and everyone play nice, just not very realistic.

And stop dodging the fucking question: why does your argument always devolve into "YOU DIRTY CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN!!"

Always? More like rarely. "This sounds like you have a reckoning to deal with.

Best of luck.

 

[Paladin3]

you arent doing good. You advocate policy that results in the deaths of thousands of americans every year. You are an examples of the worst of humanity.

Jackstar replied that there was something wrong with my statement "we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill" by implying I thought liberalism was a mental illness. I don't know what point he was trying to make, and doubt you do either, but keep calling me names and repeating yourself if that's all you've got.

And, yes, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a good thing. Or are you guys so politically obsessed that you will even debate that if you think it scores points for whatever side you think you are on.

 

[BoomerD]

Jackstar replied that there was something wrong with my statement "we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill" by implying I thought liberalism was a mental illness. I don't know what point he was trying to make, and doubt you do either, but keep calling me names and repeating yourself if that's all you've got.

And, yes, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a good thing. Or are you guys so politically obsessed that you will even debate that if you think it scores points for whatever side you think you are on.

Funny enough, O'Bummer signed an EO that limited access to guns by the mentally ill...King Donnie repealed it.

 

[Paladin3]

Funny enough, O'Bummer signed an EO that limited access to guns by the mentally ill...King Donnie repealed it.

The sooner Trump is gone the better. But I've always wondered how true that claim was, so I looked it up and according to CNN:

"It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression.

The ACLU, along with 23 disability groups opposed this rule and supported the bill repealing it. "The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget," the ACLU wrote in February 2017, noting the wide range of individuals affected by the rule. "A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership," the ACLU said in a separate letter that month.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

Mental impairment is a complex issue, and claiming that Trump made it easier for those with a mental illness to access firearms is an overstatement that ignores what the regulation did and who it affected."

So the issue isn't as black and white as some would like to believe. While no disability should be an automatic denial of any right or privilege, how many of those folks are really competent enough and have the wherewithal to own a gun safely? Little to none, I would guess.

I agree with Obama signing the restriction, but I would hope it included some avenue for those folks to have their 2A rights reinstated if they prove they are sufficiently competent. This sounds like the epitome of common sense gun control.

By we both know Trump only repealed the order to pander to his base.

 

[BoomerD]

The sooner Trump is gone the better. But I've always wondered how true that claim was, so I looked it up and according to CNN:

"It's complicated. The Obama administration's rule, which took effect two days before Trump's inauguration, restricted people who required help managing government benefits and had a mental impairment from buying guns. That includes those with eating disorders, cognitive impairments and depression.

The ACLU, along with 23 disability groups opposed this rule and supported the bill repealing it. "The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget," the ACLU wrote in February 2017, noting the wide range of individuals affected by the rule. "A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership," the ACLU said in a separate letter that month.

This now-removed rule did not alter federal law which prohibits individuals "who (have) been adjudicated as a mental defective or (have) been committed to any mental institution" from owning a firearm.

Mental impairment is a complex issue, and claiming that Trump made it easier for those with a mental illness to access firearms is an overstatement that ignores what the regulation did and who it affected."

So the issue isn't as black and white as some would like to believe. While no disability should be an automatic denial of any right or privilege, how many of those folks are really competent enough and have the wherewithal to own a gun safely? Little to none, I would guess.

I agree with Obama signing the restriction, but I would hope it included some avenue for those folks to have their 2A rights reinstated if they prove they are sufficiently competent. This sounds like the epitome of common sense gun control.

By we both know Trump only repealed the order to pander to his base.

And to undo something O'Bummer did...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Jackstar replied that there was something wrong with my statement "we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill" by implying I thought liberalism was a mental illness.

I think the point he was trying to make is that before you can say that we first need a strict enough definition of 'mentally ill' so that it can't be applied to anyone that you (or I, or anyone else) disagrees with. Luckily there is a legal definition of 'mental illness' that fits that description, but unfortunately it does not fit the description of mentally ill that you are wanting for gun control.

That is where the problem comes, we don't really have a good definition of 'mentally ill' that would work in this situation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yup. And keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill isn't nonsense.

Define in hard terms what qualifies as "mental illness". Vagueness is not acceptable. Someone has Seasonal Affective Disorder, are they mentally ill and should not own? Someone who had counseling and perhaps medication due to grief from a loss of a loved one? Those who had postpartum depression years ago? What in concrete terms rises to "mental illness" sufficient to deny arms?

Am I wholly for denying some who have been properly deemed dangerous, but who makes those determinations defines what they are? You, me, Democrats, Republicans, politicians?

As you can't speak for anyone else what should be done and how do you make sure that this is done without political or with non-scientific agendas?

 

[jackstar7]

Jackstar replied that there was something wrong with my statement "we need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill" by implying I thought liberalism was a mental illness. I don't know what point he was trying to make, and doubt you do either, but keep calling me names and repeating yourself if that's all you've got.

And, yes, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a good thing. Or are you guys so politically obsessed that you will even debate that if you think it scores points for whatever side you think you are on.

Just to add to it... explain how you want mental illness defined. I used hyperbolic examples to hopefully get you to be specific, but instead you just got defensive and whiny.

I'd prefer to see guns confiscated from anyone who commits assault. I don't care the circumstances, because a gun in the hands of someone who already lacks the restraint to avoid violence is a gun that's going to be misused.

And to be clear about my point, milkshakes aren't assault.

 

[Paladin3]

I think the point he was trying to make is that before you can say that we first need a strict enough definition of 'mentally ill' so that it can't be applied to anyone that you (or I, or anyone else) disagrees with. Luckily there is a legal definition of 'mental illness' that fits that description, but unfortunately it does not fit the description of mentally ill that you are wanting for gun control.

That is where the problem comes, we don't really have a good definition of 'mentally ill' that would work in this situation.

I think we already have that. Nobody can be adjudicated mentally ill except by a court and judge. Every person deserves due process under the law.

This is the reasons I have a problem with saying anyone who has their benefits managed for whatever reason automatically loses their 2A rights, as the bill Obama signed did. Unless, of course, there was a provision within that defined a process for a person to have their 2A restored. Even then, having a constitutional right taken away by default is the opposite of due process under the law. It throws "innocent until proven guilty" out the window. OTOH, I think it's fair to have an automatic competency review for anyone who owns guns but is unable to manage their own benefits, or who is of diminished capacity and need, say, a nurse or assistant in the home to do simple daily tasks such as cooking or dressing or taking meds. Gun ownership may be a constitutional right, but one I feel should be taken away if you are of sufficient diminished capacity. That's just common sense.

All that said, what Jackstar was trying to do was label me a dirty conservative/republican by bring up that some folks consider liberalism a mental illness. And somehow my statements that we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill fueled that stupidity.

Pure silliness to win some kind of political points that has nothing to do with what we are actually debating. This isn't an us vs them fight. This is a fight to keep guns out of the hands of those who would or have misused them while not violating the 2A rights of the vast, vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding. Everyone should agree with that regardless of where you come down in the political spectrum, but I feel Jackstar is just expressing anger and hate rather than contributing to this debate.

I'm a very issues based voter, and my opinions don't line up with any political party I've ever heard of. And I sure as hell don't fall in with the dems or republicans just because I have some nutty hatred of the other side.

 

[Paladin3]

Define in hard terms what qualifies as "mental illness". Vagueness is not acceptable. Someone has Seasonal Affective Disorder, are they mentally ill and should not own? Someone who had counseling and perhaps medication due to grief from a loss of a loved one? Those who had postpartum depression years ago? What in concrete terms rises to "mental illness" sufficient to deny arms?

Am I wholly for denying some who have been properly deemed dangerous, but who makes those determinations defines what they are? You, me, Democrats, Republicans, politicians?

As you can't speak for anyone else what should be done and how do you make sure that this is done without political or with non-scientific agendas?

Judges and our courts decide via due process under the law. That's the reason we have our government separated into three branches of power. It's the best system we have. We can't leave it to mental health professionals alone, nor remove the right wholesale from an entire group via executive order.

What we can do is order visits by social workers to homes of gun owners who find themselves suddenly of diminished mental or physical capacity. If someone has a stroke and can't function enough to take meds, cook, bathe or dress themselves, it's fair to review whether it's safe for them to own a gun. And if the evidence shows they should not, that goes to court and a judge decides, with appropriate review and testimony from mental health and other experts.