General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsColorado man goes on murderous rampage after 911 dispatcher lectures panicked caller on open carry
A neighbor might have helped stop a Colorado man from killing three people as he roamed around with a military-style rifle, but the state’s open carry law apparently prevented police from following up on her concerned report.
Naomi Bettis called 911 Saturday after spotting her neighbor, who she recognized but did not know by name, walking outside his home with an AR-15 rifle, reported the Denver Post.
“He did have a distraught look on his face,” Bettis said. “It looked like he had a rough couple days or so.”
Related: Colorado gunman posted religious rant against government and ‘Satanic’ mind control two days before shooting
However, the 911 dispatcher declined to send police and reminded Bettis that Colorado allows gun owners to legally and publicly carry their firearms out in the open.
Police eventually did respond — but not until 33-year-old Noah Harpham had already shot two women and a man with the rifle that had concerned his neighbor at least several minutes earlier.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/colorado-man-goes-on-murderous-rampage-after-911-dispatcher-lectures-panicked-caller-on-open-carry-law/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laffy Kat
(16,952 posts)Just wait until people are shot. Pisses me off to no end.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)publicans prefer to wait until AFTER someone is shot.
IronLionZion
(51,268 posts)because that could get out of hand real quick.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts). . . whom they are happy to see police shoot "preemptively." Aargh.
randys1
(16,286 posts)It doesnt matter how many die.
Gun folks want to keep their guns NO MATTER WHAT
Does not matter how many thousands or tens of thousands die.
They want their fucking gunz
catbyte
(39,152 posts)time one of those "responsible gun owners" blows.
yardwork
(69,364 posts)
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I get lectured by fucking asshole gun humpers who tell me I'd be a criminal for tackling one of these fucking freaks who love to display their dick in public.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)It has nothing substantive, nor intelligent, to add to the conversation... just the typical name-calling, penis reference (WHY are the anti's so obsessed with the penises of gun owners??), and some gratuitous self bravado thrown in.
Simple FACT: If someone was legally carrying, minding their own business & not bothering anyone, you WOULD be a criminal if you just ran up and tackled them. It's called "Assault & Battery".
Here's an idea.... instead of just talking about it, why don't you just go ahead and DO IT one day and see how it works out for you?? Make sure to take a friend along who has a smartphone so they can get video of it, too! Oh, and give them your login info here so they can post the video, just in case you're in jail... or worse, and can't post it yourself...
*Shaking my head & laughing*
Ghost
***NOTE to potential alerters and/or jurors*** I am in no way advocating violence here. If *anyone* is, it's the poster I replied to. We see the anti-gunners every day saying that gun owners just "sit around fantasizing about getting to shoot someone", when that is inherently untrue. *MOST* who carry for self defense hope the day never comes when they actually HAVE to use their weapon against another human being, yet here's an anti-gunner fantasizing about committing assault & battery on someone who is just minding their own business.
Peace,
Ghost
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Smartly, you really don;t have a fucking thing to say about it, do you, other than to tsk tsk me.
This guy was minding his business until he started shooting! And the dispatcher sits there and backs it up chapter and verse about his riiiiiiiiiots!
Open carry is a fucking disaster. Certainly a smart guy like you can see the problem here, right? Right?
But hey, shit happens, right Ghost? Gotta break a few eggs to protect the bigger picture. I'm sure you meant to send your condolences to the families of those deceased in your post.
Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)beside the idea that someone might think he's compensating for a small dick. Priorities.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)hadn't broken a law YET. That's venturing off into the "Thought Crimes Police" territory.
Except that the business he was minding WAS to go on a rampage. Didn't the OP mention a Facebook or Twitter rant? Didn't the OP also say the caller recognized the neighbor, but didn't know his name, but looked like he'd had a few rough days? Since we're venturing off into the "woulda, shoulda, coulda", if the neighbor would have known the guy's name, maybe the cops could have looked him up right quick on Google, Facebook or Twitter, found his rants, and thought "Hey! Maybe, just MAYBE, we *should* check this guy out before he hurts himself or someone else".
I'm more worried about the guns being carried that I *can't* see, as they are more prone to be of the criminal element, and can take you by surprise. At least you can keep your eye on someone who is open carrying. If they started acting strange and threatening people, maybe then you could sneak up on them and tackle them without becoming a criminal yourself. "Carrying" is a LOT DIFFERENT than "Brandishing", but you already know that, right? "Carrying" is a handgun in a holster, or rifle slung over the shoulder. When it comes out of that holster or off the shoulder, THEN there is cause for concern and you would be well within your rights of self defense because you feared for your life, or the lives of others.
Do you follow my every post here? Do you know my real name and follow me on Facebook? How do you know I haven't already expressed my condolences?? HINT: I *ALWAYS* feel bad for the innocent victims, and their families, even if it's nothing more than sitting here shaking my head, wondering what in the fuck this world has turned into. I can remember, many years ago, when we used to have our hunting rifles in our cars/trucks in the parking lot of the high school during deer season because season was only open for 2 weeks, and we hunted before and after school. NOT ONCE, from 8th grade through my senior year, did anyone EVER bring one of those rifles into the school and threaten anyone. I guess we had a different mindset 35-40 years ago.
I rarely ever look at a user name when responding to a reply in an OP, but seeing yours now, I think we have had a few small exchanges here and there that were pleasant. How about we make this one our first, and last, unpleasant one? You posted what I felt was a reactionary reply to the OP, and I posted an equally reactionary reply to your reply....
Peace,
Ghost
Pathwalker
(6,603 posts)By the time police found him - after more than a dozen calls from other citizens - he had made it to his ex-wife's house, shot and killed her, and shot his 9 year old daughter, leaving her paralyzed for life. He's doing life in prison. I guess that makes us all anti-gun nutters, huh? He's a murderer, plain and simple.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I can't imagine what it must be like to live with having had that experience.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)right thing to do at the time, as did everyone else who called in on him. Sadly...TRAGICALLY, the law did not respond fast enough. I am guessing that open carry isn't/wasn't permitted in your State at the time, and seeing him walking down the road with a rifle was enough to cause concern. I feel bad for the deceased & her family, and even more so for the innocent child who has to live with this the rest of her life.
I could not agree with you any deeper on this statement, except to say that I, personally, think it's a shame he's doing life instead of facing the death penalty. He has a roof over his head every night, food in his belly every day, free cable tv and access to free medical, dental *and* educational services.... all thanks to you and the other taxpayers in your State. That's more than some of our Veterans have, along with the homeless, the poor and the working poor have.
What I responded to was the name-calling in the post I replied to. That seems to be the common thread that ties a LOT of the anti-gunners together. They won't participate in an open, honest, intelligent conversation/debate. Instead, they just call names, seem to have some kind of un-natural obsession with the penises of gun owners, and don't offer any kind of solution other than "BAN GUNS!!" or "Confiscate teh gunz!!11!". I have not seen that in your post, though.
Answer me this, please? How do you think it would have turned out for you if you had tried to run out and tackle the man you saw carrying the rifle?? Would YOU advise *anyone* to do that? Do you agree that, in an open carry State, if you ran up and tackled someone in a store for merely having a holstered/shouldered weapon, YOU would be the criminal in this case, guilty of assault & battery??
Thanks in advance....
Peace,
Ghost
Baitball Blogger
(52,345 posts)Because the alternative is to allow domestic terrorists and/or mental cases to get a head start in their devious and fatal plans.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)If the law says someone is allowed to do something the police are not supposed to go harass them for doing it. In this particular case the mistake is coming from the Legislature, not the police following the law they passed.
The demand for someone to take responsibility for this fuck-up is properly directed towards the State Capital.
Quixote1818
(31,155 posts)The fact that she said he looked distraught should have been enough for the cops to go check things out and the fact that the neighbor felt it was unusual behavior for this person should have been taken into account by the dispatcher.
If she had said he was black they would have been over there in two minutes:
7962
(11,841 posts)This is a bad call on the dispatcher. It wasnt just "a guy is walking down the street with a gun", she gave a description of a man she knew and knew he didnt look right
Volaris
(11,704 posts)Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)Is the takeaway lesson from this.
Baitball Blogger
(52,345 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)automatic weapons.
lpbk2713
(43,273 posts)This dispatcher would be a case in point. It was an individual decision to
not check on the welfare on what was thought to be a troubled individual.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)liability.
The law is an exception for open carry, but any prudent person would have distinguished between someone who is upset and carrying a loaded weapon and someone who is shopping for a cell phone.
Given nothing more than the facts above, it sure sounds like a case could be made for manslaughter, or at least a felony criminal negligence.
Whiskeytide
(4,656 posts)The dispatcher seems to have thought this was an opportunity to educate a civilian on the sanctity of the 2nd A.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)This is one of the reasons it is not a good idea.
central scrutinizer
(12,654 posts)Then SWAT teams from several counties would have raced to the scene.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Quixote1818
(31,155 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)The cop is still questioning him and they cut it after 30 seconds
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,848 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Stop the madness
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)This is a huge issue, the problem being exactly what happened.
KT2000
(22,151 posts)because her husband had strewn his guns around the house after becoming angry during an argument about divorce. He left and took one gun with him. She did not know if he was suicidal or homicidal. Policeman said he could not remove the guns. She didn't know what to do. If he came back and thought she hid the guns he would have been furious. I guess she had to wait until she was shot dead to get help from the police. Solution to the problem: Her father is a policeman and he sent another policeman to the house to remove the weapons. (The first policeman was a known "gun rights" guy)
Frail elderly lady up the street woke to find guns and rifles stacked on the dryer.Her husband was away. Her husband had been behaving strangely such as spending all their money until there was no food or electricity, stealing a car from a dealership and stealing a diamond ring from a jeweler. He was obviously in the throes of dementia but the police refused to take the weapons from the house. Solution to the problem: The woman wandered around the neighborhood until someone asked her what was wrong. She stayed with neighbors until she could move in with her son. Her husband with dementia stayed in the house with his weapons.
Gun fever has replaced logic and is preventing us from solving the most simple problem of removing weapons from people who are unstable.
Skittles
(171,713 posts)KG
(28,795 posts)Skittles
(171,713 posts)KG
(28,795 posts)Skittles
(171,713 posts)constant massacres, no so much
ThoughtCriminal
(14,721 posts)Not surprised, but I'm sure they are sorting a response from whatever gawd-forsaken place they hang out when not inflicting us.
niyad
(132,440 posts)and told them about the cyclist who had just been shot. this brave young man followed the shooter, and kept the police apprised of his location--and it still took them a long time (and then, the cyclist' body was lying on the street for hours.)
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)“Sometimes removing some people out of your life makes room for better people.” That innocuous inspirational quote, posted to the personal Facebook page of Veronica Dunnachie, 35, now appears to be a cryptic warning of things to come.
Dunnachie was charged last week with capital murder for the shooting deaths of her estranged husband, Russ Dunnachie, 50, and her stepdaughter, Kimberly Dunnachie, 20. The mother of four allegedly killed the pair with shots to the head and chest, according to the medical examiner, in the home she was ordered to be out of by the end of the month.
...
Along with Dunnachie’s civic mindedness—she was a Republican election judge—and her penchant for right-wing and fringe causes, including the open carry of firearms, both husband and wife were members of the 3%ers Texas, according to former members of the group and posts on social media. The group is part of a greater modern militia movement named for what adherents claim is the share of colonists who fought during the American Revolutionary War.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/open-carry-militia-mom-murders-family.html
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)That is messed up.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)But what's the difference between an AR-15 and a different rifle, such as a Remington?
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)shootings. I am a member there. But today, if I was walking in the building and someone was in the parking lot with a rifle I could do nothing to stop them.
It is fucking nuts.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)catbyte
(39,152 posts)Crunchy Frog
(28,280 posts)No civil liberties were harmed. All is good.
KG
(28,795 posts)
DustyJoe
(849 posts)Obviously the 911 call center did not get the 'If you see something, say something' DHS memo.
The woman obviously did not see a calm person legally open carrying a weapon, but knowing the
person and the fact something was not right, did follow the DHS suggestions.
xmas74
(30,058 posts)Open carry is legal in that state but it doesn't mean that an officer cannot be sent over to assess a situation. If someone is walking around with a weapon and a "distraught" look on his face an officer can be called to check the well being of the person. If a person had access to a weapon and seemed upset a unit should have been sent.
Besides, I didn't realize that a dispatcher had the authority to decline sending units. They have the authority to pend a call and decide at what level of urgency it needs to be answered but not to totally decline a call. They also have the authority to transfer a call to the correct department. A call like this could have been transferred to someone working a desk at the pd and that officer could have made the decision on whether a unit needed to respond. I've never heard of a dispatcher making that decision.
That dispatcher will lose their insurance, since most dispatch departments insure their dispatchers. Without insurance they will lose their job for fear of liability. If their name gets out no one will insure them because they refused to follow the correct procedures outlined not just by the department but by any training and certifications. No insurance=no more career.
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)... we have a winner!
The dispatcher blew it big time, and should never work in that field again.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That is all.
madinmaryland
(65,729 posts)Straw Man
(6,947 posts)I know it sounds really cute and clever and all, but what are you actually trying to say? That this behavior is typical of gun owners? That there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner? Please explain yourself.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Straw Man
(6,947 posts)I was referring to the "another responsible gun owner" meme.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)But people who open carry in a populated area make me think there's something wrong with them and should always be avoided.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)How do you tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun? You can't blame the police dispatcher. If open carry is legal, it's all subjective. I totally understand the woman who called. I would probably call, too. The problem is the law, the mindset of needing to be physically connected to a gun at all times and the NRA for brainwashing people so gun manufacturers can make more money. We're all sitting ducks at this point.