Police: Man shoots father to death outside Ohio church after Easter services
Source: CBS/AP
April 1, 2013, 4:50 AM
Police: Man shoots father to death outside Ohio church after Easter services
ASHTABULA, Ohio Police in northeast Ohio are investigating a shooting outside a church that left one man dead after Easter services ended.
Authorities the early afternoon shooting occurred at the Hiawatha Church of God in Christ. A suspect was taken into custody.
CBS Cleveland affiliate WOIO-TV cites Ashtabula Police Chief Robert Stell as saying the victim was the alleged shooter's father.
Police say the suspect was outside the church, waiting for the victim to emerge.
One of the church's pastors told the station the gunman went inside and sat down after the shooting.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57577208/police-man-shoots-father-to-death-outside-ohio-church-after-easter-services/
baldguy
(36,649 posts)hack89
(39,179 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)hack89
(39,179 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Wait a minute! This is an April Fool's joke, isn't it?
hack89
(39,179 posts)Response to hack89 (Reply #7)
LanternWaste This message was self-deleted by its author.
primavera
(5,191 posts)It's frankly sickening to observe gun enthusiasts fight to the death to protect a perceived sacred right for everybody (which, by definition, includes crazy people, they being part of "everybody" to have guns, and then feign innocence and pretend that they had nothing to do with it when the crazy people use the guns that the gun enthusiasts gave them. If you arm Charles Manson, a portion of his victims' blood is on your hands too.
hack89
(39,179 posts)background checks, funding for states to update background check system databases, systems for mental health care professionals to report potentially violent patients. All good ideas.
Short of the banning and confiscation of all guns in America, what laws would have prevented this?
primavera
(5,191 posts)... of Americans who also support universal background checks. Yet efforts to implement such checks are being fought tooth and nail, with baffling efficacy, by a gun rights community that is telling everyone that they speak for you. If I were you, I'd be pretty pissed off about that.
hack89
(39,179 posts)I live in a state with universal background checks - they are not an issue.
I am not happy that many are fighting them but just like everything else in politics today, a lot of sensible ideas get caught in the polarized partisan political warfare we are seeing too much of. Gun control is not the only issue that is being stymied.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Gun threads are the biggest flame wars we have here on DU. And, in them, what one consistently sees, over and over and over again, are the same standard NRA talking points: guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns make us safer, gun control legislation doesn't work, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional absolute, and you can't hold gun owners responsible for the misdeeds of a few bad apples, those crazy people who should never have had guns even though yesterday, before they went on some shooting spree, they were among the "responsible, law-abiding gun owner" community whose right to own guns you championed. What one does not see are gun enthusiasts making remarks like: "Damn those NRA motherfuckers! Do you know, they just went and spent another buttload of money on ads claiming that I and other gun owners don't want to see background checks implemented? Those assholes, presuming to speak for me like that!" Or: "Hey, I'm a gun owner and I really want to see guns used more responsibly and produce fewer gun deaths in this country, so I called my congressional representative and wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper to let them know that I strongly support (pick one or more) universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, mandatory gun safety instruction, restricting access to guns for mentally ill and felons, legal penalties for gun owners who fail to keep their firearms safely secured and their children end up using them to shoot themselves, their little brother, some bully at school, whatever, etc., etc.." Or: "Good heavens, did you guys see that deranged idiot Ted Nugent screaming about how a civil war is coming and we all need to form citizen armies to fight the Nazi-Commie Obama administration? What a total loser!" This is not the tone one hears from the gun community, even here on DU. If the gun enthusiast community is as moderate and mainstream as you suggest, why are their contributions to these discussions so heavily weighted against any and all forms of gun control regulation?
hack89
(39,179 posts)I can say (and have said) that I am not a member of the NRA and I support gun control issues such as universal background checks, limits on magazine sizes, plus all of the President's executive orders. But point out the serious flaws in the AWB and I am attacked as a RW NRA stooge who doesn't care about kids being murdered.
There are many here that simply cannot perceive of gun ownership as a progress value and automatically brand gun owners as RW nuts always on the verge of mass murder. For example, there is one prominent pro-gun control poster that routinely posts that the only reason people own guns is because they fantasize about shooting people. And no one on your side ever challenges it so I can only assume you feel the same way.
And how many times do we have to see "NRA talking points" before we wonder if the person we are talking with is really serious about a rational discussion?
And how many time do we have to hear "you don't care about the murder of children" before we wonder if the person we are talking with is really serious about a rational discussion?
For many pro-gun control posters, "discussion" is nothing more than an emotional bludgeoning of their opponents with no attempt or desire for honest discussion.
When any disagreement is distilled down to "RW shill spouting NRA talking points" and "you support the murder of babies" then you will not have rational discussion. Until you accept that the blame for the tone of the discussion falls equally on both sides, there will be no change in the tone.
primavera
(5,191 posts)Of course there are impassioned voices on both sides of the gun debate, as there are on any debate, and especially so on a debate which involves people dying. To be sure, both sides share responsibility for the vehemence of that rhetoric; it's an emotional topic and it's hard to not get mad at times, again, particularly after you've just read the hundredth article in the newspapers about a bunch of innocent children getting shot at some school or whatever this week's lucky tragedy happens to be. That's only natural. But that doesn't mean that one has to succumb every time to raw emotion; the fact that some will never hear you no matter what you say doesn't preclude you from continuing to find common ground with those who will.
I disagree strongly with your claim that making the visible effort to find that elusive common ground makes no difference. Take slackmaster, for instance. He is unquestionably in the gun rights camp, yet I (and I'm sure others as well) always read his posts with the most careful attention and respect, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he shares many of the same concerns about the high rates of gun mortalities in this country and supports taking steps to reduce those concerning rates. I still disagree with him frequently, but I nonetheless respect what he has to say and he's definitely influenced my views over time.
You feel that your views are dismissed because you are automatically branded a gun nut. Prove them wrong. Meet me halfway. Show me some indication that you do care about the murder of children and want to do something about it. When the positions you publicly champion are limited to defensive responses to attacks on private gun ownership, and do not include at least some proactive suggestions for compromise solutions, how is anyone to know that you aren't a "gun nut"?
And before you protest that it cuts both ways, absolutely, I offer the same advice to all participants in this discussion and, yes, I try to follow it myself as best as I can. You may not appreciate it because my "halfway" point is too far removed from your own. I am, admittedly, at heart, a radical anti-gun nut. Personally, I perceive no benefit whatsoever to any guns at all and, had I my way, we would be following the English system where the government does come to take away your guns and few even amongst the police are allowed to carry firearms. So, for me, it's actually a big step to allow that, okay, okay, okay, maybe it's not totally evil that some people enjoy hunting and should be allowed to have guns for that purpose, or perhaps shooting paper targets in a shooting range is relatively harmless (although I do wish that they'd shoot at bullseyes rather than paper outlines of human beings ), I may even be able to stretch my mind enough to accept that some people may have a bona fide need for guns for self defense. These acknowledgements are all efforts on my part. And, yeah, my starting position may be too distant from yours for my effort to find a middle ground to be terribly meaningful, in which case, you and I may fall into the X% of people too distantly removed in our core beliefs to be able to find any mutually acceptable compromise solution between us, and that would suck. But I imagine that most people are less anti-gun than myself and less pro-gun than yourself. Perhaps some of them may hear some of what we have to say and maybe they can find a halfway point that eludes you and I personally, yet includes at least portions of what concern us. The point is, even if we can't reach everyone, the effort to find a middle ground is still a worthwhile one and, in that effort, our credibility is enhanced when we can resist the temptation to respond with reactionary emotion and demonstrate our sympathy and receptiveness, such as it may be, to the priorities of the other side of the debate.
hack89
(39,179 posts)I have posted my solution to gun violence many times - healthcare reform, legalize drugs, and crack down on violent felons.
Makes no difference. Once I criticize the AWB it all falls away - I am a NRA shill.
primavera
(5,191 posts)You're discussing many of the root causes of general violence in society and I suspect that most people here would agree with you - certainly I would - that those are all important problems which need to be addressed. But gun violence specifically is a two pronged issue: the underlying conditions that promote violence and the extent of harm that a person disposed to commit violence, for whatever reason, is physically capable of causing when equipped with weaponry of varying magnitude. Your commendable views on the first half of that equation command my greatest respect. But you're either ignoring, contesting, or remaining silent on the second half that specifically addresses the lethality of weaponry available to those who seek to perpetrate violence, which is really what the whole gun control debate, as opposed to the societal violence debate, is all about.
hack89
(39,179 posts)and gun registration. And I have rational reasons why I do not support them.
primavera
(5,191 posts)I never knew that. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.
hack89
(39,179 posts)bulloney
(4,113 posts)Oh wait, never mind.
I'd like to hear our fundie friends explain the shootings we've had in and near churches. They're always quick to give their rationale for the school shootings.
hack89
(39,179 posts)and the shooting was done in the name of Allah.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)1) There have been plenty of shootings at non-church locations. Church shootings seem to be pretty rare compared to places like schools, workplaces and malls.
2) The shooter, who ten to one will turn out to be mentally imbalanced from drugs if for no other cause, CLAIMED that he did it because Allah told him to. He seems to be a Muslim convert. Probably that happened in prison.
3) The shooter had a long criminal record already:
So go ahead, blame Christian fundamentalists. Just climb on that dead horse and whip it. You don't want to know what really happened here because you are lost in your own narrative - but really changing things in the world requires us all to engage with the world, not build mental bunkers and climb into them.
To support what I have written I will include a link to that famous RW Christian fundie site, Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/reshad-riddle-yell-god-shooting-father_n_2991448.html
Records show that in 2007, Reshad Riddle was charged with felonious assault, and in 2009 he was charged with possession of drugs, tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine.
According to police reports, one of the felonious assault charges stemmed from an incident when Reshad Riddle allegedly attempted to cut his girlfriend's throat. Capt. Joseph Cellitti said the young woman's neck had been cut with a knife and she suffered bruising on her side and chest.
This one doesn't even work as a gun control argument. It, uh, would not have been legal for him to own or carry a gun. But then he doesn't mind attacking people with knives, either.
Those of us who are little less immersed in our own biases might be wondering just how a person with a record like this could be outside a prison! Maybe he was never convicted of the more serious charges. This is why I suspect a mental illness as a root cause.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)hack89
(39,179 posts)Richard Riddle, 52, was leaving the church on Hiawatha Street with his wife at about 1 p.m. when his son, 25-year-old Reshad Riddle, approached him and fired a single round from a handgun, instantly killing Richard, church associate pastor Sean Adams said.
About 150 parishioners were leaving the church in recessional. They ducked down at the sound of the gunshot, pushing their children and grandchildren under the pews as Reshad Riddle entered the church, still carrying the gun and yelling that the shooting was the will of Allah. This is the will of God, Adams said.
http://starbeacon.com/local/x1319121059/Suspect-says-shooting-will-of-Allah
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
hack89
(39,179 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 10:26 AM - Edit history (2)
because if so, then the word loses all meaning when trying to make sense of gun violence. But then nuance has no place in the gun control lexicon, does it? All gun owners are pre-criminals in your eyes.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)to be more precise
PolitFreak
(236 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(102,111 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Was his dad that evil of a man? Just wondering.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,111 posts)...
Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court records show he was arrested and charged with two counts of felonious assault, kidnapping, abduction and tampering with evidence in 2006.
Records show that in 2007, Reshad Riddle was charged with felonious assault, and in 2009 he was charged with possession of drugs, tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine.
According to police reports, one of the felonious assault charges stemmed from an incident when Reshad Riddle allegedly attempted to cut his girlfriend's throat. Capt. Joseph Cellitti said the young woman's neck had been cut with a knife and she suffered bruising on her side and chest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/reshad-riddle-yell-god-shooting-father_n_2991448.html
A lot of charges, but no mention of convictions. Whether or not that's significant, I don't know.
EC
(12,287 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)At least that's how I'm reading this part.
"CBS Cleveland affiliate WOIO-TV cites Ashtabula Police Chief Robert Stell as saying the victim was the alleged shooter's father"
My guess is that it was the priest, they would have used that word instead to avoid confusion. Having said that, I've seen a decent bit of journalism lately where they last thing on the writer's mind seems to be to avoid confusion.
Andy Stanton
(264 posts)Another notch on your guns.
ileus
(15,396 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)n.t