Waffle house shooter's father should be locked up for life

[askyagerz]

"Additionally it was revealed that the accused shooter’s father, Jeffrey Reinking, gave his son his weapons back after they were confiscated when the young man menaced the White House, leading him to being taken into custody in the Secret Service in July 2017."

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/waffle-house-shooting-suspects-mom-complained-mass-shootings-began-jesus-booted-public-schools/

[tulipsandroses]

1. He is certainly not a " responsible gun owner"

If there are no criminal charges, I hope the families sue him. He should not be allowed to have guns either.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Menaced the WH in 2017? I would have thought he was in love with rump

[hlthe2b]

7. called "menacing" because he showed up wanting to meet with Trump from what I've hears

that surely doesn't preclude him "being in love with" Trump

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. Thanks, makes sense now. Reason rump has not denounced this piece of filth is

rump LIKES what he did.

[catbyte]

9. He didn't actually "menace" the WH. He was armed while insisting on scheduling a meeting

w/Benedict Donald. He wasn't threatening him; he wanted to meet him.

[jberryhill]

3. He's going to lose everything

Regardless of wherever the criminal process might end up on this one, it is absolutely clear that he is on the hook for negligent entrustrment of those weapons to his son.

His assets, to the extent he isn't able to squirrel them away and/or hide them right now, are as good as gone.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. What will the civil legal reasoning be for the lawsuits, negligence?

[jberryhill]

12. Stated in my post - negligent entrustment

Although given the circumstances, and his promise to keep the guns away, one can probably go up a notch to reckless disregard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment

Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality.

Did the father have reason to know that his son could not responsibly possess a gun? That's a virtual certainty.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. I wonder if he has much to lose. Hope so.

Hadnt heard of negligent entrustment and wasnt sure if that was basically negligence.

Makes sense now, what also makes sense are future courts with rump sycophants who will never do the right thing.

[jberryhill]

17. J&J Cranes

He runs a crane rental and trucking business which is family owned ("J&J" is Jeff and Judy):

https://www.quicktransportsolutions.com/truckingcompany/illinois/jj-cranes-inc-usdot-2172454.php

The company gets interesting reviews on Google.

https://www.google.com/search?q=J%26J%20crane%20illinois

Norma Snow
2 reviews
a day ago
This owner believes that he is above the law and does what he wants. His employees may be honest and hardworking, but I would not have any business dealings with the company because of the untrustworthy and uncaring owner.

Allayna Bratton
2 reviews
4 hours ago
Horrible to let your mentally ill son have guns back what kind of parent are you!? Wouldn't be suprised if there is more uncovered family secrets. You can't hide in your mansion forever.

andrew miller
2 reviews
23 hours ago
You piece of trash!!! I hope you go to jail and are sued for everything you have. You two idiots are unbelievable!!!!!!!

[malaise]

20. The parents must have known he was paranoid

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/22/travis-reinking-nashville-waffle-house-shooting-suspect/540144002/

[jberryhill]

22. They knew that he was not allowed to possess guns, period

Whatever might be their no doubt interesting take on mental illness, demon possession, or whatever, it was crystal clear that they had been informed by law enforcement that he was not to possess guns, and they pledged not to allow him to have the guns which had been taken from him by law enforcement.

I don't see too many good defenses for them.

[malaise]

24. Good

[jberryhill]

29. Using that information, you can get a satellite view of both locations

One is residential, and the other is commercial. Apparently, posting links to the satellite views of the substantial properties is discouraged.

[jberryhill]

19. and...

While his business assets may be protected per se, his ownership interest in the company itself is, of course, personal.

[Jim Lane]

30. Agreed, and the PLCAA will not be an obstacle

The PLCAA comes in for a lot of uninformed criticism on DU. For purposes of the Waffle House shooting, it's important to note the distinction in the law.

If a licensed gun dealer sells someone a gun and complies with all the rules (background check, etc.), and the buyer then uses the gun in a crime, the dealer isn't liable. IMO that's the correct result as long as the sale of the gun was itself legal.

The PLCAA, however, expressly exempts suits on the negligent entrustment theory that you explain.

If I were the shooter's father, I would immediately move to Florida and sink all my money into an expensive house. IIRC, Florida is very debtor-friendly, and there's a generous bankruptcy exemption for a residence. Any assets he can't shield from bankruptcy are indeed "as good as gone."

[maxsolomon]

4. I believe I've hidden that exact dipshit meme his Mom shared

My Trumpist Aunt shared it.

Decipimur Specie Recti.

[meadowlark5]

5. I saw a father of a 3yr old will be charged after that toddler got the gun while in their car

and shot the gun owners pregnant wife. He's black. It was his gun the toddler used and now he faces charges.

Will Reinking's father face those same charges? Seems the same pretty much - except skin color.

[gratuitous]

6. What if Young Travis' parents weren't still alive?

I mean, I can see the authorities not wanting to have Young Travis' trusty shootin' arns sitting around the precinct house. The guns never did nothin' wrong. But what if Young Travis' Dad wasn't still around to hold the guns and pinky-swear promise not to give them back to Young Travis? What would the cops have done with the weapons then?

[askyagerz]

8. The whole thing is crazy

What the hell does a father have to do with his adults sons guns? Why would they give them back to anyone?

[ProudLib72]

21. You've hit on another issue

The cops share some blame in entrusting the guns to his father, not arresting Travis and locking him away (at least getting a mental health evaluation), and certainly in not doing a damned thing when he stole a car just a few days before the shooting. Travis was a lunatic menace. Where were the cops?

[inwiththenew]

13. I still don't get why the guns were given back to the father in the first place

The guy was a grown ass man. Why is his dad getting back his guns?

[maxsolomon]

15. Someone needs to care for them

I don't want mah tax dollurs paying for no freeloadin' lazy semi-ottos.

[Lee-Lee]

32. Typically when someone cannot possess firearms due to a ruling

The law is that the owner must dispose of them by sale or giving them to a legal possessor, otherwise they will be seized until they are either handed over to a legal possessor or disposed of.

The police generally can’t seize and destroy them just because a persons legal status changed if the guns were not used in a crime, because they are still the property of the person. So the person must be given an opportunity to legally dispose of them in a way where they can be compensated for the value if they wish. Because they still are property bad it cannot be taken.

I did this a lot as a deputy. XXX has a restraining order issued against them and is said to have firearms. I go and serve the order, then say that while I am there the guns need to either be handed over to another lawful possessor, we can go to a gun store and he can sell them all, or I can take them into custody until either the restraining order is lifted or they arrange for a legal owner to come get them.

If he hands them over to a friend or family member I make sure that person isn’t a prohibited person, then make sure they clearly know that he can possess the guns, he can sell the guns in a legal manner on behalf of the person, but he cannot give them back until the restraining order was lifted. And I made sure the person taking custody of them had my phone number to call and verify that the order was lifted so he had no excuse to not verify it was legal to return them.

Now this is only for guns owned legally when a persons legal ability to own them changes. If they acquire firearms illegally and possess them illegally after that then they are just siezed and disposed of.

[exboyfil]

16. You change every reference to Christian and Jesus

into Muslim and Mohammad, and you would see the internet positively go insane.

[Thrill]

23. True but why are they giving his guns to his father? This is a 30 yr old man?

Not a teenager. When they took his guns, he should not get them back at all. How can you expect the father to keep them from a 30yr old. I don’t get that

[jberryhill]

25. Best guess...

Travis was barred from possessing them, so in order to avoid the hassle of a forfeiture proceeding, they gave them to the father since the parents would be the intestate heirs of his possessions anyway.

But that's just a best guess as to the reasoning.

[LisaL]

31. They way they explained it, when deputies showed up to remove the guns, pops was there

with valid firearms card. So they just left the guns with pops (they never actually took them away).

[Lee-Lee]

26. There are two ways this can go

His son had his Illinois FOiD card revoked, meaning he couldn’t legally possess guns in IL. It’s unclear if at this point that they did any more as far as getting him into NICS as a prohibited person or not.

If his son was a resident of IL when the guns were given back, that’s a state level felony for sure. If his son was entered into NICS then it’s a Federal charge as well.

If he was living in TN and his dad transferred them back and they didn’t use an FFL, which is almost certain they didn’t, then that’s a felony for each gun for transfer of possession across state lines without an FFL. That’s is he was in NICS as a prohibited person or not. If he was in NICS than that’s more felonies for each gun.

[NBachers]

27. Has this guy been caught yet? If not he's getting some kind of assistance

in getting away.

[tulipsandroses]

28. Yes

He was apprehended yesterday

[jberryhill]

33. Link?

I see absolutely nothing in a Google news search to that effect.

It would be surprising if such an event were not widely reported.

What is the source of your information?

[malaise]

35. There was a lot of coverage

when he was caught - yesterday and today

http://time.com/5250489/waffle-house-shooting-suspect-travis-reinking-arrested/

His $2M bond was revoked by a judge today

[jberryhill]

36. The shooter's father has not been arrested

The OP is about the shooter's father.

[malaise]

37. I was responding to #27 and you also asked the person who responded to said post

for a link.

[jberryhill]

38. Well, shucks

I guess it’s just been one of those days.

In other news....
https://caymannewsservice.com/2018/04/athletes-lauded-for-efforts-at-commonwealth-games/

[malaise]

39. We all have those days

I was enjoying your legal expertise upthread.

Cayman did well and BVI won her first Commonwealth medal (Gold)

[Demovictory9]

34. no help to the son. threw his son's life away