Texas Woman Sentenced to Life for Murders of Husband and Step-Daughter

[SecularMotion]

36-year-old Veronica Dunnachie from Arlington was sentenced to life without parole after pleading guilty to the 2014 murders of her estranged husband and his daughter.

Veronica was arrested in December 2014 after the bodies of her 50-year-old husband and his 20-year-old daughter were discovered by police on a welfare check. Veronica has filed for divorce from her husband Russ in October of that year, citing discord and conflict of personalities. Both parties had filed restraining orders against each other, and Veronica was ordered to vacate the couple’s home by the end of December. After the shooting, Veronica went to Millwood Hospital, a mental health facility, where she was later arrested.

Veronica, an open-carry advocate, plead guilty last week. Her attorney cited her ready access to firearms as contributing to the murders. At the time of the murders, Veronica’s Facebook page featured a profile picture of her aiming a gun and had the quote, “Sometimes removing some people out of your life makes room for better people.”

Russ’ sister Heather was on-hand for the verdict, saying she was pleased that the state didn’t seek the death penalty in the case, giving Veronica a chance to atone for her sins and seek salvation. However, Heather noted the continued pain her family experiences since the murders,

http://newstalk1290.com/texas-woman-sentenced-to-life-for-murders-of-husband-and-step-daughter/

[GGJohn]

1. So the firearm made her do it?

What, it whispered in her ear to go and murder her ex and his daughter?

[stone space]

3. "Mama didn't raise no victim!"

[GGJohn]

4. And those pictures mean what?

[stone space]

5. If I saw her and her Open Carry buddies in a restaurant, I'd leave immediately.

No time to finish my meal or pay the check.

I'm outta' there!

And once the coast is clear and some distance is placed between me and those OPEN CARRY ammosexuals, I'd dialing 911.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. ~~~

[GGJohn]

7. Leave without paying your bill and you'll be the one arrested. eom.

[stone space]

8. Threats seem to be all the NRA has.

Leave without paying your bill and you'll be the one arrested. eom.

[GGJohn]

9. Really? When did the NRA say that?

And it's not a threat, it's the law.

[stone space]

10. I've been arrested many, many times, before.

And it's not a threat, it's the law.

Your threats don't scare me.

I'm not going to expose my family to murderous OPEN CARRY ammosexuals like the one in this OP and her fellow ammosexuals in OPEN CARRY TEXAS / OPEN CARRY TARRANT COUNTY just because some anonymous dude on the internet threatened me with arrest if I don't.

The NRA wants us to be afraid to even run away from these OPEN CARRY creeps, so they and their minions threaten us with arrest if we run for our lives.

[GGJohn]

12. Threatened you?

Not even close, but if you think I threatened you, then feel free to exercise your finger and click on the alert tab.

[stone space]

14. Yes, you threatened me with arrest right here:

Leave without paying your bill and you'll be the one arrested. eom.

[GGJohn]

15. I threatened you with arrest?

No, I didn't, I explained that if you left without paying your food bill, you would be the one arrested, that's not a threat, it's the law.

[stone space]

16. It's not just a threat, it's an empty threat.

I mean, I'll bet that you can't point to a single case of somebody actually being arrested for running from something like this:



But go ahead and try.

Your threats are only meant to scare folks from running away and protecting themselves and their families.

[GGJohn]

17. This is too fucking funny.

Wonder how long this time?

[stone space]

18. Do you have an example or not?

You chose come here to an OP about an OPEN CARRY DOUBLE MURDERER, and proceeded to use this thread to threaten your fellow DU members who might run away at the sight of her and her guns in a restaurant with arrest.

You really should find an example of somebody actually being arrested for running away from people like this in fear.

I mean, were there folks who ran away who were actually convicted?

How much prison time did they serve for running away?

Empty threats.

Lucky Gunner has the NRA and its minions feeling powerful after their $203,000 attack on the parents of Jessica Ghawi, threatening lawsuits and arrests all over the place.

But your threats are empty. You're no Lucky Gunner.

[GGJohn]

19. LOL, nice rant,

irrational, as usual, but funny as hell.

[stone space]

20. Your threats of arrest are empty. (nt)

[GGJohn]

22. LOL, pure comedy gold.

[stone space]

23. Perhaps you think double murders are funny?

LOL, pure comedy gold.

I'll gather up my family and run away precisely because I don't think it is funny.

[GGJohn]

24. Perhaps you should take a course on reading comprehension.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Let us know when *you're* willing to take the onus for Barbara Graham AKA Barbara Lipscomb, mmkay?

Outspoken gun control advocate, one of the leaders of the Million Mom March- and illegal
gun buyer and murderer:

https://www.google.com/search?q=barbara+graham+lipscomb&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

http://www.tincher.to/mmmppr1.htm

Woman Sentenced for Shooting and Paralyzing Innocent Unarmed Man

Note from the webmaster of www.tincher.to : This press release was originally posted at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/press/01177.html but that link is down now.

Beginning of press release from the United States Attorney's Office.

U.S. Department of Justice
Kenneth L. Wainstein United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
Judiciary Center 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 26, 2001
For Information Contact Public Affairs Monty Wilkinson [phone]

Woman Sentenced for Shooting and Paralyzing Innocent Unarmed Man

Washington, D.C. - United States Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein announced that Barbara Graham, 49, of Capitol Heights, Maryland, was sentenced today by D.C. Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin to 10 years to life imprisonment after being found guilty by a jury on February 1, 2001, of Assault With Intent To Kill While Armed, Aggravated Assault While Armed, Mayhem While Armed, three separate counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime of Violence, and other related gun charges. On April 30, 2001, Graham's co-defendant in this case, Erskine Moorer, was sentenced to 15 years to life for his role in the offense. According to the government's evidence, on January 26, 2000, at approximately 6:10 p.m., Barbara Graham approached a 22-year-old man by the name of Kikko Smith and asked him his name. Mr. Smith responded that his name was Kikko, whereupon Ms. Graham reached inside her purse, pulled out a handgun with an extended clip and began to chase Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith ran for his life and was then shot at and hit a number of times by Graham and her daughter's long term boyfriend, Erskine Moorer. One of the bullets struck Mr. Smith in his back, breaking his rib, collapsing his lung and eventually shattering his spine. Other shots struck Mr. Smith in his foot and head. Due to this incident, Mr. Smith spent over one year in either hospitals or assisted living facilities. He is now confined to a wheel chair and has no movement from the waist down. In announcing the sentence, U.S. Attorney Wainstein commended the injured victim, Kikko Smith and his family for their courage, and the investigative work of Metropolitan Police Department Detectives A.D. Williams, Lt. C.V. Morris, Willie Jefferson, Bruce Faison, Rita McCoy, Susan Blue, John Rhodes, Don Juan Monroe, Jamel Mayhew, Phillipe Moore, Donita Giles, Robert Mitchell, Anthony Mable, Wayne Marable, Demetrica "Flash" Cater, Gregory Stewart, Anthony Johnson, Edward Torrence, J.V. Francis, Calvin Hopkins, Ramonz Height, James Savage, Mary Mingo, J.D. Smith, and MPD and ATF firearms-tool marks examiners Torin Suber and Walter Dandridge. In addition, special thanks is given to former MPD Officer, and now Strurbridge Massachusetts Officer, Paul Newsham, for his assistance while still with MPD. A special note of thanks is also extended to Ms. Diane Hobdy, Leslie Faucette, Debbie Cannon and David Foster from the Victim Witness Assistance section for their help. Mr. Wainstein also commended the work of paralegal specialists Marion Russell and Wanda Trice and Assistant United States Attorneys Diana Harris Epps and Leutrell Osborne, II who indicted and prosecuted the case at trial.

[stone space]

27. I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that if I saw Barbara and her friends with their guns in a restaurant and I gather up my family and we run for our lives that we should then all be arrested, or are you OK with us running away?

Frankly, I'm running either way.

It doesn't really matter what you think, to be honest.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. If *we* are supposed to wear Dunnachie, you should likewise wear Graham/Lipscomb

Also, you need to work on that "implying that others have said things that they have not"
thing you have going.

Ask your colleagues in the English Department to tell you what 'strawman arguments'
are, and why they're considered a logical fallacy...

[stone space]

37. How is running for our lives asking you to wear anything?

That doesn't even make sense.

[GGJohn]

39. Why would you be running for your lives?

Kinda paranoid there aren't you?

[stone space]

40. This is why we would run for our lives.

Why would you be running for your lives?

Kinda paranoid there aren't you?

There is no need for personal insults.

I don't think it is paranoid to run from those OPEN CARRY ammosexuals.

One of them has already murdered two people, for God's sake!

[GGJohn]

42. Why? What are they doing that would cause you to run?

What is threatening or unlawful in that picture?

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Dunnachie represents us in the same way that Barbara Graham/Lipscomb represents you

That is, not at all.

While you're chatting up the English Departmant, also add "the associational fallacy"
to the list of things to be explained...

[stone space]

44. I don't think you read what I said.

I said that I would run from Barbara if I saw her and her friends bring their guns into a restaurant, just as I would run from Veronica and her friends in that photo.

While you're chatting up the English Departmant, also add "the associational fallacy"
to the list of things to be explained...

I am a Mathematical Logician by profession.

I don't need anybody to explain to me why running for my life is some sort of "association fallacy".

It is not.

[GGJohn]

45. Running for your life from what threat?

I don't need anybody to explain to me why running for my life is some sort of "association fallacy".

Why all the drama?

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. But Dunnachie didn't commit those murders in public, did she?

And for all the banging on you've done about the dangers of concealed carriers in
classrooms, you've yet to provide one example of a otherwise legal carrier doing
what you've been fear-mongering about for months.

[stone space]

53. "It's not a clip, it's a magazine!"

But Dunnachie didn't commit those murders in public, did she?

[tularetom]

54. You should probably put down your mouse and back away slowly

Go and get some sleep because your posts make no sense whatsoever.

For your own good, stop now.

[Travis_0004]

77. If they don't pay for the meal, they likely would be

You are the only one who is making up wild scenarios.

Just go about your life, and if you see somebody walk in, and you are scared, then leave, but at least have the decency to pay for your meal and tip your server who is likely making 2.15 an hour.

Its not like its going to hurt you to open up your wallet and drop a 20 on the table before you leave.

[stone space]

79. If I see this, I'm running for my life!

Just go about your life, and if you see somebody walk in, and you are scared, then leave, but at least have the decency to pay for your meal and tip your server who is likely making 2.15 an hour.

And once the coast is clear, I'm calling 911.

We're talking about an emergency situation, here.

Hell, the folks in that photo have already murdered two people between them.

Why should I offer myself and my family up to be sacrificed?

For some abstract love of capitalism?

Seriously?

In a frickin' life and death emergency?

[GGJohn]

80. What emergency do you see?

I see 4 adults and a child exercising their 2A rights, although I vehemently disagree with open carry, I don't get the vapors every time I see someone carrying a firearm, it's quite common where I live.

And if you did run out without paying your bill, that would make you a common thief and you would be arrested and prosecuted for petit larceny or defrauding an innkeeper.

And no, I'm not suggesting you're a thief now, only if you left without paying.

[stone space]

83. I am NOT a thief. Please stop calling me that. (nt)

[GGJohn]

85. Apparently you have a reading comprehension.

Re-read the entire post and note where I said that I'm not suggesting that you're a thief now, only if you ran out without paying your bill.

[Travis_0004]

84. I'm not going to spend my day worrying about hypothetical scenarios.

[stone space]

87. It wasn't hypothetical to the legitimate unarmed customers of that resturaunt.

I'm not going to spend my day worrying about hypothetical scenarios.

They were facing down a heavily armed group that have gone on to murder two people, so far.

[GGJohn]

89. Really? That "group" murdered 2 people?

I thought it was only one person that did that.

Were the rest of that group there when she murdered those 2 people?
How about a link to your claim?

[stone space]

91. "It's not a clip, it's a magazine!"

Really? That "group" murdered 2 people?

I thought it was only one person that did that

Did you think before you typed those words out?

Did you even stop to consider it from the point of view of the innocent unarmed civilians in that restaurant, who hoped against hope that this group of gunlicking ammosexuals love the customers of that restaurant more than they love their own families?

[GGJohn]

92. You said, and I quote,

They were facing down a heavily armed group that have gone on to murder two people, so far.

So you're suggesting that the others with her were complicit in the 2 murders? Do you have any proof of that?
And, BTW, who was facing down these people?
Any proof of that also?

You're just all over the map today.

[Travis_0004]

95. Agreed

They probably all finished their meal and actually paid for it. The horror.

[Duckhunter935]

104. well he is happy getting his public paycheck

Fuck the poor people he is stiffing, that is sad and he should be ashamed of himself.

Note to jury, he is the one who stated he would leave without paying his bill, stiffing the low paid server.

[stone space]

109. Is there a problem with me being employed?

well he is happy getting his public paycheck

Do you favor unemployment?

There is no need to bash your fellow DU'ers for being employed.

[Duckhunter935]

110. not at all, I also feel the server and

The owner who sold you the meal deserve to be paid also. Anything wrong with that?

[stone space]

114. We are talking about a life and death situation, and you're channeling Adam Smith?

Seriously?

[GGJohn]

116. What life and death situation?

Why all the drama?

[stone space]

118. This life and death situation.

What life and death situation?

Why all the drama?

Look, I understand your position that the double murderer and her buddies in that photo are perfectly safe to be around, even when licking their guns in public.

I just disagree, that's all.

[Duckhunter935]

121. how many were killed by them in that restaurant?

Do tell?

[GGJohn]

122. Where do you see a life and death situation?

Again, why all the drama to a benign picture?

Who's licking their firearms in public?
Got a picture of that?
Oh, wait, the last time you posted such a picture, it was rightly hidden and you went on another "vacation".

[Duckhunter935]

126. one of his several

Sorry to say

[Duckhunter935]

119. I do not know?

I just find it amazing he is fine with a low paid server not being paid but he gets all up in arms if he does not get his public paycheck.

[stone space]

123. Do you want us to work for free?

but he gets all up in arms if he does not get his public paycheck.

I'm really not understanding this blatant attack on public employees.

[Duckhunter935]

127. do you want the server to work for free?

For some reason, you will not answer that question, very telling that silence.

[GGJohn]

130. What blatant attack on public employees?

I was a public employee for over 40 years, I have nothing but respect for public employees and I would be the first to call out anyone attacking the public employee sector, so I ask again, what blatant attack on public employees?

[Duckhunter935]

133. well, I have over 30

As a military member and now civil service, I count that a public employee

[GGJohn]

135. Absoulutely it is,

so I don't know where stone space gets off accusing you of attacking the public employee sector.

[Duckhunter935]

139. beats me, I just know everything is

about him, screw others. Truly sad.

[Duckhunter935]

117. what life and death?

Did someone get shot in a restaurant? So you are fine with a worker not getting paid as long as it is not you. You love tgat public paycheck.

[stone space]

120. This life and death situation.

Did someone get shot in a restaurant? So you are fine with a worker not getting paid as long as it is not you. You love tgat public paycheck.

How did my public paycheck even become an issue here?

I thought that it was the Republicans who hated public employees, not Democrats.

Are you sure you are posting on the right website?

[Duckhunter935]

124. your paycheck came into it

When you stated you would refuse to pay the owner and server theirs. So how many have been killed in all of the open carry protests?

[stone space]

128. My paycheck is a personal matter, and not your concern.

You are trolling, here.

your paycheck came into it

When you stated you would refuse to pay the owner and server theirs.

[Duckhunter935]

129. so is the server's, right

Are you calling me a troll?

[stone space]

132. When you bash your fellow DUers for getting a paycheck, ...

...then yes, you are trolling.

My paychecks are absolutely none of your business.

It's a personal matter, and not a topic for discussion here at DU.

[GGJohn]

134. But yet you would deny a business owner or server money by running out on a food bill?

Kinda hypocritical of you.

[Duckhunter935]

136. I am not bashing you for getting a paycheck

As long as you do your job, more power to you and you should be paid. I am pointing out the hypocrisy that the you would prevent a server and owner theirs. It is sick that you would withhold payment from someone that provided a service. Funny how it is all about you and never the person's tgat you would be stiffing.

So am I a troll, yes or no?

[stone space]

138. You have no reason to even bring my paycheck into the discussion.

That's just plain trolling on your part.

[Duckhunter935]

140. you did when you brought the servers paycheck into the discussion

[stone space]

141. You have no reason to even bring my personal paycheck into the discussion.

That's just plain trolling on your part.

[Duckhunter935]

142. but it ok to withhold the helps paycheck

It is sick to have that opinion. If you provided a service should you be paid for it, I hope so. You agree right?

[GGJohn]

131. Too, too funny.

You are trolling, here.

Says the master.

[GGJohn]

125. Wow, that's a fine pretzel you made of the words he said.

[Puha Ekapi]

96. Three days, max

[GGJohn]

97. Betting pool?

I'll take 4 days for $20.00 Alex.

[Hangingon]

144. Seems more intense each reappearance.

[Duckhunter935]

112. 5

[DonP]

137. That poster has no "rheostat"

They seem incapable of adjusting their response to the actual posts. It's either all on, all wharfgarble or some odd combination of both.

Any and all posts are treated as a direct personal attack on them. I'm sure there's an appropriate medical term for that behavior.

Their next vacation will be even longer.

The 4 current hides are all fairly recent, most were based on his recent sharing of those "family album" pictures

[Marengo]

78. Is GGJohn a law enforcement office with the authority to arrest?

[GGJohn]

81. Nope,

just a retired US Army Helicopter pilot, but for some reason, stone space seems to view me as a threat to his freedom, why, hell if I know.

[stone space]

82. Of course not. Nobody in that capacity would make such threats.

Is GGJohn a law enforcement office with the authority to arrest?

Cops and courts aren't likely to tell me that I need to sacrifice the lives of myself and my family in such an emergency.

GGJohn is just making that part up.

As I explained before, such threats are rather empty threats, designed only to intimidate folks from running away, and instead urging us to offer ourselves and our families up for sacrifice at the Alter of the Holy Gun.

[GGJohn]

86. OMG. LOL,

you owe me a new keyboard, as I just spit coffee all over it reading your ridiculous answer here.
You really are disconnected from reality.

[Marengo]

93. What "emergency"?

[Duckhunter935]

102. a fact is not a threat

And you are a professor,

[GGJohn]

13. ...

I've been arrested many, many times, before

.

So what? I've never been arrested, I obey the law.

[Eleanors38]

21. I think his smokey old Evinrude died in a tank pond. No bites today.

[branford]

25. So, you've been arrested many, many times?

Everything is so much clearer now...

In any event, you have no obligation to patronize any private establishment, regardless of whether your complaint is lawful open carry of firearms or anything else. However, you most certainly do not have the legal right to partake of food in a restaurant and leave without paying except in VERY, VERY unusual and exigent circumstances. An objection to other patrons engaging in lawful activities with the consent of the property owner would definitely not be such a circumstance. Leaving a restaurant without paying is called theft, and would expose you to both criminal and civil penalties.

Moreover, informing you of the fairly obvious legal consequences of your potential actions is not a "threat" under any definition of the term. Your dislike of laws does not grant you immunity to them, as your apparent lengthy arrest record should readily attest.

[stone space]

28. Good Lord! This is a Democratic website.

So, you've been arrested many, many times?

Everything is so much clearer now...

We even have a candidate running for President who has been arrested before.

You make it sound dishonorable.

What's up with that?

Have you never heard of nonviolence before?

Practicing nonviolence does have a tendency to get folks arrested, you know.

[branford]

32. You stated you would leave a restaurant without paying

because you object to people obeying the law with the consent of owners of the establishment.

That is theft and it is most certainly "dishonorable."

Your post also conspicuously fails to actually respond to the primary theft and "threat" issues.

Further, you claim not to have just been arrested, but "arrested many, many times." For the vast majority of people across the political spectrum, we somehow manage to protest without making a habit of getting arrested. We respect the law and authority and seek to change what we don't like through the more than ample legal processes available to us in our democratic society. It is most certainly not some badge of honor or distinction to have a lengthy criminal record, no less effectively brag about how you would skip out on your bill at a restaurant as some form of paranoid political protest against the lawful open carry of firearms.

[stone space]

33. So what? Do you have a problem with nonviolence?

Further, you claim not to have just been arrested, but "arrested many, many times." For the vast majority of people across the political spectrum, we somehow manage to protest without making a habit of getting arrested.

Is practicing nonviolence something that you want me to be ashamed of?

Would you prefer if I used guns, instead?

[GGJohn]

34. Jeez Lois, this is just too funny.

You're all over the map here.

[branford]

36. No, you should be ashamed

that you apparently would skip-out on your bill at a restaurant because you object to people obeying the law with the consent of the establishment.

The legal obligation to pay for your food at a restaurant is not some unjust law that requires changing, whether through nonviolent protest or anything else.

[stone space]

38. I am NOT ashamed.

No, you should be ashamed

And your efforts to shame people who run for their lives is disgusting.

[GGJohn]

41. ...

I am NOT ashamed.

Because you have no shame.

And no one is trying to shame you, we're just trying, without success, to educate you on the law.

[DonP]

58. Skipping out on a restaurant bill isnt "non violence", it's petty theft

Don't flatter yourself that your paranoia justifies taking something and not paying for it.

That doesn't make you a hero of non-violent protest, it makes you a petty criminal, emphasis on the petty.

[stone space]

64. I'm not a petty criminal.

it makes you a petty criminal, emphasis on the petty.

[GGJohn]

66. If you skip out without paying for your food, you most certainly are,

why would you do such a thing?
Why would you cost the business owner money by not paying for your meal?
Why would you steal from someone just trying to make a living?

[stone space]

68. Are you acusing me of being a thief? (nt)

[GGJohn]

69. Thief, not theif.

Why would you cost a restaurant owner money by not paying your bill?
What did that owner do to you?

[stone space]

70. Are you acusing me of being a thief? Yes or no?

Thief, not theif.

Either you are or you aren't.

[GGJohn]

71. You said you would leave an eating establishment without paying,

so if you did that, that would make you a petty thief, why would you do something like that?
Why would you cost a small business owner money?
What did they do to you to deserve that?

[Duckhunter935]

106. you all but called me a racist

Care to revise that statement if this is now the standard

[stone space]

107. I'm not going to revise a statement that I didn't make.

you all but called me a racist

Care to revise that statement if this is now the standard

Are you seriously upset that I didn't call you as racist?

And do we really have to go thru this bit of silliness, again?

How is my not calling you a racist (and your extreme offense over me not calling you a racist) even relevant to this OP?

[Duckhunter935]

108. so am I a racist

Yes or no

[stone space]

111. Why are you doing this?

so am I a racist

Yes or no

Your feelings of insecurity do not justify hijacking this thread.

[GGJohn]

115. LOL, this is pure comedy gold,

I love the entertainment value of your nonsensical posts.

[GGJohn]

113. Jeez dude,

do you just make this shit up as you go along?
Because, at this point, you're making no sense at all.

[gejohnston]

75. I would prefer that you left at least enough of a tip to

cover the price of the meal, because the server probably go stuck paying for your theft and irrational fears.

[stone space]

76. What does this have to do with my post?

I was responding to criticism of my arrest record for practicing nonviolence.

This is a Democratic website.

One of our Presidential candidates even has an arrest record for practicing nonviolence.

Such mindless criticism of the practice of nonviolence belongs on the GOP side, not on the Democratic side.

It's an implicit criticism of one of our own candidates in this Presidential race.

[gejohnston]

88. false equivalence

Bernie was a arrested for committing a victimless crime fighting for civil rights. You are talking about committing a crime where the victim is the business and/or server because someone is exercising a constitutional right you don't like. It has nothing to do with violence or mindless partyism.

[Puha Ekapi]

94. You need to check your wheel bearings...

...there is a horrendous whine and screech emanating from them. :

[stone space]

98. I don't claim to be a track star, and I won't win any marathons, but...

...given sufficient incentive, my wheel bearings are well greased for a brief sprint to safety.

And if I can no longer run, I'll crawl my way to safety.

The words of anonymous posters on DU will have absolutely no impact on my decision, as I know that they are designed to entice me to put the lives of myself and my family at risk in an emergency situation.

You need to check your wheel bearings...

...there is a horrendous whine and screech emanating from them.

[GGJohn]

103. Again, what emergency do you see in that picture?

And, again, if you run out without paying your food bill, you would be committing a crime.

[friendly_iconoclast]

143. Our interlocutor has so far produced zero accounts of shootings in restaurants *or* classrooms...

...yet he regards the mere presence of legally armed diners and students as some
sort of life-threatening emergency.

I think his posts are a fine example of the current anti-gun mindset.

[Duckhunter935]

145. I would have thought he

Would have been able to find many

[DonP]

146. Maybe he found the Luby's Cafeteria shooting story?

But I don't think Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp would agree with him on the danger of law abiding people with guns in restaurants.

[Duckhunter935]

147. I doubt she would either

[Duckhunter935]

101. so you would commit theft

That is sad, I hope you would be prosecuted.

[flamin lib]

148. It is not theft if you believe your life is in danger and you flee to safety.

That is the standard for stand your ground, that you BELIEVE your life and safety are in danger, not that there is any evidence.

[Duckhunter935]

150. how would your life be in danger

And is it a reasonable fear as nobody has been killed during an open carry protest. Sure, leave if you are that paranoid but pay your damn bill first.

[flamin lib]

152. It is reasonable because I THINK it is just a stand your ground is justified if you THINK

you are in danger of bodily harm or death.

[Duckhunter935]

153. good luck with that

In my opinion you are just being paranoid, just as you say the SYG people are. When you leave without paying it is theft and sure hurts that server making under three dollars an hour to serve you, that is sickening.

[flamin lib]

156. l believe that anyone suffering from Agoraphobia so severe that they cannot leave home

without a gun is unqualified to own one.

Further, it is not me but management that is harming the servers and other employees by not trying to insure a safe work place without intimidation.

[GGJohn]

157. What you believe is irrelevant to what the law actually says. eom.

[Duckhunter935]

158. yep, the paranoia is strong

You have no idea why a person might have a weapon. It is true it is the business owners call and not yours. The business owner actually looked at facts and statistics and is providing a safe working environment. You are the one as well as our resident calculus professor are advocating theft by denying pay for services rendered. Too bad you two let the the paranoia win, very sad.

[flamin lib]

159. Uh, Duckhunter935, being afraid to leave home without a gun seems a lot more

paranoid than exercising caution and leaving a place with someone carrying a gun and not knowing that person or their intent or mindset.

Isn't it you gun people who keep telling us how homicides are down and everything is safe? If that is so true why the hell do some people feel the need to carry firearms all time? Could it be to protect themselves from people carrying guns? People who you don't know the the intent behind carrying a gun?

[Duckhunter935]

160. wow, now a mind reader, you are good

Like I said, you have no idea why a person might decide to carry, open or better concealed. You are not talking about exercising caution, you are talking about running out in some kind of panic as you can not spate the time to pay for services rendered and instead commit theft. Homicides are indeed down and yes, generally we are very safe. You are much more likely to be struck by lightning then an open carry firearms owner committing a murder in a restaurant. I stand by my statement, the paranoia is strong in your side our resident calculus professor. In fact so strong to advocate theft, sad for that server you stiffed.

[flamin lib]

162. Stand there as long as ya' want Duckhunter935.

The point is EXACTLY that I don't KNOW why a person might decide to carry.

If we are so fucking safe why are gun deaths, suicide and homicide, as much a 25 times higher than other countries? Our closest competitor by demographics is 10 times safer from guns than we are. A woman is killed by a domestic partner every 16 hours but I'm supposed to ASSUME that someone carrying is in good mental state and not bent on harm? What kind of fucking rational is that?

As I see it people carry for one of three reasons:
They are too terrified of life to be without a gun.
They want to intimidate everyone around them.
They are up to no good.

Any one of those is reason enough to leave the area IMMEDIATELY AND WITH ALL DUE HASTE.

If the restaurant wants my business it will not let a tiny minority of fetishists intimidate the vast majority of its customers. l DO NOT have to remain in a place of business where I am not comfortable.

Open carry and concealed carry gun worshipers just need to take responsibility for their actions.

[Duckhunter935]

163. so you still advocate theft

Sad. Sorry you are that paranoid and you would screw a minimum wage server out of a paycheck for it.

[flamin lib]

166. Sigh, Duckhunter935, it is not theft if I am leaving a situation in the most expedient manner

that I perceive as dangerous. If the restaurant caught on fire should I wait to pay the check? If I smell gas, should I wait to pay the check? If I see someone I do not know carrying a firearm capable of killing in an instant and cannot ascertain the state of mind (as you said, I'm not a mind reader) or the intent of the person should I not do the prudent thing and evacuate the area immediately and in the most expedient manner? Do I have to put my family in a situation I have no control over just to satisfy some gun owner's need to compensate or intimidate? I think not.

It isn't paranoia, it is common sense to not put myself or family in a situation of potential danger if I can do otherwise. You want to carry in public? Fine, be prepared to be treated as the pariah you are.

[gejohnston]

167. false comparison

the fire is an immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm, or at least the reasonable belief of. However, someone with a holstered pistol acting normally, isn't.
I'm guessing you wouldn't go in an Apple store in Switzerland?

[flamin lib]

169. It is not a false comparison and no, I wouldn't go in that Apple store.

Not that I'd ever go into any Apple store but that's not germane.

Someone I do not know and cannot ascertain the state of mind of or mission in carrying a gun is someone I perceive as a direct threat. I have a right to act on that perception.

[Duckhunter935]

171. yes it is, you just refuse to see it

[Duckhunter935]

168. I see you are still trying to conflate

A real immediate danger like a fire or gas leak with a perceived threat that is so very unlikely when actual numbers are used. You still have not bothered to name one person killed in a restaurant by a person legally open carrying. If it is not an immediate threat like a fire, stop and pay you fucking bill! It is sad that you and another are fine leaving that server unpaid over your paranoia.



Paranoia Definition

Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general

[flamin lib]

170. You are beginning to bore me.

In the United States, a stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a law that authorizes an individual to protect and defend their own life and limb against threat or perceived threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

I perceive assholes that need to carry guns to either intimidate or compensate and whom I do not know and cannot ascertain a safe state of mind and lack of malice as a threat and will leave the area in all due haste.

Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general

For me that meets the definition of someone who must carry a gun in public because who knows? Another person may have a gun and may attack me and may be of danger even though you admit it is more likely to be struck by lightning than shot by a stranger (yeah I know you said open carry but my comment stands on it's own merits).

Now, I am putting you on ignore. Not because like some you are a belligerent idiot but because you cannot entertain any view that doesn't directly and completely reinforce your personal worship of firearms. Besides, I've yet to see you add anything to the conversation other than bitching about SecMo not bowing to your definition of starting a discussion.

So have the last word and declare yourself winner because by the time you read this it will be invisible to me.

[Duckhunter935]

172. to bad, I am glad I have zero on ignore

That tends to be what some use when their points are completely and utterly destroyed by the facts.

[gejohnston]

173. Wiki is not the best source

it doesn't even correctly define SYG. SYG simply removes the duty to try to retreat if you can do so safely. No more, no less. Just about every country has SYG, including the UK even though the definition of reasonable is different.
Other than that, you have the same right to defend yourself under duty to retreat as long as the other four elements are present.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

Good thing you don't carry, correctly knowing the law should be required in any CCW class.

[stone space]

174. The arguement being made here in this thread is that...

...for unarmed folks, retreat is considered a "theft", and that unarmed folks who retreat should be arrested.

SYG simply removes the duty to try to retreat if you can do so safely

Unarmed civilians are being told that not only do we not have a duty to retreat, we don't even have a right to retreat.

[Duckhunter935]

175. that's bullshit and you know it

You are a thief when you skip out on paying you bill for services rendered by the wait staff and the restaurant owner. That is what you and another are being called out for. Retreat, fine, tgat is your choice. PAY your damn bill on the way out. You just want to deny wages to your sever and the owner. But YOU like being paid for services rendered, why should they not deserve the same? It is also noticed you never answer my questions to you, why?

[stone space]

177. No, I am most certainly NOT a thief. STOP CALLING ME A THIEF, GOD DAMN IT!

You are a thief

You are a liar.

[Duckhunter935]

178. you will indeed be if you follow though on what you advocate

Skipping out without paying your bill is theft. You are the one advocating that, I am not. You are the one advocating to not pay the server or restaurant owner for services rendered, not me. IF you do as you stated you would, you are then a thief.

Do you deserve to be paid for services rendered?

[stone space]

179. Again, I AM NOT A THIEF, GOD DAMN IT!

you will indeed be if you follow though on what you advocate

[Duckhunter935]

181. so what is a person that fails to pay a bill

For services rendered? That seems to be the definition of theft.

[stone space]

182. A person running for his or her life is not a thief.

You are simply lying when you call us thieves.

[Duckhunter935]

185. running from a holstered firearm?

When normal people see no threat as it is legal. Yes, unfortunately that might just show who is paranoid and you should be charged with theft IF you choose to leave without paying for services rendered.

Another question you have failed to answer....

Just how many have been killed in a restaurant from a person legally open carrying a weapon?

[Lurks Often]

188. It will be considered theft unless YOU can prove that a reasonable person

would consider themselves in fear of grave bodily harm or death. Period.

Now you can post in all caps or twist the words around like you typically do or respond back with something that has nothing to do with what I posted, that is your normal behavior and one of the main reasons you spend so much time banned from posting here and at Discussionist where you post under the screen name Cilantro: http://www.discussionist.com/?com=profile&uid=100752&sub=trans

[GGJohn]

191. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

[Duckhunter935]

192. yes he does

"I am not a thief" as he says he would commit theft. You can't make this shit up.

[branford]

195. Don't forget about he's also been "arrested many, many times before!" nt

[Duckhunter935]

196. true

Hope all is well, have not seen you around

[branford]

198. All is good. I've just been busy with work.

[Puha Ekapi]

197. Are you feeling ok?

I'm a bit concerned for your mental state right now bro....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

201. Millions of people, perhaps tens of millions of people, carry every day.

If you fear being in the same restaurant with them how do you manage to make it through any given day?

[DonP]

202. Especially when they could all "snap" at any minute

You know; "They are all law abiding, until they aren't"

Just like gun control people are all law abiding until they aren't.

That's why we need to take away their computers and internet access now in case they snap, like Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns did.

[GGJohn]

155. Uh, no, it's not, but good luck with that defense if you ever try to use it

as a pretext for skipping out of paying for a meal.

[gejohnston]

164. It has to be objectively reasonable

under the reasonable person standard, just like it is under duty to retreat. The only thing SYG does, and we are probably the only country that has DTR, require you to retreat if you safely can.

[GGJohn]

151. So someone carrying a holstered firearm sitting down to enjoy a meal is considered a threat

and you can legally leave without paying for your food?

Yeah, good luck with that defense upon arrest.

[Duckhunter935]

154. yep, and fuck the server and business owner

Really sad to be that paranoid.

[stone space]

180. Please stop threatening people with arrest.

Yeah, good luck with that defense upon arrest.

[Duckhunter935]

183. he is not threatening you at all

He is saying your defense likely will not work IF you failed to pay for services rendered and were arrested for theft. You are the one that said you would leave and not pay your bill stiffing the waitress and the business owner. You still have not answered my question, funny.

Does the waitress and business owner deserve to be paid for services rendered?

[stone space]

184. There would be no arrest. That's just an empty threat. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

186. for you think the waitress should be paid like you?

[DonP]

187. To hell with the minimum wage waitstaff, he's a "professor" and knows better.

[Duckhunter935]

193. notice how he never answered my question

Yep, it appears he does think he is above the common people that server him.

[Lurks Often]

189. Stop lying about what people post

GG John correctly stated what the POLICE would do if you left without paying in the absence of a legitimate threat as defined by your state law.

If there is a law school on the campus of where you allegedly teach math, you should go talk to one of the people teaching criminal law, perhaps they can set you straight about what you think is legal and illegal. It could very well save you a lot of money down the road if you decide to allow your irrational fear lead you into breaking the law.

[GGJohn]

190. Oh, it's you again lying about what I actually meant.

Why do you do that?
Are you truth challenged?

[Duckhunter935]

194. he stopped posting

Gee, I hope he did not go on another vacation

[Lurks Often]

199. Not yet, but it'll happen soon enough

He is incapable of not posting something that will get him a hide and another time out.

[DonP]

200. I particularly like the sharing of all the family photo albums

I'll miss it when they are gone again.

One of our few banned posters loves to show us his family pix too.

It so enriches the arguments of the control minded, almost as much as their many Cartoons-O-Philospohy.

[krispos42]

29. So if she had liability insurance on her gun...

...What would have happened?

[stone space]

30. If all her guns had been confiscated when she first started licking them in public, ...

...what would have happened?

[GGJohn]

31. Hey, why don't you post that picture again?

You know, the one of the guy licking his rifle? Go ahead, do it.

[krispos42]

49. Your side is beginning to latch onto liability insurance...

...as part& parcel of gun ownership. So tell me how it would work in this case.

[stone space]

50. If it were up to me, I'd...

So tell me how it would work in this case.

[GGJohn]

51. Take away the guns?

Yeah, good luck with that.

You really want to start a civil war don't you? Why would you wish for all the death and chaos?

[stone space]

52. All you guys have is threats, threats, and more threats.

You really want to start a civil war don't you? Why would you wish for all the death and chaos?

What's up with all the threats?

Now you're threatening Domestic Terrorism.

Do you seriously believe that issuing threats makes your case for you?

Good Lord!

[GGJohn]

55. Why do you wish for all that chaos and death?

Do you like that sort of thing? Does the deaths of possibly thousands upon thousands of law abiding Americans please you?
Just because of your irrational hatred of firearms and their owners?

[stone space]

56. More terroristic threats? WTF???

Why do you wish for all that chaos and death?

Do you like that sort of thing? Does the deaths of possibly thousands upon thousands of law abiding Americans please you?
Just because of your irrational hatred of firearms and their owners?

[GGJohn]

59. You're the one making the threats.

You want to take away the firearms of American citizens, American citizens that have committed no crime, does that please you?
Do you like the idea of dead Americans, whose only crime, in your eyes, is that they own firearms?
Why do you want thousands upon thousands of Americans injured or killed?

[stone space]

60. Your threats of Domestic Terrorism don't impress me.

Do you like the idea of dead Americans, whose only crime, in your eyes, is that they own firearms?
Why do you want thousands upon thousands of Americans injured or killed?

Didn't we just go thru this bullshit of yours in Oregon?

[GGJohn]

61. Why do you want to take away the firearms of law abiding Americans?

What have they done to you to deserve your hatred?
Does the idea of a potential civil war please you?

[stone space]

62. Why do you keep threatening war?

Does the idea of a potential civil war please you?

[GGJohn]

63. Why do you want to take away the firearms of law abiding Americans?

Why do you hate firearm owning Americans?

[Puha Ekapi]

99. I will say...

...that if your erudite, concise, and convincing gun control arguments are the cream of your side's position, then I have no fear that our 2nd Amendment is quite secure

[stone space]

100. How do you expect folks to respond when somebody waves...

...the Blue Tarp of Freedom in our faces?

Why do you wish for all that chaos and death?

Do you like that sort of thing? Does the deaths of possibly thousands upon thousands of law abiding Americans please you?
Just because of your irrational hatred of firearms and their owners?

[GGJohn]

105. You're the one that wants to deny law abiding Americans of a Constitutional right,

why do you want to do that?
You really think that law abiding Americans are just going to sit still while the govt attempts to disarm the American people?
I thought that you thought logically, guess I was wrong.

[krispos42]

65. Yeah, I get that impression. But tell me how liability insurance on guns...

...would work in cases like this.

I'm professing ignorance here. I'm a quality control inspector at a machine shop. I've never sued anybody nor been sued. I don't know how it works.

[stone space]

67. Me, neither.

I've never sued anybody nor been sued.

But some folks here in this forum keep telling me that I'm about to be sued for something that I've been doing for decades now without incident.

Not sure where they get their information from, but you might want to ask them.

They seem to claim quite a high level of expertise when it comes to lawsuits.

[beevul]

72. No you wouldn't.

You'd send someone elses kid or husband or wife to do it, armed with a gun.

[flamin lib]

149. The funerals would have paid for instead of burdening the family of the deceased.

Insurance isn't to PREVENT but to pay for the consequences.

[krispos42]

161. But the murders were a crime that she committed, right?

Would the insurance company have paid, or would there have been a rider saying that they don't pay out for damages done during the commission of a crime?

Here's my example: I have long-term disability insurance that I bought a couple of years ago. If I get disabled, I get a certain amount per month guaranteed by Mutual of Omaha. But there's a rider (if that's the correct term) stating that if I get disabled during the commission of a crime, they don't have to pay out. So if I decide to mug somebody and in the process he/she fights back, beaths the tar out of me, and disables me permanently, Mutual of Omaha doesn't have to pay because the injuries occurred while I was committing a crime.

So, if I had gun insurance and one day decided I needed to rob a 7-Eleven, if I wind up shooting somebody will the insurance company pay out for my victims? If I flip out and shoot a cheating girlfriend?

You see what I'm saying? I'm not really seeing how this is anything but free money for the insurance industry.

If I legitimately defend myself with my gun, then in some (many?) states pretty much all punishment falls on the attacker(s), not on me. For example, say I'm in line at the 7-Eleven when a guy bursts in waving a gun and demanding money. I see a chance, draw my gun, and shoot the guy. In the process, one of my bullets hits and kills a bystander. The attacker that I just shot gets the blame for the bystander's death, not me.

This is what the NYPD used in the recent shooting outside of the Empire State Building; the victim was charged with injuries to bystanders resulting from the officers' bullets missing the target and sailing into the crowd.

I think they sell insurance for people that use their guns legally for self-defense, to pay for legal fees. But liability insurance is different, right?

[flamin lib]

165. If she is in control of her facilities, ie not insane, she is liable for her actions.

That is what it means to get a life sentence, she was liable.

Here's the deal with liability insurance. If I perform an act that harms others I am liable for the damages. In my home, in my car, in public. The exception would be harming someone to prevent harm to myself or others.

The insurance policies offered by the NRA and a few other companies are designed only to bilk money from the uninformed, not to protect from liability. Insurance companies can, and do, offer useless policies as long as they aren't forced by law to do otherwise. Take the ACA for instance. Prior to it's passage the insurance companies could carve out very specific demographics to cover, weeding out any risk they could even though they based premiums on the actuarials of the populace as a whole.

I can see exempting damages caused after the theft of a firearm (if it were reported in a timely manner) or for a gun sold and the sale supported by records. There should be no exemption for lending a gun to someone who commits a crime like the Boston Bomber or the San Bernardino shooters. The owner of the guns who lent them should be held liable for their use and the people who were injured need to be made financially whole. There should be no exemption for accidental shootings as there are no accidental shootings only negligence in handling or storing guns.

All this means that the insurance companies will need good actuarial data to determine the risk presented by the type of firearm, the type of owner and the situational circumstances. Is it a pistol or long gun? Is it stored in a safe? Are there children in the house? Does the insured routinely carry the firearm in public? Has there been formal safety training? I'm sure the insurers will develop a host of pertinent factors in determining premiums.

Gun violence costs the US $226 Billion a year. Those who own the guns causing this damage need to held liable for the costs. The only way to do that is to legislate the definition of liability for gun damage and forcing insurance to cover it.

[krispos42]

176. Thank you

I will ponder this.

[stone space]

46. X-Posted to LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141347780

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. ...where it is against the LBN Terms of Service

News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014

Rules are for others, eh?

[deathrind]

57. Another...

Tragic story of a firearm being taken advantage of because we all know firearms don't cause violence or kill people (so I hear). This poor firearm was (probably) just kicking back in its holster minding its own business not bothering anyone until this (obviously) emotionally compromised human came along and manipulated this firearm into discharging its ammunition...because yelling and screaming / international sign language / bad words were just not enough to assuage the anger in this person at those who caused her pain.

/sarcasm off

[beevul]

73. Lots of focus on the firearm...

Lots of focus on the firearms, very little focus on the bad actor.

Unsurprising, and definitely not new.

[Marengo]

90. And in the following case an innocent knife was forced to kill 3 people...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/us/college-double-murder-suicide/

Like the gun in your tale, minding it's own business in a store before being purchased and promptly put to use as a murder/suicide weapon.

Time for a meaningful discussion on sensible knife control?

As I wrote in another post, perhaps a waiting period would have saved three lives. You on board with that?

[ileus]

74. I trust my wife with her 642.