So, did the father break any laws in providing his disturbed son with a gun?
If he did, he should be prosecuted. Maybe that would be a good place to start.
It’s hardly tacit. The flag made a reappearance only in the 1950’s, as a response to desegregation. Racial hate is what it has always stood for. And yes, it’s long overdue to be sent back into history where it belongs. The Republican candidates all ducked it in the last election, but let’s see if they duck it this time, too.
Except for the friend who knew he’d been planning it for six months, but didn’t say anything.
Accessory?
Seems highly unlikely. The son was an adult, and there is no indication of a felony record or diagnosed mental illness, which would be the only possible legal reasons I can think of.
And even then, the law would probably be about selling a weapon to someone - considering how gun-friendly the laws are in general (and I imagine SC doesn’t have stricter than usual ones), it might not be illegal to gift a weapon to anyone.
Dylann Roof reportedly said he almost didn’t go through with it because they were so nice to him.
I could be wrong, but if the father got the gun for his son because his son could not legally get one, that’s a straw purchase and is, I believe, illegal.
On the other hand, as you said, giving a gun as a gift isn’t illegal. I guess that means we have to dive into the father’s mindset.
That’s unfair. Bush may very well not want to be giving “up-and-at-'em” speeches in a city in mourning. It’s not gutless, it’s just sensible.
[/QUOTE]
Plus it’s not just Bush - Trump and Graham also cancelled campaign events.
Bush, Graham and Trump cancel campaign events following church shooting
And by that logic, shouldn’t Obama be scheduling a trip there? Last I saw he was going to California.
I can’t fault the candidates for not wanting to appear to capitalize on a tragedy. The proper thing to do is stay away.
i’m tired of people describing him as “disturbed”. He’s just as disturbed as any Islamic terrorist, and yet we don’t ever describe those people as “disturbed”. We just say they are hateful terrorists.
I’m betting we’re in for a full night of talking heads pontificatiing about the failures of mental health services. We’ll hear so many pitiful stories about him and his “struggles” that we’ll be feeling sorry for the po’ chile before too long.
Their father was Chechen; they weren’t “originally from Chechnya.” Their mother was from Dagestan (a republic in the Russian Federation; I can’t figure out her ethnicity). They lived there and in Kyrgyzstan (a separate country), and of course in the US.
They were Russians by citizenship and spoke Russian, so it’s not correct to say they “weren’t even Russian.” They just weren’t ethnically Russian.
The “rape our women” comment was first reported in an NBC News interview prior to the 7:39am Fox News clip. It’s dark outside in the video of that witness. And if you look at the twitter reaction to that comment, it clearly aired prior to the Fox News segment. It’s possible that the Fox News producers did not learn of this other reporting, of course. I don’t know what the actual gap in time was. But I thought it worthwhile to point out that you seem to have just made up the 8:25am time in an effort to defend Fox News.
What is not possible, what is not even in the same country as the truth, is that “this was before any evidence that this was, in fact, a racially-motivated hate crime came out,” as you put it. What they definitely knew at the time–because they talked about it in the broadcast in question–is that a young white man had murdered nine black congregants at a historic black church and that the police and FBI considered it a racial hate crime based on the evidence they had at that time. Doocey calls it “extraordinary” that it would be labeled a hate crime based on that information, but is totally happy to characterize it as motivated by anti-Christian bias on far less evidence.
I haven’t heard or read anything that suggests Roof was unable to legally purchase a gun. Did I miss something?
ivylass was responding to a question about whether the father could be charged with anything. And the answer is “probably only if Roof couldn’t buy his own gun and the dad made a straw buy.”
I hadn’t heard anything either. It’s just speculation based on Roof’s previous arrests and drug addiction. For all I know, he never intended to own a gun until dear old Pop gave him one. I was commenting on what the father’s motives might have been in giving his son a gun.
To me, this sad affair is a lot like the Connecticut school shootings-Obama makes a speech, will probably appoint a commission (to study it), and the whole thing will be forgotten…unless there is political capital to be made off it.
Our cynical politicians have no answers, they just talk a lot.
Our politicians have answers. Some of them, at least. The problem is that other politicians don’t want to hear those answers.
He’s confessed:
I have a completely pointless observation, since I’m not a racist looking to start a race war: If he’s concerned about all the raping of “our” women, why did he kill more women than men?
I know, stupid question, with a simple answer: The guy is pond scum.
I wouldn’t try to fit his views into a logical scheme, but since his goal was to start a race war, not just to protect white women from them darkie rapists, it probably didn’t matter to him that much. Plus, killing black women means preventing the birth of black men in the future, or something. Then again, maybe he’s mad about black women raping white women. I mean, it’s not an area of huge concern to law enforcement, as far as I can tell, but presumably it’s happened somewhere.
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. They rape “our” women, we kill “their” women.