More specifically a police page I’m on said a .40 cal Smith & Wesson.
Seems like he should have been put in prison for a more meaningful amount of time for prior offenses. Convicted of stabbing a woman…a bunch of prior arrests including domestic battery…5 people would still be alive if they’d thrown the book at him harder in the past. I’m typically a pretty big critic of the prison industrial complex and over-incarceration, but sometimes violent individuals just need to be contained, full stop.
Using hindsight you can say that. It’s hard to tell at this point circumstances behind his history. There’s one felony for aggravated assault but that’s over 20 years old. Chances are given his history he would not be in prison now no matter what.
A bit of a hijack but I think it’s interesting and relevant. This opinion piece in the New York Times is from a psychiatrist in Sacramento who discusses a teenage patient who threatened to slit the throat of a female classmate and whose Instagram account included photos of the guy who killed people in a church in Charleston with the word “hero” below it and also had a photo of his school with a caption reading “Columbine 2.0”. In short he could be a future school shooter.
Sometimes there are warning signs that someone is a potential mass shooter. What do we do in such cases?
Typically nothing. The Parkland shooter was throwing out signs like a fireworks show, but the authorities didn’t do much of anything about it.
But that one false negative doesn’t tell us much about how to handle such cases if thousands of other people throw out similar signs and do nothing.
Yup, that’s why we typically do nothing: if 1/1000 people who seem dangerous end up hurting someone, it doesn’t seem particularly just to lock up 1,000 people on a 0.1% chance they might be the one that’s going to hurt people.
It looks like, in this case, the background check system which he went through to get a FOID failed (or was insufficient). I’m no expert on how Illinois handles these, but should it have flagged him for the assault conviction when he initially applied? If not, why not? If the fact that he was convicted in a different state is why, that seems to be a major flaw in the system.
The company I work for maintains the fire alarm and sprinkler systems at this complex and I’ve been there many times. Think of it as an industrial strip mall—one building broken up into multiple spaces. The Henry Pratt space took up 29,000 sq ft. The spaces are irregularly shaped and there are multiple entry/exit points. If you’re not familiar with the layout it’s easy to get lost. It’s a wonder the shooter didn’t take out any more police.
I just heard on the news that the weapon he used was obtained legally, registered, AND was supposed to have been confiscated when he was convicted of that felony. This was never done.
So, you people who think gun confiscation under circumstances like this is the beginning of a slippery slope, what’s your opinion about it now?
:mad:
This is slightly inaccurate, as I understand it.
He was convicted of felony aggravated assault in Mississippi in 1995 (and served less than two years in prison). At some point after leaving prison, he moved to Illinois.
In early 2014, he applied for an Illinois FOID card. He passed the background check, was issued the card, and purchased the firearm. At some point later in 2014, he then applied for a concealed carry license – at that point, he was fingerprinted (CCLs apparently requiring more detailed background checks), and that’s when the Illinois authorities discovered his prior conviction (which disqualified him from holding a FOID).
At that point, his FOID card was revoked by the state of Illinois, and state policy is that he would have been sent a letter notifying him of this (and that a copy of the letter would have been sent to his local law enforcement office). As part of that, he was legally required to turn in or dispose of his gun (though he clearly did not do so, and the second link below indicates that this is not uncommon). It appears that, theoretically, the local police could have confiscated his gun at that point, but such confiscations are apparently not common.
Sources:
I don’t know if it is still this way but apparently the check for a firearms ID did not include a fingerprint check. Criminal history is linked through the national fingerprint system used by law enforcement. His out of state conviction did not show up.
He was convicted before he obtained the weapon. After he got the weapon he applied for a concealed carry permit. The check for that included a fingerprint check. That background check did turn up his conviction. His application was denied and he was told to turn in his weapon since he was never supposed to have it in the first place. The questions being asked now why there was never a follow-up to that request.
Even though I guess they theoretically should I don’t think cops tend to show up to the houses of persons with certain convictions to confiscate their firearms. Aren’t people with domestic violence convictions supposed to be barred from possessing firearms or something? Even if you knew such a person, knew they had a firearm, and reported it, depending where you are in the country the local police may not pursue it.
Hmm - having lived/worked in the Chicago area most of my life, having this occur in a city of 200K 45+ min SW of Chicago doesn’t scare me any more/less than if it had occurred in California, or closer to home. Might make some folk second guess a choice of HR as a career, tho.
In today’s paper, it said that when his FOID was revoked, he was sent a letter, asking him to turn in his gun. Apparently compliance is voluntary, and there is no follow-up. And if he hadn’t applied for CC permit, he wouldn’t have even gotten the letter. Great system! :rolleyes:
I am not clear on that yet.
He was convicted of aggregate assault in the 90s. I haven’t seen it stated it was domestic violence. Regardless under Ohio law he wasn’t legally allowed to own a gun because he was a convicted felon.
I read somewhere he had been arrested for domestic assault but I didn’t see where he was convicted.
I haven’t read everything so maybe I missed it.
That’s also a federal law.
So the FOID check didn’t include a fingerprint check. Did he falsify his other identifying information, or is that just not checked, either? The purpose of a fingerprint check is to determine who someone is. But if you can do that without a fingerprint, it should be even easier to access the relevant databases.
There’s no way to really answer that definitively. There are multiple databases. I don’t think there is a way to find the answer as to what was checked. Their exact procedures in Ohio are probably governed by internal SOPs and not online. The easiest database to access only covers within the state. A national search is more difficult. It’s no excuse but I can see where human error can come into it.
Fingerprints are important because criminal history through NCIC is tracked specifically by when you are fingerprinted. Every time you are arrested for an offense that requires fingerprints it will show up in your record. When you are convicted it is then updated to show that conviction.
But the databases presumably don’t use fingerprints as the primary key, since even for prints taken in a controlled circumstance like being booked at the police station or applying for a background check, they’ll vary slightly. I’d expect the primary key to be a number of some sort, most likely social security. So it should be possible to check the databases using just that number. Using fingerprints is just to catch someone who manufactures a new identity so their past misdeeds won’t be connected to them.
See my links in post #31. Yes, he was convicted, and he served time for it.
From the second link in my earlier post:
“Martin received an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card in January 2014. Two months later, Martin purchased a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun, apparently the same weapon used in Friday’s shooting. That’s despite a 1995 conviction in Mississippi for aggravated assault. Records indicate Martin served less than two years in prison.”
Also, you noted in post #35 that, “under Ohio law,” he wouldn’t have been able to legally own a firearm. I’m not sure what Ohio, specifically, has to do with anything – he was convicted in Mississippi, and (unless I’m the one who’s missing something) bought the gun (and was issued a FOID) in Illinois.