world

3 shot dead at Pennsylvania town meeting; shooter tackled

17 Comments
By JOANN LOVIGLIO

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

"He said he crawled out to a hallway, exited the building and took cover behind a vehicle."

Ah, what's all the fuss? Wouldn't this guy have to crawl out to a hallway and take cover if Mowell was attacking people with wax lips or a can of coffee? How DARE someone hide as though it was the weapon and not the intent that might have killed him or her otherwise!

How many gun massacres in the US so far this month? scratch that... this week?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Just beautiful -- the American town hall meeting confronts another patriot exercising his second amendment rights.

How did Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle put it? Oh yes, he was just applying "second amendment remedies" to a land dispute, in the finest American tradition. You didn't want to tread on this guy.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Wouldn't this guy have to crawl out to a hallway and take cover if Mowell was attacking people with wax lips or a can of coffee?

Lets be realistic here Smith if he didn't have a gun he probably would have used a knife, ax, chainsaw, his own car, a bow or crossbow, or just made homemade explosives which are found quite regularly in the US. Heck he might have even used fire/arson.

How many gun massacres in the US so far this month? scratch that... this week?

Well gun massacres are classified by the FBI as 4 or more people killed so this one would not count. So this week either zero or one at the most.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

How many gun massacres in the US so far this month? scratch that... this week?

It definitely is in the running for Shootout of the Week.

But, again, it's only Tuesday.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The gunman, who appeared to be “shooting randomly,” was captured and was treated at a hospital"

Does he have health insurance or loads of money, or are the taxpayers going to pick up this one?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

That'd have been me, I would have blown the whole town.

he probably would have used a knife, ax, chainsaw,....

A plane.

the dilapidated condition of his property...action against Newell for violating regulations...“They have no right to kick me off my property,”

Exactly, they get the right from where ? I hate whenever they do that. That's really disgusting. If he had not the means to maintain his house up to the increased standards, while all the neighbors have become so rich that all the houses became white with a velvet like lawn on the front... he needed help from that community, not being persecuted for having a old house. He is disabled, where can go ? Oh, now it's arranged, that will be jail.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Their is no predicting a deranged person. His situation and desperation were his drivers and his 'release' was with his guns. How unfortunate, most any method could have been used for his 'vengeance', he used guns. If he had no guns what would he have used? I can think of many ways to inflict harm or death on people on a mass scale w/o a gun.

Bottom line, treat the condition, not the tool used.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

NoLiving: "Lets be realistic here Smith if he didn't have a gun he probably would have used a knife, ax, chainsaw, his own car, a bow or crossbow, or just made homemade explosives which are found quite regularly in the US. Heck he might have even used fire/arson."

So, hang on... you're asking people to 'be realistic' while pointing out, in an apologist's argument for guns, that homemade explosives are also readily available in the US? Sorry, my friend, but even with all those other weapons available in the US, the fact remains that people were ducking behind cars not because the perpetrator in this incident had a chainsaw, knife, homemade bomb, or whatever else you want to cue the Benny Hill music to, but because he, as always, had a gun.

"Well gun massacres are classified by the FBI as 4 or more people killed so this one would not count. So this week either zero or one at the most."

Classic.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Seems to me that the biggest problem is not the guns themselves but the "Americans" using the guns. They are quite addicted to violence as a society, aren't they?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Going in with guns blazing is probably never the right thing to do. BUT, " In June, the Pocono Record wrote a story about what it said was an 18-year fight between the township and Newell over his property.

Monroe County Court in August 2012 sided with the township and ordered Newell to vacate and never again occupy or use the property unless he had the permits to do so. The report said Newell had been living out of a car and in abandoned buildings since being ordered to vacate.

Newell told the newspaper he was unemployed for years after an injury from a crash and had nowhere else to go."

This man was forced off HIS property/home after an EIGHTEEN YEAR squabble with local government. The straw that broke the camel's back!

Ok, so, let's agree that his property was a mess. He was apparently injured and unable to work. How about offering the man a helping hand instead of a jackboot to the head?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How about offering the man a helping hand instead of a jackboot to the head?

Call me a radical, but going in to a town meeting and shooting up the place does call for law enforcement to apply some restraint. But this is getting interesting.

Did the man ever, in all that time, present himself at a town meeting (or a church, perhaps) and simply appeal for some help?

The morals remind me of one application back in Michigan (where I grew up) in 1927. Another guy had a years-long dispute with the town over something like this matter. His method of getting back was to plant explosives in the local schoolhouse, killing 38 people, mainly kids. Did they get what they deserved?

Ultimately, that's what is revealing about the United States and its "second amendment." The guy is too proud to humble himself and ask for some help when he needs it, but he's not too proud to grab a gun and start blowing away innocent people. In his twisted mind, he probably rationalized that he was acting in the defense of something.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" Call me a radical, but going in to a town meeting and shooting up the place does call for law enforcement to apply some restraint. But this is getting interesting. Did the man ever, in all that time, present himself at a town meeting (or a church, perhaps) and simply appeal for some help?"

Ok. You're a radical.

As I STATED, going in guns blazing is not the best choice. And again, this argument had festered like a boil for nearly twenty years. Had he asked for assistance? Don't know. Had anyone offered assistance? Don't know. Had he been evicted from HIS PROPERTY? Check!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Had he been evicted from HIS PROPERTY? Check!

In the course of his eviction, had the Law been followed? (Laws made by the people and for the people?)

Check and mate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

He OWNED the property since 1990. It was his. It's called Property Rights. But in the twisted laws, the government reserves the right to rescind one's ownership right. So, if you think you own your land or home, guess again. If or when some council determines what was yours no longer is yours, you'll be in a similar predicament. You get Rooked!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, hang on... you're asking people to 'be realistic' while pointing out, in an apologist's argument for guns, that homemade explosives are also readily available in the US? Sorry, my friend, but even with all those other weapons available in the US, the fact remains that people were ducking behind cars not because the perpetrator in this incident had a chainsaw, knife, homemade bomb, or whatever else you want to cue the Benny Hill music to, but because he, as always, had a gun.

What is your point Smith? That if he didn't have a gun this man would not have attacked these people?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

He OWNED the property since 1990. It was his. It's called Property Rights. But in the twisted laws, the government reserves the right to rescind one's ownership right.

That's a rather childlike way to look at it. In the real world, the so-called "property rights" come with responsibilities also governed by laws passed by the people, for the people. There is nothing hidden or twisted about the process. If an individual expects "the people" to uphold their rights to ownership and reasonable use, they have to keep their end of the bargain as well.

In this case, the laws that governed this man's property made its decrepit condition such that he was not allowed to live on it or use it without a proper permit. He was still the legal owner of the property. That the condition existed for so long speaks to the patience and forbearance exhibited by the town.

If or when some council determines what was yours no longer is yours

Here's something even a child should be able to understand: If you don't like the property laws, don't buy the property. If you want to buy property and don't like the laws, work with like-minded citizens to change the laws. The odds are, however, that most of the citizens will be mature adults and won't subscribe to the It's-My-Property-And-So-I-Am-God-Over-It attitude. That same attitude that drives some people to pick up a gun and kill others with no due process whatsoever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Civil Forfeiture practices, such as which led to this man's predicament, are an ugly side of things in US.

http://rt.com/usa/civil-forfeiture-new-yorker-244/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites