Florida shooting suspect returns to court for hearing

The guy is going to get death, to bad he didn't get help when there was still a chance when so many said he wasn't right

he may well suffer from bpd but i hope it doesnt help him get away from the chair.

he may well suffer from bpd but i hope it doesnt help him get away from the chair.

It's been reported that he has apologized for what he did, to the family with whom he was living. That would indicate an ability to recognize that what he did was wrong, though of course it would be his mind-state at the time of the killings that would be relevant as to his ability to differentiate right from wrong.

The NRA and Conservative news outlets including FOX push the narrative that any attempt to pass common sense gun legislation will lead to a ban on all firearms but never tell the whole story. In order to ban guns it would require a Constitutional Amendment which requires 3/4 of both houses vote for the Amendment, a President willing to sign it and then a requirement that 3/4 of the states ratify it. The reality is, that will never happen. Trump has cut funding to mental health programs by billions but wants to lay the blame at the feet of a failing mental health sys. He signed into law a bill that allows mentally ill ppl to purchase firearms legally.

This is madness and it's far past time to put an end to it.

Assault type weapons ban and other controls can be introduced without any change to the 2nd amendment.

Though the money must be decent, I always think what a hard job it must be to be a defense lawyer in these type of cases.

Though the money must be decent, I always think what a hard job it must be to be a defense lawyer in these type of cases.

The money is crap, but you are right about the job, it is a hard job to be a public defender, both in terms of subject matter and workload. It is probably the least sought after attorney's job out of law school.

The courts may farm out defense to outside attorneys and pay more, but starting salary is around $40k per year, or even less depending on the area, for a public defender.

It seems obvious that the defense is trying to keep the Cruz from the Chair.

I was pleased to hear that he pleaded guilty.

Trump "also angered some students by" acting like he normally does, dumb, thin-skinned, self-serving and callous.

The NRA and Conservative news outlets including FOX push the narrative that any attempt to pass common sense gun legislation will lead to a ban on all firearms but never tell the whole story. In order to ban guns it would require a Constitutional Amendment which requires 3/4 of both houses vote for the Amendment, a President willing to sign it and then a requirement that 3/4 of the states ratify it.

What are you talking about, that basic Constitutional logic 101. FNC talks about it all the time, all the time I think you might be watching too much Shep.

The reality is, that will never happen.

Not the way the left wants it and to be honest, even within the Democratic Party, they are split on this, Most really don’t want to fix this issue, not even the Dems. They had a huge chance when they did have majorities and didn’t do anything.

Trump has cut funding to mental health programs by billions but wants to lay the blame at the feet of a failing mental health sys.

Trump wants to revisit the issue, but again, the Democrats are the entitlement party, they have not advocated in creating and reopening mental asylums.

He signed into law a bill that allows mentally ill ppl to purchase firearms legally.

This is madness and it's far past time to put an end to it.

How? The left surely doesn’t have an answer or wants to solve it.

He deserves to live among bars and bars of soap...

Nighty night! Keep your butthole tight!

@zichi

Assault type weapons ban and other controls can be introduced without any change to the 2nd amendment.

We don't actually know this for a fact. The 1994 assault weapons ban was challenged and upheld in court on a number of constitutional grounds, but interestingly it was never challenged on the basis that it violated the 2nd amendment, so this point was never considered or ruled on. It was a strategic decision by those who thought they could defeat the law without risking an unfavourable interpretation of the 2nd amendment for a ban that was set to expire anyway. It's still anyone's guess whether the 1994 ban violated the 2nd amendment.

In 2016, The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to assault weapons bans in Connecticut and New York, in the aftermath of the shooting attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that left 50 people dead.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.

Connecticut and New York enacted bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in response to the December 2012 massacre of 20 children and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother before driving to the school where he gunned down the victims with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Lanza then killed himself.

Love your guns, bury your children.

Not sure if advocating rape is the answer to this tragedy. This kid will spend a long time in prison to contemplate the horror he caused. Hopefully, psychologists/psychiatrists will be able to find what drove him to commit the atrocity.

@zichi

First, These are all state bans, which is significant. Second, for the Supreme Court to 'reject a challenge' does not mean what you might think it means. Every year SCOTUS is petioned to hear over 10,000 cases. The court only chooses about 70 of them. How they vote on which cases will be heard and which will not is a bit of a mystery. They may be waiting for more states to experiment with different laws until one emerges that is clearly constitutional or blatantly unconstitutional or they may be waiting for a federal standard to develop. In any event, it does not mean that the 99% of cases that are never heard did not involve some violations of the constitution or that similar cases will also never be heard or are more likely to be judged unmeritorious. Until SCOTUS gives us a final decision on a case that is fully heard on 2nd amendment grounds, the ball is still up in the air.

By the way, are you actually familiar with what precisely constitutes an assault weapon in many of these state laws and the old 1994 federal ban? I think most people do not. I was blown away to discover what types of guns are not considered assault weapons. It's essentially the exact same guns as the assault rifles, same rates or fire, same ammunition, same detachable magazines, but just missing a few inconsequential attachments like a scope and an extra grip handle. For this reason, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the current assault weapons 'bans' are ruled perfectly constitutional. They are not actually banning guns at all, they are only banning people from attaching fairly benign peripherals to their guns.

“Mr Cruz has fresh cuts on both his arms. Mr Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun. It is unknown what he is buying the gun for,” the report was quoted as saying. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged it failed to act on a tip warning that Cruz possessed a gun and the desire to kill.

Yep. The system failed the victims and, to some extent, Cruz on so many levels here. 

In a country where pretty much everyone has access to assault weapons one would hope that the FBI & other law enforcement officers take all these reports/mental health assessments seriously. The current situation is morally unsustainable, you can't live in a society where a -sometimes small- oversight may lead to such tragedy.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.

Those are the liberalist of States, won’t happen in the Southern States.

Connecticut and New York enacted bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in response to the December 2012 massacre of 20 children and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The gunman, Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother before driving to the school where he gunned down the victims with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. Lanza then killed himself.

Great.

M3M3M3

Whatever makes it work to reduce or ban the more deadly weapon like all assault rifles and handguns. The original designer of AR-15 designed it for the purpose of the military not for civi street.

There are 20 leagues of further gun controls which would not oppose the 2nd amendment but all are opposed by the NRA. The NRA is the devil and does not want to give up his fire or even reduce its strengths. Million spend on lobbies to buy the politicians to ensure there are no changes.

Every year a further 5 million guns are made.

If he had been born in another country he might have gotten treatment for mental disorder or committed this tragic act with a knife harming far fewer.

There are far too many guns in the US to the point of it being ridiculous. I wonder what everyone is so scared of.

I agree that guns don't inherently kill people, but people kill people; but the gun is a tool that greatly magnifies the ability of someone to cause damage.

bass4funk

Great!

What's great the death of 20 children or great that the mass shooter murdered 20 children then committed suicide by gunshot?

Zichi, the gun featured in this video is not an assault rifle and perfectly legal... at least according to California law which has the strictest assault weapons ban and gun laws thought possible in the US. I think anyone who thinks there is a gun 'control' solution which does not involve repealing the 2nd amendment is not facing up to reality.

https://youtu.be/kIq1wlIOHh4

As I said in the other thread, I think leaving it exclusively to the states to either allow or completely ban and criminalise guns is a reasonable and fair compromise in a country as big and diverse as the US. We've been going around in circles for over 30 years and it's time to put forward a drastic compromise that will at least satisfy both those who want to live in a society where guns are illegal and those who want to keep them. The worse that could happen if the plan fails is that we are back to the status quo.

M3M3M3

Further gun controls could be introduced without changing the 2nd Amendment.

Further gun controls could be introduced without changing the 2nd Amendment.

So why haven't state legislatures with democratic supermajorities and zero NRA backing such as California introduced these controls yet if they are legal? You need a convincing explanation if they are in fact legal.

I think the easier solution is just to tax the heck out of guns and ammo. How did a young kid get the money to buy a gun and ammo unless they were very cheap...

Of course a requirement for a training and safety course would also be common sense in my opinion.

Those are the liberalist of States, won’t happen in the Southern States.

Might happen in Florida. It is a purple state and generally more educated that the other Southern States. My friends there who are gun owners do not have ARs, they are worthless for hunting because you can't have a weapon with more than 5 rounds.

Great.

Oh the deprived or just the depraved? You probably supported teflon coated bullets, for recreational purposes of course.

I have a history with guns as both a civilian (hunting and some skeet shooting) and in the military (for the specific purpose of killing people if need be).

If you want to say that you need a gun to combat an out of control government, I would say BS. Non-ARs are just fine for your fantasy of stopping a liberal government.

Civilians have no need AR-15s, AKs and and other military grade rifles. Period.

M3M3M3

You need a convincing explanation if they are in fact legal.

I have already posted several times since the Florida mass shooting about gun controls which could be introduced even without banning assault rifles or changes to the 2nd amendment, such as gun owner registration, 28 day back check period, no online or private sales of guns. I 'm not going to repeats those.

The goal should be the ban of all military style weapons but tighter gun controls are also required. I live in Japan and if I lived permanently in the USA then I would probably start a campaign for just that.

Look, he did it, he said he did, forget wasting money in courts, just strap him to the chair and fry him, end of story.

I have already posted several times since the Florida mass shooting about gun controls which could be introduced

Zichi, but I didn't ask you what your suggestions were, I asked why haven't states with democratic super majorities already implemented them? My question still stands.

As for your suggestions:

such as gun owner registration

How would your gun registry differ from the one in Washington DC which was stripped of its main provisions for being unconstitutional?

no online or private sales of guns.

Already done in some states... which still suffer from mass shootings.

28 day back check period

I'm guessing you mean a waiting period? The average is already around 7, some states 10, some 14. Is 28 going to make any difference? You will have to back this up with evidence of reasonableness if you want it to withstand legal challenge. Where is the evidence that an agitated person who will have cooled down after 28 days would not have cooled down by 7, 14 or 21 days? Any restrictions you impose will have to be the absolute minimum interference with people's rights to own something that is perfectly legal and constitutionally protected.

There is no light at the end of the mass shooting tunnel as long as people have a constitutionally protected right to guns.

The light is an oncoming train?

Constitutional rights are not absolute.

I guess if everyone is buying an Assault Rifle then you need something more powerful to adequately defend yourself and your Family with....

mukashiyokattaToday  12:54 pm JST

Love your guns, bury your children.

In America, it's more like "love your guns, laugh at your neighbors who have to bury their children."

Constitutional rights are not absolute.

I guess that's why they are called Amendments?

albaleo

If only constitutional changes are only the way to make changes to the horror of mass shootings and murders then we might as well pack it all in now, stop commenting and go home because there will never be any constitutional changes to the 2nd amendments and if other ways will never work then I guess the killings will continue on well after I'm no longer here myself. Sad day for children.

So end of discussions then!

Gun supporters will block attempts to limit guns, and mass shootings at schools will continue. Not really rocket science.

If supporters are serious about helping kids, then why not put forth your own solutions since you'll block anything you don't support anyway.

So, to all of the gun supporters here, what changes would you be willing to accept? And please don't respond with, "Well here's what I won't accept...."

What's great the death of 20 children or great that the mass shooter murdered 20 children then committed suicide by gunshot?

That’s just a stupid question, I won’t even stoop to answer.

Might happen in Florida. It is a purple state and generally more educated that the other Southern States.

Florida is a Southern State. So I guess they should be fine, they both got Bush and Trump elected, love the 2nd amendment, so it should be ok.

My friends there who are gun owners do not have ARs, they are worthless for hunting because you can't have a weapon with more than 5 rounds.

I see, well, I like them, get for target shooting.

Oh the deprived or just the depraved? You probably supported teflon coated bullets, for recreational purposes of course.

No, but now that you’ve got me thinking....

I have a history with guns as both a civilian (hunting and some skeet shooting) and in the military (for the specific purpose of killing people if need be).

With the exception of being in the military, you and I are not that far different on guns after all.

If you want to say that you need a gun to combat an out of control government, I would say BS. Non-ARs are just fine for your fantasy of stopping a liberal government.

Civilians have no need AR-15s, AKs and and other military grade rifles. Period.

Ok, that’s your personal opinion and I don’t agree one bit.

Gun supporters will block attempts to limit guns, and mass shootings at schools will continue. Not really rocket science.

Liberals don’t and never will get it, this is from someone that is an expert on this.

If supporters are serious about helping kids, then why not put forth your own solutions since you'll block anything you don't support anyway. 

So, to all of the gun supporters here, what changes would you be willing to accept? And please don't respond with, "Well here's what I won't accept...."

https://youtu.be/oN_kvgxf05M

https://youtu.be/herEbL9PywA

These guys hit it out of the ball park. This would be the best solution or how about combining the police, the sheriff and the schools that’s another option, guarantee you, there would never be another shooting again.

So how about adding this to the end of the 2nd amendment?

“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except to ensure public safety.”

Bass: https://youtu.be/oN_kvgxf05M

This is what I've been saying. If people want to keep their guns, then turn schools into supermax facilities like we do with prisons. Restrict access points, build walls, metal detectors, search visitors, etc.

That means that gun supporters will have to be on board with passing some hefty tax increases to retrofit our schools to protect against guns. I'm assuming you are on board with that? What about other gun supporters you know, would they be willing to pay the money required to do this? That's where the rubber will meet the road.

The other issue is that mass shootings outside of schools, like the Vegas shooting, the Orlando shooting, etc, will still continue, but at least it will be adults who have a chance and not children who are sitting ducks.

Since his mental heath treatment has been suppressed we can only speculate, but I would be interested to hear that he had NOT been on psych medication. News blackouts only raise the strong possibility that he was.

Some interesting reading here about the subject:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-16-psych-drug-shooters-florida-school-shooter-was-on-medication-reports-miami-herald-just-like-nearly-all-the-others.html

I have a serious question for all of those who've posted, regardless of what side of the debate you fall on:

The US has legal availability of handguns and long rifles (including assault rifles) for decades. These same guns have been around, available, and accessible by adults and their children since before many of us were born.

What is the change over the last 10-15 years with mass shootings (clubs, schools, churches, theatres, etc) with guns that were also available back then, but these situations did not happen as they do now. If anything, gun laws were more relaxed back then.

Seems a lot of the problem is with the young adults now compared to then.

Yuko Maeda

Seems a lot of the problem is with the young adults now compared to then.

The average age of mass shooters is 35 years. The Los Vegas mass shooter was 64 years.

Lawyers have the easiest case for ‘wrongful death’ lawsuits in the history of this type of litigation. The county policy constructed by public officials (School Board and Superintendent), and the county law enforcement policy that was specifically and intentionally designed to ignore unlawful behavior (Broward Sheriff), is the very definition of intentional gross negligence.

Gross negligence requires a pre-disposition to create a system that is inherently dangerous. That is exactly what happened in Broward County, Florida. Despite specific warnings that unstable and/or violent students would likely slip through the system as a result of intentional ‘willful blindness’; and despite specific warnings by police officers that these policies were dangerous; community leaders, district school administration and local police officials executed those policies anyway. The resulting loss of life was entirely predictable for years.

It will be very important for the families to screen out the lawyers carefully. Many of the top lawyers are aligned with high-ranking politicians. Political lawyers like John Morgan (Morgan & Morgan) are part of the ideological alignment with certain politicians that created the system of policies – that led to the deaths of the students. Morgan would be a terrible lawyer for the families because he, along with many others would hold conflicts.

IMHO, the victim families need to get good lawyers who are not part of the political system within the state of Florida; and must not -EVER- hire who have connections to certain high ranking politicians. There will be massive political pressure around the entire issue with all those who constructed the schemes being protected by the same system that needs to protect of ............................................................................ (you may fill in the blank).

Also in the Miami local news...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200564969.html

Just like Sandy Hook (where the building was torn down to hide evidence) the school in Florida is coming down too! This totally reeks of something that is hidden to the public eye. As if a fire hose with hydrogen peroxide would not be cheaper than a whole new building, unless, of course, the story is not straight!!!

I feel sorry for all the Parents in the US. You send your Kids to School and you don't know whether that casual "Goodbye" could be your last.

Ok, that’s your personal opinion and I don’t agree one bit.

How about grenade launchers? Or Fully automatic military grade machine guns?

they have not advocated in creating and reopening mental asylums.

Who is going to pay for that?

Conservatives keeping it classy AF:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-trying-discredit-outspoken-florida-193046423.html

Seems a lot of the problem is with the young adults now compared to then.

The average age of mass shooters is 35 years. The Los Vegas mass shooter was 64 years.

Many of the school shootings, if not the majority are younger than that. But regardless of age, what is different NOW with these mass shootings being so prevalent compared to 20-40 years ago, when the same guns existed, still available to the general public at large.