HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Suspect in Botched Shooti...

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:09 AM

Suspect in Botched Shooting Bought Gun Legally Despite Mental Illness

Alice Boland, 28, who was charged in 2005 with threatening to assassinate President George W. Bush and members of Congress as she waited in line at U.S. Customs, is again charged with plotting a violent attack. On Monday, after pacing in front of the school gates during car pool and visibly swinging a gun, she tried to shoot two faculty members: the director of the high school, Mary Schweers, and an English teacher, Chris Hughes.

The police charged Ms. Boland with attempted murder and unlawful carrying of a firearm. The only thing that stopped her, they said, was that she did not realize the gun was locked.

“We were very fortunate she did not know how to take the lock off, or this could have been a tragedy,” said Earl Woodham, a spokesman in Charlotte for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

...

She appeared to have bought the gun legally, Mr. Woodham said. Gun buyers nationwide are required to disclose mental illnesses only if they have been committed to an institution or found “mentally defective” by a judge, he said.

“Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are mentally unstable but who would not technically be declared mentally defective,” he said.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/us/suspect-in-botched-shooting-at-ashley-hall-bought-gun-despite-mental-illness.html

50 replies, 2550 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Suspect in Botched Shooting Bought Gun Legally Despite Mental Illness (Original post)
FarCenter Feb 2013 OP
slackmaster Feb 2013 #1
Hoyt Feb 2013 #3
Bjorn Against Feb 2013 #4
slackmaster Feb 2013 #5
Bjorn Against Feb 2013 #9
slackmaster Feb 2013 #10
Bjorn Against Feb 2013 #14
Glassunion Feb 2013 #12
slackmaster Feb 2013 #15
Glassunion Feb 2013 #16
pipoman Feb 2013 #2
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #6
slackmaster Feb 2013 #7
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #8
hack89 Feb 2013 #11
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #13
slackmaster Feb 2013 #17
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #19
slackmaster Feb 2013 #21
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #29
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #32
slackmaster Feb 2013 #40
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #41
slackmaster Feb 2013 #42
laundry_queen Feb 2013 #48
slackmaster Feb 2013 #50
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #20
slackmaster Feb 2013 #22
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #23
slackmaster Feb 2013 #24
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #26
slackmaster Feb 2013 #28
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #31
Bjorn Against Feb 2013 #25
slackmaster Feb 2013 #27
Bjorn Against Feb 2013 #33
Hoyt Feb 2013 #38
hack89 Feb 2013 #36
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #37
Recursion Feb 2013 #44
Historic NY Feb 2013 #18
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #30
Lone_Star_Dem Feb 2013 #47
Deep13 Feb 2013 #34
Lone_Star_Dem Feb 2013 #35
slackmaster Feb 2013 #39
Lone_Star_Dem Feb 2013 #43
slackmaster Feb 2013 #45
Lone_Star_Dem Feb 2013 #46
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #49

Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:15 AM

1. The story has a positive outcome. Ms. Boland will either be incarcerated or committed.

 

She won't be a threat to anyone, at least for many years; and after that she will not be able to legally acquire or possess a firearm ever again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:31 AM

3. Unfortunately, they don't all end like that -- and the faculty members are lucky she didn't have NRA


certified training to unlock the gun and pump round after round into center mass, as the gun culture recommends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:33 AM

4. The only way we will have a positive outcome will be if the laws are changed

Sorry, but I don't consider the fact that a mentally ill person is going to be locked away instead of receiving treatment to be a positive outcome. If the laws were changed to prevent people who should not own guns from buying guns that would be a positive outcome, increasing the prison population without doing anything to address the problem of easy access to guns for people who should not have them is not a positive outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:38 AM

5. People who are committed because they are not mentally competent to stand trial do get treatment

 

Even prison inmates get psychiatric treatment. You seem to be misinformed.

If the laws were changed to prevent people who should not own guns from buying guns that would be a positive outcome...

Unfortunately there are and always will be people who you and I would agree "should not" have guns but still retain the right to do so because they haven't crossed any of the barriers that present or any potential laws would create. Everyone must always be entitled to due process of law, and to avenues of judicial review through which things like criminal convictions and mental incompetence adjudications can be challenged.

Besides owning guns, there are a lot of people out there who we might wish not to drive cars, enter into contracts, serve as elected officials, or even have children.

Saying something "should not" happen is merely wishful thinking. You know what happens when you wish into one hand and shit into the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:51 AM

9. Both my parents worked in the mental health field, don't tell me I am misinformed.

Prisons are not the greatest places for the mentally ill to get treatment, if you think a mentally ill person can be as effectively treated in a prison as they can in a relaxed environment then you are the one who is misinformed.

When I wanted to start driving I had to take several hours of classroom training, then I had to take a written exam and vision test. My vision was not good enough so I had to get glasses before they would give me my learners permit which only allowed me to drive when another person was in the car with me. Then I had to take a behind the wheel exam which I did not pass the first time so I had to retake the test until I could pass. I am a responsible driver today and I have never got a moving violation ticket or an accident in which I was at fault.

I had to prove myself in order to drive, gun owners should have to prove themselves in order to buy or carry a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:54 AM

10. There you go again with the "should" clause

 

It really never achieves anything meaningful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:02 PM

14. Things don't change unless people suggest they should change

If no one suggested something should happen then nothing ever would happen on anything. Not a single law would ever be passed if no one suggested it should pass. Not a single grassroots organization would be organized if no one suggested it should be organized.

Am I misreading what you are saying or are you honestly suggesting that nothing meaningful happens because someone says it should happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:02 PM

12. What about a private sale?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:10 PM

15. Federal law is very clear on that. It's illegal for "any person" to transfer a firearm to...

 

...someone who is prohibited from owning it.

The problem is that there is no effective and legally defensible way for a private person (i.e. someone who does not have a Federal Firearms dealer license) to check the background of a prospective buyer in most states.

Congress could fix that, and it wouldn't even have to be as drastic as requiring that all transfers go through dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:13 PM

16. But today as it stands there is no solution.

Of course unless the state laws require a BG check.

This is a huge hole in the system and yes I agree it should be fixed.

Not one of my (or my wife's) were purchased or sold outside of an FFL. I did it solely for the peace of mind that a check was being done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:28 AM

2. Due process...I think we should keep it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:39 AM

6. The Japanese model of extensive interviews and background checks....

BEFORE a firearms license is issued is looking better and better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:41 AM

7. A lot of DUers are enamored of the power of Japanese police to stop and question anyone at any time

 

Or to search homes without a warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:45 AM

8. Yeah. It's not like we can do the one and not the other....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:58 AM

11. Because we know the police would never abuse that power.

exercising one's civil rights should not be dependent on the subjective judgement of a government official. The greatest threat to your civil liberties are the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:02 PM

13. The greatest threat to my civil liberties is living amid a sea of guns....

Perfect pretext for a Police State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:18 PM

17. Actually, unless you are very old or very young the greatest threat to your civil liberties...

 

...is the danger of motor vehicle accidents. You are also far more likely to be critically injured in a slip/fall accident than anything involving a firearm.

People really don't have a good grasp of statistics and probability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:26 PM

19. LOL

Did you know in 11 states you are more likely to die by gun than by motor vehicle accident? And by 2015, at the rate of increase of gun deaths, that will include the entire United States?

LOL slip and fall. Statistics and probability indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:28 PM

21. Cite?

 

There's no way you can support that claim unless you include suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:39 PM

29. Documentary: Crossfire

The Fifth Estate on CBC. Watched it last night. Maybe you should too - some good journalism for a change instead of your US propaganda crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to laundry_queen (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:54 AM

40. Here's a link to the CDC's Leading Causes of Death reports

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

Go ahead and run the report any way you please.

You will find that for most people in the middle of life, the most common cause of death is "Unintentional injury."

The output allows you to drill into those high-level causes for more details. You are going to find that poisoning and motor vehicle traffic account for far more deaths than does homicide.

In the Big Picture of life, the chance of being murdered at all is really very low, unless you happen to be a member of a group that is at particularly high risk - And most people who are ever members of those particular groups survive the at-risk period in their lives and age out of it.

That is why I said that Junkdrawer's statement that guns are the greatest threat to his civil liberties is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:55 AM

41. you are being disingenuous

but I'm not going to get into it with you. Split hairs all you want. The rest of us know the score. Hug your gun for me 'k?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:30 PM

42. I have presented factual information here

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #42)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:34 PM

48. Not really. You cherry picked and left stuff out. But that's okay. Carry on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:33 PM

50. I've shown you the way to water. It's free. Drink it if you are so inclined.

 

Or remain thirsty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:26 PM

20. 1.) You miss (or avoid) my point....

Once the average non-gunner is scared enough by mass shootings, giving up non-2nd amendment rights will look better and better.

2.) As for gun stats, NRA-sponsored legislation has made the collection of good gun stats illegal. Obama changed that and we'll soon know the actual numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:30 PM

22. The CDC has plenty of good stats. Roll your own query at WISQARS, then spin the results as you wish.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:31 PM

23. care to address 1.) ????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:33 PM

24. Paging Benjamin Franklin...

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:38 PM

26. So I'll walk through metal detectors, allow myself and possessions to be searched etc etc....

all so gunners can have free access to all the weaponry Smith and Wesson et al think they can peddle to the likes of you.

Not a tradeoff I want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #26)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:39 PM

28. That's a false dilemma

 

And a straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:42 PM

31. Nope. Daily reality. And the more guns out there, the worse it will get.

the Police State will be more than happy to protect me from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:37 PM

25. You obviously don't have a good grasp of statistics and probability either

Because if you did have a good grasp of statistics and probability you would know that comparing car crashes to gun deaths is not an apples to apples comparision. The vast majority of people don't handle guns anywhere near as often as they drive cars. If everyone shot guns and drove cars at the same ratio then you could make a better statistical comparision.

If every person shot guns for the same amount of time that they drove cars every day which activity do you think would kill more people, driving or shooting? The answer is obvious even if you refuse to admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #25)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:38 PM

27. That's a poor analysis and misses the point of my previous response

 

The discussion is about events over which we have no control that can strike out of the blue, without warning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:43 PM

33. You only think it is a poor analysis because it does not back up your talking point

This is not about events we have no control over, most of the rest of the western world has stricter gun control laws than we do and far fewer gun deaths. Don't pretend there is nothing we can do to prevent gun violence because there is plenty we can do, you just don't want to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:27 PM

38. Tell that to all the gun cultists that tote to be prepared, yet do not carry a defibrillator or jaws

of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:04 PM

36. Only if you give the police that power. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:16 PM

37. Never asked for metal detectors and guards at my son's HS....

Columbine did that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:46 PM

44. Columbine had metal detectors and guards

Schools were significantly more violent in the 90s than today; a lot of schools put in metal detectors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:23 PM

18. A woman with a public history of mental illness had

managed to buy a gun a week earlier... in other words she was well known for episodes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:40 PM

30. Some states treat an accepted defense based on mental illness the same as a committment,

If you are inclined to do so you can view a summary of state laws here

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:39 PM

47. Ah, it was a state level issue.

I've been wracking my brain trying to figure this out. I somehow missed your post.

I finally understand why her history didn't show up in a background check.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:44 PM

34. We need a non-arbitrary process...

...for distinguishing between a genuine menaces and garden variety neurotics. Most people who see mental health professionals are just under stress or else have some minor anxiety or whatever and are not dangerous. We need a way to tell them apart without discouraging those who need help from getting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:03 PM

35. I would have thought anyone who threatened to assassinate a president would be in NCIS

I'm surprised that's not an automatic forfeiture of your gun rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lone_Star_Dem (Reply #35)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:45 AM

39. A person who did that would have to have been convicted for it, or committed to a mental...

 

...institution, or adjudicated as mentally incompetent for his or her right to buy a gun to be forfeited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:37 PM

43. She plead not guilty by reason of mental incompetence.

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Yet somehow that's not the equivalent of being adjudicated mentally incompetent? That's the part I'm confused about.

The way the article reads it makes it appear she was deemed mentally incompetent by the court and as such the Feds dropped their charges of threatening to assassinate the president. However, she is somehow mentally competent enough to walk in and purchase a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lone_Star_Dem (Reply #43)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:47 PM

45. That is definitely not the same thing as being adjudicated as mentally incompetent

 

The feds probably figured it wasn't worth the hassle of prosecuting her, or that she wasn't a credible threat.

It would have been up to the state to find declare her officially mentally incompetent. Usually that's done when a person's family petitions the court to do so, and it's very, very difficult even with an elderly person who has obvious dementia from Alzheimer's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #45)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:07 PM

46. She was also committed to a mental institution by a federal judge.

She threatened to shoot the Montreal police officers who approached her. She then threatened to "kill President Bush with a gun."

Montreal police officers arrested her on a charge of uttering threats, and she was taken to a Canadian hospital for psychiatric evaluation, according to court documents.
She repeated threats against Bush and also threatened other elected officials when a Secret Service agent visited Boland at her home in Beaufort, where she lived with her parents. She was arrested again.

A judge sent Boland to Federal Medical Center Carswell in Texas, a prison facility that tends to female mental patients. There, Dr. William Pederson ruled that she was mentally incompetent and that she needed drugs if she were ever to stand trial. Pederson was permitted, under a court order, to forcefully inject her with drugs.

After Boland's stint at the Texas facility, she was transferred to Palmetto Behavioral Health in North Charleston. Later, her parents took her home.
In 2009, Boland pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and the charges were dropped.

Read more here: http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/02/08/2373344/beaufort-woman-accused-of-attempted.html#storylink=cpy


If you read the rest of that article you'll see her family refused to accept that she as sick as she obviously was.

I still do not understand how someone with her history of a desire to shoot people does not meet the criteria to be in the NCIS. That's something which seriously needs to be rectified. In this case if not for her not knowing how to take the saftey off people would have been hurt or killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:37 PM

49. That's not completely true. The FBI also contributes a prohibited list to the NICS

That list can be populated by anyone that the FBI considers should be prohibited.

I'm surprised that a person who has threatened a presidential assassination isn't on that list, but then good reporting is not one of the characteristics of the NICS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread