This poor young woman...

[bhmax16]

Another one gone due to some psychopath. What 61 yr old guy preys on a 23 yr old woman? http://www.aolnews.com/crime/articl...-after-judge-denied-protection-order/19356645

Only good thing in this story is they don't state that he was a licensed firearm owner...so we can only hope he was carrying illegally Seriously...WHY couldn't he just off himself?! He had to take this beautiful young woman with him! And SHAME on the judge for denying her request for a restraining order, whether it would have done her any good in this case or not

 

[Underwhere]

That's horrible.

I don't see why anyone would think that an act of Emergency Protection would have prevented this.

 

[GSG]

This quote really stood out to me:

Brent Blanton also placed a call to 911. In it, he is heard anxiously talking to his wife as she lay bleeding on the ground.

"Baby, I love you. Keep breathing. Oh my God. Come on, baby!" he said.

I can't imagine how traumatic that is.

Only good thing in this story is they don't state that he was a licensed firearm owner...so we can only hope he was carrying illegally Seriously...WHY couldn't he just off himself?! He had to take this beautiful young woman with him! And SHAME on the judge for denying her request for a restraining order, whether it would have done her any good in this case or not

In Florida you don't need a license to buy or own a gun, or to carry it in the car as long as your criminal record is clean. You just need a license to carry it on your person.

I don't see why anyone would think that an act of Emergency Protection would have prevented this.

Exactly. Murder is already illegal.

I also think it's worth mentioning that she may have brought some of it on herself, if the news story is accurate. No, I'm not saying that Hooter's waitresses deserve to be stalked and killed, but unwanted attention from strange, lonely old men can't be unheard of in an environment like that. He wouldn't leave her alone, so she "gave in" and told him her e-mail address. It's small, but it probably sent a mixed signal.

The guy was sick and twisted no doubt, but not much could have protected her here other than herself, either by arming herself and fighting back or by moving far away and breaking off all contact.

JMO.

 

[Tucobkg]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

 

[terraformer]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

When a jury of ones peers have CONVICTED someone of a serious crime thus proving someone is not to be trusted. Not because you said so, or because they make dumb generalized statements, etc. You are not the final arbiter of who gets to practice a right, any right, because we don't allow dictators in this country, no matter how benevolent they think themselves to be. Hence why the CLEO of Manchester by the sea, New Boston NH and other dictators in training have no business being the final arbiter on licensing. In the OP, the woman had multiple chances to file charges against this man and did not. She failed to do what she needed to in order to protect herself repeatedly over the course of 2 years (ie; by filing CHARGES against this man that would result in a criminal trial). She did too little, too late which the article in the OP makes clear as well. She didn't deserve to die and it is a tragedy what happened, but this would have happened regardless of the presence of a firearm or not. Just ask OJ.

 

[Kicker96FS]

Moonbat here?

 

[calsdad]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

So are you trying to say that if this guy had the right to own a firearm taken from him - that nothing would have happened? You have heard of that little invention called the knife haven't you? You do know that one of the more likely ways that psycho stalkers use to kill the objects of their "affection" is with a knife - don't you? You keep popping up here saying that "crazy" people should have their rights to own firearms taken away - in this particular case you may have a point. But as previous respondents to this thread have said: there were no charges pressed prior to this incident. So there was no official way to determine whether the guy was actually crazy or not. The reality of letting govt. officials determine whether we get to keep our rights to defend ourselves or not is it is just as likely to disarm the victim as it is to disarm the attacker.

You need to read some more of recent history in Britain on disarmament and crime statistics.

Part of the problem here is that she acted like a victim. When he hounded her at her previous job - she left. In essence to a predator like the nut who killed her - she ran. This identifies her in his mind as prey. So he kept up. What would have thrown this whole train off the tracks is if somebody confronted this guy and put the fear of death into him. I have seen case after case of crap like this happening and they usually follow a very similar path: nutjob stalks woman - and then woman and all around her start running thinking that it is going to stop. Nutjob thinks he has the upper hand -and keeps stalking. Eventually he (although it can be a she) - gets pissed because the victim does not return his/her affection - and then the violence starts.

One of the only things I have seen that stops these kinds of incidents dead in their tracks is for somebody on the victims side letting the stalker know that if they continue to pursue this they are going to go meet god. And yes - I mean DIRECT physical threats of death and violence. Arrests don't work. Because unless the person is put in jail for a good long time - the first time. All they see is a brief jail stint - and no real punishment. They have to fear for their life - and I mean move to the other side of the world to get away from you because you are a crazy killer type of fear. They have to feel it in their bones.

Fear wakes people up.

The problem here was not firearms - the problem here was that our society has turned most people into sheep who cannot defend themselves even when confronted with a crazy person who obviously intends to do them harm. So they run. Running to a predator identifies you as prey. Sooner or later a determined predator will always win against prey.

 

[dwarven1]

I don't understand why she or at least her hubby did not arm themselves.

Oh, wait... working in an AT&T call center. Never mind. Disarmed by decree - a victim-disarmament zone. I see that it did a lot to keep the stalker unarmed.

 

[Admin]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

So who determined that the guy in Manchester was crazy? You? Yeah I think you're crazy and you should have your guns taken away from you. Your behavior is suspect at best.

Pretty fun game isn't it?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

Do you even have a clue? Why are you on a gun forum when you obviously do not understand the issue? What happened to this woman is very sad. However, like others have said, she behaved as a victim. Instead of hoping the police would save her, she should have been carrying her own gun. This is the fundamental problem moonbats like you do not understand. In almost ever situation the police do not save lives, they are on mop up patrol. Even the Supreme Court has said it is not the role of law enforcement to act as bodyguards. They come AFTER the incident has occured and attempt to solve the crime. Unfortunately, many people discover this just seconds before the lights go out.

 

[richc]

My oldest daughter is an intern at a mental health facility for teens in trouble. They admitted a young lady on Friday, and my daughter was among those that did the intake.

I won't bore you with the details of her very troubled life. But part of the intake involves a search of the individual. Mind you this young lady was a runaway, was picked up by the police and brought to the facility by LE.

They asked her if she had any weapons. Sure, she says, and pulls out two large knives. I frequently carry a pocket knife and my daughter said they were huge compared to those that I carry.

My point... weapons are everywhere. Knives, baseball bats, forks, broken bottles, frying pans and pitch forks. This young lady had a history of extreme violent behavior and she was armed to the teeth. That did not stop her from having very dangerous weapons. Never will either.

This poor guy allegedly says a few things and they take away his rights. He has no history of violence. He is licensed and stores his firearms properly. A few words from a wife, that I'll bet will soon be an ex-wife, and he is arrested, humiliated and is stripped of his rights and property. WTF??? And you think taking away his guns takes away his ability to have weapons... take a look at the aforementioned young lady. I don't think so...

Tucobkg... you should see a shrink or something. Maybe a female one in Cambridge. And be sure to tell her you have guns and think an asteroid is about to hit this world. )

Rich

 

[B1511]

I wonder how things would have ended up if she was carrying...

 

[Scrivener]

I wonder how things would have ended up if she was carrying...

Probably the same, unfortunately. This sounds like a blitz attack.

IF - again, IF - he had his gun already out when he "confronted her," she had little chance of defending herself. Short of having the gun already in her hand when he came into her office area, a highly unlikely scenario, she would not have had time to deploy her gun.

Contrast this with the Luby's attack, Virginia Tech, and Columbine, to name some of the more obvious examples.

 

[Palladin]

really sad.

RIP

 

[md2020]

Very sad story.

Violence against women & CHILDREN are often pushed aside and not taken seriously. Happens all the time.

I hope that judge who wouldn't issue the restraining order can sleep at night. That isn't to say, that nut job would have stopped the nut job.

 

[bhmax16]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

You sound like a moonbat! You realize that statement is NOT going to sit well here? (you can prob already tell by the other responses you have gotten). However...doesn't surprise me this came from you judging by your rep rating....RED?!?

Manchester-by-the-sea guy does NOT strike me as crazy! Hell he was making himself prepared just like any of us on here do. If you think he really had a cache of weapons, you'd be interested to find out that my new boss and I got talking about guns yesterday while on my shift (I overheard him saying he got his daughter a new .22 for Valentine's Day)...which is how I indirectly found out he was pro-2A here in Mass. So I asked him about it..turns out his daughter does 400yard competitions and she's not even 10 years old. He then informed me his brother in law owns 126 firearms! Does that make his brother in law crazy? No...he just has what it takes to stand up against a small army if/when the time comes

It is never justified to take away ones rights to carry a Firearm unless they have been PROVEN to be mentally unstable and potentially harmful to someone or themselves, or are a convicted felon

 

[Scrivener]

I suspect the judge now needs a snorkel to keep from drowing in the ensuing s**tshorm.

However, it is unlikely an RO would have saved her. Simply placing his picture at the front desk for security would have been FAR more effective.

 

[TomH]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

When they commit a crime and are place in prison? You are truely an anti-gun moonbat.

 

[drumenigma]

I suspect the judge now needs a snorkel to keep from drowing in the ensuing s**tshorm.

However, it is unlikely an RO would have saved her. Simply placing his picture at the front desk for security would have been FAR more effective.

I agree. A restraining order does nothing to stop incidents like this. It's just a piece of paper and nothing more. With every RO they should hand the person a real tool to protect themselves with.

 

[EddieCoyle]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

This statement is stupid. I'll prove it to you:

Do you believe that this would not have happened had the judge granted the restraining order? I bet not. You'd have to be a fool to believe that a piece of paper would protect her.

If the restraining order had been granted, then the killer would not have been able to legally own a gun. You would've got your wish, and he would've killed the girl anyway.

You are a gun grabber, pure and simple. You use a tragedy to try to prove your point, just like the Brady Campaign. I don't know what you're doing here.

 

[Viking Kitten]

She gave out her email address - stupid.

She did move away - okay, good start.

When the harassment continued she should have made repeated attempts to involve law enforcement and use the legal system to have the guy taken off the streets. And she and her new husband should have had some actionable self-defense plans in place and tools to use to defend themselves against unwanted contact (physical or otherwise). And as uncomfortable as it may have been she should have alerted her employer that she was receiving ongoing unwanted attention from a stalker.

One of my former managers was going through a nasty multi-year divorce. Her then-husband was so unstable and threatening that our employer went so far as to install a panic alarm under her desk. So if the guy got through the card key access door - that would only turn 1/4 rotation at a time to prevent piggybacking - through security guys and up to the 5th floor before anyone saw him there would be a course of last resort. Unlikely it would have helped if she'd been at her desk when he stormed the door but she would have stood some chance of holding him off with her own set of tools until help could arrive.

 

[Tucobkg]

No, I'm a gun owner and value my rights. My point in all of this is the justify when that right to bear arms becomes questionable. I'm not a moonbat but a responsible member of society. Would I want to live next door to a man who has his own firing range in his attic? Hell no. If I heard gun fire would I have a called the Police? Yes.

My point is yes we should defend the right to bear arms. It just outrages me when I hear stories of people who have a license for firearms but are either stupid or just plain crazy. These individuals are a danger to society just as the common crimal is.

This statement is stupid. I'll prove it to you:

Do you believe that this would not have happened had the judge granted the restraining order? I bet not. You'd have to be a fool to believe that a piece of paper would protect her.

If the restraining order had been granted, then the killer would not have been able to legally own a gun. You would've got your wish, and he would've killed the girl anyway.

You are a gun grabber, pure and simple. You use a tragedy to try to prove your point, just like the Brady Campaign. I don't know what you're doing here.

 

[namedpipes]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

I may have accidentally given you a positive rep just now. If I did, please know that it was intended to be a negative rep.

A gun in the hands of that young woman might have saved her life. A gun in the hands of one of her co-workers might have saved her life. When will you people learn?

 

[wahsben]

This is what happens when you give the right to own a firearm to a crazy person! The same point I was trying to tell in the thread about the "Manchester- by-the sea" Guy!

When is it justified to take away ones right to carry a Firearm?

Before all the gun control when guns were much more readily available to everyone there were less problems. Back then if people were a danger to society they were kept out of society or they suffered serious consequences if they commited a terrible act.
Gun control does not stop criminals or the crazy. What it does is disarm many of the innocent because they don't want to bother with all the hassle and being treated like a criminal, so many people choose to go unarmed which allows the criminals and crazies to commit their crimes more easily.
Gun control costs more lives than it will ever save.

 

[EddieCoyle]

My point is yes we should defend the right to bear arms. It just outrages me when I hear stories of people who have a license for firearms but are either stupid or just plain crazy. These individuals are a danger to society just as the common crimal is.

What makes you think the guy in FL has a license? You realize you do not need a license in most states, right? Do you even know whether or not he's a prohibited person?

 

[terraformer]

I suspect the judge now needs a snorkel to keep from drowing in the ensuing s**tshorm.

However, it is unlikely an RO would have saved her. Simply placing his picture at the front desk for security would have been FAR more effective.

Exactly, and the reality is the article makes it seem she was unwilling to do those types of things. I got the impression from statements in the article she was trying to keep this on the DL.

 

[PaulD]

It seems to me the real use of a protection order in cases like these is to thrown the stalker in jail after the first violation. Yes, the first violation might be violent but often they're not. When they're not, that's an opportunity for the police to act.

In lieu of that, I'm not sure much can be done with the exception of some serious intimidation of the stalker, Southie style.

 

[Martlet]

On a side note, can you imagine allowing some guy to stalk your wife?

 

[EddieCoyle]

On a side note, can you imagine allowing some guy to stalk your wife?

No.

 

[bambame2]

On a side note, can you imagine allowing some guy to stalk your wife?

With all my online tuff guy power, no this would not have gone on very long if it was my wife.