WI - "Mass Shooting Kills Four" - Court Ordered No Guns for Shooter

Domestic dispute, TRO served, three victims DOA, 4 wounded

A shooting at a spa near a Brookfield, Wis., mall on Sunday left four dead--including the shooter--and four others wounded, police said. The suspected gunman, 45-year-old Radcliffe Haughton, of Brown Deer, Wis., was later found dead inside...


...Online court records showed that Haughton "was not allowed to have firearms and was directed to deliver firearms to the sheriff," the Journal Sentinel said. "The order does not indicate if that happened."

Click to expand...

Apparently the judge's order wasn't followed. Perhaps the judge should have ordered the Sheriff to pick them up immediately, rather than depend upon a violent man (I suppose - TRO and order to "turn in guns") to do so. There was "no motive immediately available", but my money is on the TRO and the court order to surrender his guns, as at least part of his motive. Now watch the left redouble their efforts to create stricter gun laws. :uhoh: Pax...

I don't think that taking people's guns without being convicted of a crime that causes a loss in gun rights is permissible.

Might that result in deaths? Sure. But so does our 1st amendment rights, as SCOTUS noted in Heller and/or McDonald.

davidmcbeth said:

I don't think that taking people's guns without being convicted of a crime that causes a loss in gun rights is permissible.

Click to expand...

Of course you don't, and neither do I in the vast majority of cases. Apparently he was not convicted of speeding, jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk, but something more serious, likely involving assault or - at the least - making threatening statements. Courts don't generally issue TRO's without some apparent justification. Whatever the justification was in this case obviously convinced the judge that the woman had reason to believe she was in danger. A temporary removal of Haughton's firearms for a "cooling off" period, might have saved the lives of three innocent people.

davidmcbeth said:

Might that result in deaths? Sure. But so does our 1st amendment rights, as SCOTUS noted in Heller and/or McDonald.

Click to expand...

It DID result in deaths. It looks as if you see the deaths of three innocent people, and the wounding of four others, as nothing more than collateral damage which you believe to be permissible under 2A? I doubt you would hold that opinion if any of his victims had been a loved one of yours.
As for DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, after reviewing the entire 93 page transcript, I see no implication that SCOTUS believed our 1st Amendment rights "result in deaths" - so, I'll pass on McDonald. Pax...

Gil223 said:

Of course you don't, and neither do I in the vast majority of cases. Apparently he was not convicted of speeding, jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk, but something more serious, likely involving assault or - at the least - making threatening statements. Courts don't generally issue TRO's without some apparent justification. Whatever the justification was in this case obviously convinced the judge that the woman had reason to believe she was in danger. A temporary removal of Haughton's firearms for a "cooling off" period, might have saved the lives of three innocent people.


It DID result in deaths. It looks as if you see the deaths of three innocent people, and the wounding of four others, as nothing more than collateral damage which you believe to be permissible under 2A? I doubt you would hold that opinion if any of his victims had been a loved one of yours.
As forDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, after reviewing the entire 93 page transcript, I see no implication that SCOTUS believed our 1st Amendment rights "result in deaths" - so, I'll pass on McDonald. Pax...

Click to expand...

Actually they issue TRO's for trivial or non-existant reasons all the time. Ask a DR. in San Angelo TX about that one. A TRO wasn't even contemplated or asked for as a part of a divorce, but it was issued anyway. And said Dr. ended up fighting felony possession charges for being in possession of his firearms.

Suggest more research.

Ditto

OldCurlyWolf said:

Actually they issue TRO's for trivial or non-existant reasons all the time. Ask a DR. in San Angelo TX about that one. A TRO wasn't even contemplated or asked for as a part of a divorce, but it was issued anyway. And said Dr. ended up fighting felony possession charges for being in possession of his firearms.

Suggest more research.

Click to expand...

DITTO!!!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

OldCurlyWolf said:

Actually they issue TRO's for trivial or non-existant reasons all the time. Ask a DR. in San Angelo TX about that one. A TRO wasn't even contemplated or asked for as a part of a divorce, but it was issued anyway. And said Dr. ended up fighting felony possession charges for being in possession of his firearms.

Suggest more research.

Click to expand...

The OP is not about TRO's - it's about innocent people being murdered during a violent domestic situation. You took the time to emphasize a sentence in red, perhaps you should actually read it. The word I used is "generally"... one case does not make it a general condition. The majority of the time, there must be some reasonable concern for the physical safety and/or well-being of one of the parties before a TRO is issued. From www.saveservices.org/ :

Given the trend to increasing numbers of restraining orders, the best estimate of final restraining orders now (2004) issued each year is 900,000. The national number of restraining orders is not known. But, break-downs on temporary vs permanent orders are available from three states:
In Connecticut, 9,390 restraining orders were issued in 2004, of which 66.5% were temporary and the remaining 33.5% were permanent.
In Pennsylvania 57,316 Protection From Abuse orders were issued in 2004, consisting of 39,997 temporary orders and 17,319 permanent orders, either by stipulation/agreement or after a hearing.*
In Virginia, 84% of all retraining orders are emergency or temporary, 16% are permanent.

Click to expand...

(*I chose PA stats as a median point because they are somewhere roughly midway between the other two; the rate of temp-permanent orders in PA is 2.3:1, which extrapolates out to 2,078,486 TRO's issued [without adjusting for further increases since 2004] nationwide annually. (It may not be terribly accurate, but it's all I have available to work with... without turning this research into a career)
Individual states have wide variations regarding what constitutes grounds for issuing restraining/protective orders. What may be "over the top" for justification in Texas, may not meet the minimal requirements of say Vermont, or North Dakota. There are a few states where TRO's require almost no evidence - they're passed out like door prizes - and those to whom they are granted are the "winner"!
:dude: Pax...

Gil223 said:

SNIP Of course you don't, and neither do I in the vast majority of cases. Apparently he was not convicted of speeding, jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk, but something more serious, likely involving assault or - at the least - making threatening statements. Courts don't generally issue TRO's without some apparent justification. Whatever the justification was in this case obviously convinced the judge that the woman had reason to believe she was in danger. A temporary removal of Haughton's firearms for a "cooling off" period, might have saved the lives of three innocent people.

Click to expand...

We can only say that after there were killings.

And, its kind of tenuous anyway. He could just as easily used a machete and then suicided by cop.

But, as a policy matter, how are we going to decide which set of circumstances would result in killings and which wouldn't? Are we really willing to give government the power to disarm husbands (and wives) because of accusations? Which types of accusations are enough? Oh, we'll let the judge decide? A judge with a feminist streak? An anti-gun streak? What set of circumstances shows the situation is hot enough to need a disarmed cooling-off period? I think y'all get my point--its too arbitrary. And, there is just no way to know before the fact whether it is actually saving lives.

And, what do we do when the disarmed person is then himself killed, say, during a robbery, during the cooling off period.

This policy suggestion is wide open to arbitrariness and slippery slope. I think we need to recognize that there are some places the government shall not be allowed to tread.

Gil223 said:

Of course you don't, and neither do I in the vast majority of cases. Apparently he was not convicted of speeding, jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk, but something more serious, likely involving assault or - at the least - making threatening statements. Courts don't generally issue TRO's without some apparent justification. Whatever the justification was in this case obviously convinced the judge that the woman had reason to believe she was in danger. A temporary removal of Haughton's firearms for a "cooling off" period, might have saved the lives of three innocent people.


It DID result in deaths. It looks as if you see the deaths of three innocent people, and the wounding of four others, as nothing more than collateral damage which you believe to be permissible under 2A? I doubt you would hold that opinion if any of his victims had been a loved one of yours.
As for DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, after reviewing the entire 93 page transcript, I see no implication that SCOTUS believed our 1st Amendment rights "result in deaths" - so, I'll pass on McDonald. Pax...

Click to expand...

This is an old trite argument I would like to see abandoned. Its basically a twisted version of the Golden Rule, do unto others...you wouldn't want it done unto you.

It basically says the target is so selfish and short-sighted that he couldn't see the broader implications of an emotion-wrought policy and act or advocate against his emotions and against negative implications.

Its rather insulting, actually.

Citizen said:

We can only say that after there were killings.

And, its kind of tenuous anyway. He could just as easily used a machete and then suicided by cop.

But, as a policy matter, how are we going to decide which set of circumstances would result in killings and which wouldn't? Are we really willing to give government the power to disarm husbands (and wives) because of accusations? Which types of accusations are enough? Oh, we'll let the judge decide? A judge with a feminist streak? An anti-gun streak? What set of circumstances shows the situation is hot enough to need a disarmed cooling-off period? I think y'all get my point--its too arbitrary. And, there is just no way to know before the fact whether it is actually saving lives.

And, what do we do when the disarmed person is then himself killed, say, during a robbery, during the cooling off period.

This policy suggestion is wide open to arbitrariness and slippery slope. I think we need to recognize that there are some places the government shall not be allowed to tread.

Click to expand...

Good points! Pax...

Citizen said:

We can only say that after there were killings.

Click to expand...

This is also the same time the cops show up - AFTER crimes of deadly violence. My point here was that we don't need all these nutjobs running around killing people just because they feel like it at the moment, and have access to firearms. Do I have a satisfactory answer to that problem? Hell no - and neither does anybody else. It just makes the OC'ers position with an observant LEO that much more tenuous, as the OC'er may find him/herself temporarily inconvenienced with a barrage of what may have been previously considered unnecessary questions. Such actions also provide fuel for the "eternal flame" maintained by the anti-gun crowd. I stand by my position in the OP.

Citizen said:

This is an old trite argument I would like to see abandoned. Its basically a twisted version of the Golden Rule, do unto others...you wouldn't want it done unto you.

Click to expand...

Shopworn and threadbare as you think the argument may be, does not make it invalid. And, it is exceptionally rare that "it makes no difference whose ox is gored". People's "convictions" generally tend to be tempered by their personal status at that moment in time. An incident that causes one to have no personal loss is accepted with detached logic - and much more graciously - than the same incident where the loss is personal. I've always been pretty successful at avoiding situations where it could "be done unto" me.

Citizen said:

It basically says the target is so selfish and short-sighted that he couldn't see the broader implications of an emotion-wrought policy and act or advocate against his emotions and against negative implications.

Click to expand...

"It" doesn't "say" anything. That's how you read it, and your interpretation of what you read is as personally valid as the interpretation of anyone else. However, your point is a bit obscured. Other than explaining my rationale - which, once again, will nonetheless be open to individual interpretation - I can only respond with "Okay..."

Citizen said:

Its rather insulting, actually.

Click to expand...

Insults are not necessarily the intent of the speaker, but they are almost always dependent upon the recipient's level of sensitivity. Pistols or swords at dawn? Pax...

All the OP indicates is that TROs are not worth the paper they are written on to a violent person, nothing more and nothing less.

If the judge would've, should've, could've.....but he did not.

A temporary removal (read as confiscation) of his firearms has no bearing on the prevention of this incident. It only could have had some bearing on the time-line of a potential incident.

There are seven victims.

The OP is about both the victims and the TRO by bolding the firearms confiscation component.

Generally nut-jobs are classified as nut-jobs after they harm/kill people. I'm not sure what a nut-job looks like until the nut-job is identified.

A component of the solution is mentioned in this thread, judge must order the cops to do something immediately. Until judges start ordering cops to do something immediately, these incidents, where a firearm is used, will continue to take place.

How does lawful OC relate to the OP?

A personal experience may have little to no impact on a person's opinion if that opinion is based on core values/principles.

Insults are not necessarily the intent of the speaker, but they are almost always dependent upon the recipient's level of sensitivity.

Click to expand...

Too funny......intentional or unintentional.....well, that's how I read it anyway.

The "good points" are exactly the opinion that needs to be held by far more citizens than currently hold those good points as a opinion. We The People can not have it both ways.

If the dangerous perp had been preemptively locked-up, for a cool-down period, then this incident could not have happened when it did. Maybe it would have never happened.

Bad things happen to good people. The cops are there to clean up the mess bad people make. Far too often these days we turn to government to "stop people from becoming bad" whether or not they will be bad. That is anti-liberty and anti-citizen.