Do you believe this testimony was misleading?

As testimony on an open carry bill, MDA member testifies that
1. Son is mentally unstable
2. On turning 18, son attempted to buy firearm at gun store and was denied by seller due to appearance of instability
3. Mother called police to 'make sure' he wouldn't 'be able' to buy more firearms. Police informed her that because humans have rights, he was not legally prohibited from purchasing firearms, and that a court order would be required to legally prohibit his purchasing firearms
4. Son then went to other stores and purchased an 'arsenal' of firearms
5. Mother comments that in order to obtain a court order to prohibit firearm possession an 'incident' is required
6. Testifies that son murdered his father

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2xuLczHV1M

Given that she is testifying on an open carry of handgun bill, and that she discussed her son's quest to obtain firearms, building up what she referred to as an 'arsenal,' and that she discussed that she failed to legally prohibit him from obtaining firearms, and that an incident would be needed to obtain a court order, and that the son murdered the father, do you believe that it was misleading to leave out the fact that firearms were not used in the murder?

Read those facts and I made the inference she was hoping for. Definitely misleading. Would also think she should have been presenting at a FixNics hearing, not OC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anti's lie and make things up all the time that is what they do.

stealth, ok, what was the point of post this here with your 'oh lookie', 'oh lookie' what happened here in this woman's testimony except to point out what the majority of the forum's august members already know about bloomberg's group ~ they distort the truth to their own ends!!

sorry this purpose of your post falls under the category of: ya so ~ business as usual~~

perhaps, stealth, i missed the portion of your initial post where you state hand waving, jumping up and down, emphatically for all forum members to please personally email this utube clip to each of the following Lonestar legislature members to correct this incorrect and biased testimony:
listing of key legislative member(s) w/their email listed.....

so as i stated....what was the purpose of this post again??

ipse

ps: one bright spot, impressed it only took OCT 4 days to put the professionally produced video together...is that fast? or slow?

upon review of the video i have several questions:

1. with no reference,i am making a leap of faith as it had to be a rifle or shotgun the son attempted and purported purchased since everyone knows FFLs can't sale handguns to those under 18.
2. the comment about the court order is completely false since court order incarceration for mental incapacitation is an everyday occurrence when the courts are petitioned by the caregiver and mental health professionals. UH 3-DAY HOSPITALIZATIONS HOLDS w/o even involving the courts!!
3. i find it interesting the nice lady didn't refer to the individual the 'son' killed as her son's father not her husband or ex-husband or???
4. i find it disgusting this teenager's caregivers (read as mother, father, other support network) didn't ensure the young man's medication was appropriately maintained within his system.

caveat, bi-polar/schizophrenia manifests itself around 18 so perhaps the parents were in denial or failed to listen to mental health care professionals about the strict schedule regimentation needed to administer a patient's meds on a consistent daily basis. however the father's murder allegedly took place when the son was 20.

it would seem this was enough of an event to get the young man the mental health assistance he needs. it is a shame the caregivers didn't do due diligence and it took someone's life to accomplish getting him help!!

IMHO it is an unfortunate side effect the mother must live with the burden of her ex or husband's death by not responding to her son's mental health appropriately as well as the burden of being a pathological lier ~ hummmm the term schizophrenic mother comes to mind...do your own homework on the use of the term.

ipse

Not bothering to look at the video because

3. Mother called police to 'make sure' he wouldn't 'be able' to buy more firearms. Police informed her that because humans have rights, he was not legally prohibited from purchasing firearms, and that a court order would be required to legally prohibit his purchasing firearms

Click to expand...

Correct response. If Momma did not mention son was "crazy" cops have no reason to go further in advising her.

4. Son then went to other stores and purchased an 'arsenal' of firearms

Click to expand...

Being 18 and not appearing as crazy to those FFLs as he did to the first one, and passing a background check, he could have. However, my definition of "an arsenal" may be just slightly different than hers.

5. Mother comments that in order to obtain a court order to prohibit firearm possession an 'incident' is required

Click to expand...

The only "incident" needed is for him to be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. Momma goes down to the court, asks the nice person behind the desk for the forms needed to get her crazy son sent to the booby hatch, and voila (or "wah-la" as some folks pronounce it) crazy son gets picked up, evaluated, and either does or does not get involuntarily committed.

It's that last part that makes me believe Momma is a tool, a plant, and probably civily if not criminally culpable for her husband's death.

So, in answer to the OP's question - No, I do not believe the testimony is misleading. I believe it is intentionally false and quite possibly suborned.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Not bothering to look at the video because



Correct response. If Momma did not mention son was "crazy" cops have no reason to go further in advising her.



Being 18 and not appearing as crazy to those FFLs as he did to the first one, and passing a background check, he could have. However, my definition of "an arsenal" may be just slightly different than hers.



The only "incident" needed is for him to be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. Momma goes down to the court, asks the nice person behind the desk for the forms needed to get her crazy son sent to the booby hatch, and voila (or "wah-la" as some folks pronounce it) crazy son gets picked up, evaluated, and either does or does not get involuntarily committed.

It's that last part that makes me believe Momma is a tool, a plant, and probably civily if not criminally culpable for her husband's death.

So, in answer to the OP's question - No, I do not believe the testimony is misleading. I believe it is intentionally false and quite possibly suborned.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

+1. That's pretty much my take.

It might be just picking nits, but how does the mother know the son is schizophrenic? If that is a legal, medical profession characterization wouldn't that also be enough for a writ/ decision to keep him from purchasing weapons? Or did she just self determine that based on WebMD or wiki info?

I agree that anything said by MDA is fraudulent, so I almost don't believe her name is what she says it is.

Do you believe this testimony was misleading?

Click to expand...

If you call the substance that comes out of the backend of a horse or bull a "misleading", then yep, that's what it is.

deepdiver said:

If you call the substance that comes out of the backend of a horse or bull a "misleading", then yep, that's what it is.

Click to expand...

I'm no longer a fan of Ronald Reagan, but he told a hilarious joke along those lines.


A Republican was campaigning in rural territory not known for being Republican. He approached a farmer and started campaigning. The farmer asked him to hold up a minute because Ma had never seen a Republican, then walked to the house to get Ma.

The Republican looked around for something to stand on to give his speech. All he could find was a pile of that stuff Bess Truman spent 30 years trying to get Harry to call manure. So, he walked up on the pile and got ready.

The farmer returned with Ma. The Republican gave his speech. When he was done, the farmer shook his hand, and thanked him, saying that was the first time Ma had ever heard a Republican speak. The Republican said,

"That's the first time I've ever given a Republican speech from a Democratic platform."


Oh, heck. Reagan tells it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUu2HKZGxJ4

SW40VE-OC said:

It might be just picking nits, but how does the mother know the son is schizophrenic? If that is a legal, medical profession characterization wouldn't that also be enough for a writ/ decision to keep him from purchasing weapons? Or did she just self determine that based on WebMD or wiki info?

I agree that anything said by MDA is fraudulent, so I almost don't believe her name is what she says it is.

Click to expand...

Who cares how she came to use the term? She believed he may pose a threat to himself or others, then tells a story of how there is no process in place for having that looked at until after he does something.

Here in Va one of our state senators was concerned that his son was a danger to himself or others http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/politics/virginia-politician-attack/ , and followed the process to the point that the courts agreed. Then the system fell apart - which is not the point. The point is there is a process in place and it is pretty much the same in every state.

Mom was so concerned that she did not push the issue? I've known folks who intentionally lied to cops to get their "crazy" relatives arrested so they could be evaluated when the court disagreed that the person was a danger to self or others. That may have been reprehensible as all get-out but it demonstrates that when there is a concern you do not give up just because someone tells you you have to wait for an "incident" before anything can be done. Some folks sometimes create that "incident" in order to seek the help they think someone needs. (If the State is creating "incidents" you will get a different response from me.)

stay safe.

solus said:

stealth, ok, what was the point of post this here with your 'oh lookie', 'oh lookie' what happened here in this woman's testimony except to point out what the majority of the forum's august members already know about bloomberg's group ~ they distort the truth to their own ends!!

....what was the purpose of this post again??

Click to expand...

solus said:

upon review of the video i have several questions:

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have started with the second, before launching with the first.

skidmark said:

However, my definition of "an arsenal" may be just slightly different than hers.

Click to expand...

No doubt that's true for all of us here. Her definition is probably a 10/22 and a brick of ammo.

SW40VE-OC said:

It might be just picking nits, but how does the mother know the son is schizophrenic?

Click to expand...

Since he was found not guilty of murdering his father by reason of insanity, and is currently confined for treatment, I'm sure she has confirmation now that she didn't have before.

That's not an excuse for her blatantly false testimony, though. She's a liar, and a Bloomberg shill.