Planned mass shooting event averted at Smith Rock

[P7M13]

If this was a hoax or a vengeful ERPO, there might be a pay day at the end of it all, and it won't be peanuts.

 

[billdeserthills]

I assume he has some personal beef with the hierarchy. This smacks of the typical workplace shooting rampage, when someone unhinged feels "slighted" or " undervalued ".

I could understand if he had a beef with hierarchy and he wanted to kill those select few people but I'll never understand why these nuts want to shoot people they haven't even met...

 

[billdeserthills]

Meh... that was just virtue signaling the party rhetoric BS. There are already laws on the books authorizing them to seize the firearms involved during the commission of a crime. He was arrested and charged... which has nothing to do with pre-emptive "may be a danger to himself or others" red flag laws.... where due process does not exist.

C'mon man, you never heard of pre-cog?

Minority Report (2002) ⭐ 7.6 | Action, Crime, Mystery

2h 25m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

 

[Knobgoblin]

I could understand if he had a beef with hierarchy and he wanted to kill those select few people but I'll never understand why these nuts want to shoot people they haven't even met...

Not much to understand. They are nuts.
Which means that their behavior is erratic

 

[Provincial]

The three items listed contradict the statement that "the judge advised that there were just a few items they were to consider." Item 3 involves everything that the prosecution has presented. That is dozens to hundreds or thousands of things. Everything available at that time. Items 1 & 2 just establish that the county has jurisdiction and everyone is talking about the same case. Maybe the judge elaborated by saying don't consider what the media are saying. And don't consider whether you think the accused is guilty or innocent; that is the job of the jury. Your job is to determine whether the state has enough evidence to warrant a trial at all.

She also told me that the Grand Jury is only allowed to use the information presented by the DA, which means that the DA has complete control of the process. This makes the Grand Jury simply a rubber stamp.

To put this in perspective, this County had a case in which one man was holding a knife to the throat of another man (and holding him from behind), while stating his intention to kill him. A third man stepped up from behind the aggressor and cut his throat to defend the victim. The DA charged the third party with Second Degree Murder and failed to tell the Grand Jury about the actions leading up to the death. Once the case came to trail and the Judge heard the testimony of the witnesses, he threw out the case, with prejudice, meaning it could not be retried. The Judge based his ruling on case law for self-defense. Fortunately, this case was not heard in Multnomah County.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers incurred the cost of the pre-trial incarceration, public defender, and the cost of the mercifully short jury trial.

 

[OldBroad44]

She also told me that the Grand Jury is only allowed to use the information presented by the DA, which means that the DA has complete control of the process. This makes the Grand Jury simply a rubber stamp.

To put this in perspective, this County had a case in which one man was holding a knife to the throat of another man (and holding him from behind), while stating his intention to kill him. A third man stepped up from behind the aggressor and cut his throat to defend the victim. The DA charged the third party with Second Degree Murder and failed to tell the Grand Jury about the actions leading up to the death. Once the case came to trail and the Judge heard the testimony of the witnesses, he threw out the case, with prejudice, meaning it could not be retried. The Judge based his ruling on case law for self-defense. Fortunately, this case was not heard in Multnomah County.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers incurred the cost of the pre-trial incarceration, public defender, and the cost of the mercifully short jury trial.

Yes, the DA has control over what is presented to the grand jury. However, DAs probably dial back the unreasonable charges from cops much, maybe most of the time, realizing that they need to convince a grand jury. So the grand jury may play an important role even if they usually agree with the DA. A DA who simply lies to the grand jury in ways that are going to come out in the trial is being really stupid. In the case in your example, the judge was so angry over the DA's lie he dismissed the case with prejudice. Basically, once cops charge a guy with everything they want, there are four levels of review standing between those charges and a conviction--DAs, grand juries, judges, and a jury.

I was a juror in a trial in which one of the charges was that guy A had attempted to murder guy B. And in fact, he had threatened to kill guy B and brought a gun to work a few days later and shot but didn't hit guy B. We the jury decided that guy A had changed his mind about killing guy B, but had brought a gun to work on the tree planting site to scare Guy B, and had fired a shot in his direction but way too low to hit Guy B. However, shot had bounced off a rock or something and hit Guy C in the leg. Gun was a .22 revolver. Round nose bullet bounced off something and went clear through C's leg without hitting bone or major blood vessels. Guy C didn't even realize he was hit for some time, something like 20 minutes. Guy A and B made up and gun was put away. Some time later when Guy A was told he had hit guy C he was very upset. There were witnesses to all this, including nobody including the shooter and shooter or guy shot himself (C) realizing C had been hit for a while, and C not being part of the conflict. A was well known as a hunter and other co-workers said if he had wanted to kill B, B would have been killed. A said he had only wanted to scare B.

We the jury had to decide guilty or not guilty on four counts, the most serious two being attempted murder of guy B by guy A and the other being attempted manslaughter of B by A We found him not guilty of both. In a long statement from the jury we explained that the charge was incorrect. That A had shot C, not B. And he shot him by accident, not on purpose. We thought A was guilty of illegally injuring C by accident while illegally discharging a gun to intimidate B, but he hadn't been charged with either of those things. Very unhappy judge. But we the jury worked our butts off all day and early evening to sort out the mess. And did a good job, I thought. We found A guilty of a couple of minor gun charges. Reckless use was one. The best that could be done with the situation.

This makes the prosecution sound very incompetent. But the shooter and many witnesses were Mexican and spoke no English or Spanish. The crew was mostly from a mountain village in Mexico and spoke only their own language. It was many days after the event before LE had a translator available for the relevant language and was actually able to communicate with either shooter or witnesses. In such a messy situation I'm sure that didn't help.

 

[Flopsweat]

She also told me that the Grand Jury is only allowed to use the information presented by the DA, which means that the DA has complete control of the process. This makes the Grand Jury simply a rubber stamp.

To put this in perspective, this County had a case in which one man was holding a knife to the throat of another man (and holding him from behind), while stating his intention to kill him. A third man stepped up from behind the aggressor and cut his throat to defend the victim. The DA charged the third party with Second Degree Murder and failed to tell the Grand Jury about the actions leading up to the death. Once the case came to trail and the Judge heard the testimony of the witnesses, he threw out the case, with prejudice, meaning it could not be retried. The Judge based his ruling on case law for self-defense. Fortunately, this case was not heard in Multnomah County.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers incurred the cost of the pre-trial incarceration, public defender, and the cost of the mercifully short jury trial.

And the guy charged had to suffer through jail time, the humiliation of being booked and charged, and the stress of the possibility of serious prison time. Could have lost his job too.

 

[OldBroad44]

And the guy charged had to suffer through jail time, the humiliation of being booked and charged, and the stress of the possibility of serious prison time. Could have lost his job too.

That may not have been the end of the story. Guy charged with murder may have sued county for illegal arrest and illegal prosecution, etc. A good lawyer might be able to win big bucks for the the victim of such legal system misconduct with that case.

 

[RVTECH]

That A had shot C, not B. And he shot him by accident, not on purpose.

If C was hit by A's shot as a result of MISSING B, who he had intended to kill then A should have been charged with something equating as intentional and NOT an accident considering his original intent was to KILL B.

ANY injuries to anyone as a result of his ORIGINAL intent should be considered INTENTIONAL as they would NOT have happened if he had never attempted to kill B in the first place.

This is not unlike how a driver of a vehicle might be charged with something similar if the passenger commits a crime (say exits the vehicle and commits the crime) and the driver knowingly was aware of it or was acting as an accomplice in the crime

 

[Flopsweat]

That may not have been the end of the story. Guy charged with murder may have sued county for illegal arrest and illegal prosecution, etc. A good lawyer might be able to win big bucks for the the victim of such legal system misconduct with that case.

Great info, but still, if you were to tell me here's a million dollars, but you have to go through a trial and there's a 20% chance you'll be convicted of murder and go to prison for a decade, I'd pick no without a second thought. In other words, it would be nice for him to win a bunch of money, but it's not going to make up for what he went through.

 

[OldBroad44]

If C was hit by A's shot as a result of MISSING B, who he had intended to kill then A should have been charged with something equating as intentional and NOT an accident considering his original intent was to KILL B.

ANY injuries to anyone as a result of his ORIGINAL intent should be considered INTENTIONAL as they would NOT have happened if he had never attempted to kill B in the first place.

This is not unlike how a driver of a vehicle might be charged with something similar if the passenger commits a crime (say exits the vehicle and commits the crime) and the driver knowingly was aware of it or was acting as an accomplice in the crime

A was not charged with any crime against C, accidental or deliberate. The detective and entire prosecution had not realized that there was a C. They thought A had actually shot the guy that he had threatened. Juries are charged with deciding only on the explicit charges.

Had A committed a more serious crime than he was charged with? Yes. But he wasn't charged with any of those more serious crimes. We had to decide guilty or not guilty on four explicitly stated charges, none involving C. We had to decide whether A was guilty of injuring B, for example. Well, he wasn't. He was guilty of injuring C. But that wasn't one of the charges.

Its possible that that trial was not the final word. A person may not be tried twice for the same crime. But he could probably be tried for reckless endangerment using a firearm and injuring C. And also for injuring C while committing some sort of crime toward B. We the jury and all the witnesses said attempting to scare, not kill. Which is also consistent with the shot being way off, and the two guys making up right after. But threatening someone with a gun and discharging a shot to scare them is also a crime.

 

[OldBroad44]

Great info, but still, if you were to tell me here's a million dollars, but you have to go through a trial and there's a 20% chance you'll be convicted of murder and go to prison for a decade, I'd pick no without a second thought. In other words, it would be nice for him to win a bunch of money, but it's not going to make up for what he went through.

Right. But if a DA has cost the county huge amounts of money by lying so blatant it probably affects his credibility on future cases and probably his career. It seems many jurisdictions tolerate all kinds of dishonesty in the legal process up until it starts costing them a whole lot of money.

The Innocence Project has saved many innocent people of wrongful convictions for murders and/or rapes based upon DNA analysis, a method that didn't exist when the crimes were committed. In many cases, the DAs did everything they could to delay the release of the guys who have been definitively shown not to be a match for the DNA of the murderer. It doesn't give one much confidence in the legal apparatus.

 

[Flopsweat]

Right. But if a DA has cost the county huge amounts of money by lying so blatant it probably affects his credibility on future cases and probably his career. It seems many jurisdictions tolerate all kinds of dishonesty in the legal process up until it starts costing them a whole lot of money.

The Innocence Project has saved many innocent people of wrongful convictions for murders and/or rapes based upon DNA analysis, a method that didn't exist when the crimes were committed. In many cases, the DAs did everything they could to delay the release of the guys who have been definitively shown not to be a match for the DNA of the murderer. It doesn't give one much confidence in the legal apparatus.

I've heard of them and they're a terrific organization. Started with a group of law students, I seem to recall?

 

[Camelfilter]

Right. But if a DA has cost the county huge amounts of money by lying so blatant it probably affects his credibility on future cases and probably his career. It seems many jurisdictions tolerate all kinds of dishonesty in the legal process up until it starts costing them a whole lot of money.

The Innocence Project has saved many innocent people of wrongful convictions for murders and/or rapes based upon DNA analysis, a method that didn't exist when the crimes were committed. In many cases, the DAs did everything they could to delay the release of the guys who have been definitively shown not to be a match for the DNA of the murderer. It doesn't give one much confidence in the legal apparatus.

One of the reasons I don't believe in the death penalty in our current system.

 

[Provincial]

That may not have been the end of the story. Guy charged with murder may have sued county for illegal arrest and illegal prosecution, etc. A good lawyer might be able to win big bucks for the the victim of such legal system misconduct with that case.

That was a different case, one of murder. The DA used an "Expert" witness to link .22 LR bullets found in the victims with ammunition found in the garage of the accused. This was using an analysis of lead used to make the bullets, and the jury accepted that evidence as sufficient to convict.

Years later, the testimony of the "Expert" witness was debunked in a trial in another state, leading to a string of overturned convictions the "Expert" had left in the wake of a lengthy and profitable career.

The County paid out $4 million for that mistake, and the DA resigned in disgrace. I assume he simply moved to California and continued his career.

 

[OldBroad44]

One of the reasons I don't believe in the death penalty in our current system.

Likewise. I suspect that innocent people are convicted more often for heinous crimes than routine crimes because LE and DAs are under much greater public pressure to "solve" the crime than with more ordinary crimes. LE is under greater pressure to plant stuff or disappear or ignore inconvenient evidence. DA and Sheriff careers may be positively influenced by "solving" the big heinous crimes. In many cases where the Innocence Project had definitive DNA evidence of innocence, the prosecution had evidence that would have caused most jurors to say that at the least there was insufficient evidence to be sure beyond reasonable doubt but the prosecution withheld that evidence from the defendant and his lawyers.

 

[Yarome]

One of the reasons I don't believe in the death penalty in our current system.

But we currently now have DNA testing, greater burdens of proof and requirements to even put the death penalty on the table (in the states that actually still have the death penalty). I don't doubt there are wrongful convictions, but for every 1... what about the couple 1000 others that rightfully deserve the ultimate penalty? How many years of life do they all represent that the people are on the hook paying their bills, free medical (that many free people don't even have access to), feeding them while children are still going hungry in the U.S., etc etc.

I consider too that of all those on death row, only a tiny fractional number will ever actually be executed. In 2022... there were SEVEN out of thousands. A "death sentence"... in reality... is anything but... and wrongfully accused serving a death sentence or a 20 year bid makes no difference if they are ultimately found innocent, right(?)

Should I say I support the death penalty without saying I support the death penalty?

In my mind... there are certain unredeemable individuals that have absolutely earned their ticket off this mortal coil... and shouldn't be denied.

 

[Camelfilter]

But we currently now have DNA testing, greater burdens of proof and requirements to even put the death penalty on the table (in the states that actually still have the death penalty). I don't doubt there are wrongful convictions, but for every 1... what about the couple 1000 others that rightfully deserve the ultimate penalty? How many years of life do they all represent that the people are on the hook paying their bills, free medical (that many free people don't even have access to), feeding them while children are still going hungry in the U.S., etc etc.

I consider too that of all those on death row, only a tiny fractional number will ever actually be executed. In 2022... there were SEVEN out of thousands. A "death sentence"... in reality... is anything but... and wrongfully accused serving a death sentence or a 20 year bid makes no difference if they are ultimately found innocent, right(?)

Should I say I support the death penalty without saying I support the death penalty?

There are absolutely many truly evil people behind bars deserving of swift execution. No question.

The problem I have is of ANY innocents being railroaded & convicted. In our current system. If they do get to the point of execution, that is truly not acceptable.

The costs involved in our current system surrounding death penalty cases just seems wasteful to me. Likely far more than just the expenses involved with imprisonment.

Life (truly life) in prison? I have no problem with such.

 

[nehalemguy]

This kind of reminds me of how Feds "foiled" a plot to put grenades in trash cans at a local mall, cherryvale mall, in northern Illinois. It's a mall near my old hometown.

Turns out a FBI informant targeted this young man because he was an outcast of his Muslim community/family. The informant moved the young man into his house. Basically radicalized him and gave him the idea to commit the whole crime. Set the young man up with a person, well actually not a person but the Feds themselves, willing to "trade" hand grenades for an old stereo or speakers, the only possessions the young man had to trade.

So the Feds created a terroristic act that they then "foiled."

I didn't bother finding all the investigative reports about the case but it was this incident.

Man arrested for alleged holiday bomb plot

A Muslim convert who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians was charged Friday in a plot to set off hand grenades at a shopping mall during the Christmas rush, authorities said.

www.nbcnews.com

Remember the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Whitmer?

Kidnapper: "You know, maybe we should re-think this idea."
Undercover Fed: "Don't be a vagina! You got this!!!"

-E-

 

[solv3nt]

Looks pretty legit to me.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/20...ut-mt-hood-meadows-attack-records-allege.html