Follow
Share

Anyone see the news from Arizona about the 92 year old lady who shot and killed her son on Monday because she believed he was going to move her to assisted living? She also assaulted the son’s girlfriend before the gun was taken from her and she was arrested. What a sad turn of events, really makes you think...

Do we even know if the police knew there were guns in the house? If they are not aware of the existence of the guns, we can not expect them to do anything. If the DV calls had involved firearms, they would have confiscated and someone would have gone to jail.

Opinions and bung holes, everybody has one.
(0)
Report

CMagnum, I suspect the Sheriff's Office may take some heat for its handling of the situation, but this raises another issue that crosses over into caregiving, and that's hostility sometimes escalated to violence on the part of elders with dementia.

I don't know if the previous calls for domestic violence are admissible as "prior bad acts", so that might be an issue as well. As to what could have been done, one of the parties could have been incarcerated but if the 92 year old was the violent one, I suspect there would be negative flak for jailing a woman of that age.

These folks probably shouldn't have been living together. And how many times have we seen posters raise similar issues here? I think that's the larger issue, which also turns on the ability of people to either fund or convince elders living somewhere other than with the family.

CM, your suggestion is good; perhaps psychological counseling should have been ordered for both, as well as a dementia eval for the mother. Still, those aren't necessarily going to change behavior and create the ability to problem solve.

I still think this has the potential to rally supporters on both sides, with pro-caregiving organizations arguing, justifiably, that funding is needed for more options for folks who need non home placements, but can't afford it and don't qualify for Medicaid.

Ali, I think the Sheriff's Office could have seized the guns; I don't know why they couldn't, unless state statute prevented that option.

Thinking on this line and remembering when I worked in the Juvenile Court, situations like this could have been addressed a few ways: the juvenile would be removed from the home (as protection from the parent(s) and placed in Children's Center while the parents themselves would be ordered for counseling, as well as periodic reporting and monitoring.

Or if there wasn't a history of family violence and this was first incident, the minor might have been left in the home and everyone ordered for counseling, monitored by the Juvenile Court.

Would either of those options have solved the problem? Sometimes it helped, sometimes it didn't. It all turned on family dynamics.
(3)
Report

I hate this discussion simply cause it's like the euthanasia thread. It never gets anywhere. It's always he said, she said, I think, you think, you are wrong for what you think, I am right, type of discussion.

In a perfect world where everyone got along and there wasn't ever any fear of any kind of violence, we wouldn't have to be talking about this. My Hubs always says "God was wrong when he gave us free will" But, he did so whats the point of even saying that. Can you imagine a universe where we didn't have free will? What would be the point?
But, along with free will comes the choice, should I buy a gun? I'm glad that in Canada at least, we have strong laws in place forbidding carrying firearms. Yes, I know that if someone really wants to they could get a gun illegally. But this argument that someone could just as easily kill someone with a knife or a spoon even is valid but at the same time ridiculous. I don't think when people go out and buy their cutlery they have the intention of using it as a weapon at some further date. You could smother someone with a pillow too or a blanket. Hell, use your dogs chew toy and stuff it down someone's mouth. Let's get real here. When someone goes out and buys a gun unless they are just going to use it for target practice it's still a lethal weapon and if they use it it's probably to maim or kill something or somebody. End of story.
(4)
Report

If they believed the two were a danger to each other, I think that they could have had them each sent to the ward where they would have been evaluated.
(5)
Report

What could they do, Cmag? Could they legally seize all the guns in the home? I don't they have the legal authority to do that. I'm not sure what more could have been done. From what I've read, this is the state of the investigation/discussion right now, focusing on that question: what more could have been done to prevent this...?  I don't personally know of any laws that would help here. If the son believed himself in imminent danger, he could have left the residence they shared.
(2)
Report

If the police were aware that there was a potential for future violence in this situation, then why didn't they do something?
(3)
Report

Well... I don't know about "crack shot." The thing about guns is they're extremely lethal. There are numerous accidental homicides every year in the U.S. where someone happens to fire off a gun, not meaning to hit anyone and definitely not meaning to kill, but it happens.   Or the numerous homicides around Chicago where a child is on their front porch, in a window, in a park, and a bullet strikes and kills them.  There's no aiming there; it's an accidental victim, but still very much lethal shot.  

It's a sad story about the woman killing her son. I don't think it's representative of much to do with gun ownership in general. When a 92 yo is certain that her son means her harm, what's to stop her from cutting his throat while he sleeps? He may have survived... but he may have survived being shot, too.

I'm the last person on Earth to ever argue "weapon of opportunity" arguments (they usually drive me insane, "she could've killed him with a spoon/car/pencil/baseball bat just as easily"), or be pro gun rights. But... this is a weird case, a one off.
(2)
Report

She is a crack shot if she could still shoot to kill at 92
(1)
Report

A USA Today article reported that.

"Sheriff Paul Penzone said his office will be will review whether his officers made appropriate judgments in the visits to the Fountain Hills home that preceded the shooting.

"Our agency had been to the home a few times prior. The reason we were out was to investigate domestic disputes between the victim and her son and potential threats," Penzone said.

There were six calls for service at the residence since January, according to the sheriff's office.

Of the six calls, four alone were on June 21 for a domestic dispute, officials said. Another was for a possible identity theft report and another involved a wrong-number call, MCSO said. Further details were not available.

"There were communications between the parties expressing the frustration in the relationship even to the point where both had expressed a concern that the other party could become violent," Penzone said.

While there were potential threats and concerns about violence between the mother and son, the Sheriff's Office did not intervene, Penzone said.

He said the agency will investigate how those calls were handled."
(4)
Report

I'm far more interested in how this news story develops over time with additional facts that will come out about it as the investigation and case continues.
(3)
Report

Oh, just an aside...........I notice more and more terrorists, psychos etc. weapon of choice is a vehicle. Soon vehicles are going to be considered weapons. Then what?
(2)
Report

I totally agree with Windy. I live in Canada where guns are disallowed and we don't have a lot of shootings here...........imagine that? But I also agree that this forum is not the place to be having this argument.
(5)
Report

Gun ownership had dropped from 51% in 1978 down to 36% in 2016. With 50% of all guns being owned by 3% of the population. There has been a rise in purchasing guns but this rise is not by people wanting to purchase their first gun, but by people who already have a firearm.
(3)
Report

Techie...So you’re a lobbyist for the NRA? If not you should be.

You said you were tired of guns be demonized. I think that was the phrase. It made me think of all those kids killed in high schools and all the folks slaughtered in Vegas.

The Vegas guy moved cases of guns into his room. Used a bump stock. How is this all made possible? It’s possible because any deranged halfwit can easily and legally amass an Arsenal of military grade weapons.

Oh but you will reply that there are laws, they’re just not enforced. And our mental health system doesn’t work. Right?

Well Techie I’m not holding my breath that anytime soon these laws will be enforced or that we’ll have a decent country wide mental health system.

After your ever so expert spouting of facts and gun laws the NRA supports how about giving us a list of the gun laws the NRA has opposed and been successful in doing so. It’s a long list. Even stuff like gun studies, traceable ammo, cop killer bullets, extended clips.  NRA says no.

All those bodies and more to come I’m sure, but you’re tired of guns being demonized. Think about that statement Techie.

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. This forum is not the place to have the gun debate and if we continue they’ll likely boot us off here.

I respect your opinion and I don’t mind a good debate. You represent your views well.  If you want to respond I suggest you private message me.
(9)
Report

WOW - so many inaccurate statements and derisive sarcasm too.

Not really a constitutional scholar, just a product of the Tennessee public education system where I had good history and civics teachers from middle school through college who used required reading lists and made students debate issues - often on the side you (at least initially) opposed. A father who insisted voting required making informed decisions in honor of all the men who had served and died preserving that "right"; and a grandfather who told us our heads should be used for more than hanging our hats.

"the problem with guns, or more specifically, gun owners, is that many are not trained and responsible like I would assume that you are." Unfortunately, statistics just don't support that statement. Assuming 320 million guns with around each owner having an average of 3-8 guns there are between 40 and 110 million legal gun owners. The FBI tells us that 92-96% of all homicides and assaults committed in the last decade were gang and drug related (criminal on criminal). With gun deaths at near record lows running just under 12,000 per year, assuming 10% are by legal gun owners (or 1200) gun owners are responsible for 0.001 to 0.003% by all causes including suicide and accidents. Reversing the statistic - that means 99.999 to 99.997% of guns are handled responsibly. Even if we count all firearms crimes including acts by felons who cannot legally own a gun that would still show 99.97% of gun owners do not mishandle their firearms.

"Suicide, murder and accidental shootings are far more likely to occur in homes where guns are present. If there’s a gun at hand folks don’t go for the ball bat or kitchen knife." According to the FBI firearms are used in only 18-22% of residential crimes. The FBI crime statistics tell us that fists, kitchen knives and bats are the weapons of choice for in the home violence.

"For every mom who killed her carjacker there are dozens of kids who accidentally kill each other because mom had a loaded gun in the glove box, her purse, a drawer,etc." Actually, the Dallas woman shot but did not kill her carjacker. Accidental shootings involving children (even if they were not injured or killed) account for only 6% of all reported firearm discharges. Children killed or injured by firearms outside of gang and drug violence generally runs between 80-140 per year - less than child deaths from other causes like drowning, biking/skateboards, home fires, auto accidents and drunk/drugged drivers.

"So you tell me TN techie, would it have violated grannies 2nd amendment rights if someone had taken her guns?" It would have violated grannies 2nd amendment rights if she was still deemed competent and not a threat to herself or others. To remove someone's constitutional rights there must be due process, although the officers responding to prior domestic calls could have sited her and/or her son and taken their guns pending a hearing. Once someone is declared either incompetent or mentally ill, then their firearms can be taken.

"Are any government regulations for training and safe storage of guns a constitutional violation?" Like voter registrations laws, training and storage requirements cannot create undue burden really intended to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. As someone who was "trained" by a parent as a child, then the US Army, and later took required training for concealed carry, I can tell you that my father was much more focused on safety.

"To get a drivers license takes some doing. Then there’s all the paper work, registration . Want a gun? No prob. No test. Buy one in a tent just outside of town. " To legally purchase a firearm you must have a driver's license or some other form of government issued ID and in all transactions across a state line or with a firearms dealer you must pass a federal background check. When you give your daughter a pistol or sell a shotgun to the neighbor you have known for decades and lives in the same state, that is a private sale/transfer and no federal background check is required; however individuals frequently require one for private sales too if they don't know the person well. The private seller and even the local dealer are generally much more selective about who they sale to - there are multiple documented accounts of a local dealer declining to sale firearms or ammunition to someone who later made a purchase at a big box store and then committed some crime. The tent outside of town is usually for illegal sales to criminals although there are some people who sell guns as a commodity and are not particular about who their customers are.

"Old folks get their cars taken away because they become dangerous. Would it make sense to take old people’s guns away after a diagnosis of dementia? Mental illness? " You can already take someone's guns away for mental illness if they have been committed AND the paperwork has been entered into the system. The Virginia Tech shooter had been committed but his paperwork had been sitting on the county clerk's desk for more than 20 months when he passed the federal background check. (There's no law requiring states/counties enter this data - now that's a law the NRA has been supporting for over 20 years.) I would agree that firearm rights should be restricted with dementia - but again with due process not just some lay person statement (Daddy has dementia and you're as old as Daddy so you must have it too).

"Some 4th time drunk driver loses his license because he’s a threat to public safety but he can go to gun show the next day and buy an Arsenal." Not if he's a felon (like he would be in TN) - he cannot pass the federal background check if his paperwork has been entered into the system. There are also restrictions on how many firearms can be purchased in defined timeframes.
(4)
Report

FF I like your idea of the crossbow..LOL Hubs is a hunter, and we have bows locked up in the gun safe. I always said all I needed was the crossbow bolt,, those things would not even need the bow if the attacker was close enough! But I come from and married into a hunting family
(2)
Report

Techie, the problem with guns, or more specifically, gun owners, is that many are not trained and responsible like I would assume that you are. Nor are they constitutional scholars which you appear to be.

Suicide, murder and accidental shootings are far more likely to occur in homes where guns are present. If there’s a gun at hand folks don’t go for the ball bat or kitchen knife.

For every mom who killed her carjacker there are dozens of kids who accidentally kill each other because mom had a loaded gun in the glove box, her purse, a drawer,etc.

The event that prompted this thread is a classic case. 92 year old granny packing two guns in a stressful household.

So you tell me TN techie, would it have violated grannies 2nd amendment rights if someone had taken her guns?

Are any government regulations for training and safe storage of guns a constitutional violation?

To get a drivers license takes some doing. Then there’s all the paper work, registration . Want a gun? No prob. No test. Buy one in a tent just outside of town.

Old folks get their cars taken away because they become dangerous. Would it make sense to take old people’s guns away after a diagnosis of dementia? Mental illness?

Some 4th time drunk driver loses his license because he’s a threat to public safety but he can go to gun show the next day and buy an Arsenal.

I grew up with guns. Dad taught us how to safely use firearms. I don’t currently own a gun but I’m thinking of getting a few so I can defend myself against the government who wants to take our guns.

I’m going to wear it, locked and loaded and keep one in the glove box.   Go to church, the bar, my kids school, football games.  I’ll make the world a safer place.  It’s my right.  And get an AK.  I don’t need one but I have a right to it. Oh...and a bump stock.  But wait...Aren’t those illegal now?  Naw...I think  they caved on that one also.
(8)
Report

The carjacking in Dallas... on the other side of the coin, the carjacker could have just as easily gotten the already loaded gun away from the woman and used it on her and the children.

If someone asked me what weapon I would have in the house to protect me, I would choose the cross-bow. It would take a lot of training to use one. Children would find it too complex to use, if they came across it. So would a criminal if they were successful in wresting it away from me... probably could, a 20 or 30 something male would easily take an item away from a senior citizen.

Each side of the gun debate has valid answers.
(4)
Report

GA, I do not understand the point of your last post. I try to stay away from purely political posts but you have made several political statements in your posts during this thread so I guess I'm going to give a political answer. Being a independent libertarian, I usually offend everyone with a Democratic or a Republican party affiliation since I firmly support individual choice and restrained capitalism over government intervention and socialism. Supporting second amendment and women's rights along with marriage equality and John Kennedy's balanced budget view seems to tick off at least one button for just about everyone...

Because SOME people choose not to eat meat _today_ does not change the rights of others to eat meat and to be able to feed themselves off the land via hunting, gathering and farming AND to defend themselves from wild animals and people who would take their food. A study of census records from 1920, 1930, and 1940 clearly shows that many people who lived in large cities moved back to rural farming areas as the great depression deepened. Even today, the ability to grow your own food not only insulates from economic challenges but also enables better food choices.

You seem to imply that because some people don't eat meat, hunting should become a lost skill for everyone. That is in keeping with current liberal thinking - when a liberal decides "vegan" is the "right" way, they get to decide everyone else must give up meat too - no individual can be expected to make "good" decisions for themselves (unless it's about aborting a fetus, then the individual's judgment is supreme even when a minor). This lack of respect for the individual's right to make their own choices fuels libertarian and conservative anger. The "activist" Judges that rule not based on the laws that have been passed by our legislatures but on what they "feel" are destroying the separation of powers critical to maintaining our free government.

When natural disasters disrupt the normal functioning of our law enforcement agencies, even people in large cities who do not want to be raped, robbed, or murdered need to take care of themselves. In rural America where people still live several minutes to an hour or more from policing organizations, the need to take responsibility for your own safety is still much the same as it was decades ago.

As to military units, this country was founded by revolution against the ruling government. A revolution that was only possible because of an armed citizenry - something which the conquering British governments always outlawed in other lands including Ireland, Scotland, India, etc. and tried to outlaw in the American colonies. Concord was a battle with a British Army unit sent to take custody of arms and ammunition held by American "rebels". The Battle of Kings Mountain (first American victory in the Revolutionary War) is a perfect example of the Constitution's "militia", where the armed citizenry gathered at Sycamore Shoals in what is presently Carter County Tennessee, elected their leaders, marched to Kings Mountain North Carolina and destroyed a British regular Army unit under the command of Ferguson - the man who had sent messages he was going to cross the mountain and burn their homes in proper citizenry suppressing British tradition.

The second amendment is not only about having the right to feed and defend your family from dangerous animals and criminals, it is also about having the right to organize a militia and defend yourself from an invading army or an overreaching or failed government. Any reading of the letters and papers of the Constitution Convention attendees and the discussions that led to the "Bill of Rights" being added in order to gain Constitutional ratification clearly documents this position.

To the people that don't like the second amendment and want to redefine or ignore it, I would point out that there is a well used process to amend the Constitution - PLEASE use it!

BTW - In the news today - the young woman in Dallas who used the gun from her glove-box to prevent her young children from being kidnapped during a car robbery - just one example of the second amendment in action.
(4)
Report

Techie, I don't wish to challenge or dispute your interpretation of a gun's primary purpose of "feeding or defending a person or a family", but I think any discussion of purpose absolutely must include the patently obvious, that a major level of" defense" is that of military units.

Life has evolved to a point that defense of family and self can still be an issue (as both RainMom and I have experienced), but there are also other ways to produce food, and many more people these days are non meat eaters anyway.
(1)
Report

Rainmom, very clever and insightful response. I wonder if the GM's attorney will confer with a geriatrician to explore what could have prompted the confrontation and unfortunate results. If she was compromised by a UTI, it could be part of a mental disturbance (I can't think of the legal terminology right now) defense.

But I'm guessing any "conferences" or discussions will be on the media news, by talking faces who are probably practicing their opinion speeches as we write. Imagine the publicity this will create.

I think a lot is revealed by the fact that the son had 11 guns in the house - not in a gun safe as they should be. I expect the trial will open areas to the culture of guns in that particular area.



Glad, I'm betting that the gun culture of rural America is going to be an issue in the trial. Watch for the NRA to take a stand on gun ownership. And maybe AARP will file an amicus brief on behalf of older people facing being forced out of their homes and into facilities.


And I do think that the kidnapping charge is a reach, but police or the prosecutor may have anticipated pressure locally and nationally, and decided to be as inclusive as possible in the event one charge was dismissed - then there would still be others. Then they have a fallback for a conviction on a lesser charge.


What I think could come out of this, if there are people who are rational and sympathetic enough, is to focus more attention on the limited options families have at that stage of aging.
(3)
Report

Rainmom - unfortunately MCSO has only paid access for police reports so I could not see what’s what in the write up was on the DD calls. Hopefully New York Post will delve into them & write up as they dig deep on stories.

Crowe - yeah I too had a total why? on the kidnapping charge.... it’s because Mrs B held a gun on the GF (who was the owner of the condo) and Mrs B held a gun on GF so kidnapping charge due to “confining a person against their will during an unlawful purpose such as the facilitation of a crime”. The crime & 1st charge was 1st degree Premeditated murder of the son. The fact that the condo was not Mrs B home, she did not own it, no recording of her name on the unit will factor into the charges on her. 

The Village at Towne Center has now locked out access to most of website. Imagine it’s a media storm there. Bet that was hot topic at their annual July 4th pool BBQ party.

Also reporting goes 2 paths on the incident, some have Mrs B coming into the GF master bedroom and shooting her son in bed; others have it where Son went into the guest bedroom to tell his mom that he & GF we’re going out and she stood up and shot him. 
(2)
Report

CM, well said, and so true. And unfortunately, the issue of control can also be applied to non weapon issues, such as meds. It's no secret that there's a drug abuse crisis in the US. And though I have no specific insight into the distribution system, I would imagine that it's quite aggressive and fairly well established, perhaps in ways and routes that we'll never be aware of. (Remember Ollie North?)

Cutting back and restricting use of specific meds such as the opioids might help control the epidemic...I don't know as I have no insight into how many users segued into that situation after use of opioids for pain meds. But it just might enhance the private market for drugs.

Can't win if you do, can't win if you don't.

Your sympathy for the family is admirable and compassionate. I saw this as a situation in which someone was literally on the edge of rationality, and probably overcome with fear of being "put" in a place to die. And she reached out, probably the only way she knew how (check your PMs in about 5 - 10 minutes).

It's a tragic situation all around.

Yes, many of us are trying to hang onto the Constitution, especially certain aspects well beyond the Second Amendment. I'm just thankful that my grandparents escaped to America when our doors were still open to immigrants.
(1)
Report

I would like to know if it was a nursing home or an assisted living they were going to move her into? One article says one thing and another says another.

Even if she had seen them and did not like them, that does not justify her killing him and attempting to kill his girlfriend.
(3)
Report

Maybe she has seen how NH in her area are and wanted nothing to do with them. Mental hospital in jail may not be the best, but it probably is better than many NH
(0)
Report

For those who were wondering.

“There were six calls for service at the residence since January, according to the sheriff's office.
Of the six calls, four alone were on June 21 for a domestic dispute, officials said. Another was for a possible identity theft report and another involved a wrong-number call, MCSO said. Further details were not available.” ~ USA Today, July 5th, 2018

Of additional interest: when police searched the home they found a total of 13 guns. 11 of the guns belonged to the son and then the two that belonged to mom. None of the guns were secured.
(3)
Report

Living in rural America there are probably more that own guns than do not. Probably lots of conceal carry permits in these parts too. You never know when you may run up against a rattlesnake of a rabid raccoon, dog or anything.

This story would be very interesting if we find out Mrs B had a UTI! Haven't read to catch up maybe she has been diagnosed.
(3)
Report

Gun control. That falls on my list of “Rarely Discussed Topics”, along with abortion, politics and religion. People tend to get overly wrought in these discussions with their strong and passionate points of view - and as GA states, I also believe these hotly debated subjects just go on and on.

However, in the interest of presenting a full picture of my ever so humble opinion - I will say I am a gun owner. I got my first gun upon graduating college and moving to my own little apartment. Like GA, I had a couple bad experiences when my life was being very seriously threatened. Having a gun made me feel safer. I did take steps to be a responsible gun owner - a membership to a shooting range, gun safety class, etc.

As I type this I have my trusty loaded .38 in my bedside drawer along with enough ammunition to hold my ground during The Zombie Apocalypse.

Okay. Sooo anyhoo - one would think I’d have no issue with an elderly person owning a gun, right?

Oh, hell no!!!

And I’ll sum up my objection in three words: Urinary Track Infection.

Before I knew what a UTI could do to a normally sharp thinking senior citizen- I had thought my father had completely lost his mind. The transformation of his personality, the scope and intensity of his delusions and hallucinations - it was - and remains the most mind blowing thing I have ever experienced.

I dont know if my dads experience was unusual or where it might fall on the scale in range of intensity.

I also dont know when it happens - at what age. When does a UTI go from being a burning tingle with a non-stop urge to go - to a mind altering shift in thinking and processing, along with a complete Jekyll and Hyde change in personality.

Its not like one day, you get your AARP card in the mail and the next you're loading up on cranberry juice.

Somewhere along the line an aging individual becomes a high risk threat - a danger to themselves and a danger to others - least they come down with a mind altering medical condition. And it can be something as basic and simple as a Urinary Track Infection.

So, what’s the answer? Take away a persons right to own a gun on their 65th birthday? No. Clearly, that’s not the answer - but I swear to God, I don’t know what is.

But there is one thing I do know... Had either of my elderly parents come to live in my home - my trusty, loaded .38 would have never remained in my bedside table drawer.

I just would have had to take my chances with The Zombie Apocalypse.
(6)
Report

GA, your point that guns ought not to be in the possession of - basically - the wrong people leads me to point out one of the difficulties of changing legislation (quite apart from the US's constitution, which if I were you I should hang onto very tightly indeed).

The difficulty is that if gun ownership become effectively illegal, the *only* people who have them are the wrong people; and the "right" people, moreover, don't know how to handle situations that involve them. And that doesn't work either.

In an ideal world, it seems it has to be either everybody or nobody armed. In Switzerland it is (or used to be anyway) everybody; they still have their disasters but I believe not quite so many.

In the case of this poor, poor family, at first I was thinking they ought not to have let the lady get so frightened, then; but it seems that the son and girlfriend were trying their very best on that score too. It's just awful. Poor people.
(5)
Report

It will likely be determined that she is in the anger and violent stage of dementia and really needed to be on some medication. I think they will find upon evaluation that she is not totally in touch with reality. I'm sorry she killed her son, but on the other hand, I think she is an angry demented soul.
(2)
Report