Woman shoots husband

[Superfly]

Working on a link....

See link below.

Edited to reflect the accurate link listed below.

[Superfly]

1. Still working on a link

but the guy probably deserved it.

[TexasMexican]

2. I dont think this is the same one...

but I have a link to a similar case in my city.

http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_2492037,00.html

From what I read in the story the husband deserved it.

[CO Liberal]

3. From The Article

Police suspect that Richardson got the gun from her husband before the couple separated.

Following the shooting, Richardson told investigators that she had filed many reports against her husband for domestic violence, Lt. Rocky Vipond said.

Richardson had sought a protective order against her husband and was scheduled for a hearing Tuesday, Vipond said.

<snip>

She filed a family violence assault report in October against him, but the district attorney didn't file official charges because Noelle Richardson told police she just wanted it documented, Vipond said.

She also reported a sexual assault by her husband in July, but later dropped the charges, according to reports.

"It seems she had been moving around trying to stay away from him," said Cmdr. Mike Walsh, police investigator.

Police don't know where John Richardson lived, or if he was employed, Vipond said. They did learn that he had been discharged from the Navy for ongoing domestic violence, Vipond said. The couple had no children.

John Richardson is the kind of individual who, IMHO, should have been banned for life from owning a gun - due to his history of violent behavior.

[Superfly]

4. Yeah, but if he had not had a gun

how would she have been able to protect herself when he came back, seeing as how she obtained the gun from him? A restraining order?

[TexasMexican]

7. well...

if she didnt have his gun, maybe she might have gone out and bought herself one.

However I dont think the gun ownership is the real issue in this case, because as far as I can tell the gun wasnt used in any crime.

[CO Liberal]

8. It wasn't Used in Any Crime

All I'm saying is the husband is a classic example of the need for gun control.

[TexasMexican]

9. it probably wouldnt have worked in this case since...

it appears the wife never followed through in the first place.

She filed reports but never pressed charges. You cant have your rights taken away from you just because someone filled a report against you and then it never went any further than that.

[CO Liberal]

14. They Need to Press on With These Cases

Don't give the alledged victim the opportunity to drop the charges - let the case go to court, and let the judicial system decide.

[alwynsw]

16. Yeah, let's press on regardless of the facts

That blanket statement doesn't hold water. I suppose that now you're going to say that all DV claims are true? We all know that no spouse, significant other, or whatever term you want to use would ever lie in the heat of an argument.

Face it, in most cases, if you have a penis and are involved in a DV complaint, you lose. You can Google those stats, because you'll likely dismiss any source I quote as unqualified or having a right wing agenda.

[CO Liberal]

24. You Misunderstood What I Meant

I'm not saying to convict regardless of facts. I'm saying that is someone is arrested for domestic violence, the victim shouold not be allowed to drop the charges - quite often, that victim later ends up dead. I'm saying the case should go to trial, and if there is a conviction based on the evidence, the attacker should lose the right to have a gun.

[MrBenchley]

5. Another family made safer....

Yes, we need guns to protect us from guns because the gun industry has made sure people who shouldn't have guns can get guns...

[Superfly]

6. In this case, that's exactly right...

this woman used lethal means to defend her life when she was threatened by her estranged husband and a restraining order was not sufficient.

I say good for her.

[alwynsw]

17. Let's get her a reload and send her back out

If the facts prove that the husband was an abuser, he needed to die. The fact that he was killed in the commission of a crime, B&E, and likely had blood in his eye for the ex makes it all the more justified.

I still hold that his rights should not be curtailed absent a felony or DV conviction.

[juancarlos]

25. How did they do that?

Did they use the famous "asswipe lunatic techniques" to do it?

[BullDozer]

19. She was safer

Another family made safer....

Yes a member of that family was made safer.

What was she going to do with a restraining order give him a really bad paper cut?

[alwynsw]

20. Those things can hurt REALLY bad, you know

Yup. That would do it. Give him a paper cut and he'll go away.

/sarcasm off

[beevul]

10. In this case, CO..

In this case, CO, I'm inclined to completely agree. I also thimk that it was good that the wife could protect herself though.

[CO Liberal]

11. The Husband Should Have Been Barred From Gun Ownership...

...because of his past behavior. Yet the wife should have been allowed to have one, since she wanted one and did NOT have a violent history.

[beevul]

12. I can agree with that

"The Husband Should Have Been Barred From Gun Ownership......because of his past behavior. Yet the wife should have been allowed to have one, since she wanted one and did NOT have a violent history"-COLiberal

Again, I am inclined to agree. Your statement sounds reasonable to me. Concrete history of violent behavior SHOULD be grounds for being barred, no ifs ands or buts. There is perhaps the argument of "paying ones debt to society", and "rehabilitation", but I will not make that argument in the case of an individual who has a history of violence.


Firearms and the truly violent do not and should not mix.

[alwynsw]

18. I agree in principle

but the fact remains that absent adjudication, there were no legal grounds to deprive him of his rights. There is no evidence of any conviction in the article, therefore we cannot automatically asume that gun ownership by the husband should have been forbidden.

It's the two edged sword of a free society. We cannot preemptively deny anyone their rights, even if we are convinced that they are inherently evil. Let the courts work as dsigned, or we may as well submit to a dictatorial government.

[TexasMexican]

13. Some concerns

This article doesnt state if he had been convicted or plead guilty to any crimes beforehand, also I'm not exactly sure how the Navy goes about kicking people out because of domestic violence.

The article says he had a violent history (I'm sure he did, I also think he got what he deserved), but that doesnt necessarily mean that he was ever convicted of anything. He might have been convicted of some crimes before, but this article doesnt make that clear.

So should rights be stripped away without being convicted of a crime?

[beevul]

21. Clarification

"So should rights be stripped away without being convicted of a crime?"-TexasMexican

Not without a repeat conviction, IMO. That would constitute a concrete documented history of violence.

I don't believe that 1 DV conviction is enough to establish that, because often, both the victim and the abuser are charged and plead guilty to avoid time in court, and just pay a fine.

The way the article sounds, it sounds documented, which makes me believe there had probably been a couple convictions. One doesn't get discharged from the navy for ongoing DV without some sort of conviction, or shouldn't be. Its possible that he was not, but information available is an indicator that he was.

"Following the shooting, Richardson told investigators that she had filed many reports against her husband for domestic violence, Lt. Rocky Vipond said."

"Police don't know where John Richardson lived, or if he was employed, Vipond said. They did learn that he had been discharged from the Navy for ongoing domestic violence, Vipond said."

Its possible he was only convicted of 1 charge in the navy, or none at all, but he should have been convicted multiple times, if the info in the article is correct.

And if it is correct, he should have been barred from possession/ownership-IMO.

Trult violent people and guns don't mix. Truly violent people with guns make ALL responsible gun owners look bad, and give certain people (nudge nudge wink wink) more to piss and moan about besides hunting.

[alwynsw]

15. There's a huge difference between history and convicted

I can make no judgement from the article alone.

The mutt probably deserved it, but there is nothing in the article that states that he has been convicted of any crime. No conviction, no infringement upon his rights.

Claims of DV and reports of DV are just that - claims. I'm not ready to judge him guilty of anything until all the facts are in.

Conversely, as I stated above, the mutt probably deserved what he got. Breaking into an occupied home or business is sufficient grounds for the resident, guest, or employee to use reasonable force to defend himself. Use of a firearm in most cases by a female to defend herself from a male is justifiable in my mind. Legal equality and physical equality are two different things.

[beevul]

22. What constitutes a "history"?

"There's a huge difference between history and convicted"

IMO, if someone has more than 1 DV conviction, thats a history. The person in question sounds as if he had at least 1, and should have had many. That being IF the info in the article is true. To me, the article implies a conviction in the navy, but I could be wrong.

"The mutt probably deserved it, but there is nothing in the article that states that he has been convicted of any crime. No conviction, no infringement upon his rights."

I agree, except, he was discharged from the navy for ongoing DV. He likely discharged under the lautenberg act which barrs DV offenders from ownership/possession of firearms, including military duty related firearms. My understanding is that when someone in the military is convicted of DV they can opt out of service after a year or something similar. Any military or former military with more info on military SOP? Like you say, it is hard to say at this point, but that is most likely the case.


I believe the lautenberg act needs to be changed to recognise that DV victims are also charged a large percentage of the time, and require more than 1 conviction to remove any doubt.

To clarify, IF the info in the article is correct, and IF he was convicted 1 time for DV(navy), hes barred for life from ownership/possession of firearms. That is current law.

"We cannot preemptively deny anyone their rights, even if we are convinced that they are inherently evil. Let the courts work as dsigned, or we may as well submit to a dictatorial government."

I agree with this statement. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the courts are the proper place for that line.

I think that when more facts are known, this person will have had a record though.


Heres some better info on the lautenberg act and the military:

Domestic violence gun law can affect soldiers careers.


"All soldiers having qualifying misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence under the Lautenberg Amendment aren't allowed to possess or handle firearms or ammunition, so this affects them in their capacity within the military to handle a weapon," Carr said."

"Army guidance on deployment eligibility, assignment and reporting of soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment state "a soldier is non-deployable for missions that require firearms and ammunition, and should be assigned, if feasible, to non-tactical units," Fagan said. "

"However, Fagan said, all soldiers, regardless of the type of assignment, are required to undergo periodic weapons qualification. All soldiers could also be required to take up arms in time of war. "

"The implication is soldiers with records of domestic violence who cannot qualify at military shooting ranges cannot be promoted," said Fagan. Nor could such soldiers handle firearms in wartime, she said. "

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/7_47/national_news/20471-1.html

My money would be on him being discharged because of a conviction.

[alwynsw]

23. You're right on the money.

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement. I was referring to history thinking of voluntary counseling for domestic issues, "bar fights" (as in the inevitible scrapes many soldiers and sailors seem to get into when drinking)- that sort of thing with no convictions - perhaps letters of reprimand or such.

Any DV conviction is sufficient to bar gun ownership. That's a Federal law. I forget the number.

Sorry for the vague post.

[beevul]

26. Don't sweat it

"Sorry for the vague post."

Don't sweat it. The article didn't give any of us alot to go by. There has been alot of whats been said, is speculation, including what I have said. That will happen when we "armchair quarterback" these things with little fact to go by.


None of us are probably far from the truth.