A Pennsylvania State Trooper was gunned down responding

[doc03]

to a domestic dispute January 13. The shooter had a lengthy history of mental illness and domestic violence and other charges, yet the courts let him have his guns back for "hunting" in 1997. Yesterday he ambushed and gunned down the Trooper with one of those guns. Here is a link to a video on KDKA TV in Pittsburgh, there is also another video on their site of a news conference held buy the Pennsylvania State Police. (Link didn't work I'll try again to link to the story in print and on the right you will find a video.)


http://kdka.com/local/state.police.news.2.1426743.html

[HopeHoops]

1. I didn't see it referenced in any of the articles - was he wearing a vest?

:shrug:

[doc03]

2. Yes he was wearing a vest, the link didn't work to well

I put up a new one in OP, it has the story in print and you will see a video on the right. You can also find the video of the news conference with the State Police.

[old mark]

3. Mr. Smith shot the officer in the neck, above his vest, using a .30-30

deer rifle with a scope that got returned to him by a judge after he had to turn it in to police in 1997. It is the same rifle he used to harrass his former wife, and had been confiscated by police. He evidently told the judge he needed it for hunting, and - being it is Venango County, PA- the judge gave it back to him. Smith was hiding in his house ans the officer was approaching outside, was shot through a window.

It is a violation of federal law-and more recent PA state law-for Smith to own a gun.

mark

[HopeHoops]

4. Ah, yeah, well, the neck isn't all that forgiving.

[atreides1]

8. With a .30-30

At that close of a range, I doubt if his vest would have saved him.

[benEzra]

20. Nor at 100 yards. (n/t)

[doc03]

5. Amazing isn't it the courts gave the guns back to

a man that couldn't legally purchase a gun. The COPS in the Pittsburgh area have had a lot of bad luck the last few weeks with shootings.

[Walk away]

10. That's because the second amendment takes precedent over logic....

or the safety of law enforcement officers. Gun victims don't have an amendment.....just the shooters.

[eqfan592]

14. Walk Away, take the advice of your name, please.

Most people around here don't suffer fools gladly, after all.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[old mark]

21. I hope you have a good dinner, and I hope you grow up a bit.

No one was offensive to you.


mark

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. You actually think that was a threat? LOL. Ok johnny drama.

[atreides1]

6. Unfotunately

Recent law didn't count in this case. When his guns were returned to him in 1997, those laws were not on the books.

[doc03]

11. Are you sure about that I have filled out

those firearms forms for 40 something years and they have always asked if you have a history of mental illness or been convicted of a felony. I know they now have to also call a number to see if you can purchase them, that may be new but that form has been around since like 1964.

[PavePusher]

23. Just because his firearms were temporarily confiscated...

does not mean he was under a mental illness or convicted of a felony at that time.

And since it apparently took some 12+ years to go completely nuts, I must assume that back then he appeared temporarily upset but sane.

Unfortunately, human precognition is not terribly reliable.

A tragic incident that definately merits furthar investigation.

[X_Digger]

17. The 1968 Gun Control Act prohibited it.

Violation of federal statutes on its face.

[spin]

7. The judge who allowed him to have that weapon for hunting ...

should bear some responsibility for this tragedy.

[atreides1]

9. Not if he was following the law

Remember the rifle was returned in 1997, and the current laws weren't on the books at the time.

Unfortunately they can't grandfather these laws.

[spin]

12. True, but unfortunate. (n/t)

[doc03]

13. That firearms form has been around since1964 I believe n/t

[atreides1]

15. After further checking

The guns were returned in 2000.

His record shows that while he was charged with 8 criminal counts, he only pleaded guilty to stalking. Under PA law is stalking a reason for taking away and not returning a gun?

As for federal law, once again is stalking listed as one of the reasons for taking his guns.

[doc03]

16. My brother lost his right to buy a gun over a DUI arrest. I also

know of people that lost their guns over just a fabricated domestic violence charge.
on edit: I believe Mr. Smith also had a history of mental illness.

[PavePusher]

24. A simple arrest would not qualify for that.

Was he convicted of an actual felony or violent misdemeanor?

Scratch that question, it's really none of my business, sorry for being nosy.

[ManiacJoe]

22. The fed law does not list specific crimes.

It notes "all felonies" and mental illness.

[Tejas]

18. Special place in Hades for the shooter.

DU rules prevent any more commentary.