Autopsy reveals Benoit was struck by 11 bullets

[MyrnaLoy]

'Bustamante was issued a concealed weapons permit through the Latah County Sheriff's Office on March 28, expiring in 2016.....Police found the apparent murder weapon and five other guns in the hotel room.

Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/26/1773987/autopsy-reveals-benoit-was-struck.html#ixzz1WAw4JSxg

Issued the permit at the end of March and used it to murder 5 months later.

"On June 10, 2011 at 3:04 p.m.: Lt. Lehmitz received a telephone call from Kathryn M. Benoit. This call was a result of the University of Idaho referring her to address safety concerns. Lt. Lehmitz spoke with her advising her of basic safety principles and asked her to call police if any threatening or suspicious incidents occurred. July 14, 2011: University of Idaho requested the Moscow Police Department participate in a threat assessment concerning the alleged threatening behavior of Bustamante relating to Benoit.

Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/26/1773987/autopsy-reveals-benoit-was-struck.html#ixzz1WAwssRu4

3 months after he was issued a concealed weapon permit his actions were reported to the police depart. This woman was hit with 11 .45 cal bullets by someone law enforcement thought was a good risk. 3 months after the permit law enforcement knew of complaints. This woman is now dead.

4 months after the permit was issued law enforcement was once again notified by the university. Still he buys weapons to kill a young woman.

Drugs in the room: Clonazepam, Lexapro, Lamotrigine, and Alprazolam.

Weapons in his room: Smith and Wesson M&P .45-caliber handgun, Smith and Wesson .44-caliber revolver, Springfield Armory .45-caliber handgun, uger LCP .380-caliber handgun, Glock 9mm caliber handgun, Taurus Judge .45 caliber / .410 gauge handgun, and ammunition for each weapon.

edited to add less than one month before she was gunned down the Moscow Police Department was contacted to check on her welfare. It seems everyone knew this professor was a threat but was allowed to purchase weapons and continue to carry concealed.


"Documents seized pursuit to the warrant indicates that Kathryn M. Benoit filed a sexual harassment complaint with the University of Idaho on June 12, 2011. In the complaint it was alleged that threats of violence occurred on three separate occasions where Professor Bustamante held a gun to her head and detailed the manner in which he would use it. The first incident occurred the end of January 2011, the second incident occurred the week after spring break 2011, and the third incident occurred the second week of May 2011, which ended the relationship." http://www.kxly.com/news/28990352/detail.html

[PavePusher]

1. Sounds like a failure of the police to follow existing laws and procedures.

Perhaps you have another point?

[MyrnaLoy]

2. Sure

"Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, who co-sponsored a 2011 bill that would have allowed concealed weapons holders to take guns on campus, wrote University of Idaho President Duane Nellis late Tuesday....Teaching gun safety "could have possibly served as a deterrent to the shooter had he really understood what the mis-use of his gun really meant to her and her family as well as his," Hagedorn wrote.

Read more: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/24/idahopolitics/in_wake_deadly_shootings_rep_hagedorn_urges_u_i_embrace_gun_safe#ixzz1WB41UhqF


So we now need concealed weapon permit holders to protect us from other concealed weapon permit holders? The NRA LOVES Marv!

[saras]

3. Silly romanticism

"could have possibly served as a deterrent to the shooter had he really understood what the mis-use of his gun really meant to her and her family as well as his"

Do they have any evidence at all for this? I suspect their idea of "understanding" is something approaching "I'll teach you to be like that!", which of course, does what it says and not what it intends.

In all likelihood, his mind contains all the understanding of what he did and the consequences thereof that it is capable of containing. He was engaged in an ongoing, planned-out, premeditated series of actions, after all. It wasn't an impulse crime.

[rl6214]

19. That was a stupid comment by marv but you cannot label

or even think ALL CCH are going to act this way. That's just as stupid. He would have done it with or without a CCL.

[mikeb302000]

29. thanks for this post

I hadn't seen the story, but that's not surprising given the number and frequency of them.

It's absolutely appalling that they allow prople to won and carry guns so easily. I believe you're right that the numbers off CCW offenders are not accurate, not by a long shot.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. But of course, no data will be forthcoming.

I believe you're right that the numbers off CCW offenders are not accurate, not by a long shot.

But, of course, in spite of lots of actual data to the contrary, you'll still cling to this belief. It's almost like religion, isn't it?

[gravity556]

12. Claymores and landmines

The surest way to stop a stalker or peeper cold. The earth shaking BOOM means it's working!

[Starboard Tack]

42. Sounds like your standard response whenever a toter kills

All of a sudden it's the fault of the police. Would that be the same police who are never there and the reason you guys tote in the first place?

[rrneck]

43. That would be

the same police that would enforce the removal of firearms from public spaces.

[iverglas]

4. just a suggestion

It really does make sense to add the updates to the existing thread ... I think this makes four now about this event.

It ensures that people know what the subject is, and what has already been said about it here.

[MyrnaLoy]

5. I thought about that

but there was so much new information I sort of figured it could stand on it's own.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. +1

[iverglas]

6. gobsmacking

"In the complaint it was alleged that threats of violence occurred on three separate occasions where Professor Bustamante held a gun to her head and detailed the manner in which he would use it. The first incident occurred the end of January 2011, the second incident occurred the week after spring break 2011, and the third incident occurred the second week of May 2011" -- dated June 12, 2011

I will assume that she reported exactly the same facts to police on July 14, even if she did not do so on June 10:

"On June 10, 2011 at 3:04 p.m.: Lt. Lehmitz received a telephone call from Kathryn M. Benoit. This call was a result of the University of Idaho referring her to address safety concerns. Lt. Lehmitz spoke with her advising her of basic safety principles and asked her to call police if any threatening or suspicious incidents occurred."

although pretty obviously she did.

Police were informed of someone uttering death threats while holding a firearm to someone's head, on three occasions. The person in question held a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

And no charges were laid ... let alone the fact that his permit to carry a firearm and his firearms were not revoked and removed.

Can anybody offer any help in understanding this?

I am at a total loss.

[MyrnaLoy]

7. me too

In one paper it was stated that she didn't want police involvement. Her request would be moot because an actual crime was committed, she would not be able to ask for no police involvement. When that gun was put to her head he should have been arrested on the spot whether she wanted it or not.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. I just thought of something

I haven't verified this yet but I think that 100% of the murders in Moscow in the last 8 years where a firearm was used were committed by concealed weapon permit holders. The guy who attacked the sheriff department and killed a bunch of people also had a permit.

[Katya Mullethov]

9. Just call David Duke and ask him

I have spoken with him in the past , he's a pretty cool cat . He'll fill ya in .

[MyrnaLoy]

10. The

White Supremest guy?

[iverglas]

11. if the remark one is puzzling over

comes from the direction that one came from, one can generally click on by, as the time spent puzzling will not be time well spent.

I believe you were probably being called the equivalent of a racist for making generalizations about people with concealed weapons permits, even though that actually wasn't what you did.

You made a generalization about murderers in Moscow, which wasn't really a generalization if it is a statement of fact.

If all Xs are Ys, then that's what the Xs are, no matter how many Ys there are.

If all murderers are permit holders, then that's what the murderers are, no matter how many permit holders there are. Simple fact.

Not remotely similar to someone saying all Bs are Cs when in fact there are many Bs and not all of them are Cs. Simple falsehood.

B and C can stand for many things, of course, but "black" and "criminal" might work.

If you get my drift.

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Ahem. Katya was referring to the Moscow, ID chief of police, not the Klansman.

http://www.moscow.id.us/police/



Careful, you'll pull a muscle jumping to conclusions like that. Or to express the idea in a manner more appropriate for this forum:

Ready, fire, aim....

[gejohnston]

15. I would be tempted to change my name

if I had one like that.

[MicaelS]

16. Agree completely,

or else use my middle name instead.

[PavePusher]

18. Nope.

Don't let some bigotted asshole run you off of a perfectly good name.

Screw that.

[Katya Mullethov]

56. For bein' so smart

You sure do invest a lot of energy attempting to prove otherwise .

[gejohnston]

17. my best guess

there was not a third witness or physical evidence. Why others who saw it coming put their heads in the sand or up their asses and not said anything is beyond me. Another example of ignoring warning signs ending in tragedy that could have been prevented if people would have alerted authorities before hand.
Or there is the cynical side of me that sees pillar of community being accused of something by one of the unwashed.

[one-eyed fat man]

13. FEDERAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN STATUTES AND ELEMENTS FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTION

www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/federal_violence.pdf

FEDERAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN STATUTES AND ELEMENTS FOR
FEDERAL PROSECUTION

Violence Against Women Act Offenses
• Interstate travel to commit domestic violence - 18 U.S.C. § 2261
• Interstate stalking - 18 U.S.C. § 2261A
• Interstate travel to violate a Protection Order - 18 U.S.C. § 2262

Firearms Offenses
• Possession of a firearm while subject to a Protection Order - 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(8)
• Transfer of a firearm to a person subject to a Protection Order - 18 U.S.C. §
922(d)(8)
• Possession of a firearm after conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence - 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)
• Transfer of a firearm to a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence - 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(9)
• Official use exemption from firearms offenses (except §§ 922(d)(9) and
922(g)(9)) - 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1)

Other Relevant Statutes
• Full Faith and Credit - 18 U.S.C. § 2265
• Brady statement - 18 U.S.C. § 922(s)
• Right of victim to be heard at bail hearing - 18 U.S.C. § 2263
• Crime Victims’ Rights Act - 18 U.S.C. § 3771
• Restitution - 18 U.S.C. § 2264
• Self-Petitioning for battered immigrant women and children - 8 U.S.C. § 1154


Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Offenses

Interstate Travel to Commit Domestic Violence—18 U.S.C. §2261

18 U.S.C. §2261(a)(1)
It is a federal crime for a person to travel between states, or within the special maritime or
territorial jurisdiction of the United States (SMTJ), or to enter or leave Indian country,
with the intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate that person's intimate partner or dating
partner when in the course of or as a result of such travel the defendant commits or
attempts to commit a violent crime against that intimate partner or dating partner. The
law requires specific intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate at the time of interstate
travel. The term "intimate partner" includes a spouse, a former spouse, a past or present
cohabitant (as long as the parties cohabitated as spouses), and parents of a child in
common. The term “dating partner” refers to a person who is or has been in a social
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, as determined by the length
of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the
persons involved in the relationship.

18 U.S.C. §2261(a)(2)
It is also a federal crime to cause an intimate partner or dating partner to cross state lines
(or leave or enter Indian country) by force, coercion, duress or fraud, and during, or as a
result of, or to facilitate such conduct or travel, to attempt or commit a crime of violence.
This subsection does not require a showing of specific intent to cause the intimate partner
or dating partner to travel interstate. It does, however, require proof that the interstate
travel resulted from force, coercion, duress or fraud.

Interstate Stalking

18 U.S.C. §2261A(1)
It is a federal crime to travel between states, or within the SMTJ, with the intent to kill,
injure, harass, or place under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or
intimidate another person, if in the course of, or as a result of such travel, the defendant
places such person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes
substantial emotional distress to, that person or a member of that person's immediate
family. The law requires specific intent to violate this subsection at the time of interstate
travel. "Immediate family" includes a spouse, parent, sibling, child or any other person
living in the same household and related by blood or marriage.

Cyber Stalking

18 U.S.C. §2261A(2)
It is a federal crime with intent to (1) kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with
the intent to kill, injure, harass or intimidate, or (2) cause substantial emotional distress,
or place in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury a person in another State or
within the SMTJ; to use the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of
interstate commerce (including the Internet) to engage in a course of conduct that causes
substantial emotional distress or places such person in reasonable fear of the death of, or
serious bodily injury to, that person or a member of that person's immediate family or
that person's intimate partner. A single communication is not sufficient. The statute
defines a "course of conduct" as a "pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts,
evidencing a continuity of purpose."

Interstate Travel to Violate an Order of Protection—18 U.S.C. §2262

18 U.S.C. §2262(a)(1)
It is a federal crime to travel between states, or to enter or leave Indian country, or within
the SMTJ with intent to violate the portion of a valid protection order that prohibits or
provides protection against violence, threats, or harassment against, contact or
communication with, or physical proximity to another person. To establish a violation of
this statute, the Government must demonstrate that a person had the specific intent to
engage in conduct that violates the qualifying portion of the protection order at the time
of interstate travel and that a violation actually occurred. This statute does not require an
intimate partner relationship - although this relationship may be required by the state or
other governmental body issuing the order – nor does it require bodily injury.

18 U.S.C. §2262(a)(2)
It is also a federal crime to cause a person to cross state lines or enter or leave Indian
country by force, coercion, duress or fraud, and during, or as a result of, or to facilitate
such conduct or travel, to engage in conduct that violates the portion of the order of
protection that prohibits or provides protection against violence, threats, or harassment
against, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another person. This
subsection does not require a showing of specific intent to cause another person to travel
interstate. It does, however, require proof that the interstate travel resulted from force,
coercion, duress or fraud. The Government must also prove that a person violated the
relevant portion of the protection order during the course of, or as a result of, or to
facilitate the forced or coercive conduct or travel.

Penalties

Penalties for violations of Sections 2261, 2261A and 2262 hinge on the extent of the
bodily injury to the victim. Maximum terms of imprisonment range from five years for
no injury to life if the crime of violence results in the victim's death.

Firearm Offenses

Possession of Firearm While Subject to Order of Protection—18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)
It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining
such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an
intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child. The protection order must have
been issued following a hearing as to which the defendant had actual notice and an opportunity to participate. The protection order must also include a specific finding that
the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim, or must
include an explicit prohibition against the use of force that would reasonably be expected
to cause injury.

Transfer of Firearm to Person Subject to Order of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §922(d)(8)
It is also illegal to transfer a firearm to a person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person is subject to a court order that restrains him/her from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner. A violation
of Section 922(d)(8) must be knowing. Proof concerning knowledge on the part of the
supplier may be difficult to establish unless the purchaser acknowledges in the firearm
application that he/she is a prohibited person.

Official Use Exemption, 18 U.S.C. §925
The restrictions of Sections 922(d)(8) and (g)(8) do not apply to firearms issued by
governmental agencies to a law enforcement officer or military personnel so long as the
officer or military personnel is on duty.

Possession of Firearm After Conviction of Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic
Violence, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9)
It is illegal to possess a firearm after conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence. This prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any
time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the law's 1996 effective date. A qualifying
misdemeanor domestic violence crime must have as an element the use or attempted use
of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. For example, a conviction for
a misdemeanor violation of a protection order will not qualify, even if the violation was
committed by a violent act, since the statute does not require the use or attempted use of
physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.

In addition, the statute contains due process requirements regarding the defendant's right
to counsel and the defendant's right to a jury trial, if applicable. Absent compliance with
these due process requirements, the misdemeanor conviction will not qualify as a
domestic violence conviction for purposes of Section 922(g)(9). Moreover, a person may
be able to possess a firearm if the conviction has been expunged or set aside.

Other Relevant Statutes

Full Faith and Credit to Orders of Protection, 18 U.S.C. §2265
This civil law provides that a civil or criminal order issued by a court in one state or
Indian tribe shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another state or tribe,
and is to be enforced as if it were the order of the court of the second state or tribe. This
law applies to permanent, temporary and ex parte protection orders that comply with the
statute's requirements. To comply, the protection order must have provided the defendant
with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, in a manner consistent with due
process. This law does not apply to mutual protection orders if (a) the original
respondent did not file a cross or counter petition seeking a protective order or (b) if such a cross or counter petition was filed, but the court did not make specific findings that
each party was entitled to such an order. Registration of an order issued by another court
or tribe is not required for enforcement. However, if an order is registered, no court shall
notify a party against whom an order was entered that the order was registered unless
requested to do so by the party protected under such order. Amendments in 2005 limit
Internet publication of protection order information.

ATF Form 4473
ATF revised Form 4473 incorporates all the disqualifiers in the Gun Control Act. A
purchaser of a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer must complete this amended ATF
form certifying that he/she is not subject to a valid protection order and has not been
convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Providing false
information on this form may provide the basis for prosecution under 18 U.S.C.
§922(a)(6).

Right of Victim to Speak at Bail Hearing , 18 U.S.C. §2263
The victim of a VAWA crime (Sections 2261, 2261A or 2262) has the right, a right that
need not be exercised, to be heard at a bail hearing with regard to the danger posed by the
defendant.

Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. §3771
Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, enacted October 30, 2004, all federal crime
victims, including a domestic violence victim, have the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.

(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or
any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court,
after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim
would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court
involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.

(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and
privacy.


Restitution, 18 U.S.C. §2264
In a VAWA case, the Court must order restitution after conviction to reimburse the
victim for the full amount of losses. These losses include costs for medical or
psychological care, physical therapy, transportation, temporary housing, child care, lost
income, attorney's fees, costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order, and any other
losses suffered by the victim as a result of the offense. In a conviction under the Gun
Control Act, the Court may order restitution.

Self-Petitioning for Battered Immigrant Women and Children, 8 U.S.C. §1154
VAWA specifically provides that battered and abused spouses and children of citizens
and lawful permanent residents may self-petition for independent legal residency. This
statute prevents citizens or residents from using the residency process as a means to exert
control over an alien spouse or child. This statute may allow victims to remain in the
United States independent of their abusive husbands/parents.



Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the United States Attorney, District of
Maine (January 2006)

Of course all that is simply six pages of legalistic bullshit, if there is no restraining order or other information filed so the authorities who do background checks have up to date information.

Seems Ms Benoit suffered two great deceptions. First, she got entangled with a violent loser. Second, she discovered the "system" is not only powerless to protect her, it strives to deny her the ability to protect herself.

[iverglas]

36. the usual disgusting

Seems Ms Benoit suffered two great deceptions. First, she got entangled with a violent loser. Second, she discovered the "system" is not only powerless to protect her, it strives to deny her the ability to protect herself.

What does "deception" mean in this context? :headscratch:

On your first assertion: The person she got "entangled with" was a well-liked, successful academic. He was not a "loser" in any usual sense of the word. He had also not been "violent" in any usual sense of the word.

He was manipulative and exploitive and he had used threats and intimidation to gt his own way when manipulation didn't work. He eventually used violence to get his own way against the person who had thwarted him in that endeavour.

Nobody ever kills somebody ... until they do.

On your second assertion: did Benoit not have a firearm? Are you quite sure of that? She was at her own home. What had the "system" done to strive to deny her the ability to protect herself?

Why would you say the "system" was powerless to protect her? It looks to many people as if the "system" refused to protect her, in more than one way. Those are very different things.

[one-eyed fat man]

41. ....well-liked, successful academic."

Nice veneer, underneath, "He was manipulative and exploitive and he had used threats and intimidation," still as toxic as Chinese wallboard. Close enough to "violent loser" for me. Do you think if he hadn't been deceptive she would have found violence and threats just endearingly sexy from the outset?

Deception was certainly key into getting involved with the "good professor."

There is also no doubt the "system" failed her. Not much seems to have happened based on her complaints. Was, as was mentioned up thread, the difference in their stations so great that the "good professor" beyond investigating? Did some one see her as an hysterical coed sullying the reputation of a "well-liked, successful academic?"

Neither the school nor the local PD seem to have advised her in any meaningful or useful way. I'd wager they damn sure didn't tell her she might have to rely on her own devices because they weren't about to do much

[Common Sense Party]

20. Can you explain this line to me?

"Issued the permit at the end of March and used it to murder 5 months later."

He used the permit to murder someone? Did he roll up the permit until it was pointy and then stab someone with it? Did he use the edge of the permit and then kill someone by a thousand paper cuts? Did he somehow figure a way to load bullets into the permit and fire them out at hundreds of feet per second?

No?

Then I guess he didn't "use it to murder" anyone.

What DID he use to murder someone? A gun and bullets. And he could very easily have killed her with the gun and bullets WITHOUT having had the permit, right?

[MyrnaLoy]

22. I'll answer that

idiotic question with the response the last time is was asked. Why would I turn in my gun and permit? Does posting the truth mean I can't own a gun? Because I post stories about gun abuse that means I hate guns? How very shallow and gun protectionist of you. It really is only about the gun for you isn't it? Truth be damned. Because someone recognizes that people misuse guns they can't own one? How stupid to even suggest that.

[Common Sense Party]

23. How about you go back, read what I wrote, and answer the question

I actually asked.

Your hyperventilating response has no relation at all to what I wrote.

Perhaps you're responding to another post.

[MyrnaLoy]

25. I was

sorry.

[petronius]

24. Good lord, Myrna, you really are a treasure. Don't ever change, OK?

:rofl:

[MyrnaLoy]

27. but he didn't did he

he was a permit holder who killed. Spin all you want but that is what happened and it happens every day in America.

[rl6214]

28. what really does being a permit holder have to do with anything?

You are a permit holder who hasn't killed anyone (I presume).

[Common Sense Party]

34. Absolutely nothing. But Myrna knows that.

[iverglas]

37. in case it really does elude you

what really does being a permit holder have to do with anything?

Permits to carry concealed firearms are being issued to murderers.

Doesn't seem like wise social policy to some people.

He had not killed anyone at the time he was issued a permit, but he was the same person when it was issued as he was when he killed another person.

This isn't hindsight, this is fact. He was a murderer, and he had a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public.

How many others? Nobody knows unless and until they kill ... or injure, or rob ...

Or intimidate. But in this case, nobody even gave a shit about that, evidently.

The idea that a victim not wanting charges laid should determine whether there is a prosecution for behaviour like his -- where do such ideas come from???

[Common Sense Party]

35. Yes, he was. But the permit did not make him kill, did it?

Your declaration that the permit made him do it is ridiculous and specious.

[iverglas]

38. and nobody said it did

so

Your declaration that the permit made him do it is ridiculous and specious.

Your declaration that the poster said that is false and ... you know, the word "malicious" is coming to my mind, but it probably doesn't apply here ... eh ...?

[MyrnaLoy]

54. permit holders

murdering people daily. You knew that though.

[Common Sense Party]

55. The permit did not make him a killer.

But you knew that though.

[MyrnaLoy]

62. Just made it easier

you also knew that. Here we have a woman who had SPOKEN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THE DAY SHE WAS KILLED! If they had stopped him THEY WOULDN'Y BE ABLE TO DISARM HIM BECAUSE OF HIS PERMIT. You're OK with that though.

[petronius]

64. So what you mean is that it could have, maybe, made it easier for him if they

had actually stopped him? And this 'if' is somehow less troubling to you than the fact of his permit and your assumptions about how it would limit law enforcement?

[MyrnaLoy]

65. by they

do you mean the people who gave him a permit to carry a handgun?

[petronius]

66. Gosh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting how careful one needs to be when posting to you, owing

to your apparent inability to comprehend written English above the 5th grade level or so. :eyes: The pronoun "they" refers to law enforcement personnel (the people you brought up in your post that I replied to).

To go on, at the risk of confusing you further, the key point here is that the permit is irrelevant. This was a person giving off some substantial danger signs. Had the mechanisms to deal with a specific threatening individual been in place and/or effective, the general question of permits and firearms wouldn't even arise...

[MyrnaLoy]

67. so the fact that

people with known abuse problems getting a permit is irrelevant?

[petronius]

68. Hmm, you tell me - did the permit have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of this case?

:shrug:

[one-eyed fat man]

72. Guess again

"If they had stopped him THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DISARM HIM BECAUSE OF HIS PERMIT. You're OK with that though."

Based Lautenberg amendment, as soon as Ms Benoit had filed a complaint and requested a protective order, the police would have had cause to arrest him. Permit or no, cops are usually thorough about disarming folks they arrest.

Unfortunately it seems that the University and the police department both failed in giving her good advice. There was plenty enough evidence for a protective order, and concomitantly with it an order requiring Bustamante to relinquish his weapons. It is one of the disqualifiers listed on the 4473.

Whether it was just on some petty bureaucrat's "too hard to do list" or it was on the school's "we don't want something that will make our faculty look bad list", none of any substance was done to protect her, or ensure she was able to protect herself, according to all reports.

While in fact most protective orders offer little actual protection, had she known he was coming and been able to cajole the police to come before he killed her they would have been able to arrest him. That's all moot, as had she called, courts have repeatedly ruled the police have no obligation to enforce a protective order for any individual not in their custody.

If she really wanted police protection what she needed to do was go downtown to the station and thrown a brick through a window. That would have landed her in a cell and she'd have been OK.

[Atypical Liberal]

59. But less often than people without permits.

but he didn't did he he was a permit holder who killed. Spin all you want but that is what happened and it happens every day in America.

There is no doubt that there are people with CCW permits who should not have them.

There is also no doubt that some people with CCW permits commit crimes, even murder, even using firearms.

But there is also no doubt that CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm crime, than people without such permits.

[RSillsbee]

21. So, have you turned in your weapon and permit yet? NT

[MyrnaLoy]

26. I'll answer that

idiotic question with the response the last time is was asked. Why would I turn in my gun and permit? Does posting the truth mean I can't own a gun? Because I post stories about gun abuse that means I hate guns? How very shallow and gun protectionist of you. It really is only about the gun for you isn't it? Truth be damned. Because someone recognizes that people misuse guns they can't own one? How stupid to even suggest that.

[RSillsbee]

31. So, you've got that whole

"Guns for me and not for thee" elitist thing going on , got it.

[rrneck]

32. What assurance can you offer

you won't flip out and start shooting people because you have to walk around with a gun or two sticking out?

[ileus]

30. A professor with a gun? you know that's unheard of...not very progressive.

Weapons in his room: Smith and Wesson M&P .45-caliber handgun, Smith and Wesson .44-caliber revolver, Springfield Armory .45-caliber handgun, Ruger LCP .380-caliber handgun, Glock 9mm caliber handgun, Taurus Judge .45 caliber / .410 gauge handgun, and ammunition for each weapon.


Someone had been busy buying some petty nice firearms. Except for that Taurus Judge thing that's a pretty nice SD collection of pistols.

[DWC]

33. This has ZERO to do with CCW

and everything to do with law enforcement FAILING to protect and serve a defenseless citizen which they are not required to do anyway.

Law enforcement was notified of the problem and took no action - ene-of-story - again - with a defenseless, innocent citizen murdered - again.

To remain defenseless and expect others to defend you against violent attack is your free choice. Sadly, so are the consequences of that choice.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

39. are you blaming this victim in particular?

To remain defenseless and expect others to defend you against violent attack is your free choice. Sadly, so are the consequences of that choice.

On what basis, please?

Would you mind offering us the alternative scenario you have playing in your head? The one where the victim here had a firearm (you will need to demonstrate first that she did not) and didn't die.

Thank you.


Semper Fi to the cause, regardless of even the facts, I'd say.

[DWC]

44. At no time and in no way

did I state or insinuate the action of the murderer was the fault of the victim.

No information is presented that the victim had any tools for or made any attempt at self-defense while the entire shopping list of guns and permits held by the murderer are listed.

The only information concerning the victim's response in self defense to known, violent threats was to file harassment charges with the university.

Had she been prepared to defend herself it is POSSIBLE that she could have successfully stopped the murderer and she would POSSIBLY be alive today.

From the information available she was not prepared to defend herself and she is dead so we will never know.

As is usually the case, LEOs showed up at the scene several minutes after this defenseless young lady was murdered and filled out the paperwork - in a very professional manner I am sure.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

46. blowing it out your gun barrel, are you?

The only information concerning the victim's response in self defense to known, violent threats was to file harassment charges with the university.

For the love of fuck, how can you say something so false?

She was in contact with police TWICE. Police had knowledge of someone using firearms to threaten and intimidate -- he threatened her life.

And unless you KNOW that the victim did not have a firearm, you need to stop blowing. Really.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-25/news/29927867_1_slaying-suicide-shot-multiple-times-bustamante

Her two roommates told police they had been baking cookies late Monday when Benoit stepped outside for a cigarette and about two minutes later, they heard gunfire. Benoit was shot multiple times with a .45-caliber handgun.

Obviously she should have had a handgun in her apron pocket, and shot him on sight.

[DWC]

48. "Obviously she should have had a handgun..."

Finally, something we agree on.

"and shot him on sight"

But with this I and any responsible person with even a modicum of common sense totally disagree.

"And unless you KNOW that the victim did not have a firearm, you need to stop blowing. Really"

And unless you KNOW that the victim had made provisions to defend herself against a crazy who had stuck a gun in her mouth and threatened to kill her (other than baking him some cookies) you need to get yourself a first class reality check, REALLY!

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

50. here;s what you need to do

since you're the one saying this individual was the cause of the "consequences" of her decision not to have firearms.

First, you do need to prove that she didn't have firearms.

Then, you need to demonstrate how having firearms, whether or not she did, would have prevented her from being killed.

She was standing outside her home smoking a cigarette on a break from baking cookies on a summer day.

Bustamante was supposed to be moving out of town to New Jersey and was packed for that move. He was staying in the home of another woman, one in an apparently long string of students he had drawn into his web.

Should the victim have been expecting him to show up at her home?

Would she have had reason to believe he was coming to kill her?

He had resigned on August 19 after being told to resign or be fired. Did she know this?

She was 22 years old. She was not an expert on intimate partner violence. Should she have known that the university's action could put her in danger?

On the other hand, should the university have known that? Did it inform her of the developments in the situation and warn her that she might be in danger?

A lot of questions.

But you're the one who said:

To remain defenseless and expect others to defend you against violent attack is your free choice. Sadly, so are the consequences of that choice.

You plainly said it ABOUT THIS WOMAN.

So you are the one needing to back that up with something.

Or look like the usual all hat no sixguns.

[DWC]

51. When your voluminous BS fails - Again, & Again, & Again, &...

You misdirect and attack with more voluminous BS.

Lady, you are soooo predictable.

You may get paid for legal services in your country, but a first year law student would wash you out of court here in five minutes.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

52. and when you refuse to take responsibility for what YOU SAID

you revert to flinging sad insults around.

Talk about predictable.

You may get paid for legal services in your country

I might, but I don't. You've been reading the wrong websites again, haven't you?

but a first year law student would wash you out of court here in five minutes.

If only this were a court then, eh?

If only it weren't a simple discussion board on which you made a statement that you now refuse to take responsibility for.

[iverglas]

40. "Moscow police had six encounters with Ernesto Bustamante ..."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/27/1774598/details-emerge-on-bustamante-prescriptions.html

Moscow police had six encounters with Ernesto Bustamante prior to reports in June that he had threatened former girlfriend Katy Benoit.

... Oct. 24, 2010: Bustamante was referenced as an ex-boyfriend in a report of a suicide attempt. He was not contacted by police or found to be involved.
Nov. 2, 2010: Bustamante was the victim in a battery and a malicious injury to property case. The suspect, an ex-girlfriend, was cited and released on misdemeanor charges. She eventually pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disturbing the peace. The battery charge was dismissed.
Nov. 30, 2010: A protection order was issued for Bustamante as the protected person in the Nov. 2 case involving the ex-girlfriend.

... Police examined Bustamante’s cell phone and found no evidence of texts of phone calls to or from Benoit since July 24, as far back as the phone’s memory went.

Manipulative in the extreme. He was the victim ... when he needed the police to act, they acted.

And he had a bit of form.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/aug/27/ui-worsens-matters-by-avoiding-talk-of-killing/ (opinion piece)

Two relatively young, highly educated people are now dead, violently so. Both had a years-long relationship with our community and the University of Idaho, but that didn’t help them.

It didn’t lead Benoit to effective help in getting away from an apparently abusive relationship. It didn’t lead Bustamante to effective help in dealing with his serious mental health issues.

Even more, it didn’t help this University of Idaho assistant professor avoid a series of “unwise” relationships with female students. At least a couple of them, probably more, were students in his psychology department. Katy Benoit was among them.

Several times in the past few days the UI has stated in writing and through Bruce Pitman, dean of students, that such relationships are prohibited by university policy.

But that’s not true.

One expression of the policy says, “A consensual romantic or sexual relationship between any faculty member and his or her student, while not expressly forbidden, is generally deemed unwise.”

And there was me assuming that the U of Idaho applied generally accepted professional ethics standards.

If any of the "friends" who know of his erratic behaviour in relation to firearms were also faculty members, I hope they have some explaining to do too.

[petronius]

45. That is a shockingly lax policy; I thought the one at my school, which only forbids

relationships with 'directly supervised' students, was bad enough.

That phrase "one expression" troubles me as well - there should not be multiple versions of these policies floating around campus...

[one-eyed fat man]

47. respected and accomplished academic?

"One expression of the policy says, “A consensual romantic or sexual relationship between any faculty member and his or her student, while not expressly forbidden, is generally deemed unwise

Maybe somebody in the school administration needs to put in plainer terms.

"Don't make your meat where you make your bread."

"...students in his psychology department..." sure does sound like he used his academic acumen to both fuck and fuck with his students.

[MyrnaLoy]

53. from today

"University of Idaho officials met with Kathryn “Katy” Benoit on the day she was killed and cautioned her to remain vigilant and keep in contact with the Moscow Police Department, according to the university." http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2011/aug/27/ui-officials-met-w-benoit-slaying/

[MicaelS]

49. U of I promises ‘top-to-bottom’ review in wake of Benoit murder

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/08/27/1774588/u-of-i-promises-top-to-bottom.html

Reads like a typical cover-your-ass-after-the-incident, lawyer vetted, public relations sound bite.

University of Idaho President M. Duane Nellis responded Friday to demands from the public and the family of slain graduate student Katy Benoit for an explanation about how the university handled her complaint against the professor who killed her Monday.

The school’s account said it met with Benoit and counseled her numerous times beginning June 10, including the day she died. University officials referred her to Moscow police for assistance and contacted the police department themselves on June 10.

“I am committed to ensuring the continuing safety and welfare of members of the university community,” Nellis told reporters Friday. He said he had commissioned an independent review of university safety policies, the details of which would be released later.

I think this comment from a poster at the Idaho Statesmen website portrays my opinion.

This situation isn't unique to U of I. College is a business entity and whether we like it or not, a negative media affects enrollment along with the reputation of the campus involved .... the only reason we're hearing about this one? A student has been murdered by a disturbed/obsessed faculty member. Rape is common on all college campuses but very few of the rapists are ever prosecuted nor does local law enforcement even hear about it. To protect their reputations along with the money it brings in, many of these crimes are handled within the system itself .....

[Atypical Liberal]

57. Once again, no one takes action against a known lunatic.

4 months after the permit was issued law enforcement was once again notified by the university. Still he buys weapons to kill a young woman.

So once again we have a known lunatic and no one does anything about it.

Why was no restraining order filed, which would have revoked his permit and eligibility to own firearms?

Why was this person not involuntarily committed to a mental institution?

"Benoit filed a sexual harassment complaint with the University of Idaho on June 12, according to documents seized in pursuit to the warrant.

In the complaint, "Benoit alleged that threats of violence occurred on three separate occasions where Bustamante held a gun to her head and detailed the manner in which he would use it," police said in the press release Friday.

The first incident occurred at the end of January, the second incident the week after spring break, and the third the second week of May, which ended the relationship, according to police."

Why did the police do nothing to revoke his permit? Why was no restraining order filed?

Well, it looks like the Moscow Police were going to look into it, and tried to do so:

"-- July 14, 2011: University of Idaho requested the Moscow Police Department participate in a threat assessment concerning the alleged threatening behavior of Bustamante relating to Benoit. As a result of the information gathered in the threat assessment, the Moscow Police Department attempted several phone contacts with Benoit, leaving messages to get in touch with the Moscow Police Campus Division. She did not return the phone calls. The police department notified the University of Idaho that Benoit was not returning phone calls. The university indicated Kathryn M. Benoit had been referred to Alternatives to Violence of the Palouse and that a safety plan had been discussed. The Moscow Police Department was then informed by the university that Benoit did not want law enforcement involvement."

And then the University of Idaho police told them not to:

"-- July 19, 2011 the University of Idaho notified the Moscow Police Department they were not able to make contact with Kathryn M. Benoit and requested that police conduct a check of her welfare. Before the Moscow Police Department was able to make contact with Kathryn M. Benoit, the University of Idaho called the Moscow Police Campus Division and canceled the welfare check request as the University of Idaho had made telephone contact with Kathryn M. Benoit and confirmed her welfare."

We have a guy with multiple personalities, taking a boat load of mental drugs, and he still can have a CCW permit and own firearms.

I think there need to be further disqualifying events submitted to NICS.

Of course it goes without saying that these sorts of crimes committed by CCW permit holders are very rare.

[spin]

60. It sounds to me like Bustamante could have paraded up and down the streets ...

of Moscow Idaho and on the campus of University of Idaho with a sign printed with foot high letters that said,

"I'm going to kill Katy Benoit with my gun."

and nothing would have been done by the University officials or the police to avert the tragedy.

So, of course, the solution is to revoke all concealed carry permits and/or to ban and confiscate all firearms from every honest person in the United States.

[MyrnaLoy]

63. you have a link

to where anyone said to revoke all permits? Until you're full of shit.

[spin]

69. So you do not want to cancel all concealed weapons permits ...

that's positive.

Do you support Obama's plan to improve the NICS background check by requiring all states to more efficiently and timely input the names of those who have a criminal record or have been legally adjudged as having a disqualifying mental illness? If you can not pass an NICS background check it should mean that any competent officials in a state would never grant you a concealed carry permit.

If so, why do you not point this out in your posts.

[MicaelS]

70. Idaho university breaks silence on murder-suicide

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/08/27/idaho-university-breaks-silence-murder-suicide

MOSCOW, Idaho -- The University of Idaho dramatically changed course Friday, releasing an avalanche of information about how it tried to ensure the safety of graduate student Katy Benoit in the months before she was shot to death Monday.

Those efforts included contacting the police, counseling Benoit to do the same and giving her contact information for a domestic violence support group.

A university threat assessment team met July 14 with a representative of the Moscow police to assess the level of safety risk for Benoit and others involved in the investigation. On the same day, university investigators met with Benoit to review Bustamante's response to the complaint, and to notify her they would meet with Bustamante July 19.

Also on July 14, the university told police Benoit did not want law enforcement involvement, according to information released by the Moscow Police Department.

More at link

Beginning to look more and more like this is going to fall on the Moscow, Idaho PD.

[Katya Mullethov]

71. "Benoit did not want law enforcement involvement"

Well , that's what they say . But it's not an uncommon occurrence .