Tragic
Kate Nixon had considered taking a gun to work on May 31, the day a co-worker killed her and 11 others in the country’s deadliest mass shooting this year, a family attorney said on a radio show Monday.
The public utilities engineer was concerned about DeWayne Craddock “as well as one other person,” said Kevin Martingayle, an attorney working with Nixon’s family. So on the night of May 30, Nixon had discussed with her husband, Jason, “whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag,” Martingayle said. She decided against it because of a city policy that prevents employees from bringing weapons to work.
If she had been armed, the guy would likely have stopped shooting much sooner.
June 13th, 2019 at 4:44 pm
Not only that, but if the city hadn’t had a victim disarmament policy in place, the attack likely would not have occurred in the first place. Remember that the murderer was a city employee, so presumably he was aware of the policy. In other words, he was aware that there wasn’t going to be anyone shooting back.
Just like the Pulse night club massacre, the government is partly responsible for the outcome.
June 13th, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Jason needs to sue the city and, specifically, the management who made such policy.
June 13th, 2019 at 6:59 pm
This is one of those cases, ripe for prosecution under 18 USC 241 or 18 USC 242.
June 13th, 2019 at 9:11 pm
Gun free zone, again… Criminals know that and DON’T obey laws…dammit
June 14th, 2019 at 5:13 am
Who is tho “one other person”?
June 15th, 2019 at 8:06 am
Two weeks later, we still don’t have details or pictures of the “.45 with a suppressor” but we sure as hell have people ready to abdicate on a suppressor ban
June 15th, 2019 at 2:18 pm
And if the armed employee had stopped the shooting, the news media would’ve probably either ignored it or given it scant, brief coverage. Also, the armed woman, as the hero, life saver, would’ve probably been prosecuted with again, the media’s silent assent. That’s where a true jury is very important in bring the Constitutional teeth to enforce ALL of the Bill of Rights for every person and set aside an unconstitutional, criminal law.
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” –John Jay, First SCOTUS Chief Justice,1789
“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
–Samuel Chase, SCOTUS Justice, 1796, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in THE TEETH of both law and fact.” –Oliver Wendell Holmes, SCOTUS Justice, 1902
“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” –Harlan F. Stone, SCOTUS Chief Justice, 1941
June 15th, 2019 at 5:17 pm
And, this just proves that the city lied when they said that the shooter had shown no signs of any problems and no disciplinary actions had been taken against him. Apparently what was happening was a “forced” resignation, where they had told him “resign and we don’t say anything, or else…”.
June 15th, 2019 at 5:53 pm
I worked at a major medical center for 40 years. I remember two co workers, who on the day they were to be fired, several of the institution’s armed security were hidden in an immediate location should there be violent resistance. Fortunately, the precautions were not needed and neither never came back to exact vengeance.
June 16th, 2019 at 9:26 pm
I have carried concealed against company policy, while working nights alone at a seedy hotel. I remember the Luby’s Massacre and know that no job is worth surrendering my safety for the sake of protecting a company from potential liability.
June 17th, 2019 at 11:06 pm
Hate to trot out the old dogma, but I’m of the “carried by 6” crowd, every day of the week, twice on Sunday.
I’ve got a few obvious no go places, but for the most part I consider concealed enough. If some shit goes down when I’m CONCEALED carrying where I’m not supposed to, I’ll let the courts sort it out. Beats being a target in a shooting gallery.
June 18th, 2019 at 9:00 am
@Heath J, agreed! Especially if your jurors are educated per the quotes in my #7 comment.
June 18th, 2019 at 2:08 pm
Ron:
The problem is that if your lawyer dares to broach the subject in court he will find himself in jail for contempt of court, and the trial will start all over again. During jury selection, if the subject is raised, that juror is automatically tossed from the pool.
Judges absolutely HATE Jury Nullification, as they see it as intruding into their power. Used to be they were required to advise the jury on that option of decision.
June 18th, 2019 at 11:43 pm
@Will, yes, as Thomas Jefferson presciently predicted that judges would become a lawless, criminal class in this and other quotes:
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
The idea that judges are independent is a damnable lie. They are “bound by the law” according to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. And as ALL elected and appointed officials, they operate UNDER our, the citizens’ delegated powers. The citizen jury is the highest political entity under our Constitution. Judges who dare question the rights of a jury should be held in contempt of court!!!