ME - Lewiston, Mass Shooting, Multiple Scenes, 18 killed *shooter found dead* Oct 2023 #2

[BeginnerSleuther]

Depression doesn’t, but temporarily removing the source of grave danger from a depressed person is as practical as taking away cocaine or a rope. The problem is, calling 911 is good but usually in a suicidal state, people might be so impulsive, it all can change in 1 minute. See, even such an easy thing is a problem because there are no recommendations or instructions.
I am thinking about the sheriff. Technically he is the law in ME. But if he is understaffed and the family says RC would open the door holding a gun, I can imagine how it feels. So maybe the option of the family taking guns away sounded well to him. It shouldn’t but I understand why it did.

Hindsight is 20/20. Now imagine a scenario in which RC wasn't actually suicidal or homicidal. His family just didn't like him having guns. So, being lay people and not mental health professionals, they determined he was dangerous and were able to strip him of his rights without following the law. Allowing family to make such decisions without a medical professional or judge to sign off on it, opens the door for vulnerable people to be taken advantage of by loved ones who aren't always well-meaning, IMO.

I think the chance was lost when RC was in the hospital, but usually all documents are filled out on discharge.

Depends on reason for hospitalization, but really, under a voluntary psych admit that never progressed to involuntary (unless there's updated information on RC?), it would be extremely difficult to make a case for permanently banning him from owning a gun. Even people with previous suicide attempts are allowed to own guns. When it comes to mental health, you only remove guns due to imminent threat. Criminality is a different thing.

First part is JMO. Second part is my job.

 

[MyBelle]

Well, Maine is one of those states. I posted a link in a post just before the one you quoted, but here it is again.

Maine's 'yellow flag' law could be a model for gun control, but legal experts say it has limitations

A Maine law has been described as a potential national model for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous or suicidal individuals. But the state's so-called yellow flag law has only been used two dozen times in two years, and prosecutors say the law has both advantages and limitations.

www.mainepublic.org

"Unlike the red flag laws that are in effect in roughly 20 states, Maine's yellow flag law does not allow family members to directly petition a judge to order someone to temporarily give up their guns and prohibit them from acquiring new firearms. Only police can issue a request."

Guns are a person's personal property. You can't take someone's property willy nilly. There are procedures in place and in the state of Maine, those procedures don't apply to family.

You're talking about an entirely different thing. I was saying that you can't just walk into your brother's home and take his guns (if he had any), no matter the reason for it. That's theft. If you feel he's at risk, you have to follow the procedure for it, if there is one. In the state of Maine, there is no procedure for relatives to lawfully take away guns from loved ones. There is a procedure for LE to do so.

I'm going to say MOO, but the link above, along with other MSM sources quoted in the thread spell out ME's yellow flag laws.

BBM. I asked for a link to any state that has prosecuted any family/friend that has seized weapons out of concern that their loved one will harm themselves via suicide or harm others.

In this case, Card's brother told police they would secure his weapons. That wasn't done, obviously.
JMO

Lewiston gunman's family tried to sound alarm about his mental health before shooting

A missing persons report filed in Sagadahoc County for Robert Card was canceled just days before he shot 18 people to death in Lewiston.

www.newscentermaine.com

On Sept. 17, the deputy's report says that he contacted Card's brother who confirmed to him that he was able to get the guns from Card and put them in a family safe at the Card farm. Card's brother also said he was working with his father to have the guns moved elsewhere.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

BBM. I asked for a link to any state that has prosecuted any family/friend that has seized weapons out of concern that their loved one will harm themselves via suicide or harm others.

You said what state makes it illegal, not has prosecuted. Those are two different benchmarks. My read of Maine's law specifically excludes family members from confiscating weapons.

In this case, Card's brother told police they would secure his weapons. That wasn't done, obviously.
JMO

Lewiston gunman's family tried to sound alarm about his mental health before shooting

A missing persons report filed in Sagadahoc County for Robert Card was canceled just days before he shot 18 people to death in Lewiston.

www.newscentermaine.com

On Sept. 17, the deputy's report says that he contacted Card's brother who confirmed to him that he was able to get the guns from Card and put them in a family safe at the Card farm. Card's brother also said he was working with his father to have the guns moved elsewhere

Per the links provided, this violates ME's yellow flag laws. JMO.

 

[MyBelle]

You said what state makes it illegal, not has prosecuted. Those are two different benchmarks. My read of Maine's law specifically excludes family members from confiscating weapons.



Per the links provided, this violates ME's yellow flag laws. JMO.

BBM. If Maine's law specifically excludes family from confiscating weapons, then why did the officer not intervene after Card's brother told him they would take control of his weapons and lock them away?

In this case, Maine's law failed to protect the innocent victims and their families.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

Hindsight is 20/20. Now imagine a scenario in which RC wasn't actually suicidal or homicidal. His family just didn't like him having guns. So, being lay people and not mental health professionals, they determined he was dangerous and were able to strip him of his rights without following the law. Allowing family to make such decisions without a medical professional or judge to sign off on it, opens the door for vulnerable people to be taken advantage of by loved ones who aren't always well-meaning, IMO.



Depends on reason for hospitalization, but really, under a voluntary psych admit that never progressed to involuntary (unless there's updated information on RC?), it would be extremely difficult to make a case for permanently banning him from owning a gun. Even people with previous suicide attempts are allowed to own guns. When it comes to mental health, you only remove guns due to imminent threat. Criminality is a different thing.

First part is JMO. Second part is my job.

I hoped the admission was involuntary. If voluntary, then, yes, few choices...(((

 

[MyBelle]

Hindsight is 20/20. Now imagine a scenario in which RC wasn't actually suicidal or homicidal. His family just didn't like him having guns. So, being lay people and not mental health professionals, they determined he was dangerous and were able to strip him of his rights without following the law. Allowing family to make such decisions without a medical professional or judge to sign off on it, opens the door for vulnerable people to be taken advantage of by loved ones who aren't always well-meaning, IMO.



Depends on reason for hospitalization, but really, under a voluntary psych admit that never progressed to involuntary (unless there's updated information on RC?), it would be extremely difficult to make a case for permanently banning him from owning a gun. Even people with previous suicide attempts are allowed to own guns. When it comes to mental health, you only remove guns due to imminent threat. Criminality is a different thing.

First part is JMO. Second part is my job.

BBM. The reality of this case is that Card's family DID believe he was suicidal or homicidal and they alerted LE as did his military associates. They believed he was a human threat to public safety.

Suggesting they somehow "stripped him of his gun rights without following the law" is ridiculous. This case just proves how Maine's inadequate gun regulations failed to safeguard the lives of innocent civilians.

And, btw, the link I posted upthread makes it abundantly clear, the court-ordered restrictions about weapons are not permanent.

JMO

Why was Maine shooter allowed to have guns? Questions swirl in wake of massacre.

“This is the clearest-cut case I’ve seen where an extreme risk protection order could have saved all these lives,” one expert said.

www.politico.com

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

BBM. The reality of this case is that Card's family DID believe he was suicidal or homicidal and they alerted LE as did his military associates. They believed he was a human threat to public safety.

Suggesting they somehow "stripped him of his gun rights without following the law" is ridiculous. This case just proves how Maine's inadequate gun regulations failed to safeguard the lives of innocent civilians.

And, btw, the link I posted upthread makes it abundantly clear, the court-ordered restrictions about weapons are not permanent.

JMO

Why was Maine shooter allowed to have guns? Questions swirl in wake of massacre.

“This is the clearest-cut case I’ve seen where an extreme risk protection order could have saved all these lives,” one expert said.

www.politico.com

It's actually not a ridiculous suggestion if that's the law in Maine. The law may be ridiculous, but the suggestion that it's the law is provided in MSM articles.

You're making my point about it not being permanent. He was hospitalized in August. So even if he wasn't allowed guns by doctor order back then, it would have done nothing to prevent a shooting in OCTOBER, because there was no argument for permanently banning him from owning a weapon

 

[MyBelle]

It's actually not a ridiculous suggestion if that's the law in Maine. The law may be ridiculous, but the suggestion that it's the law is provided in MSM articles.

You're making my point about it not being permanent. He was hospitalized in August. So even if he wasn't allowed guns by doctor order back then, it would have done nothing to prevent a shooting in OCTOBER, because there was no argument for permanently banning him from owning a weapon

BBM. The military continued to ban weapons from Card after his hospital release. Card's family remained concerned about his emotional instability after his release from the hospital.

State laws--that prove to be ridiculous because they are ineffective--are usually changed. Unfortunately, this tragedy is a direct result of not just a totally ineffective state law but also incredible holes in both state and federal public safety systems, which is why the Gov. of Maine has ordered an inquiry.

Yes, state gun restriction laws are temporary just as emergency protection orders for domestic violence are temporary. They can be extended by court order. It is no different than states that restrict driving privileges because families feel the driver has cognitive impairment. Those restrictions also are temporary, but the individual must prove their cognition has improved in order to re-instate their driver's license. Medicare requires an annual cognitive assessment for this reason.

It is unfortunate that Card's family didn't seize control of his arsenal of deadly weapons. My point continues to be that they would not be prosecuted if they had done so.

JMO

Why was Maine shooter allowed to have guns? Questions swirl in wake of massacre

Authorities face mounting questions about how a gunman with a history of mental illness, an array of weapons and who police knew had a potential for violence was still able to own guns and commit the deadliest mass shooting in Maine’s history.

apnews.com

After Card left the psychiatric facility in early August, the Army directed that while on duty, he shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon, handle ammunition or participate in live-fire activity. It also declared him to be non-deployable. Military experts say that even if Card’s commanders determined he shouldn’t be around weapons after being committed, they would have had only a handful of options to implement, such as prohibiting him from handling weapons while on duty or attempting to sever him from the Army Reserves. There’s little they can do when the citizen-soldiers are back in civilian life.

Cognitive Assessment At Medicare’s Annual Wellness Visit In Fee-For-Service And Medicare Advantage Plans

The Medicare annual wellness visit—a preventive care visit free to Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part B—requires detection of cognitive impairment. We surveyed an internet panel of adults ages sixty-five and older who were enrolled ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[sds71]

We continues to receive questions in reference to the mass shooting in Lewiston. We will continue to provide information on the following website. Today we have added a document outlining a timeline of the 48-hour manhunt.

https://x.com/MEStatePolice/status/1720175198312472789?s=20

Lewiston Mass Shooting Released Documents

Despite the appearance of some of these documents, all of these search warrants, affidavits and orders from the court are signed documents. if they appear unsigned it is due to the quality of the scan. You may pick up a better quality document from the court if necessary.

sites.google.com

 

[waldojabba]

Lewiston-Auburn football rivals come together after mass shootings

The game featured cross-river rivals Lewiston High School and Edward Little High School of Auburn. WBZ-TV's Tammy Mutasa reports.

www.cbsnews.com

James Taylor plays the anthem at the Lewiston auburn game plus other out takes from the game and ceremony
JMO

 

[Betty P]

Hindsight is 20/20. Now imagine a scenario in which RC wasn't actually suicidal or homicidal. His family just didn't like him having guns. So, being lay people and not mental health professionals, they determined he was dangerous and were able to strip him of his rights without following the law. Allowing family to make such decisions without a medical professional or judge to sign off on it, opens the door for vulnerable people to be taken advantage of by loved ones who aren't always well-meaning, IMO.



Depends on reason for hospitalization, but really, under a voluntary psych admit that never progressed to involuntary (unless there's updated information on RC?), it would be extremely difficult to make a case for permanently banning him from owning a gun. Even people with previous suicide attempts are allowed to own guns. When it comes to mental health, you only remove guns due to imminent threat. Criminality is a different thing.

First part is JMO. Second part is my job.

Or it could be seen as family protecting their rights to live safely without fear of being murdered by a pathologically paranoid, angry and violent relative with too many guns and not enough good sense.

Family members are often the targets of these violent animals.

When is a violent killers right to have a gun greater than the rights of his innocent victims to not be killed?

 

[MyBelle]

Or it could be seen as family protecting their rights to live safely without fear of being murdered by a pathologically paranoid, angry and violent relative with too many guns and not enough good sense.

Family members are often the targets of these violent animals.

When is a violent killers right to have a gun greater than the rights of his innocent victims to not be killed?

BBM. Well said!

We KNOW the family of Robert Card was very worried about his mental state because they reported him to police. We know they wanted to secure his weapons. Securing his weapons would not be in violation of Maine's yellow flag law. I think he went off the grid and neither LE nor his own family could find him.

JMO

 

[Auntie Cipation]

When is a violent killers right to have a gun greater than the rights of his innocent victims to not be killed?

But since a person isn't legally known to be a "violent killer" until after they commit violence, this is a subjective argument that could be used to take away the guns of anyone, since anyone could theoretically become a violent killer.

I think the thing about family taking away a member's guns (or car keys, etc) is this: while it's technically illegal to take a legally competent adult's belongings without consent, in most reasonable cases the law would only get involved if someone filed a legal complaint, and if the person from whom items had been removed for safety reasons files the complaint, the regulatory authority would presumably check that person's risk factor before determining the items must be returned.

Examples: my friend took away his father's car keys when his driving became impaired due to age. Technically illegal because dad had not been declared legally incompetent, but who would file a legal complaint other than dad himself, who would then be sent to DMV to prove he is still able to drive safely before car/keys would be returned.

I myself removed a gun from a family member who was suffering from dementia. In my case I did get verbal permission (to "borrow" the gun) but even if I had taken it against their objection, who would complain? If my family member filed a legal complaint, technically I would have been found to be in the wrong, but at the same time that person's competence to possess a gun would have come under legal scrutiny and been found lacking.

As much as I dislike guns, any law permitting them to be removed without a formal declaration of incompetence is not going to pass Constitutional muster (no pun intended) in the US. Better IMO for it to be "illegal but unchallenged" when done for pure safety/competence reasons.

NB: I am only speaking of unofficial friends/family taking action. I do assume law enforcement has some criteria by which they can legally remove weapons temporarily and then trigger a competency check before being returned, but I'm not informed on that subject so it's entirely IMO.

 

[Diddian]

I would say that this guy was clearly over the deep end. And who knows for how long. Who among us doesn’t open the door at their house with a handgun in their hand? Seriously in Lewiston Maine ?

Also it seems that at least on two occasions, both when with soldiers, he thought people were saying that he was pedophile. Jeezum. How do you get that in your head. Maybe LE should be looking on his computer IMO.
From the CNN article

“In the parking lot [he] accused three of them of calling him a pedophile and said he would take care of it,” it went on. “One of the soldiers who had been friends with [him] for a long time was there. [He] got in his face, shoved him, and told him to stop calling him a pedophile.”
"The man( RC) and a friend who was a soldier were driving home from a casino when he started talking about people calling him a pedophile, the National Guard statement to Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office said.
When [his friend] told him to knock it off because he was going to get into trouble talking about shooting up places and people, [he] punched him,” the statement said. “According to [the friend], [he] said he has guns and is going to shoot up the drill center at Saco and other places … [the friend] is concerned that [he] is going to snap and commit a mass shooting.”
"The information obtained by CNN describes how the Sagadahoc County sergeant called for backup, tried without success to talk to the reservist and then received disturbing details from the Maine National Guard and the shooter’s family.
The responding sergeant from the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office was told “when [he] answers the door at his trailer, in the past he usually does so with a handgun in hand out of view from the person outside,” according to the source familiar with the welfare check report.

ALL JMO – But It seems to me he raised his hand a few times and announced I AM A TICKING TIME BOMB -but everybody seemed to pass the buck -
"The unit commander told one officer that the man no longer had any Guard weapons and arrangements had been made with his brother who had retrieved his personal firearms. The commander also reportedly told the officer that he thought it best to let the man have time to himself."
ALL JMO

In response to: "How do you get that in your head?"

I recall that there were reports from LE indicating that the RC who was being pursued in this case was not the same individual as the RC who is a registered sex offender. I have no idea what the specific offense(s) were of the RC who is a registered sex offender, but perhaps it was pedophilia.

So, perhaps there WERE actually people (including perhaps some of the soldiers he worked with in the National Guard) who DID confuse the two and someone DID call RC a pedophile, or tell others that RC was one. I don't know, but it may be that his claims were true that someone had wrongly called him a pedophile, so those claims were not paranoid delusions and "all in his head."

Clearly, RC's acts - the threats and ultimately, the mass shootings - were dangerous, illegal, and wrong. And family members reported that he claimed he heard voices and that he reported others talking about him in ways those others denied when asked by family members. So, whatever the truth about his claims that he'd been wrongly called a pedophile, it appears there was more going wrong with RC than just the perception he'd been unjustly accused by associates.

 

[MyBelle]

But since a person isn't legally known to be a "violent killer" until after they commit violence, this is a subjective argument that could be used to take away the guns of anyone, since anyone could theoretically become a violent killer.

I think the thing about family taking away a member's guns (or car keys, etc) is this: while it's technically illegal to take a legally competent adult's belongings without consent, in most reasonable cases the law would only get involved if someone filed a legal complaint, and if the person from whom items had been removed for safety reasons files the complaint, the regulatory authority would presumably check that person's risk factor before determining the items must be returned.

Examples: my friend took away his father's car keys when his driving became impaired due to age. Technically illegal because dad had not been declared legally incompetent, but who would file a legal complaint other than dad himself, who would then be sent to DMV to prove he is still able to drive safely before car/keys would be returned.

I myself removed a gun from a family member who was suffering from dementia. In my case I did get verbal permission (to "borrow" the gun) but even if I had taken it against their objection, who would complain? If my family member filed a legal complaint, technically I would have been found to be in the wrong, but at the same time that person's competence to possess a gun would have come under legal scrutiny and been found lacking.

As much as I dislike guns, any law permitting them to be removed without a formal declaration of incompetence is not going to pass Constitutional muster (no pun intended) in the US. Better IMO for it to be "illegal but unchallenged" when done for pure safety/competence reasons.

NB: I am only speaking of unofficial friends/family taking action. I do assume law enforcement has some criteria by which they can legally remove weapons temporarily and then trigger a competency check before being returned, but I'm not informed on that subject so it's entirely IMO.

BBM. I disagree. The shooter in this case was answering his door while brandishing a gun. His family reported his mental instability to LE. The military hospitalized him for mental instability. The weak law in Maine prevented the family or LE from doing more to ensure his safety as well as public safety.

These are the reasons states are passing extreme risk laws and more will continue to do so because the majority of Americans are fed up with politicians who pretend no problem exists.

JMO

Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws

Fifty-six percent of U.S. adults want gun laws to be stricter, consistent with most Gallup polling over the past 30 years.

news.gallup.com

 

[waldojabba]

In response to: "How do you get that in your head?"

I recall that there were reports from LE indicating that the RC who was being pursued in this case was not the same individual as the RC who is a registered sex offender. I have no idea what the specific offense(s) were of the RC who is a registered sex offender, but perhaps it was pedophilia.

So, perhaps there WERE actually people (including perhaps some of the soldiers he worked with in the National Guard) who DID confuse the two and someone DID call RC a pedophile, or tell others that RC was one. I don't know, but it may be that his claims were true that someone had wrongly called him a pedophile, so those claims were not paranoid delusions and "all in his head."

Clearly, RC's acts - the threats and ultimately, the mass shootings - were dangerous, illegal, and wrong. And family members reported that he claimed he heard voices and that he reported others talking about him in ways those others denied when asked by family members. So, whatever the truth about his claims that he'd been wrongly called a pedophile, it appears there was more going wrong with RC than just the perception he'd been unjustly accused by associates.

Certainly possible @Diddian
I also read a family member mentioned that the killer thought people were staring at him and talking about him when he brought his then girl friends young daughters to the bar /restaurant for a bite to eat. He thought they were calling him a pedophile bc he was alone with the young girls. The very same restaurant where he played cornhole and subsequently returned to and killed people.

 

[housewife]

This decision should never be up to family or relatives, IMO. In some states, it's illegal, as you said. And in other states, what is the family supposed to do with it??? Guns, while legal, are regulated at least somewhat. It would be like confiscating the cocaine of someone who has a drug problem or the prescription for a controlled substance of someone you think might abuse them. Leave it to LE or medical professionals. They'll insure the weapons are taken care of if there's a threat.

And no, depression does not constitute stripping someone of their rights.

But the police did not "ensure the weapons are taken care of". The same thing happened with the Highland Park shooter, the police blindly trusted that dad would keep weapons away from his son.

I don't understand why they stopped looking for him after 2 attempts at his home. Even with low staffing, how much would it cost to have made a BOLO over the air? They knew where he worked and what car he owns. Why would a police officer allow a civilian to do their job?

As a physician, would you not recommend a depressed patient steer clear of guns and shooting ranges?

 

[housewife]

My read of Maine's law specifically excludes family members from confiscating weapons.

RSBM

Wow. I need to research this. Abusers typically hurt the people they live with. This massively affects all domestic violence victims in the state.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

RSBM

Wow. I need to research this. Abusers typically hurt the people they live with. This massively affects all domestic violence victims in the state.

It doesn't stop them from turning to someone else who can remove the weapons. They can call police, file a restraining order, etc. We have to think about both sides of these scenarios. Let's say family members were allowed to take weapons. So the abuser you mention could confiscate his victim's gun that the victim bought to protect him/herself and then lie about symptoms of dangerousness in the victim. It isn't black and white. JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

As a physician, would you not recommend a depressed patient steer clear of guns and shooting ranges?

SBM.

There are no absolutes in medicine and that's especially true for mental health conditions. The vast majority of depressed people are not suicidal or homicidal. Why would we take away their rights for having a medical condition?