CA - Malibu Creek State Park Shooting, Tristan Beaudette, 35, 22 June 2018 *Arrest*

[anonypotomous]

I saw that after I had posted, but I was hoping most people would just scroll past my post and not notice (it would probably have been better to just remove it.)

I wish I could remove my post that started it! Oh well. Lesson learned for me.

 

[gitana1]

I wouldn't call that "flipping out", more like making the mistake of posting something before thoroughly reading. I'm guessing a few of us have done that before. I'll be more careful in the future. My apologies for ruffling feathers. Posters have already posted and pointed out my error. So, duly noted.

Sorry! I stupidly didn't realize that was you! No feathers ruffled. I didn't mean to offend! I just anticipated people would jump on that headline. Maybe because of possible confirmation bias? But I've seen your posts and I know you're not like that.

 

[gitana1]

I wish I could remove my post that started it! Oh well. Lesson learned for me.

It's my fault for my reaction. My apologies, friend.

 

[thordis]

I also wonder, since they were moving to a new location, if he was between jobs and therefore left without current employer-sponsored life insurance. That would be tragic in its timing if true.

As to the , these were relatively young professionals, likely with a mountain of student loan debt (mine is the size of a mortgage) and who just dumped tons of money into relocating to a pricey area.

She now has to raise the kids with one income, not two. Half the family income is gone.

And dealing with the horror and tragedy of homicide, well she will not probably be working for awhile.

Put it this way: All their friends, family, colleagues - people who know much more about their possible finances than we could - contributed hard and fast and a lot. Why would they if they thought there was no need.

 

[gitana1]

I hadn't thought about that.

 

[clearskies1]

I wish I could remove my post that started it! Oh well. Lesson learned for me.

I wish that headline was accurate. My gut is telling me that the prior shootings are unrelated and I have a hard time reading all the posts that discuss those shootings in detail. But maybe my gut is wrong.

 

[wyatt]

I know Radar Online can be shady in their reporting, but the following are quotes I cannot seem to reconcile:

“Based on my conversation with my brother-in-law, who was there, who found him, and who was awake shortly after the gunshots went off, there were no sounds nearby,” DB, 37

“There were shots in the distance, a bullet went through the top in the tent, and a bullet went into [Tristan]. And that means that someone was firing horizontal from nearby. ”

Distant vs. Nearby?
And...his BROTHER-IN-LAW was there? I missed this until now. Was that why there were two tents and two camp spaces (49 and 51)?

<modsnipped-changed name to initials>

 

[Amonet]

Well what if dad is sleeping with the girls on his side(s). He awakens and turns on a light or looks at something on a device (let's say it's something that doesn't need cell service, like a research study on PDF). And let's say he's sitting up where he was sleeping, next to the girls.
While he's sitting there he gets shot in the head from the side and slumps over to the opposite side where 1 or both of his girls are sleeping. The girls wake up from a combination of the sound of the shot(s) and daddy slumped over. The girls are crying, screaming for their uncle, but they (mostly the 4 yo) manage to sit daddy up (or maybe uncle sits him up). But then as daddy is bleeding and dying he slumps/falls over onto the side where he was shot. Then maybe he's lying on the head wound, & there's already so much blood on his shirt/torso that it looks like he's shot there but the head wound is missed.

I even wonder (maybe) if the statement given by LASD about it having been difficult to know if it was a torso or head wound due to the "condition" of the body should have said "position" of the body.

I was also thinking that a bullet might enter the head at the back and exit the chest at the front, and upon first glance without turning the body over, it might look like the chest wound was the only wound and be taken for an entry point?

 

[Elle*Bee]

Hopefully, he had life insurance through his company. They would have had excellent benefits.

Most life insurance companies conduct their own investigation independent of the police investigation. They absolutely will request police reports, etc., but will likely conduct their own interviews particularly in the case of a non-natural cause, non-accidental death. (At least this is true in my state.). As a result, proceeds from his life insurance policy (assuming he has one) may not be paid for months. Maybe longer.

In the meantime, there may be student loans, a mortgage, therapy for the kids, potentially increased childcare costs. Does she want to take extended leave? Has she accrued enough leave time or will she have to take unpaid leave? Will her career plans change altogether (perhaps she’ll want to move where she has more family support — speculative and hypothetical).

My point is that once all is said and done, she and the girls may be financially okay, but it might take a while to get to that point. Please note that I do not believe she’s involved in any way. I see no problem with the .

 

[UCLAEigenguy]

I know Radar Online can be shady in their reporting, but the following are quotes I cannot seem to reconcile:

“Based on my conversation with my brother-in-law, who was there, who found him, and who was awake shortly after the gunshots went off, there were no sounds nearby,” DB, 37

“There were shots in the distance, a bullet went through the top in the tent, and a bullet went into [Tristan]. And that means that someone was firing horizontal from nearby. ”

Distant vs. Nearby?
And...his BROTHER-IN-LAW was there? I missed this until now. Was that why there were two tents and two camp spaces (49 and 51)?

<modsnipped-changed name to initials>

Yes. BIL had his two sons with him. TB and his two daughters were in the other tent.

I can't settle on a theory here. In the photo, it looks like the two tents are almost perfectly aligned in a straight line. There is a patch of trees where someone could have randomly shot hoping to hit someone in either tent. LE is clearly keeping BIL's statements or observations private. Unless the shot came from the other side of the tent, they would have either heard someone approaching, or the shot would have been damn loud since it would have been fired from near BIL's tent.

We also don't know where the bullet entered the tent. I have been assuming it was at the front entry. If it came through the side, that changes quite a bit.

 

[Amonet]

I don't know much about guns and ammunition. Could a single pellet really pierce the skull and cause a large brain injury that would cause death?

There are areas of the head where the pellet wouldn't have to pierce the skull to access the brain, and those entry points I would think would also be less visible to the first glance look at the body. I think it would depend how much energy was in the pellet and what brain structures it went through whether or not it would cause death. I am not medically trained though, and I know nothing about guns, but I have been reading the articles posted with interest.

I don't remember the exact wording on the autopsy brief thing...I would have thought that numerous pellets to the chest would have been noted on it.

 

[Confusion]

I know Radar Online can be shady in their reporting, but the following are quotes I cannot seem to reconcile:

“Based on my conversation with my brother-in-law, who was there, who found him, and who was awake shortly after the gunshots went off, there were no sounds nearby,” DB, 37

“There were shots in the distance, a bullet went through the top in the tent, and a bullet went into [Tristan]. And that means that someone was firing horizontal from nearby. ”

Distant vs. Nearby?
And...his BROTHER-IN-LAW was there? I missed this until now. Was that why there were two tents and two camp spaces (49 and 51)?

<modsnipped-changed name to initials>

I find his wording confusing. If brother-in-law woke up "shortly after the gunshots went off", how did he know it/they came from a distance, and how did he know how long before that the shot/s was/were? If he woke up and everything was quiet, why did he go check on TB? Something seems to be missing.

 

[RickshawFan]

I know Radar Online can be shady in their reporting, but the following are quotes I cannot seem to reconcile:

“Based on my conversation with my brother-in-law, who was there, who found him, and who was awake shortly after the gunshots went off, there were no sounds nearby,” DB, 37

“There were shots in the distance, a bullet went through the top in the tent, and a bullet went into [Tristan]. And that means that someone was firing horizontal from nearby. ”

Distant vs. Nearby?
And...his BROTHER-IN-LAW was there? I missed this until now. Was that why there were two tents and two camp spaces (49 and 51)?

<modsnipped-changed name to initials>

Yes, the BIL was there. Two camp spots.
It seems strange to me that they didn't share a camp spot with separate tents. Maybe one was a snorer, lol. Come to think of it, didn't we talk about snoring in another context early on? How about a different spin? ....Either the BIL or the victim was snoring loud enough so either one or both didn't hear the shots or an intruder or the sounds seemed distant.

 

[jnblsm]

I wouldn't call that "flipping out", more like making the mistake of posting something before thoroughly reading. I'm guessing a few of us have done that before. I'll be more careful in the future. My apologies for ruffling feathers. Posters have already posted and pointed out my error. So, duly noted.

All the time!
We get so passionate about a hunch or a piece of info, that we just GO.
And then we move on.

 

[jnblsm]

Sorry! I stupidly didn't realize that was you! No feathers ruffled. I didn't mean to offend! I just anticipated people would jump on that headline. Maybe because of possible confirmation bias? But I've seen your posts and I know you're not like that.

O/T but I will ALWAYS see your handle and say "hee tah nah" now!

 

[Oregonmama]

Payouts from insurance polices can take a long time and LE is still investigating so I assume whatever company the family had will wait till they see final autopsy and police reports.

 

[Oregonmama]

Yes, the BIL was there. Two camp spots.
It seems strange to me that they didn't share a camp spot with separate tents. Maybe one was a snorer, lol. Come to think of it, didn't we talk about snoring in another context early on? How about a different spin? ....Either the BIL or the victim was snoring loud enough so either one or both didn't hear the shots or an intruder or the sounds seemed distant.

Many tent sites are so small so I understand why they had two. RV and yurt sites are much bigger.

 

[anonypotomous]

Sorry! I stupidly didn't realize that was you! No feathers ruffled. I didn't mean to offend! I just anticipated people would jump on that headline. Maybe because of possible confirmation bias? But I've seen your posts and I know you're not like that.

(((Hugs))) And thanks! I appreciate your understanding

 

[Hatfield]

I find his wording confusing. If brother-in-law woke up "shortly after the gunshots went off", how did he know it/they came from a distance, and how did he know how long before that the shot/s was/were? If he woke up and everything was quiet, why did he go check on TB? Something seems to be missing.

JMO
Im with you on this. I am taking his statements with a grain of salt because if I am reading it right the person making the statements is the Brother-in-law of the actual Brother-in-law who was camping. So he is one step removed from the real Brother-in-law who was camping near the victim.

Im sure he heard what he heard but you know how the telephone game goes and he may not have it exactly as was told to him.

If the hole in the tent was the one I think I saw earlier on the side of the tent then I am assuming the shot would have come from the side.

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
The two main things I try to keep deciding on is Accident VS On-Purpose and Connected VS Not-connected.

For the Accident VS On-purpose I am almost certain at least one if not more of the shootings were done on purpose and here is why.

If someone is target practicing or illegal hunting then they usually have shooting experience and one of the main things you learn when shooting is to identify your target and also identify what is beyond your target to avoid hitting something not intended. I grew up in a hunting family and its a main rule that is taught. There is no room for careless errors because someone can get killed or maimed so always knowing what is beyond your target is usually taught to anyone learning to shoot.

So I can accept that someone may have been stupid and careless and made a critical error resulting in someones death but what I cannot accept is all 7 shootings were bad mistakes.
So that is why I am concluding that at least one and probably more of the incidents were done On-purpose. The tent killing could have been one of the isolated terrible mistakes but not all 7.

As far as Connected VS Not-connected I am thinking that at least some of the incidents were connected and here is why.

So many of them happened around the same time frame in very early morning hours around 4AM - 5AM ish.

So many of them were relatively close in proximity.

Shotgun used in at least two and saw a picture of a 3rd vehicle today with shotgun pellet holes but not sure how close to the area that one was. Slug used in one and Pellets used in the hammock guy blast. The jury is still out in the tent killing what type of weapon used.

The last common thing that tells me at least some are connected is I believe in 3 of the shootings the shooter was trying to do serious harm. The hammock guy said he slept with his arm over his head and he said if not for that it would have been much worse. Im reading between the lines here but this tells me he almost got shot in the head but his arm stopped the pellets. In the lady's shooting of her car while she slept and her car got hit with a slug and she said herself that if it would have been a little bit over it would have been much worse for her. So I think in that case the shooter was trying to do serious harm to her. And of course in the tent shooting there is a dead victim.
So this is just another common thing to me that person is trying to harm in at least 3 cases and maybe more.

So the bottom line is I think at least some are connected.

For reference this is what hammock guy said when talking about the incident where he got shot with pellets in his arm.

"“I sleep with my arm up by my head, and I suspect I was shot at close range,” he said."

Malibu campground where father fatally shot is closed down as safety precaution

All JMO of course. Sorry so long on this post.