Gunman opens fire at Mo. public meeting

Gunman opens fire at Mo. public meeting

news.yahoo.com

KIRKWOOD, Mo. - A gunman opened fire at a city council meeting in this St. Louis suburb Thursday night, hitting the mayor and several city officials, a newspaper reported. There was no immediate word on whether anyone was killed.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.stltoday.com

I am surprised this isn't happening more often to be honest with you. I am really wondering what this gunman's beef was with the city council or if he just had a mental issue. I am not advocating violence, but people are getting really fed up with what is happening on both a local and national level in this country. If anyone lives around this area and knows more, your input would be appreciated.
The article from St. Louis Today does give a description of the guy including a statement from a guy he went to high school with. I guess the gunman felt his freedom of speech was being violated. But, the way he presented himself at previous council meetings was a bit much.
news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
St. Louis Today

"He came to many, many meetings and always said terrible things to the mayor," McNichols remmebered. "He’d come to the meeting and he’d have a big easel and a picture. a donkey on there and call the council asses."

[edit on 2/7/2008 by palehorse23]

reply to post by palehorse23
Check out your avatars, their in sync. Seems like they shouldn't be, posting at different times. Pretty wild! Oh wait, they are at the same time. Never mind!



[edit on 2/7/08 by TEMELUCHUS]

reply to post by TEMELUCHUS


LOL. Sorry, but that made me chuckle. At first I thought you meant our avatars. LOLGot a comment on the story? Do you think this guy had a valid point about his free speech being violated?

After reading the article it seems like he just snapped. Don't think for a second though that these city figures were without shame. I have worked for a municipality and seen for myself how they treat the public. If anyone talked to me the way that I've seen citizens being talked to, They would definitely be looking for something else to breathe through.

He was probably upset that Romney left the race.

Seriously though, I think you are right. I myself am surprised it's not happening more, but then again lots of people take out their frustrations on video games.

reply to post by TEMELUCHUS


Kirkwood is one of those very upper class neighborhoods where people care little about anything but how they can increase their wealth..

Not a bad place all in all but the powers that be there will take your property before you can say can I help you


Respectfully
GEO

reply to post by palehorse23


Just one report like this after another. The cops prevailed but not before three innocents and two other cops were shot and killed. Guns, guns, guns. Again, this is yet another example of someone determined to kill. The suspect appears to have been targeting the Mayor. Apparently he was determined not to let anybody get in the way of his objective.

For many people in this country the solution to their problems lies within the barrel of a firearm. Where does this notion come from? It really is a puzzle for me that this thinking is very common. For killing, for defending, for protecting, for avenging -- the motive is the same. Solution.

Even though those cops killed the murderer. The problem still exits. The murderer is gone, but the problem of people who are killers, or who will become killers, still exists. It is the bitterest reality that Man hunts himself.

I'll wager this guy will have been mentally 'treated' at some point prior. And no doubt this will contribute to the anti-gun hysteria, with more gun-control laws being introduced at the state and local level. Also be prepared to have every municipal/government offices add extra layers of security--more armed guards, metal detectors, bag checks, etc.--over themselves to emphasize the danger posed to gub'mint by these dangerous homegrown radical terrorists(i.e., the citizens).

reply to post by geocom


I'd have to disagree, any upscale areas that I've been in seem to police themselves.

It's the depressed and lower income areas that seem to be subject to land and property grabs.

This guy goes ballistic because of his local government, that guy planning to shoot up the Super Bowl snapped because of his local government...

I expect more and more of this. People keep saying how horrible it is that somebody would resort to taking a gun to their problems but I guarantee the people who say that have never dealt with city hall. Petition all you want, sue if you want, redress those grievances until your face turns blue but it won't help any. It will just make you look ridiculous to the powers that be. Just look at the way they ridicule this guy even still by poking fun at the big easel and his referring to the council as asses. He suffered under their authority, was driven off track so far he shot up the place and died, and he's still a big joke to them.

Wasn't the largest school killing done by somebody pissed at his local government?

Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. Source

I fully expect this to grow more and more frequent. Of course government will not for one second entertain the notion that perhaps it has gone too far in some instances. It will always be the guns that get the blame. Sure the government may find some 50 cent discrepancy on a 1040 from two decades ago and because of the interest take everything you own and garnish your salary for the rest of your life but if you snap it's the guns fault.

reply to post by Areal51

The use of violence to remove the government that has failed us is a right all Americans reserve. It is supposed to be the option of last resort. So the question is, had this man exhausted all other options?

In a federal lawsuit stemming from his arrests during two meetings just weeks apart, Thornton insisted that Kirkwood officials violated his constitutional rights to free speech by barring him from speaking at the meetings.

But a judge in St. Louis tossed out the suit Jan. 28, writing that "any restrictions on Thornton's speech were reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and served important governmental interests."

Gerald Thornton told KMOV the legal setback may have been his brother's final straw. "He has (spoken) on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue," he said.

The answer from the outside is of course absolutely not. But from his perspective? Who knows.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was being haressed or something. Organised haressment is big in america too.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The thing is this, how do we know that the guy was right and that the government was wrong? Certainly his actions were not the proper course to take. If it was the nebulous government that was responsible for his problems, that means that he was also willing to kill innocent people? I don't agree with his actions no matter how aggrieved he was. The Bath School disaster was also a disgrace. Would there have been others avenues for recompense? Just because the citizen casts blame on the government does not automatically make the government wrong? The government might deserve the blame, but no matter how many bullets a single person fires, the government will still be there to clean up that person's mess in the aftermath. I don't understand how anyone can think that he or she will get their property back or their grievances properly heard if he or she goes and shoots the "government". That's just an insane way to think. "If I kill a bunch of innocents, the government will know how serious I am, and then I will be heard. And next Saturday, I'll go fishing." That's just completely insane!

reply to post by Comma8Comma1


You can disagree all you want I don't totally disagree with what you are saying either that is typical but specifically in Kirkwood MO the powers that be do whatever they want and though they may take note they still do what they want
they have lost a lot of businesses in that town over the years due to being unable compromise..


Respectfully
GEO

reply to post by andy1033


as it turns out they have been issuing tickets to his companies pavement trucks on a regular basis as well seem to me like this guy had just reached his limit and after several failed attempts in the courts he decided to fix it once and for all


Like was posted before I would expect to see more and more of this
as big brother closes in people get claustrophobic
and for all of you who say take away the guns this guy was really mad he probably would have used explosives to get his point across

Respectfully
GEO

reply to post by apc


Right. It really was about his perspective. His convictions. When does a person get to the point where they ask for legal help? When they ask for the viewpoints of their community, their neighbors and loved ones? To seek out a therapist in an effort to better understand one's thoughts? Even if "they" were taking his entire life earnings and dumping them down the toilet, does that mean that he has the right to kill innocent people? I don't think so. Perhaps he did think that in his enraged mind. Rage makes one incredibly selfish.

Sometimes we have to admit defeat. Sometimes we have to go the distance in a complete new way; address an old problem from a new perspective that preserves the vision that we are fighting for. Sometimes an issue is larger than one's self, and even though it is to one's detriment, it is to the benefit of many others. Sometimes for the sake of others, rather than ourselves, we must suffer. Sometimes we must let go of that which we suffer. When folks become so entrenched in their own convictions, where all other viewpoints cease to matter, that is when one has the potential of becoming a dangerous human being.

Sometimes governments need to be overtaken by force, but what should remain the target is government, it should not include innocent people. What the topic of the OP and Bath incident illustrates is that an individual's truth is not necessarily the universal truth. That the universal truth will invalidate an individual's truth whenever necessary. In those instances it becomes clear that an individuals efforts were in vain.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Would there have been others avenues for recompense?

I'm guessing you've never had to deal for any length of time with your town/city, state or fed?

There are some real methods, there are plenty of false methods, there are even entire departments of "civil servants" just waiting to nod their heads at you and tell you they care.

This guy took it as far a lawsuit. That's much further than anyone should have to take it.

How far have others taken it? To the Supreme Court where the government refused to even hear the case. The case? Who has the right to petition for redress of grievances. Source

An entire organization of people at the Supreme Court level couldn't even get an answer as to whether or not they are allowed to ask the question.

Any "other avenues" that are out there are just for show or to funnel and triage the problem public that won't just sit and take it whatever "it" happens to be. In no uncertain terms the Supreme Court of the United States has admitted this to be true.

Just as many believe an armed revolt would be useless because the government has all the prisons and all the guns so is a "legal" revolt through the courts. You can be harassed, ruined and killed if some "public servant" in some office accuses you of anything. This includes the cops and their revenue generating traffic tickets all the way up to the fed and its Patriot Act.

It's easy to say this guy was crazy or to pretend that any of these mythical "other avenues" are actually viable incorruptible options if you've never had to deal with the government. The first time you're accused of doing something you know you didn't do or fined for not doing something you know you did do and you're met with the governments "you're guilty until we decide you're innocent" or the "it's our word against yours" or the "you're just unpatriotic" or "you're obviously crazy" walls they throw at you you know exactly why this guy did what he did.

In an interview with his mother she said this was so out of character for him it was like some act of god like a hurricane or tornado.

You guys remember killdozer?



Good people can be pushed too far. You don't have to be "mental" To be pushed over the edge. I want the full story before i make up my mind.

Originally posted by Areal51
Sometimes governments need to be overtaken by force, but what should remain the target is government, it should not include innocent people. What the topic of the OP and Bath incident illustrates is that an individual's truth is not necessarily the universal truth. That the universal truth will invalidate an individual's truth whenever necessary. In those instances it becomes clear that an individuals efforts were in vain.

Its similar to that guy who wanted to kill those people in the Super Bowl instead of taking on the govt. because of license issue. I guess he wants the rest of the people to feel his pain. So when the killing stops, people would look at his motives, which is related issues with the govt. heck not a bad idea.