Man Shoots Up a Taco Bell Because It Was Closed

Is there something you know that I don't? Like the political affiliation of the shooter of the Taco Bell?

 

There are a lot of gun-loving Democrat voters in that area. Which would be an oxymoron in most other parts of the country.

I live about 3 hours away from that Taco Bell.

If (as the article says) they arrested him for DUI, it was probably for weed (I would imagine), rather than alcohol; and if he was smoking weed, the chance that he is a Republican is very slim, in that area. Though I'd also imagine in that area some white men who normally vote for Democrats did temporarily become Trump supporters in 2016 (later losing enthusiasm), so that is a possibility as well.

 

The latest update the beginning of February so maybe he has been and it just wasn't reported. If he just pled guilty to DUI or minor concealed weapon charges at a local court, it's be unlikely to be picked up by any media, even those who reported the original story. They'll move on to the next big thing rather than get in to the details of the criminal justice process unless there is something specifically controversial or extreme about it (be that real or spun up).

Or it could be that he will be but hasn't yet. The criminal law process often moves much more slowly than a lot of people expect, in general because there are lots of formal steps that need to be taken, some of which will have minimum time they have to take, and pretty much every stage will have big backlogs and not enough resources. It's not good but it's true.

 

No one has ever said that.

 

Typical murder cases, for example, take one and a half years to go to trial, from the time of arrest.
Less serious crimes, they usually coerce the person into pleading guilty, threatening the person with more prison time if they do not accept prison time.
(sounds paradoxical, I know, but a lot of ignorant people are not aware that's how the justice system works 80% of the time)
The courts don't really have the capacity to deal with all these cases, so usually the decisions are left up to the prosecuting district attorney.

Depending on the culture in the area and the individual district attorney, they could charge him with different criminal statutes, to control what will happen to the defendant, probably why they decided not to charge him under any of the criminal statutes that are classified as felonies.
I suspect this man, in this situation, will be sent to prison for maybe 2 or 3 months and then put on a period of probation for 3 years where he won't be allowed to have a gun.

 

are you saying the average citizen can’t be trusted with a weapon?

 

It not his fault. The gun acted on its own and he was drunk, so that makes him the victim. He was likely stoned as hell if he wanted Taco Bell that bad!

Ironic that the term "responsible" is being used when those that are not a danger to others will end up paying for this man's actions with their rights.

 

My 1st guess is someone craving Taco Bell at 2am is most likely under the influence. Let alone banging on the window for food. Doubt ones political affiliation matters after that.

 

How would you feel if a couple rounds were fired into your residence? Being libertarian does not mean supporting anarchy. I am all for owning firearms but criminals with guns who demonstrate poor impulse control need to be put in jail.

 

Responsible gun owners don't do stuff like this.

 

It is a big deal except in Democrat led states and cities.

 

I reckon in that Liberal utopia, the guy won't be arrested until he kills someone. Then, he will probably be out on cashless bail for a year or two until the trial date if they can find him.

 

Sometimes you just really need a taco! Also, if those taco bell employees were packing heat, this guy would never be able to terrorize another taco bell in his life (because he wouldn't have one anymore)
Another situation where guns would have made it better and safer for everyone.

 

Evidently he was charged, but let out on probably cash less bail.

https://cbs6albany.com/news/nation-...mo-magazines-harassment-dui-drive-by-shooting

 

That was absolutely stupid of the perp. So, Taco Hell, err I mean Taco Bell was closed. It saved him from dysentery or worse.

I read the article, the second one under "see more" and it says something a little different than what you described. Yes, the title is clickbait to get readers to read the article, but everything else is in the details. But the key here is they found two pistols, not a crime if the guy is not a felon, is it. Yes, they found a bullet hole, they found two spent casings, they found two pistols, one 9mm, and one .22 caliber. He made threatening statements, and so far, he has a DUI charge, but that is typically not a felony. In my opinion, the police didn't go far enough in the investigation and should have seized the firearms to perform ballistic matches to see if it is the same caliber as in one of the two firearms that they found. Furthermore, the employee's own witness statements may have led to his release. Since they did not unequivocally see him point the gun at them and shoot at them, but only "they heard gunfire" when they called 911, then the police could not have enough probable cause that he was the one who fired the shot at the Taco Bell.

the other part of the problem is the article is piss poor written. I think the most serious charges were dropped, namely the drive-by shooting and harassment, with a possibility of malicious mischief. The concealed firearm violation is a misdemeanor in Washington State and so is DUI with no injuries or fatalities. I think he is still facing those charges. In addition, the article also does state that the charges could still be filed in district court, assuming there is more evidence to provide enough for possible conviction.

 

Did you happen to read the post I was responding to? That post cited the USA as having a shooting problem, not a specific city or state, the USA. I replied by pointing out liberal cities and states are mostly where the problems are.

 

Pardon my ignorance here but it seems as though most the states with the highest gun deaths happen to be red state.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

Washington state. It sounds criminal, but not felony to me. Most serious charge I think should be reckless endangerment.

RCW 9a.36.050: Reckless endangerment. (wa.gov)

RCW 9A.36.050
Reckless endangerment.
(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.
(2) Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

After employees were leaving, he starts shooting the building. While this is reckless in terms of somebody could get hit, his intent seems to be to do damage to the business that did not give him his burrito, lol. So intent was vandalism, but most significant charge is his disregard for possible accidental death.

Yeah, he should face charges, but not felony. Actually by the report it seems he is facing "drive by shooting" charges, but I think it's a case of going for a higher charge hoping he'll plead to what he's actually guilty of.

 

They're also the states with the highest poverty rates.

 

And that is bullshit. Obviously there will be more of everything, in a populous city, than in a more sparsely-populated area. But if we talk per capita, there are more gun deaths, where gun laws are most lax.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

They aren't going to do that if nobody was hurt, and considering those are the two most common calibers, that wouldn't prove a thing. But anti gunners gonna do what anti gunners gonna do, amirite?

 

There is more poverty in those states, as well as more minorities.

But, murder, wreckless discharge, assault, attempted murder are all illegal in those states.

 

There are blue cities in red states. Tennessee is is redder than red but Memphis shoots up the joint. Same thing with St Louis.

 

Maybe, but there's other problems with those respective states and not just in those particular cities. For example, since St. Louis, MO is the worst city on this list, let me add in that Missouri as a whole is a red state, ranks in the bottom half when it comes to education and health care. Alabama is just as bad. Matter of fact, most of those red states also are at the bottom of the list.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

 

They should because shots were fired, there was clear evidence that a bullet hole was there on the property, and so forth. But my guess is that detectives should take this case and the patrol officer did not do enough diligence, which led to the dismissal of some of the charges, not all.

this really has nothing to do with anti-gunners here. There are laws on the books and enough reasonable suspicion in which those guns were seized in which one of them was used to commit a crime.