Waffle House shooting, at least 4 killed

[kaz]

That's belied by this thread where it was you leftists who saw only skin color. Another loser admits you have nothing and you're running away under the coward's banner of calling people racists because you have nothing of content or character

That's belied by this thread where it was you leftists who saw only skin color.

Go back to the first few pages and report back on that.

An irresponsible van renter killed 10 people and injured 15 in Canada......vans are more dangerous than AR-15 civilian rifles.

Another dopey narrative.

Dopey is you idiot leftists and your tired, tyrannical obsession with race because your ideas are illogical and don't work

I'm obsessed with nothing. I was pointing to where it started in the thread, retard.

You obviously didn't read the discussion

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Go back to the first few pages and report back on that.

An irresponsible van renter killed 10 people and injured 15 in Canada......vans are more dangerous than AR-15 civilian rifles.

Another dopey narrative.

Dopey is you idiot leftists and your tired, tyrannical obsession with race because your ideas are illogical and don't work

I'm obsessed with nothing. I was pointing to where it started in the thread, retard.

You obviously didn't read the discussion

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Spare us. Right only sees race when the perp is non white . Then they let the racist flag fly !

That's belied by this thread where it was you leftists who saw only skin color. Another loser admits you have nothing and you're running away under the coward's banner of calling people racists because you have nothing of content or character

That's belied by this thread where it was you leftists who saw only skin color.

Go back to the first few pages and report back on that.

Yes, Edward started that, he's a leftist. Read the thread and report back on that

No, dope. Look for the "13% problem".

I've never heard the term "13% problem" and neither had the Internet. But I agree that raises a question of what "problem" he is referring to. And I don't know him, this is the first time I ever saw his posts. So I read further. The only thing he said was that accurately murder rates among blacks is higher. That's true unless data is racist. It is in black and white ...

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

 

[kaz]

An irresponsible van renter killed 10 people and injured 15 in Canada......vans are more dangerous than AR-15 civilian rifles.

Another dopey narrative.

Dopey is you idiot leftists and your tired, tyrannical obsession with race because your ideas are illogical and don't work

I'm obsessed with nothing. I was pointing to where it started in the thread, retard.

You obviously didn't read the discussion

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

You pointed to one quote. You took that one quote, found it sufficient to spin how you wanted to read it and left. None of the rest of the conversation supports your claim. No, you didn't read it

 

[kaz]

That's belied by this thread where it was you leftists who saw only skin color. Another loser admits you have nothing and you're running away under the coward's banner of calling people racists because you have nothing of content or character

That's belied by this thread where it was you leftists who saw only skin color.

Go back to the first few pages and report back on that.

Yes, Edward started that, he's a leftist. Read the thread and report back on that

No, dope. Look for the "13% problem".

I've never heard the term "13% problem" and neither had the Internet. But I agree that raises a question of what "problem" he is referring to. And I don't know him, this is the first time I ever saw his posts. So I read further. The only thing he said was that accurately murder rates among blacks is higher. That's true unless data is racist. It is in black and white ...

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

Try reading my post where I just responded to that point. Hint, you quoted it. This is just like the discussion you were talking about that you didn't read either

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Another dopey narrative.

Dopey is you idiot leftists and your tired, tyrannical obsession with race because your ideas are illogical and don't work

I'm obsessed with nothing. I was pointing to where it started in the thread, retard.

You obviously didn't read the discussion

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

You pointed to one quote. You took that one quote, found it sufficient to spin how you wanted to read it and left. None of the rest of the conversation supports your claim. No, you didn't read it

There is no spin. There's only one way to take his meaning, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Go back to the first few pages and report back on that.

Yes, Edward started that, he's a leftist. Read the thread and report back on that

No, dope. Look for the "13% problem".

I've never heard the term "13% problem" and neither had the Internet. But I agree that raises a question of what "problem" he is referring to. And I don't know him, this is the first time I ever saw his posts. So I read further. The only thing he said was that accurately murder rates among blacks is higher. That's true unless data is racist. It is in black and white ...

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

Try reading my post where I just responded to that point. Hint, you quoted it. This is just like the discussion you were talking about that you didn't read either

I did read it, dope. I responded as well.

 

[kaz]

Dopey is you idiot leftists and your tired, tyrannical obsession with race because your ideas are illogical and don't work

I'm obsessed with nothing. I was pointing to where it started in the thread, retard.

You obviously didn't read the discussion

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

You pointed to one quote. You took that one quote, found it sufficient to spin how you wanted to read it and left. None of the rest of the conversation supports your claim. No, you didn't read it

There is no spin. There's only one way to take his meaning, dope.

No, there are two ways.

1) Blacks are a problem

2) Black murder rates are a problem.

The second is true unless you're claiming that facts are racist. Nothing in his posts after that supported the first one, only the second.

Your justification for the first one is that's what you want him to have meant. He has 4K posts and I only read about 20 of them. So find more than one

 

[kaz]

Yes, Edward started that, he's a leftist. Read the thread and report back on that

No, dope. Look for the "13% problem".

I've never heard the term "13% problem" and neither had the Internet. But I agree that raises a question of what "problem" he is referring to. And I don't know him, this is the first time I ever saw his posts. So I read further. The only thing he said was that accurately murder rates among blacks is higher. That's true unless data is racist. It is in black and white ...

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

Try reading my post where I just responded to that point. Hint, you quoted it. This is just like the discussion you were talking about that you didn't read either

I did read it, dope. I responded as well.

Your response ignored what I said, so no, you didn't read it

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm obsessed with nothing. I was pointing to where it started in the thread, retard.

You obviously didn't read the discussion

I did, dope. I even told you what to look for.

You pointed to one quote. You took that one quote, found it sufficient to spin how you wanted to read it and left. None of the rest of the conversation supports your claim. No, you didn't read it

There is no spin. There's only one way to take his meaning, dope.

No, there are two ways.

1) Blacks are a problem

2) Black murder rates are a problem.

The second is true unless you're claiming that facts are racist. Nothing in his posts after that supported the first one, only the second.

Your justification for the first one is that's what you want him to have meant. He has 4K posts and I only read about 20 of them. So find more than one

It's about race. That was the first post to mention race in the thread. That was the point, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, dope. Look for the "13% problem".

I've never heard the term "13% problem" and neither had the Internet. But I agree that raises a question of what "problem" he is referring to. And I don't know him, this is the first time I ever saw his posts. So I read further. The only thing he said was that accurately murder rates among blacks is higher. That's true unless data is racist. It is in black and white ...

That's it, play dumb.

Blacks are 13% of the population and a "problem" for the poster.
That is the first reference to race in the thread.

Try reading my post where I just responded to that point. Hint, you quoted it. This is just like the discussion you were talking about that you didn't read either

I did read it, dope. I responded as well.

Your response ignored what I said, so no, you didn't read it

Stop Kazzing.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

 

[2aguy]

I'm still wondering why his father wasn't booked on accessory to murder charges. If the father hadn't given the shooter the guns, this might not have happened.

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

 

[KissMy]

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

NRA red counties believe crazies should own guns unless convicted in court. This is 100% Republicans Fault under a All Republican Government. The victims families should sue the NRA, Republicans, the parents CIA & sheriff.

 

[OKTexas]

How do we know the father returned the shooter's guns after authorites deemed him unfit to have them? Who said that?

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.


.

 

[OKTexas]

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

NRA red counties believe crazies should own guns unless convicted in court. This is 100% Republicans Fault under a All Republican Government. The victims families should sue the NRA, Republicans, the parents CIA & sheriff.

You might try reading the 5th and 14th amendments again real slow so they MIGHT sink in.


.

 

[2aguy]

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

NRA red counties believe crazies should own guns unless convicted in court. This is 100% Republicans Fault under a All Republican Government. The victims families should sue the NRA, Republicans, the parents CIA & sheriff.

Dumb ass.....Nashville....where the shooting happened has been run by democrats since 1951...you doofus...

List of mayors of Nashville, Tennessee - Wikipedia

 

[2aguy]

It's been on the news dude. Investigators are still looking into it, but authorities believe the father is the one that gave him back his guns.

The other man responsible in Waffle House shooting (opinion) - CNN

Travis Reinking, the man alleged to have shot up a Waffle House and snuffed out the lives of four innocent souls, thankfully is in custody. But he's not the only one who should pay for this terrible crime if convicted: His father, Jeffrey Reinking, should in that case be held legally accountable, and arguably should face prosecution.

That is because police believe the elder Reinking returned his son's guns — which had been taken from him -- multiple times over, despite Travis Reinking's erratic behavior and even FBI interference. Authorities revoked Travis' firearms identification card and even confiscated his guns, but, investigators believe, his father returned them.

This shooting was not an unforeseeable event, nor was it a random tragedy. It was an act by a man who showed clear signs of aggression and mental illness and who had been deemed by authorities unfit for gun ownership.

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.


.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks. But this very article is what caused me to wonder why the rush to blame the father for GIVING the shooters guns back rather than thinking the guns might have been taken somehow without the father knowing.
Unless the father or suspect stated that's what happened all we have is media driven speculation.

The guns were in the father's custody. Obviously they were not secured properly if the shooter was able to regain possession of them.
The father is culpable either way.

Wrong, it would have been illegal by IL law to give them back to his son IF he remained in IL. He broke NO LAWS by returning them to him living in TN because he was never charged or convicted of any crime. He was NOT a federally prohibited person.


.

It is worse than that... a breakdown of the failures of law enforcement that allowed the killer to get those guns....

He should have been arrested numerous times and forcibly committed.....


If Current Laws Had Been Followed, There Would Have Been No Waffle House Shooting

• June 2017: The suspect was accused of threatening someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress outside of a public pool. According to the incident report, he then stripped naked and jumped into the pool before repeatedly flashing his genitals to the lifeguards ordering him to leave. Police responded, but the suspect ultimately wasn’t charged with a crime. When officers inquired about the AR-15, which the suspect had placed back in the trunk of his car, they determined he had a valid Illinois firearms license and did not seize the gun.

The accused man’s father told police that he had previously taken three rifles and a handgun away from his son and locked them up over concerns regarding his mental health. The father returned the firearms to his son because the father wanted to move out of state.

Officers told the father that he should consider locking up the firearms again until the suspect received mental health treatment, and the father said he would.

• July 2017: The Secret Service arrested the Waffle House suspect for attempting to breach a security barrier into a restricted area near the White House. He allegedly told the agents he was trying to set up a meeting with the president. The suspect was charged with “unlawful entry,” but the FBI apparently closed the case without pursuing a criminal conviction.

• August 2017: The accused contacted the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to complain that dozens of people were “tapping into his computer and phone” after he attempted to send letters to Taylor Swift. At some point soon afterward, Illinois officials revoked his state firearms license, which Illinois requires for the possession of any firearm in the state.

On Aug. 24, deputies arrived to seize the suspect’s firearms and remove them from his possession. His father, who had a valid state firearms license, requested that the firearms be released to him under the condition that they be kept secured and inaccessible to his son. Because the father could legally possess firearms in the state and agreed to comply with requirements to keep them away from the suspect, officers agreed to transfer them to the father.

• Fall 2017: The Waffle House suspect moved from Illinois to Nashville, Tennessee. His father admitted to police that he returned the firearms to his son—including the semi-automatic rifle used in the Waffle House killings—though it is unclear if this occurred before or after the suspect moved out of Illinois.

• April, 2018: In early April, the accused was fired from his job with a construction company. The reasons for the firing are unclear.

Can the Father Be Held Criminally Liable?

It’s possible that the father can be held criminally liable for returning the firearms to his son, depending on the specific circumstances of when and where he returned them, and which state laws are being considered.

In Illinois, it’s a class 4 felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to an individual who doesn’t possess a valid state firearms license. It’s apparent that the father knew that his son had this license revoked, because he was both present when officers came to seize the firearms and was told by the officers that the firearms must be kept inaccessible to the son. If the father gave the firearms back to his son before he left Illinois, this statute could come into play for criminal charges.

If the transfer occurred in Tennessee, however, this may not be the case. The Waffle House suspect doesn’t appear to have been prohibited from possessing firearms under Tennessee law, because he was never convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Yep, the cops repeatedly took the easy way out and left the guy eligible to own a firearm, the fathers bad judgment is not a crime.


.

Depends on where he handed the guns over....and the failure to give this guy a conviction allowed the father to hand the guns over if he did it in Tennessee.......

I don't know all the commie laws in IL but I think there is a case to be made that they violated the guys rights, because technically he met all the requirements for an IL gun ownership license. His record was clean and he was never involuntarily committed or even spent any time in psychiatric care.


.