"... and hacking his phone and Netflix account, according to fits of delusions detailed in police reports,"
the NY Daily News reports.
When confronted by cops in a parking lot near Peoria during the 2016 incident, Tazewell County Sheriff's Office deputies said Reinking was convinced the singer... was following him. He believed she wanted to meet him at a nearby Dairy Queen.
He tried meeting Swift at the fast food joint but she yelled at him from across the street and bolted, according to his version of events. He gave chase "in an attempt to get her to stop harassing him," the police report read.
"Taylor climbed up the side of a building and Travis followed. However, when he reached the rooftop, Taylor was gone," according to the report.
Reinking is still on the loose, as of this 8:30 AM report:
Reinking, a 29-year-old Illinois native, was last seen wearing black pants as he ran away from his Antioch, Tenn., apartment complex early Sunday.
He previously stormed into the Waffle House wearing nothing but a green jacket, wielding an AR-15-style rifle, at about 3:25 a.m. local time.
Posts
98 comments:
It's the voices!!
He's trying to impress Kiri Te Kanawa.
Shake it off.
This is the second guy from downstate Illinois to be involved in a major shooting news story in the last year. James Hodgkinson from Belleville, IL shot 5 people, including Rep. Steve Scalise, in June of 2017. Makes you wonder....
"convinced the singer... was following him.
He believed she wanted to meet him at a nearby Dairy Queen.
He tried meeting Swift
He gave chase "in an attempt to get her to stop harassing him," police report read.
"Taylor climbed up the side of a building and Travis followed."
i've found, that an effective way to stop gorgeous starlets from following ME, is...
TO STOP CHASING THEM UP THE SIDE OF BUILDINGS!!!
Seriously, the last time i told Taylor that i thought we needed more space; she was totally fine with it
Another sign the us mental health system is broken.
Unfortunately it does not look like any positive changes are going to happen for a while.
Again, mentally ill individual with history of police involvement uses firearm to commit a mass shooting.
We have a mental health problem in the United States not a gun problem.
I do not have the answer, but we need to find a way to:
1. Help people that need help when they are treatable.
2. Institutionalize those that cannot be helped in the most humane way possible (i.e., not the way we used to do it).
Can we have a conversation about this, not about confiscating guns?
I'm sorry, but it's just seems very unlikely it was Taylor Swift fucking with this guy. She is so busy these days.
It was probably somebody who looks like Taylor Swift.
on the loose
on the sly
adjective mystery.
This is what happens when any nutjob has access to a Waffle House.
Woe, destruction, ruin, and decay;
The worst is death, and death will have his day.
Happy birthday Bard Shakespeare
Why was someone with a very tenuous grasp on reality -- at best -- able to obtain an AR-15?
We have laws for these situations. Why not apply those laws before people are shot dead?
They are never ever ever getting back together.
Obviously we need Taylor Swift control. No 1st or 2nd amendment issues.
She is so busy these days.
Taylor Swift did have that lawsuit going on against the radio guy who allegedly fondled her ass when posing for a publicity photo.
This whole shooting thing sucks. Like, this Travis guy, without all the shooting shit, he sounds like he'd be cool to party with.
I mean, who doesn't like Dairy Queen? And it would be a fucking blast, chasing Taylor Swift all around town and shit. I picture Taylor running around in, like, a little red dress, and Travis running after her and not wearing pants, that would fucking rock.
Because why does everyone probably automatically think that Taylor Swift wasn't, like, really stalking the dude? I mean, is it that hard to picture a celebrity picking a dude at random and just fucking with him, just because she can and shit? Because when you're a celebrity you can do all the 4chan shit, but you can do it for real, with real people.
Still, just because Taylor Swift is stalking you doesn't, like, give you the right to shoot people. I thought dudes would've learned that after the Jodie Foster shit, but that was a long time ago, I guess, back before Jodie Foster was even a lesbian and shit.
I post my shit here.
Since his daddy gave him the guns after the police confiscated them (and gave them to his daddy with the promise NOT to give them back to the nut) then I suspect daddy is hiding him.
Jail daddy and squeeze his family till they give him up.
It's time we had a National Conversation about violent leftists.
I preauthorize Taylor Swift to stalk me at any time.
Please.
Why was someone with a very tenuous grasp on reality -- at best -- able to obtain an AR-15?
We have laws for these situations. Why not apply those laws before people are shot dead?
His firearms license was revoked and he had to give up his guns. The police allowed his father to take possession of the guns. The father later returned the guns to his son.
Taylor Swift can chase me whenever she wants. I might even let her catch me!
I can't believe they haven't caught this guy yet. Help from the family?
Also, the silence from Taylor Swift is deafening...again, still.
If I was the DA I'd raid Daddy's house, take all his shit, and make his life so miserable that he kills himself.
John Borell said...
I do not have the answer, but we need to find a way to:
1. Help people that need help when they are treatable.
2. Institutionalize those that cannot be helped in the most humane way possible (i.e., not the way we used to do it).
Can we have a conversation about this, not about confiscating guns?
The left tried very hard to have this conversation, but Trump and his supporters refused to admit he cannot be helped and therefore must be institutionalized.
So now there's an "AR-15 style rifle". First it was "Assault rifle" style but then the IB's on left learned that assualt rifles were already banned. Then it was "Assault weapon" style. Which of course could mean any weapon used for assault and wasn't scary enough so now it's the AR-15 style. Like Global warming/climate change. Never underestimate the left's ability to believe they're clever.
2. Institutionalize those that cannot be helped in the most humane way possible (i.e., not the way we used to do it).
We used to institutionalize people for a year or two, and likely as not they'd come back out and resume their lives. At least according to Robert Whitaker. But in those days the psychic break was due more to extreme family and financial stress, like how the hell to feed a family.
I wonder if we have a different sort of crazy now.
Blame the father, and arrest him for giving this psycho the gun back after the Secret Service took it away from him at the White House. This is the kids fault, and his father helped him......https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/22/us/waffle-house-shooter-white-house/index.html
You can't fix a broken brain. At some point it is best to harvest the organs, and use the rest to generate electricity.
Right now, we need electricity in Puerto Rico, so I say we build the crematorium there.
We could harvest the organs on the Cruise Ships on the trip down there.
@O2bnaz -- Police have confirmed that that it was precisely an AR-15.
So obviously, we need to ban waffle houses and AR-15's, but not commit violent crazy people to institutions, because the ACLU says so.
Colt has so successfully marketing the AR-15 platform that everyone now knows what AR-15 style means.
Sounds like the father was enabling his highly unstable and violent son. I wonder if the father can be charged as an accessory?
"Mass shooters" are typically not psychotic, as this guy seems to be; maybe he thought he was shooting at Taylor Swift, since schizo shooters usually go after an individual (Lennon, Reagan, etc).
Analyzing his database [of 350 mass killers], Dr. Stone has concluded that about 65 percent of mass killers exhibited no evidence of a severe mental disorder; 22 percent likely had psychosis, the delusional thinking and hallucinations that characterize schizophrenia, or sometimes accompany mania and severe depression. (The remainder likely had depressive or antisocial traits.)"
is it that hard to picture a celebrity picking a dude at random and just fucking with him, just because she can and shit?
Happens all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yBip9YHuCQ
If you believe that correct framing for Reinking's murders is the broken mental health system, you need to offer solutions based on both of the following:
1. Assigning of extreme powers to police, prosecutors, and judges to determine who is mentally unsafe and can be forcibly institutionalized.
2. Massively extend federal support for mental health services, perhaps via the ACA or Medicare.
If you've worked with the mental health system you will find out that it is incredibly hard to find really talented specialists and it is equally hard to get insurance plans to cover them. Even getting an accurate cognitive evaluation can be incredibly frustrating.
>>65% of mass shooters showed no evidence of a severe mental disorder
This should read something like:
100% of mass shooters had a dismissed or ignored serious mental disorder.
"I can't believe they haven't caught this guy yet."
What? He can run up the sides of buildings.
I’m surprised the crazed nra / conservative / trump supporter card was not played by the media.
Perhaps because the hero was black, and only one narrative at a time.
Or the no pants?
Or he wore a pink dress the previous time he was arrested with an AR-15?
I’m becoming way to cynical on news coverage...
>>What? He can run up the sides of buildings.
So can Taylor Swift, apparently....
Since she's been stalking him, why not just ask her where he is.
Why was someone with a very tenuous grasp on reality -- at best -- able to obtain an AR-15?
The police took his gun away once. They then gave it back to his father, who gave it back to him.
The Dad needs to be held accountability.
Article: "Cops ordered the elder Reinking to confiscate his son’s weapons cache,"
Cops - not a judge - "ordered" one adult to confiscate another adult's property?
I don't think so....
"The Tazewell County Sheriff's Office [...] took the guns from Travis, but immediately gave them to Reinking's father, according to records."
There is going to be a lot of (valid) criticism of how law enforcement and the FBI handled this case. I'm a lot less certain about the criticism of the father; the son is nearly 30 years old. What right does the father have, to keep his property without a court order of some kind?
This case just might spur something else. It might be one of the very few cases, wherein a realistic change in the law might have resulted in a different outcome. That is, the class of laws all pertaining to the ways that family members and other persons classified as being close to a troubled person can petition for a "Risk Protection Order." (So-called "Red Flag" laws.)
The NRA supports those laws:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sNiklO506A
I’m surprised the crazed nra / conservative / trump supporter card was not played by the media.
I'm suspicious. It's so quiet on the suspect/Daddy front I suspect Daddy checks the right political boxes that garner media protection.
Quick solution: two in the hat.
Incidentally; while Indiana has a currently-enacted "Red Flag" law, Reinking's home state of Illinois does not (one is proposed) and his state of residence, Tennessee, also does not (again, one is proposed).
And I just noted, that in Tennessee, the NRA's political action wing is actually opposing that state's particular "Red Flag" bill.
Maybe somebody here who is more conversant with NRA legislative positions on the various "Red Flag" bills.
Dr. Harleen F. Quinzel/Harley Quinn: What was that? I should kill everyone and escape? Sorry, it's the voices. Ahaha, I'm kidding! That's not what they really said.
And I just noted, that in Tennessee, the NRA's political action wing is actually opposing that state's particular "Red Flag" bill.
Why should the NRA be responsible for everyone who misuses a gun? Do you come on here and blame the ACLU whenever anyone says something offensive? Is the NAACP responsible for anything a free black person does?
Once again Chuck, you are a self-professed LLR who immediately checks to see how the NRA might be implicated in any crime involving a gun...
The NRA supports those laws
The NRA supports your right to self defense, and they should do so unabashedly.
If you disagree, then where is Planned Parenthood's stance on "reasonable" limits on abortion? And why aren't you demanding they have one?
Kevin said...
And I just noted, that in Tennessee, the NRA's political action wing is actually opposing that state's particular "Red Flag" bill.
Why should the NRA be responsible for everyone who misuses a gun? Do you come on here and blame the ACLU whenever anyone says something offensive? Is the NAACP responsible for anything a free black person does?
Once again Chuck, you are a self-professed LLR who immediately checks to see how the NRA might be implicated in any crime involving a gun...
Fuck you, you nutcase! Did you really want to know about how I felt about various gun laws, or the NRA, or guns in general?
No; you immediately launched into Chuck-can't-be-a-conservative mode.
Fact is, you moron, that I am a gun owner and a gun rights enthusiast. I am not an NRA member, but I am not an NRA hater. I'd be in the mainstream of Republican gun-rights proponents. And, I never was so enthusiastic about the 1996 Assault Weapons Ban that Donald Trump supported.
I am not an ACLU supporter; I regard the ACLU as a far-left political advocacy and lawfare organization. More or less blatantly partisan.
Next time, if you are trying to categorize my views, just ask me before you crawl out on an unsupportable limb of false presumption.
God. It's like some Democrat is handing out AR-15s to everyone who is off their meds to push gun control. Reporters are HAPPY to bump every 'bad shooter' to the very top of the headline.
Meanwhile, there are 2.2 million uses of firearms to defend oneself YEARLY which the CDC also examined...but refused to publicize.
No bias here.
His firearms license was revoked and he had to give up his guns. The police allowed his father to take possession of the guns. The father later returned the guns to his son.
So the gun laws worked but his father didn't.
Doesn't this make the father some kind of accessory before the fact?
Hmm: giving more money to irresponsible single mothers to keep squirting out babies OR using that money to help institutionalize people who are a danger to society.
I think the priorities of the Left are telling. Single moms can vote for more money and power, nutjobs (a technical term) can't.
I knew you were trouble.
His dad isn’t an accessory to the shooting. But if he did give him the guns back, then he can be charged with supplying a firearm to someone he knows isn’t eligible to legally own one. Individuals who aren’t gun dealers don’t have to run background checks. But federal law still prohibits them from suollyingba firearm to someone they is not legally entitled to possess one.
“Supplying a firearm to someone they know doesn’t have the right to own one.”
Next time, if you are trying to categorize my views, just ask me before you crawl out on an unsupportable limb of false presumption.
You're right Chuck, I can't tell you how many times I hear gun owners of all affiliations ask why the NRA isn't taking a more hard-line stance in favor of restricting gun rights.
In fact, the first thing I think when someone pulls the NRA's legal position on pending legislation at the state level into the discussion of a public shooting is: "Oh, that guy's clearly just outed himself as a gun owner and staunch second amendment defender!"
Unsupportable limb...Ha!
It may seem crazy, but what if he's right?
Chuck raises a good question. The NRA expresses support for risk protection orders in theory but has opposed every proposed red flag law on the basis of their lack of due process protections.
Here is the USA Today summary of the NRA's position:
— Criminal penalties for those who bring “false or frivolous” charges.
— A determination by a judge, by “clear and convincing evidence,” that the person poses a significant risk of danger.
— A requirement that a judge determine whether the person meets the standard for involuntary commitment.
— If the order is granted, the individual should receive community-based mental health treatment.
“To be effective and constitutional, they should have strong due process protections and require that the person get treatment,” Cox says in the video.
* * *
The NRA conditions are quite valid; it is hardly surprising that the outcome is NRA opposition to risk protection orders in practice.
As I said upstream, if you're going to go the involuntary-institutionalization route you need to massively expand prosecutorial powers and government funding of treatment.
It should also be pointed out that a red flag law would not have prevented this particular crime.
Good God, Henry; thank you for a sensible comment here at the Althouse blog. I think you've nicely highlighted some of the fine-line(s) that the NRA is drawing on this litigation.
I don't begrudge the NRA one bit. They are in an environment of tremendous hostility and hysteria, when it comes to legislation on guns. At its core, I regard the NRA position on these limited protection orders as a thoughtful one, evidencing careful thought by people who know guns and gun laws.
I think that there are something like 21 states now proposing "Red Flag" laws. It should not be surprising that the NRA might like the drafts of some but not others. And that the devil is always in the details.
Henry said...
It should also be pointed out that a red flag law would not have prevented this particular crime.
I'm really interested in why you'd say that. Can you say more? I was thinking that perhaps this was one of the very rare occasions when a particular law -- a reasonable, workable law -- might have made a difference. So I want to hear your view.
[You see, people; this is how it is done. You ask someone with a potentially different opinion to make themselves clear before you presume what it is they are thinking.]
For the red flag law to be invoked, you need an action to invoke it.
Reinking already had been processed for his previous crimes. So far that I've read, his behavior in Tennessee before the shooting hadn't drawn attention.
Henry said...
For the red flag law to be invoked, you need an action to invoke it.
Reinking already had been processed for his previous crimes. So far that I've read, his behavior in Tennessee before the shooting hadn't drawn attention.
Oh I see; what you're saying is that it was old stuff, and non-Tennessee offenses/confrontations, that people are focusing on now, and they would not have been an adequate predicate for the sort of temporary relief afforded by many/most "Red Flag" laws.
That could be true; but what if his White House security offense had triggered (no pun intended) an order some time ago? And that further scrutiny had then revealed more weirdness/danger with him? Now it is me who speculating of course. Anyway, I understand you and I go away just thinking that it is an interesting legislative area...
...in which the NRA is no villain.
Let's recap: He has his weapons confiscated by the police and then they are returned to him by his father. He shoots four people and then runs naked into the night in a major metro area
and can't be found.
This sounds like plot points for some kind of dystopian fiction.
The counter-example is Nikolas Cruz who quite well could have been held by a red flag law -- except that law enforcement failed to apply any scrutiny to him at all despite his egregious behavior. Cruz could also have had his guns taken away if his mother had filed a restraining order against him. She didn't.
That is hardly surprising. Red flag laws will always find a needle in a haystack of needles. That doesn't mean they will find the right needle.
It's not "Chuck-can't-be-a-conservative mode".
It's "Chuck is not a conservative mode".
Fopdoodles are notoriously poor at logic.
Have any of LLR Chuck's many, many, many leftist operational allies and advocates located any target symbols on a wafflehouse on a website or tweet by someone who may or may not even be a republican yet?
I'll wait patiently until they do.
Blogger Etienne said... You can't fix a broken brain. At some point it is best to harvest the organs, and use the rest to generate electricity.
Right now, we need electricity in Puerto Rico, so I say we build the crematorium there.
We could harvest the organs on the Cruise Ships on the trip down there.
You're gonna want to construct an Anaerobic Digester to create biogas and organic fertilizer.
I heard he left his victims scattered, smothered and covered.
Howard: "I heard he left his victims scattered, smothered and covered"
That reminds me of my last massive "big as your head" burrito smothered in green chile sauce.
Drago, I figured you for a Chili Colorado man
Drago said...
Have any of LLR Chuck's many, many, many leftist operational allies and advocates located any target symbols on a wafflehouse on a website or tweet by someone who may or may not even be a republican yet?
I'll wait patiently until they do.
Your sick obsession with me has gotten so bad, that even if I wanted to understand what you were writing, I don't think that I could.
Me: "Fopdoodles are notoriously poor at logic."
Chuck: "...even if I wanted to understand what you were writing, I don't think that I could."
Some times the fopdoodle makes my job here really easy.
They caught him.
About the Father: I've seen one paraphrase from a police official saying that the Father returned the guns to the Son. That may be true, but has anyone seen a direct quote or any evidence that verifies this.
Rabel,
The guns would have been cataloged and cross-checked against the one in the Waffle House. So that seems easily verifiable.
Never believe anything written in the first 48 hours, as a rule.
"The guns would have been cataloged and cross-checked against the one in the Waffle House."
Yes, but my question is whether the Father "gave" the guns back to the Son.
So now they caught him.
Interesting, that we are now seeing more and more of these guys get caught, instead of their committing suicide on the spot with a sidearm, or there being a kind of a suicide-by-cop end to their lives. I wonder what anybody might learn from them.
There is a death penalty in Florida; also in Tennessee. I'd bet anything, that neither the Florida shooter nor the Tennessee shooter will get the death penalty. They both have too many mental health issues going on, to warrant an execution. The Aurora (CO) movie theater shooter avoided the death penalty. Dylann Roof avoided a federal death penalty, and then a state (SC) death penalty. They each had fewer mental issues than it seems that the two more recent (FL, and TN) shooters did.
Dylan Roof was sentenced to death by lethal injection and is currently on death row in a federal prison.
Much cheaper to not arrest them. Bullet only costs a quarter.
Rabel said...
Dylan Roof was sentenced to death by lethal injection and is currently on death row in a federal prison.
My bad; he escaped a SC death sentence, but got a federal death sentence. (You'd think it would be the opposite, wouldn't you?)
I appreciate the correction on that one.
"Bowe Bergdahl republican" Chuck: "Your sick obsession with me has gotten so bad, that even if I wanted to understand what you were writing, I don't think that I could."
The question asked was a very simple one, and fairly clearly allude to how your lefty operationally allies tried to pin the Gabby Giffords shooting onto Sarah Palin based on some target on a congressional seat on her website.
Given how insane your operational allies on the left became over that incident I'm not surprised you are playing dumb on their behalf.
Why does Taylor Swift attract so many nut jobs?
The question asked was a very simple one, and fairly clearly allude to how your lefty operationally allies tried to pin the Gabby Giffords shooting onto Sarah Palin based on some target on a congressional seat on her website.
Maybe that was your question; if you insist. But I don't think that politics had anything to do with that shooting. I don't think that a Sarah Palin webpage had anything whatsoever to do with it. Anyone who would think so, is not my ally. I am not their ally.
Only in your sick, obsessional imagination does such an alliance exist.
LLR and #StrongDemDefender Chuck: "Maybe that was your question; if you insist"
LOL
Yeah, maybe the thing I actually wrote is the thing I actually wrote!
Good job there #IBelieveDurbin Chuck.
Sorry about the Comey thing.....
Vichy Chuck: "Anyone who would think so, is not my ally."
LOL
The people who think so are very much on your daily narrative team.
But only all of them.
And only every single day.
Fuck off, Drago. If that was your question, I have already explained what a stupid fucking question it was.
You think that I am somehow "allied" or "aligned' with leftists who blamed a Sarah Palin website for the shooting of Rep. Giffords. It is the sort of thing that you never have the intellectual decency to just ask me about. For your own weird purposes, you choose to troll me about it, serving up a blatantly false version of my own beliefs. When in fact, what I am writing here and now is that I reject that whole anti-gun/anti-Palin campaign and I have always rejected it and I have never believed in it and I wonder why you'd bring that strange off-topic thing up here. I didn't bring it up; it is purely your own trollbait.
When good and serious-minded commenters -- not you of course -- are discussing things like "Red Flag" laws. Just now on NPR, they had a similar discussion, very much along the lines of what we were talking about hours ago on this page. You had nothing to contribute to that; only trolling for me.
You fucking shit head. Do everybody a favor here. Just stop it with your odd, incessant, personalized attacks on me. You're doing it on pages where I haven't even posted a comment of my own. You're not addressing the topics of Althouse's posts; you aren't even addressing the subjects of my comments. You are doing one thing, which is your own insane obsession that I must be a leftist, or a Democrat, or some other liberal progressive, all because I criticize Trump. It's a stupid and tiresome obsession on your part. It's probably the biggest source of what Althouse calls "clutter" on her comments pages.
LLR Chuck: "Fuck off, Drago. If that was your question, I have already explained what a stupid fucking question it was."
tsk tsk
Such salty language. Well, that's to be expected of someone like yourself who thought about joining the military but didn't 'cuz there was no draft.
Good on ya!
Back to the topic: you picked your team and they've picked you. Peas in a pod, so to speak.
Congrats.
LLR and #StrongBlumenthalDefender Chuck: " You are doing one thing, which is your own insane obsession that I must be a leftist, or a Democrat, or some other liberal progressive,..."
I've never accused you of being a leftist, a democrat or liberal progressive.
It's simply impossible not to notice that anyone who fits in those categories is very very very pleased with you.
Unexpectedly.
Personally, I think LLR Chuck is doing a bang up job as Unofficial Blog Monitor for Althouse, where he diligently scours each and every thread for off topic posts and spam....
....that is when he isn't busy spamming every single thread for 2 straight years with anti-Trump bile even when Trump is not remotely the subject of the thread.
Please LLR Chuck, do tell us more about sticking to thread topics....
LOL
"But I don't think that politics had anything to do with that shooting."
Of course it didn't. The objection is to the political left trying to blame Palin.
There are even commenters here who write that mental illness is not a factor in most of these mass shootings.
Michael K said...
"But I don't think that politics had anything to do with that shooting."
Of course it didn't. The objection is to the political left trying to blame Palin.
And I said that as well; that I did not subscribe to those efforts. I am NOT allied with anyone trying to blame Palin. I DO object to the political left trying to blame Palin. I'd be even more fired up about defending Palin, if she weren't such a suckup to Trump. If she'd been a better, more careful advocate for conservative politics. She's way too "reality tv" for my tastes. How she hasn't fit in to a Trump Administration patronage job is odd to me. She must have some more skeletons in her gun cabinet. If the Trump Administration could hire Omarosa and Scaramucci, it's hard to figure how they couldn't find a spot for Palin.
LLR and #IThinkLeftyHackJohnHarwoodIsVeryProfessional Chuck: "And I said that as well; that I did not subscribe to those efforts."
I never said you did subscribe to those efforts.
I merely noted the inescapable observation that you are "narratively" allied and joined at the hip with those who do.
trest
"Henry said...
"If you believe that correct framing for Reinking's murders is the broken mental health system, you need to offer solutions based on both of the following: [followed by list of unpalatable, Draconian, and probably impracticable measures]."
I object to the word "framing" as implying that the "you" addressed is somehow manipulating the facts to fit a preconceived viewpoint.
Leaving that aside, it's illogical to imply that we should ignore a possible cause of mass shootings just because it would be hard to eliminate that cause. If the true cause(s) of mass shootings were easy to eliminate, we would have done it by now.
@openidname -- exactly my point.
You fucking shit head. Do everybody a favor here. Just stop it with your odd, incessant, personalized attacks on me. You're doing it on pages where I haven't even posted a comment of my own. You're not addressing the topics of Althouse's posts; you aren't even addressing the subjects of my comments. You are doing one thing, which is your own insane obsession
He actually had the gall to post this........
"Henry said...
"If you believe that correct framing for Reinking's murders is the broken mental health system, you need to offer solutions based on both of the following: [followed by list of unpalatable, Draconian, and probably impracticable measures]."
Henry. _Prior to the ACLU proclaiming that the mentally ill had rights and did not have to institutionalized people were institutionalized who displayed behavior like the shooters.
Post a Comment