Emergency Alert - Dangerous man with Gun NW Calgary

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

This is the kind of stuff people are saying about the guy on reddit in addition to the post I was quoting above:



I strongly question how this person was able to slip through the screening process without either someone lying on his behalf, or someone on the approval board not doing their due diligence. This was a licenced and legally purchased firearm responsible for two innocent lives.

What due diligence do you think catches a guy with anger issues unless he's been actually violent to the point of being charged before? Or that a person can't find references that are not aware of anger issues?

[Jason14h]

Reading their message board posts !!!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

This is the kind of stuff people are saying about the guy on reddit in addition to the post I was quoting above:



I strongly question how this person was able to slip through the screening process without either someone lying on his behalf, or someone on the approval board not doing their due diligence. This was a licenced and legally purchased firearm responsible for two innocent lives.

I mean, I have no idea. The person I acted as a reference for I know very well. If someone lied to the screening officer then that should absolutely be a crime. But just acting as a reference by itself shouldn't be a crime, imo, even if the person does subsequently commit a crime with the gun. I never promised the government my friend wouldn't commit crimes, I just answered their questions honestly and they decided whether he was qualified to own a firearm.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

What due diligence do you think catches a guy with anger issues unless he's been actually violent to the point of being charged before? Or that a person can't find references that are not aware of anger issues?

I guess it could be a lesson that if you know someone has a gun, and is doing stuff like this, tell the cops so they can take the gun. I don't at all want to blame he victims here, just that it's something you may not think of but could save lives. Having a gun makes some people feel more powerful, so though knives can kill people too, I think someone strugling mentally may be more likely to act with that power available to them easily.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

This is the kind of stuff people are saying about the guy on reddit in addition to the post I was quoting above:



I strongly question how this person was able to slip through the screening process without either someone lying on his behalf, or someone on the approval board not doing their due diligence. This was a licenced and legally purchased firearm responsible for two innocent lives.

Look, many unsavoury people learn how to mimic normal human behaviour and regular appearing emotions in a surface level way in non depth relationships

All kinds of weirdos can carry on normal looking lives and only those really close to them experience their true versions and understand them.

I know we are all upset about what happened here; but the only person to blame is Benedict. I’m sure if he wanted to carry these murders out enough that he would find away outside of gun ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Look, many unsavoury people learn how to mimic normal human behaviour and regular appearing emotions in a surface level way in non depth relationships

All kinds of weirdos can carry on normal looking lives and only those really close to them experience their true versions and understand them.

I know we are all upset about what happened here; but the only person to blame is Benedict. I’m sure if he wanted to carry these murders out enough that he would find away outside of gun ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds bad but it would be so much better if they just killed themselves

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Sounds bad but it would be so much better if they just killed themselves

If that's the way it's going, it's kind of the best case scenario.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Although I have no evidence to suggest anything in this particular case, there does seem to be a pattern of very violent and devastating murder/suicides involving parents and their children if there is a divorce/custody case.

People lose their minds in divorce/custody battles, try and extract maximum damage of a former spouse or partner and things just go south and become violent/deadly.

I really think it's important for legal teams to actually be open and honest upfront. People who try and go for the jugular, promise to fight tooth and nail for no visitation rights, take every last nickle from their former partner and more should really be cautioned on the risks.

These type of tragic cases are happening a lot in Canada and I can't help but think that family breakdowns and long lasting court battles and fight till the death mentality may be playing a significant role here.

Just brutal for all involved.

I disagree.

The most dangerous time for the victim of domestic violence is when they attempt to leave the relationship. The woman who was murdered in front of the school (last?) year was also the victim of an abusive relationship.

Intimate partner murder almost always is the culmination of an abusive relationship. It often happens around the time of divorce, because the abuser is finally losing control and responds with violence.

[afc wimbledon]

There tend to be two kinds of child killers in domestic cases, either they kill the kids to punish the wife for disobeying/leaving them, they tend to kill the kids first, even leave the wife alive

The second type kills the wife and then takes the kids, goes on the run, ends up killing the kids because (in their warped minds) the kids are better off dead than not having them to look after them because only they love the kids and can look after them, basically this world is horrible and we are all going to heaven together to be a proper family

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

Look, many unsavoury people learn how to mimic normal human behaviour and regular appearing emotions in a surface level way in non depth relationships

All kinds of weirdos can carry on normal looking lives and only those really close to them experience their true versions and understand them.

I know we are all upset about what happened here; but the only person to blame is Benedict. I’m sure if he wanted to carry these murders out enough that he would find away outside of gun ownership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So many people are "weirdos" under their veil of societally conditioned behaviors and responses.

Let's not malign not being cookie-cutter because so many people aren't actually and we're all pretending or playing roles on some level.

How many times a day do you say some conventional platitude you don't actually mean nor want to say but do it out or politeness? Any one in the service industry is doing it constantly. If we were filter-less we'd all be the weirdos we try to paint more honest people as.

And a lot of big hit movies and shows display outlandish and risky behavior most wouldn't be bold enough nor legally allowed to get away with IRL. There's a reason for that. Most people are suppressed on some level, and watching these characters is a form of release experienced vicariously.

The people we're talking about are on fhe fringes of that bell curve, who have maladaptive traits and who can't be satiated by normal escapism or healthy forms of blowing off steam. They can't self soothe and go from 0 to 100 way too quickly in pedestrian situations.

It's about dangerous tendencies in a person and a disregard for consequences more than anything else.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

So many people are "weirdos" under their veil of societally conditioned behaviors and responses.

Let's not malign not being cookie-cutter because so many people aren't actually and we're all pretending or playing roles on some level.

How many times a day do you say some conventional platitude you don't actually mean nor want to say but do it out or politeness? Any one in the service industry is doing it constantly. If we were filter-less we'd all be the weirdos we try to paint more honest people as.

And a lot of big hit movies and shows display outlandish and risky behavior most wouldn't be bold enough nor legally allowed to get away with IRL. There's a reason for that. Most people are suppressed on some level, and watching these characters is a form of release experienced vicariously.

The people we're talking about are on fhe fringes of that bell curve, who have maladaptive traits and who can't be satiated by normal escapism or healthy forms of blowing off steam. They can't self soothe and go from 0 to 100 way too quickly in pedestrian situations.

It's about dangerous tendencies in a person and a disregard for consequences more than anything else.

When I said weirdos I meant it vaguely, more referring to how many narcicisicts, psychopaths, Machiavellians, sociopaths, etc live among us and it can be hard to identify them unless you interact as part of their inner circle. It’s the callous, low empathy people that end up dangerous. But not obvious when these people are leading companies, are husbands, parents, supposed leaders in the community.

I’m not meaning to talk about well intended people struggling with social interaction or illness.

Apologies for the misunderstanding and poor choice of words on my part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the-rasta-masta]

My nephew is in Grade 1 in the school that the victim taught at, her class was right next to his and one of her own children is in his class. I don't know how you possibly explain this to a bunch of Grade 1 and 2 kids in her class.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

My nephew is in Grade 1 in the school that the victim taught at, her class was right next to his and one of her own children is in his class. I don't know how you possibly explain this to a bunch of Grade 1 and 2 kids in her class.

You don't, you just say "Oh unfortunately Mrs. K won't be back to teach you this year, here is your new teacher for the remainder of the year" -- that age of kids won't question it further. The parents will all know what happened and it should be up to them to explain to their children beyond that if they wish to.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I was a firearms reference for someone a number of years ago. He’s a crazy maga pro Russia conspiracy theorist racist homophobic lunatic now but he was perfectly normal when I provided the reference.

Should I call the government back 8 years later and tell them there is something else they should know?

Personally, I think that it's totally reasonable if not an obligation for you to "call the government" back on this guy, your instinct is correct. But I understand the hesitation.

Is there a number for that? Will they actually do anything about it? Would you know? Should they send in Captain Mental Health and the Emotional Regulationeers? Would authorities moving in to seize his weapons do anything other than reinforce his paranoia or whatever else is going on?

Of course it seems preposterous to do what feels right, given how things play out.

But really, I think you're correct and should try. The big thing is that it sounds like you're no longer comfortable enough to have this person in your life as a friend. If you're distancing yourself from them, that's kind of a huge flag, isn't it? Did you try to help him out of his spiral while he was on his way down?

This is a good example of why mental health support is such a challenge. Random friends and family aren't necessarily equipped to deal when things get real. I have mental health struggles, and can say that a lot of the system I've contacted is also not really equipped to help me much, either.

As for the suggestion of punishing people who provide character reference for someone who ends up committing violence with their weapons... I think that would only be applicable in cases where the reference provider was actively participating in the actions or knowingly covering up issues (lying) to help the person get armed, and that would be hard to prove.

Otherwise, what is the use of having three difference references and a process that reviews those? How often are applications denied? Why wouldn't the officers reviewing the applications be reprimanded for lax screening? Why wouldn't the person providing the reference be given some kind of non-jail consequence like losing their ability to provide references for x years, or losing access to their weapons for x years instead?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

You don't, you just say "Oh unfortunately Mrs. K won't be back to teach you this year, here is your new teacher for the remainder of the year" -- that age of kids won't question it further. The parents will all know what happened and it should be up to them to explain to their children beyond that if they wish to.

No matter what the rumour mill in school will have every kid knowing within days. So I think you disclose the death but not the circumstances of the death and have counciling services for the kids and teachers available.

I think setting an atmosphere of not talking about what happened would be negative. We had a teacher die for a health issue a few years ago and I think saying she won’t be back teaching any more would have been insulting everyone’s intelligence. Not quite analogous but openess here is likely appropriate.

I assume given the break in the school year that they have child psychologists and teachers making the plan and are informing parents about what they will be doing in advance.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I guess it could be a lesson that if you know someone has a gun, and is doing stuff like this, tell the cops so they can take the gun. I don't at all want to blame he victims here, just that it's something you may not think of but could save lives. Having a gun makes some people feel more powerful, so though knives can kill people too, I think someone strugling mentally may be more likely to act with that power available to them easily.

Well, sure, but that's after the fact. This is a complaint that the government should have did more digging. Aside from calling the handpicked references, what more can they do? I do know they call the spouse, whether he or she is a reference or not, and I'm assuming a negative response would be an automatic disqualification.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

No matter what the rumour mill in school will have every kid knowing within days. So I think you disclose the death but not the circumstances of the death and have counciling services for the kids and teachers available.

I think setting an atmosphere of not talking about what happened would be negative. We had a teacher die for a health issue a few years ago and I think saying she won’t be back teaching any more would have been insulting everyone’s intelligence. Not quite analogous but openess here is likely appropriate.

I assume given the break in the school year that they have child psychologists and teachers making the plan and are informing parents about what they will be doing in advance.

I think when bad things happen it's important we never talk about it, make up excuses, and bury our feelings. That'll work out well for everyone.