Accused church shooter threatened to kill wife, himself

[LiberalEsto]

Source: Knoxnews.com

By Bob Fowler (Contact)
Originally published 12:09 p.m., July 28, 2008
Updated 03:00 p.m., July 28, 2008

The man who is accused of Sunday's church shooting was described today by a long-time acquaintance as a loner who hates "blacks, gays and anyone different from him.''

An accomplished musician, Jim David Adkisson was carrying a shotgun instead of a guitar in a guitar case when he went into Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church Sunday morning and started shooting.

Adkisson's ex-wife, Liza Alexander of Powell, was a former long-time member of the church, congregant Barbara Kemper said today.




Read more: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/woman-accused-shooter-hated-anyone-different-him/

---

Seems this guy had a track record. This particular ex-wife was a UU and a member of this congregation. He put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her several years ago.

[stray cat]

1. i guess thats the connection - the ex-wife was a member

[hedgehog]

2. This is an example of the type of gun control legislation that is needed.

Once he threatened his wife, he should have lost his right to own a gun, period. Of course, it would have been nice if he'd been arrested fro threatening his wife!

[LiberalEsto]

3. Absolutely

Of course this is gun-lovin', con-fed-rut Tennessee

[TNDemo]

4. Not where he's from,

which is where I grew up. The eastern half of the state was Union, only Nashville and Memphis areas going confederate (which are the ones that vote democratic).

[LiberalEsto]

6. Thanks for setting me straight on that nt

[slackmaster]

5. Yes, he should have been charged with felony assault for that

Convicted, and stripped of his right to own a gun.

[aspergris]

12. He was already stripped of his right

UPON ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER

per VAWA, which is federal and applies to every state

[slackmaster]

14. Yes, you are right about that

But I believe Connecticut is the only state where that aspect of protective orders gets actively enforced.

[aspergris]

15. Um, no

I've been a police officer in more than one state.

Trust me. It gets enforced.


VAWA is taken very seriously.

Aspects of it I disagree with, but overall it's good law.

[aspergris]

10. Um ... he already did

he did lose his right. He lost his right once the order was issued.

Iow, he was illegally in possession of a gun when he committed the murders, if he had an active order against him

[HopeHoops]

7. Looks like a terrorist to me!

I doubt the FOX Opinion Network will spend much time on this one - he doesn't "look like a terrorist". Now, a slight skin color change, different clothes - THEN we would be talking 24x7 coverage. Or what if he had hated conservatives and went after a televangelist's church? I suspect that would get 24x7 coverage on FOX also.

At least he avoided hitting the children.

[LiberalEsto]

8. The real terrorism, IMHO

exists in our insane gun laws. The real terrorists are the NRA.

This man somehow was able to own weapons despite the fact that he had put a gun to his ex-wife's head and threatened to kill her a few years earlier. He should have gotten jail time for that, or been placed in a psychiatric hospital. He should have been banned from buying guns permanently.

I think this guy is deeply mentally ill, but I wouldn't be surprised if he felt encouraged by all the venom on the hate media.

[atreides1]

9. No charges no crime, no taking away of his gun

"This man somehow was able to own weapons despite the fact that he had put a gun to his ex-wife's head and threatened to kill her a few years earlier."


Doesn't look like he was ever charged with a crime, but she did get an order of protection and filed for divorce.


"The real terrorists are the NRA."

I guess I'm a terrorist then, since I'm a member of the NRA! By the way that comment makes you an ass.

[LiberalEsto]

11. If NRA members consider me an ass, that's fine with me

I'm not particularly concerned with the opinion of the NRA or its members.

This guy should have been charged with a crime in connection with his threats to his wife. Threatening to take a life is an indictable crime where I come from. Putting a gun to someone's head is considered assault.

I am amazed that he was not charged and prosecuted, and would like to know more of the details about that incident. If he had been serving time for that assault, maybe this wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately, law enforcement in too many places is lax about protecting women from domestic violence.

[aspergris]

16. That's not how it works

The statements made on affidavits for protection orders are not admissible in court.

Hearsay.

So, you need the alleged victim who applied for the restraining order to be willing TO testify in a criminal trial AND you need enough evidence to charge.

You don't understand the process.

An order can be issued (temporary) ex parte. THEN, there is a hearing to extend it to permanent status, which has no jury, relaxed rules of evidence, and a mere preponderance of evidence to win (vs. a criminal trial with requires beyond a reasonable doubt).

Put simply, allegations in an order affidavit =/= (necesasrily) enough evidence even for a TRIAL let alone a conviction.

and again, that's ASSUMING the petitioner on the order would cooperate in a criminal trial.

[benEzra]

22. The NRA had nothing to do with authorities not bothering to prosecute him for felony assault.

That was TN authorities' job, which they apparently dropped the ball on, unless the wife refused to press charges (which is possible, I suppose).

Yes, putting a gun to someone's head is felony aggravated assault in Tennessee, too (as it is everywhere).

[aspergris]

13. actually, not exactly true

under the VAWA, if he had an active DV protection order against him, he was prohibited from owning or possessin a gun

Iow, one can have one's gun rights stripped WITHOUT being convicted of a crime (among other reasons) if somebody has been issued an active DV protection order.


The standard is not Beyond a reasonable doubt for orders. it's preponderance of the evidence, much like a civil trial. There is no jury. It's a hearing before a judge.

[benEzra]

21. Oh, good grief. The laws were already on the books...

just not enforced.

The fact that TN authorities apparently didn't bother to prosecute him for felony assault on his wife, and didn't pursue any mental health treatment, doesn't change the fact that laws as you advocate are already in place.

Agree with you about the media venom, though. I also noticed that he is a truck driver who either lost his job or couldn't make ends meet. Wonder what role, if any, financial stress from diesel prices played in this.

BTW, his ex-wife was a member of that church at one point, AFAIK. I wonder if that's why he targeted it, and if there was a sense that her association with them allowed her to leave him.

[Ian David]

17. Is this the same guy?

[gatorboy]

18. Holy cow. Where did you find those?

[Ian David]

19. Not my imagination, right? That COULD be the same guy? Perry Logan might be Jim David Adkisson?

http://perrylogan.org/

[Pavulon]

20. Guy is spewing tells

we have no mental health system to deal with this stuff. Just like the guy at UV, he could have been stopped.

People with mental illness threaten people with weapons.

That is a RED FLAG.

If this guy just blew his brains out because he was mentally ill he would be another number.

That does NOT release him from responsibility and he will probably be executed.

My point is we owe victims some recourse for these people.