SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
orlando shooting
With History of Domestic Violence, Texas Gunman Fits Mass Shooter Profile
"And yet blinding misogyny is never considered a possible political motivator for mass violence."
Nov 06, 2017
The gunman who killed 26 people and injured 20 at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday had been accused of domestic violence in recent years, making him the latest perpetrator of a mass shooting to have a history of abusing an intimate partner or family members.
Devin Patrick Kelley was court-martialed by the U.S. Air Force and served a year in military prison in 2012 for assaulting his wife and baby stepson. The Texas Department of Public Safety has attributed the shooting to "a domestic situation going on," noting that Kelley's in-laws attended the church and stressing that it was not motivated by beliefs about race, religion, or politics.
But the latest addition to the list of gunmen who have killed in large numbers after their own "domestic situations" and negative statements about women, has left many arguing that violence against partners and children should be taken seriously as a politically-charged behavior--and as a risk factor for other forms of violence.
YES. And yet blinding misogyny is never considered a possible political motivator for mass violence. https://t.co/XyoCiG7yZe
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) November 6, 2017
\u201cFact: Religion isn't an indicator that someone will become a mass shooter and neither is race. Having a history of domestic violence is.\u201d— The Volatile Mermaid (@The Volatile Mermaid) 1509975200
\u201cDevin Kelley was charged with domestic violence well before mass shooting, like other men, but we can keep pretending DV isn't a precursor.\u201d— Tina Vasquez (@Tina Vasquez) 1509976090
On her show Full Frontal last week, Samantha Bee argued that "abused women are the canary in the coal mine for mass shootings," citing a study by Everytown for Gun Safety which showed that in 54 percent of mass shootings, a partner or family member of the attacker was among the victims.
Several recent high-profile shootings involved gunmen who had exhibited violent or threatening behavior toward women:
- Stephen Paddock, who murdered 58 people in Las Vegas just over a month ago, had a history of berating his girlfriend in public, according to eyewitness accounts.
- Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando in 2016, had "no record of previous hate crimes" before the shooting--but physically abused his ex-wife and held her hostage before she divorced him.
- Elliot Rodger, who killed six people near Santa Barbara in 2014, was apparently driven to attack by his misogynist views. After the shooting, authorities found a 140-page manifesto, in which Rodger detailed various perceived slights by women and his plan to "wage a war against all women and the men they are attracted to."
In her segment last week, Bee argued that stronger laws should be passed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, while others have pushed for the recognition of misogyny and violence against women as serious political issues rather than "domestic situations."
As Soraya Chamaly wrote in Rolling Stone after the Pulse shooting, Mateen's ex-wife described him as "showing no sign of violent radicalism," and argued, "it's time our society started to think of physical abuse, possessiveness, and men's entitlement to act in those ways toward women as terroristic, violent and radical."
Keep ReadingShow Less
When Shooter Is White Male, Note Critics, Label of 'Terrorist' Put on Hold
Sunday night's shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival left at least 58 people dead, making it the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history
Oct 02, 2017
As law enforcement officials release more information about Stephen Paddock, the suspect in the Las Vegas shooting that killed nearly 60 people and injured more than 500 Sunday night, much of the reporting on his identity has focused on the fact that he is a "local individual" and a "lone wolf"--terminology that critics say has been used to signify that Paddock was a white male, and therefore not a terrorist.
Paddock resided in Mesquite, Nevada, about 80 miles away from the hotel on the Las Vegas Strip where he opened fire on a crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival just after 10:00pm.
Omar Mateen, the shooter in the June 2016 shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was by definition a "local" as well, living 120 miles from the attack site. The attack was classified as an act of terrorism by President Barack Obama within 12 hours of it taking place, due to Mateen's pledge of allegiance to ISIS during the shooting.
Though the Associated Press reported Monday morning that ISIS had claimed responsibility for the Las Vegas attack, as of 12:00pm the FBI was reporting that it had found "no connection with an international terrorist group" after searching Paddock's home.
Still, journalists and other observers spoke out on social media about the reluctance of local and federal officials to call the attack, now the deadliest mass shooting in American history, an act of domestic terrorism.
In the Washington Post, Aaron Blake wrote that "the vast majority of members of Congress" have not used the words "terror" or "terrorist" in relation to the shooting. "Perhaps they don't want to get ahead of the evidence, but some argue that this is giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt in a way that simply isn't afforded to Muslims who commit such acts," he wrote.
\u201cBecause America still don't know what domestic terrorism -- which has killed more Americans than international terrorism -- is.\n\nBecause the shooter isn't of color they get to be called "local individual" because white people, even when violent, still is granted their humanity. https://t.co/znW2CM2VfA\u201d— Ernest Owens (@Ernest Owens) 1506946828
"Thoughts and prayers."
"Too early to politicize."
"Have some respect for the dead."
"Lone wolf."
"Local individual."
"Disturbed gentleman."-- Ebony Elizabeth (@Ebonyteach) October 2, 2017
\u201cCorrection: The local individual IS a terrorist when he kills 50 innocent people and injures hundreds more. https://t.co/HJpj7CMKxD\u201d— Lisa Lucas (@Lisa Lucas) 1506941105
\u201cAccording to NV LAW, Stephen Paddock is a terrorist. #vegas #shooting\u201d— Demetria Obilor (@Demetria Obilor) 1506943880
\u201cEssentially, by the definition currently in common currency, a white person cannot be a terrorist.\u201d— b-boy bouiebaisse (@b-boy bouiebaisse) 1506944706
At Vox, Jennifer Williams highlighted just a few of the major attacks that have taken place in the U.S. so far this year, all carried out by white men. "In the eight months since Trump took office," she wrote, "more Americans have been killed in attacks by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners...In fact, between 2001 and 2015, more Americans were killed by homegrown right-wing extremists than by Islamist terrorists, according to a study by New America, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Should Abandon Latest Anti-LGBT Effort
Jul 12, 2016
June 2015 was a joyous time for me and LGBT people across the country. The Supreme Court decision extending the freedom to marry to all loving couples was a landmark achievement in the long and ongoing struggle for equality under the law. I was deeply honored to have played a role in helping same-sex couples win this victory.
June 2016, just one month ago, was a time of heartbreak for millions around the world, including myself. The murder of 49 people and wounding of 53 others at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was a devastating tragedy and the worst attack on the LGBT community in our nation's history.
This morning, exactly one month after this horrifying event, I appeared before Congress to discuss a bill, the "First Amendment Defense Act," that would authorize sweeping, taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people. It is deeply hurtful to a still-grieving LGBT community.
This hits particularly close to home for me. My partner and eventual husband of almost 21 years, John Arthur, passed away on October 22, 2013, after a years-long battle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (known as ALS). I was lucky to be able to be with John, caring for him, at every difficult stage of his illness. FADA, however, would allow for any privately owned business to refuse a gay or lesbian employee like myself the ability to take time off to care for a sick spouse, even though this would violate federal family and medical leave laws.
What could ever justify such a discriminatory and harmful action?
John and I had to go to Maryland to get married because our home state of Ohio did not allow same-sex couples to marry. We were only able to do so aboard a medically equipped plane. John's condition was so fragile that we couldn't even leave the plane -- we had to be married on the airport tarmac.
When we returned to Ohio, we learned that I would not be listed on John's death certificate as his surviving spouse when he died, because the state refused to recognize our marriage for any purpose. We decided to fight back in court against this injustice.
Together with partners like the ACLU, we began a legal journey that, sadly, John did not get to see to conclusion. It culminated in a momentous victory for loving and committed couples across the country. I know John would have been proud to have played a role in this historic legal victory for equality.
Even though same-sex couples now have the ability to obtain a civil marriage license in any state in the country, our work to achieve full equality is far from over. It is critically important that our constitutional rights are not undermined by proposals, like FADA, that would subject loving couples, like me and John, and others to discrimination.
Proponents of FADA argue that it is necessary to protect churches, clergy, and others who oppose marriage equality for religious reasons. But the First Amendment is already clear on this point. Since the founding of this country, no church or member of the clergy has been forced to marry any couple if doing so would violate their religious teachings. That has not changed since same-sex couples won the freedom to marry.
Religious liberty is a core American value. Everyone in this country is free to believe (or not believe) and to live out their faith as they see fit, provided that they do not do so in a way that harms other people. As I see it, this legislation turns this value on its head by permitting discrimination and harm under the guise of religious liberty.
Given the way that this legislation is drafted, its harms are not limited to LGBT people or same-sex couples. Indeed, women, particularly single mothers, and unmarried couples could also find themselves on the receiving end of discriminatory treatment if this proposal were ever to be signed into law.
For example, the legislation could allow certain social service programs that receive federal funding, including homeless shelters, to turn away a single mother and her child. In addition, it could permit any non-profit university to continue to receive federal funding even when it fires an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant.
It is difficult for me to imagine why anyone would think such discrimination should be permitted in the year 2016. I believe that the United States Congress must be better than this.
I hope that Congress will move away from elevating proposals like this that only serve to harm a vulnerable community. Congress should stand on the right side of history by steadfastly rejecting this mean-spirited and discriminatory proposal. I hope that we instead look at ways to protect LGBT people and others in America from violence, discrimination, and harm.
Everyone deserves the freedom to live their life without fearing discrimination or worse, simply because of who they are or whom they love.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular