Terrorists are training school shooters now.

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/documents-man-training-kids-for-school-shooting/1354582454

This is probably the nastiest bit of news to pop up this year. 11 starving children found in a "compound" straight out of the third world. Not to mention the dead kid they found there, most likely, but not confirmed to be the kidnapped child mentioned in the quote.

The guy's terrorist ties.

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexic...nd-case-has-ties-to-93-wtc-bombing/1356306140

Here's the CNN article on the story.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/us/new-mexico-compound-children/index.html

Waco redux?

More like a terror cell.

It seems like you really want this to be terrorism, but all I'm seeing is child abuse.

I guess teaching kids how to shoot up schools is only child abuse and not also terrorism then.

Okay, I read the linked article. OP was apparently too lazy to include the relevant bit. Seems weird only one kid mentioned it, though.

Thoughts and prayers tho, amirite?

One kid so far, this is still in the early stages

So what is the difference between this and the right wing training their kids to shoot and hate the libruls schools? Let us include all the terrorists and not forget the wackydoodles on the right who are training their kids for things like race wars. I am good with a pile of terrorists as long as we can toss Alex Jones and qanon on top of it. Just saying they are more dangerous locally than any Muslims who might be in small terror cells.

That's a fair point. Obviously no one condones starving or abusing children, but homeschooling kids and teaching them about guns from an early age is supposed to be a good thing, so long as conservative Christians are doing it.

Tell that to the sandy hook kids.this idea that people with mental troubles step up and becomes a better person because you trained them to handle a deadly weapon is stupid. That is as dumb as pray the voices away. You don't give crazy and unstable a firearm and hope it becomes stable and reliable. That makes shooting we can prevent. Even if it is just a small part of our gun problem those are easy to save victims, or low hanging fruit. Violent crime may be a hard to handle issue with gun rights, but crazies with guns is something we can do better with quite easily.

I have to agree with you, nobody wants a mentally unstable person with a gun. The discussion needs to be one about improving and increasing our mental health services, though, and not one of banning firearms. Taking away guns isn't going to stop a schizophrenic person from hearing voices, if they believe killing someone is going to stop armageddon from happening, they will find a way to kill someone.

So you are cool with selling guns to crazy people and making it easier for them to get guns because they might break the law and get a gun through non legal channels if we stopped selling them guns. Well why don't we stop limiting sales of tobacco and alcohol to minors because some kids are going to get those products anyway. Why do we even have laws when someone might break one? Your argument sucks and is fail. We can certainly limit sales to crazy people and do much better on limitations and prevent some deaths and injuries.

The fact is you know you are an obvious violent unstable but and would be limited from purchasing if we had limits. That is not a good reason for us to throw our hands up in the air and not make regulations and enforce them hard core on items that are only there to kill.

That is some world class mental gymnastics right there. Wanting to discuss mental illness instead of banning the scary thing means I want to make it easier for the crazies to get guns.

You are the one who tried to skip over stricter gun sales and making sure crazies don't get guns and just say better mental health. That is a total cop out trying to brush off actually doing something while pretending to be reasonable. It is not reasonable unless we start restricting sales to crazies and people who live with them, and make an effort to update gun ownership and remove guns from people who become unstable or commit crimes.

That bullshit pretense of agreeing while still saying no restrictions is something that might work on others but you need to step up with me because I don't cut that slack for shit like you anymore. You are not reasonable and I won't pretend you are for civility. When we do that you start putting on pointy white hoods and screaming for fascism.

One more thing chicken little. Do remember it is you who needs a gun to sleep well at night because you are a coward and need a safety blanket. The scary things are why you have a gun, so let us not pretend you are a big dog when you quiver in fear like the chihuahua in the cold that you are.

I absolutely believe in restricting gun sales to the mentally ill. I just want to make sure that any such laws are just, and that the mentally ill get help.

We all know what happens when we believe you and come out with some laws that would restrict the mentally ill from owning guns. You freak out and call everyone gun grabbers and complain we are taking away guns from everyone. We have heard it before. We should still do it, but we should not let you interfere with your lies and bullshit. You will never be pleased, and we should really stop including you in the conversation since we already know your answer is no. We can just assume you object because Obama and go on with business.

The "mentally ill" are just another scapegoat in this mess. With very few exceptions, these school shooters are all entitled wyboiz who for whatever reason never seem to flag for crazy, no matter howany reports get called in. Hell, the Vegas shooting investigation closed and they still had no motive for that fucker.

As many have pointed out, far often than not the ones who get caught up in such laws are--you guessed it--brown people. You'll get a lotta BLM suddenly being labeled crazy while the Klan go about their day unchecked.

Fuck it.

Ban all the guns.

Racism is well and thriving in Australia with the immigration laws that Dinner beats his meat to. We don't need the weapons to keep that up.

You have actual examples of this from unimpeachable sources?

Stop using big words you do not understand. Really, you think Alex Jones and Twitler are decent sources. There is no satisfying a person so caught up in fantasy land.

Now? Pfft. The NRA has been training school shooters for years.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, they are all out on bail. That they don't have to pay for. Save for Wahhaj, and that's only because he's wanted in another state.

https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexic...ounty-compound-case-to-be-released/1365269330

This state has some serious issues keeping people in jail. One kid dead, 11 others found starving, living in conditions no human being should ever have to live in. New Mexico is really shitty like that, it's had problems for years being able to keep someone locked up until trial.

That a kid died in a "religious ceremony" doesn't seem to matter to this judge. Nor that the child had been kidnapped or taken by a felon fleeing the law for past criminal misconduct.

Since they are now out on bail, maybe they can pick up baby-sitting jobs to pay back whoever bailed them out! That's only fair.
So what do you have to be charged with to be denied bail in New Mexico anyway?

It's extremely rare, A realtor who got high on meth and ran a homeless person over got out AFTER threatening his family.

https://www.krqe.com/news/man-accus...less-man-asks-judge-to-be-released/1009457393

Pimping out a kid'll do it, though.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/teri-sanchez-bail-appeal-denied/4954470/

Some people do not understand how bail works according to this article. Bail is taken as a guarantee you will return to court. It is not the fine or punishment for the crime. If they violate the terms of their arrest their bail will be forfeit and a warrant issued for their arrest. This money is technically returned upon the end of the trial if they obey the terms of their release, but will be used towards their fines if guilty. This is not the fine they will get if found guilty as is suggested by the article.

I will say this does seem minimal considering their crimes, but new Mexico authorities will face massive public backlash if they don't return for trial and have to be recaptured. Maybe there are reasons to believe they will not run we are not aware of. The low amount does not make me happy, but people are entitled to bail while awaiting trial.

Only, they aren't out anything, they have to pay if they don't show. It's called a signature bond.

If their only crime is against children and they are not considered to be able to reoffend then perhaps the court felt there was no danger to the community as long as the children are no longer in their care and authorities are able to keep track of them. This does seem to be a rather specific crime which does not involve active kidnapping, as far as I am aware.

You also have to remember those states seem to be chock full of drug and immigration people who would be overcrowding processing facilities who have to take care of people awaiting trial. Judges may be under pressure to set bail and release programs to avoid overcrowding. Convicted criminals go to different facilities than those awaiting trial. It costs extra for security in processing because of the need to go back and forth to court and to give lawyers more access to clients.

I agree that does seem small, but they have different concerns for holding prisoners and do a lot to get people out.

wow Tererun with the inside scoop on the judicial system! All good points that's for sure.