Alleged Charleston Shooter in Custody in S.C.

21-year-old Dylann Storm Roof, of Eastover, SC, is in custody in Charleston, SC. He was arrested after a traffic stop in Shelby, NC, waived extradition and was flown back to Charleston.

His friends say he was planning the attack for some time: [More...]

Dylann Roof, the alleged gunman in Wednesday's attack in Charleston, had been “planning something like that for six months,” his roommate, Dalton Tyler, told ABC News.

“He was big into segregation and other stuff,” Tyler said. “He said he wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.”

Another friend, Joey Meek, said Roof wanted to start a race war.

More here.

< Court Reduces Arellano-Felix Life Sentence to 23.5 Years | Brian Williams Demoted, Will Return to MSNBC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    reload times five (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    The NY Times quotes a witness as saying that Roof reloaded his gun five times as he murdered these people.  Too bad that no one there was a law-abiding possessor of a concealed weapon who could have shot down Roof as he was reloading and before he murdered more people.


    And there it is... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    [rolling eyes]

    Just like Aurora, where people thought it would make sense for more wild-a$$ed shooting to be the response to that shooting incident.  Because it's a given, I guess, that bullets flying from multiple directions would only have hit the shooter, and not anyone else in the theater, right?

    I can't stand it.


    Armed at Church... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    ...how grotesquely republican.

    I just wish one of these 'what if'ers would actually stop a shooting instead of implying that they could.  In Aurora, statically speaking 5 people should have have a weapon in the theatre.


    An example of why Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    generally are not really very Christian....

    Generally (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:19:48 PM EST
    Republican ideology is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus.

    You knew it was coming (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    "Too bad" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    ... it's so easy to get a gun in SC.  One of those red states with the highest rates of gun deaths in the country (9th highest).

    Ages of the victims (none / 0) (#100)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:00:17 PM EST
    Most of the victims were older women.

    There are some amazing people (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    in this world:
    "You took something very precious to me, I will never talk to her again, never hold her again, but I forgive you," said the daughter of one of the victims, Ethel Lance. "You hurt me, you hurt a lot of people but God forgive you and I forgive you."

    Appearing by video link from jail, the 21-year-old Roof, who was handcuffed and wore a striped jail jumpsuit, often pursed his lips, closed his eyes, or stared at the floor as the relatives of five victims spoke to the court at the bond hearing.

    Roof's distinctive bowl hair, shown in surveillance photos outside the church on Wednesday, the night of the killings, was stringy and unkempt. He often appeared to take a sharp breath of air during the proceedings.

    The sister of another victim, DePayne Middleton-Doctor, addressed the hearing amid sniffles and sobs in the tiny courtroom.

    She said her sister "taught me me that we are the family that love built, we have no room for hate, so we have to forgive. And I pray to God for your soul and I also thank God that I will be around when your judgment day comes with Him. May God bless you."

    Man, Those People... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    ...are better than me.

    I can see forgiving with time, but not anywhere near this close.  Like a decade or two.


    My thoughts exactly. (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    I have to question the last one (none / 0) (#116)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    I also thank God that I will be around when your judgment day comes with Him.

    Sounds to me like she forgives him and is looking forward to his execution. Although it's possible her words are a bit mixed up under the strain.


    surrounding sentences seemed to contradict that one, and she's under a lot of strain as you said, so I gave her a pass...

    Or she plans to be standing next to (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    St. Peter at the pearly gates when Roof is denied admission to heaven and consigned to hell.

    I don't see anything contradictionary. (none / 0) (#132)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    She said she forgives him; She would never be so bold as to presume to speak for God, however.

    watching a pretty fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    discussion of the confederate flag on the Hayes show.  He interviewed a republican state rep who says he plans to sponsor a bill to take it down.
    Along with other local republicans who are on board.

    I think this might be it for the flag.  Even flimsy Lindsey says he is "open to discussing it"

    The worst (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:12:22 PM EST
    part is it actually took the murder of nine people before the cowards in SC would do something about it. They had the chance to do the right thing years ago and did not do it.

    ... from the right, because they'll surely be courting one. Attempts at the turn of the 21st century to remove the flag from the South Carolina capitol building, and further remove its representation within the state flag of Georgia, ultimately cost the governors of both those states -- both Democrats back then -- their jobs.

    The yelling (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    and squealing has already started. I seriously doubt that they are going to get it removed. After all SC is a tea party state and we all know how most of them think.

    Mitt Romney of all people has come out and said it should be removed. It looks like this is yet another issue that is going to be dragging on the GOP going into the 2016 presidential election.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    am halfway expecting some group to take it down as an act of civil disobedience. Picture a group of church leaders marching up to the capitol armed only with their faith(and boltcutters of course) and yanking that sucker down.

    They'd have to elude security, hop a (none / 0) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 10:25:45 PM EST
    fence, and scale a 30 foot flagpole on the Capitol grounds. There is no other way to yank it down. It's affixed to the top of the pole. There is no pulley system.

    Gee, I wonder why (none / 0) (#158)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    that might be. I guess it will take an 85-year-old Catholic nun to do it, then.

    Ok new plan (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    armed with faith, bolt-cutters , a boom-truck, and an 85 year old Nun to supervise.

    Don't forget to line the bucket with kevlar. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 21, 2015 at 08:27:01 PM EST
    Every gun nut in the state will be firing in your general direction when they see what you're trying to take down.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    It certainly would keep the GOP presidential candidates from having to answer a question about it now wouldn't it?

    George W. Bush loved that flag.


    Perhaps Pres. Obama's plea for (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:17:00 PM EST
    legislation controlling guns will also find previous opponents iopen to discussing it.

    Longer odds on that one (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    i would say

    An NYT supports your statement. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    In your dreams, oculus. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    And in mine, too.

    Don't plan on it happening anytime soon (none / 0) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    It needs a two-thirds vote in each branch of the General Assembly to change anything with that flag flying in Columbia. That's why it couldn't even fly at half mast. It stays illuminated 30 feet above the ground, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by law.

    Didn't mean soon necessarily (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 07:39:19 AM EST
    it won't go up fir a vote until after January.

    An election-year issue in that state (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    ... into special session, or a two-thirds majority of legislators in both chambers do so themselves. I've seen special sessions called for much less, but given the make-up of the SC legislature, that's likely not going to happen here.

    Donald: Don't know if you saw today (none / 0) (#149)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    that (1) Mitt Romney--he of the Repub party--stated that the CSA flag should come down because it is offensive many people (apparently, the now-tweeted position had been his position earlier in 2008) and (2) Reference is made to Jeb Bush having ordered the CSA flag down in Miami when he was governor.  

    Interesting--given the present proclivities of the Repub party insofar as issues of race are concerned.  Wonder if this could be a time-is-right bandwagon thing.  IMO, whatever it takes to grow that bandwagon to help others with the correct step of taking it down.  (BTW, glancing through Kevin Drum's blog earlier today, he described how the S.C. flag happened to be there so long ... beginning with the initial intent to be up for one week in April 1961 for a commemoration surrounding Ft. Sumner, but obtaining a lengthened stay to one year after that ... As Drum notes, the year is long past.)


    One thing I learned from this debate (none / 0) (#155)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 08:32:59 PM EST
    Is that the flag in question was never the official flag of the confederate states. Apparently it was only a battle flag.

    Regardless, it has come to represent the old south that many would like leave in the past. If enough people vote to get rid of it then so be it.

    In the mean time people like Michael Moore tweeting for people to go out and tear them down are inciting riot and conspiring to commit theft and vandalism.if people want to burn them or wipe their ass with one they can buy their own flag. I fully support their right to do so.


    It's worse (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 08:36:33 PM EST
    than just a battle flag. It was the flag of the Tennessee Regiment that Nathan Bedford Forest later adopted as the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan. So if you're going to pick a confederate battle flag to fly you pick the one and only one adapted by the Klan?

    The chattering class (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    is already buzzing about the death penalty.   Should he get the state death penalty or the federal death penalty.  Can we kill him twice?  Who get to go first, state or Feds?

    I truly hope this person escapes the death penalty.  And it has nothing to do with compassion.  I want him to go to jail for a long long time.  He will be very popular there.

    I don't believe in capital punishment ... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:48:49 AM EST
    ... under any circumstances. I never have, and I never will. Personally, I consider it to be nothing more than state-sanctioned homicide and a modern-day barbarity, none of which has any place in 21st century American society.

    Agreed. Also, sometimes innocent people (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by McBain on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    get put to death.  You can't unring that bell.

    Saw this on twitter.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    You know (4.00 / 3) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 08:36:35 PM EST
    the tragedy is, there are so many who love that symbol and who see it as completely innocuous,  and who btw often have completely unveiled racist views, I have written about some of my own family members, but who would never in a million years dream of doing or encouraging anyone to do what this person did.
    The tragedy is they seem incapable of understanding that by the things they say and do they absolutely do encourage such things.   But they will never see it.  Or understand it.   They can't.  To do so would be to literally deconstruct their entire version of reality.   They are incapable of it.
    They will simply have to die off.  And the bad news, you don't see those flags on old peoples cars.  You see them on the cars of people around the age of Dylan Roof.
    I really believe that symbol has very different meanings to the old people who originally fought to keep it over the capital and the new generation who see something else.

    It seems more popular all the time.


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    it is kind of surprising with the young people but some of them really don't even understand the history of the flag, it's use by the KKK etc. Some of the young people DO understand it's history and embrace that and that is the scary part.

    And then with some of them it is just a stupid phase. My neighbor's daughter wanted one and she said well, I'm not going to say you can't have it but I am gonna say that there's no bigger symbol of a redneck loser than that flag but if you want to announce to everybody that you're a redneck loser go ahead. The daughter decided not to get one.


    My rebellious nephew (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:29:00 PM EST
    was planning to get a tattoo when he lived with me.

    I said you get it you move out.  He didn't.


    Millemials (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    Aren't really any more post-racial than any other generation

    But the truth is that the kids are not all right when it comes to racial equality. Studies have shown that millennials are just about as racist as previous generations:

    When it comes to explicit prejudice against blacks, non-Hispanic white millennials are not much different than whites belonging to Generation X (born 1965-1980) or Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964). White millennials (using a definition of being born after 1980) express the least prejudice on 4 out of 5 measures in the survey, but only by a matter of 1 to 3 percentage points, not a meaningful difference. On work ethic, 31 percent of millennials rate blacks as lazier than whites, compared to 32 percent of Generation X whites and 35 percent of Baby Boomers.

    As Jamelle Bouie at Slate noted:

    Millennials have grown up in a world where we talk about race without racism -- or don't talk about it at all -- and where "skin color" is the explanation for racial inequality, as if ghettos are ghettos because they are black, and not because they were created. As such, their views on racism -- where you fight bias by denying it matters to outcomes -- are muddled and confused.

    Which gets to the irony of this survey: A generation that hates racism but chooses colorblindness is a generation that, through its neglect, comes to perpetuate it.

    "new generation who see something else" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    Please try to explain this to me. What is that "something else" that some of the "new generation" see in this symbol. Because frankly, I don't get it at all. I sincerely would like to understand, although not because I think I might agree with them.

    regional pride (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    And antifederalist.

    Wow. Two very different answers (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:32:47 PM EST
    from Capt Howdy and from CST. Now I feel like I need to count the votes from the other Southerners in the TL community, to see which is the more common view.

    Well, I will try (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    First, CST.

    There is a great deal of "regional pride" involved and a fair amount of antifederalist within my generation. The memory of defeat and the bad times that followed was been passed down, but... I think it largely stopped with the advent of TV and a more national culture.

    As to Howdy:

    He is correct within a subset of society when he writes:

    They will simply have to die off.

    and taken in the context that they  are racists and cannot/will not change.

    OTOH my father once threw a man out of our home for using the N word. To him you respected everyone and judged them on what they did. So even then you had a subset that recognized that we had a problem.

    Howdy is also correct within a subset of society when he writes:

    ...the new generation who see something else.

    The issue is that we have two different subsets. I watch my grandson, who attends a private school, interact with several racial groups. They socialize together, play sports together, mix and match seamlessly.

    They are children from a middle to upper middle class background. They all have IPads and Iphones and the clothing of their peers and a they drive a car to school when they have reached the proper age. Their expectations are that they will attend, at the least, a 4 year state college or perhaps something on the order of a Duke or Vanderbilt.

    To a small degree this is also true in our public schools. But there is also, at some level, two groups that do not trust each other. Roof is a member of one of those groups. He sees himself as disadvantaged and rights and opportunities extended to blacks that he cannot have. That these things exist to correct old wrongs is of no interest to him. He feels wronged and has struck back.

    So we don't have a "race" problem. It is now a "class" issue.

    Do not misunderstand. I condemn Roof's acts in the strongest possible way and I am not saying that we should reduce our efforts to correct the old wrongs. But I am saying that there are more that one Roof out there and that the problem he presents isn't going away.

    As a way "out and up" my generation had the military and an economy that was manufacturing based that need a large number of skilled people. Roof's generation doesn't have that.

    We need to fix that. And we need to do it quickly.


    That was pretty good actually (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 07:04:21 AM EST
    I think the problem is now both class and race.  I'm not sure how much the class part had to do with this.

    The oldsters don't want to " lose" the (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    Flag, so they have taught the upcoming generation that the flag represents standing against government aggression and exercising your rights.  After all, it is only a piece of fabric.  Nobody should be able to take another Americans fabric away from them or tell them they can't display it.

    They have reframed the discussion and excluded facts. History is being lost of course.  Understand Peter, you can't even get these people to look at a lynching photograph.  They never did anything like that.  They treated "the blacks" well, plantations were like communes :). Nobody raped or beat anyone to death or fed other humans poorly or denied them medical treatment or bred them like cattle except for a few bad apples.  Reminds me of Abu Ghraib discussions.


    to be clear (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by CST on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:22:12 AM EST
    I'm not from the south and have never lived there.  I am closer in age to the shooter than most of the people here.  That is not necessarily my personal view of the flag.  But I have traveled a bit, and went to school with/have friends from all over.  There is definitely a north/south divide.  It's partly class, partly political, partly cultural.  And I think the best way I can describe what I've seen of younger people's views of the flag is that it represents the south in that divide.  They don't really associate it with slavery/the civil war.  But it's still an anti-federal/anti-north/pro-south symbol.  

    I tend to come down on the side of treason and racist - even within that explanation, because of the cultural/political history that it represents, and the fact that it's not gone or dead.  But remember, we're talking about people who grew up after the civil right's era was "all over".  That's the past.  There's nothing to see here anymore.  And to be fair, "they" and CaptHowdy have a point when they bring up that racism is not just a southern problem.  So it's easier to justify a southern flag as not being racist.  To me, it is still a symbol of racism though, the way the South African apartheid flag and Rhodesian flag represent something too.  You can't just whitewash the past.  And I think the renewed interest in the flag by some young people represents the desire to do just that as well.  And some of them know exactly what it represents and like it that way.


    Back when I was in HS, in the early 80's, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    Southern Rock was big.

    Skynyrd, the Allmans, CDB, Creedence, Little Feat, Marshall Tucker, Pure Prairie League, Blackfoot, etc.

    The confederate flag was prominent with those bands, and embraced by us yankees as well. We all thought the flag was all about standard southern identity and pride, in much the same way, say, north easterners have pride this their region.

    It seems clear that us yankees did have the deep understanding of the flag that the southerners did. Tthough some, at least, of those bands were certainly not proud of slavery and certainly were not racist.

    One of my favorite Skynard songs is this loving ode: Ballad of Curtis Loew


    Fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    how meaning can be changed and/or history forgotten when need be.  

    I spoke with my friend--raised in Mississippi, moved north after high school, & has lived many years in Colorado--about my first reaction to seeing a flying CSA flag years ago above the Alabama capitol in Mobile.  When I mentioned it to the well-coifed older white woman capitol tour guide, she looked at me as if I was some crazy young Northerner (btw, that was when the CSA flag flew above the American flag in the days of Gov. Lurleen Wallace.) Fast forward to a few years ago when a cousin picked me up at the Richmond, Virginia airport ... and, fairly close by flew a giant (as in huge) CSA flag from a pole pre-set in the highway median.  Hmmm. That "pride" or whatever still makes my friend angry ... and, she reminded me on the phone today about the time she took her daughter on a graduation trip to Virginia Beach & Charleston, S.C. about 20 years ago.  She said that, while she was familiar with reported incidents involving the KKK near her hometown when she was growing up in Mississippi, she had never seen a klansman ... until she & daughter happened to see several KKK in full gear parading around the square in the center of Charleston, S.C. ... during daylight, in the open.

    My friend today thinks that, while things may appear to be getting better in parts of her home region, they haven't really changed that much.  For her, a brother of hers, e.g., spoke with stark hatred against Blacks years ago and still does today.  For her, things get softer around the edges for awhile ... but the reminders are there in the form of flags, shrines to every confederate general imaginable, streets honoring the confederacy in name, etc.  Maybe that is pride; maybe, tho, that is condoning the racial history that the CSA was all about.  (DailyKos today has reprinted some of the secession statements for some of the CSA states--including Mississippi & South Carolina--that directly state the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery.) Maybe the societally evil underpinning has been swept under the rug to make some feel clean for too long.

    About the "regional pride and cultural pride" thing:  Do we really think that the Black population in the South or anywhere in these United States find the waving Confederate flags (and shrines, streets, revised history re-enactments) to be pulsing with pride and cultural unity for them?  Do others of us just go along because re-written history about the joys of the plantation and whatnot make us feel better?  Again, are the relevant Black populations in those states that still fly the CSA flag in accord with Whites who call it an important tradition?


    Probably so. (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    ftr, I just re-read my comment above and realized I made a pretty significant omission, the sentence was supposed to read:

    "It seems clear that us yankees did not have the deep understanding of the flag"

    Also, I've heard this song many times, but never figured out until today what it really meant: John Hiatt - Take It Down


    Jon Stewart clip (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    'Happened to see a clip this morning of opening monologue on the Daily Show.  Through their website or hulu or at a number of other progressive sites, it is well worth a watch.  He doesn't hold back about the racist attack at Emmanuel Church ... and, he addresses (strongly) the symbol of the CSA flag yet flying over South Carolina.

    It's really not (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:35:21 PM EST
    I agree with her.  As far as the traditionalists.  What I meant to say is there is a new generation who's interest has nothing to do with tradition.  

    As someone that has lived in Georgia (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    I would say the older generation has nothing to do with tradition either. The only difference between the two generations is their age.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:03:55 PM EST
    as I said I'm not defending it.  In any way.  But I know there are people, older people, for whom it has meaning beyond just being a racist symbol.  Which is not to say it does not possibly have meaning as that to.  But they are not evil or overtly racist people.
    I know this.   And the young people I see waving it, it's something else entirely.  Much more of the age of Obama.

    Yes!!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    My great grandmother was from Calhoun County Mississippi and one of the largest plantations.  When I was a child, my grandfather kept me away from her.  I guess she was a very toxic raving lunatic.  I never met the woman and when I was little and would ask I was told she was just too sick.  And she was, but it was a very different sickness than a child imagined.

    I was told she would go on and on about how her life was ruined by the Yankees among other unrepeatable rantings.  And the plantation was burned down, but if you look on ancestory.com she was born long long after the civil war.  She was just repeating what she was taught and told and it seemed to be quite an indoctrination because she never got beyond it and lived her own life.


    Fine. One more. (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    that story makes my point.  You were kept away from her.  She was a crazy old lady by their standards.

    She would not seem so crazy to Roof.

    Now I'm done.


    True (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    She lived so much " other" life (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    Though.  When she married they went to Colorado.  She never quit ranting about the civil war though or them damn Yankees :). And the way she spoke about African Americans I was told was not repeatable.

    This conversation caused me to remember questions Josh had.  We were watching a documentary about Africa and he called the people being discussed African Americans.  I corrected him and told him they were Africans.  He was about six, and he was really struggling to understand all this.  So he asked very frankly what do you call white people born in Africa then, and my husband and I answered in unison Africans.  Complex discussions :)


    It's worth noting (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    that, today, your grandmother would be nothing but a typical Glen Beck/Alex Jones fan.  And probably have 500 FB followers.

    What Do you Call Black People... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    ...in other countries, African French, African Mexicans ?

    As far as I can tell we are the only nation that has a specific national name for minorities.  From German Americans to Mexican Americans, we have a need to qualify ancestry even though we are young and a very mixed bunch.

    I wonder how people who aren't from Africa, say from Holland or Britian, think about being labeled African just because they are black.

    Count me in with the 'Josh is confused' club.


    fwiw (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:04:25 AM EST
    I've never heard anyone under 30 use the term "African American".

    It is what grade school children are (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    Taught here.  It is common terminology here.  Poor Josh got in big trouble in kindergarten here referring to his friend who he didn't know the name of yet as his brown friend.  His teacher lost it at him.  Black Americans are referred to as African Americams in Enterprise Alabama.

    for whatever reason (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    this reminds me of a time in my German history class (in Germany) when the teacher snapped at a student for saying something benign about Hitler and the economy.  It was something that we are taught in the States as a way of recognizing how people like that are able to come to power.  It was still seen as something dangerous to say and talk about in Germany.  I didn't particularly think that was the right approach...

    I didn't either, it sort of traumatized Josh (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    What would you call it?  Maybe projected shame.   He was absolutely innocent of any "bias", and oddly the teachers shame created a shame within him.  I don't know why she didn't simply focus on teaching him his new friends name...except she was born and raised here and horrible horrible things DID happen here and the shame floats around and rubs around on everyone, but the facts....all the facts...are not discussed so everyone understands what all that energy floating around is.  You feel it though.

    I remember when we first moved here I kept telling my husband I could feel that peculiar energy on my skin and I felt like I constantly needed a shower.  Odd looking back, because the unspoken "issues" are about skin.

    I get so pissed too sometimes because my daughter's biological father was part Basque.  They have a strong olive undertone to their skin and it is pretty genetically dominant.  Southerners stare at her in the winter "trying to figure out what she is". Why?  Is there something less than human that she could be.  You don't notice it in the summer though when everyone is crazily tanning around here.


    I Used to Work With a Guy... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    ...who could not say 'black people' out loud, he would whisper it.  It was so weird, and he would turn red if I said within ear shot of others.

    It really made him uncomfortable.  It never occurred to me that is was shame, but makes sense considering he was older and probably saw some S.


    I'm reasonably certain.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 05:31:23 AM EST
    ..., based on being alive at the time, that the phrase/label/whatever "African-American" came from the community previously referred to as Black, Negro, or Colored, and many therein indicated a preference for it instead of the aforementioned alternatives, so it's not like the rest of us forced it on anyone.

    If the question is ever settled, I'm perfectly fine with using whatever term they agree to agree upon.


    That may be true (none / 0) (#61)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:33:03 AM EST
      but it does not support the "age thesis." She also might not have seemed "crazy" to many people of the grandfather's generation and seem crazy to many of Roof's generation.

      These are all very broad generalizations (age, class, southern, etc.)

      While stats will bear out that poorer, younger people are more likely to commit crimes than older more affluent ones that is about as far as you can go.

       It's also quite possible that great grandma was in fact mentally ill and just coincidentally also racist. One can be a mentally ill racist, but one can also be racist but not mentally ill or mentally ill but not racist.



    I Would Also Think... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    ...that being mentally ill could account for the racism in that, at least what I see on the TV, that schizophrenics seem to all have one thing in common, someone is out to get them or is making them do things.  I would imagine that the 'who' is shaped or exacerbated by their early enviroment.

    paranoia (none / 0) (#68)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:23:34 AM EST
      is certainly a symptom which plagues many mentally ill people. I too would  surmise that the identity of "persecutors" perceived by mentally ill people is often influenced by social and cultural environment but, (and I have personally witnessed this numerous times) it's also not uncommon for mentally ill people to perceive themselves as being persecuted by their own "group" and aggressively reject the attitudes of family and peers.

      It's way too early to be reaching conclusions about his mental state let alone the primary contributing factors.



    It's not too complicated, (none / 0) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    Today's generation of Southerners don't hear about lynchings & Jim Crow on the nightly news; They, possibly, read about them in the rapidly becoming extinct, history classes in High School.

    Not really much different from today's young Liberals who show how cool they are by stating, "Jews should get over the Holocaust, already."  


    I Would Love... (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 22, 2015 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    ...to see that link.

    Speaking of symbolism & the tea party (none / 0) (#11)
    by magster on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    flag, a depiction of Savannah Georgia when Georgia voted to secede from the Union in 1860.

    racism and treason. (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:37:58 PM EST
    That's what you see. Might even be (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:05:42 PM EST
    what I see. My question was about what the subset of young people in the South see who embrace the Confederate battle flag as their symbol today. As I understand their responses, Capt Howdy and CST both claim to understand, and yet offer very different explanations. CG seems to agree with Capt that CST is wearing rose-colored glasses on this. I'm still not sure; would love to hear from more of our Southern friends.

    I'm not being clear (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:08:51 PM EST
    i do not disagree with CST.   Hopefully all my scattered comments taken together will be clear.   I don't want to think about this any more.  It's making my head hurt.

    Peter, you remember Joan Baez? (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    Her signature song, the Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, was very popular among all sorts....

    Baez's song is a bit dated, but the romance of the defeated rebel and underdog that will still stand in defiance of authority. is what many see....

    In some ways it is like the adoration of Che Guevara in Latin America--his actual history is ignored and he has become a symbol of defiance in general and a champion of the poor.


    Didn't The Band do that first? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by magster on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:16:35 PM EST
    Yeah, and Baez's cover got some of (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    lyrics wrong....just misheard it....

    That really is the bottom line (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:07:33 PM EST
    As a child of the South originally, I grew up learning the "Civil War" was not about slavery but economic oppression...and thought Robert E. Lee was an American hero.

    But the Stars and Bars are about slavery and racism, and Lee was a traitor.  Getting clear on this helps.....


    Ken Burns documentary... (none / 0) (#21)
    by magster on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    really inspired me to really read up on the Civil War, and the inescapable conclusion is that the Civil War was about protecting slavery, and that Robert E. Lee is an odious historical figure. A genius general and a punk.

    Ok (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:23:20 PM EST
    this is an interesting way to help understand the generational thing I think.
    If you ask one of the old guys, I have had many such discussions, what the civil war was about they will tell you it was about states rights or some other BS.   The thing is they believe it.  They have learned that it's not cool to admit it's was about slavery and have literally convinced themselves in many cases that is what they believe.  Who knows maybe some always believed it.

    If you asked Dylan Roof what it was about he will tell you straight up it was about slavery and keeping the white race pure.  The young ones have grown up in the age of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.  Not Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow.  They have no qualms whatsoever about wearing their racism like a badge of honor.  Recent history and media has made them much more comfortable with their racism.

    That's the difference.


    Oh my, that is not good (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:15:22 AM EST
    Not rebellion and defiance generally, but outright racism......fantastic.

    It wasn't either/or... (none / 0) (#138)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 05:43:07 AM EST
    ...as a lot of the Southern economy was based on slave ownership.

    They were considered an investment and an asset, and things had gotten to the point that it was no longer necessary for Northern ships to import them--rather money was being made and more anticipated by producing them locally for both nearby and far away sales.

    Which is why they resented Northern attempts to keep new states and territories from being potential markets.


    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:56:55 PM EST
    while typing that comment I got an email from MoveOn to sign a petition to get rid of the confederate flag.

    I signed it.


    What I meant was (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    it seems the young people see it as much more a militant symbol.  IMO most of the old folks it's about tradition it's not about future or intended militancy.

    Roof is a great example of that I think.

    I am not defending either approach.  I just think it's taken a new more evil meaning with the Dylan Roof generation.  A more activist meaning.


    Back in the 1950s, both the ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:52:02 AM EST
    ... Georgia and Mississippi state legislatures commissioned the redesign of their own respective state flags to prominently incorporate the Confederate battle flag, as a symbolic expression of white defiance of federal authority over the SCOTUS-ordered desegregation of public schools, at the dawn of the Civil Rights era.

    Further, Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes was ousted from office by voters in Nov. 2002, in large part because the majority white electorate was angered that his office had again commissioned a redesign of the state flag to rid it of its Civil Rights era-prompted neo-Confederate symbolism. His Republican opponent Sonny Perdue had openly campaigned on a pledge to reverse Barnes' action if elected, and as a result he became the first GOP governor of Georgia since Reconstruction.

    The Confederate flag's use as a symbol of southern white militancy, while not always fashionable in the past, is nevertheless not a recent phenomenon, nor is it the exclusive province of a younger generation of good ol' boys. It could be that what you're seeing in Arkansas is representative of increased southern white belligerence, as a direct result of Barack Obama's 2008 election as president.



    Agreed (none / 0) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    General Lee surrendered. After 1865, the flag of the rebellious states ceased to fly.  Until, about 100 years later, Georgia resurrected the Confederate symbol by changing its state flag, a trend that continued among Southern states.  Brown v Board of Education (1954) is a correlate.

    Southern pride,  southern heritage.  Sure, our deadliest war, more deaths/ casualties than all wars since the Revolutionary War.  How about its being a badge; intimidation, neo-rebellion?  How about, for southern pride and heritage place in front of the state capitol a rendering of a beautiful antebellum mansion, or a sculpture of a mint julep?

    Hardly ancient history, either.  Just this week, the US Supreme Court ruled (5/4) that Texas could bar the Sons of Confederate Veterans a license plate design that included the Confederate flag--arguing the difference between private and public speech and the right of the government (Texas DMV) to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in this case where members of the public saw hate.  Chief Justice Roberts was not part of the majority decision (admittedly a complicated ruling),  but, he may well be pleased with the outcome today.

    Yesterday, the gunmen's motives, some claimed, was a killing of Christians.  The words of the alleged shooter seemed to make that story-line inoperable.  Now, it is a one-off. Roof is drug addled, he is crazy.  The SC governor calls for the death penalty, although she did have the grace not to have the Confederate flag in front of the capitol in the background.  


    I Get the Feeling... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:40:40 AM EST
    ...as a Yankee living in Texas for 17 years, that is symbol of glory days that never really existed.  The issue is that everyone seems to forget what that their heritage is truly ugly.  Here in Texas that includes stealing land from Mexico at the end of a gun barrel, slavery, massive poverty, and losing a treasonous war they started over a despicable way of life.

    They want to remember the glory days without actually remember the actual details.  The stuff of folklore, not the stuff that actually happened.

    Much like Republicans and their love of the 50's era that never really existed.  If there was a flag to represent that era, they sure as hell would be waving it while ignoring the obvious truth that for many, basically every non-white and/or female, those weren't exactly glory days by any definition.


    I had a baseball teammate at UW, ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:17:45 AM EST
    ... a white kid from Georgia who was my age, and when we first arrived in Seattle for our freshman year, he hung a Confederate battle flag on the wall in his dorm room above his bed.

    Now, as an 18-year-old I really didn't have an opinion about the Confederate flag, one way or the other. But a couple of black football players on our floor who were upperclassmen soon saw the flag through my teammate's open doorway and had a chat with him about it. They weren't at all belligerent or threatening, but they did let him know what it symbolized to them.

    He really had no idea that others would see that flag as offensive (nor did I back then, for that matter) and he thought that the football players had acted pretty cool about it, all things considered. So out of respect for their feelings, he took it down -- and soon replaced it with a Washington state flag that he and another teammate (not me!) had heisted one afternoon from a campus flagpole.

    Ah, the innocence of youth!


    I'm a little confused (none / 0) (#50)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    You write:

    "there are so many who love that symbol and who see it as completely innocuous,  and who btw often have completely unveiled racist views,"

       First why do you conclude that people with unveiled racist views see the confederate imagery as "innocuous," and presumably not through a lens colored by those racist views.

     I also wonder on what basis you distinguish between "young" and "old" in terms of what the confederate imagery means to them. I'm willing to agree that the confederate imagery might mean somewhat different things to different people who choose to display it, but I fail to understand the reasoning that this differences age based.

       At most (and even this is a stark generalization), I think young people might be more prone to ACT in furtherance of such attitudes or beliefs because of emotional immaturity, lack of social structure, a greater sense of less to lose, and all the reasons young people are statistically more likely to commit crimes or behave in "socially unacceptable" ways. Young people might also be less likely to see a need to refrain from openly expressing attitudes and beliefs that older people do see the need to keep quiet because with age more people   recognizes the possibility for serious, direct negative  consequences if one does so.



    I can't be more clear . Sorry. (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    it's not a simple subject.   But I'm afraid you are on your own because in am really done talking about this.

    So am I, Cap'n. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    I'm finding myself getting very depressed just thinking about it. I'll think about it tomorrow, at Tara. ;-D

    Peace, brother.


    The NYT (none / 0) (#15)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 09:57:36 PM EST
    Reported that a childhood friend by the name of Meek noticed serious deterioration in Roof's mental health and sensed Roof was about tod something crazy.

    Meek was so concerned that he actually took Roof's gun away and hid it! But did not bother to contact police.

    Of course he returned the gun that was presumably used for the mass murder.

    Doesn't this make him an accomplice?

    There were so many people who saw it coming but they all neglected to act in order to prevent it.

    No it doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:04:24 PM EST
    Care to elaborate? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:21:09 PM EST
    Providing a gun to an individual who stated their intention to commit murder and then does so is the very definition of accomplice to murder.

    I mean accessory (none / 0) (#26)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:23:26 PM EST
    Instead of accomplice.

    Accessory and accomplice (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    are virtual synonyms, legally. What is the difference that you intended, RB?

    Some states use the old common law (none / 0) (#54)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    Distinction of an accessory being a helper not present at the actual crime scene.

    I don't know about SC but thought I would make the distinction just in case.


    I would (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 06:51:04 AM EST
    think if you want to go down that road then his father is the one that should be charged because he's the one that actually bought the kid a gun.

    No need to elaborate (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:32:10 PM EST
    Whether you want to make an example of someone has no bearing. The answer is still no. He didn't provide a gun. He returned a gun to the rightful and legal owner.

    Roof was not a legal owner (none / 0) (#29)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:40:38 PM EST
    He was charged with felony drug possession and therefore was not allowed to posses firearms.

    Maybe that is South Carolina law (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    (although I doubt it - can you cite or link your source/authority?). It's not federal law. A person charged with but not convicted of a felony is not prohibited by the federal Gun Control Act from possessing a firearm, only from acquiring ("receiving") a firearm that s/he doesn't already possess. 18 USC 922(g)(1), (n).

    Thrower & Schwartz Law Firm (none / 0) (#33)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    Who Is Prohibited From Possesing A Firearm In South Carolina?

    Even if you have not been convicted of a felony but are awaiting trial for felony charges you may not possess a firearm.


    Thanks. I found the site, (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:06:56 AM EST
    but not any cite. Not going to pursue it. Maybe they're right under state law; I'm not licensed there, so I couldn't advise anyone on that score.

    The Oversimplification of That Night... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:47:09 AM EST
    ...you make it's pretty clear you have some motive or need a new news source.

    The friend had not seen him in 5 years, they got really drunk, and he took the gun away that night and gave it back the next day when he was sober.

    People say stupid S when they are drunk, the idea that someone would call the cops on a friend over it is odd to say the least.

    What exactly do you think the police would have done if he had, arrest him, take away his gun, ?  Maybe in N Korea, but here I doubt they would could even talk to him if he didn't want to.

    Meek said he and Roof had been best friends in middle school, where "he was just a quiet kid who flew under the radar." Roof then disappeared and showed up again several weeks ago, seeming even more quiet and withdrawn.

    Meek said Roof recently used his birthday money to buy a Glock pistol. When the two of them were drinking together a few weeks ago, Roof began railing about black people and remarked that he had "a plan," Meek said. He did not say what the plan was, but Meek said it scared him enough that he took the gun out of Roof's car and hid it in his house until the next day.


    My motive is to find ways (none / 0) (#75)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    To prevent tragedies like this from happening.

    Banning the stupid confederate flag would not have prevented this tragedy.

    Strict gun laws already in place failed to prevent this tragedy. Roof was not allowed to purchase or possess a firearm but the background check system somehow failed and needs to be thoroughly investigated to determine why. The church was a gun free zone bit of course criminals don't abide by such laws.

    If just one of the people who saw it coming bothered to call the police and say "my friend has stated a clear intention to harm others and himself, he has been acting crazy recently. He has been doing a lot of drugs. He just got a gun and I am very concerned. He was recently arrested for drugs so I don't think he is allowed to even possess a gun. He grew up in a black community and has  black friends but recently he is obsessed with starting a race war, segregation and an irrational fear of blacks taking over" this tragedy could have been avoided.


    Banning? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    Banning the stupid confederate flag would not have prevented this tragedy.

    As long as we allow racist and treasonous Nazi sympathizers to display the swastika, obviously the First Amendment permits the display of the racist and treasonous sympathies enshrined in the stars and bars.

    HOWEVER.  There is no excuse for a local government celebrating racism, slavery and treason by displaying this hated, anti-American rag.

    Not banned, no, but not celebrated by the state either, agreed?


    One More Time... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    ...what do you think the police would have done ?

    Investigate? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    Take away a gun from someone who was in illegal possession?

    Try to convince him to voluntarily undergo inpatient psychiatric treatment or take him involuntarily to be evaluated on a 48 hour hold since he threatened suicide?

    You know, the kinds of thing police officers do every day when concerned friends and family request them to intervene.


    You don't (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    know much about SC do you? There is nothing that he said that would warrant a psychological or psychiatric evaluation. If they put people under evaluations who said they wanted to kill African Americans in SC probably half the state or more would be under evaluation. I might not have much family left outside of an institution if they did that kind of thing.

    You don't know anything about mental health crisis (none / 0) (#121)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    Stating you intend to kills yourself is enough to get an involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital for a 72 hour hold anywhere in the USA.

    If you happen to say it in the presence of an officer, medical professional or social worker, they have no choice but to commit you. It is mandatory.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:09:09 PM EST
    but he didn't say he was going to kill himself to a medical professional or anyone else now did he? He did not meet the qualifications for observation. Supposedly the "danger to others" could be qualification but that is very vague and usually includes the person actually brandishing a gun at someone or attacking someone instead of just words. And frankly the police are loathe to involve themselves with this situation.

    Actually (none / 0) (#136)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:25:38 PM EST
    He did.

    'He was big into segregation and other stuff,' the roommate, Dalton Tyler, said. 'He said he wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.'

    Are you (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 07:00:43 AM EST
    aware that you have to have two people go before a magistrate to get someone committed or that you have to take them to a doctor for evaluation? Roof had already been to a doctor for another reason and said doctor saw no reason to commit him. You really don't understand that you can't just call up the police and say this person said x, y and z and get them committed do you?

    It all depends (none / 0) (#148)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    On how the person reacts when the officer responds and investigates. Police officers have discretion to initiate a hold if they believe the person is threat to themself or others.

    At the very least, there would be a record and the process of getting two sworn statements could have been initiated.

    It is now being reported that two friends conspired to hide Roof's gun together. What if they had simply called the police instead?

    I am puzzled by the adversarial reaction I am getting here.

    I am simply looking at real ways to prevent tragedies like this from happening.

    The "snitches"  stigma appears to be a much bigger problem than I expected.


    The name of the young man who helped hide the gun (none / 0) (#150)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    Christon Scriven, 22.

    If you want to look it up from your preferred news source.


    Roof's mother is even more culpable (none / 0) (#151)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    If what The Daily Mail is reporting is true.

    Scriven said he could tell Roof was depressed, and that he complained that he wasn't getting the love and emotional support he needed from his parents. When he got upset, Roof would retreat to his car, blasting a cassette tape of opera.
    He said: 'I don't think his parents liked his decisions, the choices that he made to have black friends,' Scriven recounted.
    'His mom had taken the gun from him and somehow he went back and took it from her. ... That's when we saw the gun for the first time: .45 with a high-point laser .

    This tragedy could have and should have been avoided.


    I have personal (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    experience with the police and mental illness. The police do not want to deal with this. Even if they had come out and made a report it would not have changed anything. They could not have stopped him. I have relatives that have said we need to kill off all the black people. There are too many of them anyhow. If I had called the police over that do you know what they would have done? Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

    I don't know where you live but this is the culture of South Carolina. What Roof said and threatened to do comes out of the mouths of people in South Carolina regularly. This is a cultural problem in SC that they are going to have to solve.


    Funny... (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    ..the assumptions, that is.  So if he's mentally healthy and the gun is legit ?

    Just lock him up until he starts liking black people more, from what I understand that isn't how jail works.


    Taking away the gun (none / 0) (#115)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    being the most important thing.

    The fact that he could not legally possess or purchase a gun is beyond dispute.


    give me a break (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CST on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:42:45 PM EST
    whether or not strict gun laws would've prevented this, they most certainly were not "already in place" in South Carolina at the time of the shooting.

    Roof was completely barred (none / 0) (#108)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 03:31:39 PM EST
    From possessing a gun and guns were completely banned at the gun-free zone church.

    How much more strict could the rules be as applied to this shooter and this situation?


    I have spent some time looking (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:56:58 PM EST
    and cannot find any such South Carolina laws.  Can you provide a reliable source, Redbrow, other than the assertion (with no reference provided) on the website of one law firm? Other South Carolina lawyers' sites say otherwise, and as I say the statute where I would expect to find such a bar, if it existed, does not contain one.  In fact, S.C.'s state law does not even categorically bar convicted felons from possessing firearms, as does federal law; it only bars possession by persons convicted of violent felonies. Likewise, I find nothing about churches being "gun-free zones" like schools. Only that the state's concealed carry law doesn't apply in a church without special permission from the pastor in charge.

    re-read my post (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    I never said stricter laws would've helped.  I said the laws aren't strict.

    That being said, in MA you need a license to own a gun.  Any gun.  Wherever you get it from.  Which means generally speaking Dads don't go giving their kids guns for their 21st birthday unless the kid has a license.  Which he would not have gotten.  There are also just way fewer guns around, and way fewer gun deaths.  Btw - there are still plenty of people who do own guns legally and hunt or recreationally shoot.

    In some countries civilians simply aren't allowed to purchase most guns at all and there are far fewer guns and gun deaths.  Again, I'm not saying that's the solution here (it probably won't fly for many reasons).  But the gun laws in South Carolina aren't "strict" by just about any measure.


    There are no laws (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 20, 2015 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    Strict gun laws already in place failed to prevent this tragedy. Roof was not allowed to purchase or possess a firearm but the background check system somehow failed and needs to be thoroughly investigated to determine why. The church was a gun free zone bit of course criminals don't abide by such laws.

    ... in ANY area of law that would prevent every crime they are intended to prohibit.  Which, of course, does not mean those laws are ineffective.

    SC, BTW, does not have strict gun control laws.


    Schizophrenia Usually Strikes First (none / 0) (#28)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 10:39:09 PM EST
    In young adulthood.

    Early  to mid-20s for men, a little later (late-20s) for women.

    Roof was at the prime age and was exhibiting the classic symptoms.

    This tragedy could have been prevented if friends and family would have recognized the signs and intervened.

    He was on drugs (none / 0) (#32)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 18, 2015 at 11:17:57 PM EST
    Some one gave him a script for suboxone which has a bad rep according to the link.

    It is all to easy to say if someone got to him earlier he could have been stopped, but some one(s) did get to him and had authority to write a script for drugs.  Did not seem to help much.

    The more I learn about this guy the more I think he was just bad to the bone.  Not much you can do to stop someone like that.


    I'm reading that it is used to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    Treat opioid addiction.

    It always is tempting (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    to think we can know the real and important facts from press reports in the first few days. But experience teaches that we can't. Maybe Roof is the one, and maybe not. If so, maybe he had mental health issues that mitigate culpability or penalty, and maybe not. Maybe he had drug issues - or was taking something by prescription - that mitigates, and maybe not. At this point, I am willing to wait for defense counsel to dig this out and present it. I hope he gets a great lawyer. (Hint: Judy Clarke is from South Carolina. So is John Blume.)

    The shooter (none / 0) (#95)
    by ragebot on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    Who I will start calling him who will not be named, not to be confused with our other him who will not be named, in the past was caught using what I will call big boy drugs like meth and was involved in some sort of court ordered program which included prescribed drugs.  I have not seen mention of any type of counseling being ordered.

    I spent some time volunteering with the VA setting up a data base with information about self medicating vets.  WWII vets tended to favor alcohol, same for Korea.  Vietnam vets favored pot.  Post Vietnam what I called big boy drugs were favored.

    But one thing I did notice was the VA spent significant time determining what type of counseling vets got, things like group or individual counseling.  There was also a category of vets that counseling was deemed to not be effective.

    Bottom line is not every bad person can be saved or prevented from doing bad things.


    Age 19 for most (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:51:21 AM EST
    and then age 40....

    Something about the maturation/aging of the brain.....


    Psychotic breaks (none / 0) (#72)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    For young males are often in that early-20s range.
    I guess we'll need to hear more about his mental state.

    MIght the roommate get charged (none / 0) (#37)
    by Green26 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:34:37 AM EST
    with something, given the way the prosecutors are leaning on "terrorist" stuff? If I were the roommate, I'd be keeping my mouth shut. Texts and emails with more specifics? Maybe picking up a box of cartridges for Roof. Prosecutors wanting to make an example of the roommate, for deterrent purposes (so that there's more pressure to turn roommates and friends in ahead of time).

    Fortunately for them, his friends and roommates (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    do not appear to be Muslim immigrants. But we shall see what the Charleston prosecutors do, or what stupid things Roof's friends might say to FBI agents if DOJ is actually investigating the incident as a federal hate crime.  BTW, the applicable federal offense focuses on the victims' being engaged in the free exercise of their religion, and not, as far as I can see, anything based on racial animosity.

    I'm not sure what you mean... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:40:15 AM EST
      Why would 18 U.s.C. § 249 (a) not be implicated?

    I overlooked it, that's why! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    On the other hand, (a) what is the basis for federal jurisdiction to enact section 249(a)(1)? Is it even constitutional? and (b) Do you think the required certification under 249(b) could be made in the Roof case?

    good questions (none / 0) (#98)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 01:43:26 PM EST
     As for the first Lopez set forth three categories of activities congress many regulate under the CC::

    First Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

     514 U.S. at 558-59

      (a)(1) would appear to rely only on the third category (unlike (a)(2) which expressly includes language intended to comport with Llopez. Does shooting people substantially affect interstate commerce?

      As for the certification required in (b), as we speak I can see only : "D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice" being available. (That obviously could change, but I doubt SC which obviously has jurisdiction  will request the Feds assume jurisdiction since it's a DP crime and an acquittal or some outcvome of conviction only of a shockingly inadequate offense seems unlikely)

      I'll add it's a terribly drafted provision.

      Why is (a)(1) limited to (1)  Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin while (a)(2) includes gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, but excludes race or color? why does only  (a) (2) have the "Lopez language?

       What is the rationale for these variations?

       there's very little case law on § 249 period, the only one I am familiar with is U.S. v. miller the Amish shave by force case and that dealt with the causation requirement (basically because means but for rather than contributed substantially) not the constitutionality of the feds exercising jurisdiction.


    The difference between 249(a)(1) and (a)(2) (none / 0) (#101)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    tells me that Congress thought it had power to protect against violent expressions of racial and similar bias (put aside the peculiar inclusion of religion in there) on some basis other than the Commerce Clause. Section 2 of the 13th Amendment, most likely, or even Section 5 of the 14th.

    That was my first thought too (none / 0) (#106)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 03:00:00 PM EST
     but as you note (a)(1) includes religion (and national origin). Moreover, why would Congress have not made (a)(2) "all inclusive" for the very reason you first raised-- that (a)(1) might be challenged.

    Congress may have been relying on legal advice (none / 0) (#109)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 03:55:38 PM EST
    based on the Supreme Court cases interpreting 42 U.S.C. 1981 and/or 1982, which are examples of 13th Amendment legislation.

    Well it's probably (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 04:09:21 PM EST
     something that would need a law review article rather than blog comments to analyze.

      I doubt very much this case leads to a court opinion on § 249. Given, he left  at least 1 eyewitness alive and well (who apparently sat close to him for an hour or so), his image was captured on surveillance video, it seems likely SC will  choose to charge him with capital murder and unlikely either the verdict or sentence will leave the federal interest unvindicated.



    This seems relevant (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    that video, and there are dozens of dupes and subsets of it is approaching 87,000 views and the guy has become a bit of a hero.

    There was a very interesting discussion of it on FB.  Many people saying things like "I have never heard those things in that accent".  Which I personally experience almost daily .
    This is the tragic truth.  It's not what people usually hear and repeat.  But it exists.  It's not rare in the least.

    I love that video (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    I love that guy

    Funny (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    its had more than 1000 views since I posted that comment.

    Someone put it in my Facebook (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    Feed a couple of months ago.  Very intelligent guy, has defined the thoughts and underlying emotions succinctly without using a single $10 word like succinct. Everyone can immediately understand him. He's a marvel.

    I thought the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    My own Redneck-bias was jumping out I guess! A guy that looked like THAT and sounded like THAT and yet his words were so perfect. Blew me away.
    And, I think, so much more impactful coming from one of the seeming "redneck" group....much more so (my bias again I guess) than say a somewhat removed researcher at a university using "10-dollar words" as our MT so perfectly put it.

    When it comes from within the group, it has so much more weight.


    CNN is reporting Roof bought the gun himself (none / 0) (#64)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    So either the gun store failed confirm ID and to do the required background check or the state system failed to alert the seller that Roof was not allowed to purchase a firearm due to his felony charge.

    Timeline (none / 0) (#69)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    Roof was charged with felony drug possession of meth, cocaine and LSD on Feruary 28 and purchased the gun in April.

    He used birthday money to buy the gun but his family is claiming they did not know what he used the money for.

    So where did fabricated story about the parents giving him an actual gun come from?


    Both Are Being Reported (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    Why are you certain one is correct.  Not that is matters, but I saw that as well.  

    I was thinking from what his friends were saying, he probably told them his parents bought it for his Bday, when in fact they just gave him cash.

    Meaning the fabrication or more likely, misunderstanding may have come form Roof.  Obviously I don't know, just putting different statements together that could all be non-sense.

    As far as I can tell, his parents aren't saying jack, he isn't saying jack, so the only source has been friend and relative chatter, which is anything but consistent.


    I haven't a clue (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    how people pick and choose their "facts" in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. Especially when they acknowledge there are conflicting accounts.

    And by current news accounts, and it won't be official for a few more minutes, he isn't being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm. It will be nine counts of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.
    (the latter seems a bit redundant)


    His sister (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    According to a WaPo article, was the one to call the cops after she saw his photo on the news: (sorry, I can't get the link to work, but it's an initial profile story about him)

    It was Roof's sister, Amber, who called authorities after seeing the surveillance photo of her brother on television, said law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation.

    Amber Roof was due to be married Sunday, according to ­theknot.com, a wedding Web site. Although authorities haven't said why Roof fled to Shelby, his sister's fiance, Michael Tyo, lives three miles from where Roof was captured in a residential neighborhood of brick ranch-style houses.

    Tyo, a recruiter for the U.S. Army Reserve, declined to comment Thursday while packing up his children and the family dog for what appeared to be a trip.

    SC (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    has some of the laxest gun laws in the nation. Even though you aren't supposed to sell to someone like Roof I'm willing to bet that the gun seller didn't even check and secondly I wonder if SC even enforces those laws. I bet they turn a blind eye to people breaking any gun law time and again.

    NICS background checks are federally mandated (none / 0) (#80)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    States cannot opt out. This was not a private sale. It was from a Charleston retail gun store.

    The NICS system is linked to several databases managed by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center, and runs an individual's name through federal and state criminal records.

    Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.


    You assume (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    he purchased it directly from a federally licensed gun dealer.

    South Carolina is one of 40 states that do not require background checks for private gun transactions

    That would make it perfectly legal for anyone without a dealer license to sell to Roof.


    You are the one making assumptions (none / 0) (#82)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    CNN clearly states it was a gun store not a private sale.

    One key part of this horrific scheme -- the weapon -- came in April, when Roof bought a .45-caliber handgun at a Charleston gun store, the two law enforcement officials told Perez and Bruer from CNN, the first network to report this development.

    I didn't buy the "birthday money" story (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 08:52:06 PM EST
    until I googled .45 cal. handguns and found them for sale, new, as low as $136.94.  That amount buys you a plastic frame, but functional, semiautomatic handgun.  "Cheaper than Dirt" is the name of the retailer.

    Judy Clarke? (none / 0) (#88)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    I wonder if she will take this one on?