A man who burst into a Wisconsin nail salon and opened fire was found dead on the premises. Three other people were confirmed dead and four more injured. NBC's Kevin Tibbles reports.
By NBC News staff
In this version: Shooter bought gun two days after court issued restraining order that demanded he turn in firearms.
Updated at 5:36 p.m. ET: Zina Haughton, the estranged wife of the man who fatally shot her and two other women at a Wisconsin salon, told a court that her husband had terrified her for years, The Associated Press reported.
Zina Haughton, of Brown Deer, Wis., filed a restraining order against her husband, Radcliffe Haughton, on Oct. 8. She wrote that her husband believed she was cheating on him, and that he had vowed to burn her and her two daughters with gas.
NBC's M. Alex Johnson, Bill Dedman, Isolde Raftery, Tricia Culligan and Andrew Mach contributed to this report, along with Charles Benson, Todd Hicks, Susan Kim and Jermont Terry of WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee. Follow M. Alex Johnson on
Twitter and
Facebook.
In early October, Radcliffe Haughton, 45, was arrested for slashing his wife's tires. On Thursday, a court approved a restraining order she had sought and ordered him to turn in any firearms he owned. Two days later, he purchased a .40-caliber semiautomatic weapon used in the shootings, Brown Deer police said in a statement.
People who buy handguns from gun dealers must wait 48 hours after they have cleared a background check from the Department of Justice to pick up their firearm. There is no such waiting period or background check required in Wisconsin for people who purchase handguns from private individuals, which police say Radcliffe Haughton did.
The other victims killed in the shooting at the Azana Salon & Spa were Cary L. Robuck, 35 of Racine, Wis., and Maelyn M. Lind, 38, of Oconomowoc, Wis. Radcliffe Haughton was found dead in a locked part of the salon. Four more women who were hurt in the shooting were recovering from gunshot wounds to their arms and legs.
Suspect's wife a 'hero'
A woman who said she was inside the salon said Zina Haughton acted like a hero when her estranged husband entered.
Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office
Alleged gunman Radcliffe Haughton is seen in this undated booking photo. Haughton is accused of killing three people and injuring four others at a Wisconsin salon on Sunday.
“Zina immediately jumped in, got in front of the reception desk, tried defusing the situation, talked to him, said this was a place of peace,” Betty Brunner told
NBC affiliate Today’s TMJ4 in Milwaukee. “I know more people would have been killed if it wasn’t for her.” She did her best to save lives, Brunner said. “She was amazing.”
Suspect's father aghast
Radcliffe Haughton's father, also named Radcliffe, was shocked and dismayed upon learning that his son was the suspect.
"Oh, my God," the elder Haughton told WTMJ in a telephone interview from his home in Florida.
"The Haughton family apologizes, and we are sorry."
A witness who was inside a Wisconsin salon during a deadly shooting calls the actions of the gunman's estranged wife 'heroic.' NBC's Chris Clackum reports.
"This is not a reflection of the Haughton family," he said, adding: "One member of the Haughton family has done something terrible. This is not the Haughtons' way. This is not the way we live. This is not how I raised my son up."
Haughton
told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he spoke to his son just last week, telling him he could stay with him in Florida if he needed to. "I told him, 'Whatever you do, don't do anything stupid'," he said.
It was the second mass shooting in the Milwaukee area in 2 1/2 months.
A gunman opened fire at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee on Aug. 5, killing six people and wounding at least three others, before being shot to death. Three people were killed and a fourth was injured last week when a gunman stormed a hair salon in Casselberry, Fla.
The gunman then killed himself.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Comment:
Never had these problems some 30 years ago. What is going on?
It took Charles Manson for everyone to begin locking their doors across the nation.
"THESE PROBLEMS" did in fact happen 30 years ago. But 30 years ago we didn't have the 24x7 news cycle and the Internet operations spewing "news" on a continual basis.
In fact, per FBI crime statistics, violent crime is going down and has been going down for quite some time. But as I noted, what would have made the local nightly news and a story in the local paper the next day is today splashed into the living rooms of people globally.
My sentiments exactly, XD. Don Henley's song, "Dirty Laundry" tells how the news media drools over bad stories. "Got the Bubble headed bleach blonde comes on at 5. She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye." Disgusting yet true. Sorry, NBC News. It is true and you know it.
Scary looking dude. Glad he is off this earthly plain and vacationing somewhere very, very hot.
I think they did, they just weren't easily accessable as they are now. RIP people....
Of course they happened in the past! Why do people think that crime is a new thing? Think about all the massacres on Native Americans; isn't that enough to make you remember that crime is nothing new? As long as there have been weapons, there has been crime. Show a little perspective please!
pushing bikes, agreed. One point though, as long as there have been rocks there has been crime.
Excellent point, Wolfpack. I was including rocks, hands, and other household items as weapons!
wolfpack-bravo, pushingbikes,
You neglected to mention the jaw bone of an ass. It was the weapon of choice one Biblical brother used on the other.
It is true that these things have happened in the past, but the context is important. Look at history during the gangster and Prohibition Era. There had been shootings before, but the Thompson Machine Gun made shooting incidents much more lethal. Then automatic weapons were banned from the streets because the public said "enough!"
If this assailant had held a single shot weapon, fewer people would have been killed or injured. The ability to shoot off multiple rounds in a few seconds results in multiple deaths and injuries. Why do "guns rights" advocates not understand that there is simply no need or place in a civilized society for such weapons. If you want to "play" with them, then lock them all up a a licensed and regulated shooting range and allow them ONLY at such locations and prohibit them from leaving the site. Instead, ANYONE can go and buy an automatic or semi-automatic weapon at thousands of gun fairs and gun shops all over the country.
There is a REASON that certain vehicles are not "street legal" and may not be driven on city streets. The same logic should apply with greater force to certain types of guns.
That's because it is so easy nowadays for just anyone to own a gun (thanks, NRA), and given the nature of society now (easy sex, sex all over the Net making divorce rates and relationships easy to get into, easy to get out of (divorce rate is at an all time high in this country), hard times with money, more and more people unhealthy which affects behavior and brain function)....yeah, let's just make it possible for anyone to have a gun.....and then everyone wonders why there are so many innocent shootings....
Why does this guy think crime was just invented? lol Of course it happened before, the internet is what is different. Some people...LOL
Thanks Anon, but I think you could go back and say that about any decade in American history. We simply have more people than ever before and millions more people will ensure that there are more that are insane. The odds are just there.
Here we go again. Every article on here that a firearm was used in a crime starts the gun/anti-gun fanatics. Does anyone have any new material? According to some, mass murder only started with the invention of the firearm.
This guy was a nutjob. From now until the end of time there will be murderous nut jobs and you cannot do anything to prevent it. Never. You can ban everything ever invented, but crazies are going to kill. All you can do is try to protect your family and yourself. That's it. Thank you.
Underground Sanity 2
When you eliminate all the criminals and their actions, I'll agree to leave my firearm at home. Until that time, I want the same ability a Police Officer has. Police do NOT carry firearms to protect the public, they carry to protect themselves, and personally, to my family and myself, my life is just as worthy of protection as the police.
Anon1995
The NRA is only working to protect the peoples CONSTITUTIONAL right to bear arms. They are adamant about prosecuting the illegal use of firearms. So, if you want to sarcastically thank anyone, maybe you should thank people like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other founding fathers. They understood the need for the populace to be armed to contain a despotic and tyrannical government from taking control.
Why don't "anti-gun rights advocates" realize that these weapons exist and it would be near impossible to defend oneself with a single shot weapon?
and NO, not just anybody can purchase a fully automatic weapon anywhere and the easiest place is at the local neighborhood thug's!
Most vehicles classified as non street legal are lacking required signaling or safety equipment, it's not because they're too fast! Hell even a Civic can break the speed limit.
XDm9mm-
You are delusional and obviously are not in the thick of things with the NRA, and if your "handle" has anything to do with your owning guns....
Read my blog other post. You are just theorizing. I have been living in an area that the NRA is "protecting their right to bear arms" to the detriment of other people's right to live a safe and quiet life in their own neighborhood. Nederland, Colorado has a big NRA person and their "right to bear arms" means that they can shoot in a National Forest that is right next to a town neighborhood, shooting guns 68 yards from the road and 100 yards from a house (not the required 150 yards from a road or hiking trail), bullets hitting children's play yards, peoples houses, and hitting a camper this summer in the shoulder, 50 cal. anti-aircraft guns going off at 2am - and shooting in a fire danger zone IN COLORADO. All being supported by the NRA and fighting the town, county, and congressmen, even having people threatened who are trying to take action. This fight has been going on for years.
SO DON'T TELL ME WHAT IS WHAT. You are just theorizing. Live in this situation and tell me my business again.
UNDERGROUND SANITY. Please educate yourself before you post stupid comments. IT IS ILLEGAL TO OWN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS IN THE USA AND YOU CANNOT BUY THEM AT GUN SHOWS! The only way you can own an AUTOMATIC weapon is to have a special permit from the gov, be vetted by the ATF and local authorities and pay a yearly fee to legally own it. Do you even know what an automatic weapon is, MORON!?
Anonia 1995 - save your BS. I also live in Colorado, aand it is well known that Nederland aand Boulder are basically left-wing, liberal cities that whine about anything to do with firearms, hunting, target shooting, self-protection aand 2nd Amendment Rights. Quit bitching about a legal gun range near a national forest of approximately 2 million acres and spouting crap about .50 cal. ack ack guns. You are definitely delusional and another one of the ilk that ALWAYS says ban the gun and not the person. My suggestions, move to a Yurt on the UC-Boulder campus if you don't like the sound of gunshots in the morning. You will be happier among your own kind. Enough said.
Bonebreaker, is is NOT illegal to own an automatic weapon in the USA. You can buy one if you're willing to pay for the tax stamp to own one, just as you pointed out. So you proved your opening statement as being incorrect with your qualification.
Why are you arguing about guns? You think these women would have preferred that their assailant splashed gasoline & set them on fire. Or hack at them with an ax? There are far scarier weapons than guns.
first of all the guy bought an illegally sold weapon, if he got it two days after the restraining order, with no 7 day waiting period. so since the gun was bought illegally and not from a gun shop how are more gun laws/bans going to work for illegal buying? they wont!
BoneBreaker1: DO you shoot your gun like you shoot off you mouth. Randomly and without proper Aim. UNderground Sanity, didn't say you could own a Fully Automatic weapon, just mentioned them in context. A true idiot you seem to be and someone I wouldn't want to allow owning any weapon, because you seem to be the type to shoot first and ask questions later. To get in your mode: A true republithug Jack A55.
The Thompson was highly overrated as there just weren't enough out there to do much damage. The relative handful, at least in the beginning (mid 1920's) were strictly in the hands of Al Capone and a few of his competitors. At $228 a copy (you could buy a very nice used car for that money, and at that time, a brand new Model T Ford had only recently been $300), successful bootleggers were the only ones who could justify the cash outlay or even come up with that kind of money to spend on anything not essential to basic living (such as housing, transportation, education, etc.). The weapon of choice when a revolver or an automatic pistol wasn't available or considered 'enough gun' for the job was a sawed off shotgun, usually a double barrel. New, one could be had for about a tenth of the price of a Thompson. 12 gauge shells were also a lot cheaper and easier to find than .45 Automatic Colt Pistol cartridges were in those days. 'Feeding' a Thompson was almost as ridiculously expensive as buying one was! Needless to say, a used shotgun that could be cut down with a hacksaw could probably be had for a few dollars, a good favor or two, or just outright stolen. In many areas, it used to be that practically everyone had one.
Auto Ordnance, the company that hired Colt's Patent Firearms to produce the roughly 15,000 Thompson Model 1921's built, decided on their own to not sell them to the general public sometime around 1928-1930 or so. They opted to sell only to governmental entities as the relatively few sales to the public had come to create a lot of bad publicity and the damage done to their reputation far exceeded the scant revenues such sales had brought in. All orders needed to be on governmental agency letterhead and were to federal government (some Treasury and Justice Department, some to the War Department) or state (state police agencies) or local (police departments and sheriff's offices) entities.
More than a few states outlawed the Thompson and other fully automatic firearms. The United States never outlawed them. Instead, they placed a $200 excise tax on them and required that one purchase the tax stamp and register the gun in order to legally possess it. Of course, you needed to live in a state that hadn't outlawed possession of such a firearm! The tax law, which controlled automatic firearms, short barreled rifles and shotguns ('sawed off'), and sound signature suppressors ('silencers') was the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The vast majority of the Thompsons sat in a warehouse until WWII broke out. In 1940 - 1941, most that remained were shipped to Great Britain. A startling number are at the bottom of the Atlantic, still in their crates, as the ship(s) they were being transported aboard was/were torpedoed by German U-boats and sunk.
Most firearms sales are through a dealer. Simple arithmetic - the dealer has the most guns to sell, and is where most people go to look at guns when they're interested in buying one! But, all Federal Firearms License holders are required to call the National Instant Check System hotline after the prospective purchaser has filled out BATFE Form 4473. This is true no matter where the sale is made, be it a store front business or at a gun show! If the operator sees that the prospective purchaser cannot pass the NICS background check, it is unlawful for the dealer to allow that person to take delivery of that, or any, firearm. One of the questions on the Form 4473 is to the effect of 'Are you under a restraining order?'. Answering 'YES' is an automatic disqualifer. Unless the purchase of this .40 caliber pistol was through a private party, the killer in this instance lied on the Form 4473 and the NICS system wasn't able to catch it. The article says it had only been two days since the order was issued.
Just for the record, not being 'street legal' largely has to do with not having equipment required by law such as lights, horn, mufflers, fenders, and what have you. Cars that are specifically for racing generally omit this stuff to save weight. If it's not going to be driven on the street anyway, why have it? It doesn't make the car illegal, it just means that it can't be registered and driven on the street as it is, lacking the required equipment, or having some equipment that is specifically prohibited by the state, such as an exhaust cut-out to bypass the muffler. You can have a vehicle that's not street legal and operate it on your own property or on a race track; no laws against that.
Likewise, most firearms can be possessed on your own property. This is largely assuming that you are not expressly prohibited from possessing one, such as a felon would be, and that you acquired it properly (didn't steal it, paid the transfer tax and got the stamp if it's an NFA firearm, etc.), and the state or county/city you live in does not prohibit possession of it. But, while it is lawful to keep it at home, generally, you cannot carry it on your person or in a vehicle unless it's locked or secured in a container you cannot conceal (such as a small suitcase) or have it in reach of you while driving. Most states allow you to keep a firearm in your place of business, to use it while lawfully hunting, or to use it at an established target range. You follow the laws to correctly transport it between your home and there. Most states do issue permits of different types to carry weapons, though not necessarily to everyone and they're not always valid in certain places or circumstances. God forbid you are caught carrying a firearm in public without the permit or in violation of the permit you were issued! That is not taken lightly and the authorities don't have much of a sense of humor with that one.
Eric1964 Wisconsin has a 48 hour waiting period on handguns, not 7 days. And I am so sick of all the anti gun bs. Do you idiots really think ANY new gun law would have prevented this? There are too many guns out there to be regulated. And, I don't think they should be, because that would just cause grief for law abiding owners. You libs are so stupid, can't wait till your mesiah gets put out on the street for his destruction of this country.
ah, nh has a 7 day waiting period. from how the article was written he must have gotten it from an illegal sale though nothing in it about buying from a dealer and going thru a waiting period. i do believe that all states should be standardized for the gun laws on a federal lvl though. i also think you should have to go through a safety class before you can buy one as well. trust me im a gun nut, lol i had to make a deal with my wife to only replace/trade my existing guns since i have so many.
he was illegally in possession of a firearm, felons are prevented from possession of a firearm, under 18 it is illegal to posses a firearm(except under adult control; while hunting are at a shooting range); why is it that these people do not respect the law, is it because they are criminals?
As tragic as this was,a restraining order is not enough when a spouse,acquaintance or family member is terrorizing you.you must pack up and get as far away as possible from people like this.If it means that you can't let family members know of your whereabouts then so be it.The goal is to be safe and to be alive.This is every employers nightmare that an employees spouse,ex spouse etc will visit their terror at their workplace.I have no employees but if I did any of them going through a contentious divorce etc.,I'd be forced to let go so as to protect my other employees.I got out of a physically abusive marriage and never looked back.I'm still alive and that is what I intended for my future,to be safe.
First mass murders were done with fire ! That's right good old Fire !
I'd rather have some one with a gun, than some one locking doors with chains and dropping gas all over the place. You can survive an attack at point blank from some one with a gun.. a blunt weapon is a little harder.
This guy survived a point blank attack ... scary but true..
Either way, I will protect my family. You want to be a victim go ahead, but criminals will always find a way to inflect harm on innocents.
.
Actually it used to be far easier to buy one. Besides how could he have bought a gun? It was illegal for him to. Everyone knows criminals obey gun laws right?
or any other state. But of course that wouldn't draw focus on the issue in Wisconsin and undermine NBCNews' anti-gun agenda.
TiGor (and others): read this about gun show loopholes (there is also much more info; just do a google search). Background checks are NOT always required. Also every investigative reporting entity has done reports on how EASY it is to buy armloads of guns at the shows with NO background check, especially in AZ and TX (what a surprise). So, YES, WE DO need more laws (w/ no loopholes) to protect us from gun nuts, and those laws need to be enforced.
One point, there are no "Second Amendment rights". The Second Amendment is a prohibition on government. "..the right....shall not be infringed." The Framer's of the Constitution correctly understood that the right to self defense is a human right, an inalienable right. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying U.S. citizens their human right to self defense.
This is the perfect example of a current law not being enforced and the knee-jerk reaction of wanting more laws that follows. "Derrrrrrr, the law said he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun but he did, let's ban all guns, derrrrrr." Let's not. Let's actually enforce what's already passed before we decide it's not good enough.
Underground Sanity - do some homework and you'll see that many items used in the home can be used as weapons against multiple people at the same time. Eliminating guns that have multiple bullets isn't the answer to crimes in involing guns. Using your logic, we would be living naked, in fields and caves, without fire or tools, just so we could minimize violence against one another. You know what that would make us? Prey for those who had the ability to kill.
Seems to me he bought it legally. How can it be argued that stricter laws would NOT have prevented him from buying the gun?
I believe that people began locking their doors after the slaying of the Clutter family at their farmhouse near Holcomb, Kans. in November of 1959. Horrible, brutal murder that caused rural America to lose its innocence.
I believe you covered it quite will...............AMEN brother.
There have been problems for over 30 years. However, 30 years ago there wasn't a computer network that could have prevented a person with a court order of protection from getting a gun. In Wisconsin, the private sale of a gun negates the law.
What about the women who were killed? Are women responsible not only for the children, but also for all the grown men? What more do we have to do to be able to live in peace?
My heart goes out to the victims.
@Anon1995,
So, once we cut through your rambling diatribe, what exactly are you suggesting? We start eliminating people's Constitutional rights?
Can someone explain the court's logic in expecting the defendent to abide by the law and honor a TRO when they are in front of a judge because their actions prove they don't think laws apply to them.
Can someone explain why the 24 hour news cycle is to blame. The guy was truly insanely jealous or just plain insane. The problem is, people don't believe other people's lives are of much value anymore. It is sick. Somehow, society as whole has found that killing someone is the solution to their problems. I wish someone knew a solution or answer to the problem. The guns, TV, games and movies are supporting actors in the tragedies, but the real problem is something inside us has been lost or changed.
deborah cox (2.32)
- You omitted a very key point in your comment about the background checks and guns at gun shows. The feds require background checks - it isn't up to the states. The guns that are bought at gun shows in the expose' you watched were not required to have background checks because they were purchased outside of the event. If a gun is bought at the event they are required to be checked. Don't try to spin the reporting any more than the reporters - you will be recognized as even less credible.
I'd be willing to bet that the guns bought at gunshows without a background check were private sales. A dealer won't risk losing their license and their livelihood by skirting the law for one sale. I don't know every law in every state, but I do know that in PA there is no background check required for the private sale of a long gun (the private sale of a handgun requires transfer paperwork done by a licensed dealer and a background check is done; any sale by a dealer requires a background check).
In PA, that long-gun-private-sale scenario is "the gun show loophole" people complain about. But it really makes no difference that it's a gun show. That private sale could take place anywhere. And if it's a handgun that's being sold, it's not a "loophole" because the law is being broken whether it's a private sale, dealer sale, at a gun show or through the classified ads. An illegal sale is an illegal sale regardless of its location. Now...tell me what law would stop illegal sales? We don't enforce the current laws to the extent they could be and gun control advocates want to pass more laws based on the idea that the laws we currently have aren't working??? Why? So we can not enforce the new laws and then lobby for newer laws because the last set didn't work???
Okay, for anyone still reading this...
Here's the deal:
All persons in the business of selling firearms are required to be licensed to do so by the US Treasury Department and follow the rules laid down by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).
You do not need a license to make occasional sales of your own firearms. They key words are 'occasional' and 'own'. A person needs to be very careful not to sell too many guns too often, lest you appear to be acting as an unlicensed dealer, in which case you're going to have BATFE inspectors chasing you. I know a guy who got in a bit of hot water for that. I don't believe he was really doing anything wrong, and he is a retired police lieutenant who has also long been an avid competitive shooter. He just happened to 'wheel and deal' too much for too long and during routine inspection of local dealers log books, his name was noticed in regards to the frequency in which it appeared and it drew attention. They had a talk with him and explained what they wanted to see him not doing.
I don't know what constitutes 'too many' or 'too often'. It's subjective, and someone else will be passing that judgement. It would not be legal for someone to buy guns, then turn around and sell them, more than just once in a blue moon, if even. If you sell a collection of guns at once, that's okay. It happens fairly often. If you're selling guns that you've had for many years, that probably will keep you from too much trouble. It helps to have plenty of documentation stashed away. Buy a gun, make copies of the receipt, and keep them for future reference. You should be able to prove when, where, and how much when it comes to guns that you've bought. You sure as hell should be able to come up with the serial number easily enough, and photographs really help. If you sell one, also document it. Try to get the buyer to show you his ID, and any permits, and photograph or copy them if possible. It wouldn't hurt if you can get a picture of the person buying it, or a picture and tag number of their vehicle. If the gun is ever traced back to you in the course of an investigation, it is very helpful if you can demonstrate that you sold it in good faith to someone you did not have any reason to believe should not have one! Your documentation shows the authorities that you actually gave a hoot and were not merely some cog in a vast criminal enterprise machine. Again, just don't sell too many guns too often and thus become a defacto 'dealer' without a license.
The existing laws are actually quite reasonable and they are enforced - when possible. Unfortunately, when they're broken, it's often not conspicuously and often illegal actions go unnoticed. In my town, a young man violated the NFA by taking a hacksaw to a shotgun and cutting the barrel down. The law didn't stop him from dong that! He just did it. Then he went with some other folks and committed a home invasion robbery. The police caught him, along with everyone else, and found the illegally modified (didn't get permission, didn't have the tax stamp on hand when he did it, and of course, he didn't register it!) shotgun. His court date is coming up sometime in the next week, for now, he's being held in lieu of $50,000 bail, which I suspect isn't going to be posted.
Laws don't do much good when the enforcement of them is difficult to impossible. What's there works, and there really aren't any loopholes. They're reasonable exceptions that keep the laws fair and reasonable.
Yet another followup:
I read in the paper today of an older gentleman in another part of my state who has received probation for selling approximately 800 firearms over the past four years and was found with 100 or so in his possession when visited by BATFE inspectors. Naturally, the one thing he didn't have in his possession was a valid Federal Firearms License, making him what is known as an 'unlicensed dealer'. Oops!
So, yes, I'd say that selling 200 guns per year without a license is going to cause you some trouble. I don't recall what the fine assessed may have been, but he did have to surrender the hundred or so guns that he had at the time. Selling guns as a sideline or even a mainline business without the FFL can be a COSTLY mistake! Anyone selling them had better make sure they don't sell too many or do it too often.
Too bad they didn't escort him to his home to seize his weapon or weapons after the ruling.
Anybody who wants a gun will get one. Yes, it is that easy. Kinda like busting someone for pot thinking they have taken it off the streets for good.
They never do. Even if he threatened her and there were witnesses, it's just a slap on the hand by the judge.
No doubt as to who did the crime. Put him up for trial within the next month, find him guilty and send him off to the chamber. There is no reason to keep him alive and no reason for the tax payer to support his ass for more than a month. Be done with him and let's forget about him. Everyone needs to start healing as soon as possible ------- and that should be within one month from now.
Oh, come on...
I agree except that he killed himself at the scene.
Just speculating, but maybe there's a loop-hole here. The article states he had to give up his weapons, but he bought a sidearm a couple days later. Assuming he'd already cleared a background check, it's possible that the judge's order doesn't flag him from purchasing any more firearms.
I don't know exactly what happened here, but it is entirely possible that:
1) He didn't own any guns at the time, and had none to surrender.
2) He had one or more firearms but declared, or more likely, even perjured himself, by stating that he had no firearms.
3) He may have either owned or else had access to one or more firearms, but they were not kept in his own (like, at a friend's or relative's home) home.
We do know that he purchased the .40 caliber pistol that was the murder weapon used two days after the restraining order was issued. Being subject to a TRO makes a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. It is possible he turned in any guns he had and then proceeded to go out and unlawfully acquire the pistol used in the killings.
Who knows!
Stupid bastard! Im getting really tired of these immature, self absorbed asses thinking that they have to make a spectacular showing of taking their spouse and anyone else standing around out. If the Salon Owners knew this idiot was roaming around why didn't they alter the way the allowed customers into the facility? One good thing came of it, he won't do it to anyone else and he saved the taxpayers a ton of money in not having to try and house his worthless ass for another 30 or 40 years.
Really good point, why didnt the Salon owner do something. We should be mad at whomever owned the salon . . . moron!
i don't think they mean we should be mad at the salon owner, but when employees or neighboring businesses are threatened, we owe it to ourselves to take necessary precautions to protect ourselves and others, if we have the means and ability to...
The salon owner was out of the country. No one knew he was swarming the place the day of the attack, or obviously customers would not have been let in and they would have secured the area. The only person(s) you should be mad at are 1) the shooter 2)the cops who should have been protecting his estranged wife. I feel so bad for all the victims and their families. Each woman killed was a mother....how sad for those kids.
and let's don't forget...the place is in a mall...guess they should have had security at the door.... and enclosed their employees and customers in bullet-proof polycarbonate....
Just goes to show you how well "restraining orders" work... Wouldn't it be nice if they meant something...
@Lisa From Wayland....the spa is NOT in a mall, it is across the street from the mall. The spa is a stand alone building in between a McDonalds and country club. I live in the area, have been to this spa many times. The mall across the street was on lockdown as a precaution since they weren't sure if the shooter had fled the scene. Brookfield is not a high crime area, it's probably one of the nicer areas in the entire state....no salons here have bullet proof doors.
They work very well against men who it was completely unnecessary to issue one to and who don't deserve it. Strangely, they always seem to obey them! It's the men who one really needs a restraining order against who conveniently ignore them...
WaWatusi,If the salon owners knew this employees husband's demeanor then they should have fired her so as to protect their other employees and customers.An employee who has some nut as spouse becomes a liability once the divorce,custody battle,child support order or restraining order is obtained.An Orange County,California salon had the same terror visited upon them and customers were killed and some injured.the salon knew about this employees spousal problems and still they employed her.
Discriminating against a person because of their marital status seems a little unfair, cleaning lady. Have you ever hired anyone? I could theorize on your inability to retain employees.
The income of a woman in a domestic violence situation may be the only thing that helps her to leave. More needs to be done to protect women.
Tdub,No I have never hired anybody.And an employer can terminate an employee who brings danger to the job.
Lovely,I am aware of that.But others lost their lives.There are many resources for battered women and they should be utilizing them instead of ending up being a statistic.
It's terrible to see another victim die because a domestic situation ended in violence. Obviously a restraining order will never stop one determined to harm another person.In this situation, according to witnesses,Zina Haughton did her best to protect others, while no doubt being afraid herself.I don't know how many people could have done the same thing. Knowing how violent a person he was and eventually became.If we were told to lay down by a man with a gun how would we respond?May she and the other two who died rest in peace, the others injured recover quickly and all be comforted and given strength in the coming days and weeks who so badly need it.
Zina could have saved herself and others had she moved and changed her job hundreds of miles away.It can be done.A restraining order can't stop a nut whose bent on killing a person.
What about gun control laws? eh?
What about laws against murder? eh?
Gun Control laws? Lets see..... who wants Gun Control laws. Criminals, Terrorists and the spineless. Maybe if at the first sign of trouble with this criminal/thug she got her self a carry permit and some training, she could have put him to rest before he killed her and the others. Tell that to the Doctor in Connecticut whose wife and both daughters were raped and murdered, then had the house set on fire. Be sure to tell a murdering thug not to commit the crime because "its against the law".
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/connecticut_doctor_whose_family_eWPz3N9foeiSbXiWwlizKJ
There's a difference between outlawing all guns and making it harder for psychopaths to get one. Plain and simple, the solution is not to give every psychopath in America a firearm, like our current system seems to permit.
People like you are ediots thinking that if everyone carries a gun it's the best solution, why don't we just start shooting each other at the first sign of trouble, way to go moron, lets start killing each other like a good old western movie. Do you think before you speak or type in this case? Gun control might be or may not be the answer but we have to start somewhere we have to make it tougher for ediots like you to obtain a gun.
sebastian-7131342
I carry all the time. I do so as the criminal elements of society have neglected to follow societal norms and provide invitations to their criminal activities. If they would just acquiesce to that civil norm, I and other law abiding citizens would naturally refuse to participate and the need to protect myself would therefore be negated.
Oh, and the spelling is IDIOT.... not ediot...
So I will ask you, who is the IDIOT?
You are.
Anon1995
You truly are a moron, aren't you? If you would take the time to critically read and understand what XD has to say, you might learn something other than being a sheep, Now, please go away and let the grownups talk intelligently for awhile.
restraining orders are useless. It's pretty easy to ignore a piece of paper and police cannot do anything unless they actually attempt something. threats are not actionable.
I believe SPECIFIC threats are actionable. But I agree, any and all laws only affect the people who obey them. To a criminally minded individual, laws are nothing more than words on paper.
Completely agree.
Heard recently someone close had a restraining order which the guy broke. When the lady went to call the cops he simply took the phone from her. Luckily it didnt end up like the story above, but it very well could have. In my story, the guy went before the judge and said he would never hurt his kids, but would take every chance he could to kill his x.
I want to add another issue for consideration. It is very important for women to choose wisely the guy with whom they form a relationship. I am not saying that it was her fault, but, maybe, if at the beginning of their relationship she had noticed certain violent tendencies in the guy, perhaps she could have decided not to get in a relation with this guy. What I am trying to say is that many times women unwisely get into relations with guys that from the very start every body knows they are bullys and violent. I have seen this happen to close family and friends. Just from seeing the guy's picture in this article you can determine that he has a creepy look. Women, choose wisely!
If everyone knew what the future held, they would make different decisions....DUH! Maybe the guy didn't show any violent tendencies prior to their marriage....DUH! Do you really think someone gets married to or dates someone they know or even imagine may kill them one day???
Yes, lilmschargerfan. Unfortunately, some women are attracted to and get married to guys that early on show signs of violence and "tough guy" that will later be applied to them. I have seen it so many times. I am only advocating for women to be more careful when choosing their partners.
Hmmmm so I guess someone famous, say like Rihanna, would never make the decision to get back with someone who already beat her. Knowing what the future could hold or something like that. Get real. Women make stupid decisions while dating quite often. Or stay married for that matter. Good advice Foreign, keep spreading it.
My original comment got deleted, but what I was meaning to say is that why is it that hair salon owners complain about people using cut-your-hair at home kits if this kind of thing will sometimes happen when customers get dissatisfied?
if obozo had a fat bald retarded son he would look like Radcliffe Haughton
if mutt's 5 sons would have been there, they would have run away and kept their pretty faces.
GOOD!!!!!!! NOW thats handled. see how easy thatwas, to get rid of that basterd? coward.
Just supporting his second half of the second amendment "rights". I'm sure he had the gun after listening to the likes of Congressman Broun in Georgia that he needs to fight the government.
Uncle Henry is Radcliffe Haughton's bastard son:)
Since the courts can't defend you and the police are good at doing paperwork after a murder is done, this is another example of the need to carry a firearm.
WI is a CCW state. Fat lot of good it did the victims.
I love the logic - "Violence? Let's cure it with more violence."
ROSS-3626718
You're using a logical argument where only emotional vitriolic diatribes are permitted.
As I've noted numerous times, I carry as I KNOW the police will never be in that particular point in time and space to protect my family, friends, neighbors or myself. They respond AFTER the fact and take statements and file reports. I'm NOT denigrating the police for the job they do, they're doing the best they can, but it is still a fact.
I always say :"Rather let a jury decide my fate, than six pallbearers carry me through the gate".
XDm9mm,
Like you, I also carry. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". That statement was told to us numerous times in my C&C class!
Oddly, after each such tragedy the gun nuts always say "oh, if only someone there were armed." Those of us who are SANE know that would only increase the death toll!
@Wants to know, funny how the dozens of cases where a firearm was used to prevent a crime such as this never gets play in the mainstream media. The Brady campaign does a wonderful job of suppressing anything that could remotely cast a positive light on firearms or their ownership.
Brady is a republican who was shot by a republican. Time to ban handguns.
Takenaka,
Every time something like this comes up you make this riduculous statement. When you get called out on it, you become oddly silent. i ask you again, how do you propose doing that. If this is a legitimate post, please present your facts, if not, please stfu.
If guns weren't a deterrent Police wouldn't carry them. I just want to be sure while I'm calling 9-11 that I have a backup plan. Don't tell me Police are trained. I was trained also.
Orders of protection are just a piece of paper. These men who terrorize their girlfriends, wifes, ex-wives need to be put in jail, BEFORE they kill innocent people.
maybe we can find a way to put Mothers in jail before they kill their kids......
just want some equal justice!
Males commit the majority of violent crimes
your point is?
Maybe we should look at the reasons for the restraining order. What exactly transpired to cause the issue of a restraining order? In other words, what did the wife do to cause this man to kill everyone? I've known girlfriends and ex wives who have slashed tires and burned clothing. Heck, even the radio plays songs suggesting it. "Right now I bet he's slow dancing with a bleach blond girl who can't hold her whiskey.....I took a knife and cut a hole in his pretty leather seats." So lemme get this straight, when a man cheats and gets his car vandalized and clothes burned we 'celebrate' however when a woman cheats and the man flips and kills her, we THEN take a look at the problem? Bring back 'Fault divorces' and make adultery a federal crime.
As a victim of domestic violence I will tell you the only thing I did wrong was not ducking fast enough. I can guarantee you this woman was terrorized by this man. She did not push his buttons. She did not make him mad. He and he alone, was responsible for his own narcissitic behavior and his violent actions and not jsut those of this weekend but all the times before. Any person who abuses another is the one at fault.
Right, lets put guys in jail off the words off of bitter women. Im sure nothing will go wrong there.
I want to add here another issue for consideration. It is very important for women to choose wisely the guy with whom they form a relationship. I am not saying that it was her fault, but, maybe, if at the beginning of their relationship she had noticed certain violent tendencies in the guy, perhaps she could have decided not to get in a relation with this guy. What I am trying to say is that many times women unwisely get into relations with guys that from the very start every body knows they are bullys and violent. I have seen this happen to close family and friends. Just from seeing the guy's picture in this article you can determine that he has a creepy look. Women, choose wisely!
Stop re-posting this BS!! Women nor Men can predict how a person is going to turn out years later or predict another persons actions. STFU already! This is a sad story, stop being judgemental!
lilmschargerfan, YOU are asking to stop re-posting??? But that is precisely what you did with your comment on the grandma whose grandchild was shot in Chicago (you comment reposted on #'s 65.4 and 84). Don't preach what you don't follow yourself!
I agree...it's a lot easier, and more productive, to go through the embarrassment of marriage counseling, than it is to face the consequences involved in chopping people in half.
WTG jugghead
Maybe they should have the person with the restraining order speak to a panel of jailed criminals for one hour and the criminals can make a recommendation about locking the trouble maker up. Who better would know who is potentially dangerous?
The killer should have left others out of his dispute....and get a better woman. At least this is one EX that won't get "passed on" to some unsuspecting schmuck; and cause him a world of grief.
you're a waste of life.
Right on dude.Phuc you people that always think the women nevers does anything wrong.
I agree! Most femi-nazi's will brand you as a 'woman-hater' BUT it's so true. If women would keep there pants on and quick looking to use a guy for what he makes per hour as opposed to being a decent man willing to provide then things might change. Whatever happened to women having morals? Nowadays, all a man is to a woman is a financial means. Women even become pregnant, refuse to name the Father JUST to claim benefits. Some even become pregnant during a marriage JUST to divorce and claim support. Make Domestic Violence laws GENDER Neutral and bring back Fault divorces. You will see how quick things turn around especially when women realize "Oh crap, I have to work WITH my husband to achieve the life I want to live" as opposed to "I want a man who can provide me with Financial security". No more of this "I get the house, half his income and all of his retirement plus alimony".
When we start taking domestic violence SERIOUSLY with more than useless restraining orders, may we then but ONLY then see progress. RIP
janesmi
While I agree, you also need to recognize the conundrum in domestic disputes (violent or otherwise).
Often times, once cooler heads prevail, and tempers have been gotten under control, BOTH sides "kiss and make-up" and neither wants to press charges against the other for multitudes of reasons. Even those where restraining orders have been issued, often times, the parties are back together while the order is still in effect.
Also, as you likely know, unless there is testimony or statements from UNINVOLVED people, basically strangers, it is always a he said / she said, he did / she did situation more often than not with no corroborating proof from either party.
As long as males and females are cohabitants of the space rock we call Earth, these issues will continue.
Restraining orders are issued like candy. IMO Proof should be presented as to why an order should be issued. Do you realize that anyone can make an allegation against anyone and have a person arrested? Sitting in my chair right now typing this, my ex could Allege ANY kind of false allegation and have me served? As a man, I would be arrested "Johnny on the spot" without ANY proof. Simply because she had a visit from "bloody Mary".
AND they would demand that you surrender your guns!! With no conviction of anything...just an accusation.
That's absolutely correct Yakman. My ex falsely accused me 3 times. All dismissed. The first time she was having affair and wanted me out of the home ( so she could get it in divorce ), the second she was attempting to cut ties with me and my kid ( didn't work ) and the third, she was caught having our kid on her boyfriends' motorcycle without a helmet at age 4 ( she filed to keep me away from catching her again ). Dismissed. What did the judge do then? He scolded me.
IMHO, anybody who falsely accuses another like this, should be thrown in jail.
"I told him, 'Whatever you do, don't do anything stupid'," he said.
Well apparently that didn't work. It also sounds like his father 'suspected' he would do something stupid.
Yes, but for once, his father didn't say, "I can't believe he would do this. He was driven to it. It wasn't his fault." He immediately apologized and said it was not the way he was taught. It sounds like the father was as distraught over the awful thing his son did as he was about his death.
What an ego centric SOB. He thought the world revolved around him and how dare she take out a restraining order and make him look less than wonderful. For those of you going into psychological forensics, this is what a narcissistic, antisocial personality looks like.
you spend too much time watching CSI Brookfield!
To be honest, we don't know why the restraining order was issued. For all we may know, she could've falsely filed the order simply because she was having an affair and he found out. That would be the Narcissism here. William, have you ever been cheated on? How'd it make you feel? Several women posting here would probably cackle and say "I'd slash his damn tires".
Irish,
He slashed her tires in the salon parking lot prior to the restraining order, so please get off the "there was likely no reason for a restraining order" crap. The order was just granted on Thursday and he killed her Sunday. Just because you have problems with an ex, don't assume that all women who claim abuse or are afraid for their safety are just doing it for revenge.
This man looks like pure evil.
republicans and the NRA are so right - what we need are more guns and less education especially when it comes to being able to talk our way through things - peacefully. who needs peace when we have guns!
Please, please teach your children how to handle conflict withOUT violence. teach children to reason, think for themselves, and above all else how to resolve conflicts using their brains.
Casual Observer-1894928
My sentiments exactly. However, I will continue to carry my firearm in the event I encounter someone that is not as rational as I am and is unwilling to resolve a conflict peacefully. At that point, I will of necessity use whatever force is required to END the conflict.
casual its not the guns fault, its our lack of immediate response to threats from spousal abuse. when you think about it how often has a restraining order worked? very seldom. we need instant incarceration for abusers, where they stay in jail untill trial. if it was not a gun it would have been a knife, baseball bat, gallon of gas.
i do know that a gun stopped my nieces ex from harming her or the children. when i told him i would be the one shooting him if he ever came near her again.
Have gun ... will shoot.
As American as mom and apple pie.
An American is loss to gun-violence at a rate of 1 every-hour in the United States.
For the past decade, we lose more citizens to gun-violence every-year than we've lost combat soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan total.
Absorb that previous sentence for a moment.
HRDawg
When you can convince the criminal elements of society to stop being criminals, then and only then will I leave my firearms at home. Until that time, I will be prepared for what I fervently HOPE I never need to do again, and that is draw my firearm in my or anothers defense.
Keep this in perspective, in the U.S. in 2010 there were 8775 murders by gun violence.
Accidental firearms deaths in 2010, 606.
Vehicular deaths in 2010, 32,885. There is no distinction between murders with a car, and accidents.
Tobacco deaths. CDC estimates in 2010, 443,000 people died from a product, that if used according to it's instruction will kill you. They estimate that approx, 49,000 were from second hand smoke. The smokers killed more people with cigarettes than people who were murdered from firearms.
Absorb that previous sentence for a moment.
What should be outlawed?
Romney\Ryan 2012
"GOOD JOB"
HRDawg, could you, please, provide a source for your statistic? Most shooting victims are part of the criminal element.
If you’re the average run-of-the-mill American (not a criminal type) your chances of being shot are about 0.8%, and the majority of shootings are the result of crime victimization and domestic disputes. On the other hand, the same run-of-the-mill American has a 60% change of being a victim of drunk driving. (Source: CDC)
The people and families of the persons killed and injured should make sure there is an investigation and proof that the police/sheriffs' office followed up on the requirement that the husband turned over all his firearms....too many times no one checks to make sure requirements are followed and someone dies or is injured because of their neglegence..they just drop the ball.
Yeah, but we all "know" guns don't kill people" yada, yada, yada. (Sarcasm to the gun lobby.) Condolences to the families and friends of the victims, as well as to those victims who were fortunate to live through the nightmare.
So much for restraining orders huh...
GOD makes us "ALL" unique in our own way with "Freedom of Will" and how we use it!
It is only natural and human to disagree with one another However, NEVER shall words or beliefs turn to hurting or taking a human being's "Precious Right's or Life Away!
"ALL ISSUES in this life "MUST" be resolved in a "CIVIL MANNER at ALL COST'S!!!
"The Violence and Killing must End! or we ALL lose this war of blame to the struggles in life we each face!"
Ok not to sound mean or anything. I feel sorry for the lives this guys has damaged. But atleast, he saved my tax payer money from all the court dates, the court appointed attorney, then getting the life sentence and in jail for the rest of his life. He killed himself. Save tax payer time and money. No just to feel for the innocent people that got hurt.
it's sad, but we find men in our society very often do a lot of harm to women.
it's sad, but we find women in our society very often do a lot of harm to men
if only men could more like women we would all smell roses 24/7...
Women seem to like to kill their kids in return. Crazy cycle.
I see it this way. BOTH sexes do harm to one another. If you're unhappy with the partner you married, TELL them and find an amicable solution BEFORE committing adultery, making False Allegations OR stealing ( and eventually killing the kids ). With women having a push for more 'Power' ( whatever that means ) and sexual independence ( adultery is higher for women than for men-Divorces are instigated and filed 80% of the time by women ) AND courts ARE biased towards them, men ARE on the short-end of the stick, regardless of how good he is. If a money hungry ho-bag wants to increase her income AND philander, all she has to do is simply file a false restraining order, remove the man from the home, post a sign reading 'open house', falsely accuse him with the children and make a B-line to the bank. What can he do? Can't see the kids, can't enter his own home, can't hug and kiss his wife, can't keep his job, can't carry a firearm ( even though it's a Constitutional Right ) and can't travel to any place he'd like. Gee, isn't living in a free country great! All this because the woman is either greedy or a ho-bag.
sorry guys, but i have to stand by my comment in light of the fact that homicide by men is the largest cause of bodily injury & premature death among women in the usa.
u.s. prisons today hold around 2.3 million males and around 100,000 females.
...maybe the women kill the children because they carry the dna of the feelthy males.
Come on Medical Science - devise a cheap and easy way to combine DNA of two females to spawn female offspring. Then we can get down to the business of extinguishing the faulty male sub-species.
@Dee,
You know if you don't like it here, you can always go somewhere else where the environment is more hospitable to an obvious mysandrist such as yourself.
a protective order is very potent but we see again that it will not stop a very small percentage of angry and violent people.
The strongest protection in a protective order is the ability to use it as justification for self defense. Anyone who has the benefit of an order should thoroughly arm and train themselves. Keep a weapon or three with you 24/7, even in the shower. If the abusive bastard comes within the magic circle defined in the order, open fire immediately - no delay, discussion or warning - cease fire when ammo is expended - reload - repeat. Make sure the corpse is cold before calling it in.
The protective order is like 007's license to kill. Use it to protect yourself, your children and other family, your co-workers, the other parishioners in church, the others in the theatre or concert hall, the other students in the classroom or cafeteria, etc.
Remember - when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
mailman8, I LOVE your response! Some people just don't give a dang about a Protection Order, for all it does is make them more defiant! In short of moving out of State, your suggestion is the best I've heard, because it appears to be the only way, one can have Freedom and Peace of Mind.
Probelm is, the person being haunted and abused, will probably end up being incarcerated for it!