Tragedy in Stafford County

To the outside world, the Stafford, Virginia family of Aaron Jackson, LaTasha Thomas and their two children “seemed happy.” In reality, that was anything but the case. On May 5, Jackson used a semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle to kill Thomas, before using a handgun to kill his children (ages 2 ½ and 1 ½) and himself.

Police responding to the crime scene at the family’s trailer discovered the bodies of the four victims, as well as six handguns, the AK-47 assault rifle, numerous boxes of ammunition, a sword, and a machete. The kitchen counter top in the trailer was crowded with empty liquor bottles. Jackson, 24, was discovered wearing a bulletproof vest.

Jackson and Thomas had been having relationship problems, and in the days before the shooting Thomas told others she wished to move out of the mobile home the couple shared. Jackson had begun a relationship with another woman, Ashley Price, with whom he shared an appetite for both alcohol and cocaine.

Jackson did not have a significant criminal record, however, and had been involved in no reported incidents of domestic violence. According to Jackson’s sister, his primary source of stress was financial in nature: "He was obviously upset—stuff wasn't going to well—everybody was having problems with money." Despite these issues, many who knew the family were baffled by the murder-suicide. One neighbor commented, “I sold them ice cream just the other day. They got SpongeBob ice cream.”

Authorities reported that Jackson possessed a concealed carry permit in the state of Virginia. “He carrie[d] a gun with a holster underneath him,” said Price, who stated that Jackson felt the need to protect himself in case he was ever attacked in public.

Ultimately, Jackson’s guns would provide him no protection. There was nothing extraordinary about his relationship issues, struggles with substance abuse, or financial problems—such stresses are experienced every day in our country by gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Regrettably, though, Jackson’s guns provided a permanent solution to temporary problems—allowing him to quickly and easily take not only his own life, but also the lives of those he loved, before cooler heads could prevail.

Lack of Protection

Marc Kidby was a 30 year-old Ohio University employee who was deeply troubled by a pending divorce. A gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, Kidby became the subject of a domestic violence protection order that was filed by his wife on February 11. At that point, Kibdy’s concealed carry permit should have been suspended by the Athen County sheriff’s office in Ohio. Kibdy was also required by law to surrender his guns to authorities.

He did not surrender them, and the sheriff’s office failed to suspend his permit. A deputy with the office stated that he knew of “no case where anyone thought [Kidby] was a threat to others.” Kidby’s wife, however, had said in her petition for the protection order that he had threatened to kill both her and their two year-old daughter.

Moreover, it was abundantly clear Kidby was a threat to himself. He had threatened to jump off tall buildings, was admitted to a mental health hospital at one point, and talked of “suicide by cop.”

Sadly, on April 1, Kidby took his own life with a .38-caliber handgun he owned. An opportunity to avert tragedy had been missed.

Kidby’s struggles with depression and loss were far from unique, and his unfortunate death is a reminder that guns purchased for self-defense can sometimes become a threat to those they are meant to protect. As researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute recently noted, living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.

This case also highlights the tremendous importance of clarifying and enforcing court-ordered removal laws "to actively engage the criminal justice system in the process of removing firearms from individuals who are violent toward their intimate partners.” Regrettably, one recent study that examined state laws in this area reported “an urgent need for progress.” We can and should do better.

A Match Made in Hell

This month's "Ordinary People" entry involves the unlikely duo of David Downs, a middle-class home owner from Levittown, Pennsylvania; and Sean Hagins, a crack dealer from Trenton, New Jersey. Downs had a nasty crack habit, and when Hagins saw him roll up for a purchase one day in a pick-up adorned with Pennsylvania tags and an NRA bumper sticker, he had an idea. As an ex-felon prevented from buying firearms, he wanted to know if Downs would be willing to buy guns for him in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, handguns can be bought at a gun store in a matter of minutes. In New Jersey, the process can take weeks, even months. It was a match made in heaven—or hell, depending upon your perspective.

After the deal was struck, Downs, a concealed carry permit holder, bought scores of guns over the counter at established gun stores in Pennsylvania, easily passing the required computerized background checks. He failed to note that he was addicted to a controlled substance on the required sales form (which would have prohibited him under federal law from buying guns), but nothing came up in his criminal record and no one questioned him about it. These guns later ended up on crime scenes across Trenton. The owner of one of the stores that sold Downs the guns, commenting on the instant background check system that screens gun buyers, stated, “Maybe there should be a little more than that.”

At CSGV, we certainly agree. In New Jersey and certain other states, those purchasing handguns must obtain a permit through the police. This process involves fingerprinting and a background investigation by law enforcement. Such a process could have turned up evidence of Downs’ drug addiction. Given the flaws in our background check system (many disqualifying records have yet to be transmitted to the federal database), tighter screening makes a lot of sense and is the best way to catch questionable—and sadly, commonplace—activity that might fall through the cracks of a computer check.

10 Items or Fewer…Strictly Enforced

“Shop till you drop” almost took on new meaning after a tense confrontation at a Winn-Dixie grocery store in Miramar, Florida, last Thanksgiving Eve. Frustrated at having to wait in a long checkout line, Miramar City Commissioner Fitzroy Salesman drew a concealed handgun and pushed it into the side of 18-year-old Lazavius Hudson, who Salesman claimed had too many items in his cart.

A video captured by surveillance cameras at the store shows Salesman, a concealed carry permit holder in the state, brandishing his .45 caliber handgun after a brief verbal confrontation with Hudson. After pulling his gun, Salesman is reported to have taunted the other customers in the store, saying, “they can call the police.” He apparently was confident that he would not go to jail for the offense and told police that he pulled the gun because he felt threatened.

Salesman has since been charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and removed from the city council by Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Although Salesman by all objective standards was not under any real threat at the Winn-Dixie, his claim to police that he “felt threatened” may allow him to cite a new Florida law in his defense at his upcoming trial.

Florida’s “Shoot First” statute, which became law in 2005, eliminates the duty to retreat from a threat and allows residents to use deadly force anywhere they are legally permitted to be to stop the commission of a “forcible felony.” Any felony that involves the threat or use of physical violence against an individual is included under the auspices of the law. Individuals need not meet some reasonable standard of fear of such a threat to their safety, but rather must only subjectively affirm that they felt threatened. The burden of proof in these cases falls upon the prosecution, who must prove a defendant’s state of mind wasn’t one in which he/she felt threatened.

Fortunately, Hudson was not physically harmed and will be able to testify in the case and go on with his life. We regret to say that Florida’s Shoot First law has already led to several shootings that resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians. We believe that every citizen, innocent or guilty, has the right to a fair trial by jury where there is an objective standard as to what constitutes “reasonable force.” By enacting a Shoot First law, the Sunshine State has chosen the path of vigilantism over that of reason and allowed momentary bouts of hubris to determine the course of lives. For this reason, future Fitzroy Salesmans will undoubtedly feel emboldened.