Thomas Matthew Crooks, the suspectin Saturday’s shooting, was registered as a Republican voter, according to Pennsylvania records.

Already the republicans are dismissing his voter registration as meaningless. Here comes the “mental illness” angle.

Edit: apparently it’s not uncommon to register with the party you oppose in PA. This is going to be a fun ride.

  • tugrim@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    He definitely could be Republican and I would not dismiss it at all. However, in the state of Pennsylvania it’s common to register for the party primaries of the opposing party whose candidate is someone you’re not in favor of and vote for someone else. It should be clear this does not mean he’s not a Republican or imply that he might be a Democrat. It’s only to add some context.

    Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Pennsylvania

    • quixotic120@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      4 months ago

      I wouldn’t say it’s common, that’s misleading. some people do it, probably, but I’ve lived in PA for 2 decades and have never met anyone who has claimed to do so nor have I seen any actual statistics on the matter

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        My older sister has been doing it since the 80s. I don’t think there’s very many of them because assholes keep winning the Republican primaries

      • tugrim@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s fair, you’re right as I haven’t seen statistics either. While I don’t do it myself, I’ve seen many speak about doing this over the years though I’ve only lived in PA for a little over a decade.

        Edit: autocorrect

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      He also has donated to Democratic cause three years ago. Might not mean anything but we’ll see if they better figure out this guy.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        … it would been a whole lot easier if he hadn’t been shot dead.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          If law enforcement sees a guy on a rooftop with a gun threatening a crowd of people, though, that’s an acceptable situation for “shoot first, ask questions later”. That shot that killed the guy probably saved other lives.

            • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              37
              ·
              4 months ago

              They also allow people to keep shooting.

              That is some Hollywood shit, in real life you shoot until the threat is neutralized, it could have been another las vegas

            • teft@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              No one in the history of actual combat shooting is taught to take non lethal shots. Ever.

              • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Idk what your talking about. You shoot the gun out of the hand. Then you shoot the hat off for intimidation and the somewhere nearby you shoot the rope of someone getting hanged to free them to kinda balance things out. This is all common sense.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                What do you mean with combat shooting? Because here in Finland police is trained to (and required by law) to try to minimize the damage and if possible, to stop someone without killing them, usually by shooting at the legs etc. But that’s more for knife fielding attacker and other situation where such shots are more possible and not when the cops or others are being shot at

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  It’s the normal procedure here in Finland to try to take someone down with shooting in the legs or somewhere else that they might survive from. Not the case if they start shooting of course, it’s more for situation where they’re wielding a knife and coming for the cop or someone else

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              4 months ago

              Non-lethal shots are a fantasy.

              You have plenty of blood vessels in your limbs and it is very easy to bleed out via the femoral artery or whatever else. This is literally why tourniquets exist

              Assuming it is an actual threat and not a black kid with a toy train: Shoot to kill and then, when it is safe, have EMTs try to keep them alive.

            • dhork@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              If you’re standing 20 feet in front of the guy, yes. If your only shot is across a field from one rooftop to another, you have much less control over where the bullet hits.

              • teft@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                At those distances (200-300 meters going by the map i saw) with professional shooters they can put multiple rounds inside of a spot the size of a dime. That isn’t the point though, you shoot to kill in those situations. Non lethal shots are hollywood shit.

            • constantokra@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              They’re less lethal, not non lethal, and they’re frequently used as an excuse to escalate violence needlessly. I’m very critical of the use of their use of force and would generally prefer police to be unarmed, but this is not a situation where I have any complaints. That threat needed to be neutralized as quickly and effectively as possible. Overwhelming force was the best way to do that.

              • ABCDE@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Was overwhelming force used? It sounded like one person going up a ladder and retreating, before the guy got shot(s) away.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Dunno how they would’ve done that, wasn’t he shot from another roof by a sniper while he was still posing an active threat? That’s the image I got from some articles