Dad With History of Violence Shot Wife, 3-Year-Old Son, Self

[Robb]

Police have identified the shooter as Oscar Guerra, 35, who lived on the 3400 block of Tennessee Avenue by Cherokee Street. Police say he killed his wife Carla Guerra, 28, and their son Marcio, age three, who both lived with him in the Benton Park West home. Their landlord reportedly found the three dead inside the home on Saturday morning -- and an investigation revealed that the husband and wife had previously got into a physical confrontation before the fatal shootings.

Police say the mother and child suffered multiple gunshot wounds and were located in a rear bedroom and pronounced dead on the scene.

The father allegedly fired a shot into his own head.

Police officials say that the man had been charged in May in another domestic violence case in which he allegedly hit his wife with a tire iron. And the couple and their son had reportedly moved into the home on Tennessee just three days prior, the Post-Dispatch reports. Oscar Guerra had apparently cut lawns for the landlord, who went to the home -- and made the grisly discovery on Saturday -- because the man didn't show up for work.

Read More: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/07/south_st_louis_murder_suicide.php

This is precisely the sort of situation recent gun bills passed in Colorado seek to address; while several states do prohibit domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms, very few have court processes in place allowing judges to order those guns actually confiscated. National legislation in this area would save many lives.

[bettyellen]

1. it bears repeating- National legislation in this area would save many lives.

[Robb]

2. Thank you. nt

[galileoreloaded]

3. both a fact AND intent post fail.

"the man had been charged in May in another domestic violence case in which he allegedly hit his wife with a tire iron."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

he would have been a prohibited person. nice try though!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. But if we had the right law we could have stopped him from being a law-breaker.

All right-thinking people know this.

[galileoreloaded]

5. straight from the pre-crime bureau!! I like it!

you can get a years worth of derp in both gun AND pitbull threads these days.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Remember how much crime they told us would go away once we instituteda ban on

alcohol? No more domestic violence. No more drunken brawls. No more liquor-sotted rages to fuel the homicide rate. Fewer industrial accidents. It was a public health issue. It was a moral issue. The drunkards were spilling into the streets ruining the rest of our lives. Sure there were those who claimed to be benign drinkers but if they really were "law-abiding imbibers" then surely they would abide by the law of Prohibition.

Good times. Good times, my friend.

[Robb]

7. Yet he was not.

You don't seem to understand, so perhaps you should read it again.

[pintobean]

8. Not what, prohibited to have a firearm?

The story doesn't say, one way or the other. He obviously had one. It also doesn't say how, where, or when he obtained it. Your conclusion appears to be based on assumption.

[Robb]

9. Not convicted of a felony, therefore not prohibited.

[galileoreloaded]

10. fail. read lautenburg.

he was prohibited the moment he was charged with DV.

[Robb]

12. Lautenburg Amendment applies only to convictions.

Which is the entire point.

[petronius]

22. Not from the charge, I don't think, but only if he'd been convicted or if an

order of protection had been issued. So neither Lautenberg nor the new CO laws (based just on reading the OP link) would apply here, although the CO move toward allowing removal of firearms from possession of newly-prohibited persons is a positive step (CA has a system for that as well).

One question here is what the outcome of the tire-iron charge was - was it en route to a conviction, or was it dropped/reduced for some reason?

And more importantly, why was there no order of protection: did the victim refuse one? Did a judge refuse to issue one? Could a judge issue one over the victim's objection? If she declined one, why? (Was she not provided the resources to safely leave?)

[Duckhunter935]

26. agree

to many questions not answered and some are making too many assumptions even though they lack facts.

[galileoreloaded]

15. but WHY not. who dropped the ball? thats what lautenburg is for. shit like this.

http://ago.mo.gov/publications/domesticviolence.pdf

[ileus]

11. I'm pretty sure if I hit my wife with a tire iron she'd shoot me with her 642.

[pintobean]

13. And, I'm pretty sure

that if Guerra had beaten his family to death with a tire iron, then jumped into the Mississippi River to kill himself, we wouldn't see a story about it here.

[maxsolomon]

14. But he didn't, did he? He used a gun.

Choosing a firearm to carry out a Familycide is by far the most popular option, not bludgeoning and drowning.

If he'd had to surrender his weapons upon being arrested for DV, and those weapons held until the case was ejudicated, his wife and child might still be alive.

Might. Of course, your fantasy method might have been used, but the odds are significantly smaller that it would have.

[galileoreloaded]

16. or if the wife had followed through on a restraining order. you know

for getting hit with a tire iron.

http://ago.mo.gov/publications/domesticviolence.pdf

[Robb]

19. Nice. It's the victim's fault for not "following through."

[galileoreloaded]

21. no, it was the responsibility she had to her child.

and anyone with a set of adult neurons knows it. every woman and mother on this site knows it.

you should barf up all that fear and get to work empowering people instead of making excuses and depriving others of their essential liberties.

if you give a victim tools and they don't use them, then who are they a victim of? themselves. time to grow up.

[Robb]

23. Well, she sure learned her lesson, eh?

Yours is a disgusting post.

[galileoreloaded]

25. it used to be that the mark of a progressive

was thoughtful and rational decision making, but with guns its all feels.

cognitive dissonance is infecting you, and i feel bad for ya.

[Paladin]

28. One thing about you gun activists---you're consistent.

You never, ever get tired of Blaming The Victim, do you?

Extra points for the "its all feels" dig, as if the gun militancy movement isn't fueled by a constant stream of high-octane emotion.

[galileoreloaded]

29. im a giver! nt

[Robb]

31. You're blaming the wife for her husband shooting her.

That's completely insane.

[galileoreloaded]

33. not at all. im asking what we can do to

get women like her and in similar situations to access the readily available resources that she knows about (as evidence by the PDF i provides, which would have been given to her at the first arrest) in order to protect her child and herself against a murderous prick.

she likely had the knowledge, why didn't she act? does she have any responsibility to the situation?

we all have the responsibility to mitigate our own damages, no free pass on that. life has no guarantees.

[pintobean]

17. How do you know

if he had any weapons at the time of his arrest?

[maxsolomon]

24. I don't.

But let's say he didn't.

Perhaps he should not be allowed to legally purchase a firearm while under a Restraining Order or prosecution, hell, investigation for DV - he would have to WAIT until those issues were resolved. At which point, if he was still mad, he could acquire a weapon legally and kill his family. Could the 2nd Amendment survive such a draconian infringement?

Of course, to anticipate your next objection, he could always buy a gun illegally. I don't know if that's how he acquired this weapon, either. But there's nothing that laws can do to stop that.

Can YOU suggest a better way to reduce the frequency of these incidents? Or are you only able to find the flaws in other's hypotheticals?

[pintobean]

27. Actually, I'm all for not allowing anyone who is charged with DV

to possess or acquire firearms. I objected to all the assumptions made. I see this here all the time.

[petronius]

34. That seems reasonable to me as well - if a protection order is enough to

trigger a prohibition, then an actual charge should do so as well. And in both cases, I don't think the logistics would be too difficult: a verified transfer to another legal possessor, a gun safe or evidence locker at the police department, or even a storage contract between the court and local gun stores. And the firearms could be returned if/when the prohibition was lifted...

[bobclark86]

18. You know who we could blame?

Obviously the shooter, but what about the judge?

You see, if a judge were to have issued an order of protection, the shooter would have been disarmed. But eh, we care more about keeping families together, because divorce is DESTROYING AMURICA! A violent home is better than a broken home.

Who cares if he beat his wife with a tire iron? That used to be legal, just like how it used to not be rape if you were married.

Oh, and I know since this is the Internet, somebody might miss this:

[billh58]

20. And the NRA-apologists

from the Gungeon swarm from their swamp yet again to defend the indefensible. Their ultra-conservative thoughts and actions are as predictable as the coming of winter, and just as foreboding.

Many thanks to all Americans who are waking up to the death and destruction which the obscene proliferation of guns has brought to this nation, and who are helping to re-write sensible gun control laws. The national conscience is swinging in the direction of tighter control of who is allowed to "keep and bear" lethal weapons, and under what conditions they may responsibly exercise that right.

Stories such as this more than adequately point to the need for these changes in our approach to the common good.

[Duckhunter935]

30. agreed but many of the laws

being pushed by some would may have virtually no effect on this. The open questions are....

was he convicted of DV? if not why not?
was there a restraining order requested?
did he have firearms prior to this or did he purchase after.

I have no issues removing weapons for cause but it still has to be a legal process and I believe it is following a conviction. Do the new laws cover removal on a just a charge or conviction, I do not know. It is very sad but all have a responsibility even yes the victim of the DV.

[The Straight Story]

32. Laws don't need an affect, they just have to act as pacifiers for some folks

Hey someone killed someone, let's make a new law to stop people from doing that!

Then they want to add new laws for what people used, thinking such people would obey those laws and not the others.

Then you end up with 57 million people owning the same thing that person used, 99.6% who don't misuse the item in question, and we keep wanting more laws to stop those people from doing what they are not doing.

All the while we have DV laws, etc and not enough money to fully enforce and pursue them (so they lessen charges, etc) which are the real reason such crimes get to the point we do and some still want to go after what was used instead of real and meaningful reform (because it is the using of other crimes, not the causes, that they are most interested in to push their real agenda, which is not protection but control).

[billh58]

35. Overused NRA-apologist

drivel. Change in gun control is coming, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. The fact is that too many people have too many guns in this country, which results in too many deaths and injuries.

Saying that there is nothing "meaningful" that can be done with new and/or improved regulations is not true, unless you listen to the gun manufacturers' for-profit mouthpiece, the right-wing, Koch Brothers supported, NRA.

Gun promoters have had their day in the Sun and the deadly results are there for all the world to see. It is now time to re-visit all gun regulations at all levels of government, and adjust them as necessary for the common good. Thankfully, that process is gaining momentum all across this nation.