TCTI: Too Crazy Too Ignore
 Dave Ross

Protected by Smith & Wesson

BY Dave Ross  on January 23, 2013 @ 5:56 am (Updated: 6:02 am - 1/23/13 )

AP: 531033b0-eb5f-463c-974b-8a05cc66f16b
Nehemiah was home schooled, and video games were forbidden. But he told the cops that he played Modern Warfare and Grand Theft Auto on a regular basis, and yes, he had fantasies about killing real people too. (AP Photo/Courtesy of Eric Griego)
While Gun Appreciation Day was wrapping up last Saturday, Nehemiah Griego, age 15, who had never been in trouble with the law, was leading police to his Albuquerque home claiming he'd returned from a friend's house to find his parents, brother and two sisters shot to death - and that fearing for his own safety, he'd driven the family van to the church where his father was a pastor. But when police saw two rifles in the van, they said, OK, now tell us the truth.

That's when he admitted being "frustrated" with his mother - so frustrated that he went to his parents closet, where they kept two rifles and two pistol grip shotguns, chose one of the rifles, and shot her as she slept. That woke the three kids so he shot them too. His father worked a graveyard shift at a rescue mission and wasn't home - so he chose the family's more powerful AR-15, hid in a downstairs bathroom, and at 5:00, when his father walked in, he shot him dead.

Nehemiah was home schooled, and video games were forbidden. But he told the cops that he played Modern Warfare and Grand Theft Auto on a regular basis, and yes, he had fantasies about killing real people too.

The reason the guns were in the van, he said, was that he planned to drive to a Walmart and keep shooting until someone shot him. Can the County Sheriff can't make any sense of it? No.

As with Adam Lanza's mother in Newtown, we'll never know whether the parents had any inkling what was going on in Nehemiah's mind. But what we do know is that they never dreamed the weapons they kept in that closet would be turned on them. In fact the Griego house still displayed a sign reading: "Protected by Smith & Wesson Security Services."

If only.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Dave Ross

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (61)


  • Add A Comment

  • Cameron wrote...
    Nothing like exploiting a mentally ill child for political purposes
    January 23, 2013 5:14 am
    Right Dave? Pathetic.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    gun rights people like me say lock your guns up-over and over and over.
    January 23, 2013 8:20 am
    dave dont ya think it will be a more do able course to campain to lock up guns, monitor mentaly ill, background check or as you libs want-consficate all guns. this will never, ever happen!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Cameron
    January 23, 2013 8:32 am
    "EXPLOITING" a mentally ill child? Not exactly,more like Ross telling the story behind a mass murder(and the danger of having guns in unsecured places).I'm betting you have one of those Smith and Wesson signs also and perhaps a few guns laying around too
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    why the news blackout on the common thread?
    January 23, 2013 5:20 am
    selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

    Big Pharma + Democrat Party = Zombie Nation

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Paul K
    January 23, 2013 8:37 am
    Your side were Zombies way before drugs entered the picture.In fact many of the Righty posters on this forum seem to enjoy a mixture of drugs and alcohol.Read a weeks worth of Billy Boys,AJ The Righty Welfare Queen or your own verbal diarrhea and you'll see what I mean
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    If only
    January 23, 2013 5:26 am
    They outlawed murder. Then those two kids wouldn't have stabbed to death that kid and tried to drain his blood a few months ago.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Dave Hates Guns
    January 23, 2013 5:48 am
    and wants a Nanny state that will tell you when where and how to live

    Ok We get it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    Dave's dream world...shared by all progressives
    January 23, 2013 6:04 am
    a helpless, disarmed populous of Democrat voting Prozac zombies who worship the Beast. Only one obstacle stands in the way of the dream....the sober, God fearing gun owners of America.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    And your point is, Dave ???????
    January 23, 2013 6:01 am
    Would young Nehemiah be a choir boy, were it not for guns??? That somehow the guns 'made' him kill his family??? That somehow guns raise up and turn anyone of us to evil???

    I guess you must be right, Dave. Along with your Idol in the White House. ..... Oh, and next year we can all get behind banning bombs. Then axes. Then knives. Then rocks. Then ........ ?

    OR we can realize that there is mental illness and rage(and occasionally pure evil) that occasionally results in horrific murder. ... As has been since Cain rose up and killed his brother Abel.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Common Sense Says
    January 23, 2013 6:41 am
    Secure your guns, even if that means from your kids. I don't care how well balanced you think your kids, especially teenagers are. How many of us became enraged at our parents during our teenage years? Here's a law that I'd like to see, if you don't adequately secure your guns and a crime happens because of it, you don't get to have guns anymore. Guns should be an earned right, not a given right. You have to prove that you are competent and responsible enough to own a gun. You take a test on firearm safety. Have it similar to driving a car. The times are completely different from 200 years ago when citizens took up arms to form militias.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • doublej wrote...
    Exactly
    January 23, 2013 6:51 am
    Nobody likes to blame the victim but, you have to wonder if this tragedy would have been avoided if only the parents would have been responsible and secured their guns. This isn't, but should be the root of the gun debate in this country, not banning guns. Responsible gun ownership should be priority #1.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    "Guns should be an earned right, not a given right"
    January 23, 2013 6:53 am
    Spoken like a true liberal, shall I suggest the right to vote should also be earned, or maybe the right of freedom of speech. I have no issue with common sense precautions in gun ownership, but the RIGHT to own and bare arms is a constituional right to prevent tyranny of our elected officials. I sure wish we could ban freedom of speech of those we no longer want to hear from but alas even fanatics have that right.....heck Dave yaps garbage all the time, but that is his right as well.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    mnpat
    January 23, 2013 7:05 am
    So the mentally ill should have the right to own and bear arms as well as that is there constitutional right to protect against tyranny.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Sports Guy - rights are rights.
    January 23, 2013 7:20 am
    We retain rights until and unless we are legally deprived of them. A criminal, for example, retains his right to vote until convicted - and still retains many constitutional tights even then. ... So, then, the mentally ill can be deprived of their rights through recognized legal action (but not simply an administrative finding).

    Privileges can be revoked by government fiat. But not rights. And unless we start preemptively confining people without legal procedures... YES the mentally ill do retain rights up to a point.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ron p
    January 23, 2013 8:44 am
    Who determines at what point mentally ill people lose the Right to protect themselves?Would the evaluation only be done by Righty Doctors?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Messiah, how about.....
    January 23, 2013 11:12 am
    a court of LAW. ???????

    But, would YOUR determination be akin to the 'no fly' list? With determination by fiat with reasons unknown ???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ron p
    January 23, 2013 4:59 pm
    How is a court of law qualified to judge if a person is dangerous or not?A court would likely use the recommendation of a Doctor.How about starting with any wife beaters,anyone found guilty of assaulting someone,alcoholics,drug users (including those using Any mind altering drugs)get a DWI no guns for you EVER,How about those people for a starter?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Gee, messiah, I don't know. .. How about the same way
    January 24, 2013 4:52 am
    a court can find someone guilty of battery, assault or DUI?

    But, by the way, I would hope no court is as draconian as you. Considering, for example, that alcoholics and drug addicts need NOT be substance users forever. There are many means of help to break addiction - in many cases forever (just so long as you never again use, of course). ... Or are you of the 'liberal' mind that once condemned is forever danmed ???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    sportsguru.....
    January 23, 2013 9:28 am
    Unless you prove them mentally ill, a felon, or incapacitated....that is their right under the constitution. Are you the person to decide who should and who should not....are you now telling me the right to a hearing/trial is no longer required?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    mnpat
    January 23, 2013 7:09 am
    There are limitations to freedom of speech. You can't go into a theatre and yell "fire." A very basic example, but there are many others.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    You are incorrect....yes you can but there are consequences for those that do.
    January 23, 2013 9:30 am
    Are you now as sportsguru wants to be everyones judge of the constitutional rights and freedoms?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    mnpat
    January 23, 2013 8:40 am
    Perhaps the NRA should start a program to put a gun in every new borns crib at birth. After all its a right to allow that baby to protect itself against the other babies or mean nurses
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    messiah, when they are 18 and emancipated
    January 23, 2013 9:32 am
    they can do what they want, until then parents have the obligation to protect and teach their children as they see fit....perhaps you and your followers can be even more condencending to those that believe in the Constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    mnpat "As they see fit"
    January 23, 2013 9:42 am
    Are you kidding me?Your allowing 1000 different parents to instruct a 1000 different children a 1000 different ways? Thats flat out stupid.And please don't respond that would not happen because anyone with a lick of sense would disagree
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    messiah101......
    January 23, 2013 9:54 am
    "until then parents have the obligation to protect and teach their children as they see fit" ....So now you also want to be in control on how parents raise their children in addition to overseer of the Constitutions Amendments.....you have decide that those with a pecuilar political theology should be a dictator maybe?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    WSU
    January 23, 2013 6:57 am
    Good post....but it's still the 2nd amendment. Why are you liberals so hell-bent on changing it??? There are thousands of gun laws on the books. Laws do not protect us from crazy people with guns? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? And even more difficult for you to admit???
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Maple
    January 23, 2013 7:18 am
    Why are we "hell bent on changing it?" From what I have seen, it isn't just Dems. Who brought up The Brady Bill? Did Reagan support a ban on assault weapons? Can you understand why there are people that feel assault weapons aren't necessary? I am not saying that I know it will make a difference if we ban them. I certainly think it would help, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. I'd like to see a more thorough background check, a closure on the loop hole on gun show sales, stiffer penalties for youth violence involving guns, and the removal of gun ownership for those that prove they have aren't responsible enough to own a gun. That is simply my opinion. You are free to not agree.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Fish
    January 23, 2013 8:49 am
    I have heard no mention from Obama that he wants to take your guns away.Thats just fodder the far right is using to pad the political funds of far right politicans.I believe you Rightys should be able to purchase ALL the single shot Muskets you want.After all these were the types of weapons the forefathers of this country were talking about.Right?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    As long as everyone else...
    January 23, 2013 12:33 pm
    ...including the military is carrying single-shot muskets, fine.

    If the Founding Fathers meant muskets, they would have said muskets. Do you think they weren't aware of the advancement of weaponry up to their day?

    They said ARMS and they meant ARMS. The top-of-the-line weaponry of their time was the cannon. Private ownership thereof was not banned by our early federal government.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Seattle Native
    January 23, 2013 5:05 pm
    THe founding fathers had NO idea what types of weapons would be available in the future they ONLY knew that militias carried Muskets not semi auto or auto weapons
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hey, Wassu - 'Have it similar to drive a car.' ???
    January 23, 2013 7:06 am
    The kid is only 15. And drove. Unless New Mexico has a lower age limit than the rest of the country, he kinda ignored that 'responsibility' also.

    Oh, and by the way. Would you then have the 2nd Amendment contingent on being earned? Like slaves of old could occasionally 'earn' their freedom ? - Or not.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Ron
    January 23, 2013 7:26 am
    The times have changed. There can be amendments made to The Constitution. Has that ever happened before? You want to compare an underage kid driving a care to an underage kid committing a deadly crime with a gun? There are always going to be the 'What if" stories. "What if the kid is underage and he has to drive his sick mother to the hospital?" "What if an intruder enters the home and the kid pulls out a gun and kills him?" I think common sense will prevail in the "What if" scenarios. You totally lost me on your slave comparison.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    "There can be amendments made to The Constitution"
    January 23, 2013 9:35 am
    Yes, absolutely...so if people want to change the 2nd Amendment, they can pass another, that was exactly the way it was supposed to be done.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    OK, WSU, I'm sure you know what is necessary to amend the Constitution.
    January 23, 2013 11:18 am
    And it ain't 'executive order'.

    .

    Oh, and the slave reference was that some believe no one has rights, except as bestowed by others. ... Yet, if rights are inalienable - from God or from our very being as humans - they exist. Regardless of being 'earned'.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ohyea53 wrote...
    wsualumn
    January 23, 2013 7:18 am
    You are correct you can’t go into a theater and yell fire. But the crime is yelling fire. They don’t stop you before you go into the theater because they think you might yell fire. Do They?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    They're dancing in the streets...
    January 23, 2013 7:31 am
    of hell.

    Nothing suits the advance of evil any more directly than an item with a defensible, useful,legitimate purpose. (Hand guns, baseball bats, butcher knives, etc).

    Guns aren't evil. Guns are mindless pieces of hardware that can't form intent and have no will of their own. Gun ownership isn't evil. It's safe to say that over 95% of gun owners are responsible, careful, people. 99.9% of that 95% will never pull the trigger with anything in the sights except a bullseye at a shooting range. Heck, there are cops who are exposed to criminals all day, every day, that serve entire careers and never have to shoot, or shoot at, anybody.

    Some people are evil. In fact, the potential for evil exists in all of us. When you put an evil person, or a person temporarily in an evil frame of mind,together with a tool fundamentally and originally designed for the taking of human life they are dancing in the streets, of hell.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    The Second amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms.
    January 23, 2013 7:38 am
    The laws are in place when someone abuses that right. Along with jails. 22 hundred gun laws on the books.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    haha
    January 23, 2013 8:53 am
    What part of Obama has no intent of taking your Right to own a gun away are you having a problem understanding?When has Obama said he wants to take Americans Right to bare arms away?Where?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    I'm confused
    January 23, 2013 8:04 am
    Is the point of the post that the family of this mentally ill boy would still be alive had he used a handgun instead of long rifle?

    I would say these parents were not responsible gun owners. If there's any chance a kid can get hold of your firearms, you should keep them secure.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }