The Stay family and their five children. Both parents and four of the children were fatally shot Wednesday in their Texas home.
On Wednesday evening, Ronald Lee Haskell, disguised as a FedEx delivery man, gained entry to the home of his sister-in-law and her spouse, Stephen and Katie Stay, demanding the whereabouts of his estranged ex-wife. According to statements by the Harris County police and prosecutors, he then allegedly tied up the Stays and their five children, ages 4 to 15, and shot them execution style, killing all but his 15-year-old niece, who played dead. Haskell then began driving to the home of the children's grandparents, possibly to continue his rampage, but his critically injured niece managed to call 911. He was apprehended on the way by law enforcement. After a three-and-a-half-hour standoff three miles from the scene of the killings, Haskell surrendered and was arrested.
Court records show that in Utah in 2008, Haskell was charged with domestic violence and simple assault against his wife. She reported that he had hit her in the head and dragged her by the hair, according to police and court records.He pleaded guilty to the assault charge and had the domestic-violence charge dismissed as part of his plea deal. In July 2013, Haskell's wife filed a protective order against him in Cache County, Utah, where they lived at the time. The order applied to her and their four children. She then moved away and filed for divorce about a month later. The divorce was finalized this past February.
It's not yet clear if Haskell possessed his guns legally, but his case appears to be the latest example of how easy it remains for domestic abusers to possess firearms, thanks to weak legislation. Under federal law, Haskell's protective order should have prohibited him from owning guns, says Laura Cutilletta, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. However, in October 2013, Haskell's protective order was converted to a "mutual restraining order" as part of their divorce and custody proceedings. (You can read the protective order docket, obtained by Mother Jones on Thursday, here.) This crucial step likely meant that Haskell was legally allowed to have guns again, under both state and federal law. Had the first protection order not been dropped, Cutilletta added, "likely he would have been prohibited." Nor is it likely that Haskell's 2008 conviction barred him from owning a gun in Utah or Texas, Cutilletta says, because he was convicted of simple assault rather than domestic violence. (Haskell's attorney in his 2013 protective order proceedings did not respond to Mother Jones' request for comment.)
[Update July 11, 2:30 p.m. ET: As more documents on Haskell emerge, it appears that the mutual restraining order agreed to by him and his wife during their divorce proceedings could have qualified Haskell for the federal prohibition on possessing guns, Cutilletta says. But even then it may have done little to stop him, "because it was part of the divorce decree and not under the domestic abuse statute," she says. "Therefore it likely wouldn't have been reported to the FBI for the purpose of a background check."
And there may have been another opportunity to disarm him: According to Chelsea Parsons, director of crime and firearms policy at the Center for American Progress, Haskell's 2008 misdemeanor conviction for simple assault should have activated the federal bar on possessing guns. However, because Haskell entered a plea in abeyance to the crime, the assault conviction was dismissed after he'd committed no new crimes within eight months, keeping his right to possess guns intact.
Update July 12, 2:40 a.m. ET:New reporting shows that Haskell likely had two other pending restraining orders against him—one filed by his sister this past November, and the other by his mother as recently as July 3, 2014. Haskell's mother told KHOU news that at her home in San Marcos, California, her son Ron got angry at her because she'd spoken to his ex-wife. He then "forcefully covered my mouth with his hand and pushed me inside the home," duct-taped her to a chair, and then squeezed her neck trying to choke her to the point of unconsciousness. She said he claimed he was "going to kill me, my family, and any officer who stops him." If this information proves accurate, it raises additional questions about the role of restraining orders in this case, and whether they should have triggered a federal- or state-level ban on gun ownership.]
Three different bills that would strengthen federal law are currently stalled in Congress, in part due to lobbying efforts of gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association. Federal law prohibits convicted felons, subjects of permanent domestic-violence protective orders, as well as current and former spouses, parents, and guardians who have been convicted of domestic-violence misdemeanors from possessing a gun. But this leaves many situations where potential abusers are allowed to keep their guns. The current law doesn't apply to misdemeanant stalkers, domestic-violence misdemeanants who are current or former dating partners but who've never cohabitated or had a child together, as well as accused partners subject to a temporary (rather than permanent) restraining order. This is concerning, especially considering that in more than half of all states, fatal violence between intimate partners is most often perpetrated with a firearm. (See map above.)
In June, US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited the case of 32-year-old mother Lori Gellatly when introducing a bill that would bar Americans served with temporary restraining orders for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm. In April 2014, a court granted Gellatly a temporary restraining order against her husband after she fled their home and filed for a permanent protective order, citing her husband's violent behavior toward her and their twins. But thanks to the holes in federal law, he was allowed to keep his guns until a judge issued a permanent restraining order. Gellatly's husband allegedly shot her with a legally owned gun one day before she was set to argue her case.
Data suggests that states with fewer measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers see more guns used in intimate-partner murders: (For our methodology, see the bottom of this post.*)
A different bill, though, does: Proposed last July by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act would extend existing federal provisions to those convicted of stalking offenses and to abusive dating partners, but it doesn't address the question of temporary restraining orders.Blumenthal's bill, along with several others, have taken a piecemeal approach to bolstering federal law. In addition to its provision on temporary restraining orders, Blumenthal's bill would also extend existing domestic-violence provisions to dating partners. However, this bill doesn't address gun ownership by convicted stalkers.
A third bill, reintroduced last month by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), is a combo platter of the Blumenthal and Klobuchar bills, aiming to fill all three holes in the current federal law—protecting victims from dating partners, convicted stalkers, and accused partners subject to temporary protective orders while they await a more permanent court ruling.
These efforts have irked pro-gun groups. The NRA sent a letter to senators in June saying that Klobuchar's bill "manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as 'domestic violence' and 'stalking' simply to cast as wide a net as possible for firearm prohibitions."
For now, the gun lobby has little to worry about: These legislative solutions haven't moved far in Congress, with Klobuchar's bill sitting in committee for the past year. At the state level, protections aren't much better:
Facebook users and privacy advocates erupted in anger recently after New Scientist drew attention to a 2012 study in which Facebook researchers had attempted to manipulate users' moods. "The company purposefully messed with people's minds," one privacy group complained to the Federal Trade Commission.
But the mood study is far from the only example of Facebook scrutinizing its users—the company has been doing that for years, examining users' ethnicities, political views, romantic partners, and even how they talk to their children. (Unlike the mood study, the Facebook studies listed below are observational; they don't attempt to change users' behavior.) Although it's unlikely Facebook users have heard about most of these studies, they've consented to them; the social network's Data Use Policy states: "We may use the information we receive about you…for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement."
Below are five things Facebook researchers have been studying about Facebook users in recent years. (Note that in each of these studies, data was analyzed in aggregate and steps were taken to hide personally identifiable information.)
1. Your significant others (and whether the relationship will last): In October 2013, Facebook published a study in which researchers tried to guess who users were in a relationship with by looking at the users' Facebook friends. For the study, Facebook researchers randomly chose 1.3 million users who had between 50 and 2,000 friends, were older than 20, and described themselves as married, engaged, or in a relationship. To guess whom these users were dating, the researchers analyzed which of the users' friends knew each other—and which ones didn't. You might share a ton of college friends with your old college roommate on Facebook, for example. But your boyfriend might be Facebook friends with your college friends, your coworkers, and your mom—people who definitely don't know each other. Hence, he's special.
Using this method, researchers were able to determine a person's romantic partner with "high accuracy"—they were able to guess married users' spouses 60 percent of the time by just looking at users' friend networks. The researchers also looked at a subset of same-sex couples, to see whether that changed the results. (It didn't.)
Facebook then decided to see whether it could use this method to predict whether a relationship is likely to last. For this part of the experiment, researchers looked at about 400,000 users who said that they were "in a relationship" and watched to see whether those users said they were single 60 days later. The researchers concluded that relationships in which Facebook's model correctly identified the partner were less likely to break up, noting that the results were especially accurate when the two people had been together less than a year. (So basically, if you're only introducing your boyfriend to your friends, and not your mom, your relationship might be less likely to last.)
2. How your mom talks to you: For this study, Facebook looked at how parents and their kids talk to each other Facebook. (Fun fact: On average, parent-child pairs wait 371 days after joining Facebook before becoming "friends." Tell your little sister to stop ignoring your mom's friend request.) The researchers examined three months of communication data pulled from September 2012. This data included comments, posts, and links shared on other users' timelines, but not chat messages. According to the researchers, that wasn't a privacy decision—chats are simply "too short and noisy for substantive language analysis." Here are some of the top phrases that researchers noticed parents using in messages to their young children:
And here's what parents are writing to their adult children, after they've developed filthy minds and drinking problems:
Facebook also noted that "what parents say when they're not talking to their children is just as revealing; they use higher levels of ideology (agree but, obama, our government, policies, people need to, ethics), swearing and slang (ctfu, lmao, fucker, idk), and alcohol and sex terms (tequila, glass of wine, that ass, sexy). Ew.
3. Your ethnicity: In this older study, from 2010, researchers wrote that "the ethnicity of a user base is an important demographic indicator that can be used for marketing, compliance, and analytics as well as a scientific tool for understanding social behavior," but lamented that "unfortunately, ethnic information is often unavailable for practical, legal, or political reasons." So researchers came up with a solution: They determined the ethnic breakdown of US Facebook users by using people's names and data provided by the Census. Tested on Facebook, the researchers' proposed model "learned" that Latoya is more likely to be a black name and Barb is more likely to be white name. "Using both first and last names further improves estimates, largely by making better distinctions between White and Black," the researchers wrote.
Once researchers had that data set, they started doing other studies. For example, the researchers examined pairs of people in romantic relationships on Facebook, as broken down by ethnicity. They also noted that their research suggested that "individuals' ethnicity can be predicted through their social ties" and tried to predict users' ethnicity based on the average ethnicity of their friends. (You should definitely not play this game at your next dinner party.) The researchers also compared users' self-identified political views with their ethnicities, noting that "whites are more frequent in the Libertarian, Conservative, and Very Conservative categories." The researchers did note that their research method comes with a caveat, "While ethnicity is an important factor in understanding user behavior, it is often only a proxy for other variables, such as socioeconomic status, or education. A complete analysis should control for all such factors."
4. How you respond to conspiracy theories: In the spring of 2014, Facebook published a study on how rumors spread on the social network. The researchers looked at rumors identified by the rumor-debunking website Snopes.com that fall into a number of different categories, including politics, medicine, horror, "glurge" (i.e., sentimental stories that usually aren't true), and 9/11. Then, the researchers found rumors posted on Facebook as photos, and gathered 249,035 comments in which people commented on the rumor with a valid link to Snopes.Ultimately, the researchers found reshared posts that received a comment that linked to Snopes were more likely to be deleted. So, feel free to keep telling your friends that the Russian sleep experiment story is BS.
5. If you're deleting posts before you publish them: For this 2013 study, Facebook looked at how often users start typing a post or comment, and then at the last minute, decide not to publish it, which they called "self-censorship." The researchers collected data from 3.9 million users over 17 days. They noted when someone started typing more than five characters in status update or comment box. The researchers recorded only whether text was entered, not the keystrokes or content. (This is the same way Gmail automatically saves drafts of your email, except that Facebook logs the presence of text, not actual content.) If the user didn't share the post within 10 minutes, it was marked as self-censored. Researchers found that 71 percent of all users censored content at least once. The researchers also noted that women were less likely to self-censor, as were people with a more politically diverse set of friends.
On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
More MoJo coverage of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision.
Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
On Monday, seven members of Congress, all Democrats, sent representatives, either staffers or interns, to attend a Capitol Hill "cryptoparty," where they learned how to defend their online communications from the NSA and other snoops. The party was sponsored by Reps. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), two vocal NSA critics.
There were about 25 people in attendance, according to Jamila Brown, a spokesperson for Access, an internet freedom group co-hosting the event. She says that representatives for Lofgren and Grayson were there, along with representatives of Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).
Cryptoparties are part of an international grassroots movement to spread encryption, including information about the Tor network, which allows users to engage in anonymous web browsing. (Former contractor Edward Snowden led a cryptoparty in Hawaii in 2012, months before he leaked information about NSA surveillance.) At this event, Karen Reilly, the development director of the Tor Project, led a session, and others presented information on how to encrypt chats and protect mobile devices from surveillance.
Amie Stepanovich, senior policy counsel at Access, says that there there were several questions raised at the meeting about the extent of NSA surveillance and how to defeat NSA spying. Attendees were concerned, she adds, about how NSA activities "impacted each of them and their communications."
Last week, the House unexpectedly approved a proposal sponsored by Lofgren and other members that would bar the NSA from searching emails, chats, and other communications of Americans without a warrant. The amendment also prohibits the NSA from undermining encryption on the web.
Update: This post has been updated to reflect comment from Access that the office representatives included either staffers or interns.
On Thursday, former Republican congressman and Tea Party darling Joe Walsh complained on Twitter about being kicked off his radio show for using the n-word and other racial slurs on air. He tweeted, "It appears I can say [The name of Washington's pro football team], which is supposedly offensive, but when I say other words, commercial." He then proceeded to go on a bizarre online rant, repeating more racial slurs.
Walsh's radio show airs on "The Answer" in Chicago and New York, which is home to a number of conservative talk shows. According to Walsh's Twitter account, his manager allowed him to say the name of Washington's football team on-air, but didn't allow him to say other offensive racial epithets. Here's what Walsh had to say about it all:
Walsh, who once called Obama a "tyrant" for ceasing to deport certain young undocumented Americans, noted that the radio station had sent him home, and he would find out what happens next with his job tomorrow at 5 p.m. Mother Jones has reached out to Walsh and "The Answer" for comment.