United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Wife of Eagles co-founder Randy Meisner is shot dead at their Los Angeles home amid reports of domestic abuse
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... llegations-domestic-abuse.html
Published: Mar 7, 2016
Author: Chris Pleasance
Post Date: 2016-03-07 15:37:15 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 3721
Comments: 22
The wife of Eagles co-founder Randy Meisner has been shot dead at the couple's Los Angeles home amid reports of domestic abuse. Lana Rae Meisner, 63, was shot in the head and died on Sunday night at the Studio City home she shared with bassist husband Randy, 69, police said. The pair had been married for 20 years. Around an hour and a half before Randy called police to report his wife had been killed, Lana called 911 herself to report domestic abuse, according to TMZ. Lana Rae Meisner, the wife of former Eagles bassist Randy Meisner (pictured together) died Sunday after being shot in the head at the couple's Los Angeles home, police said According to law enforcement sources, Lana had called police the same evening she was found dead to report that Randy (pictured left with Eagles bandmate Glenn Frey) had been threatening her and 'acting erratically' Police reportedly went to the couple's $1million house (pictured) following the report of abuse but left without incident. Cops were then called back an hour and a half later after Lana was shot Law enforcement sources told the gossip site that Lana reported Randy for waving a BB gun around and 'acting erratically' at approximately 5.30pm on Sunday. Police said they attended the couple's $1million home after getting reports of a 'possibly intoxicated male' and took a domestic violence report before leaving. Then, at 6.59pm, Randy called officers to report that his wife had accidentally shot herself while looking for something in a closet. Randy told police that Lana had gone into another room before he heard a gunshot after which he went in and found her dead, it is reported. He told officers that Lana was 'stumbling around' looking for something in a closet where the couple kept two guns, before one of them fell. According to Randy, Lana attempted to catch the weapon and in the process shot herself. TMZ adds that at 4.45am on Monday, Randy was taken to hospital after acting 'in an altered state'. Police sources who spoke to the site added: 'Randy seemed to be in shock and wasn’t even able to acknowledge that Lana Rae was dead from a gunshot wound.' A spokesman for the LAPD told Dailymail.com: 'After a thorough investigation by Valley Bureau detective personnel and the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office, it was determined that Mrs. Meisner’s death was accidental. 'Mrs. Meisner was moving a rifle that was stored inside a case in a closet. As she lifted the rifle in the case, another item within the case shifted and hit the trigger of the rifle causing it to fire and fatally injure Mrs. Meisner.' Randy, who left the Eagles in 1977, had reportedly been suffering from bipolar disorder and had threatened to shoot people in the past. In July 2015 friend James Newton was granted temporary conservatorship over Randy after he allegedly threatened 'to gun everyone down with an AK-47'. Law enforcement sources said Randy claimed Lana was 'stumbling around' in a closet where the pair kept two weapons before one of them fell and she shot herself in an attempt to catch it Randy (second left, with Eagles bandmates) had reportedly been suffering from alcoholism and bipolar disorder, and was previously reported for threatening to shoot people In court proceedings, reported by the New York Daily News, attorney Troy Martin revealed Randy made the threat while talking to hospital staff, but was not in possession of a firearm at the time. Martin also revealed that Randy had been hospitalized several times for alcoholism, and had threatened to kill himself by overdosing on medication he was taking for a 'mood disorder'. Making the case for Newton to be granted conservatorship, Martin said that Lana was in denial about the singer's various conditions and had done little to help him battle them. Newton alleged that Lana was keeping Randy drunk 'around the clock' with vodka because he was easier to control while inebriated. Lana was also accused of leaving Randy unwashed for up to a month at a time while frittering away his millions on cosmetic surgery, vacations and home renovations. During proceedings, Martin was also quizzed over a bizarre incident in which Lana had left a voicemail message claiming that neighbors dressed 'in clown suits' had been spying on her and were going to report her to police for using cocaine. After the judge ruled in Newton's favor, Lana stormed out of the courtroom, it was reported. Newton was also forced to ask for an escort out of the courtroom, saying that Randy had 'verbally attacked' him in the hallway earlier. Randy appeared in court to contest the order, but spoke only to confirm his name and age. The couple had denied the allegations. Randy helped found the Eagles along with Don Henley, Glenn Frey and Bernie Leadon in 1971 before the band released their first album the following year. In July last year James Newton, a fried of Randy (pictured), was granted temporary conservatorship over him after a court heard that Lana was in denial about his alcoholism and mental health issues Bass player and backing vocalist for the group, Randy is best known for writing and singing on 1975 hit Take It To The Limit. Randy suddenly left the group in 1977 claiming 'exhaustion', though it later emerged he had got into a backstage fight with Frey. The rest of the group eventually split after fighting drove them apart only to reunite 14 years later, though Randy claims he was denied the opportunity to perform with them again. Randy suffered well-publicized battles with drink and drug abuse during and after his tenure with the Eagles, which he credited with destroying his first marriage to Jennifer Barton. The pair married in 1963 before divorcing in 1981 and had three children. Lana is Randy's second wife, who he married in November of 1996. They do not have children together. That abuse eventually led to a minor heart attack in 2004 which caused him to cut back on touring, before he was left in a coma in 2013 after choking on food at home. He survived but was force to spend months recovering in hospital, telling the New York Daily News that his former bandmates paid for his care, despite their past issues. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
How would he know that's what happened? He was in the other room.
Maybe the neighbors dressed 'in clown suits' were giving him reports. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Sad !
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
not it love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
In LA? Pffft! That's a double-wide.
Yet he was allowed to keep a rifle and a handgun in his house.
"Allowed?" Nobody had the right to prevent him. Second Amendment trumps.
Can a retarded 10-year-old have a machine gun? Or would you allow society to impose reasonable restrictions on second amendment rights, just as we do with the first amendment?
Or would you allow society to impose reasonable restrictions on second amendment rights, just as we do with the first amendment? It depends on how far you really want to go down the road of talking about what I want to see. I'd imagine not far, because I'm never going to be making the laws in this country. But since you asked, I take an originalist view. I think that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was based upon the reasoning of men living in 1789, when they wrote those words. In other words, I think that anybody in America has the right to have, and to carry, single shot, muzzle-loading, black powder weapons. THOSE were the original conditions under which the Founding Fathers wrote those words. With those types of weapons, revolution against tyranny was possible, but it was only possible if a very large number of people were angry enough to stand together, in ranks, with single shot black-power, muzzle loading weapons. There was no power of INDIVIDUAL rebellion with a single-shot, slow-reloading, muzzle-loading black powder weapon. There was no ability for one man to gun down three or four, let alone ten. The Founders' world was single shot, followed up by swords. To get a Revolution required a whole mass of people to be angry. There is no INDIVIDUAL right of rebellion. I think that there can be no restriction upon adults owning and carrying single shot black-powder muskets and pistols. Even felons can have those weapons, and carry them. But all post-1787 Colonial American technology. Semi-automatic, breech loading, powerful scopes - all of the things that transform an individual from the ability to shoot one or two people (with two pistols) into a mass murderer - all of that can be regulated. I think that the regulation should occur at the federal level, not the state level, because states have all sorts of weird laws, and what is legal in one place can get you arrested just driving through. This is too haphazard and risky. It's a Constitutional Right, and therefore I think that the right of Americans to possess and carry black powder single shot weapons cannot be regulated by any state. And that above that, there ought to be a national law. Localities can have a more relazed law, but not a more strict one. Hand grenades, machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, all of that: regulable. The Founding Fathers never envisioned such weapons, and had they had to deal with them, they may very well have enacted different laws. You have the right to carry black-powder single shot pistols, muskets and swords - the original conditions on which the original intent was predicated. And if your parents let you have those things, you can carry those to. That can't be outlawed. Past that, regulated.
Ah. But you left out the most important part -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This was a right of "the people", not all persons. If you are indeed an originalist, then look at the words used by the Founders in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When the Founders meant everyone, they wrote "persons". When they meant citizens, they wrote "citizens". But when they were referring to citizens with full rights (including the right to vote, run for office, sign contracts, and own land) they wrote "the people". Not "people", but "the people". Back in 1789, anyone could own arms. But only the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms was constitutionally protected from federal infringement. Why? Because "the people" were the state militia and taking their arms would destroy the militia. You're getting all hung up on the type of arms since you have to somehow justify how this all works if the second amendment protects the right of every individual to keep and bear arms. Well, it doesn't. State constitutions do that, and each state has different laws when it comes to guns. Which is how the Founders meant it to be. The second amendment was written to protect the continued existence of state militias. Militia members had the constitionally protected right to keep and bear ALL arms associated with a militia.
That was also the best rifle the government could use against citizens . Under your terms there would never be rebellion because the people could never be able to match the ability of the government to suppress rebellion. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
You're stupid.
In 1789, there was no large government. The police did not exist. The regulatory state did not exist. There were no laws that governed what people could in their houses, on their land. You could grow pot and smoke it (Washington did). You could brew liquor and sell it. There was nobody to enforce anything but. There were laws of sex, enforceable only in the obvious breach - which is to say, unenforceable unless one was doing it in public. There were sabbath laws in some places - again, only enforceable if you came out of your house to do something. There was no police to come search. There was, in effect, no law. So the careful distinction moderns try to make between "militia" and "people" and individual people is just silly. America was a woods. People had guns to eat. Nobody thought that, because somebody had committed a crime, you could take away his rifle or shotgun, because that would mean he couldn't hunt or eat. We don't hunt to eat anymore. Some people do it for sport, but we don't generally HAVE to hunt to eat meat. Today, guns are more powerful, but also, the actual NEED for them is much lower. Back then, a gun was a tool, just part of life - not something regulable. But a CANNON? Or a fully-rigged warship? THAT was a very different affair indeed. It wasn't an organized place, so our modern efforts to encase the colonial law into something that fits modern life don't work. The founders were not thinking of semi-auto weapons, of course. But they also were not thinking of the careful distinction. They didn't think they could tell ANYBODY he couldn't have a gun, anymore than moderns would think they could tell people they couldn't have a computer. Terrible crimes can be committed by computer, but they're simply necessary tools, and we don't equate the crimes with the POSSESSION of the object, when it comes to computers. We DO, now, with guns, and our guns are more powerful in every way to the tools that the Founders dealt with. They'd won a revolution because thousands of individuals came armed. But it doesn't matter. The Constitution is a sort of vague guideline everybody honors in the breach, like the Bible. In reality, powerful people use the law in the service of their interests, and where those interests collide with the Constitution, or the Bible, the Constitution or Bible is "reinterpreted" (i.e., ignored). We've got a violence problem in America that probably can't be solved. Some people are going to blame guns and go after them if they can. Others are going to exonerate guns and refuse to go after anything. Some people are going to try to earn enough money that they can live in a place where they don't have to worry about it all that much, and about 20,000 a year or so are going to die anyway. So, to quote the future President of the United States if the Republicans manage to stop Trump: "What difference does it make?"
Spoken like a true Evangelical.
You're Evangelical.
What is the purpose of the second amendment? Never mind you haven't a clue.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
"and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
The Bill of Rights protected rights. It didn't create them. You're confusing the two. As I said before, yes, citizens owned guns. They had that inherent right. The issue is, what protects their right to own guns? What prevents the government from taking them? And I explained that in my previous post.
A piece of paper protects nothing. People protect rights, or cede them, based on what they believe.
So your claim that you are an "originalist" when it comes to the U.S. Constitution is basically bullshit -- given that the U.S. Constitution is a piece of paper.
No, it's not bullshit at all. This conversation is becoming the typical pointless bickering. Believe what you want.
"According to Randy, Lana attempted to catch the weapon and in the process shot herself."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
How would he know that's what happened? He was in the other room.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
#4. To: cranky (#0)
enough
lsd
medical
marijuana
did
wonders
for
brian wilson
boris
#5. To: cranky (#0)
"Police said they attended the couple's $1million home"
#6. To: cranky (#0)
"Randy has a history of mental health issues and had been reported for threatening to shoot people in the past"
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
Yet he was allowed to keep a rifle and a handgun in his house.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
"Nobody had the right to prevent him. Second Amendment trumps."
#9. To: misterwhite (#8)
Can a retarded 10-year-old have a machine gun?
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
"But since you asked, I take an originalist view. I think that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was based upon the reasoning of men living in 1789, when they wrote those words."
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
single shot, muzzle-loading, black powder weapons
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
(Edited)
#13. To: misterwhite (#10)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#12)
You'r not an orientalist. You're lying or very stupid.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#12)
You're stupid.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#12)
You're stupid.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
#20. To: misterwhite (#19)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
"A piece of paper protects nothing."
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
So your claim that you are an "originalist" when it comes to the U.S. Constitution is basically bullshit -- given that the U.S. Constitution is a piece of paper.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]