Archive for Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Topeka man arrested on suspicion of killing 3 people in downtown Lawrence

Investigators were busy working the scene of a multiple fatality shooting midday Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017. The entire intersection of 11th and Massachusetts streets was closed while investigators gathered evidence.

Investigators were busy working the scene of a multiple fatality shooting midday Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017. The entire intersection of 11th and Massachusetts streets was closed while investigators gathered evidence.

October 18, 2017, 5:37 p.m. Updated October 18, 2017, 7:33 p.m.


The man police believe is responsible for Lawrence’s first triple homicide in at least 15 years is now in custody.

Anthony Laron Roberts Jr., a 20-year old Topeka resident, was taken into custody on Wednesday in connection with an Oct. 1 downtown Lawrence shooting that left three people dead.

Roberts was arrested by U.S. Marshals in Kansas City, Mo., the Lawrence Police Department announced Wednesday afternoon. He is awaiting extradition to the Douglas County Jail where he will be booked on suspicion of one count of first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted second-degree murder.

Anthony Laron Roberts Jr.

Anthony Laron Roberts Jr.

Roberts is the third suspect arrested in relation to the crime, which left three people dead and two injured as part of a shooting incident that included more than 20 gunshots on Massachusetts Street in the early morning hours of Oct. 1.

Topeka residents Ahmad Malik Rayton, 22, and Dominique Jacquez McMillon, 19, were arrested Monday.

Rayton was charged with attempted second-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm by a felon. McMillon was charged with aggravated assault and battery.

The three people killed in the Oct. 1 shootings were Leah Elizabeth Brown, 22, of Shawnee; Colwin Lynn Henderson, 20, of Topeka; and Tremel Dupree Dean-Rayton, 24, also of Topeka.

Two other people were shot but not killed in the crime. They are Royelle Hunt, a 28-year old Topeka resident, and Tahzay Rayton, a 19-year old Topeka man.

Police said Wednesday evening that their investigation was ongoing. Anyone with information about the incident can call Lawrence police at 832-7509 or, to remain anonymous, Crime Stoppers of Lawrence and Douglas County at 843-TIPS (8477).

In a press release, Lawrence police said they were uncertain when Roberts would be extradited.

Police have previously said they believe at least one of the victims was intentionally targeted in the attack, which is consistent with the first-degree murder charge in the case. First-degree murder involves premeditation of the crime.

Police also have said “other individuals were bystanders in the area.”

It was not immediately clear what, if any, connection Roberts had to the victims. It does appear, though, that the other two defendants in the case had connections to at least some of the victims.

Ahmad Rayton’s Facebook profile shows that he had been Facebook friends with Henderson since October 2011, friends with Dean-Rayton since October 2014 and friends with Tahzay Rayton since December 2012.

According to the Facebook page of McMillon, he is friends with Tahzay Rayton.

Court documents from Shawnee County show that Ahmad Rayton and McMillon both had been in jail just weeks prior to the downtown Lawrence shootings. However, a criminal history for Roberts in Shawnee County wasn’t immediately apparent. A Topeka media report from 2015 indicated Roberts had been booked into the Shawnee County jail in connection with a “chapter 38 court order.” Chapter 38 of the Kansas code deals with minors, juvenile court and other such issues. However, a search of the Shawnee County District Court’s online records system did not show any charges other than a traffic violation for Roberts.


Bob Smith 8 months ago

The perps are a trifecta of stupid and vicious.

Bob Summers 8 months ago

I thought Topeka was a sanctuary city?

Mike Edson 8 months ago

I wouldn’t be so righteous. Lawrence has more than it’s fair share of scum and villainy.

Steve King 8 months ago

U.S. Marshals. The big time. Right on.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

Hmmmmm....the guns weren’t legally possessed....who’d a thought?

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

Brock, it's not that anyone anticipated these perps would have legal weapons. It was a possibility they would have, but most likely not. Using this to point out that the proliferation of guns isnt a problem and that we should all agree that no law would have stopped this is misguided though. An abundance of guns will only lead to more gun violence. Just the same as more blenders in the home lead to more blender accidents. No one is suggesting that having some sort of meaningful reform will stop all violence or keep criminals from getting guns, but a reduction in their abundance will surely mean a drop in gun violence.

Now I know you will point out Chicago and other "librul bastions" where there are strict gun laws but high gun violence, but you will ignore the fact that anyone from those cities can just go over state/county borders where guns are still abundant and easily accessible. Any legislation in these cities is pretty much hamstrung by the ease with which anyone can still get a gun by taking a short trip outside of the city limits.

Bob Summers 8 months ago

Murder has been outlawed. Why hasn't murder been stopped?

Your logic is profoundly unsustainable.

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

Bobby, I am not suggesting we can end all gun violence. But your logic, where the threshold for having a law is that it stop every incident or event, is most flawed. Why even have a law at all then? Why do we make murder illegal if people still do it? Why bother?

Bob Summers 8 months ago

I do not need someone else's law to keep me from murdering. Why do you?

Pete Kennamore 8 months ago

So your solution to violence by those that illegally obtain guns is to limit access of those that didn't do it?

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

I haven't offered any solution. I don't claim to have one. What I do claim to have is a grasp on the notion that a proliferation of anything will lead to more events where those proliferated items are present, legal or not. What I do claim to have is a grasp on the notion that doing nothing won't do anything either. There isn't a catch all solution, and you know that the same as I do. So why do we shoot down anything that can start to have an impact because it won't be 100% effective? If we did that as a society we would be nowhere or start anything, because you know as well as I do that no process is 100% efficient.

Ray Mizumura 8 months ago

Theodore, your post makes good sense. I respect what you say and your effort to talk sense to people who have none.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

Actually Ted, some posters did suggest it was just as likely that the guns were legally possessed.

I don’t dispute that more guns equal more gun deaths - some justified, some not and many suicides. What I dispute is more gun laws banning certain guns or making it harder to legally posses a gun will not reduce gun deaths.

Guns, despite any law, will be available to criminals. Just as you pointed out that criminals can go to the next county, illegal guns can be brought into this country across our borders.

My point is we need to focus on the cause of violence and not on the gun.

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

I agree Brock, but the problem is that no one is willing to have that real and serious conversation, then pony up the dollars and legislation to follow through. It is an epidemic that is born out of poverty and no hope for a meaningful future. It is an epidemic born out of mental health problems and lack of help for those who need it most. But we defund programs to help these folks and take away their health care. The problem is even wayyy more complex than what is stated above. But we do nothing, then throw up our hands in surprise when things like this happen, rabble about it a bit, then rinse and repeat. How many more times until we at least have an honest conversation?

Brock Masters 8 months ago

No argument from me. I agree with you. Perhaps if the discussion moves away from trying to incrementally banning guns we can look for real solutions. This is the real or at least perceived goal of new gun regulations and it prevents progress.

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

Just in the KC Star a few days ago.

"Criminals Are Stealing More Firearms than Ever - And KC Gun Owners are Making it too Easy"

I believe I read that one of the guns used had a filed serial number. But hey, more people with more guns being irresponsible with their weapons isn't a threat to me....or is it? If more criminals have more marks to steal weapons from, then maybe it is a threat to me.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

As Spider-Man said, with great power comes great responsibility. Gun ownership demands responsibility. Responsibility to handle and store guns safely and to use the gun for self-defense as a last resort and in a manner that will not endanger others.

PSAs promoting this along with free training will help reduce gun deaths. There ar PSAs about drinking and driving so why not gun ownership?

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

I would bet the lack of PSA's has something to do with another acronym: NRA. No specific legislation or act that I know of or am quoting. Just speculating.

Bob Smith 8 months ago

Blaming the victims of theft? How very non-classy.

Bob Summers 8 months ago

Why do congenital Liberals possess firearms? Why are they allowed to have a firearms?

If the Liberals were not such hypocrites, (another symptom of the congenital Liberal) they would not have any firearms. They would not be allowed to purchase any firearms.

But alas they do have firearms.

The Liberal just likes bullying other people to not have firearms. (bullying) another symptom of people under the influence of the Liberal genetic condition.

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

Bob, I don't care if you have guns. I really don't. I don't care what you do. When I do start to care is when my rights are threatened by someone "exercising theirs." I care when they start to become a threat to my safety and well-being. In this instance it was someone else's stolen guns used, but was the threat any less? Were those people any less murdered because the guns were stolen?

Bob Summers 8 months ago

So, ban Liberals from having access to firearms.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months ago

I KKNEW IT......I KNEW IT........!!!!!!!! I paged through these posts and KNEW I would find the congenital "liberal screamer" posting his ridiculous blather!! I KNEW IT.........I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!! Put a sock in it, Bob,

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months ago

LIBERAL, LIBERAL, LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The screech of the ignorant idiot who cannot think in any other direction..............

Mike Gant 8 months ago

If you want to own a vehicle, you have to be licensed, which includes both a written and real-life examination of your knowledge and skills. Your vehicle must be registered and licensed. You have to have insurance to cover any damages or injuries your vehicle may be involved in. These are common sense regulations meant to ensure the safety of the general, law-abiding public that exist throughout our land.

And even though there are already millions of cars on the street, and some people drive without licenses, without registration, without insurance, and even steal cars, it is generally agreed that the laws are good, sensible laws and that those who are caught violating the laws are punished accordingly.

So why not the same for guns? If it is not obtrusive for legal vehicle operators, why would it be for legal gun owners? Why shouldn’t a written and real life test be given? Instead we allow anyone of age to carry a gun. Yet we wouldn’t dream of making it legal to let anyone of age drive without a license or registration.

Pete Kennamore 8 months ago

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a right and a privilege. Do you want to license the 1st Amendment as well?

Mike Gant 8 months ago

Seriously? There are MANY limitations placed upon constitutional rights. To pretend that there aren't is being willfully ignorant.

You have a right to own a gun, not a "right" to own an unlicensed, unregulated one. There are already laws regarding who can own guns - age limits, criminal backgrounds, etc,

There are laws that prohibit free speech in the name of safety - you can't yell fire in a theatre, many demonstrators are placed in free-speech "zones" when protesting peacefully.

Newspapers cannot print libel even though the first amendment grants them freedom of the press.

So please, don't pretend that something in the constitution can't be regulated or modified. There is simply no logic to claim that one sentence written 200 years ago grants you immunity from common sense regulations for eternity.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

Really need to ask why not the same for guns? The answer is simple, gun ownership is a constitutional right. The regulations you mentioned would unreasonably infringe on this right especially for the poor.

Are you willing to pay a fee to vote or exercise the right to speak? The first amendment right to free speech is directly responsible for harming others including terrorist attacks. Would you accept similar regulations that you suggest for guns to be applied to speech?

Heck, people go ballistic because it costs $25 to get an ID to vote but you want to make people spend far more than that to own a gun?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months ago

I'm all for letting people own as many of the guns that were available to people when the constitution was written.

But also the whole gun culture that the NRA has created in the last few years has made using a gun mainstream. This incident was probably gang related, and there has always been that kind of violence from the Dalton gang to the mafia to the drug gangs of today. Nothing new there. But there has been a movement to get everyone to buy a gun, which has made the leaders of the NRA and their buddies quite rich. Training? Bah, who needs that. Safety rules? You're trying to take our guns! Yes, leave that gun out there for any kid to play with. Yes, teach your mentally ill son how to use guns. Yes. sell one guy 33 guns. He is obviously going hunting, right? Just fork over that money to us to preserve your "right", and we can have our "right" to get rich. Dead kids? Collateral damage.

When the NRA was run by true gun lovers they wanted to make sure that not everyone owned a gun. They wanted to make sure the gun training was required. But not anymore. They spread the lie about Obama coming for your guns, and look how much money they made, which allowed them to buy even more politicians. Money before human life. That's the modern NRA. Hey, but don't forget Obama is coming for your guns. He's not president anymore and never, ever had that power, but he is probably going to do it. Better go buy some more. Right, chump, I mean chum.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

Are you also for limiting the exercise of free speech to the mediums available at the time the Constitution was written? Of course not, that would be stupid just like your suggestion.

Also you continue to focus on hunting which has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

You’re name calling discredits you and makes you look juvenile.

Bob Summers 8 months ago

Your Obama increased gun sales astronomically.

He made using a gun "mainstream" among the "Obama on Trayvon Martin: ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon" crowd.

So spare us Liberal code word "NRA" fantasies.

Clara Westphal 8 months ago

Good job by the law enforcement involved with the captures. Glad to have these three off the streets and behind bars. I wonder if they are the ones that attacked and rob the man on Jayhawk Boulevard.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

This question was asked, “Why do we make murder illegal if people still do it? Why bother?”

It is a good question. The answer is we make murder illegal so we can punish those that commit it. Making murder illegal does not stop it or even reduce it. It merely makes it a criminal act so we can punish those who violate it.

This gets to the heart of why I oppose new laws aimed at placing restrictions on firearm ownership. It will not stop the criminal but instead serves to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

Those advocating for stronger gun controls often say why would anyone oppose a law if it can save just one child. We know it isn’t really about saving lives - it is really about politics and fighting for a political win.

If it were about saving lives there are many ways to reduce deaths without infringing upon a constitutional right, but they would inconvenience those pushing for more gun control. Consequently they will never happen.

Here are a few.

  1. Require governors in cars to limit speed to posted speed limit
  2. Require ignition interlocks in cars to prevent drunk driving
  3. Raise driving age to 21
  4. Require crash helmets to be worn in a moving vehicle.
  5. Prohibit smoking in public
  6. Prohibit the sale of alcoholic drinks to 1 per hour per patron and no more than 2 per 24 hour period.

These would all save lives but few would support them because it would inconvenience them.

Bob Smith 8 months ago

Don't ban smoking. Instead, require that a smoker turn in 100 butts to qualify to buy a new pack of ciggies. Have 'em clean up the country while they're feeding their addiction.

Theodore Calvin 8 months ago

But Bobby, then we would have to have a Smoke Counter General with local departments enforcing that rule. Surely you're not endorsing the growth of government? You'd have to then tax the people even more to pay for the additional growth, which is a liberal trait I thought? You wouldn't be for that would you?

Bob Smith 8 months ago

Teddy, you're mistaken about so much, there's really no place to begin correcting you.

Brock Masters 8 months ago

What? You’ve never had a bad hair day?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.