Mr.B wrote:Using your logic, you're saying that if someone steals your car and goes barreling down the street, loses control and runs into a crowd of people,
killing a few of them, the thief as well as you, the owner, should be held responsible for their deaths?
Are you for real?
Well, I was talking about firearms, not cars. But if the US would put the same regulations on firearms as there presently are for cars, such as licensing, registration, inspection, liability insurance, etc., then I'd have no problem with that.
But to your question, if the owner left the car in the driveway with the keys in it...yes. That's basically what a lot of people do with their guns.
mwearl wrote:This just proves that children get hurt and die when they are left unsupervised. They get electrocuted, poisoned, fall, etc. Is your solution to ban anything that causes harm to children or to properly supervise them?
My solution is to prosecute anybody severely whose firearm is found, stolen, used by anybody other than themselves.
I agree. I've been saying that for years. People seem to forget that most firearms used illegally, or in this case by accident, were originally put in the market place legally. If gun owners were required to show more responsibility for ownership we'd have fewer of them allowing their guns to be used irresponsibly by others. It also makes no sense whatsoever that biometric trigger locks are not required on all firearms in circulation. That technology would prevent these kinds of tragedies.
mwearl wrote:This just proves that children get hurt and die when they are left unsupervised. They get electrocuted, poisoned, fall, etc.
Interesting that you chose to go with one of the more infamous non sequiturs .. Of "electrocuted, poisoned, falling or gun shot.. Only one .."gun shot" represents death by a device whose sole purpose is to injure or kill it's target..
"Guns" in that way are different from knives, bats, tire irons, cars or practically any of the other things that gun nuts offer up in their strawman'esque "lots of things can kill people.. why don't we outlaw them as well... "
mwearl wrote:Is your solution to ban anything that causes harm to children or to properly supervise them?
Why do you suppose you omitted the obvious ..? i.e... "Properly supervising the guns".. The suggestion is that you'd shield responsibility for safe handling from the gun owner.
Vrede wrote: Can you name any requirement for guns to be made less dangerous in the hands of kids?
We could add some sort of mechanism to prohibit a kid from shooting his or her friend on accident when they're out and about playing cops and robbers with their parents handgun, this would make guns less dangerous when in the hands of children, but if you ask me I don't think kids should be allowed to play with guns period.
You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.
And the Darwin Award for most creative use of the "I wuz skeered" defence goes to ......drum roll.... Raulie Wayne Casteel (of course his middle name is "Wayne") of Howell, Michigan, who testified, "I saw a long line of traffic, felt fear and anxiety and shot." Casteel opened fire on motorists along a busy southeast Michigan highway because he believed they were part of a government conspiracy against him was convicted Wednesday of terrorism, assault and other charges. He may get life.
At least this guy got convicted, and so will the theatre texter-shooter, but just the fact that these two can claim the I wuz skeered defence with a straight face is an indication as to how far Lady Justice's scales have skewed. Real cases lately have made the "Chicago" ladies' defences look reasonable.
Guy is attacked and being beaten by two other guys. Manages to get away, goes to his car, gets his gun and shoots one of the attackers. Since this is Florida, he'll probably get off, but consider - he was attacked, but he escaped to his car. Is it possible that after that point, his shooting was retribution, not defence? Suppose he had driven to the end of the parking lot and then returned to shoot the attacker? Suppose he had gone home, then returned an hour later. In a rational world, he would be entitled to defend himself until he escaped, at which point any further retribution on his part would be vigilantism, or taking the law into his own hands instead of calling 911. But as Florida's tourist slogan used to be "the rules are different here."
Vrede wrote:I don't know but your article says "retreated to his vehicle", not your "escaped to his car". If the attack was still being pursued then your "Manages to get away" and "retribution, not defence" would not apply.
Yeah, I know. Lot of vagueness there. Facts or some version thereof will come out eventually. But in letting my imagination run loose a little, I'm thinking his gun probably wasn't just sitting on the seat. So he probably had to get into the car to get the gun. I'm thinking that if the two guys were still after him, the two of them could have kept him from getting into the car and getting his gun. So logically (though by no means certain) he had at least temporarily escaped.
Anyway, the point is still valid even if this case doesn't show it. At what point does defence end and retribution begin? That's the vague gray area that wasn't so troublesome before "stand your ground." Back in the day, you could shoot a guy coming at you, but you couldn't shoot him in the back if he was leaving. You had to make a reasonable effort to escape before using lethal force. Now we've got former cops claiming SYG because they were terrified of some guy armed with a popcorn bag.
I suppose that if the guy who retreated or escaped to his car had just sat there for a minute to see if those other guys were gonna attack him some more and then actually attempted to do so, he probably could have shot them...or himself. Too many unknowns there....was somebody in love? were there drugs involved? were all of those people just dumbasses?
"Friends testify at Fla. theater shooting hearing" Sometimes the headline writers get it right despite themselves. This is certainly more theatre than not. ""There's nothing in my affiliation with him that would lead me to believe that he's a danger," said Thomas DePolis..." Well, nothing other than that he shot a guy in a cinema for texting during the previews.
ABC has had a story for a couple of nights about kids and guns; but all these kids have been instructed numerous times about gun safety.....mostly programs at school with visiting cops, and a song about guns and what to do if you see one ("stay away, get an adult....."I forget the rest of it; it didn't have a catchy tune for my taste) but the point of the stories is that despite the training and all, video shows the kids looking down the barrel of a handgun they happen to find in the classroom when the teacher isn't present. Even the other kid who watches this and recites the song lyrics takes a peek down the barrel. They also had another part in which the parent thought the gun was hidden,(these parts were filmed at the homes of the kids) but the kids all knew where it was. And the hits just keep on comin'.
I have an opinion on that. Since the only living witness is the cop, his story is the only one we have, in which he said the dog was "aggressive." But he didn't report the killing to anyone, didn't try to find the owner, and basically just left the dog dead for his owners to find later. Anybody want this asshole to be a cop in their little 7,500 person version of Mayberry?
As to the other instances, does anybody notice a pattern here? Like the jerk that starts the altercation gets "skeered" and shoots?
The theatre case, as well as the other current case now on trial in Jacksonville (Dunn) involve guys who claim self defence for an instance in which they initiated the "discussion" that escalated. In the Dunn case, he told the victim to turn down his loud music, and became enraged when the kid chose not to do so. So who made Dunn the arbiter of excessive sound. I'm sure the music was obnoxious, but since when can we shoot people for being obnoxious? Same with the theatre guy. How was he being injured by the other guy texting? Even if it had been during the film itself, we could complain to the management if it was impossible to move or ignore, but is it reasonable to start a fight over texting and then claim self defence? Those are the questions Florida, and other places, have gotten themselves into. Idiots.
O Really wrote:The theatre case, as well as the other current case now on trial in Jacksonville (Dunn) involve guys who claim self defence for an instance in which they initiated the "discussion" that escalated. In the Dunn case, he told the victim to turn down his loud music, and became enraged when the kid chose not to do so. So who made Dunn the arbiter of excessive sound. I'm sure the music was obnoxious, but since when can we shoot people for being obnoxious? Same with the theatre guy. How was he being injured by the other guy texting? Even if it had been during the film itself, we could complain to the management if it was impossible to move or ignore, but is it reasonable to start a fight over texting and then claim self defence? Those are the questions Florida, and other places, have gotten themselves into. Idiots.
A big thinker would have just moved to a different seat.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
O Really wrote:The theatre case, as well as the other current case now on trial in Jacksonville (Dunn) involve guys who claim self defence for an instance in which they initiated the "discussion" that escalated. In the Dunn case, he told the victim to turn down his loud music, and became enraged when the kid chose not to do so. So who made Dunn the arbiter of excessive sound. I'm sure the music was obnoxious, but since when can we shoot people for being obnoxious? Same with the theatre guy. How was he being injured by the other guy texting? Even if it had been during the film itself, we could complain to the management if it was impossible to move or ignore, but is it reasonable to start a fight over texting and then claim self defence? Those are the questions Florida, and other places, have gotten themselves into. Idiots.
A big thinker would have just moved to a different seat.
Hell, even some stoner would have moved somewhere else. This retired cop is just a dumbass who thinks he still has authority and or control over the "citizen" but doesn't understand that he's just a "citizen." He's actually the ideal Nazi. At least the judge decided to keep him in jail, which I believe makes him crazier than he already was.
Vrede wrote:
There's also another 'cop shoots family dog' story out of Rutherford County, NC but I haven't found enough details to form an opinion yet.
Boatrocker wrote:They actually fired a cop for this, without a massive dose of public outrage and negative media attention? He must be a bastard and a half.
I don't know how much public outrage they got in Forest City, but it did get some negative media attention. I hope he can't find another job, his wife (if he has one) leaves him, he loses his house and they won't let him into the shelter no matter how cold it gets.
