2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Restrat]

Also, there is media coverage and if they charge some guy who shot a kid with anything other than murder, even if they don't have the proof, people would flip out

[archibaldcrane]

im curious why the prosecution in zimmermans case and this case alike choose to blow the case before it gets started by charging the accused with a crime two steps above what was actually committed. This guy is charged with 1st degree murder which given the narrative doesnt fit the crime at all. At best this is a case of manslaughter, maybe 2nd degree murder if the prosecution has evidence that this dude had malice aforethought.

If they reject the self-defense angle, this is clearly at least 2nd degree murder.

[archibaldcrane]

Oh man this guy's letters from jail are epic.

"It's spooky how racist everyone is up here and how biased toward blacks the courts are. This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs," he notes. He goes on to say "This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior,"

actually fuck it just read the article it's amazing

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...cd6l1PRDQ.cspx

he would beat and threaten his hispanic wife with deportation too

all of the things


Oh man this one too:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...r-charge-week/

Sounds like he was on a one-man army mission to kill "thugs" with Stand Your Ground as his co-pilot.

[Headspace]

he would beat and threaten his hispanic wife with deportation too

http://comedycentral.mtvnimages.com/...bigsby1_v6.jpg

[Nephlite]

im curious why the prosecution in zimmermans case and this case alike choose to blow the case before it gets started by charging the accused with a crime two steps above what was actually committed. This guy is charged with 1st degree murder which given the narrative doesnt fit the crime at all. At best this is a case of manslaughter, maybe 2nd degree murder if the prosecution has evidence that this dude had malice aforethought.

Bit late but in my experience, you always charge with the highest available offense if it meets the criteria for the charge. By some stretch of the imagination, it somewhat fits premeditated murder but it's quite the stretch. The theory is you can always get a lesser charge out of the whole thing depending on the judge and jurisdiction or open the defense up to a plea deal if your case is strong enough. Since no one ever takes a plea for 1st Degree Murder (unless the Death Penalty is on the table and they take it to get life in prison), they're going to charge him with whatever and hope they can get some substantial conviction out of trial.

In some cases, you have to charge someone with the highest crime anyways. Could be manslaughter all across the board on paper, but you could still get a framework state of mind of the accused that proves just enough intent to have satisfied the charge of premeditated murder and get a lucky conviction.

I'm still not sure if this is gonna swing though... Defense will probably recreate the scene in some way that makes the guy think anything could have popped up and immediately translate to gun.

[Meresgi]

http://www.storyleak.com/lapd-stando...o-game-statue/

After an unknown employee hit the ‘panic’ button within the office that immediately alerts police, LAPD entered the game developer’s studio around 7 PM and detained the studio head before centering in on the life-sized Call of Duty ‘Ghost’ statue. Based on a special forces character from the game, the statue can be seen above wearing military-grade equipment and wielding an AR-15. Visible from outside the offices, the police spotted the realistic statue from outside and assumed they were facing a hostage/terror situation.

[AidenCarby]

Fucking lol

[Blubbartron]

more than 6 months old, but news to me, and amazingly hilarious. The LAPD is a constant source of amusement and terror.

[BaneTheBrawler]

more than 6 months old, but news to me, and amazingly hilarious. The LAPD is a constant source of amusement and terror.

this. also the employees didnt know what it was

“You see on a security camera, them looking at this panic button, looking around, discussing it, then pressing it and looking around to see what happens. And nothing happened right away,” said Bowling.

lololololololol

[Gredival]

Former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens supposedly argues in forthcoming book that the Second Amendment should be amended as it has been misinterpreted by the Court to widen gun rights far past original Constitutional intent.

[F]ederal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the text was limited in two ways: first, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...cond-amendment

[BaneTheBrawler]

about damn time. living document and all that.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Living document indeed. His views have been on the 2A= State Militia group for a very long time and not the progressive train that DC vs. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions put forth. To amend the wording as he states would mean all loss of personal firearm ownership including the use for hunting which I don't think could pass 2/3s of congress, let alone 3/4s of the state legislature.

If a citizen can't possess a force equalizer for self defense and the police are not legally obligated to save their life, then what?

[BaneTheBrawler]

force equalizer is an interesting term. especially if you view the U.S. government as hostile, as so many gun owners seem to. After all, the only way to equal the force of the U.S. military is with... a well regulated militia. how about that.

[Suvhater]

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

haven't seen the meaning of well-regulated discussed as it pertained to the time period in which the constitution was written yet, maybe i missed it. Just thought that should be out of the way as it was mentioned.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

In this instance the term is used for actual force applied by someone onto another. Easy example would be a petite woman confronted by an aggressive 200 lb man. Or someone very old or confined to a wheelchair confronted by an able-bodied youth. Less easy is an aggressor that holds a firearm to begin with.

I don't view the government as directly hostile and equating gun ownership with government paranoia is disparaging at best. But equalizing the USAF with a militia? That this would bring up what would constitute as a legal militia and if it could confer to the individual and not limited by the state.

[BaneTheBrawler]

see, the reason i say force equalizer is an interesting term because in order to equalize, you need to know both sides of an equation. since it is impossible to know what weapons (if any) an assailant will use, your assumption seems to be that guns are ideal for ALL situations, regardless of the actual threat level. Which is an odd assumption to make, since none of the situations you just described could benefit in any way from having lethal weapons present. Not even the one in which a lethal weapon is already present. Either A: the person can be reasoned with, and there's no need to use any weapons or B: they cannot, and they don't fucking give a shit what you threaten them with. The only point at which a firearm becomes useful is when bullets have already begun flying, and then only to immediately end the threat from a reasonable range. The only need for guns in homes is to reply to other guns; the more guns you allow, the greater the need for guns.

"But Bane, criminals don't obey the laws!"

No. They don't. But part of the basis of civilization is trust. We trust that when we take our worthless green bits of cloth and ink down to the local store, they will accept it as payment. They trust that when they take it down to the bank, their wealth increases. When you pull out into an intersection, you trust that no one is going to ignore the traffic signs and T-bone you. When you sign a contract, both parties trust each other to uphold it.

Obviously, it doesn't always work. People are idiots, assholes, and sometimes downright evil. But when you legislate your expectation that your trust will be betrayed, it becomes a self-fulfulling prophecy... and a vicious cycle. Imagine if stand-your-ground applied to, say, road rage. "He gave me the finger! (Or cut me off, or changed lanes without signaling, or wandered all over the lane, or went extremely slow/fast) Who knows what he would have done next! I was totally justified in using the PIT maneuver!" And even with the way it is now, if you were going to break into someone's home in a stand-your-ground state, would you do it without a gun? I sure as hell wouldn't; I could get shot! Now move to a non-stand-your-ground state. Suddenly, that gun doesn't seem so vital to your chosen profession anymore. After all, if you get caught, you don't want to wind up a murderer, too. This isn't just about stand-your-ground, of course. It just makes an excellent example.

Arming private citizens is an escalation. You're an officer, right? Or was that someone else? Anyway, you should know how escalation works. You buy guns, they buy tanks, etc. So not only is it escalating, but it's doing it with the absolute worst possible people as the front line. Untrained, undisciplined civilians. This is where the militia comes in. It would shift the front lines away from just anyone to people who are actually trained. "I know how to handle my gun!" Good for you. Not everyone who owns a gun knows how to handle it. "But then they shouldn't have guns!" No fucking shit. That's the point.

I know you guys are thinking of the militia as the founding fathers envisioned it... but as i said, living document. That's not viable anymore. The whole point of raising a militia like that was to make the threat of rebellion a very real thing; tyrannize too much, you're gone. But this was in an era in which anyone could pick up a rifle and, with good leadership and decent discipline, stand toe-to-toe with a modern army and win. Because that's what pretty much all modern armies were: dudes with rifles. Today's armed forces are considerably more evolved, and a rabble with rifles is not terribly effective against them.

Now, the way I imagine a modern, well regulated militia would take shape is as a sort of advanced-citizen organization. Kinda like a cross between neighborhood watch, national guard reserves, and deputized citizens. You're screened for things like felonies, dangerous mental illnesses, etc, then take similar courses as regular law-enforcement: how to de-escalate situations, basic law, weapon training, and probably some unarmed-combat training. You are issues a taser, stun gun, mace, etc.THEN you get to go out and buy guns. And when there's a fire in town, your unit is called on to help police organize evacuation efforts, that sort of thing. And when the bullets fly, members of your unit are sprinkled throughout your community, ready to reply. It puts the guns back into the hands of the people, in a position to challenge armed criminals... with the training and discipline to NOT use them unless necessary.

Of course, that's not gonna happen. 'cos 'murica. But the basic weapon training, de-escalation techniques, and screening should all be mandatory.

[Meresgi]

Either A: the person can be reasoned with, and there's no need to use any weapons or B: they cannot, and they don't fucking give a shit what you threaten them with.

Way too overgeneralizing that I think as there are a ton more factors that could play into each scenario. Granted there are people who just want to go out in a blaze of glory or get so fucking angry they can't think straight, but there are also people who calculate the odds of getting away unharmed from something. Do you make it so citizens can't have guns of any kind? Well then there goes hunting and other gun related sports that a lot of people actually rely on. Do you just take away handguns? Well a shotgun/rifle is a hell of a lot more powerful though it can't be concealed, but at least you can't snipe at people from a clock tower. Do you require annual mental health checks on people who own firearms? There's no way to actually enforce that. Do you impose harsher gun legislation? Well that doesn't really work too well (look at Maryland). Do you go full blown retard like Florida in terms of gun laws? No, because Florida is a cesspool. It's far too dynamic to really approach from 1 or 2 or even 10 angles honestly. There needs to be better checks in place and more communication, but staffing and funding is a huge issue when it comes to that. You tell a bunch of small town America areas they need to regulate more and they are not going to give 2 shits about it because they don't have the manpower or funding (aka where i'm from, where they just blew off Cuomo's gun laws)

[wipers]

see, the reason i say force equalizer is an interesting term because in order to equalize, you need to know both sides of an equation. since it is impossible to know what weapons (if any) an assailant will use, your assumption seems to be that guns are ideal for ALL situations, regardless of the actual threat level. Which is an odd assumption to make, since none of the situations you just described could benefit in any way from having lethal weapons present. Not even the one in which a lethal weapon is already present. Either A: the person can be reasoned with, and there's no need to use any weapons or B: they cannot, and they don't fucking give a shit what you threaten them with. The only point at which a firearm becomes useful is when bullets have already begun flying, and then only to immediately end the threat from a reasonable range. The only need for guns in homes is to reply to other guns; the more guns you allow, the greater the need for guns.

"But Bane, criminals don't obey the laws!"

No. They don't. But part of the basis of civilization is trust. We trust that when we take our worthless green bits of cloth and ink down to the local store, they will accept it as payment. They trust that when they take it down to the bank, their wealth increases. When you pull out into an intersection, you trust that no one is going to ignore the traffic signs and T-bone you. When you sign a contract, both parties trust each other to uphold it.

Obviously, it doesn't always work. People are idiots, assholes, and sometimes downright evil. But when you legislate your expectation that your trust will be betrayed, it becomes a self-fulfulling prophecy... and a vicious cycle. Imagine if stand-your-ground applied to, say, road rage. "He gave me the finger! (Or cut me off, or changed lanes without signaling, or wandered all over the lane, or went extremely slow/fast) Who knows what he would have done next! I was totally justified in using the PIT maneuver!" And even with the way it is now, if you were going to break into someone's home in a stand-your-ground state, would you do it without a gun? I sure as hell wouldn't; I could get shot! Now move to a non-stand-your-ground state. Suddenly, that gun doesn't seem so vital to your chosen profession anymore. After all, if you get caught, you don't want to wind up a murderer, too. This isn't just about stand-your-ground, of course. It just makes an excellent example.

Arming private citizens is an escalation. You're an officer, right? Or was that someone else? Anyway, you should know how escalation works. You buy guns, they buy tanks, etc. So not only is it escalating, but it's doing it with the absolute worst possible people as the front line. Untrained, undisciplined civilians. This is where the militia comes in. It would shift the front lines away from just anyone to people who are actually trained. "I know how to handle my gun!" Good for you. Not everyone who owns a gun knows how to handle it. "But then they shouldn't have guns!" No fucking shit. That's the point.

I know you guys are thinking of the militia as the founding fathers envisioned it... but as i said, living document. That's not viable anymore. The whole point of raising a militia like that was to make the threat of rebellion a very real thing; tyrannize too much, you're gone. But this was in an era in which anyone could pick up a rifle and, with good leadership and decent discipline, stand toe-to-toe with a modern army and win. Because that's what pretty much all modern armies were: dudes with rifles. Today's armed forces are considerably more evolved, and a rabble with rifles is not terribly effective against them.

Now, the way I imagine a modern, well regulated militia would take shape is as a sort of advanced-citizen organization. Kinda like a cross between neighborhood watch, national guard reserves, and deputized citizens. You're screened for things like felonies, dangerous mental illnesses, etc, then take similar courses as regular law-enforcement: how to de-escalate situations, basic law, weapon training, and probably some unarmed-combat training. You are issues a taser, stun gun, mace, etc.THEN you get to go out and buy guns. And when there's a fire in town, your unit is called on to help police organize evacuation efforts, that sort of thing. And when the bullets fly, members of your unit are sprinkled throughout your community, ready to reply. It puts the guns back into the hands of the people, in a position to challenge armed criminals... with the training and discipline to NOT use them unless necessary.

Of course, that's not gonna happen. 'cos 'murica. But the basic weapon training, de-escalation techniques, and screening should all be mandatory.

Yea none of this is going to happen. So there ya go.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Way too overgeneralizing that I think as there are a ton more factors that could play into each scenario. Granted there are people who just want to go out in a blaze of glory or get so fucking angry they can't think straight, but there are also people who calculate the odds of getting away unharmed from something. Do you make it so citizens can't have guns of any kind? Well then there goes hunting and other gun related sports that a lot of people actually rely on. Do you require annual mental health checks on people who own firearms? There's no way to actually enforce that.

in response to these questions:
it really is that simple. If you can talk someone down, you don't need a gun to do it. If you can't talk someone down, a gun isn't going to change that. The police will still have guns, and there will still be citizens with guns. But they'll be properly trained, in both de-escalation techniques and firearm handling. Even with the rare person who only thinks of whether they can get out of something alive without surrendering, they still need to run that gauntlet, just like they do now. The only difference is that there are fewer but better trained civilians out there. Civilians who have access to courses on how to spot concealed weapons, behavior analysis (shifty eyes etc), and that sort of thing. Quality over quantity, etc.

No, the militia i imagine wouldn't be like joining the military; you don't HAVE to show up when it's called. And once you've passed the initial courses, you don't have to do anything other than stay certified with the weapons you own. Hunting would still be okay, so if you really wanted you could just do the absolute minimum to maintain your weapons.

And there is a way to enforce it. We enforce the same thing with driver's licenses and vision. And disability and actual physical ability. Renew your license every so often, run through a brief checkup, done. Not necessarily annually, though.


I realize it would be expensive. But as it is we put more effort into making sure the poor don't accidentally get too much assistance than we do making sure people with guns aren't homicidal monsters.

[Meresgi]

Renew your license every so often, run through a brief checkup, done. Not necessarily annually, though.

Does this actually happen? I've never had a checkup or anything to renew my license. I just mailed the $$ in and got a new one.

If you can talk someone down, you don't need a gun to do it. If you can't talk someone down, a gun isn't going to change that. The police will still have guns, and there will still be citizens with guns. But they'll be properly trained, in both de-escalation techniques and firearm handling.

So how do you handle hunters? They need guns/bows and ammunition to hunt. What about sportsmen who go to shooting ranges or compete? Do they all now need to join up with a militia in order to purchase a hand gun? Well then EVERYONE is going to sign up for militia class and get their militia ID badge. Who's going to teach all the classes? Also each state will handle it differently most likely with some having less stringent laws then another, making people hop borders to pick up guns elsewhere.

Only thing that needs to really go are the gun show sales, which are bullshit. And there needs laws against that..but you're NEVER EVER going to be able to enforce this shit...ever. It's a pipe dream, and I think effort should be focused more on how fucking messed up our healthcare system is for people with mental illnesses.