Gun laws do they work

[Vassago]

First of all, What should be done? Put the father in Jail??........ That would be Real Good thinking!?

I'm not stating to put the father in jail. I'm stating he should lose his right to have guns in specifically HIS house if he can't be responsible with them. I'm stating with harsher penalties for future cases, it would help to deter this sort of negligent behavior.

Do you really want people to have guns who are this irresponsible? What if it wasn't the boy's mother he shot, what if it was someone from another family? Someone outside? Anything could have happened. Does someone get punished then?

 

[Bladerunner]

This is, unfortunately, an extreme oversimplification of a case that is incredibly, incredilby messy, including:

Racism
Police Brutality
Racial Profiling
Possible prosecutorial misconduct
As Vassago mentioned, thugs using this as an excuse to commit crimes

Typical race baiter. I suspect you are in Al Sharpton's shirt pocket. Yep, anything for chaos. As for your other statement about me personally, I forgive you.

To All, Have a Happy and Bountiful Thanksgiving!

 

[ConnorGiles]

What does this have to do with irresponsible parents and there needing to be more laws protecting kids from guns? Because it doesn't happen all that often in your opinion, it doesn't matter? This is a completely avoidable problem! Don't put a loaded gun under a couch with a 3 year old! What's wrong with that?



If the dog owner was negligent, why not? If I had a violent dog that I knew was prone to attack a child and I allowed a 3 year old into my home and he was maimed by the dog in the face because I left the dog out instead of locking him up, I would certainly be negligent of the attack.



That's the status quo. If someone even mentions tougher laws for gun owners, even if it means to protect accidental deaths and children from easily obtaining a loaded weapon, the words are twisted to mean, "Oh, you want to ban and take my guns!"

It doesn't matter what the statistics are of children with guns. The whole problem is, it shouldn't happen AT ALL! It can EASILY be avoided by not putting a loaded gun in a position where a little toddler can obtain the weapon. Why would is that such a hard concept?

I agree whole heartedly here. It shouldn't happen AT ALL!

But like you said. Asking someone to be more careful with it and lock it up safely and securely obviously means "You want to ban and take my guns away from me!"

Wow! Beautiful bears... I mean, dogs! I prefer my wolfish dogs. I want a Husky.

I'm used to it Everyone calls them bears! Ever wanted to hug a bear? This is as close as you'll get

I intend to get a husky one day!

 

[ConnorGiles]

As Colin has said - We here in the UK experienced looting and rioting, and yes the stories where quite funny (Although completely immoral, I do not condone this in any way and they should all be locked up).

There was one man who broke into a supermarket and stole a kilo of rice... I mean why rice? Oh it did make me chuckle.

As for my opinion on the Police Officer and the person he shot. I can not take this as evidence but I read in the paper that the kid was assaulting the officer (It was described as Hulk Hogan wrestling a child) and when the gun was pulled on him, He said (and this is the quote from the paper) "You're too much of a P***y to shoot me". Now I again in no way condone him shooting the Teen and it could of been handled in many other ways. But if someone ever pulled a gun on me, last thing I would do is provoke them.

There is many standpoints on this argument , I tend to see both sides of the coin.

On the Police Officers side (from the papers standpoint, I know its not reliable) He was being assaulted quite dramatically according to the papers and ultimately provoked while holding a gun to the youth. Yes he may of been scared of what the youth may have done if the tables were turned and he held the gun.

But that in no way condones shooting him 5 times , If that isn't intent to kill. What is?
I would understand if it was 1 shot to the knee cap to stop the teen (which wouldn't have killed the teen) . But 5 shots to the chest? That is obviously intent to kill.

He should not be defended for what he did, He obviously shot to kill and should get the sentence for it. But people who riot because he wasn't just are not justified. (As Vassago has covered, Just mindless goons using it as an excuse to shield their criminal behavior). What does rioting do but disrupt every day life?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Connor - one thing to keep in mind.

Cops are specifically trained (for a number of reasons) that if you shoot, it is to kill. PERIOD.

The idea is that you only shoot when you HAVE to kill someone. Unfortunately, some people are trigger-happy.

Going for the leg (or making any other trick shot) is out for a number of reasons. First of all, it is far, far, far harder to hit someone in the leg than it is center of mass. Second, bullets do so much damage that leg hits are often lethal as well - in fact, you're pretty much guaranteed to die - quickly - if the femoral artery is hit. Third - cops can be and have been sued for everything they would ever have for intentionally crippling someone like that. I *THINK* the argument was that intentionally crippling someone by, say, blowing his knee into rubble, is a violation of the 'cruel and unusual punishment' restriction in the Bill of Rights, as well as punishment without being tried.

The problem with Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown wasn't that he shot to kill, but rather that the shooting may not have been justifiable. In Michigan, for example, a cop shooting a person with a knife is only justified if the knife-wielder is within 4 feet. As far as I know, it is never considered justifiable (in Michigan) for a cop to shoot someone they know is unarmed.

Anyway, a major problem here is that Wilson kept shooting as Brown was running away. Yes, he eventually killed Brown only when brown was walking toward him. With his arms down. At range. Then we have the issues of no incident report being filed, no photographic evidence taken immdiately, no use-of-force report being filed, eyewitness testimony (from quite a few observers) directly contradicting police testimony, etc.

Then you have the prosecutor who did a number of things that you just don't do in a grand jury hearing. Those hearings are to determine if the prosecution has a feasible case, which means that you don't offer defense testimony, you don't offer defense evidence, you don't explain how weak your evidence is, and you don't allow the defendant to testify - rarely at all, and certainly not for 8 hours. Basically, you show just enough evidence to prove that it's at least possible someone might vote to convict, and you get your indictment. That's why out of 160,000 federal grand jury hearings last year, only 11 failed to indict.

So people are pissed less because Michael Brown got shot - although that is indeed part of it - but more because this, coupled with a long and extreme history of institutionalized racism from the Ferguson PD, has all the trappings of a whitewash. Wilson should have been tried, and had the jury determine guilt or innocence, not given a bye by the grand jury because a prosecutor (probably) threw the case.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Connor - one thing to keep in mind.

Cops are specifically trained (for a number of reasons) that if you shoot, it is to kill. PERIOD.

The idea is that you only shoot when you HAVE to kill someone. Unfortunately, some people are trigger-happy.

Going for the leg (or making any other trick shot) is out for a number of reasons. First of all, it is far, far, far harder to hit someone in the leg than it is center of mass. Second, bullets do so much damage that leg hits are often lethal as well - in fact, you're pretty much guaranteed to die - quickly - if the femoral artery is hit. Third - cops can be and have been sued for everything they would ever have for intentionally crippling someone like that. I *THINK* the argument was that intentionally crippling someone by, say, blowing his knee into rubble, is a violation of the 'cruel and unusual punishment' restriction in the Bill of Rights, as well as punishment without being tried.

The problem with Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown wasn't that he shot to kill, but rather that the shooting may not have been justifiable. In Michigan, for example, a cop shooting a person with a knife is only justified if the knife-wielder is within 4 feet. As far as I know, it is never considered justifiable (in Michigan) for a cop to shoot someone they know is unarmed.

Anyway, a major problem here is that Wilson kept shooting as Brown was running away. Yes, he eventually killed Brown only when brown was walking toward him. With his arms down. At range. Then we have the issues of no incident report being filed, no photographic evidence taken immdiately, no use-of-force report being filed, eyewitness testimony (from quite a few observers) directly contradicting police testimony, etc.

Then you have the prosecutor who did a number of things that you just don't do in a grand jury hearing. Those hearings are to determine if the prosecution has a feasible case, which means that you don't offer defense testimony, you don't offer defense evidence, you don't explain how weak your evidence is, and you don't allow the defendant to testify - rarely at all, and certainly not for 8 hours. Basically, you show just enough evidence to prove that it's at least possible someone might vote to convict, and you get your indictment. That's why out of 160,000 federal grand jury hearings last year, only 11 failed to indict.

So people are pissed less because Michael Brown got shot - although that is indeed part of it - but more because this, coupled with a long and extreme history of institutionalized racism from the Ferguson PD, has all the trappings of a whitewash. Wilson should have been tried, and had the jury determine guilt or innocence, not given a bye by the grand jury because a prosecutor (probably) threw the case.

Really - they shoot to kill only? Surely they shoot to stop death may be a result.

I am thinking here of the Lee Rigby case, being the most obvious here.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Connor - one thing to keep in mind.

Cops are specifically trained (for a number of reasons) that if you shoot, it is to kill. PERIOD.

The idea is that you only shoot when you HAVE to kill someone. Unfortunately, some people are trigger-happy.

Going for the leg (or making any other trick shot) is out for a number of reasons. First of all, it is far, far, far harder to hit someone in the leg than it is center of mass. Second, bullets do so much damage that leg hits are often lethal as well - in fact, you're pretty much guaranteed to die - quickly - if the femoral artery is hit. Third - cops can be and have been sued for everything they would ever have for intentionally crippling someone like that. I *THINK* the argument was that intentionally crippling someone by, say, blowing his knee into rubble, is a violation of the 'cruel and unusual punishment' restriction in the Bill of Rights, as well as punishment without being tried.

The problem with Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown wasn't that he shot to kill, but rather that the shooting may not have been justifiable. In Michigan, for example, a cop shooting a person with a knife is only justified if the knife-wielder is within 4 feet. As far as I know, it is never considered justifiable (in Michigan) for a cop to shoot someone they know is unarmed.

Anyway, a major problem here is that Wilson kept shooting as Brown was running away. Yes, he eventually killed Brown only when brown was walking toward him. With his arms down. At range. Then we have the issues of no incident report being filed, no photographic evidence taken immdiately, no use-of-force report being filed, eyewitness testimony (from quite a few observers) directly contradicting police testimony, etc.

Then you have the prosecutor who did a number of things that you just don't do in a grand jury hearing. Those hearings are to determine if the prosecution has a feasible case, which means that you don't offer defense testimony, you don't offer defense evidence, you don't explain how weak your evidence is, and you don't allow the defendant to testify - rarely at all, and certainly not for 8 hours. Basically, you show just enough evidence to prove that it's at least possible someone might vote to convict, and you get your indictment. That's why out of 160,000 federal grand jury hearings last year, only 11 failed to indict.

So people are pissed less because Michael Brown got shot - although that is indeed part of it - but more because this, coupled with a long and extreme history of institutionalized racism from the Ferguson PD, has all the trappings of a whitewash. Wilson should have been tried, and had the jury determine guilt or innocence, not given a bye by the grand jury because a prosecutor (probably) threw the case.

Something fishy is going on over there, Good luck! Also there will always be trigger happy Police Officers as long as they have guns on hand. So good luck with that over there also!

My opinion on the 3 year old that shot his/her own mother, It is entirely the parents fault for putting the gun where they did. We all know children find things even we had hidden too well quite impressively but this could have been avoided with a simple lock on the gun cabinet and a hidden key...

For Bladerunner's benefit, It is people like that what puts people from the UK or even liberals on the mindset to banning guns. Think of it as owning a dog, You can't look after it properly then you have it taken away from you. In this case it's a weapon that can cause fatal bodily harm. (This doesn't mean everyone cannot look after their weapons like they did not), We do not want to take away your guns we only wish for everyone to take an extreme amount of care when handling or storing these weapons.

Here in the UK due to the small number of people that ACTUALLY own them, I'm pretty sure you get visited by the police every so often to count the amount of ammo you have stored (to check if you have illegally discharged any rounds)and also to check if you are storing your weapon safely and securely to stop any accidental shootings or robberies of weapons.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Really - they shoot to kill only? Surely they shoot to stop death may be a result.

I am thinking here of the Lee Rigby case, being the most obvious here.

On this subject, I think it is ridiculous to blame social media sites for his death "as it may have been prevented" - apparently they gave signs due to saying on facebook "I want to kill a soldier" - That should have been flagged to the police apparently.

So every person who posts something like that must be flagged? People who play games online to do with war and post how many people they have killed (without mention of a game) would also be flagged?

Yes flagging them may have been the right decision and it may have saved his life. But blaming anyone BUT the killers is wrong in my opinion.


Also thats what I thought it would have been Anthony - Shoot to prevent death. But I can see why they do it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

As I said - they are taught to shoot ONLY as a last resort, and only to kill. If you don't want to kill your target, you don't shoot him. That's why cops have tasers and nightsticks and defense training and other cops.

Doesn't mean people don't get trigger happy, just that they are ONLY to shoot if they intend to kill the target, which, as a rule, is supposed to be in defense of their own lives or someone else's.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Drunk on power would be another statement, Lawfully holding a gun may make them think they are above other people and would be able to act accordingly.

saw a video in America of someone who refused to abide by the police officers will, He had done nothing wrong in the slightest and simply asked the police officer every time he was told to "Get to the ground". - "Only if you tell me what I've done" (He did have his hands up showing himself to be unarmed) at that point the police officer pulled his pistol out of the holster and held it to the unarmed Teenagers head and persisted for him to get to the ground.

He still refused until the police officer could actually tell him what the problem was. You could hear the youth was clearly scared for his life. To this day the police officer still didn't tell him what the problem was.

This was a video on Youtube that you can watch, (I forget the name of it , but it is there)

The police officer then pulled the gun away from the Teens head, Because a crowd was forming and too much attention was gathered. Then the police officer just got back into his Squad car (I think its called that over the pond) and drove away.

Now if that doesn't show a police officer using his gun as a sign of power (not to mention without reasoning) then I don't know what does. Yes the teen didn't follow strict instructions given by the police officer in a very angry manner (for no reason at all), But a simple answer to his question would have made him give in to the officers demands. I thought that was a prime example of not only the officer's arrogance in thinking he is above the citizen so he doesn't have to give an answer but also the low standards we allow into the force today.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I would want to see everything that happened, however, not just the part starting after the incident began. What if the cop saw that teen running from a store that had just called in an armed robbery or even a shooting?

Also, the House wasn't kidding when he said 'everyone lies'. Most people play innocent even if they're guilty as sin, so a cop isn't going to simply take your word that you didn't do anything.

In the case of the video, SOMETHING had to happen; even in America, cops don't, as a rule, just walk up to random strangers for no reason, pull their gun, and start screaming for them to drop to the ground just for the fun of it. About the closest we have come lately was NYC's law allowing random patdowns, which was applied about 90% to black people. (There were more patdowns of black people the first year than there were black residents.) And that law was more than a little controversial, and many people (including myself) felt it to be blatantly unconstitutional. I think it's still tied up in court atm.

So what's the WHOLE story?

 

[ConnorGiles]

I would want to see everything that happened, however, not just the part starting after the incident began. What if the cop saw that teen running from a store that had just called in an armed robbery or even a shooting?

Also, the House wasn't kidding when he said 'everyone lies'. Most people play innocent even if they're guilty as sin, so a cop isn't going to simply take your word that you didn't do anything.

In the case of the video, SOMETHING had to happen; even in America, cops don't, as a rule, just walk up to random strangers for no reason, pull their gun, and start screaming for them to drop to the ground just for the fun of it. About the closest we have come lately was NYC's law allowing random patdowns, which was applied about 90% to black people. (There were more patdowns of black people the first year than there were black residents.) And that law was more than a little controversial, and many people (including myself) felt it to be blatantly unconstitutional. I think it's still tied up in court atm.

So what's the WHOLE story?

You say they don't just pull up and unholster their weapon? But that could well of happened. Guess you had to be there.

I'm pretty sure on this video there was something to do with the kids being accused of withholding drugs. As you know teens with their illegal substances (e.g. a minute amount of cannabis rolled into a joint to look cool or whatever the reason) But these teens were falsely accused by a passer by due to them being in a small group (probably looked quite menacing, I'm not quite sure on the passers by standpoint).

The cops rolled up and told these kids to drop to the ground, All but one did.

And that's where the video went from.

Kid refused to do it without reasoning. Cops found nothing on the kids, Gun pointed to the child's head point blank range while continually shouting at him. (his hands were up to show he was unarmed)

Cop still hasn't gave a reason to these teens. He just got back into the squad car and drove away. (I tried having a look for this video, but the name still evades me)

There was no need for the Gun, or the aggressive behaviour.

Seems to me they're letting authority and weapons get to their heads.

On the Michael Brown case - Did anyone see the animated re-enactment of the Michael Brown shooting?

It shows both sides of the story - To me is seems very one sided to a point (Michael Browns side).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz0hN36Juro

There it is, even if he did reach for the cops gun. he didn't get it also the cop intentionally followed Michael Brown and executed him - Bullet wounds show that the gun shot to the top of his head would have been an execution type killing. (Michael Surrendered and Wilson would have shot the bullet in the top of his head to execute the teen.)

In my opinion it really wasn't necessary to execute him (if he did) - Once he was surrendering it would have been easy to detain him (as he was weak from the other bullet wounds) and get him to the nearest hospital unit and then ultimately jail.

A death could have been avoided here.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Well, before you get too sarcastic about teens and their drugs, keep in mind that drug dealers use 12 and 13 year olds to hold their stashes for a reason.

Honestly I'd have to see the video, which isn't going to happen at work, but I know too many cops (both good and bad) to believe that a cop just acted like that for zero reason whatsooever. There is ALWAYS a reason, be it good (cop watched a drug deal), bad (cop hates black kids), justified (cop watched the kid stash a gun), or unjustified (cop knows drug deals happen on that corner occasionally). Even Darren Wilson had a reason for shooting Michael Brown.

As to the Michael Brown thing, there are a ton of discrepencies in the facts of the case. Only the officer saw Brown charge, everyone else saw him take a step. The officer claimed Brown was the strongest person he'd ever seen and was beating the officer severely through the window, yet the ER doctor found no indication of injury. In the photos (taken hours after the incident), the red cheek that was supposed to be major facial trauma not only looked less like an orbital fracture (especially when compared to a real one) than like a hard slap, but was on the right side of the officer's face. Not only was that NOT the side that would have taken a beating from a right-hander, but that's the side of the face that faces inside the car. And yes, witnesses say Brown had his hands up, but one of the autopsies said the gunshots only matched the shirt if his hands were down.

The problem with the Brown case is that the investigation was so slipshod, so haphazard, and so full of procedure violations that it can only be viewed as an intentional whitewash of whatever really happened. It's only made worse by the way the prosecutor did everything humanly possible to convince the grand jury NOT to indict, up to and including pointing them at a 'reasonable force' law that allowed for the shooting of suspects who are running away, when that law was found unconstintutional by the US Supreme Court 30 years ago.

I mean, DEFENSE LAWYERS are calling for the prosecutor to be investigated and disbarred. Think about that.

That said, we're kind of drifting off-topic again. Police stereotyping, malfeasance, and brutality should be its own thread, and if we're going to start talking Michael Brown and its fallout, that NEEDS to be its own thread. Neither really relates to the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control laws in the US.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, about the head shot - my understanding is that all three autopsies said that the headshot that killed Brown was done from range, and that the angle of the shot indicates it was done while he was falling. That is acually quite possible - only in Hollywood does a 9mm handgun blow you backwards off your feet.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Well, before you get too sarcastic about teens and their drugs, keep in mind that drug dealers use 12 and 13 year olds to hold their stashes for a reason.

Honestly I'd have to see the video, which isn't going to happen at work, but I know too many cops (both good and bad) to believe that a cop just acted like that for zero reason whatsooever. There is ALWAYS a reason, be it good (cop watched a drug deal), bad (cop hates black kids), justified (cop watched the kid stash a gun), or unjustified (cop knows drug deals happen on that corner occasionally). Even Darren Wilson had a reason for shooting Michael Brown.

As to the Michael Brown thing, there are a ton of discrepencies in the facts of the case. Only the officer saw Brown charge, everyone else saw him take a step. The officer claimed Brown was the strongest person he'd ever seen and was beating the officer severely through the window, yet the ER doctor found no indication of injury. In the photos (taken hours after the incident), the red cheek that was supposed to be major facial trauma not only looked less like an orbital fracture (especially when compared to a real one) than like a hard slap, but was on the right side of the officer's face. Not only was that NOT the side that would have taken a beating from a right-hander, but that's the side of the face that faces inside the car. And yes, witnesses say Brown had his hands up, but one of the autopsies said the gunshots only matched the shirt if his hands were down.

The problem with the Brown case is that the investigation was so slipshod, so haphazard, and so full of procedure violations that it can only be viewed as an intentional whitewash of whatever really happened. It's only made worse by the way the prosecutor did everything humanly possible to convince the grand jury NOT to indict, up to and including pointing them at a 'reasonable force' law that allowed for the shooting of suspects who are running away, when that law was found unconstintutional by the US Supreme Court 30 years ago.

I mean, DEFENSE LAWYERS are calling for the prosecutor to be investigated and disbarred. Think about that.

That said, we're kind of drifting off-topic again. Police stereotyping, malfeasance, and brutality should be its own thread, and if we're going to start talking Michael Brown and its fallout, that NEEDS to be its own thread. Neither really relates to the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control laws in the US.

Yes we could debate for hours on this subject, So maybe another time!

In my overall opinion, Gun control is needs to be more safe. Over the pond it seems just about anyone can get a gun. Here (although immensly hard to obtain a firearm Legally) it is only little better.

People just need to learn the hard way about keeping their fire arms locked away and kept safe, which unfortunately happened to the mother and the 3 year old child.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Oh, about the head shot - my understanding is that all three autopsies said that the headshot that killed Brown was done from range, and that the angle of the shot indicates it was done while he was falling. That is acually quite possible - only in Hollywood does a 9mm handgun blow you backwards off your feet.

In every autopsy I have read it appears the fatal gun shot (the ending shot) was shot from 2 feet away. Which would describe what an execution would be like.

 

[Frothingslosh]

In every autopsy I have read it appears the fatal gun shot (the ending shot) was shot from 2 feet away. Which would describe what an execution would be like.

And THAT difference, among others, is why there should have been a bloody trial!

 

[ConnorGiles]

I indeed agree with you there, As said before something fishy going on over the pond

 

[Bladerunner]

I agree whole heartedly here. It shouldn't happen AT ALL! But like you said. Asking someone to be more careful with it and lock it up safely and securely obviously means "You want to ban and take my guns away from me!"

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Connor. I have no problems with what you said. "ASKING someone to be more careful......" However, that was not what was said. If you are going to have penalties for something someone does via a bad decision then you have to create a law that will do that. If this is the case, then it is like surrounding the problem (guns) in an ever tightening the noose.

Why can you not accept that these people made a very bad decision and paid for it dearly. It had nothing to do with anyone else except that family.

If a someone started a fire in the back yard on a very windy day which by all accounts is also a very bad decision. Now, lets say this fire catches his house on fire and his older mother /father is in the house and they die in it. Are we going to put him in jail. What if he died trying to save them? Are we going to make a law prohibiting any burning around a house when already in most cases there is ban on burning unless you have a permit. Now what if he had the burn permit and made the bad decision???????

Bad decisions by law abiding people that result in the death of other people every day. another example: Here not two days ago in this county where I live, a construction worker picked up a brick and placed it on the wall (just set it there without mortar) while he did something else. Now it just happens that the area below where he placed the brick was a door way. You already guess it.....????? Yes, someone come through the door about the time the construction worker turned or did something that made the brick fall. Yes, the fella coming out of the door way at that moment was hit in the head. no, he did not have a hard hat on so it crushed his skull. No he is not dead yet but in very bad shape.

Now the question is; Do we need to place a law(s) in place to prevent someone from laying a brick on a wall (anywall) without it being somehow tied down? Do we make a law that forces everyone to wear a hard hat within so many feet of construction. Be careful here, your next door neighbor may be building an addition on his house and it may just be with the distance required by the law thus you the neighbor have to wear a hard hat.

How about the fact that we need to do something to the fella who put the brick on the wall. Fine him or imprison him??? What about the person who owned the house or Wall??????? And I could go on and on.

My point being is that you people who have a specific fetish, and you know who you are, pick up a horrific story and try to apply it to your lifelong agenda (s). I guess that is why we have so many silly laws still on the books. Put there by apoplectic people that had an agenda (s) as well.

Hope every one had a good Thanksgiving

 

[Brianwarnock]

I indeed agree with you there, As said before something fishy going on over the pond

You make it sound like it doesn't happen elsewhere, I'm from Liverpool and we are still trying to get justice over Hillsborough and it's cover up.

Brian