[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:45 am

Catharz: What are you talking about? Where does it say the kid wasn't his offspring? It says it was his son right in the article.

Honestly, I'd say this teen won himself a Darwin award. What the hell was he doing there like that? He probably really was trying to rob a relative, and his not saying anything or pulling off the mask is probably what got him killed.

It is tragic when people shoot without seeing their target properly and find out it was their family. Should he have held his fire, maybe shouted some warnings? Fuck yeah he should have. But if a masked punk carrying a possible weapon is within knife range, and isn't backing down... Well, shit happens. A shame the father didn't have a tazer, assuming they're legal in CT (they sure aren't here) for citizens.

A shitty situation, but I don't think that would have gone much differently if the police had shown up first.

K · Post by K » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 am

Meikle641 wrote:
A shitty situation, but I don't think that would have gone much differently if the police had shown up first.

Seriously? You don't think that a kid would have run away from police officers who clearly identified themselves and had flashlights and sirens?

I mean, this entire situation could have been avoided if the father had not left his house. Or had a flashlight instead of a gun. Or the sister of the father had not called the father before calling the cops. Or the sister had just walked out her front door to the safety of the open street with the father.

Basically, this happened because some guy was playing hero with a gun and would not have happened if the police dealt with it.

I mean, just the fact that he was firing a gun in his neighborhood means that he's lucky that stray bullets didn't kill more people in their houses.

------------------------------------------------------

BTW, in the original story it said that the kid was his step-son. It looks like they corrected the online version.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:08 am

The kid was white, so the police probably wouldn't shoot him. If he was black, though, they'd empty their magazines, reload, and empty them again.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:05 am

No, this happened because some idiot decided to either be or pretend to be a robber on his aunt's house. How would a flashlight have helped see a face covered in a mask?

Hyzmarca: Someone with with a mask on and a possible weapon in hand? I think he'd got dropped like a rock by cops, regardless of race.

K · Post by K » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:21 am

Meikle641 wrote:How would a flashlight have helped see a face covered in a mask?

It wouldn't have helped him see his face. It would have scared the kid off AND reduced the chance of anyone getting shot to 0%.

Scaring robbers off is a perfectly valid thing to do and super easy to do. Life is not an action movie where everyone in a mask is willing to fight to death.

Few if any want to fight at all, especially if they think that cops are on the way.

Of course, simply not confronting him at all is a better option. Assuming that you can run around with a gun with no training or experience and capture criminals without getting innocent people killed is action movie bullshit. Hell, trained cops kill bystanders all the time.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:28 am

Yes. The police would have arrived at the scene in their lightless black van, snuck up on the suspected robber without noise, warning, or requesting his surrender, noticed a knife in his hand, pulled their guns and immediately fired. Oh wait, I'm confused; were we talking about calling the cops or a ninja hit squad? Cause I'm pretty sure none of those above things are standard operating procedure for cops, and really more in the realm of ninja assassins, who are very much not the public servants you are recommended to call in the event of a potential crime in progress.

I'm pretty sure at the point when the police cruiser showed up he would have realized his attempted joke/prank (I'm guessing that's what he was doing) had gone significantly too far and he would have run off to hide and shown up the next morning with a lot of explaining to do, or less likely; turned himself in. And police tend not to shoot you in the back when you're running away, so there's that.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:13 am

A shame the father didn't have a tazer, assuming they're legal in CT (they sure aren't here) for citizens.

wait . . wat . .
GUNS are legal but less than lethal stuff ain't? O.o

K · Post by K » Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:45 am

To be fair, cops will also shoot you if you are so unarmed that you are naked.

Apparently, 135 lb college students scare the fuck out of cops.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:31 am

It seems to me that if you are in the process of committing a crime, cops can shoot you if they want. Sometimes if you are near someone who is committing a crime and just happen to look particularly aggressive. Probably they won't, because it's not like police officers are all sociopaths or anything. Even the jerks are unlikely to just up and murder someone for giggles. But the legal system seems pretty unwilling to turn against its own defenders unless there's no justification for the shooting at all. When lethal force is involved, there should probably be a higher standard than that.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:31 am

Stahlseele wrote: GUNS are legal but less than lethal stuff ain't? O.o

The term is actually "less lethal". Tasers can kill and have killed.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:15 pm

Chamomile wrote:When lethal force is involved, there should probably be a higher standard than that.

But who would want to join the police if you're not allowed to just shoot whoever the fuck you want and beat peaceful protesters to death? Next you'll be saying they can't just steal shit from people accused of crimes and pawn it off! Suddenly there'll be like three police officers left.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:18 pm

Chamomile wrote:But the legal system seems pretty unwilling to turn against its own defenders unless there's no justification for the shooting at all. When lethal force is involved, there should probably be a higher standard than that.

The Legal system isn't the problem. Juries are the problem. There are people who's sole job is to investigate cop killings (where the cos do it, not where they get it done), and arrange for the prosecuting of cops. But they don't bring a bunch of arbitrary maybe suits because they know that juries do not convict cops. You have to have a fuck shit ton of evidence before they even consider it.

The legal standard involves whether in the judgment of reasonable cop the shooting was reasonably necessary to prevent some greater harm. By that standard, cops shooting naked college kids is going to get them prosecuted.

But the reason it really won't is because it is factually true that if a cop gets on the stand and says "I saw him holding something metal, my bad." Juries will believe it, and he will get off.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:21 pm

Hard to say what really went on without more information.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:11 pm

Stahlseele wrote: wait . . wat . .
GUNS are legal but less than lethal stuff ain't? O.o

Yeah man. In Canada pepper spray, tasers and the like are Prohibited Weapons. Except for cops, naturally. Then again, our laws on these things are kinda weird and dumb at times.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:51 pm

Stahlseele wrote: wait . . wat . .
GUNS are legal but less than lethal stuff ain't? O.o

There is actually a kind of sensible rationale for this. For a brief time tazers where legal. When a criminal decided to mug someone or hold up a liquor store they wouldn't demand the valuables, they'd just taze the victim and take what they wanted. A tazer is still dangerous, especially in the hands of some noodle brained delinquent with no training and especially with older people.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:06 pm

And of course after today we will not have advanced an inch towards getting hysterical manchildren to reconsider the societal costs of letting them have their exploding-dildo security blankets.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:46 pm

Because: 'Merca Fuk Yeah! Guns!
Or a real National Healthcare.

K · Post by K » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:57 pm

The media outlets keep saying "and now is not the time to talk about gun control."

Well guys, when the fuck do we get to talk about gun control? I think a massacre at an elementary school is an excellent time to talk about it.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:13 pm

K wrote:Well guys, when the fuck do we get to talk about gun control?

Not until climate change is adequately addressed. Preferably after income inequality, war hawkery, and racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination are also addressed.

In the meantime, our time would be better spent first conducting a nation-wide shaming campaign of people who are proud of their gun ownership. Like cigarette smokers.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:19 am

won't happen.
gun owners can shoot you, the most smokers can do is breathe on you.

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:35 am

I'm filled with unimagineable rage right now.

How many people are going to die becase of the NRA and and their muder dildo obsesion.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:59 am

If I had an alternate Facebook account, I'd be tempted to post something to the effect of "if the children had guns in the classroom, maybe this wouldn't have happened." just to troll people.

I did hear someone on NPR mention about a Michigan law that would allow guns in schools (if you're trained) say that if people (not kids) in the schools had guns, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

Ugh.

Shatner · Post by **Shatner** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:00 am

The Onion has some excellent articles for this occasion.

From way back: NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything

From today: Right To Own Handheld Device That Shoots Deadly Metal Pellets At High Speed Worth All Of This

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:21 am

Over the summer, I asked my mother-in-law why we needed guns. Her response? "To protect ourselves from the government."

Unfortunately, we have one of the best equipped militaries in the world. Guns aren't really going to help anyone fare well versus a tank. More Republican cognitive dissonance, I guess. Arm the government, and yourselves!

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:27 am

Well with just a few RPGs backing up those AKs, and some improvised explosive devices, a determined insurgency has shown that it can inflict substantial casualties upon the most modern military in the world for over decade.