Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:33 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: 40 reasons to support gun control Back to Topics
taximan007

Champion Author
Indianapolis

Posts:10,135
Points:1,821,235
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2007 12:22:44 AM

From Hamilton Reed of The Michigan Sportsman

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 6:44:30 PM

Would wearing such a bracelet violate CCW laws against displaying your weapon?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,338
Points:2,762,455
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 10:43:45 AM

Holder wants people to wear gun bracelets - some people think that is a good idea

Others don't. )Read the comments....)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 1:05:42 PM

I75at7AM - "The DoJ wants to “explore” tracking bracelets for gun owners"

As I've said elsewhere, first require their use by federal LEOs before requiring the rest of us to use them. After they get a few killed, support for the idea will evaporate.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 11:17:51 AM

" Yes, stop blaming 'guns' and start blaming the ADDICTIONS that make people do evil cruel things..." "like obesity addiction"

I haven't noticed many of the people who have gone on shooting sprees as being obese (nor have I noticed many of these people being mention as homosexual either).

What exactly is "obesity addiction" or "homosexuality addiction" anyway?
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,354
Points:41,885
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 11:01:18 AM

. Yes, stop blaming 'guns' and start blaming the ADDICTIONS that make people do evil cruel things... like drug addiction, religion addiction/psychosis, homosexuality addiction, obesity addiction, greed addiction, etc...

. No one with an addiction should be allowed to own or handle a gun... until they get cured... a big problem today is there are no incentives to get cured... few incentives to be normal... actually, just the opposite, incentives to be mentally ill...
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,338
Points:2,762,455
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 9:46:57 AM

News item:

The DoJ wants to “explore” tracking bracelets for gun owners

"Eric Holder testified Friday to the House Appropriations subcommittee about gun violence prevention programs and upcoming technological advances — advances that could force gun owners to wear a bracelet to activate their firearms."
"Eric Holder testified Friday to the House Appropriations subcommittee about gun violence prevention programs and upcoming technological advances — advances that could force gun owners to wear a bracelet to activate their firearms.
“By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon,” said Holder.

What Holder does not realize, or admit, is that such a device would make it much harder for a citizen to actually use their own firearm in self defense if surprised in their own home by a sudden intruder.

"According to the Free Beacon, “the Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for ‘gun safety.’”
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 7, 2014 1:38:05 PM

Notice that they wait until the last paragraph to admit that federal agents get killed.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,000
Points:322,490
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2014 2:23:01 PM

Remember when he said he would have a civilian military with the same power and funding as the department of defense, and then every one cheared as if it was a good thing?
This is it. Edgar you found it. The liberals will deny its happening all day long even when we have it in wrighting from the agency them selves telling us this is what they are doing.
The only reason you have a "civilian military" is to beat up, beat down, shake down and impose your will onto your own people.
Profile Pic
Edger
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:41,759
Points:2,671,210
Joined:Apr 2005
Message Posted: Apr 6, 2014 12:40:46 AM

It’s been estimated the U.S. has some 25,000 sworn law enforcement officers in departments not traditionally associated with fighting crime.

Under attack: Depth of federal arms race should surprise, shock citizenry
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,960
Points:781,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 2:56:29 PM

Maybe they should follow the laws with Holder's example of how NOT to do it.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 1:21:12 PM

"And you didnt deal with why they felt they had to break the laws. "

Because why someone "feels" he must break the law doesn't cut any ice. Hard to believe I'm having this conversation with a member of the law-and-order party. Law-and-order for the other guy, that is.

Let the consequences of breaking the law fall on those who break it.



"He broke the law."

That's opinion and not fact. Learn the difference.



"Stop with the temper tantrums - I dont have any"

I was speaking of those Connecticut residents who refuse to comply with the law.



"So what your really saying is that you would bow down to the state and obey any law they passed regardless of what it was - hummmmm interesting. "

What I'm really saying is what I've already said. You read it and them promptly summarized it incorrectly.



"I'm just sitting here laughing like crazy at the attempt to take away the rights of you fellow citizens and their 'protest' at this illegal activity o the part of the anti gun crowd."

I'm not surprised you perceive the comedy inherent in the position of Connecticut's gun crybabies. Nobody's rights have been (or are being) taken away.



"Maybe you would stop eating meat but most of your fellow citizens would not"

A law doesn't suddenly become void simply because many people refuse to follow it.



"As far as you neighbors owning firearms - you would be surprised."

We're talking about the weapons specified in the law under discussion, not all weapons. If I were surprised, it wouldn't be for long. I would promptly turn in any neighbor I discovered breaking that law. And I'd do it in a heartbeat.



"The reason the vast majority of folks back there are refusing to obey this law is they feel it is none of the business of the state what firearms they own. You know that whole business of 'shall not be infringed'. "

Let them take steps to challenge the law legally, then. There is no infringement. There is only breath-holding and foot-stomping on the part of Connecticut's infantile gun-owners.





[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/19/2014 1:27:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 11:26:23 AM

Yes Marty - but first MLK and a whole bunch of other folks who knew the law-laws were bad broke them.

And you didnt deal with why they felt they had to break the laws.

Obama broke the law when the Obamacare act clearly says that it will take effect, "shall" is the word used, after Dec 31, 2013.. Obama has decided to change that part along with another 20 some parts of his signature law via his signature. He dose not have that authority under the constitution. He broke the law. Wether the congress does their job to hold him accountable does not change the fact he broke the law.

Stop with the temper tantrums - I dont have any - I'm just sitting here laughing like crazy at the attempt to take away the rights of you fellow citizens and their 'protest' at this illegal activity o the part of the anti gun crowd.

Maybe you would stop eating meat but most of your fellow citizens would not - they would break the state law - as they are doing on the gun thing. So what your really saying is that you would bow down to the state and obey any law they passed regardless of what it was - hummmmm interesting.

As far as you neighbors owning firearms - you would be surprised. The reason the vast majority of folks back there are refusing to obey this law is they feel it is none of the business of the state what firearms they own. You know that whole business of 'shall not be infringed'.

Like I said its gonna be a load of fun to watch what happens.... When enough people refuse to sit in the back of the bus er er er register their magazines it gets fun.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 7:24:41 AM

"Did the legal remedies work for people like MLK?"

Of course: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to name a few.



"Why did they feel it was necessary to break the laws they disagreed with?"

They were arrested and jailed, same as the criminals should be in Connecticut we're discussing.



"Why do our leaders as exemplified by Obama just break the law when they find its better for them to do so?"

If Obama has broken any law then articles of impeachment should be filed in the House. Since that hasn't happened, perhaps saying Obama broke the law is a lie. Weren't we just discussing Governor Malloy and the Connecticut law?



"This whole area is not an easy question to deal with is it?"

It's incredibly easy. Register the weapons that are required to be registered and stop with the diaper baby tantrums.




"Lets assume for the sake of discussion that the religion you practised said that your meat must be kosher and the state passed a law that said all meat sold must be processed in a way that was not kosher. Would you suddenly break the law or stop being faithful to your religious beliefs? "

I'd stop eating meat.




"What would you do if you felt that one of your basic rights was being taken from you by the government?"

I've already answered that question.




"My prediction is that a whole lot of your neighbors are gonna not comply with this law."

None of my neighbors owns a weapon covered by the law under discussion.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/19/2014 7:26:14 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:29:57 AM

Weaslespit - "Yes - by not convicting on Murder..."

No, for convicting someone of attempted murder when, apparently, the 'victims' were the ones who started it, with their inconsiderate and hostile behavior, and, again apparently, none of the 'victims' were injured at all.

And what I've seen of their behavior indicates that they knew they were in the wrong.

Of course, as already pointed out, the 1st degree murder charge was ridiculous on the face of it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 19, 2014 12:26:22 AM

MiddletownMarty - "Please cite the court decision declaring that law unconstitutional."

That will follow an attempt to actually enforce the law.

"Of course the proper and adult way to address a law which one doesn't like is to work to amend or repeal that law through proper legislative channels, or file a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds."

Of course, the best way to get standing for such a lawsuit is to disobey the law.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 11:05:44 PM

Marty I am pulling you leg a tad here I hope you can see it. But when the so called legal remedies dont seem to work what does one do. Did the legal remedies work for people like MLK? Why did they feel it was necessary to break the laws they disagreed with? Why do our leaders as exemplified by Obama just break the law when they find its better for them to do so?

This whole area is not an easy question to deal with is it? I could bring up other freedoms that we both think are rather important. Like the freedom of religion one. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that the religion you practised said that your meat must be kosher and the state passed a law that said all meat sold must be processed in a way that was not kosher. Would you suddenly break the law or stop being faithful to your religious beliefs?

We have lots of rights that we both think should not be interfered with by the govt. What would you do if you felt that one of your basic rights was being taken from you by the government?

Yes its going to be interesting to watch. At one time the govt said we could no longer drink booze - people disagreed and drank anyway.

My prediction is that a whole lot of your neighbors are gonna not comply with this law.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 10:28:14 PM

Quoting the Declaration of Independence doesn't put you on the level of those who wrote it. The folks who disobeyed back then did so because there was no legal recourse for them. That is not the case today. Those in a snit about Connecticut's gun law have legal and legislative remedies available to address their concerns. They should put on the big boy pants and do something legal about it.

Funny how the obeying the law mantra is good until that shoe go on the other foot. It will be interesting.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/18/2014 10:28:38 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 10:11:09 PM

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

At one time Marty the folks who lived back they thought like this and refused to obey bad laws also. The people who supported such onerous laws and such were labelled Tories and were reviled. When a state passes a law that enough people think is an abrogation of their rights as citizens - they ignore the law. We learned this on more than one occasion in our history Marty.

Like I said its gonna be fun to watch what happens. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 plus people in that one dinky little state who just say no.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 6:05:29 PM

Of course the proper and adult way to address a law which one doesn't like is to work to amend or repeal that law through proper legislative channels, or file a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds. The criminals under discussion are neither proper nor adult, and they can forever drop the meme of "law-abiding gun owner." They have shown their true colors, which aren't red, white, and blue.






[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/18/2014 6:07:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 5:53:24 PM

It depends on how quickly the penalties are exacted. How many gun owners are willing to become felons, spend a year in prison, and lose their right to gun ownership altogether?


"But it would be fun to see you put 300-400 thousand folks in jail all at once for a year back there. Any idea where your gonna put them?"

It would be fun to see you find that many gun owners in all of Connecticut.



"Any idea where your gonna put them?"

In prison. Once the criminals know the State isn't fooling around they will comply with the law. The vast majority of those criminals are cowards and will crap in their shorts at the first sign of seriousness by the State.



"What will happen when the couple of hundred cops in a large town are told by 10,000 people to go away and stop bothering us?"

You've forgotten the police response to the OWS protesters, or you wouldn't ask such an inane question.




[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 2/18/2014 6:01:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 5:41:52 PM

Marty if enough folks just ignore the law what do you really think will happen. But it would be fun to see you put 300-400 thousand folks in jail all at once for a year back there. Any idea where your gonna put them? What will happen when the couple of hundred cops in a large town are told by 10,000 people to go away and stop bothering us?

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 5:34:44 PM

As I said already, let the consequences prescribed by the law fall on those who break it. Class D felony, mandatory 1 year in prison.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 4:43:17 PM

This is gonna be fun to watch Marty. It seems like your fellow citizens are saying they wont stand for this attempt to infringe on their rights.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 4:15:06 PM

Let the consequences of the law fall on those criminals.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 3:14:13 PM

You fellow state citizens dont need no stinkin court to tell them not to obey bad law Marty....

I find it just funny as all get out that the people in a pretty far left state are waking up and practicing the 'just say no' meme. What a joke it is.....
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,115
Points:454,560
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 2:14:30 PM

"True. Juries promoting hostile behavior."

Yes - by not convicting on Murder...

I believe the Prosecution is going to retry Dunn for the 1st degree murder charge.

Personally, I think this is another instance where the Prosecution is getting a little overzealous. Voluntary Manslaughter seems to be more reasonable IMO.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 2:06:29 PM

"Though they passed a blatantly unconstitutional law..."

Please cite the court decision declaring that law unconstitutional.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 12:59:57 PM

INteresting as allo get out - It seems that the people are saying GO TO HELL-- WE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH A BAD LAW>
.
.
>>>Connecticut’s anti-gun politicians (in both parties) and the media are beside themselves in a quivering rage.

Though they passed a blatantly unconstitutional law requiring citizens to register both their “modern muskets” and the standard-capacity magazines associated with such firearms, the response of the citizenry has been an overwhelming refusal to comply.

No one knows for sure precisely how many firearms labeled “assault weapons” by the state exist in Connecticut and so a precise estimate is impossible to obtain, but the most common estimate is that a minimum of 86-percent of citizens did not register their semi-automatic firearms as required by law, and that figure may be as high as nine in 10. Standard-capacity magazines are also required to be registered with the state under the same law, and non-compliance there may be even higher, in excess of 95-percent.

Predictably, the state and it’s big government supporters are stunned.

Connecticut politicians have become so adjusted to docile citizens compliantly forfeiting their rights to more government intrusion that they simply assumed a law setting up the registration of firearms for their eventual confiscation would be obeyed without question.<<<

Seems like them folks back east are just ordinary folks after all. I wonder what the antigunnuts are going to try next.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:4,852
Points:1,353,300
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 9:08:59 AM

For 1st degree Murder you need Premeditation. If they would have went for manslaughter . He would have been convicted
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 8:57:03 AM

"He was found guilty of attempting to kill the 3 who were injured, but no verdict on the actual murder"

Probably due to the fact that he did not commit 1st degree murder. The prosecutors office over reached on the charges...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2014 1:02:39 AM

MiddletownMarty - "He was found guilty of attempting to kill the 3 who were injured, but no verdict on the actual murder."

I haven't seen any mention that anyone else was injured. I also haven't seen any mention that the others in the car made any effort to take the injured party to a hospital.

"What a strange country the US has become."

True. Juries promoting hostile behavior.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,433
Points:303,000
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2014 4:25:27 PM

"Another Floridian hot head, who does not know when it's appropriate to use deadly force, appears to be heading to prison for the rest of his life..."

He was found guilty of attempting to kill the 3 who were injured, but no verdict on the actual murder. What a strange country the US has become.

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 17, 2014 10:34:47 AM

Another Floridian hot head, who does not know when it's appropriate to use deadly force, appears to be heading to prison for the rest of his life...

Michael Dunn was found guilty on four charges, including three for attempted second-degree murder, which could land him behind bars for decades.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,321
Points:414,605
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2014 7:26:11 AM

>I would guess that what hit him in the eye was from the popcorn.

Some think it may have been the victim's cell phone... that it was thrown first, and then the popcorn.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2014 3:50:19 PM

I would guess that what hit him in the eye was from the popcorn.

And the action of reaching out to grab the popcorn and throw it in his face is somewhat more aggressive, and subject to misinterpretation, than throwing his own popcorn would have been.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,321
Points:414,605
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2014 7:26:10 AM

>So it does look like she was trying to restrain him.

We *now* have her words saying that.
We can only guess that her previous statement "trying to protect him" might have meant protect him by getting him to sit down.

>The shot appears to have been fired immediately after drawing the weapon.
>Did she even have time to realize her husband was in danger?

Reflexes and arm movement are very fast. Watching the video of him drawing and firing, he is not going to earn the name "Quick-Draw".
A moot point now that we have her testimony.

We also now know that it is pretty impossible for the shooter to have not known it was popcorn.

>I'd like to see the surveillance video.

http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=3166838396001
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2014 12:03:48 AM

You forgot to mention this part rjhenn...

"In the patrol car with his hands cuffed, Curtis Reeves told detectives he was scared for his life after Oulson came over the seat and punched him in the face."

" Suddenly my head was to the right. He hit me with his fist or something. I assume it was his fist and something is wrong with my left eye."

"Assistant State Attorney Manny Garcia used Reeves' own words against him in arguing that he should be held without bail.

"Pointing the gun, firing the gun and his statements constitute second-degree murder," Garcia said. "From his own mouth, judge."

Garcia went through Reeves' statements made in a recorded interview in the hours after the shooting, including: "Good heavens, I didn't mean to do that."

Garcia also brought up how Reeves told detectives Oulson lunged at him and hit him.

"Where in that video do you see Mr. Reeves holding Chad Oulson back like he was describing?" Garcia said. "It's not in there, judge."

It was after the gunshot and before he knew there was video surveillance, Garcia said, that Reeves made up a story about self-defense."

"Prosecutors also played a recording of Nicole Oulson's statement to detectives. She said a gray-haired man sitting behind them "got rude" with her husband during previews.

"He was just nasty," she said.

The man left for a minute and came back. By then, she said, Chad Oulson's phone was off.

"We thought that was end of it," she said.

But the man taunted Oulson, she said.

"He said, 'Now you put it away, are you scared?' " she said. " 'Oh so now you put the phone away.' And my husband turned around and stood up and said, 'Dude, what is your problem?' "

At this point, Mrs. Oulson said she put her hand up to her husband's chest in an effort to say it wasn't worth a fight.

She said her husband never hit Reeves.

Reeves' wife, Vivian, also told detectives she didn't see Oulson hit Reeves."
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 11:55:45 PM

Even Reeeves seems to realize that even if a man grabs your popcorn (or whatever else may have happened), it doesn't justify shooting him...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/7/2014 11:54:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 7:19:59 PM

And more confusion:

"Nicole Oulson said she then stood up and put her left hand on her husband's chest, telling him it wasn't worth a fight." So it does look like she was trying to restrain him.

"Next, a hand grabs Reeves' popcorn and flings it at him. Reeves then raises his right hand, fires and leans back in his seat." Grab's "Reeves'" popcorn?!?! Yep, that's what the video seems to show.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 7:07:32 PM

Reeves admits, during police interview, that shooting was unjustified.

"Reeves said he regretted the shooting immediately.

"As soon as I pulled the trigger, I said, 'Oh, this is stupid,'" he said in the tape. "There's no justification for what happened in there."
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 5:16:02 PM

Judge decides no bail to be allowed for ex-cop who is charged with 2nd degree murder in theater shooting...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/7/2014 5:17:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,960
Points:781,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 4:35:59 PM

link to SCOTUSblog

SEE! I told you I read from a wide variety of sources, lol.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 4:30:35 PM

Hey Tim - got a link for that information - Sounds like it might be interesting.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,960
Points:781,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 4:14:52 PM

Looks like two more 2nd amendment cases will be heard by the SCOTUS late this session or in October.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 1:06:15 PM

Shockjock1961 - "Nope, I'm going by what a witness said he heard ( a police officer to be exact). What the witness heard was the culprit say 'I'll teach you or I'll show you to throw popcorn at me" followed by a gunshot.'"

So, so far we seem to have multiple witnesses, each of which seems to have heard something different.

Typical.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 2/7/2014 1:05:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,382
Points:133,145
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2014 12:36:59 AM

"So multiple people break into their home and he defends himself and the cops charge him "

They didn't charge him with manslaughter.

Although I suppose they could have charged him with unlawful discharge of a gun inside the city limits ;-)
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 9:38:34 PM

"Shock so now based on what you hear on TV or whatever your saying you know what the guy is thinking in th heat of an argument????"

Nope, I'm going by what a witness said he heard ( a police officer to be exact). What the witness heard was the culprit say "I'll teach you or I'll show you to throw popcorn at me" followed by a gunshot."

"Wow your good."

No, just attentive...

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,838
Points:1,258,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 9:27:54 PM

Shock so now based on what you hear on TV or whatever your saying you know what the guy is thinking in th heat of an argument????

Wow your good.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,432
Points:2,510,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 9:19:52 PM

What difference does that make? The culprit knew that the attack was neither lethal, nor even damaging. It appears he shot the guy merely in revenge for having popcorn thrown at him...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,720
Points:2,533,680
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2014 1:28:17 PM

ShanC - "Why does her instinctively putting her hand up in front of her husband to protect him not make sense?"

Timing. The shot appears to have been fired immediately after drawing the weapon. Did she even have time to realize her husband was in danger?

"From the hearing on Wednesday:"

I'd like to see the surveillance video.
Post a reply Back to Topics