American Law Enforcement and Guns

[Fisherking]

Take that to a jury.

My client feared for his life and had every right to use deadly force. How was he to know it was only popped popcorn.

Yeah, you would never expect popcorn in a movie theater, would you.

If the lawyer uses that he should go to jail with his client. That could only be used if they wave trial by jury.

If the judge is elected and not appointed he won’t buy that either, unless he plans to retire the next day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They always seem to try ...

Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that's when he removed a .380 caliber gun from his pants pocket. The report said Reeves fired the gun and struck Oulson once in the chest and that he "was in fear of being attacked." [...]

"The alleged victim attacked him," Escobar said, adding that Oulson threw something, possibly popcorn, at Reeves. "At that point in time he has every right to defend himself."

Dumb is dumb.

If I were the judge - I'd add "Contempt" to the list of charges.

[Kadagar_AV]

Don't bring popcorn to a gunfight...

[Xiahou]

They always seem to try ...

Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that's when he removed a .380 caliber gun from his pants pocket. The report said Reeves fired the gun and struck Oulson once in the chest and that he "was in fear of being attacked." [...]

"The alleged victim attacked him," Escobar said, adding that Oulson threw something, possibly popcorn, at Reeves. "At that point in time he has every right to defend himself."

And then he was denied bail by the judge because "The evidence of guilt is significant"

There is something to be said for just being nice to people here though- golden rule and all that. The old lunatic was clearly very upset and the victim had several option available to him such as: ignore him; apologize for texting in the theater and go to the lobby to finish texting; put your phone away; or, apparently, throw food at the irate person.....

I'm not sure why he thought that the last option was the best one available to him. I'm sure if he knew it'd result in his getting shot, he most likely would have opted for one of the more neighborly options instead of the one that escalates the conflict.

This in no way is justification for the shooting. But people should think twice before they escalate a confrontation. Sometimes it's better to let your ego take one for the team, back down and de-escalate the situation. I'm sure that probably makes you less of a man, but come on.

[Major Robert Dump]

You guys are so judgemental! Have you ever worked the mean streets? This man put his life on the line so you could sleep well at night! Criminals have been known to use Popcorn Bucket Guns before. In some of the slums, gang bangers often use the ancient ninja technique of throwing popcorn in the eyes of their opponent just before attacking. This man is a hero. The "victim" as you call him had tattoos.

[Husar]

Sometimes it's better to let your ego take one for the team, back down and de-escalate the situation. I'm sure that probably makes you less of a man, but come on.

Half the wars in this world are fought because everyone knows that letting your ego take one for the team shows weakness and the predators on the other side are going to exploit that and murder you relentlessly. The last thing a real man wants to do is take one for the team. The guy should have preemptively shot the cop instead or glued him to his chair and only let him go after a full body cavity search.

[Fisherking]

Those wars and diplomacy screw-ups are because governments tend to act like 5 year old boys.

Funny how we send supposedly smart people to government to act so dumb.

[Husar]

Those wars and diplomacy screw-ups are because governments tend to act like 5 year old boys.

Funny how we send supposedly smart people to government to act so dumb.

There is usually a sizeable part of the populace that supports this exact behavior.
I also thought about linking to the thread where I got robbed and half the people told me to be a real man I should get my buddies and beat the guy up or should've done so right away even though I had no idea how dangerous he really was...

Israel and Palestine largely fight because they both think that taking one for peace makes you look weak.

Why did the USA not take one for the team after 9/11? No, the US did not want to look weak and showed the world that it can invade and crush two countries and topple their governments for supporting an attack on US soil. There was no backing down or taking one for the team, blood had to flow and revenge had to be served.

What Russia thinks of deescalation should be known although thankfully they often decided otherwise when the world was at stake (e.g. Cuban missile crisis).

The media and the people usually think that any attack on the "honor of the nation" requires an act of revenge and a show of strength, men have to show strength to impress women in many cases. To demand that he "take one for the team" is against the values 80-90% of the world's male population grows up with. Even in sports it's often just an ideal and quite a lot of team players would rather get a better contract themselves than take one for the team.

And here we have a guy texting during what are basically commercials in a cinema when some grumpy old guy starts to complain and he is supposed to take one for the team and somehow has to expect to get shot otherwise?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And then he was denied bail by the judge because "The evidence of guilt is significant"

There is something to be said for just being nice to people here though- golden rule and all that. The old lunatic was clearly very upset and the victim had several option available to him such as: ignore him; apologize for texting in the theater and go to the lobby to finish texting; put your phone away; or, apparently, throw food at the irate person.....

I'm not sure why he thought that the last option was the best one available to him. I'm sure if he knew it'd result in his getting shot, he most likely would have opted for one of the more neighborly options instead of the one that escalates the conflict.

This in no way is justification for the shooting. But people should think twice before they escalate a confrontation. Sometimes it's better to let your ego take one for the team, back down and de-escalate the situation. I'm sure that probably makes you less of a man, but come on.

We don't know what happened exactly, but the fact that the local cops charged him imidiately means one of three this.

1. He's guilty as sin

2. He's a jerk and a thug and they all hate him.

3. All of the above.

This happened because of the ubiquity of guns in the US and the fact that walking around with lethal force in your trousers in considered acceptable. The fact that this was an ex cop from the jurisdiction makes it a comment on law enforcement. He obviously knew the relevant law - and decided he would get away with shooting the guy.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Dude is guilty. I bet he's also mentally ill or has a violent record. Probably a case in favor of background checks.

Saw this and thought that this might be relevant:

Curtis Reeves was a retired police officer, the very definition of a good guy. He may also prove to be unbalanced in a legally-applicable way, but that wouldn't have prevented him from getting a concealed carry permit in Florida. Since Florida grants concealed carry permits via its Department of Agriculture, rather than, say a criminal justice agency, the state cannot use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to screen applicants. To put that another way, Florida simply doesn't have the federal background check required in every other state that grants concealed carry permits.

Indeed, even if Florida had a more stringent conceal carry screening process – or if it didn't have a concealed carry law at all – Reeves could have had his weapon on him. Retired law enforcement personnel are allowed by federal law to carry a concealed weapon in any jurisdiction except where it's explicitly banned by law or the property owner. This is a loophole that may seem natural (again: good guys!), but it's actually a reflection of just how deeply we've bought into the myth that guns aren't the problem and we only need worry about who has them. That's not true: we need to worry about guns, no matter who has them.

Certainly it is an argument in favour of background checks, but even then there would be a long way to go to ensure a significant decrease in the number of shooting incidents.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Saw this and thought that this might be relevant:
Certainly it is an argument in favour of background checks, but even then there would be a long way to go to ensure a significant decrease in the number of


shooting incidents.

Relevant yes, but as usual for the "guns ARE the problem" side, rather impractical. There are roughly 300 million firearms in the USA. Somebody come up with a practical way to confiscate them all without engendering a police state and the concomitant rebel militias and civil war and maybe we can talk. Even if folks like myself were willing to set aside the 2nd in our modern world and rely on the state for personal safety, the doability factor makes the "get rid of the guns" sentiment rather pointless.

And, as to background checks, this guy was a cop. Unless their departments are full of screw ups, they are among the more thoroughly vetted folk in the USA. The number of violent crimes committed by retired law enforcement is negligible at best.

What do we do? Background check them at reasonable intervals? Seems okay, but gonna be costly. Lojack their heads so that the chip can tell us when their brain chemicals are sliding into homicidal mode? In other words, perfect monitoring cannot exist. At some point you have to allow people to move forward with their lives and hold them responsible for their actions. No real alternative.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I agree with the practical points which you have laid out: indeed, that is why I raised the article in the first place. While I myself do believe that the prevalence of guns is the major contributing factor to gun violence in the USA, I appreciate that any sort of regulation is unlikely, and that the removal of firearms from individuals undermines a key clause of the US constitution.

Any gun-related violent crime, particularly one in which an armed individual injures/kills and unarmed individual or individuals, is, to my mind, a sound argument in favour of background checks. The point being that, in this case, background checks demonstrably would not have prevented the situation. What would be necessary is a wholesale shift in attitude towards guns, something which would be near impossible, at best, in the current politico-cultural climate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with the practical points which you have laid out: indeed, that is why I raised the article in the first place. While I myself do believe that the prevalence of guns is the major contributing factor to gun violence in the USA, I appreciate that any sort of regulation is unlikely, and that the removal of firearms from individuals undermines a key clause of the US constitution.

Any gun-related violent crime, particularly one in which an armed individual injures/kills and unarmed individual or individuals, is, to my mind, a sound argument in favour of background checks. The point being that, in this case, background checks demonstrably would not have prevented the situation. What would be necessary is a wholesale shift in attitude towards guns, something which would be near impossible, at best, in the current politico-cultural climate.

Nor did I assume that you were from the "guns are bad" crowd. Your post was too clearly phrased for that kind of hyper-simplicity.

Some kind of background check is appropriate. Implicit in the idea of firearms being an individual right is that the person in question is mentally competent enough to understand that right and it's exercise. I think it is also appropriate to curtail that right (at least for a period of time) in instances where the individual has demonstrated their willingness to harm others without reasonable cause (violent felony).

[Beskar]

Could just institute 'Ban guns in public places' like they did for smoking. So you cannot enter a theatre, cinema, hospital, school, shop and such, whilst being tooled up. Any incidents would be a fine on the establishment if they knowingly permitted guns and a fine for the patron involved.

As such, you could have the gun in your home to blast-away anyone who accidentally stumbles into your garden or have them in vehicle for when the great revolution occurs.

On another note, this point always seems to be missing, the 'Weapons Effect' where simply the presence of the weapon, such as a gun dramatically increases the likelihood of violence. Even more amusing, it could even be a picture of a gun, the mental associations are that powerful.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Could just institute 'Ban guns in public places' like they did for smoking. So you cannot enter a theatre, cinema, hospital, school, shop and such, whilst being tooled up. Any incidents would be a fine on the establishment if they knowingly permitted guns and a fine for the patron involved.

As such, you could have the gun in your home to blast-away anyone who accidentally stumbles into your garden or have them in vehicle for when the great revolution occurs.

On another note, this point always seems to be missing, the 'Weapons Effect' where simply the presence of the weapon, such as a gun dramatically increases the likelihood of violence. Even more amusing, it could even be a picture of a gun, the mental associations are that powerful.

Well, quite. Do you know what's even more amusing? The Americans could do this right now without the need for any legislation whatsoever. The joys of (private) property: you get to decide that your customers/visitors are not to bring their pets, guns and imaginary friends with them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How in the world does a sticker on the door prevent someone from bringing a gun in? Ask the Aurora victims how well a "No gun zone" works.

I think concealed carry permits should always come with regular proficiency checks, at least as rigorous as with a driver's liscence. Random old men who may or may not be in a sound state of mind shouldn't get to carry concealed just because they were cops once. Old people lose competency over time, just like with driving. Just because someone gave out speeding tickets and profiled minorities for 20 years shouldn't automatically make them competent.

Here's a question - if Americans love guns - just ban concealed carry

Yeah - when you get your permit you also get a little badge like a cop's saying you're authorised to carry, you wear it when you carry. That way, everybody knows you're tooled up.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. Open Carry is perfectly legal already, and any attempt to attach a permit to that would be unconstitutional in my opinion. Some places have been having issues with cops harassing people who open carry, and that's not only wrong but also gives the radical right wing fringe a lot of ammo.

Sent from my SCH-R530C using Tapatalk

Your Constitution provides for a "well regulated" militia - QED the State should regulate the ownership and carriage of weapons so that seditious groups and enemy aliens, along with the criminal and insane, are prevented from carrying weapons.

IN FACT it would seem that REFUSING to regulate the citizen militia at all is as unconstitutional as a blanket ban.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first clause clearly establishes the purpose of the amendment to be the provision of a regulated militia, not provision for personal security.

The second clause lacks specify in both the definition of "the people" and of the definition of "keep and bear".

It is possible to define "The People" as the populace, distinct from the Federal Government - which would make the right to "keep and bear" collective, not individual.

I.E. The correct application of the amendment requires each Town or Civil Parish to maintain a collective armoury where the "People" keep their arms, so that they may be quickly taken up and borne. Such an armoury would, of course, be outside the direct control of the Federal Government - although the government could enact a *minimum* standard.

This was, of course, the reason the National Guard was created.

There's nothing in your Constitution that provides for the open carriage of personal weapons unless you choose to interpret it that way.

Actually, between this and the sloppy text of your marriage Laws I'm not sure I rate your early Jurists very highly.

[Pannonian]

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. Open Carry is perfectly legal already, and any attempt to attach a permit to that would be unconstitutional in my opinion. Some places have been having issues with cops harassing people who open carry, and that's not only wrong but also gives the radical right wing fringe a lot of ammo.

Wouldn't this make them even happier? More ammo means more bang.

[HoreTore]

you're not even an American.

Oh please GC, that's such a cheap shot.

A text and an idea can be discussed by anyone, regardless of nationality. Don't dig yourself into that ol' "blind nationalism"-hole.

@PVC: They're 18th century lawyers writing basic law for an emergent and uneducated state. Did you honestly expect perfection?

[Montmorency]

IMO a slightly better interpretation, PVC, one that treats both clauses equally, is that the 2A specifies a right of each capable citizen to be part of a locally constituted-and-regulated militia, free of risk of dissolution or hampering from the federal (or possible even state) side, that entails each member of the militia be required to maintain and train with his own firearms and obey any local regulations that exist to ensure a high standard for the militia.

So, if you waive the right to be a part of this militia by presenting inability or refusal to comply with the regulations that structure this militia (e.g. keeping your weapons safely-stored and well-maintained, going out to the shooting range every weekend, participating in unit training, whatever), then the government at every level has the prerogative to do whatever they want, so long as there is not excessive curtailment that could be construed to violate the 9th, 10th, or 14th Amendments.

And from there, practicality takes over. There is not a need for localized militias in this day and age, but if we want to stick to the letter of the thing, then we'd just set up systems that are conducive towards very tight outfits indeed, nearly equal in quality to main-line infantry units (and so, quite selective) but not equipped beyond run-of-the-mill small-arms and some minor sundries. Then on out, it's municipality-by municipality and state-by-state: if the South wants guns to abound, that's their choice, as it is NYC's to have firearms heavily restricted - the point being that there is great scope for change in any direction in any place, just as long as it does not interfere with the constituted militias' right to be well-regulated militias. Regulations that are detrimental to the maintenance of a quality outfit would violate the 2nd Amendment then, while laws requiring that guns be kept disassembled at home when not being trained with would not. Bottom line is, the 2A in this interpretation would have nothing to do with guns outside of the militia context, meaning that guns per se are not specifically protected.

This sort of view prevailed in the 19th century, but with the contemporary Court the interpretation has been - well, loose to put it lightly. We can only wait for the worm to turn once more, though I suspect at that point society will have changed so much as to make the whole issue moot...

That's not to say I believe that guns should be heavily restricted in any way, or that the issue of gun violence in America today is actually even a serious social problem. Just take some common-sense precautionary measures, and it's all good. The above is merely my "legal interpretation", hehe.

Though it would be nice to divest the public-at-large of any revolutionary or cinematic fantasies they have with respect to guns, which should be seen as dangerous tools to be treated with respect, in my understanding.

[HoreTore]

Its the same reason you people shouldn't take me seriously when I start talking about issues deeply ingrained in the greater European legal situation.

No, that's the reason why one should always pay attention to what an outsider says about a given situation.

The notion that only those on the inside of a group are able to understand the workings of said group, is very, very wrong.

If you believe PVC's britishness has lead to him missing out on key aspects due to his fondness for tea and crumpets, the appropriate response on a friendly discussion-board is to be concrete and point out exactly what those aspects are and how he is wrong.

If you believe that he is wrong because "you feel differently", without being able to specify anything, well, that's a sure-fire sign that your argument doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

[Pannonian]

No, that's the reason why one should always pay attention to what an outsider says about a given situation.

The notion that only those on the inside of a group are able to understand the workings of said group, is very, very wrong.

If you believe PVC's britishness has lead to him missing out on key aspects due to his fondness for tea and crumpets, the appropriate response on a friendly discussion-board is to be concrete and point out exactly what those aspects are and how he is wrong.

If you believe that he is wrong because "you feel differently", without being able to specify anything, well, that's a sure-fire sign that your argument doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Reality always makes sense though, in sense that the status quo will continue unless you actively change it. It was like that between the north and the south in 1861. The south had its own reading of the constitution which differed from the north's, and they had the right to read it that way. But the north imposed its own reading by force, and once that was done, their reading was the correct one. No-one outside the US cares enough about American gun laws to impose their reading by force, so the one generally currently understood is the correct one in practice. It works for the US and it doesn't affect anyone else, so they can have their laws AFAICS.

[HoreTore]

so they can have their laws AFAICS.

When did a discussion equal "THE US MUST ADOPT EURO LAWS RIGHT NOW THIS INSTANT OR ELSE THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE"....?

[Pannonian]

When did a discussion equal "THE US MUST ADOPT EURO LAWS RIGHT NOW THIS INSTANT OR ELSE THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE"....?

We can talk about theory all we want, but workable laws depend on the people following them to accept them. Americans think differently from Europeans, so what is workable over here may not be workable over there. It's a bit like the north calling on the south to accept its reading of the constitution to ban slavery (or so it was understood). The south wouldn't accept this reading, and it was imposed by force. Unless anyone cares enough to use force to impose their reading, then the interpretation of those who are bound by it prevails.

[HoreTore]

We can talk about theory all we want, but workable laws depend on the people following them to accept them. Americans think differently from Europeans, so what is workable over here may not be workable over there. It's a bit like the north calling on the south to accept its reading of the constitution to ban slavery (or so it was understood). The south wouldn't accept this reading, and it was imposed by force. Unless anyone cares enough to use force to impose their reading, then the interpretation of those who are bound by it prevails.

I can't see any relevance or reality in this post.

[Tellos Athenaios]

How in the world does a sticker on the door prevent someone from bringing a gun in? Ask the Aurora victims how well a "No gun zone" works.

I think concealed carry permits should always come with regular proficiency checks, at least as rigorous as with a driver's liscence. Random old men who may or may not be in a sound state of mind shouldn't get to carry concealed just because they were cops once. Old people lose competency over time, just like with driving. Just because someone gave out speeding tickets and profiled minorities for 20 years shouldn't automatically make them competent.

It doesn't prevent anything. Point is, cultural issues can be fixed by changing your culture to not have those issues. If you argue that fixing the gun issue is impossible because 300M firearms or because 2nd A or because 'murica, I counter that you created it so if you really want to fix it you can have debate, opinion and in general a push to make bringing out the guns in public entirely unacceptable.

What you are doing instead is shutting down that avenue of public debate simply by saying "it can't be done".

I suggest you take a leaf out of the British history books and consider how they dealt with slavery. The issue was tackled by branding slavery as backwards, inhuman and unacceptable in an enlightened world first and only once enough people were persuaded did they enforce this new doctrine. That's a 'fix your culture' approach, whichever way you look at it.

Ultimately even if the guns are not the issue, the gun culture definitely is which implies the Americans themselves are the real problem. That also means the Americans can fix it by simply refusing to accept guns everywhere.

[Husar]

Eh, yes, what Tellos says.
I think I've been saying it a few times before as well.
Americans want their guns and will keep their guns, saying "it can't be done" is just a defeatist attitude which is also quite unamerican.
"We don't want to do it" is a more fitting statement.

[Montmorency]

You two go-getters have inspired me.

From now on, I will tell the obese to just "put down the damn fork", the depressed to just "get over it", and the addicted to just "man-up and quit".

I mean clearly, if these pussies really wanted to change, they would just up and change. It's just that easy after all, right?

[Tellos Athenaios]

You two go-getters have inspired me.

Thank you, but next time please try harder:

From now on, I will tell the obese to just "put down the damn fork", the depressed to just "get over it", and the addicted to just "man-up and quit".

Let's get this straight, the Americans are collectively addicted to their guns to the point that they must get their fix of guns in public each day and every day?

Or is a false equivalence in fact, false?

I mean clearly, if these pussies really wanted to change, they would just up and change. It's just that easy after all, right?

Why yes, the Americans do have a history of social activism leading to major cultural reform. They have demonstrated in the past that if they can get collectively worked up about an issue enough for the combined outrage to force through controversial policies even in the face of stiff opposition. Witness the civil rights movement, gay marriage, and we may yet witness the War on Drugs stopped in our lifetime.

[Montmorency]

Let's get this straight, the Americans are collectively addicted to their guns to the point that they must get their fix of guns in public each day and every day?

No.

I'm saying 'just change by changing' is an insultingly puerile tautology with no application to real life.

Witness the civil rights movement, gay marriage, and we may yet witness the War on Drugs stopped in our lifetime.

I'll skip to the point and call this a false equivalence.

Not nearly enough Americans care about this issue of guns nearly to the same degree - unless it's on the other side of what you're getting at.

The issue isn't even worth getting worked up about in the first place.