Ex green beret shot dead by 4 yr old son

[zappasguitar]

stop being obtuse about it. when a pilot or doctor makes a mistake, you idiots prosecute him for it, or at a minimum you revoke their license. you let the cop get away with it and let the city/county/state pay a settlement to the person who's rights were violated.

And there's the trouble, isn't it?

Until gun lovers can agree to some common sense restrictions on gun ownership, like requiring potential owners AT THE VERY LEAST to earn a license for instance before taking possession, nothing is going to change.

You think a Doctor or a Pilot needs a license, but don't by GOD make you gun owners demonstrate a basic working knowledge of the gun you are carrying by earning a license...oh HEAVENS no!

can you see how stupid you are in general by refusing to see reality? or is it necessary for you to keep refusing to acknowledge that actual issue?

No...but your stupidity has become readily apparent.

 

[tekkychick]

To repeat myself - YES sometimes cops should be held accountable. However, because of their jobs, there are times they will shoot someone and not be thrown in jail. My rough examples were:

1) Cop chases bad guy, kills civilian through shooting or car chase or something - accident. Probably cop should not be charged because it's part of their duties if the official investigation determines this

2) Cops shoot 115 bullets into a car, wounding civilians - there's something seriously wrong in that police dept; if the cops aren't charged, their superiors should be

3) Amadou Diallo shooting or Abner Louima torture - cops should be charged and jailed for brutality and murder

4) Cop at home, drops his gun, it discharges and hurts/kills someone - should be treated the same as a civilian who drops their gun

In the story STY posted, the discharge of the gun did not hurt anyone; the cop reported it promptly. I imagine in a civilian case, the civilian would not be charged with anything (although perhaps they should be). Possibly in this case I could see suspending the cop for a few days because he should have known better how to store his gun.

Since there is nothing else the pro-gun people will let us do, at the very least we need to hold gun owners responsible when their weapon is used accidentally. That includes cops off-duty who drop their weapons or let a kid get hold of it or whatever. When a cop is on duty, it depends on what the situation is.

it still seems to me that all too often when someone dies from mishandling of a gun, the person who let the gun be mishandled doesn't get jail time. I could be wrong in this, so if someone has statistics would love to see them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And there's the trouble, isn't it?

Until gun lovers can agree to some common sense restrictions on gun ownership, like requiring potential owners AT THE VERY LEAST to earn a license for instance before taking possession, nothing is going to change.

You think a Doctor or a Pilot needs a license, but don't by GOD make you gun owners demonstrate a basic working knowledge of the gun you are carrying by earning a license...oh HEAVENS no!

what other RIGHTS would you like to require a license to exercise? speech? privacy? voting? AT THE VERY LEAST!!!! or what classes and test scores should the government mandate someone acquire before being allowed to exercise a right????

No...but your stupidity has become readily apparent.

yet i'm not the one trying to say that cops are trained to shoot innocent civilians.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

To repeat myself - YES sometimes cops should be held accountable. However, because of their jobs, there are times they will shoot someone and not be thrown in jail. My rough examples were:

1) Cop chases bad guy, kills civilian through shooting or car chase or something - accident. Probably cop should not be charged because it's part of their duties if the official investigation determines this

2) Cops shoot 115 bullets into a car, wounding civilians - there's something seriously wrong in that police dept; if the cops aren't charged, their superiors should be

3) Amadou Diallo shooting or Abner Louima torture - cops should be charged and jailed for brutality and murder

4) Cop at home, drops his gun, it discharges and hurts/kills someone - should be treated the same as a civilian who drops their gun

In the story STY posted, the discharge of the gun did not hurt anyone; the cop reported it promptly. I imagine in a civilian case, the civilian would not be charged with anything (although perhaps they should be). Possibly in this case I could see suspending the cop for a few days because he should have known better how to store his gun.

Since there is nothing else the pro-gun people will let us do, at the very least we need to hold gun owners responsible when their weapon is used accidentally. That includes cops off-duty who drop their weapons or let a kid get hold of it or whatever. When a cop is on duty, it depends on what the situation is.

it still seems to me that all too often when someone dies from mishandling of a gun, the person who let the gun be mishandled doesn't get jail time. I could be wrong in this, so if someone has statistics would love to see them.

this is absolutely ludicrous. How can you defend the position of excusing 'split second' mishaps yet still exclaim that they are highly trained? don't we train them to avoid these issues?

 

[tekkychick]

this is absolutely ludicrous. How can you defend the position of excusing 'split second' mishaps yet still exclaim that they are highly trained? don't we train them to avoid these issues?

When you are a police officer and having to make those kinds of split-second decisions, let us know if the training is sufficient or not.

 

[/MSG/]

When you are a police officer and having to make those kinds of split-second decisions, let us know if the training is sufficient or not.

Yeah, you don't wanna go barking up that tree. Won't end well for your argument.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When you are a police officer and having to make those kinds of split-second decisions, let us know if the training is sufficient or not.

again, you are missing the entire point of the issue. is this purposeful obtuseness? tell ya what, compare these two circumstances and you tell me what should be done.

1) highly trained officer investigating possible burglary suspect in dark alley confronts someone that looks like he's pointing a gun at him so he shoots and kills him, turns out to the the homeowner

2) homeowner investigating strange noises in his backyard confronts someone that looks like he's pointing a gun at him so he shoots and kills him, turns out to be a cop

both claim they feared for their life, what should happen to each?

turns out

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When you are a police officer and having to make those kinds of split-second decisions, let us know if the training is sufficient or not.

also, as an air traffic controller, I was trained to make split second decisions. but if I made a mistake and killed or injured a bunch of people, i'm paying a price. I don't get to claim immunity because my training was insufficient.

 

[tekkychick]

Whatever, SYT. Day's too nice to deal with your stubbornness. I already agreed with you that cops shouldn't always have immunity. Now you're just dickering on the details.

 

[Damocles]

So another "responsible" gun owner is found to be somewhat less than "responsible" after all.

Not a one of the pro-gun advocates want to discuss this.

As soon as you support a ban on free speech because some use it irresponsibly, or even automobiles because far more of them are used irresponsibly than guns I'll start to listen to your "this guy here was 'irresponsible' therefore you must lose your weapons" tripe. Until then, kindly kiss my gun toting butt.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Whatever, SYT. Day's too nice to deal with your stubbornness. I already agreed with you that cops shouldn't always have immunity. Now you're just dickering on the details.

i'll accept that you have no justifiable answer. enjoy your nice day.

 

[/MSG/]

Whatever, SYT. Day's too nice to deal with your stubbornness. I already agreed with you that cops shouldn't always have immunity. Now you're just dickering on the details.

They shouldn't EVER have immunity. They should, on the basis of their supposed training, have an even greater level of scrutiny placed on them.

 

[Topspin]

That 4 year old might like his right to an ak47

 

[zappasguitar]

what other RIGHTS would you like to require a license to exercise? speech? privacy? voting? AT THE VERY LEAST!!!! or what classes and test scores should the government mandate someone acquire before being allowed to exercise a right????

yet i'm not the one trying to say that cops are trained to shoot innocent civilians.

Once again all you've got to respond with is the same evasive, knee jerk response...typical.

And then of course no discussion with you is complete until you've once again fallen back on the same tired lie you've been falsely spreading around here for weeks...and you wonder why you can't have an "honest" discussion about guns?

 

[zappasguitar]

what other RIGHTS would you like to require a license to exercise? speech? privacy? voting? AT THE VERY LEAST!!!! or what classes and test scores should the government mandate someone acquire before being allowed to exercise a right????

yet i'm not the one trying to say that cops are trained to shoot innocent civilians.

ONE example...

this is absolutely ludicrous. How can you defend the position of excusing 'split second' mishaps yet still exclaim that they are highly trained? don't we train them to avoid these issues?

after another...

Yeah, you don't wanna go barking up that tree. Won't end well for your argument.

after another...

also, as an air traffic controller, I was trained to make split second decisions. but if I made a mistake and killed or injured a bunch of people, i'm paying a price. I don't get to claim immunity because my training was insufficient.

after another...

As soon as you support a ban on free speech because some use it irresponsibly, or even automobiles because far more of them are used irresponsibly than guns I'll start to listen to your "this guy here was 'irresponsible' therefore you must lose your weapons" tripe. Until then, kindly kiss my gun toting butt.

and on...

i'll accept that you have no justifiable answer. enjoy your nice day.

and on and on.

And NOT ONE attempt at anything other than derision evasion.

And they wonder why they can NEVER have an honest discussion about guns.

 

[zappasguitar]

Whatever, SYT. Day's too nice to deal with your stubbornness. I already agreed with you that cops shouldn't always have immunity. Now you're just dickering on the details.

That's just the thing...not a one of them want any kind of discussion whatsoever.

You respond and compromise and the only thing you will find is yourself arguing piddling little details...any discussion of even the most innocuous of compromises will eventually be shot down by the gun lovers as being too restrictive.

 

[Damocles]

ONE example...



after another...



after another...



after another...



and on...



and on and on.

And NOT ONE attempt at anything other than derision evasion.

And they wonder why they can NEVER have an honest discussion about guns.

Pointing out that it is a civil right is not a diversion, it is a statement of fact.

So, you are clearly unable to apply this same "justification" to other rights, and because of that you get defensive and start shouting "diversion!".

I get that, you fear any attempt to apply logic to your childish argument. I now understand that you have specific rights that you don't like and want to take from people, to which end you will use any "justification" regardless of reason. Even in areas where it might actually make sense, where it isn't a right, like automobiles, you cannot support that same justification, because you like getting around.

Irresponsibility of others is not a justification to attack the civil right of another.

 

[zappasguitar]

also, as an air traffic controller, I was trained to make split second decisions. but if I made a mistake and killed or injured a bunch of people, i'm paying a price. I don't get to claim immunity because my training was insufficient.

Oh my lord you aren't really going to try and compare what an air traffic controller does with what the police go through, are you?

Seriously?

Yeah...staring at a tiny monitor and playing a video game is as terrifying as confronting a criminal in a dark alley...NOT!

Someone's got a SERIOUSLY overinflated sense of their self worth...LOL!

 

[tekkychick]

Re other rights - we already restrict free speech rights. We aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater; we aren't allowed to threaten the life of the president or any other elected official; we aren't allowed to slander people; we have to get permits (usually) for rallies and parades. Heck, we put ratings on movies and don't let people in to see them if they aren't old enough; where's the free speech right for movie producers ? can't they show XXX to 4 year olds?

SO YES we do restrict other rights.

So stop using that to try to divert the topic.

 

[/MSG/]

Re other rights - we already restrict free speech rights. We aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater; we aren't allowed to threaten the life of the president or any other elected official; we aren't allowed to slander people; we have to get permits (usually) for rallies and parades. Heck, we put ratings on movies and don't let people in to see them if they aren't old enough; where's the free speech right for movie producers ? can't they show XXX to 4 year olds?

SO YES we do restrict other rights.

So stop using that to try to divert the topic.

The movie picture ratings are entirely commercial, not legal, in nature. I can show as many R rated movies to children as I want. As for the rest, I'll refute it later when I get home.