from the guns-don't-kill-people-police-do dept.
The Center for American Progress reports:
On Wednesday, 22-year-old John Crawford was shot dead inside a Wal-Mart by police in Beavercreek, Ohio, after a shopper called 911 to report someone inside with a gun. Now, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine says the gun Crawford was carrying was a BB gun known as a variable pump air rifle - a target-shooting and small game-hunting gun made to look like a real, more deadly weapon.
The MK-177 Crosman BB/Pellet Rifle gun is stocked in the shelves at Wal-Mart, and relatives of Crawford's say he wasn't carrying any gun when he entered Wal-Mart. He reportedly picked up the gun in the toy section of the store. The store says it has since been told to remove the gun from its shelves.
Some witnesses say Crawford was pointing the gun at customers and children, and did not comply with police commands. But Crawford's family has asked state civil rights groups including the NAACP to look into the shooting. Crawford was black.
LeeCee Johnson, who says she is the mother of Crawford's children, told the Dayton Daily News that she was on the phone with Crawford just prior to the shooting, and that he told her he was in the toy section when he said, "It's not real." She said she heard police say "get on the ground" before the gunshots. "I could hear him just crying and screaming," she said. "I feel like they shot him down like he was not even human."
Last year, a 13-year-old boy was shot dead by police in Santa Rosa, California when his BB gun made to look like an AK47 was mistaken for a real one.
Policymakers have called for toy, BB, and pellet guns to be more clearly differentiated from real ones. The gun that tricked officers last year was missing an orange cap meant to distinguish the gun. But the California legislature is considering a bill to require even clearer markings on pellet and BB guns, including transparent or bright-colored plastic throughout.
Related Stories
Common Dreams reports:
Despite store surveillance footage that showed a young black man, John Crawford III, casually talking on his cell phone and clearly not threatening other shoppers in an Ohio Walmart store when he was shot and killed, a grand jury on Wednesday announced it would not indict the police officer, Sean Williams, for firing on the man.
The video, which prosecutors had kept out of the public domain until after the grand jury made its decision, was released shortly after the announcement not to indict the officer was made and shows that though Crawford was holding an unpackaged air rifle that he picked up on one of the store's shelves, he was shot from the side while talking on the phone and appeared to be given no warning or understand that police were even on the scene.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Saturday August 09 2014, @12:19PM
There's nothing that prevents a real gun from being brightly colored with a red tip...
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @12:39PM
Perhaps if the police were required to think before shooting? Or even, should someone be shot by the police, any officers involved should perhaps have to undergo a murder trial lead by an overzealous DA intent on getting a conviction at any cost.
That would save a lot of needless death, plus suicide by cop would be made a little more difficult.
(Score: 2, Funny) by karmawhore on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:20PM
Ooh, is it my turn? It turns out the overzealous DA has demons of her own. The cop learns from a mutual acquaintance that the DA has a major gambling problem and owes money to a drug cartel. The cop (out on bail) goes to his superiors with his suspicions about the DA, but they call him a loose cannon and forbid him to pursue the lead. The cop turns in his badge and gun. He needs to find out: could he have been set up? And, if so, why him?
=kw= lurkin' to please
(Score: 2) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:03PM
I would love to live in a world where that were the procedure. This may be off-topic, but I'm reminded of when a woman was murdered in cold blood a few years back and her murderers got off with manslaughter because she was assigned the male gender at birth. Racism? Transphobia? Ok, transphobia I can attempt to understand given a deep dive into mythology. Racism? I can't. Just simply fucking can't.
I want to see the cop responsible at the end of a noose.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:20PM
I'll probably get hate for this but if its the one where the TG woman had repeatedly bragged about not telling partners that she was a pre-op transsexual? Then I not only agree with the verdict but I thought he should have gotten less if anything. I would argue that what she was doing was a form of sexual assault since she KNEW that those men would NOT want to be with a pre-op and specifically took great lengths to hide this fact because she thought it was "cool" to have sex with guys that she knew wouldn't want her otherwise. I'm sorry but that is straight up sexual assault and the fact so many took up for her was frankly disgusting, this to me is NO different than taking advantage of somebody who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol because in both cases you know they would NOT agree to having sex with this person under normal circumstances!
As for TFA we have seen time and time again that the cops have become gangbangers with badges, simple as that. From tasing a guy in a diabetic coma to the cop just stiffarming bike riders as they went past to the one just the other day where an EMT had to get between the cops and a guy handcuffed on a stretcher to keep them from continuing to punch him in the face we have MORE than enough evidence to show that the current law enforcement system is completely broken and needs major reforms. a good first start would be making sure that cops that commit crimes actually pay for those crimes, as we have again seen repeatedly prosecutors just don't want to do their jobs when it comes to cops (probably for fear the cops will try to trash their ongoing cases, just as the NY cops forum was filled with threats to the EMTs and promises that any EMT in trouble will NOT be getting aid after those EMTs stopped their beating) so we probably need something akin to internal affairs prosecutors or something like the military justice system where you have prosecutors that ONLY deal with this sort of case.
But one thing I can say for certain is the public now HATES cops with a passion, i have seen little old ladies in the shop tell me "the police are nothing but thugs, I wouldn't ask them for the time of day" and whereas before it was mainly the young I can tell you from talking to folks all day that nobody likes or trusts cops anymore, simply because of how many horror stories we have seen the past few years involving cops. if they don't do something to halt all these abuses i could easily see the day coming where a cop dies on the street surrounded by people who just pretend he isn't there, the "us versus them" mentality giving them a reason to just petend he doesn't exist.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @02:05AM
The way you generalize and stereotype all cops as thugs is seriously irrational and little more than emotional rhetoric. If anything, there's probably less corruption in local law enforcement today than at any time in American history, because it's so much harder to get away with anything. Modern media makes it easy to distribute news instantly, nationally, and stir up an angry mob in a matter of hours. It's also much harder for police to collude with local justice systems, DAs, etc.
It's simply ridiculous to lump them all together. You think a deputy in rural Montana is as likely to be a corrupt, murderous thug as some urban cop who deals with drugs and gangs all the time? If you do, you're nuts. If you don't, then you're basically lying by not acknowledging such obvious distinctions.
And I can just as easily cite as many anecdotes of little old ladies--as well as any other demographic--who have the utmost respect for police officers.
So please just stop repeating that drivel. It's not helping anyone. There are real problems with the justice system and law enforcement, especially at higher levels--and there always will be, because nothing is perfect--but it does us all a disservice to obscure the real problem by declaring all police to be evil. There are plenty of places on this planet where that would actually be true--this nation is not one of them.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 10 2014, @09:54AM
Will that cop in Montana turn in a fellow cop that is corrupt or will he do as the NY cops and threaten the EMTs? I bet the latter which makes him equally as guilty and part of the problem. And when YOU have a permanent scar on the back of YOUR skull because of a cop that said and I quote "fucking niggers and damned hippies, I don't know which makes me more disgusted" because my white long haired ass dared! to give a black minister a ride? Then you can say I'm "emotional". Until then frankly I'd trust a junkie more than I'd trust a cop, at least the junkie won't be running on roid rage or looking for a fight!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Sunday August 10 2014, @06:33PM
While the majority of cops are not like this, the ones that are do not get punished. This is the problem. Even when it can be proven, it is rarely a career-ending move. They simply get a different position, or switch to a different district, etc.
Or even worse: This case in nearby Dayton [enquirer.com], with this followup [coprater.com], and this final result [enquirer.com] (3rd one down)
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:35PM
> Will that cop in Montana turn in a fellow cop that is corrupt or will he do as the NY cops and threaten the EMTs? I bet the latter which makes him equally as guilty and part of the problem.
I don't know what happened to you, but it's simply irrational to lump all cops together like that, even if one or a few cops did abuse you.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Sunday August 10 2014, @11:54PM
Sorry but when I can literally wallpaper this page with police abuses of just the last 6 months? Then the police system as is IS BROKEN and if you support or are part of a broken system then you sir are PART OF THE PROBLEM. Again I don't see Montana cops turning in fellow officers are corrupt, haven't seen a single thing in the papers in years AAMOF showing cops turning in corrupt fellow officers....perhaps YOU would like to provide some citations of that within the last 6 months? if you can't even provide 3 examples of these "decent cops" then I'm calling bullshit.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gottabeme on Monday August 11 2014, @07:36PM
You're being emotional and irrational again. You're still lumping all cops into one giant bucket of corruption and evil. You're not thinking clearly. Cops in this country serve in a wide variety of jurisdictions, under a wide variety of state and local laws, in a wide variety of local cultures and issues, and themselves come from a wide variety of cultures and life experiences.
Let's look at one statement you made as an example of how you're being irrational: "Again I don't see Montana cops turning in fellow officers are corrupt..." There are so many assumptions you make here, such as: that you would have come across such reports; that such reports would be widely circulated beyond Montana (are you really keeping up with all the local newspapers in Montana?); that just because you haven't seen anything that nothing happened (aka confirmation bias); that there must actually be corruption in local Montana law enforcement that would require "cops turning in fellow officers as corrupt" (aka begging the question).
And you call me a part of the problem? No sir, attitudes like yours are part of the problem. Prime example: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/violence-breaks-out-near-site-of-vigil-for-teen-killed/article_f9d627dc-e3c8-5bde-b2ab-7f0a3d36a083.html [stltoday.com]
No one knows what really happened to the man in his incident with the cop. The investigation has barely begun. But the riots have already begun. It's assumed that the police are all evil, that the young black man did nothing wrong (even though the other young man who was with him admits to misbehaving and ignoring the cop's instructions), and that "fighting back" is an appropriate response. And look at all the truly innocent people who are being harmed by it.
This is what emotional rhetoric like yours leads to: mob mentality, unrest, and violence.
And while you could paper the page with police abuses, I could also paper the page with stories of police officers saving lives and putting dangerous, violent criminals behind bars.
So please, stop being emotional, start thinking clearly, and stop encouraging people to hate cops and act like barbarians, because that's exactly what your attitude does.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 11 2014, @09:53PM
So in other words all you can provide is BS and anecdotes because you couldn't even find 3 lousy examples of cops turning in corrupt officers in a country of 330+ million people and probably over a million cops...and you can't even find 3 examples of good cops....yeah thanks for playing.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @12:45PM
oh the old 'one bad apple' defense
keep in mind that the 2nd part of that proverb is 'spoiles the bunch'
and the bunch has long since been spoiled, cops in general are completely out of control in the US today
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Monday August 11 2014, @07:41PM
Another irrational, emotional response. That you try to use a rule of thumb about fruit spoiling to justify claiming that all cops everywhere in the country are evil and corrupt would be laughable if it weren't so foolish. I personally know good men who serve as police officers who are as far from corrupt as you could hope to encounter.
Meanwhile, you can take a trip to countries in South and Central America, or to places like China, and find places where all government officials actually are evil and corrupt.
I don't know what your goal is, but since you're basically lying and distorting the truth, you're not helping the causes of truth or justice or righteousness, you're harming them--and that is evil.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday August 14 2014, @08:54AM
330+ million people, over a million cops...and you can't even provide 3 examples. Frankly that says it all.. You are simply attempting to move the goalpost and change the subject, either man up and admit you can't even find 3 lousy examples of good cops turning on bad or quit giving us your BS and anecdotes because that is all it is, BS with zero evidence to back it up.
I can wallpaper this page with links to bad cops in the last 6 months...lets see YOUR links sir. Either provide the citations repeatedly requested or quit giving us bs and anecdotes and admit you can't find 3 good cops, your choice.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Monday August 18 2014, @01:59AM
I need not provide citations up to your arbitrary standards to disprove your irrational reasoning.
The burden of proof that all police everywhere are corrupt is on you.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday August 18 2014, @03:27PM
FAIL, Your attempt to move the goalpost is a FAIL SIR, as you were repeatedly given what SHOULD be a VERY simple task if you are correct, to find just THREE honest cops in over 1.6 MILLION officers on duty,...yet you can't, can you? you honestly an't even find 3 good cops in the entire country, 3 cops honest enough to turn in bad apples...frankly that says it all, thanks for driving my point home better than I ever could.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday August 19 2014, @10:38PM
I haven't moved any goalposts. You have continued to claim that all police officers in this country are corrupt. That is an obviously irrational claim. You have failed to be logical.
If you really wanted the truth, you'd use Google, search for stories about corrupt cops, and find plenty in which corrupt cops were arrested by other cops in traffic stops, stings, investigations, etc.
But you do not want the truth. No, you want to continue to wallow in your irrational, emotional rhetoric that "There aren't even three honest cops in this entire nation!" like a pig wallowing in mud.
You want to be dirty and irrational. And I can't fix that, only you can. Good luck.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday August 10 2014, @02:14AM
I would say that day is already here. I would think long and hard before going anywhere near a cop in trouble. They seem to have a tendency to shoot anybody nearby when they even think they are in any danger.
If you are near a cop on the ground, it's not just that cop, it's any other cops that might be nearby that you have to worry about.
Keep your hands empty and visible and get away from him, and remember to walk not run.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 10 2014, @01:51AM
Stop this madness. No one is "assigned a gender at birth." DNA and hormones cause the fetus to develop a certain way. No one presses a button on a gender-picking machine after the baby is born.
In the rare case of a hermaphrodite, sometimes a newborn has surgery to remove extra genitals. That doesn't mean that years later, after reaching adulthood, the person can suddenly be the opposite sex. The most you can say is that they aren't fully one or the other, depending on their actual anatomy.
No one is a "man trapped in a woman's body" or vice versa. That's not how biology works. Stop the madness. Stop encouraging people who need psychiatric help with accepting who they are to mutilate their bodies and try to become something they aren't. That's not compassion, it's helping mentally ill people irreversibly injure themselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:58PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:25PM
Ah, the typical response. "You're so 'ignorant' that you're a danger to society!" Implying, "You should be censored! Maybe even thrown in jail! Society should be 'protected' from people like you!" Oh, and also, "idiot." Nothing but ad hominems, and not a single rational argument. Pure manipulative, emotional rhetoric--and this is what a lot of other unthinking people go along with, people who actually are ignorant.
But back in reality, people like you are the ones who encourage others to not learn to accept who they actually, physically are, but instead to irreversibly and permanently mutilate and alter physically healthy bodies to try to become something they are not and never can be. People like you are the ones who help these poor people destroy their bodies and their lives. People like you are tearing at the very fabric of human society.
It's utter insanity. Stop it. Use your brain and open your eyes.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:49PM
You have already heard the rational logic and have rejected it per your own half-baked beliefs. There is no point in my reiterating it because you are not just ignorant, but wish to remain that way. You do not know what you're talking about and you're not willing to discuss it, that is not my fault.
"Use your brain and open your eyes."
Take your own advice.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Sunday August 10 2014, @06:46PM
Well, if you want to get really technical, they are assigned a biological gender at conception, and physical gender characteristics during gestation.
But it's clear they were referring to Gender Identity [wikipedia.org], which develops during early childhood. This is not (inherently) biological, but psychological.
At least we agree that those who suffer [wikipedia.org] should seek psychiatric help, but for very different reasons.
(BTW, with current fertility treatments, it is now possible for parents to decide to have a boy [reuters.com], and is a major ethical concern in places like China)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:30PM
> they are assigned a biological gender at conception
Please stop using that word. It implies that an arbitrary choice is made, which implies that it's a decision which can arbitrarily be changed. It's a subtle co-opting of the language in an attempt to distort the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:43PM
Then the cops would go on enforcement strike. I don't think any town can afford to be on bad terms with its police force.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by T0T4L_L43R on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:24AM
These police live in a nation where the ownership high-powered military weapons is a human right. This BB gun happens to be a highly accurate replica of such a weapon, indistinguishable from the real thing according to the gun expert quoted in TFA.
They also live in a nation where someone recently used a similar (real, & legally aquired) weapon to slaughter an entire kindergarten class.
How much thinking do you expect these Cops to do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @12:50PM
given the amount of people being killed by cops lately, I'd say a heck of a lot more
in the US today an ordinary citizen is at more danger of being shot by a cop then being shot by a gangster,
add to that the fact that when they make mistakes with lethal consequences they generally don't even apologize
(Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:22PM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 2) by monster on Monday August 11 2014, @01:18PM
Excuse my ignorance on the topic, but... how do you Photoshop a physical item? does 'Undo' work, too?
(Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Monday August 11 2014, @04:10PM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by geb on Saturday August 09 2014, @06:27PM
We do have laws on replica weapons in the UK. It's not permitted to own a realistic looking toy gun, unless you're part of a club, like an airsoft group or a historical recreation society. Everything else has to have the bright orange cap.
Nobody tries to disguise real guns as a fake. Instead, there are plenty of people still trying to commit crimes with nonfunctional fakes, or crappy homemade pipe guns adapted to look like properly manufactured weapons.
Half the value of holding a weapon is intimidation, and in practice people aren't willing to give that up.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DrMag on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:27PM
Apparently someone else died [daytondailynews.com] in this event as well. Local accounts say she had a cardiac arrest while attempting to flee the scene. I honestly wish I was being facetious and just making a very poor-taste joke.
(Score: 2) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:31PM
/me sings Xena's funeral dirge, and does a bad job lol. Apparently the lyrics are unavailable. However, I honestly mean to sing a funeral dirge to the deaths. I wanted to paste the lyrics here, as Xena would sing them. I am apparently incompetent in this matter. Would somebody else have the lyrics to Xena's funeral dirge to put here?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:38PM
I only know the lyrics to Joxer's song...
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:51PM
haha, the Ballad of Joxer the Mighty is my favorite!
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday August 09 2014, @11:58PM
Local accounts say she had a cardiac arrest while attempting to flee the scene.
She must've thought she could move faster without the Rascal Scooter. Wonder if she did, and if so... how far?
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zeigerpuppy on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:42PM
It's just totally insane that the American people have reneged on controlling the number of guns in their society.
Here's some stats:
Gun deaths per year: 32,351 -- 85 per DAY! (2013)
1/3 of those are homicides
There's as many again of non fatal shootings
About 7000 children are injured or killed each year by gunshot wounds
Here are some more stats: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ [smartgunlaws.org]
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gun, I have a licence and hunt for food
but having handguns or loaded weapons in the house/car is nuts,
treating guns like toys is maniacal.
The checks on gun ownership in the US are clearly failing to prevent deaths,
but I guess the gun companies are happy.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:59PM
Anotehr thing that I can't get my head around is all the different people that can call themselves police in the US,
it's like there's a police for every situation... university police, store police, street police.
Land of the free indeed
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:46PM
In the US, practically any corporation can create a police force. They are sworn to uphold the laws of their state, and have the powers of any police officer.
There is a employee-employer relationship though, and that makes having your own police force useful for access to police files etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @02:54AM
Private police forces are effectively security, who are effectively private citizens with very few special privileges, depending on the jurisdiction. As such, they can only make what amounts to a citizens arrest.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Sunday August 10 2014, @06:55PM
The vast majority of them are not actual police, they are "security guards", AKA Rent-a-cops. They do not have actual police powers (although many of them are off-duty or retired police). They do everything they can to pretend, and act like cops, but aren't. There are a few giveaways (in Ohio, marked police cars do not usually have standard license plates, and do have flashing blue lights. Private security cars are not allowed to do either)
Until recently, most university police were in the same boat. This has changed in the past ~15 years, largely in response to the piss-poor response of "campus police" to major crimes (esp. rape)
Most people in the US are subject to the same number of police forces as levels of government: Local (city/township), county (sherrifs), state, and federal.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zinho on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:48PM
Rational? From you own link:
If you're going to cry "think of the children", then poison control and safe driving would rationally be a higher priority for you. You're double-dipping on your statistics, too: you note 32k deaths/year, then give numbers for injuries AND fatalities in children (age group poorly defined) - those deaths were previously counted in the deaths/year number.
Since you're talking about "the American people. . . and their society" I'm going to assume you don't live here. We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem, and the gun deaths are a symptom of that. I believe that even if stricter gun control were implemented that the violence wouldn't decrease, but get shifted to other forms, such as the "glassing" [lexology.com] which has become prevalent in other English-speaking countries. Whether it's better to be shot by a bullet or disfigured by a piece of glass is a somewhat moot point (in other words, we can argue about it at length, but neither victim is particularly happy in the end).
Further, there's empirical evidence that, at least in on U.S. state, legalizing concealed carry reduced the crime rate measurably. [marquettewire.org]
Neither side of this argument is being particularly "rational" about the issue, and you're not helping. Calling non-violent law-abiding citizens "nuts" and "maniacal" is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Please keep in perspective that the gun being treated like a toy in this article was literally a toy. Unless you're referring to the policeman, in which case we need to have another conversation [blogspot.com] entirely.
I'll finish with the point that not everyone agrees that the ultimate goal should be to prevent all firearm deaths. Comparison to traffic laws not preventing all auto fatalities is useful here. There is a balance to be struck between safety and individual rights. Your country is free to set that balance wherever it likes, we'll continue to do the same, thanks.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 4, Insightful) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:08PM
Yes, thank you. Assholes who think they can operate a vehicle safely need to go away. I don't know what policy we need, but I would guess that probably up to 50% of the population has no business operating a vehicle.
Gun control is such of a non-issue. Look at Switzerland.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @02:39AM
Good example of how having a population trained in using weapons and keeping the ammunition separate from the weapons makes gun ownership a non-issue. They're practicing the well regulated militia part of the equation. Generally the military has the most sane rules on firearms as they're very well aware that they often are for killing people.
Personally I've become more anti-gun every time I've had a bullet fly by close enough to hear it, once even heard the gun shot. Doesn't help when I walk through the bush and see targets on top of stumps over looking valleys and a pile of casings showing where the shooters were stationed. Even the school bus sign outside my house had a bullet hole appear in it recently, and once again there are houses in the direction the bullet flew. Knifes, glass, clubs seldom kill innocent bye-standers through accidents whereas bullets do.
This being in a country with much more restrictions on ownership of guns including usage and storage then America.
And yes you are right that a large percentage of drivers have no business operating a motor vehicle in public.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:38PM
From your references, it appears that police cause almost 5% of gun fatalities. This would account for their reputation of being trigger happy.
Even if guns are banned, it doesn't stop someone going crazy with a gun/sword/knife/bottle/baseball bat and it is impractical to ban all of these. Arguably, banning guns reduces the effective range of an attacker but it doesn't prevent attacks. Or guns.
I agree that vehicle safety is a higher priority. However, unless legislators understand human nature, or at least the cost and practicality of achieving a good MTBF, any laws regarding cars, weapons or toys are doomed.
1702845791×2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:32PM
I would just like to point out the largest death count caused by nutters didn't involve a gun at all but a couple drums of fertilizer and diesel. If somebody wants to kill a lot of innocent people then there really isn't anything you can do about it which is what makes the suicidal nuts so dangerous.
I would also point out that until we actually have control of the border the entire discussion is moot because just as its trivial for an illegal to sneak a load of meth across our joke of a border so too would it be trivial to take a load of dirt cheap AK47s and throw them in a van in Mexico and just drive 'em across. remember folks that gun laws affect ONLY those that obey the law, a criminal couldn't give a rat's ass how many laws you pass as they will just ignore them and get their from the black market, hence why they are called criminals and not ballerinas.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @11:11PM
But gun-toting ballerinas put on a good show [theguardian.com], especially when it is so hard to pirouette with an AK47:-
1702845791×2
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:40PM
Also we lump the entire united states together in one big chunk. Then compare it to something like England which we would consider part of 1 state. People from other parts of the world do not realize how diverse it is here. We smashed together every group from all over the world and call them Americans. So there is some friction and differences of opinion.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem
That is part of the issue. The other half is education. We literally have the largest population behind bars. Both % wise and size wise. Of that population 70% can not read. What sort of future do you have in a service/intellectual style economy when you can not even read? People turn to crime. Guns are easy to get in our country, by law (which many people can not get past). If only we took away the guns some cry the problem would go away? I agree the type of violence would just change. Guns are just a convenient way to do it. We can look at other countries with higher gun ownership and they have lower crime rates. So the correlation is not there no matter how much we try to force it. We have a different issue. Gun violence is a symptom. The violence is a symptom of lost hope. People are frustrated and lash out.
I have shot guns and have considered buying one in the past. I have decided not to buy one at this time. Not because I am sort of gun control freak. If you want one, why do I care? I feel its not worth having a weapon in my home. I for one do not want to take the time to learn how to properly use it. So I am not getting it. If I do get a gun it will probably be a pump action shot gun with rock salt in it. No one is going to stick around if you rack one of those. The rock salt to minimize possible accidents (does not eliminate them).
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Saturday August 09 2014, @03:36PM
1/3 of those are homicides
And most of the rest are suicides.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:36PM
No, it's totally insane that we HAVE gun control at all. Firearms are are the most democratizing item ever created. They make everyone equal in fact as well as in theory.
Just a little note on your lies, damned lies, and statistics there... violent crime in the US is way, WAY lower than in the UK or AU. Both of which have heavily restricted firearms ownership. AU's violent crime has in fact risen quite sharply since their ban went live. Tell me again how dangerous guns are?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by elias on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:58PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:06PM
Going by that paragraph, I wouldn't believe a word said by the source as that definition of violent crimes in the US does not include murders, manslaughter, and a number of other categories that are most definitely included in US crimes reports. Yes, the definitions differ. They do not however differ enough to warrant the fourfold differential that we have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:56PM
In one country, a punch in the face is in the same category as murder. In another country it isn't. But you think this explains a factor of four difference in crime figures? If a punch in the face is only three times more common than murder then you have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, I suspect that the minor crimes are much more numerous.
1702845791×2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by redneckmother on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:11PM
Amen to that. I'd be much more comfortable in my (rural) area if people were allowed to OPENLY carry firearms, including handguns. I am always armed on my property, primarily because of danger from wildlife. There's nothing like stepping within two feet of a rattlesnake after dark, or discovering a large pack of javelina nearby, to verify that your heart still works!
I've only had problems with trespassers once. Some poor, lost migrants (no coyote with them) stumbled in. I gave them sandwiches and fresh water, pointed them north (overcast day), and sent them on their way.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jasassin on Sunday August 10 2014, @12:32AM
Some poor, lost migrants (no coyote with them) stumbled in. I gave them sandwiches and fresh water, pointed them north (overcast day), and sent them on their way.
They're lucky they met you and not me. I would have gave them the sandwiches and water, then pointed them south.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 10 2014, @08:29AM
Me, I would have given them some pizza and sent them west.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:22AM
I've lived in rattlesnake country and had to kill a few, shooting them was the furthest from my mind as I'm not insane enough to start shooting close range at a small object in amongst large rocks, especially in the dark. Bullets ricochet. I don't know what a javelina is, around here we have black bears, cougars, coyotes and such, I've also lived where there were grizzlies. While the grizzlies does make one feel like being armed with a large gun (hand gun is only going to irritate them) as they consider people to be prey. I've only ever pulled out a gun for hunting and once to kill an old bobcat that had acquired a taste for chicken.
Always makes me wonder about people who are so insecure that they have to be armed. It's also considered really bad manners around here to approach someone else while armed.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Sunday August 10 2014, @01:32PM
I always have a small flashlight on my belt, next to the pistol(s). Yes, sometimes more than one - it's all about having the right tool for the job.
ProTip: Use light-load shotshells at close range for rattlers. Unlikely to miss, no "pa-whing!".
It's a nasty-tempered collared peccary with razor-sharp tusks and poor eyesight. They travel in large groups, tear stuff up (much like feral hogs), and get REALLY aggressive when their young are with them. In my experience, a semiauto with a high-capacity magazine is recommended.
Please don't confuse insecurity with common sense.
Different cultures have different standards. Around here, it's considered FOOLISH to be unarmed. The responsible carry of firearms is welcomed in my area, as is responsible use. Responsible individuals are welcome to have firearms on their person when visiting my property, and I will provide one if needed.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 11 2014, @04:10AM
OK, a Javelina or rather a pack of them does sound like a good reason to be armed. As you said, a lot of it is cultural and there are many people who go armed just to offset insecurity.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:41PM
> Always makes me wonder about people who are so insecure that they have to be armed.
A completely irrational, loaded statement used to emotionally manipulate the course of the argument. I wonder how many people you talk about this with fall for that line.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:24PM
If that were the case, the Middle East would be bursting at the seams with democracy. But it's not.
The gun doesn't make people equal at all. It gives power to those that are willing to shoot people, and takes power away from those that are not. OK when the guns are in the hands of the police. But take police and official military out of the picture and it tends to balance more towards evil people being powerful in gun cultures.
The only way you could possibly come to that conclusion is equating a punch in the face with a murder. Which is moronic.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:32AM
Heard an interview with a Libyan a while back. All he was wishing for was democracy so he didn't have to sleep with an ak47 which represented everything that was wrong in his country.
Seems so weird hearing people who consider freedom having to be armed and ready to kill.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:09AM
Guns should be like motor vehicles, anyone who passes some tests should be allowed to own them. Motor vehicle operation should be based on some pretty strict tests and gun ownership should be based on knowing firearm safety. Bans on both should be based on being convicted of unsafe use with the length of the ban based on how unsafe the usage was.
Neither guns or cars are a toy and there are responsibilities with their use.
I've seen too many examples of people target shooting without considering where the bullet is going to end up and similar shit that has convinced me that some people should not be allowed to use firearms. Same with vehicles. lots of people who should not be allowed to drive.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:55AM
I almost agree every time I see some nimrod change lanes without signaling or treating a gun as anything but always loaded and deadly. You never swerve at someone you don't want to run over and you never point a gun at anything you do not want to kill.
But firearm ownership in the US is not a privilege that the government has to grant, it is an absolute right that they are expressly forbidden from taking away. I'd even go as far as to say it is an obligation of any citizen who can afford one. "The Militia" is defined in US law as every male adult and is stated in the Constitution as necessary for the security of a free state. Not to protect against foreign invaders or defend ourselves but to violently overthrow our own government with privately owned firearms should it prove necessary*. This is why you were granted the right and if you do not exercise it you deserve to live in tyranny and oppression.
* You can tell by how they had just finished doing exactly that when they wrote the bloody thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @05:08AM
It's only a fundamental right as long as 3/4s of the States don't decide that it isn't. And remember, the precedence has been set, it is fine for the Federal government to show up at a States legislature and force them to pass an amendment, which is how the fundamental right to own people was removed.
My country was partially founded by people who had their rights and property removed by armed force as well as legislative force by your founders and my wives people had almost everything taken by armed force as the American Constitution only applies to some people so I have a different viewpoint about the idea of an absolute right to own firearms.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:12AM
Yes, a very strange one being as the mass ownership of firearms by those our forefathers sought to oppress could have prevented both slavery and many a massacre of Indians. Ponder for a moment a slave ship's longboats being met with a hail of gunfire. Force is a tool. In the hands of an oppressive government it is a bad thing. In the hands of the people it is liberty and equality incarnate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @04:43PM
Europeans mostly bought Africans who had been captured by other Africans. Given that, I think handing out guns in Africa would have had little positive effect on slavery.
Force in the hands of a person is freedom for that person, but some of those people are assholes. Assholes don't care about your freedom and are likely to use their guns to stomp all over it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 11 2014, @05:04PM
You might be surprised. Our per-capita murder rates always go up during times of stricter gun control and down in times of weaker gun control. The murders/100k rate in the "wild west" when everyone could own any gun they could afford was extremely low compared to what it is today. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
The net result of equalizing anyone capable of pointing a gun would likely have been less because of the single-shot nature of firearms back then but some percent more slavers would have died and less slaves would have been taken.
Side note: Freedom to be an asshole is the most fundamental freedom there is. Without it all that needs happen to take any liberty from you is for one person to call you an asshole and your government to go along with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:36AM
When both groups are roughly similarly armed, it comes down to generalship, a craft that can partially be taught but some are naturals. Would the American war of independence been as successful without Washington? Would the slavers longboat commander been smart enough to encircle the Africans, would the Africans have lucked out with a leader who foresaw the encircling?
In the case of the Native Americans, disease pretty well decided the outcome. Doesn't matter how well armed or how good of a general you have when you're suffering 80%+ mortality from disease.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jcm on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:19PM
And what worries me is that toys are modeled from real guns.
This sends the clear message "it is normal to play with guns" to our children.
Can you guess what happens when they become adults ?
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:44PM
What worries me is that far too few children are taught gun safety and proper use at a young age. Is it any surprise that a kid who's never held a gun will accidentally shoot himself or another when he finds one?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:32PM
Your contention is that a young child is less likely to shoot himself or others when introduced to a gun than an older child or teen. This is obviously ridiculous.
If you're going to introduce kids to guns at all ( and it's a stupid thing to do), you'd be supervising them, whether they are 4 or fourteen.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday August 10 2014, @04:18AM
My contention is that a person of any age with the proper training will be much safer than one without, therefore it's best to train them as soon as feasible.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Sunday August 10 2014, @08:10PM
As they are safest of all without contact with guns, the second part of that sentence is not justified by the first.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:14PM
Then you can feel perfectly safe until they're not under your direct supervision. Since guns do exist in this world, their chance of encountering one is always nonzero.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday August 09 2014, @06:44PM
Here are some of the toys I played with when I was of single-digit age:
None of which had those cute little orange caps on the tips. Great fun was had by all, and the threat of an ass-whoopin' from the old man was enough of a reason to use them responsibly and in good fun. That was back in the days when it was actually legal to discipline your kids.
In spite of my maladjusted and inebriant Soylent News persona, I am a well-adjusted and gainfully-employed individual who loves to shoot but does not own a firearm; who has no criminal record.
So yeah, for just about anybody my age or older playing with guns as kids is normal.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:18PM
It was also legal to discipline other people's kids. That kept kids in check even when they were away from their parents. Nowadays, you have to be more ingenious [sickipedia.org].
So, you're just a victim of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com]? You have our sympathies.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:36PM
Most everyone thinks they themselves are OK, and it's other people that are the problem. Most everyone thinks the way they were brought up is the right way to be brought up. Heck even people that were sexually abused by their parents are more likely to sexually abuse their own kids.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:38PM
"the threat of an ass-whoopin' from the old man was enough of a reason to use them responsibly"
With responsible parents, toy guns are not a problem. Actually, when kids have responsible parents a lot of problems go away.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:36AM
Just having parents with time to be around their kids is a great help. When both parents have to work 80+ hours a week, how can they find the time and energy to parent?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 10 2014, @04:03PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:48PM
The original dept. as I submitted was
from the guns-are-not-toys dept.
This time, I like the editor's better.
The article (and summary) mention making toy guns out of transparent plastic.
Sounds so logical to me.
Yeah, if a boy doesn't have an actual store-bought toy gun, he'll likely pick up a gun-shaped stick or point his finger and go bang bang.
The problem in this case is trigger-happy cops.
It's becoming the norm--assuming it wasn't always.
The child in Santa Rosa was simply used for target practice by a cop who knew he wouldn't have to answer for anything.
-- gewg-
(Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:23PM
Toy swords are modeled after real ones, doesn't mean people go chopping heads as adults.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:43PM
Except this story is about 1) RIFLE not hand gun, 2) about a BB gun, not a firearm. If anything this is another story about overzealous police who are taught to shoot first ask questions later, if you survive. This has nothing at fuckin all to do with guncontrol. And I wish people would see that.
As far as I can tell the person was not even aiming it at a cop. His only fault is hesitating to drop it to the ground, which one might do if they don't realize what the big deal is. Even then he would be subject to dangerous police apprehension tactics, often involving choke-holds which kill people, when the person has broken exactly 0 laws!
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:37PM
>Gun deaths per year: 32,351 -- 85 per DAY! (2013)
On average in 2012, 92 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day in 30,800 fatal crashes
ban cars first
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:43AM
Wonder how that compares to usage? I use a motor vehicle almost every day, last time I shot a firearm was 14 odd years ago (even longer since I owned a firearm)
Generally I don't do too bad at driving but sometimes I'm tired, angry or otherwise per-occupied and a danger to anyone else on the road, but need to drive to make a living. I assume not many people have to use a firearm whether they're at the top of their form or not.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:38PM
> I assume not many people have to use a firearm whether they're at the top of their form or not.
The whole point is that you don't know when you may need to use one until the time comes. Comparing it to driving is apples-and-oranges.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:52AM
In close to 55 years I've only unexpectedly needed a firearm once, to protect the chickens, not me. And I can't think of anyone I know who unexpectedly needed to fire a firearm (not counting during warfare where it is somewhat expected).
Firearms are like helicopters, always possible that one might be needed but unlikely and dangerous if you don't have any training.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Monday August 11 2014, @04:58AM
In the last 10 years, I have had to use a firearm (on average) five times per year to avoid personal (or family member) peril. It was never against a human.
I don't have to drive as much as you do, but I empathize with your situation. I remember some scary moments when I commuted to and from work - for instance, when a garbage truck pulled out and stopped just within my braking distance (I thought I was going to die, and the drivers in the adjacent lane - apparently - thought so, too).
My life is much less stressful now. When a threat presents itself, I deal with it with a minimum of force, anxiety, and effort. I don't relish killing, but I'm not gonna die because some critter can't allow me to live where I do, or take care of the critters I've committed to care for.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @01:59PM
Don't jump to judgment. They need to release the race of both the victim and the responding police officers before anyone can make an informed comment.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jaruzel on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:07PM
Why? What does race have to do with it? Maybe if the US stopped making EVERYTHING about race then it would cease to be relevant.
-Jar
This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
(Score: 1) by Paradise Pete on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:48PM
I believe that was approximately the point he was dryly making.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:14PM
What? You think blacks can't be prejudiced against blacks? I can guarantee you are wrong.
That doesn't meant that that's what's behind this incident. OTOH, given local statistics I wouldn't bet against it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:17PM
The dumba** was pointing the bb gun at people, and didn't heed the police orders. He got what was coming. Don't deal the race card on this one, the guy was asking for trouble.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:28PM
It could be one of those situations where one cop was telling him to drop the gun while at the exact same time his partner is busy firing his service weapon. It is all to easy for the police to say after the fact that the victim "was not heeding police orders", meanwhile he was given about 0.25 seconds to comply.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by IndigoFreak on Saturday August 09 2014, @02:37PM
Could be.
But witnesses say he was pointing it at customers. I would also then venture the guess that he took it out of its box. Because no one would call the police if he was pointing a box of a gun at people. And if its one that isn't in a box, then he took the back cardboard off. Either way, he unpacked the gun and walked around wal-mart pointing it at people.
I am not a fan of cops, but sometimes people push too far. I believe we all know cops would rather shoot first, plant drugs and guns, and ask questions later, why take the chance?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @04:48PM
It may not have been boxed. I've seen displays of air rifles where they're just racked, like fishing rods, with a tag. After all, would you want to buy a target rifle if you couldn't test its balance and fit against your own body?
(Score: 1) by mvar on Saturday August 09 2014, @03:00PM
or he could be dumb enough to insist on not throwing down the weapon. We don't know yet and unless there is some video footage from the store (most probably there is) we'll never know. I'm not trying in any way to defend the cops, but judging from the amount of stupidity out there, if this guy indeed walked around the store pointing some gun (fake or real) at people then this story might be a good candidate for the darwin awards. So let's wait for the videos
(Score: 1) by twistedcubic on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:34PM
How do you know he was pointing the gun at people? The natural way to hold a rifle-shaped gun is in one hand pointing horizontally. The "pointing" could have been unintentional. Don't lie to yourself and pretend that people aren't scared to see a black man walking around with a gun. "Some witnesses say..." is not proof of anything. I'm black, and I would NEVER carry a gun, in any position, through a crowd of white people precisely for this reason. You might call this paranoia, but I call it evidence-based reasoning.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:56PM
No, the natural way to hold a rifle is at *-shoulder arms or pointing at the ground. Anyone ever holding a firearm of any kind in such a manner as it points at people needs at the very least an ass beating. If they do it in front of cops they deserve a Darwin Award.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by twistedcubic on Saturday August 09 2014, @06:54PM
Well, could you agree that that holding a rifle "correctly" is a learned behavior. The first time I picked up a bb gun (as a preteen) I had the muzzle pointing directly at my face before someone corrected me. You might say I was "stupid", or deserving of the Darwin award. Apparently I'm just lucky to be alive.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:19PM
I would call it rational paranoia. Based on evidence based reasoning.
FWIW, I don't like to be prejudiced against blacks, but when I'm walking alone on the street at night I *am*. Statistically in this area blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes (that come to my attention [via news]) than are whites. The one exception is that police seem to be even more likely to commit violent acts that would be called crimes if the perpetrator was not a police man. Reports don't generally specify the race of the policeman.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by twistedcubic on Sunday August 10 2014, @01:05AM
Assuming you are white, and depending on where you live, I bet it's likely that a white person is several more times likely to be victimized by another white person than a black person. If this is the case (and it largely is) does evidence-based reasoning make you paranoid of white people?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 10 2014, @07:24PM
When that is the case, then yes. But do note all the qualifiers I used. The news reporting is biased, and that affects my perceived danger in unreasonable ways. I do know that it's true, but it still does.
(OTOH, in the particular area in which I live its not true that white person is several more times likely to be victimized by another white person than by a black person. If you don't count police and politicians.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Rune of Doom on Saturday August 09 2014, @03:00PM
What, is Loke shapeshifting into guns now? (That's Andy Lopez case [thinkprogress.org] that's being referred to.)
Most coverage completely misses the point with police shootings. Although this particular case MIGHT be an exception, cops aren't mistakenly gunning down innocent kids to protect the public, they're 'mistakenly' gunning down innocents in order to protect themselves. Part of the job of any police officer is to risk their life in order to protect the public. That's been long-forgotten in 21st century America. Instead, they regularly kill the public in order to safeguard their own safety.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:51PM
>Part of the job of any police officer is to risk their life in order to protect the public.
Maybe where you live. Around here, there is so much corruption that I trust the "bad guys" far more than I do the police.
(Score: 2) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:18PM
Why the hell should I trust my safety with somebody who can't even correctly identify weapons?!
I mean, ok, I'm not expecting fantasy level identification such as Aragorn or Xena, Warrior Princess, but I am expecting some level of fucking shit!
The guy was at a store, with a fresh purchase. That means he didn't have time or a workshop to make any sophisticated mods. I'm really wondering---and left wondering---what the hell were the police thinking?
See, this is what I can't comprehend about this species. I know there's racism involved, but how? Why? What on the fucking goddamn earth? I simply cannot comprehend. A man had to die because of some racist, power-tripping fucks.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:27PM
You don't know and I don't know that that's what happened. It does seem like a likely scenario, but that's not proof. And unless there's video footage, we won't know. (Even then it's quite likely we'll never see the footage.)
In this kind of a situation you shouldn't be certain of what happened. And you should realize that your strong suspicions are strongly influenced by your pre-existing beliefs. (Your "priors" if you're into Bayesian reasoning.) Were I on a jury, and were no additional evidence available, I'd be tempted to convict the police officers of homocide, but not of premeditation. That "beyond a reasonable doubt" business doesn't work where lawyers play games with what evidence they get to allow and exclude.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @11:36PM
You probably couldn't identify the toy under the circumstances either. Besides I'm starting to see the wisdom of waiting to see [soylentnews.org] what the ethnicity of the cops were first. If they were black, for example, then it'd be ok for them to be racist, power-tripping fucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:47PM
I have to say I agree 100% with you. Police are paid to put their lives in danger. I'm sorry that is your chosen profession. You don't like it, you should have done something else with your life. Policy that makes it OK for police to act with a deadly force when there is even a slight hint of something a-foot is reckless at best, criminal at worse.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Sunday August 10 2014, @09:49PM
Police aren't even in that much relative danger - They barely [time.com] make the [businessinsider.com] top 10/25 [aol.com] charts [list25.com] (or not) [forbes.com]
(Score: 2) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @04:57PM
But there's no mod points that can make this right.
What the hell is up with this species?
How the hell does buying a BB gun result in death? A BB gun isn't even an effective weapon to cause death! You'll shoot your eye out, kid! That's all.
I mean, WTF. Either there are details missing, or this species is best off turning the planet into a sheet of glass for the benefit of all other intelligent life in a 100 light year distance.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Saturday August 09 2014, @06:43PM
Except that they're making these things to look like deadly semi-automatic weapons. (There's a helpful link in the summary). Anyway it was an air rifle, not a sodding water pistol. Ever seen what a decent air rifle will do to a tin can? You do not want one of those in your face unless you have any eyeballs you don't need and/or fancy a manly scar.
Also, according to TFA, witnesses the guy was pointing it at people. Sorry, but if you point a gun at someone that isn't bright purple with "super soaker" written on the side, you consent to being shot.
If the US is going to insist in keeping liberal gun laws then perhaps they should teach kids how to use them: lesson 1 being don't ever point a gun at someone that you're not intending to shoot, even if it has a saftey catch, even if you don't think its loaded, even if its "only" an airgun... Hell, even with a super-soaker check, twice. Lesson 2 would be If you are carrying a banana and you hear 'armed police, drop the weapon' DROP THE FUCKING BANANA FIRST AND EXPLAIN LATER.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Sunday August 10 2014, @09:52PM
It is very rare that such a phrase will be uttered without 1,000 other loud noises to muffle, distort, and otherwise increase confusion about the situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:59PM
Jumps to conclusions which are not supported by facts evidenced by links in summary (e.g. photos of the rifle he was waving around).
Accuses rest of species of being messed up.
Irony is not lost on rest of species.
Recommend "Clicking The Fine Links" before posting comments.
(Score: 2) by velex on Saturday August 09 2014, @05:37PM
s/lol//g
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gottabeme on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:44PM
I was expecting something like a Red Ryder BB gun--but that's not what it was at all. Click on the link in the summary, look at the photos on the Walmart web site. Sure, if everything's calm, you can look at the details and see the screw holes all over, that it's basically a plastic shell, etc. But in the heat of the moment? That looks like an assault rifle. It's intended to look like one, with a fake magazine and flash hider, even.
And it's not a toy gun, it's an air rifle, intended for target practice and hunting small game. Not anywhere near the same kind of threat as a gun that shoots bullets, but not a toy. Toys include cap guns and "rat-a-tat" noisemakers, all of which have orange tips nowadays.
None of us know what really happened, and there are no details in the stories linked. But I can't imagine that a couple of cops just happened to be in the store, happened to walk down that aisle, saw him, and immediately opened fire. There must be more to the story than that. He was probably doing things he shouldn't have been doing, and probably did not comply with repeated instructions to drop the rifle. It doesn't matter what you're holding--when a cop points a gun at you and tells you to drop it and get on the ground, you do it! If he didn't comply, and if he waved it around and pointed it in their direction--we don't know, but if he did--that was very foolish, and the cops are trained to defend themselves, especially when it appears that he's holding a dangerous weapon.
I'm sure lots of people will say that they should have recognized it as a "toy", but it's not a toy, and it's designed to look like a real assault rifle, and in an escalated situation, you can't expect them to notice small details like plastic seams and screw holes, especially if it's pointing at them.
Truly a tragedy, and probably both "sides" didn't act perfectly, but one shouldn't jump to conclusions that the cops overreacted.
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:51PM
"But I can't imagine that a couple of cops just happened to be in the store, happened to walk down that aisle, saw him, and immediately opened fire."
I can. Easily.
(Score: 3, Informative) by gottabeme on Saturday August 09 2014, @07:54PM
http://www.whio.com/news/news/local/beavercreek-walmart-shooting-case-it-happened/ngxw7/ [whio.com]
What was that man thinking?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @08:46PM
He was probably thinking that he was holding a toy in his hand while he was on the phone. I suspect his next thought was "Why is this police officer trying to kill me?" followed by "I'm dying!"
I think the general problem is that people are becoming inattentive to the point that they rely on the people around them [soylentnews.org]. As we see, this doesn't always work.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:11PM
You still have to explain how that toy found its way out of the package and into his hands. That's some serious distraction right there. I think there's a simpler explanation - some combination of crazy and recreational drugs.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @09:25PM
I couldn't find any pictures of the packaging but I've seen toy guns attached to a length of card with two twists of wire. The packaging frays at the twists.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:27PM
Glancing at Google images [google.com], the toy appears to be enclosed in a long box. Even if the toy were more firmly packaged, you could still argue that it was damaged in some way. That still needs explaining and such damage will be apparent on the package.
There's also the matter of why he was carrying this toy around long enough for police to arrive. The police apparently didn't arrive instantaneously and it sounds like more than one officer was involved, which may mean that they waited long enough for multiple officers to show up. If this toy just fell out of the package, then he could have just dropped the gun off at a service desk or gave it to a store employee inside of a minute.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cafebabe on Saturday August 09 2014, @10:53PM
Thank you for the hint. I got a picture of the toy in packaging [photobucket.com] and it does come in a box. Perhaps he took it out of the box while he was on the phone? A friend got banned from a bar in similar circumstances. Apparently, he was absent mindedly playing with the network settings menu of a photocopier while he was talking. (It remains a giant WTF that the bar has a photocopier which is accessible to customers.)
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @01:39AM
Bingo. After he was shot--by a rifle, according to the article--he got up and charged at the officers. After he was shot. And that was after being told to drop it. And that was after walking through the store, pointing it at people, and scaring people. Most likely he was on something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:19AM
That same cop already shot somebody else who 'charged' at him in 2010. I call bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @01:43PM
Even if the cops' version is 100% true (big if)
That just means that after being attacked by lethal force, and not immediately killed he charged the person attacking him
If I'm being shot at, I'm really not gonna care whether the person doing the shooting is in uniform or not,
I'm gonna defend myself, best I'm able.
Depending on distance to the attacker, that either means running for cover or trying to close to melee distance
As to 'he should have obeyed the police',
If someones starts actively shooting me, I'm going to have 0% confidence in them not trying to kill me even if I cooperate (and given news reports I've come across that would be doubly true of US police)
If they wanted to go that way, they wouldn't have started shooting in the first place
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @01:37AM
Did you, oh, I don't know, read the material I directly quoted? If you had, you'd have known that he was pointing it at people, scaring people, and refused to drop it when told to. Then after he was shot--by a rifle, according to the article--he got up and charged at the officers. After being shot.
And again, it was not a toy gun. It was an air rifle, intentionally designed to look like an ACR assault rifle.
Seems quite likely that drugs were involved. Not normal nor rational behavior at all.
(Score: 1) by Username on Sunday August 10 2014, @09:27AM
You can’t just kill someone for not listening to you. Rifle or no rifle.
(Score: 1) by deimtee on Sunday August 10 2014, @12:05PM
You can't. Involve a rifle and cops can and will.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:15PM
It's really quite ridiculous the way you assume that the police shot the man for "not listening" to them. More likely is a scenario like this:
Man takes drugs of some kind, making him unable to think clearly. Man goes into Walmart. Man distracted by talking on cell phone to girlfriend, also mother of two of his children. Man, basically inebriated, sees a cool-looking air rifle in the sporting goods department, opens the box, and removes the rifle. He continues talking on the phone as he walks through the store into other departments. The rifle is designed to look like a Bushmaster ACR assault rifle, complete with magazine and flash hider. As he walks around the store, he points the gun at people, scaring them. Being high and on the phone, he doesn't notice their reactions. A sane citizen calls 911, thinking it's an assault rifle. Three minutes later, police arrive. They run through the store, get to the aisle the man is on, point their weapons at him, and yell at him to drop it. The man, still high and chatting on the phone, and already having been pointing the rifle at people, casually turns toward the police saying, "It ain't real, bro!" not having even realized (and unable to, if effectively drunk) that he appears to be carrying a loaded assault rifle in a Walmart. The police officers, having been trained to defend themselves when someone turns and points what appears to be a loaded assault rifle at them, open fire. The man is knocked down, but being high, reacts like a maniac by getting up and charging at the officers. Tragically, he dies from the wounds sustained.
Later, story is reposted on SoylentNews. Irrational people who perpetuate irrational myths that all cops are corrupt and evil jump to the conclusion that the poor, innocent, completely sane man was simply massacred by overzealous cops who like to kill people. Other "all cops are thugs" types jump on the bandwagon, all without having read the linked article, looked at the photos of the rifle, or done a simple Google search for more news articles.
Not big surprise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11 2014, @01:50PM
he was on the phone, that means he had only one hand on the long-gun air-rifle
hence he was most likely not holding it in a way that would allow him to aim the rifle
Also note, that this is exactly the kind of situation they where issued tazers for,
they choose to use their guns instead
Unless I see some video evidence that shows me differently I'm chalking this one up to trigger-happy cops
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 10 2014, @03:09AM
At this point I cant see how you can assume the Richies or the police are credible. Hopefully its all really clear on the surveillance cameras.
(Score: 1) by Nollij on Sunday August 10 2014, @10:00PM
Just a few years ago (~2010) I was on a jury, about an assault charge at a local Walmart. The primary evidence was surveillance footage, provided by Walmart (the alleged victim was a Walmart loss-prevention employee)
It was clearer than the Rodney King video, but not by a whole lot. Every smartphone ever takes better videos, even in the hands of amateurs.