Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 02 2015, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the peace-of-mind dept.

The Guardian reports that the woman who was accidentally shot dead by her two-year-old son in an Idaho Walmart is described by those who knew her as a gun lover, a motivated academic and a successful nuclear research scientist who worked for Battelle’s Idaho National Laboratory and wrote several papers there including one on using glass ceramic to store nuclear waste (PDF). Rutledge was raised in north-east Idaho and always excelled at school, former high school classmate Kathleen Phelps said, recalling her as “extremely smart. … valedictorian of our class, very motivated and the smartest person I know. … Getting good grades was always very important to her.”

Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. “They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case,” says Terry Rutledge, her husband’s father. “… I brought my son up around guns, and he has extensive experience shooting it. And Veronica had had hand gun classes; they’re both licensed to carry, and this wasn’t just some purse she had thrown her gun into.” Many locals don't discern anything odd with a 29-year-old woman carrying a loaded gun into a Wal-Mart during the holiday season. “It’s pretty common around here,” says Stu Miller. “A lot of people carry loaded guns.” More than 85,000 people, 7 percent of Idaho's population, are licensed to carry concealed weapons (PDF), “In Idaho, we don’t have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that,” says Sheri Sandow. “And to see someone with a gun isn’t bizarre. [Veronica] wasn’t carrying a gun because she felt unsafe. She was carrying a gun because she was raised around guns. This was just a horrible accident.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:50AM

    by el_oscuro (1711) on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:50AM (#131149)

    Somehow I don't think George Zimmerman would be dead - Trayvon Martin was unarmed when he shot him.

    --
    SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:42AM

    by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:42AM (#131162) Homepage

    Somehow I don't think George Zimmerman would be dead - Trayvon Martin was unarmed when he shot him.

    TM was armed with his own arms and fists, and he knew how to use them. Should GZ have waited until TM cracks his skull open against a concrete sidewalk? What reasonable exit strategies were open to TM after he started the beating? He was living in the same community; if GZ were to survive and point him out in a lineup, TM would have a lot of trouble. The only remaining option left open was to make sure that GZ won't talk. Nobody saw him doing it anyway - or so he thought. There is no logic in any of that confrontation, unfortunately. TM could have filed a lawsuit against GZ for profiling - and chances are that he'd win it. But he had to stay civil, no matter how incensed he might have been by GZ following him. He'd be able to frame GZ just by dropping onto the ground "in fear" as the police shows up. He could have called 911 himself. But TM chose the least advantageous continuation.

    The notion of "he was unarmed" will put a frail 90 y/o grandmother in prison for shooting a 300 lbs, 6" tall, 20 y/o attacker. "The great equalizer" was invented to give every man or woman the same ability to defend themselves. Otherwise the country could be full of marauding gangs of heavy, strong bandits who'd be untoucheable. As matter of fact, medieval knights were quite upset when a musket ball became able to punch through their armor. Until that time they were literally human battle tanks, invulnerable to weapons of commoners.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:02AM (#131263)

      If Zimmerman had heeded the advice of the police dispatcher and had NOT engaged and had instead waited for the proper authorities to handle "the situation", no one would have been injured that day.

      Zimmerman chose to disregard the instructions and to instead escalated "the situation".
      So, what was "the situation"?
      Someone with the the wrong skin color who wasn't doing anything except walking home from the store.

      The punk with bad decision-making skills bit off more than he could chew, then, having CAUSED the entire event, pulled a weapon and committed murder.

      Anyone who defends George Zimmerman has distorted the facts beyond all recognition.

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:57PM

        by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:57PM (#131392) Homepage

        If Zimmerman had heeded the advice of the police dispatcher and had NOT engaged and had instead waited for the proper authorities to handle "the situation", no one would have been injured that day.

        Indeed. And it would be even safer if GZ spent all his life in his bed, under the blanket. Or even better - UNDER the bed. Never venturing outside, out of fear that something bad may happen. Don't even mention active watching for criminals - it's a high risk activity no matter how you parse it.

        Zimmerman chose to disregard the instructions and to instead escalated "the situation".

        Yes, he did that. And TM did his part. What GZ and TM did, until the first blow landed, was not illegal, but it had unwelcome consequences. Every contact with anyone has potential to end up badly. Especially if you are meeting with a suspect. Even the police is attacked now and then - in last few months it became quite obvious after events in Ferguson, NYC, LA, and a few other places.

        Someone with the the wrong skin color who wasn't doing anything except walking home from the store.

        I was born and grew up in a country where everyone has white skin. Do you think we were not mindful of criminals? We did not recognize them by their skin color - we recognized them by their actions. Same here. The fact that TM was black did not help, of course, as that's supported by statistics. But the real reason for GZ becoming suspicious was recorded on 911 tapes. GZ found it very unusual that someone would be slowly walking in rain, as if casing the houses. The 911 dispatcher found his observations sufficient enough to send a police officer to his location. GZ was wrong, probably, and TM was not casing houses (let's give him the benefit of doubt - he can't defend himself now.) If only TM remained friendly or simply neutral, despite seemingly unwelcome actions of GZ, he would be perfectly alive today - and GZ would know that unfounded suspicions can offend people (and make his bank account lighter.) Unfortunately, TM decided to take justice in his own hands and transitioned himself from being a potential victim of profiling into an attacker. Why did he choose violence as the first and the only answer to injustice? Would *you* do the same in the same situation? Thinking of myself, I wouldn't. I'd be calling 911 and registering my complaint. Civilized people, even when truly offended, do not beat each other up - they call their lawyer.

        Anyone who defends George Zimmerman has distorted the facts beyond all recognition.

        I'd say that GZ, prior to confrontation, was engaged in a pretty risky behavior (looking for suspicious people) without privileges that LEOs have. That, in the end, was likely to put him into some bad situation - and it did. However once the fight between GZ and TM got underway, GZ was in no position to defend himself other than by shooting the attacker. I am willing to ignore whatever GZ is telling about TM's words and about TM's reach for GZ's gun. It may or may not happened like that. However the undeniable fact is that GZ's head was repeatedly slammed against concrete; it is enough to get a brain injury. As TM had no legal right to do that to GZ, and GZ had no other way to stop TM, he used a gun. Do you see anything else that GZ could have done, being already on the ground, to stay alive and healthy? Would *you* be comfortable giving the assaulter full control over your life and death? Would you be willing to be beaten up and end up crippled or dead for mere *words* said to someone, or for mere walking in the same area?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:40AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:40AM (#131468)

          I was born and grew up in a country where everyone has white skin

          I am so shocked.

          TM decided to take justice in his own hands

          You certainly can twist words.
          A kid who was stalked and aggressively confronted then defended himself.

          GZ was in no position to defend himself other than by shooting the attacker

          Attacker??
          It was Zimmerman who started every step of this.
          Again, you certainly can twist words.

          A great number of people have asked why Trayvon didn't run away.
          Why isn't anyone asking why the white guy didn't run?
          He had other choices.
          The choice he made was murder.

          Someone who starts a confrontation then pulls a weapon is a pussy. Full stop.

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:36AM

            by tftp (806) on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:36AM (#131499) Homepage

            I am so shocked.

            Did you note that people from such countries have no built-in racial bias?

            A kid who was stalked and aggressively confronted then defended himself.

            Could you please elaborate what was it that TM so actively defended himself from? He was afraid that GZ, a small man, will talk to him? What was the threat?

            Attacker? It was Zimmerman who started every step of this.

            During a confrontation participants can change places (become victims and aggressors) more than once. For example: A verbally offends B. B hits A in the eye. A pulls out a knife. B pulls out a gun, shoots and kills A. How many role reversals can you count here? Was B justified to shoot A "just for a few words"? One common practical example: a robber attacks someone. That someone pulls a gun. Robber runs away, but gets shot. The victim just became an aggressor, and the aggressor (the robber) is now a victim.

            A great number of people have asked why Trayvon didn't run away. Why isn't anyone asking why the white guy didn't run?

            Maybe because GZ was already on the ground, trying to protect himself from a physically stronger opponent? TM got no injuries from GZ, except the bullet wound. GZ was beaten up pretty good, if you saw the photos.

            Someone who starts a confrontation then pulls a weapon is a pussy. Full stop.

            Police officers often find themselves in exactly such a situation. Are they pussies? Note that we, the society, hired the police specifically to confront suspects. GZ acted in an informal, unprivileged role of a police officer. His intents and actions were analogous to those of LEOs. Perhaps he shouldn't have done that, and the police should not have supported him in this role - but this is a separate topic that relates to policing in general.

            Again, you certainly can twist words.

            You can untwist them easy enough - just prove me wrong using the legal norms of this country. In this particular round of discussion you only need to show that TM was facing a well defined deadly threat. Courts do not look lightly at a mere fear or suspicion, let alone disrespect - one has to be certain that his life is in danger. Usually that happens when attackers are armed, or when they begin the attack. If you are in the street and 10 teens are surrounding you, you are NOT entitled to shoot at them. As matter of fact, you may never reach that point, so high is the scrutiny. In GZ's words, he reached that state when he was about to pass out from repeated blows. Please demonstrate what danger TM was in that made his actions into a legally justifiable defense.