SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.”
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:58AM
Stories about crime that is unfolding here and now and that you can see with your own eyes are always more pertinent than 30+ years of statistical data that is interpreted for you by people unknown by, for example, averaging crime across densely populated inner cities and large, lightly populated rural properties. Even if statisticians tell you that the street in front of your house is perfectly safe, on average, you should be wary if a bunch of very suspicious people are gathering up there right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:20AM
And how many cases of teenagers "playing the knock-out game" have you witnessed with your own eyes?
Oh yeah, none.
In fact, your entire knowledge of it is through an interpretation by people unknown.
I find your mis-characterization oddly satisfying, proof that facts indeed do not matter to your narrative, just story-telling.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:40AM
Why none? Far more than that. And you can witness them too, on YouTube, in CCTV and personal records, and draw your own conclusions. Perhaps the trend will eventually fade, but so far "the game" is "played." It's easy to identify - it's an unprovoked, often unexpected assault that has no other purpose. Such signature - an attack just to prove your prowess - has not been seen since Japanese warriors ceased to test their new swords on live people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:52AM
> And you can witness them too, on YouTube, in CCTV and personal records,
What's a "personal record?"
And how do you know the videos on youtube aren't "interpreted by people unknown?" That they aren't staged? All I found was fakes and local news segments long on hype and low on analysis.
Its oddly satisfying that your scepticism is reserved for people who are part of a system of accountability as imperfect as it may be, but not for random anons posting to youtube.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:52PM
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant privately performed video recording, as opposed to CCTV that is usually operated by businesses and governments.
I take what I see for what I see. If I see an assault, I think it is an assault - not a staged performance. Especially in CCTV records, where "the actors" would have no way to know what is recorded and how to get to it. Combine it with words of witnesses and with police reports, and the picture becomes pretty consistent. It is certainly more believable than a country-wide practical joke that includes the actors, the victims, the doctors, the police, and the media.