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, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:36AM
Did you note that people from such countries have no built-in racial bias?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.