Scuba Forum / General / April 2007
Cause and effect
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Scott - 17 Apr 2007 01:04 GMT Cause: http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770
Effect: http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294
ben bradlee - 17 Apr 2007 02:42 GMT > Cause: > > Effect: Have another drink Scott. That means the families are celebrating with you.
dazed and confuzzed - 17 Apr 2007 04:09 GMT >>Cause: >> >>Effect: > > Have another drink Scott. That means the families are celebrating with you. He's right more often than you are....
And he is right in this instance.
 Signature “TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Scott - 17 Apr 2007 16:36 GMT > He's right more often than you are.... > > And he is right in this instance. I wouldnt know he existed if you hadnt quoted him.
Just another typical Canadian cheap shot from the cheap seats.
Carl Nisarel - 17 Apr 2007 16:53 GMT dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> sputtered:
> And he is right in this instance. The pussy Scotty is dead wrong.
Both of you are dancing in the blood of innocent victims.
dazed and confuzzed - 18 Apr 2007 02:04 GMT > dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> sputtered: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Both of you are dancing in the blood of innocent victims. You must be a very small person. Not in stature, mind you, but in spirit.
I almost feel sorry for you.
 Signature “TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Carl Nisarel - 18 Apr 2007 02:05 GMT dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> sputtered:
>> dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> sputtered: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You must be a very small person. You shouldn't project your insecurities like that.
You and Scotty are the fuckwits who are dancing around in the blood of victims to try and twist the situation for your purposes.
Scott - 18 Apr 2007 02:53 GMT > You must be a very small person. Not in stature, mind you, but in spirit.
> I almost feel sorry for you. Please stop quoting this f.cking fungus.
Carl Nisarel - 19 Apr 2007 18:58 GMT rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> sputtered:
> Please stop quoting this f.cking fungus. We know you're so scared of me, you can't even handle seeing my name, Scotty.
Quit whining, pussy.
Cam - 17 Apr 2007 04:11 GMT > Cause:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770 > > Effect:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294 Scott, This was caused by an angry crazy person.
Cam
John Hanson - 17 Apr 2007 04:16 GMT >> Cause:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770 >> >> Effect:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294 > >Scott, >This was caused by an angry crazy person. You never see a crazy person kill 32 people at a gun show. These things always happen in "gun free zones".
Jerome's Sock Puppet - 17 Apr 2007 04:17 GMT > > Cause:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cam It could have easily been stopped by the young gentleman referenced in the first article. The one the university punished because "guns don't belong in a classroom" (they forgot to tell that to the angry crazy person) and apparently, his state issued CCW permit means he was in fear, something the university wished to relieve him of.
There are angry, crazy people out there with access to weaponry. I'd like to know there are calm, rational people with access to same.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 17 Apr 2007 05:19 GMT >> Cause:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770 >> >> Effect:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294 > > Scott, > This was caused by an angry crazy person. Thanks for getting Martha Stewart off the hook.
I notice angry, crazy persons rarely attack police precincts, V.F.W.s and biker bars.
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 04:11 GMT Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote
> I notice angry, crazy persons rarely attack police precincts, V.F.W.s and > biker bars. or gun clubs or NRA meetings.
Scott - 17 Apr 2007 16:49 GMT > Scott,
> This was caused by an angry crazy person. No sh.t, eh? How many gun laws and campus rules did he break?
The other integer to this tragedy is people with their heads up their a.ses thinking that banning legal carry of firearms makes students (or anyone) more safe.
Made it safe for him to walk around uncontested and kill 33 people and wound 17.
There had been two other murders committed in a dorm 2 hours earlier and a half mile away, but no one was notified. Now, the cops and the administration are scrambling to cover their a.ses. They should have shut the school down.
Colleges and schools are places where nuts can go to do this kind of thing, because there is a high concentration of people who's egress is easily controlled, and due to idiotic laws, helpless to act in their own defense. Only the law and rule abiding were victims.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israeli+armed+teachers&btnG=Search
Carl Nisarel - 17 Apr 2007 16:55 GMT rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> sputtered:
> The other integer to this tragedy is people with their heads > up their a.ses thinking that banning legal carry of firearms > makes students (or anyone) more safe. As opposed to pussies like you who think that putting more guns into the hands of criminals will make people more safe
Rod - 18 Apr 2007 01:49 GMT >rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> >sputtered: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >As opposed to pussies like you who think that putting more guns >into the hands of criminals will make people more safe Now that is a cheap shot from the cheap seats. Scot has never been a proponent of a gun is every kitchen. More like a gun for everyone that wants one and is willing to learn what it means
Carl Nisarel - 18 Apr 2007 01:54 GMT log_dog@verizonnet.addthedot (Rod) sputtered:
>>rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> >>sputtered: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Now that is a cheap shot from the cheap seats. No, it's a perfectly accurate statement.
Carl Nisarel - 17 Apr 2007 16:55 GMT rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> sputtered:
> Colleges and schools are places where nuts can go to do this > kind of thing, That's why you're not welcome on campuses.
nitespark - 17 Apr 2007 23:21 GMT >>Scott, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Made it safe for him to walk around uncontested and kill 33 people and wound > 17. This is where I disagree. This incident is practically in my back yard. My agency sent 3 officers there to assist. It is the ONLY thing on the TV and radio the past few days.
(1) The initial response to the first shooting incident indicated it was an isolated incident, domestic in nature, and the suspect had fled the campus, the area, and possibly the state.
(2) At the time of the first shooting, many of the students were in transit from off campus housing to class. How were they to be notified?
(3) The campus police responded immediatly and started the investigation, interviewing witnesses, gathering evidence, and trying to find out what happened, who was involved, etc. VT is a HUGE campus, with a HUGE population. They have a campus-wide loudspeaker system that started broadcasting the lockdown immediately when they realized the shooter was still active and had not left the area as originally thought.
(4) Last year there was a petition circulated to allow students who had concealed weapons permits to carry while on campus and/or class. The petition failed.
(5) When police went to Norris Hall, they could hear gunshots, and the gunman killed himself as they made their way into the building. My take on this, it was only when more guns (police) were introduced to the scene, did the killing stop with the gunman taking his own life. Who knows when it would have stopped had they not arrived when they did.
(6) There was a student convocation at the Cassell Coliseum this afternoon. It was clearly evident from the cheers of those present that the students feel the university president, Charles Stegar, made the right call about the campus lockdown.
(7) Had there been a lockdown initially, it is highly likely, he would have been locked down WITH the rest of the students and faculty since he was a student himself.
(8) The shooter brought locks and chains with him and locked doors to the building shut so people could not escape.
Personally, from what I have been seeing on the news, based on what the administration and campus police knew at the time, I do not feel they were wrong in not locking down the campus. As I pointed out, even if they did lock down the campus, the shooter would have been in there with them. Hindsight is 20/20. I spoke just this morning with some other officers in the area and everyone I have spoken with are in total agreement. Not locking the campus down after the first shooting was not an error.
> There had been two other murders committed in a dorm 2 hours earlier and a > half mile away, but no one was notified. Now, the cops and the > administration are scrambling to cover their a.ses. They should have shut > the school down. Scott - 17 Apr 2007 23:58 GMT > Personally, from what I have been seeing on the news, based on what the > administration and campus police knew at the time, I do not feel they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agreement. Not locking the campus down after the first shooting was not > an error. So, what are the "effective policies and training" that would attenuate this situation?
nitespark - 18 Apr 2007 00:17 GMT >>Personally, from what I have been seeing on the news, based on what the >>administration and campus police knew at the time, I do not feel they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So, what are the "effective policies and training" that would attenuate this > situation? I suppose if they could acquire a reliable working crystal ball, or a fortune teller with a proven track record, they could then predict this could happen.
Rest assured, in the near future, they will have an after action review. See what went wrong, what went right, what can be improved, what could be prevented in the future.
It is SO easy to second guess and Monday morning quarter-back what happened, while everyone has all the time in the world and more and more facts, that were not available on 4/16, become available.
I have no personal stake in this incident or the subsequent response. I do however, see the impact, even in my community 35 miles east of VT. I was reminded of it as I saw the pre-contingent of the Presidents visit flying into the local airport and as I watched Air Force One on its final approach fly almost over my house.
When a situation is dumped in your lap, you have to react and decide based on the facts as you know them at that point in time.
Scott - 18 Apr 2007 01:02 GMT > I suppose if they could acquire a reliable working crystal ball, or a > fortune teller with a proven track record, they could then predict this > could happen. Trust me, I am as sad and disgusted by this as anyone. For one, I have this nasty flu and have been stuck on the couch for 3 days watching it all unfold on all the news, blogs, etc. Plus, we get far left shitbags like Mossman blaming millions of law abiding citizens for the actions of a single nutcase, one he would have defended, and in fact is.
However, I still say the school should have been locked down, if students were in route, then they would have to pass a search to get into the building, or onto the campus. Obviously there was a murderer on the loose, and conjecture as to whether he left or not obviously was wrong.
As I understand it now, this was all after a bomb threat two weeks ago? Same building?
Also, the kids English professor raised serious questions about the kids writings (sound familiar?) to the administration that were never addressed.
It will happen again, not because there are guns in the world, because society has a huge degree of disparity, and sick people like Cho fall through the cracks.
A gun in the right hands would have stopped it, if not all together, but certainly short.
Obviously, banning legal carry didn't help 33 people one bit.
Carl Nisarel - 18 Apr 2007 01:53 GMT rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> sputtered:
> A gun in the right hands would have stopped it Pure fantasy.
There was a shooting last year at a mall. One of the people shot had a CHL and had his gun with him but he could not bring himself to shoot someone.
The notion that concealed carry will stop a mass murder like what happened in VT is simply ignorant wishful thinking.
Grumman-581 - 18 Apr 2007 10:06 GMT > However, I still say the school should have been locked down, if students > were in route, then they would have to pass a search to get into the > building, or onto the campus. So, you would want to ensure that more unarmed students could be allowed to be slaughtered? Hell, I would think that perhaps they should turn away any student who was *not* armed...
Grumman-581 - 18 Apr 2007 09:41 GMT > (5) When police went to Norris Hall, they could hear gunshots, and the > gunman killed himself as they made their way into the building. My take > on this, it was only when more guns (police) were introduced to the > scene, did the killing stop with the gunman taking his own life. Who > knows when it would have stopped had they not arrived when they did. When he ran out of ammo?
Considering the number of shots that were fired, I have to wonder if that might not have been the case anyway... Any idea how many rounds of ammo he had left at the point where he killed himself?
nitespark - 18 Apr 2007 10:54 GMT >>(5) When police went to Norris Hall, they could hear gunshots, and the >>gunman killed himself as they made their way into the building. My take [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that might not have been the case anyway... Any idea how many rounds > of ammo he had left at the point where he killed himself? Don't know. That is probably part of the investigation no doubt. However, one thing that did come out. Speculation he went back to his dorm room and re-loaded from the first shooting.
Grumman-581 - 18 Apr 2007 12:02 GMT > Don't know. That is probably part of the investigation no doubt. They're unlikely to make that information public, especially if it turns out that he used his last round of ammo to commit suicide... If he had a lot more ammo, then they might make it public so that they can claim that the police presence caused him to end it sooner than he originally planned... If he was already nearly out of ammo, it would tend to indicate that the police presence didn't accomplish anything and as such, they wouldn't want that to come out...
> However, one thing that did come out. Speculation he went back to his > dorm room and re-loaded from the first shooting. A rather disturbed kid... I read the two writings of his for one of his English classes that are posted on the web... I have to wonder how he managed to become a senior at the school... The writing is so poor that he should have flunked out a couple of years ago... I guess this must say something about the standards that the universities have these days...
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 13:27 GMT >> Considering the number of shots that were fired, I have to wonder if >> that might not have been the case anyway... Any idea how many rounds >> of ammo he had left at the point where he killed himself?
> Don't know. That is probably part of the investigation no doubt. However, > one thing that did come out. Speculation he went back to his dorm room > and re-loaded from the first shooting. How many shots were fired?
I participate in action shooting sports. I'm an active USPSA shooter. At a minimum, for any given match, I carry an 8 round magazine in my gun, 6 more on the left side of my belt, and at least one more in my back pocket. I used to carry only 4 on my belt until I ran short and had to reach for the one in the pocket in one match. The one in the pocket, normally, is used only to put the first round in the chamber, allowing me to start the stage with a full magazine. That's 64 rounds, and I'm not bulging all over with ammunition. At most, in the same space, I could carry the same number of 16 round magazines. That's 128 rounds. Were I so inclined, I could shoot a lot of people before having to reload, in my dorm or elsewhere.
For the record, I don't carry anywhere near that many rounds when not involved in competitive events.
Lee
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 02:19 GMT > For the record, I don't carry anywhere near that many rounds when not > involved in competitive events. Not even competitive spree killing? The U.S. record now stands at 33 and, embarrassingly, wasn't even set by an American. Surely you could beat that.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 02:37 GMT >> For the record, I don't carry anywhere near that many rounds when not >> involved in competitive events.
> Not even competitive spree killing? The U.S. record now stands at 33 > and, embarrassingly, wasn't even set by an American. Surely you could > beat that. Easily if I weren't one of those law abiding citizens I keep telling you about.
Try and keep up Greg. I'm one of those that supports the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms specifically to defend against catastrophes like the one in Virginia. I'm one of those that, had I been there, legally armed, might very well have kept the new record from being achieved.
Of course, since people like you made it impossible for people like me to be there, legally armed, 33 people died. Congratulations, those that agree with you got their wish and the families of 33 innocent people didn't. Nice work.
Lee
nitespark - 19 Apr 2007 10:45 GMT > Of course, since people like you made it impossible for people like me to be > there, legally armed, 33 people died. Congratulations, those that agree > with you got their wish and the families of 33 innocent people didn't. Nice > work. > > Lee 32 innocent people.
Rod - 18 Apr 2007 01:42 GMT >> Scott, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israeli+armed+teachers&btnG=Search Scott; Back off a tad, the police (as it was) were investigating the first shooting. Nothing or no one had an idea where this would go. There was nothing the police could do, it appeard to be a domestic issue
dazed and confuzzed - 18 Apr 2007 03:50 GMT >>>Scott, >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > There was nothing the police could do, it appeard to be a domestic > issue except that they had a killer that was not in custody on the campus.
 Signature “TAANSTAFL”
____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 04:18 GMT > There had been two other murders committed in a dorm 2 hours earlier and a > half mile away, but no one was notified. Now, the cops and the > administration are scrambling to cover their a.ses. They should have shut > the school down. Jayna said the same thing. My response to you is the same as it was to here. Hindsight is 20/20. There's just too much that is not not known to judge actions relating to the dormatory deaths. People make the best decisions they can, given the information available to them. I'm a long way from sure that anyone, given the information available at the time, could be counted on to have done better.
I am sure that the no guns on campus policy made it easier for one angry, crazy criminal to kill a lot of innocent, law abiding ones.
Lee
Scott - 18 Apr 2007 04:33 GMT > Jayna said the same thing. My response to you is the same as it was to > here. Hindsight is 20/20. There's just too much that is not not known to > judge actions relating to the dormatory deaths. People make the best > decisions they can, given the information available to them. I'm a long way > from sure that anyone, given the information available at the time, could be > counted on to have done better. They have no trouble closing schools due to snow...
Besides, the point is that when you take away a persons right and ability to defend his/herself, you better be able to do it.
This was obviously not the case.
> I am sure that the no guns on campus policy made it easier for one angry, > crazy criminal to kill a lot of innocent, law abiding ones. No doubt.
He played the whole system like a fiddle.
Even cased them with a bomb scare, and then distracted them with a double homicide.
There isnt a law enforcement individual or agency that could have saved these kids, let alone more BS gun control laws; the only thing that could have saved them was an armed, properly trained free American.
Wayne Cogdill - 17 Apr 2007 22:25 GMT I think you mistake Scott's point. The crazy person did the shooting, but the ban on handguns gave the crazy person the knowledge that he could do his crazy crap unimpeded by a citizen who could have defended himself/herself as well as others. The other weird part of this is the University's claim that it doesn't want weapons because it wants an environment free of fear. If I comply with my state's concealed carry law, you will never know I am carrying, and you would have nothing to fear.
>> Cause:http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cam Scott - 17 Apr 2007 22:48 GMT > I think you mistake Scott's point. The crazy person did the shooting, but > the ban on handguns gave the crazy person the knowledge that he could do his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > comply with my state's concealed carry law, you will never know I am > carrying, and you would have nothing to fear. What I want to know is why on earth the entire campus wasn't locked down after the 1st two murders. Someone in administration didn't want to make a big deal of two murders in a dorm, after all, it was the first day back after spring break. Two hours passed between the acts, which was plenty of time to lockdown the campus, lock everyone into the buildings, search the campus and at least deny Cho entry, if not apprehend him.
Cho knew most of the cops were at the dorm. He brought chains with him for the doors. No number of laws would have stopped this guy from committing mass murder.
One of the professors interviewed on CNN actually had the effrontery to say they had very effective policies in place (talk about a moron) and training to deal with situations like this, which would be why 33 young kids and staff are dead. Most students and staff had no idea two murders had taken place 1/2 mile away.
Greg Mossman - 17 Apr 2007 23:47 GMT > I think you mistake Scott's point. The crazy person did the shooting, but > the ban on handguns gave the crazy person the knowledge that he could do his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > comply with my state's concealed carry law, you will never know I am > carrying, and you would have nothing to fear. Sure. That's what all the wackos say. Nothing to fear until you had a mental or emotional breakdown and then pulled out your gun and started shooting innocent people.
Don't forget, there's a reason why gun nuts are called gun nuts. They're halfway cracked already. All it takes is a good reason: bad day at work, bad traffic day, bad hair day. Then bang, bang, bang. Relief for the gun nut. 33 people dead.
Keep guns out of the hands of loonies by keeping them out of the hands of everyone. There's no way to tell exactly what 27% of you will eventually crack and go "ballistic", so it's far better to keep guns out of all your hands.
The right to carry should be inversely proportioned to the desire to carry.
bob crownfield - 18 Apr 2007 01:16 GMT > Keep guns out of the hands of loonies by keeping them out of the hands > of everyone. There's no way to tell exactly what 27% of you will > eventually crack and go "ballistic", so it's far better to keep guns > out of all your hands. right.
step one - suspend the Constitution. step two - suspend the "innocent until proven guilty " idea. step three - put everyone in jail, and _ALL_ crime will stop.
solves the whole crime question.
Scott - 18 Apr 2007 01:39 GMT > right.
> step one - suspend the Constitution. > step two - suspend the "innocent until proven guilty " idea. > step three - put everyone in jail, and _ALL_ crime will stop.
> solves the whole crime question. 27% of 80,000,000 = 21,600,000
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 02:33 GMT > > right. > > step one - suspend the Constitution. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 27% of 80,000,000 = 21,600,000 Scary, huh? Multiply that by the average gun spree killing toll of 4.3 and you get over 90,000,000 guaranteed casualties from gun violence in the next few years. Or something like that.
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 04:23 GMT >> The crazy person did the shooting, but the ban on handguns gave the crazy >> person the knowledge that he could do his >> crazy crap unimpeded by a citizen who could have defended himself/herself >> as well as others. And the results proved he was right.
> Sure. That's what all the wackos say. Nothing to fear until you had > a mental or emotional breakdown and then pulled out your gun and > started shooting innocent people. Nobody here said there was nothing to fear. Well, John did, but he's been wrong from the start. The school said the students should be free from fear and used that as a basis for banning guns on campus. Do you suppose their strategy worked? Think anyone on that campus is free from fear now?
> Don't forget, there's a reason why gun nuts are called gun nuts. Nuts are not allowed to own or possess a firearm.
> Keep guns out of the hands of loonies by keeping them out of the hands of > everyone. Let us know when you have a viable plan for doing that.
Lee
Danlw - 18 Apr 2007 05:20 GMT > The right to carry should be inversely proportioned to the desire to > carry. So should being a lawyer, but that hasn't happened yet, just based on all the asinine lawsuits filed.
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 06:01 GMT > So should being a lawyer, but that hasn't happened yet, just based on all > the asinine lawsuits filed. How many asinine lawsuits are filed? Or should I say, cite?
Danlw - 18 Apr 2007 16:09 GMT >> So should being a lawyer, but that hasn't happened yet, just based on all >> the asinine lawsuits filed. > > How many asinine lawsuits are filed? Or should I say, cite? How many pages? Starting with McDonald's made me fat by forcing me to make a pig of myself. Or, try the suit that ended private aircraft production for Cessna. Don't ask me to do your legal research--I'm sure you can bill it to somebody anyway.
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 17:06 GMT > >> So should being a lawyer, but that hasn't happened yet, just based on all > >> the asinine lawsuits filed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for Cessna. Don't ask me to do your legal research--I'm sure you can bill > it to somebody anyway. So the answer is 2? How does your two lawsuits out of all the thousands and thousands that are filed in good faith mean that there's anything really wrong with our justice system?
There are plenty of ways to get frivolous lawsuits dismissed in their earliest stages. Surely you don't think McDonalds, a multibillion- dollar international giant, is going to lose too much money hiring a handful of $500/hour lawyers to get a kooky suit dismissed?
Do you even have an idea of the facts involved in the McDonalds case? McDonalds was sued for deceptive advertising. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the claims were not frivolous.
"Count I alleges that the combined effect of McDonald's various promotional representations was to create the false impression that its food products were nutritionally beneficial and part of a healthy lifestyle if consumed daily. Count II alleges that McDonald's failed to adequately disclose that its use of certain additives and the manner of its food processing rendered certain of its foods substantially less healthy than represented. Count III alleges that McDonald's deceptively represented that it would provide nutritional information to its New York customers when in reality such information was not readily available at a significant number of McDonald's outlets in New York. The Second Circuit held that Counts I-III alleges claims under New York General Business Law § 349 sufficient for Rule 8(a). See Pelman III, 396 F.3d at 512."
Grumman-581 - 18 Apr 2007 09:56 GMT > Don't forget, there's a reason why gun nuts are called gun nuts. > They're halfway cracked already. All it takes is a good reason: bad > day at work, bad traffic day, bad hair day. Some of us don't exactly worry about having a "bad hair day"... Sounds like a Democrat problem to me...
Carl Nisarel - 18 Apr 2007 01:50 GMT "Wayne Cogdill" <gwcog@arn.net> sputtered:
> The crazy person did the shooting, but > the ban on handguns gave the crazy person the knowledge that > he could do his crazy crap unimpeded by a citizen who could > have defended himself/herself as well as others. You are assuming rationality by someone you are calling crazy.
That's quite moronic.
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 04:09 GMT > This was caused by an angry crazy person. True, but it could have been stopped by one armed one.
Note that there was a law against the gun on campus, that the law abiding people obeyed it and died and that the criminal, crazy or not, didn't obey it and killed.
Sound familiar?
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 06:02 GMT > > This was caused by an angry crazy person. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sound familiar? That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally.
Dennis (Icarus) - 18 Apr 2007 06:20 GMT > > > This was caused by an angry crazy person. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. They can just leave campus and obtain one illegally, like what's done with illegal drugs and alcohol, or are you so naive tothink that underage kids don't drink?
Dennis
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 06:40 GMT On Apr 17, 11:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. > > They can just leave campus and obtain one illegally, like what's done with > illegal drugs and alcohol, or are you so naive tothink that underage kids > don't drink? If alcohol is illegal, why do all the liquor stores and markets around me sell the stuff openly? I should call the cops.
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 13:05 GMT >> > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so >> > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If alcohol is illegal, why do all the liquor stores and markets around > me sell the stuff openly? I should call the cops. Are you an underage kid?
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 02:22 GMT > >> > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > >> > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Are you an underage kid? I might be. Maybe I'm a preteen girl with D cups. Are you attempting to solicit me, big fella? There are laws against that, you know.
Dennis (Icarus) - 18 Apr 2007 13:30 GMT > On Apr 17, 11:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If alcohol is illegal, why do all the liquor stores and markets around > me sell the stuff openly? I should call the cops. You did catch the point about "underage kids" right? And skipped right over the availability of illegal drugs, which was also part of my point :-)
 Signature Dennis
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 16:28 GMT On Apr 18, 6:22 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
> > If alcohol is illegal, why do all the liquor stores and markets around > > me sell the stuff openly? I should call the cops. > > You did catch the point about "underage kids" right? You did understand that a gun ban wouldn't only ban guns for those under 21 and have stores on every corner selling guns to people over 21, right? That would be silly.
> And skipped right over the availability of illegal drugs, which was also > part of my point :-) Not much of a point.
Aren't illegal drugs more addictive than guns? Aren't illegal drugs consumables? Those facts greatly assist the black market, since there's a constant demand from the same customers. Drugs are also commonly purchased in smaller sizes than guns, making their smuggling and sale easier. Drugs are also very commonplace, more so than guns, and criminal penalties for possession are usually mild. Make gun laws Draconian and enforce them, and you won't see a black market anything like what you have with illegal drugs. Guns will be priced far out of the range of the average high school or college student or postal worker.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Apr 2007 17:30 GMT > Aren't illegal drugs more addictive than guns? Not according to Futile John.
JOF - 18 Apr 2007 18:33 GMT On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> > Aren't illegal drugs more addictive than guns? > > Not according to Futile John. Cite?
JF
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Apr 2007 19:42 GMT > On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cite? As you've often said, you'll have to prove you didn't say it.
Give us a few examples.
Unfortunately for you, your extensive and ludicrous posting history proceeds you.
Dennis (Icarus) - 18 Apr 2007 22:13 GMT > On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cite? Are you now going to start providing cites when asked? If not, then don;t be surprised when folks ignore your requests, since you don't provide 'em when asked.
:-) Dennis
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Apr 2007 22:47 GMT >> On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If not, then don;t be surprised when folks ignore your requests, since you > don't provide 'em when asked. He was just being futile.
Dennis (Icarus) - 18 Apr 2007 18:50 GMT > On Apr 18, 6:22 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > under 21 and have stores on every corner selling guns to people over > 21, right? That would be silly. My point was that underage kids still get alcohol, even though its prohibited.
> > And skipped right over the availability of illegal drugs, which was also > > part of my point :-) > > Not much of a point. And you think that merely because it blows away your call for Prohibition.
> Aren't illegal drugs more addictive than guns? Aren't illegal drugs > consumables? Those facts greatly assist the black market, since > there's a constant demand from the same customers. Drugs are also > commonly purchased in smaller sizes than guns, making their smuggling > and sale easier. Drugs are also very commonplace, more so than guns, Cocaine gets smuggled into the country in tonnage qualities, IIRC.
> and criminal penalties for possession are usually mild. Make gun laws > Draconian and enforce them, and you won't see a black market anything We have many gun laws already, which are not enforced.
> like what you have with illegal drugs. Guns will be priced far out of > the range of the average high school or college student or postal > worker. No, they won't. :-)
Dennis
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 02:40 GMT >> > If alcohol is illegal, why do all the liquor stores and markets around >> > me sell the stuff openly? I should call the cops. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > under 21 and have stores on every corner selling guns to people over > 21, right? That would be silly. You do understand that the gun ban already does that for people under 18, right? You do understand that the ban was enacted by people that agree with you, right? You do understand that we think it was silly too, right?
Lee
Scott - 19 Apr 2007 02:47 GMT > > You did understand that a gun ban wouldn't only ban guns for those > > under 21 and have stores on every corner selling guns to people over > > 21, right? That would be silly.
> You do understand that the gun ban already does that for people under 18, > right? > You do understand that the ban was enacted by people that agree with you, > right? > You do understand that we think it was silly too, right? Now we learn that the killer had a history of mental illness, recognized by the court, and supported by doctors that examined him.
A history of stalking women.
What failed us is not the gun control and purchase process (he falsified a 4473, add that to the felonies), but due to worries by the school and the mental health people of being sued by some carpetbagger/pettifogger, didn't pass the information along so that if he were to try and buy a weapon, he could be refused, at least a legal weapon. More worried about being sued over potentially violating his privacy than any future acts of violence they were all sure he would commit.
Score one more for the Bar.
Make that 33.
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 18 Apr 2007 06:37 GMT >> > This was caused by an angry crazy person. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. Just like drugs.
Those are illegal.
Laws keep them completely off campus.
Lee Bell - 18 Apr 2007 13:03 GMT >> > This was caused by an angry crazy person. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Sound familiar?
> That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. Let us know when you have a viable plan to actually remove all weapons, everywhere. Until you do, the failure or a law to do what it was supposed to do is hardly justification for expanding the use of the same law. Most people, when something doesn't work, try something else.
Personally, until society can ensure my safety without any effort on my part, I'll do my part to try to ensure it myself and resist those, like yourself, who attempt to deny me the right to do so.
Lee
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 02:30 GMT > Let us know when you have a viable plan to actually remove all weapons, > everywhere. Until you do, the failure or a law to do what it was supposed > to do is hardly justification for expanding the use of the same law. Most > people, when something doesn't work, try something else. I would start by directing our Star Wars missile defense system on those areas known to contain a large proportion of gun owners, subjecting all the guns to a heat high enough to melt them. There may be a bit of collateral damage, but nothing significant.
Assuming that didn't take care of all the guns, I wouldn't "expand the use of the same law", I'd make a new one: total ban of all firearms not possessed by active law enforcement and military. Special licenses would be granted to some civilians based on need, but the requirements to get one would include extensive background checks, psychiatric tests, community references, training, a diligent renewal process, and maybe a microchip for good measure. Possession of a firearm: 10 years. Sale of a firearm: 30 years.
And to sweeten the measure: a one-time drugs for guns exchange.
Magilla - 19 Apr 2007 02:44 GMT "and maybe a microchip for good measure."
That line shows the truth, big brother.......
No wonder we have and need constitutional rights, to defend us from tyrants like YOU.
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 03:27 GMT > "and maybe a microchip for good measure." > > That line shows the truth, big brother....... > > No wonder we have and need constitutional rights, to defend us from > tyrants like YOU. Like you all say, "it's not the gun, it's the person holding the gun". So why not track that person?
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 13:15 GMT > Like you all say, "it's not the gun, it's the person holding the > gun". So why not track that person? So now you agree that it's the person and not the gun or are you now basing your suggestions on concepts you don't accept in the first place, you know, kind of like making things up.
Your tracking idea won't work. Hell, you can't even find the millions of illegals in the country, let alone implant a chip in them.
Lee
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 17:37 GMT > Your tracking idea won't work. Hell, you can't even find the millions of > illegals in the country, let alone implant a chip in them. That's the problem with you feds. How could you not find them? They're walking around in plain daylight all around Southern California.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 17:44 GMT >> Your tracking idea won't work. Hell, you can't even find the millions of >> illegals in the country, let alone implant a chip in them. > > That's the problem with you feds. How could you not find them? > They're walking around in plain daylight all around Southern > California. Every time we try, all you liberal Californians start whining about how much it will cost to keep your lawns up and how much more new homes will cost . . . like you'd notice a few thousand change in the cost of housing.
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 19:04 GMT > >> Your tracking idea won't work. Hell, you can't even find the millions of > >> illegals in the country, let alone implant a chip in them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it will cost to keep your lawns up and how much more new homes will cost . . > . like you'd notice a few thousand change in the cost of housing. The last time I checked, it's perfectly legal for you feds to deport illegals. So do your jobs and stop whining.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 20:15 GMT > The last time I checked, it's perfectly legal for you feds to deport > illegals. So do your jobs and stop whining. Works for me. So we'll hear no more from you about how vital they are to the economy, right?
Lee
Greg Mossman - 20 Apr 2007 00:15 GMT > > The last time I checked, it's perfectly legal for you feds to deport > > illegals. So do your jobs and stop whining. > > Works for me. So we'll hear no more from you about how vital they are to > the economy, right? Just to say "I told you so" after you kick 'em all out and experience the results. Heck, I'll enjoy lower auto insurance rates and less traffic and that should offset the extra money it will cost to get my landscaping done and my house cleaned. Fortunately I don't even like strawberries, and if all the restaurants shut down, I'm a pretty decent cook. My new store will have about 1,000 sq. ft of produce and if I have to mark it up more to go along with the higher price, that's more money in my pocket. Win-win all around.
But it will suck for the average consumer. As a liberal, I'm sworn to care about them too and not just think about my own selfish needs. If I only cared about myself, I'd turn Republican in a heartbeat.
bob crownfield - 19 Apr 2007 20:19 GMT >> Your tracking idea won't work. Hell, you can't even find the millions of >> illegals in the country, let alone implant a chip in them. > > That's the problem with you feds. How could you not find them? > They're walking around in plain daylight all around Southern > California. right next to an officer of the court, like you. interesting...
Chris Guynn - 20 Apr 2007 15:20 GMT > > Your tracking idea won't work. Hell, you can't even find the millions of > > illegals in the country, let alone implant a chip in them. > > That's the problem with you feds. How could you not find them? > They're walking around in plain daylight all around Southern > California. Yeah, but the liberals won't let you ask if they're legal or not.
Are all the hispanics in CA illegal?
Magilla - 19 Apr 2007 21:38 GMT > Like you all say, "it's not the gun, it's the person holding the > gun". So why not track that person? Playing games again I see.
Because you want to treat the innocent as guilty, again.
Grumman-581 - 19 Apr 2007 02:47 GMT > Assuming that didn't take care of all the guns, I wouldn't "expand the > use of the same law", I'd make a new one: total ban of all firearms [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > process, and maybe a microchip for good measure. Possession of a > firearm: 10 years. Sale of a firearm: 30 years. And the sentence for any cop who was morally corrupt enough to attempt to enforce such an unconstitutional law -- DEATH... "Just doing my job" or "Just following orders" didn't work as an excuse at Nuremberg, it won't work now...
Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick - 19 Apr 2007 12:16 GMT >> Let us know when you have a viable plan to actually remove all weapons, >> everywhere. Until you do, the failure or a law to do what it was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would start by directing our Star Wars missile defense system And once again, you've disarmed yourself.
bob crownfield - 19 Apr 2007 20:18 GMT >> Let us know when you have a viable plan to actually remove all weapons, >> everywhere. Until you do, the failure or a law to do what it was supposed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Assuming that didn't take care of all the guns, I wouldn't "expand the > use of the same law", I'd make a new one: first suspend the consatitution suspend the bill of rights. _THEN_, total ban of all firearms not possessed by active law enforcement and military. Special licenses would be granted to some civilians based on need, but the
> requirements to get one would include extensive background checks, > psychiatric tests, community references, training, a diligent renewal > process, and maybe a microchip for good measure. Possession of a > firearm: 10 years. Sale of a firearm: 30 years. > > And to sweeten the measure: a one-time drugs for guns exchange. makes sense. 30 years for possessing a gun, 15 for killing someone, with or without.
Greg Mossman for Village idiot!!
Greg Mossman - 20 Apr 2007 00:19 GMT > >> Let us know when you have a viable plan to actually remove all weapons, > >> everywhere. Until you do, the failure or a law to do what it was supposed [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 30 years for possessing a gun, > 15 for killing someone, with or without. No, 30 years for sale. Read it again, this time with your glasses on. One sale could lead to multiple murders, just like the legal-so- far sale in Virginia that enabled Cho to kill 32 innocents.
> Greg Mossman for Village idiot!! Why, getting lonely?
El Stroko Guapo - 18 Apr 2007 14:39 GMT >>>This was caused by an angry crazy person. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. Such a law would just make it easier to get a gun right on campus. Every dorm would have a dealer.
Here in SoFla I have to drive over ten miles to buy a handgun, then show id, carry card, fill out forms, blah, blah, blah. In NYC, with the toughest restrictions in the US, they'll deliver, just like the pizza guy. And NYC guns are more desirable than SoFla guns as they can't be traced to me and confiscated.
That's why I buy my guns in NYC where they are strictly illegal, not in SoFla where they are a such a hassle to buy.
I'm in favor of a law against guns everywhere. Then we'll have a dealer on every corner and get rid of all the paper work and sales tax.
Greg Mossman - 18 Apr 2007 16:33 GMT > > That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so > > easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. > > Such a law would just make it easier to get a gun right on campus. Every > dorm would have a dealer. Right now, the local dorm dealer gets caught, the RA confiscates his stash, and at most he's kicked out of the school, denied student loans, and maybe given a year's probatation if daddy's lawyer can't get him off with anything lighter.
If guns were banned and their sale made very illegal, say 10 years at hard labor, most potential college student arms dealers would think twice about selling them unless selling them were a far more lucrative business than waiting for a useless degree. If that were the case, however, those guns would be very expensive. After tuition, room & board, textbooks, lab materials, and parking, who has enough student loan money left for buying a very expensive gun?
El Stroko Guapo - 18 Apr 2007 18:29 GMT >>>That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so >>>easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > loans, and maybe given a year's probatation if daddy's lawyer can't > get him off with anything lighter. Yer not serious.
> If guns were banned and their sale made very illegal, say 10 years at > hard labor, most potential college student arms dealers would think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > board, textbooks, lab materials, and parking, who has enough student > loan money left for buying a very expensive gun? I KNOW yer not serious.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 02:41 GMT > Right now, the local dorm dealer gets caught, the RA confiscates his > stash, and at most he's kicked out of the school, denied student > loans, and maybe given a year's probatation if daddy's lawyer can't > get him off with anything lighter. What, no drug related violence where you live? I hardly believe that.
Lee
Joe English - 19 Apr 2007 13:21 GMT >>>That's why we need a law against guns everywhere. Then it's not so >>>easy to just leave campus to obtain one legally. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > twice about selling them unless selling them were a far more lucrative > business than waiting for a useless degree. instead of banning a legal enterprise why not impose the stiffer penalties to those that break current lawyers
If that were the case,
> however, those guns would be very expensive. After tuition, room & > board, textbooks, lab materials, and parking, who has enough student > loan money left for buying a very expensive gun? Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 17:35 GMT > instead of banning a legal enterprise why not impose the stiffer > penalties to those that break current lawyers I think people who break current lawyers should get the death penalty. Not so current ones too. Then Curtis will leave me alone.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 17:52 GMT >> instead of banning a legal enterprise why not impose the stiffer >> penalties to those that break current lawyers
> I think people who break current lawyers should get the death > penalty. Not so current ones too. Then Curtis will leave me alone. Who's going to arrest Curtis after all guns are banned? You can bet your last nickel I wouldn't.
Lee
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 17:59 GMT > >> instead of banning a legal enterprise why not impose the stiffer > >> penalties to those that break current lawyers [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Who's going to arrest Curtis after all guns are banned? You can bet your > last nickel I wouldn't. The cops that still have the guns. Are you claiming Curtis is bulletproof?
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 18:38 GMT > The cops that still have the guns. Are you claiming Curtis is > bulletproof? Nope. I'm just reminding you that, as recently as today, you again stated you support a total gun ban. No conditions, no exemptions. Your position that it's OK for cops and military to have them is very recent and a very transparent attempt to weasel out of your previous position when it was pointed out that your own sites showed the fallacy of your argument.
Lee
Greg Mossman - 19 Apr 2007 19:07 GMT > > The cops that still have the guns. Are you claiming Curtis is > > bulletproof? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > transparent attempt to weasel out of your previous position when it was > pointed out that your own sites showed the fallacy of your argument. My "total gun ban" has always meant what it does in other countries with gun bans: allow law enforcement and military to keep their guns. If you can find where I've advocated confiscating guns from law enforcement and military (and how would we ever do that?), please post it and I'll quickly admit you were right. If not, be a man and simply admit you're wrong. Otherwise, you're looking very foolish and it's only getting worse as you go on.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 20:17 GMT > My "total gun ban" has always meant what it does in other countries > with gun bans: allow law enforcement and military to keep their guns. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > admit you're wrong. Otherwise, you're looking very foolish and it's > only getting worse as you go on. Wait a minute. I'm still trying to figure out what "it depends on what you mean by 'is' means."
So total doesn't mean total. Got it.
Lee Bell - 19 Apr 2007 20:48 GMT > My "total gun ban" has always meant what it does in other countries > with gun bans: allow law enforcement and military to keep their guns. These are examples of the guys that Greg thinks should be the only one with guns. It took less than a minute to come up with these and many more. The list is long, very long. These are the people that Greg things should be trusted to protect the life and property of the people of the United States, equipped with deadly weapons denied to all other citizens.
Lee
London: A 'suspected suicide bomber' was shot dead at a London train station police. He was pursued, tripped, pushed to the ground and then shot five times at point blank range, before it was discovered that he was not who he was unarmed and was not who he was suspected of being.
----------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans: During her short life, Kim Marie Groves was one of just 485,000 other citizens of New Orleans, known only to her family and a few close friends. In death, she became a martyr. The violent end she met came to symbolize police brutality at its worst case scenario. She was a cause celebré for police reform. Her murder was one of the major catalysts that shook the New Orleans Police Department to its core and helped lead to a much-needed shakedown that would weed out the bad apples from one of the most corrupt law enforcement agencies in the nation. "What happened on October 13, 1994, should not have happened in the United States of America," Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike McMahon began in his closing remarks to the jury in Federal District Court for Eastern Louisiana. "We proved the existence of a death squad, A police death squad in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the United States of America." A decorated but thoroughly corrupt police officer in an American city had ordered a "hit" on an ordinary citizen; one who had reported him for police brutality only a day or two before she met her tragic end. The man hired to do the killing was a notorious drug kingpin with a long rap sheet that included other murder accusations. The third man standing accused of the murder took charge of dispensing with the murder weapon. Two other accomplices avoided murder charges in exchange for their testimony.
----------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans: While the feds were detaining the suspects in the Groves murder and building their case against them, another major police atrocity occurred in the early morning hours of March 4, 1995. Accompanied by a younger male accomplice, Patrolman Antoinette Frank, 23, with only two years on the force, held up a Vietnamese restaurant in eastern New Orleans. When 25 year old Patrolman Ronald Williams II, working an off-duty detail at the restaurant, responded to the crisis, Frank shot him to death. Then she shot two of the Vietnamese owner's family members as they knelt in prayer.
----------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans: For many years, the Fifth District had been known as a "dumping ground" for some of NOPD's most troublesome officers. In 1985, an officer named Lloyd Dickerson was arrested for a string of armed robberies he was accused of pulling off while in uniform patrolling the district. He confessed to freebasing cocaine and apparently needed the money to feed his habit. In his confession, he implicated ten other officers, nine of whom were also assigned to the Fifth. However, instead of trying to clean up the problems within the department, the top brass merely shifted personnel around. As quoted in the Times-Picayune, the director of the city's police watchdog agency, the Metropolitan Crime Commission, accused them of "sweeping the problems under the rug."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sichuan Province: Xu Zhillian, female, 31, an outstanding teacher at the Fuqin Elementary School of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province Ms. Xu Zhilian had appealed to the government to stop the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. For doing so, she was arrested and fined. In February 2001, she was arrested and handcuffed in front of her students in the classroom while she was teaching. She was detained and tortured at the Fuqin Police Station. Later, she managed to escape and went into hiding. On June 28, 2001, Ms. Xu returned home for a brief visit with her husband and child. Around 11 p.m., six policemen broke into Ms. Xu's house. Ms. Xu jumped from a window to escape and landed in her neighbor's yard. The police then broke into the home of Ms. Xu's neighbor, and cornered Ms. Xu together with the neighbor's dog. One policeman fired several shots at Ms. Xu, killing the dog and wounding Ms. Xu. They then proceeded to beat her savagely with the butt of the gun until Ms. Xu lapsed into a coma. The four policemen then threw Ms. Xu into their van and drove away. They stopped the van at an intersection when Ms. Xu had regained consciousness. The policemen pulled her out of the van and beat her again. Ms. Xu died at the scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Los Angeles today, federal prosecutors introduced this videotape. It is evidence, they say, of cops stealing drug money. Seven sheriffs deputies are now on trial in Los Angeles, charged with stealing $1.4 million in drug money. More than 30 narcotics officers here have been implicated in the largest current police corruption scandal in the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The case of the Miami River cops would quickly become one of the biggest and most violent cases in the annals of police corruption. Fifteen officers were initially arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison for up to 35 years. The FBI entered the case. The investigation of corruption widened and eventually 80 police officers would be arrested, convicted or disciplined. At least 10 percent of the Miami police department was corrupt and one of the original Miami River cops, Armando Garcia, is still at large today, one of the FBI's 10 most wanted fugitives.
Scott - 19 Apr 2007 21:00 GMT > These are examples of the guys that Greg thinks should be the only one with > guns. It took less than a minute to come up with these and many more. The > list is long, very long. These are the people that Greg things should be > trusted to protect the life and property of the people of the United States, > equipped with deadly weapons denied to all other citizens. That would be because Greg is a blithering idiot.
Thank God the Forefathers saw people like Greg in our future and provided protections against them.
ben bradlee - 19 Apr 2007 21:27 GMT > > My "total gun ban" has always meant what it does in other countries >> with gun bans: allow law enforcement and military to keep their guns. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee Aren't you the guy with the Federal law enforcement job? If you don't trust yourself maybe you should be looking for work. (Greg trusts you. So do I - as long as you stay in Florida.)
|
|