Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter

[Zoomie1980]

I only argued against "ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control."

I understand why that statement makes RGS defensive.

Why are you geting defensive?

So how does a gun shop know who has low impulse control. That's not a crime, although many people with that problem commit crimes....

 

[Gunny]

You now have to pay for a pistol license in this State. You have to have a background check done and that requires you pay the Local Sheriff to run it and issue the license if he agrees to it. In other words you pay and may not even get the license. The Sheriff is not limited to just what the check reports. he can use his own "judgement" to deny the request.

Here, you can pay for your purchase, go shopping, and the gunshop owner will call in a check with the FBI/BATF. He calls you in a an hour or two, depending on how busy he is and you can go back and pick it up.

In Norfolk, VA, the law was similar to yours. You had to take a request to the Police Dept and get it signed off and take it back to the gunshop.

 

[Dogger]

The failure was not with the purchasing end of the system in the case of the VT shooter. The failure was at the end where physicians and the court did not want to call someone crazy for fear of being called politically incorrect and discriminating against loonies. The guy was obviously a loon and it was ignored at every level.

The court did what it should initially, but it let Cho undergo outpatient treatment. Nonetheless, the court order was in place, but not detected in a system designed to provide legal cover for gun sellers, without impeding sales.

"In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care."
. . . .
After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis.
Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

IMO, when you start requiring people to take regular training and classes at their expense you go to far. Yes, they are available, but on a voluntary basis.

Automobile insurance is a financial burden too, and one which restricts freedom to travel, but we accept it. I'm betting the classes would be a good deal cheaper, and would filter out many of the irresponsible purchasers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The court did what it should initially, but it let Cho undergo outpatient treatment. Nonetheless, the court order was in place, but not detected in a system designed to provide legal cover for gun sellers, without impeding sales.



Automobile insurance is a financial burden too, and one which restricts freedom to travel, but we accept it. I'm betting the classes would be a good deal cheaper, and would filter out many of the irresponsible purchasers.

Driving is not a constitutional right.

 

[Dogger]

Driving is not a constitutional right.

That's why I said right to travel:

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The right to bear arms is not absolute; it is qualified by the "well regulated Militia" clause. Requiring "regular firearms training and classes in gun safety and gun-related legal issues" would be part of belonging to a "well regulated Militia".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's why I said right to travel:


The right to bear arms is not absolute; it is qualified by the "well regulated Militia" clause. Requiring "regular firearms training and classes in gun safety and gun-related legal issues" would be part of belonging to a "well regulated Militia".

Except there is no requirement that every person belong to a 'well regulated militia" to have a right to a weapon. Once again over 180 amendments were proposed and narrowed down to 12 with 10 passing. The amendments contain more then one thing in each generally.

In the case of the 2nd it provides a right to "the people" and a right to " the States".

As for travel there are numerous means to travel , privately owned motor vehicles being just one of them. You can not compare the two. Nice try though. Ohh and the Founders did not actually believe all men were allowed free rights to "travel". I can name several specific classes of people barred from traveling without permission.

 

[Shogun]

The right to bear arms is not absolute; it is qualified by the "well regulated Militia" clause. Requiring "regular firearms training and classes in gun safety and gun-related legal issues" would be part of belonging to a "well regulated Militia".


um, what piece of legislation or court decisions says anything even remotly close to this?

 

[BrianH]

"This episode proves the tragedy of gun laws that allow ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control" Indeed it does!

I think the husband meant to kill the guy when he shot him thus he should have been charged with murder. I would guess you are probably correct that the DA declined to charge the guy knowing how juries in Texas tend to view things. What a shame he wasn't even charged with voluntary manslaughter. It seems to send the message that anyone who thinks his wife has been raped is free to go shoot the person he he thinks was a rapist.

Typically, when you shoot at someone, the aim is to kill them. Just sayin.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Typically, when you shoot at someone, the aim is to kill them. Just sayin.

Safer to kill then leave them alive to sue you.

 

[AllieBaba]

If I shoot at someone, I'm shooting at them to stop them moving.

Close up, that would be a knee or femur. Unless they're armed, in which case it's just shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot. You know, sort of like that big bad cops who get razzed for emptying clips into guys they think are armed (but later turn out not to be).

More than a few feet, thanks, I'm aiming at the torso area because I'm fairly certain that if they get anywhere in that vicinity, they're stopping their forward movement.

And I don't use a 22. It's either a big shotgun, a 30-30 or a 30-06.

 

[Larkinn]

Safer to kill then leave them alive to sue you.

Because their relatives can't sue at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

Still better to be alive and be sued than dead.

 

[manifold]

Safer to kill then leave them alive to sue you.

Yup, that worked out swimmingly or good old Orenthal James didn't it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because their relatives can't sue at all.

Only one version of events if they are dead.

 

[AllieBaba]

Liberals never think other people's lives are worth living, if they don't have access to every priviliege known to man.

 

[Shogun]

Yup, that worked out swimmingly or good old Orenthal James didn't it?

OJ used a cut and not bladed weapons like the ones found in any average chopping block?

 

[Yurt]

You now have to pay for a pistol license in this State. You have to have a background check done and that requires you pay the Local Sheriff to run it and issue the license if he agrees to it. In other words you pay and may not even get the license. The Sheriff is not limited to just what the check reports. he can use his own "judgement" to deny the request.

i am surprised that passed scrutiny or maybe no one has challenged this. seems to leave to much discretion with the state actor responsible for handing out licenses. for protests, this is impermissible. and i don't remember who said - this is not a legal test - you are wrong, if the state mandates any test, then you have government actors and such action falls under the scrutiny of the US constitution.

the test, if any, should be based on objective factors such as, criminal history, not one person's subjective "judgement."

 

[BrianH]

Safer to kill then leave them alive to sue you.

Exactly, this is why you don't hear (too often) about police wounding suspects... They shoot to kill.

I'll put it this way. If I came home and my wife was crying rape. My first instinct (if the guy was near or in my home) would be to assume that he broke in and started raping my wife.

Now, the tricky questions are:

1. Do I wound the guy, so he'll go to prison for a few years and then come back when he gets out and murder my family?--he could possibly sue for damages also.

2. Do I kill him because he broke into my house and raped my wife?--he possibly may have raped others as well.

It's really a tough situation. My instinct would suggest that I kill him because it would be so infuriating to me. What I may have done, was got in my pick-up and followed him with police on my phone until the police arrived. And then when I found out my wife had lied, I'd divorce her.

 

[BrianH]

This anti-gun nut owns 2 rifles and a 12 gauge shotgun. I got my first rifle at age 12.

I'm not anti-gun. I just think we make it too easy for the mentally ill and the irresponsible to acquire firearms that perpetuate avoidable tragedy.

I understand the husband probably believed he had interrupted a rape. Had he been correct and called the police (he had the ID of the car, and could have gotten a tag number instead of his gun), the perp would have been arrested. Because he chose to kill instead, an innocent man is dead.

For a pro-life, law and order kind of guy, you come across as extremely anti-life, pro-vigilante in this thread.

While I'm not sure that I would have killed the guy on the spot, I don't believe the "easiness" of legally acquiring a gun is not as easy as you suggest. If the person has been diagnosed with some kind of mental disability, they will not be allowed to acquire a gun. When you purchase a gun, the seller calls the FBI/NICS national background check. If you have anything noteworthy on you're record, then you will be denied. I once denied a Vietnam Veteran because he had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress. He was an older man trying to by a .243 for his grandson for deer-season. The FBI check denied him even though he had been cleared. The problem is not the system, it's the people who are mentally nuts who don't have it on record and have never been diagnosed with anything. (mostly because they've never been to the doctor for it.) However, anyone certified for selling a firearm has the right to deny anyone if they feel the person is questionable. There were times where I flat out denied a guy when he was trying to purchase a hand-gun. He showed up in these thug clothes and was putting out his gangsta vibe. He asked to look at a Glock, so I let him look at one. As he was holding it, he pointed the gun at different boxes on the wall behind me (holding the gun side-ways--the gangsta prefered method) and acting someone as if the gun had an imaginary kick every-time he "fired." After he handed the gun back, I told him I wouldn't sell him a firearm, and walked off. I knew he was getting it specifically to go snuff someone on the street who pissed him off.

 

[AllieBaba]

All the mentally ill and irresponsible have to do to get a gun is tell a couple of friends they will pay for one, and they'll have one in a couple of hours.

Stringent gun laws will NOT protect us from nuts or criminals. If that's your only justification for strict gun laws, you are going to be sorely disappointed if you ever get your wish.