Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Except for creating the society in which those losses occur.
1 mass shooting in the 1950.
Not me. I am a responsible owner, handler, have taught weapons safety, support permits, and cracking down on people who are not supposed to have weapons.
So the kid that allegedly shot you. Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
Should he still have access to a gun? If not..why not?
Again with Amber Guyger?
What is it with you?
When you tell me the motive for her having shot the guy she thought was in her apartment, then we can talk....you refuse to tell me the motive.....even now, after the trial is over....it should be really easy .....
But in tearful testimony last week, Guyger said she was "scared to death" when she opened what she thought was her own apartment door and saw the silhouette of a man she mistook for an intruder.
"I was scared whoever was inside my apartment was going to kill me," she told the jury. "No police officer would want to hurt an innocent person."
Guyger lived on the third floor of an apartment complex just south of downtown Dallas. Her lawyers said she was in uniform and had just finished a 13-hour workday on Sept. 6th, 2018, when she mistakenly opened Jean's door.
"What was going through Amber's mind was just, 'I'm going home,' " defense lawyer Robert Rogers said. " 'I'm exhausted, and I'm going home.' "
Guyger testified that she had put her key in the door and realized it was unlocked. Thinking someone had broken in, she drew her gun and entered the apartment.
Guyger said she ordered Jean, "Let me see your hands," and that he instead started to move toward her. Prosecutors countered that nobody in the apartment complex heard her instruct Jean to raise his hands.
Within seconds of opening the door, she fired two shots at Jean. One of the bullets struck him in the chest, killing him.
Guyger called 911 and told the operator over and over: "I thought it was my apartment."
------
Under Texas law, convicting a defendant of murder requires proving someone intentionally killed another person, as opposed to manslaughter, in which prosecutors have to show someone was killed because of recklessness.
Ex-Dallas Officer Who Killed Man In His Own Apartment Is Found Guilty Of Murder
Guyger’s team argued in a brief filed Tuesday that although she did knowingly shoot with the intention of killing Jean, her belief that he was an intruder justified her use of deadly force.
“The evidence was legally insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Guyger committed murder because (1) through mistake, Guyger formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact — that she entered her apartment and there was an intruder inside — and (2) her mistaken belief negated the culpability of murder because although she intentionally and knowingly caused Jean’s death, she had the right to act in deadly force in self defense since her belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was reasonable under the circumstances,” court documents read.
-----
Guyger’s defense team has previously argued that the confusing layout of the upper floors at the apartment complex contributed to the situation that led to Jean’s death. Guyger lived on the the fourth floor, and Jean lived directly below her.
In the appeal, Guyger’s defense team mentions that residents of her complex often walk into or enter the wrong apartment or park on the wrong floor. Several residents testified about this at her trial.
Of 71 tenants interviewed, 44% said they had walked into the wrong apartment on the wrong floor before, court documents state. Twenty-three percent of tenants said they had accidentally gone to the wrong door and entered their key into the lock, according to court documents.
Amber Guyger’s defense team seeks to overturn her murder conviction for killing Botham Jean
The problem with Guyger's defense is that confusion over the similarity of different floors, works against her.
What if she had it right and it was the Black guy who had been confused and had gone to the wrong floor?
Did that mean he should have been shot and killed for being confused?
Of course not.
Amber had no reason to shoot, even IF it HAD been her apartment.
I would have convicted her of murder if she had shot an unarmed intruder who was sitting and eating ice cream in her apartment.
You do not execute someone for being confused, and it is even more wrong since it was she who had the floor wrong.
The stresses that cause violence are caused by capitalism, that makes everything as expensive as the market will bear.
We have no access to health care, housing security, legal defense, union job security, higher education, good nutrition, etc.
We use schools as boarding as we have forced families to need 2 paychecks in order to just survive.
This is all a built in formula for disaster.
The thing is....penelope or candy corn or whichever leftist keeps brining up her case? Doesn't care about it......they think they have some sort of Gotcha on me because of that case.....
I keep asking the idiot...what was the motive for the murder....a pretty basic....and really important question.....before you convict on a first degree murder charge....
they can't answer that, but still bring up this case...
No....capitalism brings people out of poverty...it is government action that destroys families, and creates fatherless homes......fatherless homes create crime and poverty, and violence.....
When New York City was under stop and frisk, a crack down on illegal carry, I was under the impression, shootings and shooting deaths declined. Am I wrong?Yes you, because a "crack down on people" who government decides "are not supposed to have weapons", is bound to greatly increase the death toll.
Crack downs never work, people resent them, and do the opposite.
For example, Prohibition and the War on Drugs both greatly increased what they claimed to want to stop, and increased the murder rate by about a factor of 10 as well.
Improved mental health does not need or imply a "crack down".
Again, I'm all for bond conditions. I'm playing devils advocate here.Because giving up gun rights temporarily is a condition he agrees to when he accepts bail.
You can not force someone to lose a right of defense without a judge, but the bail judge can let cooperative people out more than uncooperative.
The solution is to put those who are a threat to society under lock and key. Prison for criminals and hospitalization for the insane. That worked for nearly 200 years, and school shootings were exceedingly rare.As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.
As I have said before. I'm not against stopping people who are mentally ill from obtaining a gun, or not keeping one until they can be evaluated and be deemed no threat. But WHO and HOW that happens is what I have a serious problem with because I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process. And I never will. Even if 300 kids are killed.
Sorry, it's just me.
A kid out on bail for shooting someone already has access to a gun.So the kid that allegedly shot you. Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.
He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
Should he still have access to a gun? If not..why not?
You're absolutely correct. A person out on bail should legally have the means to protect himself and his family and shouldn't be forced into victimhood by the government.Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?
He spoke a few days ago about doing something about 9mm with high capacity magazines. That is when he lost me on the whole effort, rather than when it went for limits on ARs, AKs, etc. I have an AR, and still doubt I would be effected, but when he spoke about standard carry 9mm pistols, mine being a full size 9mm PPQ holding 15+1, that is when I knew this whole thing, if they got their way was going to try to go way beyond the pale. Some of us are licensed, highly trained, highly background checked, with even deeper checks still on file. I am no lawbreaker, but I would be a lawbreaker before I gave up my AR and service pistol along with it. I am no gang banger, but I do not plan to be unarmed if I ever have to meet one. I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but at night especially, it's like American Express. I don't leave home without it. I am sorry for your loss or losses, but I had no hand in it.
He could be sabotaging the effort, himself, by bringing other things into discussion, by acting like he would like to do something. The OP pointed out, the last ban they had ran out in 94 with Republicans in charge, but the Democrats didn't try to put it back in, when they were in charge, 2 years later.
You're absolutely correct. A person out on bail should legally have the means to protect himself and his family and shouldn't be forced into victimhood by the government.
I handled the situation regarding the neighbor having too many beers, and emptying his 9 millimeter into the air above his head in celebration, on my own. The situation was not repeated by him, ever. You could say, I moderated the situation on my own with no official entanglements. I guess, I was just lucky to have an existing ongoing relationship with the neighborhood beat cops, being the head of the local neighborhood watch, hosting them in meetings and attending training. They left reasonably satisfied.An ex-coworker who had recently left the Army, honorably discharged, was in Army Intelligence so was very highly background checked, was arrested a couple years ago for child molesting and child porn. Background checks mean nothing.
And if I recall, you once openly admitted here to committing a felony - something about the cops coming to investigate gunfire at your neighbor's house and you lied to the police performing an investigation in order to cover up for the neighbor and how much all the neighbors call you first instead of the police.
Less than half of felony arrests at the Federal level are prosecuted. And that doesn't even account for known felony crimes for which no one is arrested or felony crimes that are not reported. That means there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of violent felons who have no record and can get approved through NICS to purchase a gun.
So, no, background checks don't do a thing. They only effect the convicted felons, not the unconvicted felons. It's a ridiculously minuscule actual effect on crime. Even those convicted felons who can't pass the background check still get guns.
And they don't have to let you out on bail either. Bail is not guaranteed and not. Only excessive bail is forbidden. They could keep you in jail until trial if they want.Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?
Bail is not required. They can keep you locked up until trial. Bail is a privilege. You only have the right to non-excessive bail.I disagree completely. I was just quibbling over the "due process" allegation that some made--a bond agreement isn't "due process" as much as it is coercion.
