^ The Sheriff's department submitted charges against the mother of the 4-year-old for providing firearm access to a child. Hopefully, the D.A. will press the charges. She reportedly put the loaded hand gun under her seat and it slid out while driving. The little boy unbuckled his booster chair, grabbed it, and shot her from the back seat. Child Protective Services is also investigating.
Yesterday, I read about a 14-year-old being shot in the face by another young teen while playing with guns. He died. Three families were in the home where the two boys and a friend were playing. Police are investigating that incident.
Today, I read about an 8-year-old who fatally shot a woman in his home in Texas. The man of the house was cleaning guns when the little boy (who is not the woman's bio son) picked up a rifle and shot it. It hit the woman in an adjacent room in the head. The Sheriff is calling it a "tragic accident".
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-woman-...-up-rifle/
(03-10-2016, 03:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]^ His reasoning is that dipshit mom "has already suffered enough".
It's the same reasoning used by hundreds of prosecutors across the country not to charge negligent parents who leave loaded guns in reach of little ones, and then are shocked and devastated when their kid shoots/kills himself or someone else.
It used to be that most such parents weren't prosecuted because of that type of enabling rationale, but it appears to me the tide is changing (based on the more recent child shooter stories I've read).
It's "justice" HoTD
(03-23-2016, 10:42 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]^ The Sheriff's department submitted charges against the mother of the 4-year-old for providing firearm access to a child. Hopefully, the D.A. will press the charges.
She is a stupid cow who gloated on social media that her 4 yr. old gets jacked up to go target shooting. Prosecute her!
I love the irony of this. I'm glad she didn't die even though she's too stupid to live.
The White House and the Capitol are on lockdown after reports of shots fired. That's all I know.
So I'm reading a news story about a man who was shot dead in a Walmart. A phone call was made to 911 saying that there is a man waving a gun around and pointing it at people too. Cops arrive, shoot the man dead and then it's discovered it's an air rifle and the video does not support the assertion that the gun was being pointed at others, it shows a man shopping for a fuckin' air rifle! Now the police want to charge the caller for the death of the shopper and for the death of the person who had a fatal heart attack while this all went down.
Shouldn't LEO's be exhibiting a little more self control, shouldn't they have some goddamn facts before they open fire? Shouldn't they be required to have even half a brain before being hired? Please don't defend these officers to me. I'm sick of hearing all their feeble excuses as to why they do the things they do.
(04-08-2016, 06:22 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Well it was in a walmart
Which also explains why there was a fatal heart attack associated with it too.
I was annoyed when I read that story early this morning. I know and understand that it is more complicated than the story I posted. I know there is often only a split second to make a decision but some of these shootings are just so horribly wrong.
(04-08-2016, 05:07 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]I was annoyed when I read that story early this morning. I know and understand that it is more complicated than the story I posted. I know there is often only a split second to make a decision but some of these shootings are just so horribly wrong.
It's a sad story. Johnny Crawford picked up an open bebe gun from a shelf in the sporting goods section while he was browsing the store. He was carrying it around while he was talking on the phone to the mother of his two kids in the pet section.
You can see in the shooting video ^ that when the cops arrived, Crawford dropped the bebe gun and tried to get out of the line of fire. But, he was cornered by an officer coming at him from the other aisle and he turned around and was shot to death.
The Grand Jury refused to indict the officers when this happened a couple of years back. Crawford was shot on sight based on the 911 caller's claims that he was pointing the gun at kids and scaring people. The caller later changed his story and confirmed that Crawford had never shouldered the gun and pointed it at anyone (which is confirmed by the full store video later released; Crawford is just casually browsing with the bebe gun).
![[Image: ronald-ritchie-john-crawford.jpg]](http://cdn.countercurrentnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ronald-ritchie-john-crawford.jpg)
A judge just ruled that the caller, ^ Ronald Ritchie (pictured left, Crawford pictured right), can be charged with filing a false alarm. If he's convicted, he can be fined and face a year behind bars.
(04-08-2016, 05:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]when the cops arrived, Crawford dropped the bebe gun and tried to get out of the line of fire. But, he was cornered by an officer coming at him from the other aisle and he turned around and was shot to death.
I hate this, HotD. It disgusts me, it sickening to me. There is no excuse for this shit.
(04-08-2016, 06:01 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2016, 05:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]when the cops arrived, Crawford dropped the bebe gun and tried to get out of the line of fire. But, he was cornered by an officer coming at him from the other aisle and he turned around and was shot to death.
I hate this, HotD. It disgusts me, it sickening to me. There is no excuse for this shit.
It sucks.
I don't know what was going on in the mind of the 911 caller. Was he unnecessarily but sincerely concerned and did that concern cause him to perceive things wrongly when he was talking to the 911 dispatcher? Or, was he intentionally conveying a false narrative for some reason? I guess a jury will decide if it goes to trial. If it's the latter, he deserves at least a year behind bars, in my opinion.
From the video, it looks to me like the officers had good opportunity to tell Crawford to drop the gun, put his hands up, and walk out slowly. He was cornered and there was nobody else in either aisle (though I don't know if they could see that the space between the aisles was also empty). In any case, the Grand Jury apparently decided that the officers were not in the wrong for considering him an imminent threat based on how the 911 caller had described the situation.
Bernie Sanders is not budging on his opposition to victims of gun violence suing gun manufacturers, which Hillary Clinton strongly supports. Hillary claims that means Bernie cares more about gun manufacturers than violent crime victims, to which Bernie says, "pfft."
Yesterday, while campaigning in New York, she took aim at Sanders on gun control again ^. She said that Sanders' state of Vermont is responsible for the majority of "guns that commit crimes in New York" per capita.
I don't know if guns coming from Vermont (laxer gun control) really constitute the majority of those used in crimes in New York (stricter gun control). Regardless, those guns aren't committing the crimes, the criminals in New York are committing the crimes. Big difference, in my opinion. But, she managed to paint Sanders as soft on gun crime and also make the guns, not the New York criminals, responsible for New York gun crime.
I'm interested to see how Bernie addresses the issue at their Brooklyn debate this week. I hope he's clearer and more prepared to explain his position than he was in their first debate. I think Bernie's position on gun control is more logical and above-board than Hillary's.
I sure wish she would stop with that train of thought. I don't agree with her at all and frankly, I don't know how any rational person would.
(04-12-2016, 11:14 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I sure wish she would stop with that train of thought. I don't agree with her at all and frankly, I don't know how any rational person would.
Eh...............Democrats do that stuff to Republicans all the time. It just looks weird when they do it to each other.
(04-12-2016, 11:14 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I sure wish she would stop with that train of thought. I don't agree with her at all and frankly, I don't know how any rational person would.
I feel the same way about everything that comes out of her lie hole.
(04-12-2016, 11:14 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]I sure wish she would stop with that train of thought. I don't agree with her at all and frankly, I don't know how any rational person would.
I don't agree with it either, but there seem to be a lot of people who do. Clinton slammed Sanders about it hard in the last debate and he didn't defend his opposing view very effectively. Polls show that Democratic voters trust Hillary to manage gun control issues more effectively than Bernie, by a wide margin.
In the Sandy Hook case, the victim families are attempting to hold manufacturers and gun dealers liable for selling military-type assault rifles to civilians (even though that's not a crime, at present). I guess they figure it's a way to reduce the number of such guns in circulation and make society safer until/unless Congress bans them.
Snip:
The families of nine of the people killed in the December 2012 massacre and a teacher who survived the attack are suing Remington Arms, the parent company of Bushmaster Firearms.
The judge last week ruled that a 2005 federal law protecting gun-makers from lawsuits does not prevent lawyers for the victims' families from arguing that the semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.
The Sandy Hook gunman killed 20 first graders and six educators with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle that his mother had bought legally.
"There are a lot of guns our shooter could have chosen from his arsenal. He chose the AR-15 because it served his purpose to kill as many people as possible," said Nicole Hockley, who is among the families suing the gun-maker.
The judge Tuesday set the trial date for April 3, 2018.
Ref:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandy-hook-s...rial-2018/
Suing the gun manufacturer is just a way to get money from the biggest corporation possible. The lawyers that go after them are backed by the anti gun groups that see a backdoor to gun control.
(04-22-2016, 06:26 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Suing the gun manufacturer is just a way to get money from the biggest corporation possible. The lawyers that go after them are backed by the anti gun groups that see a backdoor to gun control.
Yeah, that's exactly what they're doing and they're open about it.
The victims' families are working with gun control groups to go after the manufacturers and dealers, hoping that high payouts and costly court proceedings will force them to move away from selling assault rifles to civilians.
Hard for me to imagine the Sandy Hook families will win the suit though. Mrs. Lanza bought all of her guns legally and they weren't defective; her kid was defective and she gave him access to all her guns. I could see a judge/jury ruling in favor of the families suing the Lanza estate for liability, but not the manufacturer.
It'll be interesting to see where this goes, legally.
(03-10-2016, 03:46 PM)Love Child Wrote: [ -> ]I want to see what happens as these kids grow up.
I always wonder how these kids will be impacted by the trauma later in life too.
A few days ago, I read about a 2-year-old in Milwaukee who shot his mother to death from the backseat.
The boy's 1-year-old sibling and his grandmother were also in mom's boyfriend's car at the time.
Apparently, the boyfriend is a security guard and his gun rolled out from under the driver's seat. The boy was sitting behind his mom, picked it up, and fired.
I can't imagine what it would be like for anyone to learn they killed their mother (or anyone else) as a toddler, even though it's clearly not the kid's fault.
Story:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fathe...n-38700344
Hopefully the next mom wont feed those nasty strained carrots to them.