all together now!!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:27 pm

come on, tell me again how having that piece makes your family safe
http://fox4kc.com/2015/01/19/9-month-ol ... -in-nw-mo/

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:20 pm

blame the idiot that left that out.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:05 am

Aww slick is trying to be cute by bringing up another shooting tragedy. Here's one to counter it:

"Police investigating the horrific scene where eight children were found stabbed to death in Australia have arrested the 37-year-old mother of seven of the children for the murders. "
http://www.people.com/article/eight-chi ... -australia

slick you better get rid of all the cutlery as knives are killing machines.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:05 am

Ferno wrote:blame the idiot that left that out.

I do. My point over the past years has been that FAR too many people are sold the 'buy a gun to keep your family safe' mantra, without those people having the responsibility to do so.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:58 am

further, the tragedy here is that the Sheriff calls this case an ACCIDENT. Someone should go to jail for leaving that gun around unattended.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:27 am

It was an accident. The shooter never intended to shoot anyone. It can still have legal consequences for who ever is responsible and it should. It often won't because the court has sympathy for the grieving parent who was likely the one who is responsible. They figure the parent has already suffered the worst punishment imaginable.

I remember when that 'shooter' could have been exposed to the Eddie Eagle safety program...before liberals started acting like gun safety causes conservatism...

Here's a news flash for the libs: You are right, condoms don't cause sex....and gun safety programs are just as valid and important as condoms.

Here's one for everyone. If a gun isn't on your person it should be locked up. No, guns dont shoot people on their own but they also dont stop 5 year olds from doing it either.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:31 am

gun safety for 4 year olds? Dismissing, altogether, the responsibility of the parents? What a horrid world you would have us live in, Will.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:40 am

Yes Gun safety for a 4 year old. you teach your 4 year old not to put their hand on a Hot stove. or stick something in an electrical socket don't you?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:05 pm

callmeslick wrote:gun safety for 4 year olds? Dismissing, altogether, the responsibility of the parents? What a horrid world you would have us live in, Will.

Typical dishonest 'slick argument'.
You had to misrepresent my stated position in order to try and characterize it as something terrible.

Do you really hold that low of an opinion of the intelligence of all the people who read your words that you think they won't see what a tool you are for doing that?
Or do you only try to appeal to the idiots who follow your dishonest methods out of loyalty to the cause? A little red meat for the dumbmasses...mantra for the robots to chant

I stated that there should be legal consequence for the negligence AND suggested a gun safety component to the curriculum of little ones big enough to lift a weapon is a good thing.
What is truly disgusting is you suggesting it is not a valid choice.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:41 pm

CUDA wrote:Yes Gun safety for a 4 year old. you teach your 4 year old not to put their hand on a Hot stove. or stick something in an electrical socket don't you?

right you are, but why on EARTH would you leave a gun accessible to them at all?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:44 pm

OK, Will you DID say that the gun should be locked up, but I still can't find where you felt that should be law, or that legal consequence for not doing so should be imposed.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:10 pm

callmeslick wrote:OK, Will you DID say that the gun should be locked up, but I still can't find where you felt that should be law, or that legal consequence for not doing so should be imposed.

You don't really read the stuff do you? You see some words and then decide what it says instead of know what it really said.
3rd frikkin sentence...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:40 pm

some mealy-mouth BS about sometimes there are consequences constitutes a call by you for legal action? Not my version of reading comprehension.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:further, the tragedy here is that the Sheriff calls this case an ACCIDENT. Someone should go to jail for leaving that gun around unattended.

Let's see how this fits under the "axes of evil" table

Culpability? Negligence.
Responsible? Very
Depravity? none.

Sure, it could be predicted that the child would be likely to pick it up and play with it, but does that make the parent criminally responsible for his childs' death? Or just negligent as ★■◆●?

I can't see it becoming criminal, really, since there's no direct liability involved (the owner didn't pull the trigger). The best I could classify it would be "negligent storage of a firearm". There's a paper arguing such a position here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1630529

but the question becomes, If such a penalty is to be exacted under Tort law, how do you redress it, when the offense is to yourself via a family member?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:11 pm

Fermo, there is such a concept(legally) as criminal negligence. As I've said here many times, the nation ought to have laws mandating jail time for such negligence around firearms.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:13 pm

except the mens rea and the actus reus won't bear it out. The guy has to be directly responsible for it to become a criminal offense, but in this case, it's indirect. Sorry man.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:19 pm

Ferno wrote:except the mens rea and the actus reus won't bear it out. The guy is indirectly responsible. Sorry man.

I'll agree to disagree. Indirect responsibility in a home with a 5 year old and 1 year old is or ought to be criminal. I realize that under current law in most states, the gun owner will walk free. If I could write gun law, he'd be looking at 10 years minimum. Grief? Loss of a parent? Sure, as he/she has already disqualified themselves as a competent parent by the mere act of not paying attention to a firearm around children.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:26 pm

Why would you do ten years minimum? that seems excessive, given the circumstances.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:41 pm

callmeslick wrote:some mealy-mouth BS about sometimes there are consequences constitutes a call by you for legal action? Not my version of reading comprehension.

Lol! You are the most dishonest person I've ever had a conversation with.

There is nothing but clarity in my position.
I reminded you of the actual facts, that, in spite of your initial whine about the Sheriff calling the shooting an accident, the reality is there can be legal consequences for who ever is found to be responsible.
People face criminal charges all the time for causing accidents. In the case of 'causing a shooting':
Someone could be arrested...someone could lose custody of their other children....someone could suffer all sorts of charges etc. AND I added that IN MY OPINION THEY SHOULD.

Your constant misrepresenting peoples words so you can then argue against it is reaching pathological proportions. You have a serious social problem.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:50 pm

you're not helping, will.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:19 pm

Good on ya, Ferno. Slick, you may need to get your humanity checked. The purpose of a judge's ruling in this kind of a situation should not be to satisfy your outrage, but to serve the public good and the good of the family. I could see some jail time being appropriate in certain situations, but I'm with Will in that the parents have been dealt a terrible blow as a result of their negligence, and making a public example at the expense of the lives of the family that remains would be unjust.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:59 pm

I never said there shouldn't be any charges. I dont know any details about who is responsible.
I mentioned that in these cases the authorities that make the decision often decide to not charge out of compassion for the suffering family. My view is the charge should be made even if the judge suspends the sentence later due to the circumstances.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:06 pm

Ferno wrote:you're not helping, will.

'Damn it Jim! I'm a doctor not a magician!'

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:18 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Good on ya, Ferno. Slick, you may need to get your humanity checked. The purpose of a judge's ruling in this kind of a situation should not be to satisfy your outrage, but to serve the public good and the good of the family. I could see some jail time being appropriate in certain situations, but I'm with Will in that the parents have been dealt a terrible blow as a result of their negligence, and making a public example at the expense of the lives of the family that remains would be unjust.

Don't thank me just yet. You know as well as anyone here that I'm not afraid to shine some objectivity on anything. or anyone.

I understand exactly where slick is coming from. and I can empathize. But when it's necessary, I can also step back and keep the emotions in check.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:35 am

It was an 'attaboy, not a thank you, Ferno.

Will Robinson wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote: could see some jail time being appropriate in certain situations, but I'm with Will in that the parents have been dealt a terrible blow as a result of their negligence, and making a public example at the expense of the lives of the family that remains would be unjust.
I never said there shouldn't be any charges. I dont know any details about who is responsible.

I should have separated the two parts of my thought better. It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth. That latter part was intended as my own elaboration (for lack of a better term). And I am making a few assumptions with my statements, there.

all together now!!

all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!

Re: all together now!!