Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Never had any problems with any LEO I've met. Been pulled over twice (light out and failed to take nearest lane when turning) and both times they were super professional. Hit a deer and the officer was very helpful. Got a regular customer at work who is an LEO and he's always very pleasant.

Doesn't mean I would want them rummaging through my home without good reason, but I have never experienced anything that would make me distrust any of the local departments or believe they engage in abusive behavior.

Probably just another case of the news finding something that gets them a lot of viewers and running with it, blowing it up to be more of a problem than it really is.

Oh, I agree. People have to be careful and mindful of their rights regarding searches and seizures. Because besides the aforementioned "bad apples", sometimes overzealous or ignorant LEOs will cross the line.


Ultimately, the only person who can protect your rights is you.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't have locked up the firearm, he should have, just that I think that with the circumstances present, between the kid's apparent planning and determination, and the two adults actually present at the time failing to properly keep an eye on things, I think that lumping everything on the father is inappropriate.

I guess its no so much that I disagree with the verdict as the situation in general. There was a multitude of things that went wrong here, failure to properly store the firearm is just one, with the heavy emphasis on that singular aspect being selectively applied in a situation where its *possible* (and not like 1-in-a-million possible, but practically possible) proper storage may not have made a difference. At least from my perspective, if the other adults were there and knew a gun was in the house, they should all be facing the charge or none of them should.

Sure, it's impossible to say that this the direct result of the father leaving the gun where he did. Like you say, the kid might have gotten through a gun safe. Or he might have gotten a gun through some other means, maybe. And with increased supervision, especially of the 3 year old, it's likely this could have been avoided.

I guess the distinction that needs to be made is between ‘directly responsible’ and ‘acted in a dangerously negligent manner that directly contributed’. The guy met the latter, and that’s worth jail time, I think.

And I have no problem with other adults involved being considered for prosecution as well, if it can be established they were clearly negligent. Leaving an eleven year old with a three year old while you are elsewhere on the property is nowhere near negligence, but if the 11 year old’s development disability is severe or dangerous in any way then I can see how it would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Not really, it is ignorant to assume that the vast majority of gun owners practice safety measures just because there is not a huge amount of incidences. What proof do you have that these gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures? Just because somebody goes their whole life without being in a vehicle accident while intoxicated, does that mean that person never drives drunk?

Sure, but it then indicates that unsafe gun storage isn’t so dangerous that it requires government resources to enforce safer practices. To continue your drunk driving analogy – if everyone was drink driving regularly but there was only 100 deaths a year across the country, well then it wouldn’t be that dangerous a practice and the current level of police enforcement would be unjustified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
This is the part that chaffs my arse. The kid took premeditated action to evade being seen with the gun and then used it to kill a child. He was a threat then and without any charges is still a threat now. Except that he's likely learned that his disability, whatever it is, is now a license to keep him out of trouble in the future. Yea, the father deserved being charged because he neglected to lock up his firearm, but the kid needed some sort of penalty levied against him, too.

Without knowing the child or speaking to him in depth its impossible to know his state of mind or capacity for reason. Sufficient developmental issues may have made it possible to plan his actions as he did, but still have no concept of the harm he was actually causing.

I'm not saying that is the case, but it appears to be the decision the police have come to. They may or may not be right, but they're in a more informed place than we are to make that assessment.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and to the best of my knowledge both sides of the pond mistrust their police. I have heard more tales of benevolent US police than I have of benevolent police back home.

I think it does depend on where you're from in Europe, Dreadclaw.

There's a difference in attitude between for example Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between low income areas and middle class areas.

I've had little experience with police in Europe, but my experience with them in Central Asia (Stans) was anything but good.

Once had a police officer try to shake me down for money, until he learned I was US Military. As I understand it, the region is rife with corruption.

My brother's experience in the Middle East and West Africa was similar, sadly.

Well, without him being US military

Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

Canadians don't get to be proud of hockey this year. Not a single Canadian team made it into the NHL play-offs.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

Canadians don't get to be proud of hockey this year. Not a single Canadian team made it into the NHL play-offs.

Well, they always have Crusoe the Dachshund.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/a/u/m/j/i/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1aumj8.png/1460075163034.jpg

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

I have a few 'fun' stories about interaction with police in Panama and a couple other places. Pero usted un gringo, necesita pagar seemed to be the way it was. Being the schmuck I am I tried to refuse to play the game but pay $2 the first time I was pulled over, basically out of shock at how the whole thing went down.

In fairness, the local LEOs were not paid well, treated like dirt unless they had family connections in the gov't, and were trying to get by.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

Canadians don't get to be proud of hockey this year. Not a single Canadian team made it into the NHL play-offs.

Maybe so, but we still make up the bulk of the league. Fun fact, when it was Vancouver vs Boston a few years back Lord Stanley's Cup spent more time in Canada when the Bruins won because they had more Canadian players than Van. Probably why Boston won.

Back OT, when I was in grade three I nicked my dad's hunting knife and brought it to school. Not to hurt anyone or anything, but because I thought it was super cool and wanted to show it too my friends.

I also knew that I wasn't supposed to have it, and took measures to hide it. This kid could have been of a similar mindset.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it does depend on where you're from in Europe, Dreadclaw.

There's a difference in attitude between for example Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between low income areas and middle class areas.

Which supports my point that there is variation in the attitudes to the police that is more than just country specific. And I was not talking exclusively about Northern Ireland - take for example the protests again police in London after Mark Duggan's death. I've heard plenty of people in the Republic complain about the Gardi too

I like cops. Have a brother who is a cop. I respect them and always treat them with respect in my interactions with them.

No way I open my house or property up to them without a warrant though. Has nothing to do with 'fear' or 'hate' and everything to do with expecting them to follow the rules just as they expect me to do so.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473391286/does-carrying-a-pistol-make-you-safer

Good article IMO, on my phone so I can't copy it here

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473391286/does-carrying-a-pistol-make-you-safer

Good article IMO, on my phone so I can't copy it here

That was a good article.

The part that I would emphasize the most is that it absolutely does require a commitment to spend the time training/practicing to develop a useful reliable skill with a pistol. The common thread between all the good shooters I know is that they make time to practice and take classes.

The scary thing that most people don't realize is that the training requirements for police are sorely lacking too. All the cops I've met that were good shots did a ton of practice on their own time. The typical annual qualifying tests for police departments would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. Shooting a few dozen rounds at the range each year isn't going to do much at all for your competency or accuracy.

I think for Oklahoma I had to shoot 50 rounds to show that I'm competent and qualified to shoot for my CC. And "competent and qualified" isn't actually defined anywhere.

A few years ago there were "NOAA purchased a ton of ammo, why do they even need ammo" articles all over the place. I think once you realized that they have a law enforcement function (department of fishery or something like that) and count the number of law enforcement officers they had, the amount of ammo was just enough for every officer to shoot 15 rounds every month.so unless they spend their own money they would be able to go to the range once a month to empty a mag. That's not near enough, I get more range time than that.

The other good takeaway from the article is that even if you were justified, killing someone still messes you up. I know too many folks who are just hoping to get to use their gun someday. Thankfully they are in the minority.

 d-usa wrote:
I think for Oklahoma I had to shoot 50 rounds to show that I'm competent and qualified to shoot for my CC. And "competent and qualified" isn't actually defined anywhere.

A few years ago there were "NOAA purchased a ton of ammo, why do they even need ammo" articles all over the place. I think once you realized that they have a law enforcement function (department of fishery or something like that) and count the number of law enforcement officers they had, the amount of ammo was just enough for every officer to shoot 15 rounds every month.so unless they spend their own money they would be able to go to the range once a month to empty a mag. That's not near enough, I get more range time than that.

The other good takeaway from the article is that even if you were justified, killing someone still messes you up. I know too many folks who are just hoping to get to use their gun someday. Thankfully they are in the minority.

Agreed. In NC you have to hit the silhouette target with 7 of 10 shots from a distance of 3, 5 and 7 yards. Once you do it the first time you don't have to do it again when you renew unless you let your permit lapse. You shouldn't have to be an expert marksman to own a gun but if you choose to carry you owe it to yourself and society at large to spend the time and money to develop the skill set you need to be reliably proficient and safe.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think for Oklahoma I had to shoot 50 rounds to show that I'm competent and qualified to shoot for my CC. And "competent and qualified" isn't actually defined anywhere.

A few years ago there were "NOAA purchased a ton of ammo, why do they even need ammo" articles all over the place. I think once you realized that they have a law enforcement function (department of fishery or something like that) and count the number of law enforcement officers they had, the amount of ammo was just enough for every officer to shoot 15 rounds every month.so unless they spend their own money they would be able to go to the range once a month to empty a mag. That's not near enough, I get more range time than that.

The other good takeaway from the article is that even if you were justified, killing someone still messes you up. I know too many folks who are just hoping to get to use their gun someday. Thankfully they are in the minority.

Agreed. In NC you have to hit the silhouette target with 7 of 10 shots from a distance of 3, 5 and 7 yards. Once you do it the first time you don't have to do it again when you renew unless you let your permit lapse. You shouldn't have to be an expert marksman to own a gun but if you choose to carry you owe it to yourself and society at large to spend the time and money to develop the skill set you need to be reliably proficient and safe.

Bad part of it is, despite being a fairly easy course that you can get through pretty quick with proficient individuals, those classes offered at the local community colleges tend to get people in who haven't had that much trigger time. Hell, some of them show up without a gun, and have to borrow another student's.


Oh, it's good to see another North Carolinian on these boards.