9 Killed, 2 Wounded in Shooting at Beer Distributor

[KansasVoter]

And let me say, so you "enthusiasts" don't have to...."Well if all of the employees had been packing heat, this could have ended peacefully!"

A Connecticut official says nine people have died and two were wounded in a shooting at a beer distribution warehouse in Connecticut, Fox News has learned.

Police sources identified the gunman as Omar S. Thornton, whose body was found inside the warehouse where the shooting took place, Manchester Police Lt. Joe San Antonio said.

The two wounded individuals were transported the Hartford Hospital are expected to survive, police say.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/03/dead-wounded-conn-workplace-shooting/

[one-eyed fat man]

1. You tired yet?

You never seem to tire of dancing in the blood.

[KansasVoter]

3. Fat Man, Pointing it out is not being happy about it.

[one-eyed fat man]

10. You could have fooled me.

Between you and a few other prolific posters y'all could make a damn chorus line!



But since you act as if every gun owner who is not a once-a-month club trap-shooter somehow enables deranged madmen to do the things deranged madmen do, then your ownership of a computer with internet access in Kansas is at least as enabling to child pornographers in Moldova to post pictures.

Hell, why stop there, if you didn't own a car, some scumbag wouldn't have used two matches and a buck's worth of gasoline to incinerate 87 people. It was that needless proliferation of gas stations that caused it. Happy Land Fire

[KansasVoter]

11. Sorry you are happy he did it. I am not happy he did it.

[slackmaster]

12. Do you have any better debate strategy than mis-attributing peoples' thoughts and opinions?

:nuke:

[KansasVoter]

17. LOL....you again!

[slackmaster]

25. You've gotten your clock cleaned repeatedly in this forum, but you still come back for more

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

30. Stereotyping isn't nice

And it's certainly not a "progressive" or "liberal" thing to do.

[KansasVoter]

31. LOL....coming from you, that is funny!

[slackmaster]

32. Standard challenge you won't be able to meet...

Please point out where I have ever stereotyped anyone.

You will fail, just as you did when challenged to prove that I have ever said that more people owning guns would lead to less violent crime.

You have added nothing to this discussion, KansasVoter. All you do is spew nonsense that you can't back up with facts.

[KansasVoter]

33. No, you saying you know anything about "progressives" is funny!

[slackmaster]

34. Not half as funny as you trying to pass off authoritarianism as liberal

Or Democratic.

[KansasVoter]

35. I am smart enough not to defend a organization that wants McCain over Obama. Most here are not! LOL!

[slackmaster]

36. More bullshit

Give it up.

[KansasVoter]

37. You first! You realize the NRA wanted McCain for president...right? Missing that point maybe?

[rrneck]

38. As a member of the NRA

you support McCain as well.

[slackmaster]

39. You're the one who is an NRA member here

Not I.

[SteveM]

64. All that LOL biz. Like I said, you're getting off to it alright. nt

[cleanhippie]

80. Is this ALWAYS your fallback position? All you ever say is "NRA this NRA that." Like a broken

record.

[cleanhippie]

79. You hit the nail on the head with this post.

Well done.

[rrneck]

84. Shit, he can't even produce an honest emotion

never mind a fact.

[jazzhound]

95. On the subject of honest emotion

Frank Zappa
Mom & Dad

Mama! Mama!
Someone said they made some noise
The cops have shot some girls & boys
You'll sit home & drink all night
They looked too weird... it served them right
Ever take a minute just to show a real emotion
In between the moisture cream & velvet facial lotion?
Ever tell your kids you're glad that they can think?
Ever say you loved 'em? Ever let 'em watch you drink?
Ever wonder why your daughter looked so sad?
It's such a drag to have to love a plastic Mom & Dad
Mama! Mama!
Your child was killed in the park today
Shot by the cops as she quietly lay
By the side of the creeps she knew...
They killed her too

[SteveM]

63. Oh, you're getting off to it. Be honest. Jeeez. nt

[SteveM]

66. My goodness! Right over the center field bleachers.

[nosmokes]

2. Guess he was hoppin mad... n/t

[SteveM]

65. A rye sense of humor you have.

[-..__...]

4. You forgot to include...

"this is why we need to ban uhssalt rifuls now" in your little outburst.

Maybe we can expect that later?

[Glassunion]

19. They are banned in CT...

Shooter used a semi-auto .223. I could not find any further details on the weapon.

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.

Considering the shooter would have been 17 prior to 10/1/1993, he could not have legaly possed an "assault weapon" if indeed that is what he used.

[benEzra]

98. Actually, he didn't; used two 9mm handguns (Ruger SR9), presumably low capacity

due to year of manufacture and CT's capacity limit.

I don't know where the ".223 rifle" claim came from, unless it's another case of reporters and witnesses after the fact seeing police carbines at the scene and assuming they belonged to the murderer. There was a case of that on the thread about the nut with a deer rifle a week or so ago, where the media saw some police AR's and shotguns and jumped to conclusions.

[Glassunion]

99. I remember.

The grocery bags full of assault rifles and casings on the ground around the officer's cars.

"I wonder what the rifle was, I can probably guess."

[X_Digger]

100. Not as epic as..

AK-totin man or the {black} white supremacist.

[rrneck]

5. Here's a good book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces...

An eye-opening look at the phenomenon of school and workplace shootings in America, Going Postal explores the rage-murder phenomenon that has plagued — and baffled — America for the last three decades, and offers some provocative answers to the oft-asked question, "Why?" By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s — when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings — the author crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He presents many fascinating and unexpected cases in detail. Like slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context and thereby reveal their meaning.

[spin]

6. If everybody would have been "packing heat" ...

chances are the incident would have never happened as the shooter would have never tried. I don't hear of many mass murders in police stations in this country.

If just one person had been carrying concealed, there is a possibility that he could have stopped the shooter before he racked up such a high score. This has happened before, one example is:

New Life Church shooting

A shooting at New Life Church occurred when Matthew J. Murray opened fire in the foyer of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States, on Sunday, December 9, 2007. Three people were wounded and two people were killed before Murray was shot by Jeanne Assam, a church member acting as security, which stopped his attack.<5><6>

At about 1 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), 30 minutes after the 11 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell, 40. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, 59, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_assam

[HockeyMom]

13. Then how do you explain

shootings in malls and fast food restaurants in states that actually have easy CCW? There was one recently in Miami, Florida, which doesn't have strict gun control laws such as in the NE.

There was nobody in that restaurant apparently who was carrying a gun. Appparently, not enough people do so to make that much of a difference.

As I have said before, my husband has a CCW but doesn't carry it. Nobody in his place of business even owns a gun. If they were to fire somebody, even in a state with easy CCW, and this person were to just go out and buy a gun and shoot up the place, NOBODY in that office would have a gun to stop him, not even the person with a CCW.

Nothing you can do about it. You certainly cannot FORCE people to carry guns who don't want to. Assume nothing.

I also live in a state which allows people to keep guns in their locked cars in the workplace. How about this? Suppose people in that office just had guns in their cars. If they were able to get out to the parking lot, how many would be willing to go back inside the building, Rambo like, just to take this guy out? How many WOMEN do you think would do that? How many if they were able to get outside to their cars, would instead just plain drive away?

[Glassunion]

16. Easy to explain...

"Then how do you explain shootings in malls and fast food restaurants in states that actually have easy CCW? There was one recently in Miami, Florida, which doesn't have strict gun control laws such as in the NE."
#1. How do you know that someone with a CCW was there in Miami?
#2. Are CCWs obligated to do something in a situation like that? No they are not.

"There was nobody in that restaurant apparently who was carrying a gun. Appparently, not enough people do so to make that much of a difference."
Again, even if they are carrying, they are not obligated to use it. Just like the police. Let's say an off duty police officer was there, with a concealed firearm. That police officer is under no obligation what so ever while either on duty or off duty to do anything.

"As I have said before, my husband has a CCW but doesn't carry it. Nobody in his place of business even owns a gun. If they were to fire somebody, even in a state with easy CCW, and this person were to just go out and buy a gun and shoot up the place, NOBODY in that office would have a gun to stop him, not even the person with a CCW."
Here you answered your own point. Let's say that your husband was in the restaurant, he would not have been able to do anything, because he does not carry. Again, just because he has the permit, he is free to choose to carry or not, and whether he wishes to react or not.

"Nothing you can do about it. You certainly cannot FORCE people to carry guns who don't want to. Assume nothing."
He made no such assumption. He said "IF" twice. Also, he said absolutly nothing about "requiring" or "forcing" anyone to do anything at all. You made that up. He did give a couple of possible scenarios where the outcome "could" have been different and he also gave one real-world example of what did happen in a similar situation.

[spin]

41. O.K. Let me explain your conundrum ...

Florida has "easy CCW". 18.5 million people live in Florida. 739,222 concealed weapons permits have been issued by the state, not all of which belong to Floridians. If all the permits were issued to Florida residents, 4 people out of every 100 would have a valid permit.

Many people who have permits are similar to your husband and don't carry on a regular basis. There are no statistics I can find on the percentage who always carry, but let's assume that one out of every four do. That would mean that if there were 100 people in a fast food restaurant, one might have a concealed firearm.

If 100 people were standing around in a fast food restaurant waiting in line to order or sitting at a table eating, the restaurant might not be considered very efficient and would likely go out of business.

I have been in malls where there have been 100 people in a food court. Usually these are fairly large areas. If a shooter came in, my first responsibility would be to protect my family and myself. If I had a clear shot at the shooter at a reasonable range without innocent people in the line of fire behind him, I might take it. I am not a police officer and have no duty to "defend and protect". My decision would be based on the exact situation. If the shooter was 20 feet away, I would be far more likely to engage him than if he was 75 feet away. I realize that my shooting abilities decrease when adrenaline flows. If I start blazing away, one or more of my rounds might miss and I feel responsible for the results of every shot.

A lot also depends on what weapon I am carrying at the time. Normally I carry a S&W Model 642 Airweight snub nosed .38 special with a 1 7/8" barrel. The short sight radius and the double action only trigger makes fast accurate shooting at a distance challenging. That's why it is often called a belly gun. It has the advantage of being extremely easily to carry in the summer heat in Florida as I can easy drop it into my front pants pocket. I would limit my accurate range under stress to be 21 feet and less.



In the winter time I often carry a S&W Model 60 .38/.357 in a inside the waste band holster under a light jacket. This weapon has a 3" barrel and far better sights than the Model 642. With this firearm, I would consider a shot at 45 feet if just pulling the trigger (double action) or longer if I had time to cock the hammer (single action) and take a precise shot.



On rare occasions I carry a Colt National Match Gold Cup in .45 acp. While this is a very accurate weapon, it's a pain in the ass to carry as it is heavy. I only carry it if I suspect that I may be going into harms way and if so I also carry the 3" Model 60. With the big Colt in the right situation, I might try a shot at 75 feet. Much depends on what is beyond the target. Since I avoid looking for problems and have no serious enemies, I haven't felt the need to carry this firearm for at least 5 years.



You mention leaving the building that had turned into a shooting gallery, running to your car and retrieving a firearm. Again, a lot depends on the situation. I always had a firearm in my car at work. The guard force was unarmed, but the Sergeant of the Guard was well aware that I had a stainless .357 Model 64 in the glove box of my car. (He had sold it to me.) He said, "If the shit hits the fan, I'll ask you give me my gun back."



I replied, "I'll be glad to help you, but I come attached to the gun."

Knowing that I was a far better shooter than he was, he agreed.

Normally I would not reenter a work place to play Wyatt Earp, but the Sergeant was a friend. One problem with playing hero is that when the police arrive, they may see you as the bad guy. If I was with a uniformed security officer, I might have a better chance of not getting shot by friendly fire.

You make your choices in life and you live with the consequences. The chances of finding yourself in a situation where a firearm is truly necessary is slim. Your husband probably doesn't carry because you are so opposed to concealed carry. Why create unnecessary problems in a marriage. My hat goes off to him. He's a wise man, considering who he is married to.

But he still has a concealed weapons permit in case for some reason there is a legitimate reason to carry. It's far better to have one than to have to apply for one and wait.

For example, my daughter attracted the attentions of a stalker. There was no previous relationship between my daughter and this fool. My daughter just happened to be friends to a woman that he did have a relationship with, and he was already stalking. He just decided to increase his enjoyment in bothering women and decided to add my daughter to his list.

My daughter filed a restraining order but restraining orders often do little good. Wherever my daughter went, there he was. She reported every violation of the restraining order to the police, but since they didn't witness anything, nothing happened. One time a cop was actually on the scene when the stalker violated the order and my daughter pointed him out. Unfortunately the cop was assigned to direct traffic because of a fire and again nothing happened.

The stalker knew my daughter had a carry permit and carried a S&W Model 351 PD .22 magnum revolver and tried to get the judge to revoke the permit as he "feared she might shoot him." A mix up occurred at the courthouse and my daughter received a certified letter requiring her to turn in her permit. She contacted the judge who rectified the problem quickly.



I happened to witness a violation of the restraining order and I appeared in court to testify. The stalker spent several weekends in jail with the threat of a year in prison if he violated the order again. He appears to have learned a valuable lesson.

The bottom line here is that my daughter was glad that she had a carry permit. The stalker was a pain in the ass, but she had little fear of him. Since she is only 5 foot 2" and weights just over 100 pounds, had she not had a carry permit, she might have been terrified.

There is a very faint possibility that one day you might appreciate the fact that your husband has a carry permit. I would advise you to allow him to become proficient with his firearm.

Always remember:

“Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”
Jeff Cooper

[one-eyed fat man]

43. Here are a couple WOMEN who have.......

Jeanne Assam


Kim Munley

[Callisto32]

52. I EXPECT no one to run into a dangerous situation.

It is perfectly reasonable to act on your flight instincts in a violent situation, and I would fault nobody for choosing that course of action. Especially since I have personally done it on more than one occasion.

However, does that mean we should remove the OPTION of people to fight back? Speaking as someone who has also done this (without death on either side, thank God) I say no. Having and giving the true option to fight or flee, without worrying about half-baked laws removing your right to defend yourself as violently as the situation dictates, seems to be the only moral position one can take.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. It's our absentee test-taker! How did your gun purchase at Walmart go?

It's been two weeks. Where are the results?

For those unfamiliar with HockeyMom's work:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=331344

HockeyMom (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-21-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
72. Those incidents were 40 years ago
Forget that? NOTHING has happened since then. I am 62 now and will probably die of natural causes sooner than being killed by an assailant.

As far as voting booth? I am from a state that is very much pro gun control. They elect pro gun control (Dem or Rep) legislators. I need to move back THERE and not be where I now am where you can buy whatever you want in your local Walmart, no questions asked.



HockeyMom (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-21-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. you live in Pa, not Florida
All you need is a Driver's License to prove you are over 18.


HockeyMom (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-21-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #77
84. Ok, so I will TEST this myself
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 04:56 PM by HockeyMom
Just like Kansas did with his NRA membership. I will go to my local Walmart and buy one myself. See how "difficult" it is in comparison to NY; since I know how difficult it was for husband to get guns there.

If I have to "waste" $100 to prove a point; so be it. I can always resell it here. I am sure a lot of locals would love to have a real cheap gun. Maybe I will offer to sell it for $5 and see how many offers I get.

[one-eyed fat man]

58. Maybe they were all "good" New Yorkers.....

They weren't being held up or shot at they saw no reason to intervene. After all, it was the civic mindedness of New Yorkers that put "I didn't want to get involved," into the American lexicon.

Kitty Genovese, was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death within 100 feet her front door in Queens, New York on March 13, 1964. At least 38 individuals nearby apartments had heard or observed portions of the attack, which lasted over half an hour. One was quoted as having to turn up the volume on his TV to drown out the screaming. To New Yorkers' everlasting shame, the story crystallized around a quote from the article, from an unidentified neighbor who saw part of the attack but deliberated, before finally getting another neighbor to call the police, saying "I didn't want to get involved."

That scenario was seared on the national consciousness and has been repeated countless times in the past 46 years. But gratefully, we no longer have to read about cold-hearted New Yorkers turning their backs on hapless victims attacked by vicious criminals. Now that there are security cameras we get videos of the concern New Yorkers show for their fellow citizens by carefully stepping over the body of dying people, occasionally stopping to snap a picture of the dying man with their cell phone (but unwilling to call an ambulance, paramedics or the police) to the paragon of New York civic virtue, the guy who rolls the dead man for his wallet. The fact that he got stabbed coming to the aid of woman being mugged confirms he was homeless and couldn't have been from there! A native New Yorker would have turned up the volume on the TV to drown out the screaming.

New Yorkers refuse to aid dying man

[HockeyMom]

61. You are under no legal obligation to put your own life in danger

to save anyone else. That is what some of you are asking for if you think somebody with a gun should go into a building to risk their owns lives against a shooter. Call 911 and let those trained and with the legal responsibility deal with it.

[oneshooter]

62. And the Police are under no legal obligation to go in there either. n/t

[HockeyMom]

67. Actually, they ARE, even off duty

That is why they are allowed to carry their guns off duty. Just the same as if you are a teacher the kids are your responsibility, yes, even in a life or death situation. A parent is under the same legal obligation for their children.

We had this discussion in a criminal law class taught by a former DA. Who has a legal obligation to save other people?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. The US Supreme Court disagrees with you

While some cop might get in trouble for letting someone get away with it, you have no right to police protection and
they have no obligation to provide it. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x135469


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html


Coastie for Truth (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-27-05 11:24 PM
Original message
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

[X_Digger]

69. Police can not be held responsible for failing to protect you, even in NYC.

Gonzales v Castle Rock
DeShaney v Winnebago
Warren v DC

Please, catch up.

More generally- Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1968); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

Let's take one of the cases in NYC, way back from 1968

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y. 2d (1968)

Facts: Riss sued the City of New York for negligence alleging that the police failed to provide police protection. She was terrorized for months by an old boyfriend, and he threatened to kill or maim her. After that she received a phone call saying it was her last chance. The next day a thug hired by the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face causing blindness in one eye, and loss of a portion of vision in the other eye and permanent face scarring. She had asked for police protection many times.

Procedural History: Trial court dismissed her complaint and the appeals court affirmed.

Issue: Is a municipality liable for failure to provide special police protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered injuries for lack of protection?

Holding: No.

Reasoning:

* When the municipality might be subject to liability: In cases involving:
o Activities that displace or supplement traditionally private enterprises like rapid transit systems, hospitals, and places of public assembly
o Activities that provide services and facilities for the use of the public like highways, public buildings, etc.
o Reasoning: Because these services and facilities are for the direct use of members of the public
o This case involves governmental protection services from external hazards (such as controlling the activities of criminal wrongdoers
o if we were to permit tort liability for those who seek police protection based on specific hazards, then this would cause a determination as to how the limited resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits
o It should be left up to the legislature to determine how to use the resources and the scope of public responsibility
o Imposing liability in this case would not sure the problem of crime and it would bankrupt the city

[one-eyed fat man]

70. Case law indicates otherwise

In an especially gruesome landmark case the “no-duty” rule got ugly. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the scene, drove around the building and seeing nothing, left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched. This was exceptionally salacious as the tape recordings of the second 911 call were clearly and graphically punctuated by the sounds of an attack on the frantic caller, the subsequent struggle and was abruptly terminated. Facts would later show the attacker yanked the phone out of the wall and beat the woman with it.

The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed.

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

[Glassunion]

73. Nope. I'm afraid you are mistaken. nt

[HockeyMom]

76. It may not be federal law

but it apparently is NY law because I would think a former NY DA knows what he is talking about in law class?

[X_Digger]

77. Riss v. City of New York

Did this DA cite case law? If so, which case?

My only other question is, did you pass the class?

[cleanhippie]

83. Hahahahahahahahaha!

Did you pass the test! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Now THATS funny!

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. If he thinks NY State law overrides the Supremes, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

For that matter, anyone who passed high school civics should know that ain't so (see Proposition 8, or McDonald v. Chicago
for examples).

Unless and until your former DA teacher provided you with a actual citation of New York State law, I'm
gonna have say you are either the victim of an argument by authority, or are putting us on.

[Glassunion]

91. Again, I'm afraid you are mistaken.

My law professor was actually a former DA, and we had the current DA come in a few times.

Might I recommend you look up a few things to see for yourself.
1st: DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services,” where “the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.”

2nd: Coyne vs. City of Utica

3rd: Warren v. District of Columbia

4th: California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846. I know it is not NY, however it is a prime example of police duties. Remember, not all of us are lucky enough to live in NY... "Neither a public entity or a public employee for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

5th: Finally some NY case law... Riss v. New York. Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all
responsibility to her."

As you can see there is case law setting precedent in the state of NY, where the Supreme Court ruled that Law Enforcement is under no obligation to protect you. The only way your opinion would hold water would be as you said if there is a "NY law". As far as I am aware, there is not one statute on either the local, county or state level that dictates what the police are obligated to do. I tried searching, statutes for the state and NY City. Where was this former DA from? It would be interesting to see the local laws for where the DA was from.

Again, you are mistaken.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964230445/disinformation

[cowman]

93. No their not

My oldest daughter and she said that off duty she is under no obligation to intervene in crime in progress.

[one-eyed fat man]

72. You seem to want it both ways.

You complain no one with a CCW stopped a shooting in Miami.

By the way, when you are at Wal-Mart looking for that cheap handgun you can buy with no questions asked, to save you some time and trouble so you know what you're looking for, here is a picture of it.

[cleanhippie]

82. EXACTLY!!!!!!

You are under no legal obligation to put your own life in danger..

So what was the point of your initial response upthread then?

[cleanhippie]

81. What are you getting at?

While the point you make is valid, as having CCW certainly does NOT corellate to LESS crime, but at the same time you make the point that CCW does not make MORE crime.
By your logic, you would have no reason to restrict or limit legal gun ownership, right? SO what was the point your were trying to make?

[MichaelHarris]

23. you don't?

Or do you selectively read the news? http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/254058/sniper_kills_4_in_moscow_idaho.html

"After all the bloodshed, Jason Hamilton would shoot 205 rounds of ammunition, injure two, kill four people, and scar a town for life."

This happened at a sheriff's station where they have lots of guns.

[X_Digger]

26. RIF.. reading is fundamental

"the shooting started in the parking lot across the street from the courthouse."

Compare to spin's statement- "I don't hear of many mass murders in police stations in this country. "

See the difference? If it still eludes you, ask for help.

[spin]

42. Your google fu is good ...

But as pointed out by X_Digger in post #26 it may not apply.

But I'll still give you credit. I searched and never found any mention of the incident. Good work.

[MichaelHarris]

44. I was

there

[spin]

45. That explains a lot. (n/t)

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MichaelHarris]

50. outside?

where everyone was safe? Sure, they were safe, this is 7.62x39mm rounds through the windows:





Like I said, I was there. Would you feel safe with that coming through the windows? You should really feel owned right about now.

[one-eyed fat man]

71. Clarification?

Are you saying these are pictures of rounds fired inside the building coming out?

Or are the pictures of rounds fired AT the building and windows going in?

[cleanhippie]

86. Oh, oh, oh, Mr. Kotter! Me, me, please call on me!

They came from the OUTSIDE!!!!!!!

[rrneck]

53. Well,

even a blind hog will root up an acorn in a rut every now and then.

[Katya Mullethov]

54. That was easy to find

David Duke worked that one. And that's why I ran across his name , and felt he might be the one to ask about any epic AK wavers in his general viscosity .

[MichaelHarris]

94. I know David Duke

He's never heard of you.

[Katya Mullethov]

96. Hey Mike , you know a cat by the name of Katya Mullethov ?

Uhhhhhh ......no Mike .

[cleanhippie]

85. FAIL of EPIC proportions!

Uh, I hate to tell you this, but the shooting you so cleverly posted did NOT happen in a police station.

Fail. EPIC FAIL.

[slackmaster]

7. What a stupid thing to say - Did you learn NOTHING from the last thread you started here?

"Well if all of the employees had been packing heat, this could have ended peacefully!"

Straw Man.

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=331344&mesg_id=331344

[Remmah2]

8. The police were of no use either.

There's never a cop around when you need one. Maybe we should just fire all the police.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Anyone know if this was a "gun free zone"?

[Glassunion]

14. What a pile of shit...

I like how you like to invent your points out of thin air. You made up the assumtion that an "enthusiast" would have said something and then use it to prove your point.

You negate your point when you falsely argue both sides.

Do you have a real point or topic that you would like to discuss or would you rather invent a point of debate?

[oneshooter]

15. When did YOU start using Fox News as a source?

From the article:

Thorton was described by John Hollis, a Teamsters Union official, as a recent hire who worked as a driver. Hollis told the Courant that "the union was bringing him in to meet with the company to remedy" a "disciplinary problem."

A high-ranking union official says Thornton was caught on tape stealing beer.

Sounds like he was caught stealing product and when caught went postal.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[KansasVoter]

18. LOL......

:rofl:

[safeinOhio]

20. More information on shooter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_re_us/us_beer_distributor_shootings



Manchester Police Chief Marc Montminy says 34-year-old Omar Thornton had been offered the chance to quit or be fired. Montminy says Thornton was being led away from the meeting when he pulled out a handgun and started shooting.
Hannah described Thornton as an easygoing guy who liked to play sports and video games. She said he had a pistol permit and had planned to teach her daughter how to use a gun.

Some one on the scene did have a CCW.

[MichaelHarris]

21. Once again

not one CCW holder stopped a mass shooting. This time one started one.

[Glassunion]

24. Who? I read the story.

It did not mention a CCWer being present.

[krispos42]

46. How would you know?

CCW carrier shoots, kills a convenience-store armed robber. Did he just prevent a mass shooting? :shrug:


I can't say and you can't either. Remember, if the CCW holder shoots a guy during a mass shooting, he/she had, by definition, failed to stop a mass shooting. If the CCW holder shoots a guy before a mass shooting, by definition there is no mass shooting. There is just a shooting.

[cleanhippie]

88. He had a CCW permit? I did not see that. Can you point out where is states that?

[Glassunion]

22. Some one on the scene did have a CCW. Who? I read the source you linked.

[X_Digger]

28. CT requires a permit to purchase a handgun

We don't know if the 'pistol permit' is a CHL or merely a permit to possess.

Nice of you to jump to conclusions, though.

[Euromutt]

74. Plus, the source is the gunman's girlfriend's mother

Not an official source, not corroborated by an official source. She might have misunderstood (purchase permit vs. carry permit), he might have lied to her about having a carry permit, who the hell knows? Until it's corroborated by documentary evidence, it's just hearsay.

[X_Digger]

75. I'm sure it won't stop the VPC claiming it. n/t

[cleanhippie]

87. Where did you find that info that a CCW holder was on the scene?

[proteus_lives]

27. As expected from you.

Too bad you never actually have anything to say.

[rrneck]

40. 36 posts so far

off that flamebait, and you haven't said anything of substance yet.

Still batting 1000 on flamebait and 0 on substance.

[krispos42]

47. Whew. Thank god Connecticut has a 14-day waiting period to buy a gun.

And that they ban "assault weapons" and >10-capacity magazines.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Callisto32]

51. Did you write a macro to type "enthusiasts" that you are really proud of, or something?

[Xenotime]

55. It was a good thing they weren't "packing" otherwise there might have been more deaths.

[Callisto32]

56. Yeah, it's awesome when disparity of force in favor of the bad folks lets them run amok.

[spin]

59. If I was a shooter ...

I would love to go to a shooting gallery.



I heard this fool had 45 minutes to hunt people down. One person with a firearm MIGHT have cut this time down and saved lives.

The fact remains that few people would visit a shooting gallery if some of the targets could shoot back.

And few hunters would dare to hunt deer if they were armed.

[benEzra]

60. Yeah, like in the Colorado Springs church shooting. Oh, wait...

the CHL holder shot and incapacitated the murderer with her 9mm before he could kill a single person inside the building; the only fatalities there were two people he shot in the parking lot on the way in.

If anybody ever breaks into your house, don't call the police, because they'll bring teh evil gunz which will cause many more deaths. :eyes:

[cleanhippie]

78. Can you show even ONE example of anyone actually saying that? Just one?

I dare you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Of course he can't. Lots of straw in Kansas, it would seem n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

92. I triple dog dare you !

In a breach of etiquette , Mullethov skips the triple dare , and goes right for the throat .

[one-eyed fat man]

97. Shooter was on phone with 911

http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/hartford-distributors-shooter-omar-thornton-was-selling-beer-to-3rd-party/19582954?ncid=webmail

HARTFORD, Conn. (Aug. 5) -- A black man who went on a shooting rampage at a beer distributor calmly told a 911 operator that it was "a racist place" and that he "handled the problem" but wished he had shot more people.

Connecticut State Police released the audio of the four-minute 911 call on Thursday, the day company and union officials rebutted suggestions that the company had ignored Thornton's complaints of racism.

Company personnell, other minority empolyees and Union officials all deny the charges of racism. An interesting comment by a girlfriend indicates a possibility the problems may have been either with him or in his head.

Thornton's ex-girlfriend, Jessica Anne Brocuglio, told The Associated Press on Thursday that he had a history of racial problems with co-workers at other jobs and believed he was denied pay raises because of his race.

She said he told her: "I'm sick of having to quit jobs and get another job because they can't accept me."

Was he caught stealing at those other jobs too? Will this turn out to be another case of someone taking revenge on others, blaming the world for their personal failures?