Guns in the News, week of 12 Sept 2011

[iverglas]

By popular demand!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=460523&mesg_id=460881

Here is what the practice was in this forum in the old days:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&biw=1024&bih=640&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22guns+in+the+news%22&btnG=Search

Rather than news reports about guns and the people who use them / against whom they are used being posted individually all over the board, they were collected in a single thread.

Now -- this might not work these days in what may be a more active forum. The threads could become elephantine (and thus contravene the other former unwritten rule: 200 posts and it gets locked). Maybe a daily "Guns in the News" thread? ;)

Please try to adhere to the following voluntary guidelines, in order that we can have an orderly discussion of gun-related news topics:

1 Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.

2 Both pro-gun and anti-gun* stories, editorials, and press releases are welcome in this thread, as long as they're current. Please do not post links to items from a few years back that support your position.

3 Bear in mind that any links to extremely right-wing sites (such as Newsmax, CNS, or the Washington Times) or intentionally pro-gun or pro-control* sites (such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.

4 Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.

5 If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.

6 The person adding a news story to the "GITN" thread is allowed (and encouraged) to comment on that story, indicating their position on the topic being discussed. These comments can appear either at the beginning or end of the post; if possible, place comments in a different typeface so readers can separate the comments from the story. Others who wish to comment on a posted story can do so by replying to that story; this allows other readers to follow the comments by scrolling through the subthread.

7 Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any message that appears to be a personal attack against another DU-er or a violation of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.

8 If you object to these guidelines, do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

* in the interests of harmony, I'd recommend altering these bits to say something like "news reports offered as support for any policy position on firearms", howzat?


Anybody want to go first? ;)

Even if we don't adopt the format, maybe we could adopt some of the spirit ...

[iverglas]

1. well, maybe ...

Separate weekly threads?

"Firearms used against (alleged) perpetrators of crimes, week of x x x"

"Firearms used against victims of (alleged) crimes, week of x x x"

;)

[jmg257]

2. Hi Iverglas. What would you consider proper

for how much of the story should be quoted in the OP, vs. left for a responder to read on their own via a link?

[petronius]

4. Actually, DU has specific rules about that, about not violating copyright

"Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding three or four paragraphs) with a link back to the original."

There have been lawsuits, as I understand it, so care is indicated...

[jmg257]

5. OK thanks for the heads up! I second (3rd) the idea. nt

[iverglas]

6. personally

I find it really annoying when someone gives a link but *no* excerpt -- so my own recommendation is an excerpt of sufficient non-infringing length to explain the event. ;)

[petronius]

3. I move to accept the proposed textual amendment

:)

[AtheistCrusader]

7. K&R

Win win, people who just absolutely need to post anecdotes still can, and we can finally see the real meat of the folder again, without all the noise.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. k&r

still at zero.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. It's apparently boring it's way to the center of the earth.

Hope it doesn't take the DU servers down on the way.

[iverglas]

11. boring? my thread is boring??

Fine talk.

Been watching Torchwood, have we? ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

14. You have no idea how mad I was going to be

if I had misspelled that.

You totally made me look.

[petronius]

12. Hey, I did it! First time I've ever recced (IIRC), and it bumped to positive

Get a screen-cap, quick! :rofl:

[iverglas]

13. it must be time

[iverglas]

18. and (oops, ssh)

It's up to 4 mow!

Too late for more, I guess.


Well I just got all excited, didn't I?

4 now.

[iverglas]

9. well, how about we kick it off next Monday?

Maybe somebody whose name isn't iverglas would volunteer? ;)

Maybe the separate threads idea?

Meanwhile, is it time for the Tuesday bad joke thread?

Sample: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x63205

[AtheistCrusader]

15. To hell with waiting for monday.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Citizen-who-arrested-suspected-shooter-127158208.html

CPL holder arrests shooter, without firing a shot.

[iverglas]

17. hmm

Do people here carry firearms in order to be able to arrest people?

No injury or death or other crime prevented it seems ...

Interesting, though. Nobody ever seems to mention this when talking about those "DGU"s that don't involve shooting. Mugger demands money, target shows gun, mugger runs away. Target never seems to say "stop, I am arresting you". Too bad.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Some do.

However, case law gets murky. If you say 'lay down' and the aggressor runs away instead, you are generally not justified in shooting (morally or legally), but there have been exceptions at court. It's kind of a mess.

In this case, since the shooter was running toward him with a weapon, my co-worker probably just could have shot him and been done with it. Would have likely been ruled justifiable. He went the extra mile, and simply prevented someone who just committed a crime from escaping. Good stuff. Proper use of the 'militia' and all that.

Section 2, and bits of 4 would apply. We do certainly have citizens arrest. Some people try, most, probably, do not. (Definition of Necessary posted below)



9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.



<1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § [br />
9A.16.020.]

Notes:



Effective date -- 1979 ex.s. c 244: See RCW 9A.44.902.

Purpose -- Intent -- Severability -- 1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.





9A.16.010
Definitions.

In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:

(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.



<1986 c 209 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § [br />

[iverglas]

22. oh lord

In this case, since the shooter was running toward him with a weapon, my co-worker probably just could have shot him and been done with it.

Never mind that he had intentionally put himself in the path of someone who was clearly running away and not making any thread to anyone.

Our current right-wing government has been mucking about with the law of arrest by a member of the public ... I won't trouble you with that now. ;)

Your 9A.16.020 (1) and (2) there look remarkably similar to the present Criminal Code provisions here, as I recall them.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Yeah, he definitely 'engaged'.

I am very pleased that he did the right thing, and not just what he could have legally done.

I could see people being alarmed though, even though the altercation was just between two people. One might reasonably be concerned for the safety of others, since the shooter was fleeing, one can assume the shooter was not engaged in a lawful act.

[spin]

21. Interesting story that turned out well. (n/t)

[Remmah2]

16. Proper title shoule be: Weekly Media Bias About Guns In the News. nt

nt

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.