The case against guns

[Gallstones]

Made from items all purchased beyond the TSA gate at the airport

[Gallstones]

Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality Sarah Thompson, M.D.

What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one’s own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn’t have to own them.(3) In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,(4) so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.
...
Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.
...
Anti–gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.
...
In the case of anti–gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.
...
In my experience, the common thread in anti–gun people is rage. Either anti–gun people harbor more rage than others, or they’re less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can’t handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner

Etc...

[Gallstones]

5 Lessons Learned from a Deadly Encounter with and Unarmed Subject

[orpheus]

5 Lessons Learned from a Deadly Encounter with and Unarmed Subject

The cop was in the wrong. According to the cop's own account, the man had not done anything illegal. He had turned to walk away. He had not attacked the cops. It was the cop who initiated physical force, and he was wrong to do so.

In other words, the man was exercising his legitimate right to self-defense - something which is rather often sanctified here.

[mistermack]

The cop was in the wrong. According to the cop's own account, the man had not done anything illegal. He had turned to walk away. He had not attacked the cops. It was the cop who initiated physical force, and he was wrong to do so.

In other words, the man was exercising his legitimate right to self-defense - something which is rather often sanctified here.

I agree, and incidents like this illustrate what's wrong with guns.
The cop was over-confident, and over-aggressive, because he knew he had his gun, and was effectively ''licensed to kill''. Operating without guns makes cops behave in a different way. He wouldn't have gone alone with the guy, and he wouldn't have been so ignorant and aggressive.
People are forever posting about how pig-ignorant American cops can be. It's the guns that put them in that frame of mind.

[Seth]

5 Lessons Learned from a Deadly Encounter with and Unarmed Subject

The cop was in the wrong. According to the cop's own account, the man had not done anything illegal. He had turned to walk away. He had not attacked the cops. It was the cop who initiated physical force, and he was wrong to do so.

In other words, the man was exercising his legitimate right to self-defense - something which is rather often sanctified here.

Nope. The cop was in the right. The man was being detained while the situation was being investigated under authority granted by the Supreme Court in several cases. This is called a "Stone stop" or a "Stone/Terry stop" referring to Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court ruled that police have the authority to temporarily detain a person, and even handcuff them for officer safety, while they are diligently pursuing a criminal investigation. This authority allows the police to "stop" any person whom they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion about and require them to stay in one place while they figure out what's happening. This temporary detention is limited in both time and place in order to not be considered an arrest, for which probable cause is required. The officer may order the individual to move or remain in a specific area in order to separate parties, maintain the peace, and for officer safety reasons. They may use reasonable and appropriate physical force in detaining someone and controlling their movements. They may handcuff the individual if they have reason to believe officer safety requires it. They may pat down the subject ONLY for weapons, but may not enter pockets or otherwise search if no weapons are detected. While detained, the individual is required to submit to the directions of the police, and a refusal to do so is a crime for which they can be arrested.

In this case the officer properly separated the husband from the wife so he could investigate to see if a crime had been committed. No force was used to get the suspect away from the porch and a discussion was ongoing when the suspect attempted to go back to the house. The officer correctly used minimal physical force to prevent the suspect from doing so, which is authorized under Stone-Terry. The suspect then instantly and unlawfully attacked the officer with deadly force and did in fact cause serious bodily harm to the officer, which fully justified the eventual use of lethal force by officers.

When one is detained, or arrested, one is required by law to submit peacefully and follow the lawful orders of the police. Refusing to do so is a crime. Assaulting a police officer merely because he tried to gently enforce his command to remain in place is also a crime. Responding to an officer blocking you and placing a restraining hand on you while you are lawfully detained by violently attacking him does not qualify as "self defense" because there was no unlawful use of force by the officer.

Officer was fully justified in using lethal force.

[Seth]

The cop was in the wrong. According to the cop's own account, the man had not done anything illegal. He had turned to walk away. He had not attacked the cops. It was the cop who initiated physical force, and he was wrong to do so.

In other words, the man was exercising his legitimate right to self-defense - something which is rather often sanctified here.

I agree, and incidents like this illustrate what's wrong with guns.
The cop was over-confident, and over-aggressive, because he knew he had his gun, and was effectively ''licensed to kill''. Operating without guns makes cops behave in a different way. He wouldn't have gone alone with the guy, and he wouldn't have been so ignorant and aggressive.
People are forever posting about how pig-ignorant American cops can be. It's the guns that put them in that frame of mind.

You're simply wrong here. The cop was NOT "ignorant and aggressive," he did exactly what was called for and what the law authorized him to do.

[orpheus]

5 Lessons Learned from a Deadly Encounter with and Unarmed Subject

The cop was in the wrong. According to the cop's own account, the man had not done anything illegal. He had turned to walk away. He had not attacked the cops. It was the cop who initiated physical force, and he was wrong to do so.

In other words, the man was exercising his legitimate right to self-defense - something which is rather often sanctified here.

Nope. The cop was in the right. The man was being detained while the situation was being investigated under authority granted by the Supreme Court in several cases. This is called a "Stone stop" or a "Stone/Terry stop" referring to Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court ruled that police have the authority to temporarily detain a person, and even handcuff them for officer safety, while they are diligently pursuing a criminal investigation. This authority allows the police to "stop" any person whom they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion about and require them to stay in one place while they figure out what's happening. This temporary detention is limited in both time and place in order to not be considered an arrest, for which probable cause is required. The officer may order the individual to move or remain in a specific area in order to separate parties, maintain the peace, and for officer safety reasons. They may use reasonable and appropriate physical force in detaining someone and controlling their movements. They may handcuff the individual if they have reason to believe officer safety requires it. They may pat down the subject ONLY for weapons, but may not enter pockets or otherwise search if no weapons are detected. While detained, the individual is required to submit to the directions of the police, and a refusal to do so is a crime for which they can be arrested.

In this case the officer properly separated the husband from the wife so he could investigate to see if a crime had been committed. No force was used to get the suspect away from the porch and a discussion was ongoing when the suspect attempted to go back to the house. The officer correctly used minimal physical force to prevent the suspect from doing so, which is authorized under Stone-Terry. The suspect then instantly and unlawfully attacked the officer with deadly force and did in fact cause serious bodily harm to the officer, which fully justified the eventual use of lethal force by officers.

When one is detained, or arrested, one is required by law to submit peacefully and follow the lawful orders of the police. Refusing to do so is a crime. Assaulting a police officer merely because he tried to gently enforce his command to remain in place is also a crime. Responding to an officer blocking you and placing a restraining hand on you while you are lawfully detained by violently attacking him does not qualify as "self defense" because there was no unlawful use of force by the officer.

Officer was fully justified in using lethal force.

Nope.

In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a ‘full’ search, even though it remains a serious intrusion. (392 U.S. at 26)
Chief Justice Warren continued:
The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. (392 U.S. at 29)

( bold mine )

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

[Seth]

5 Lessons Learned from a Deadly Encounter with and Unarmed Subject

The cop was in the wrong. According to the cop's own account, the man had not done anything illegal. He had turned to walk away. He had not attacked the cops. It was the cop who initiated physical force, and he was wrong to do so.

In other words, the man was exercising his legitimate right to self-defense - something which is rather often sanctified here.

Nope. The cop was in the right. The man was being detained while the situation was being investigated under authority granted by the Supreme Court in several cases. This is called a "Stone stop" or a "Stone/Terry stop" referring to Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court ruled that police have the authority to temporarily detain a person, and even handcuff them for officer safety, while they are diligently pursuing a criminal investigation. This authority allows the police to "stop" any person whom they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion about and require them to stay in one place while they figure out what's happening. This temporary detention is limited in both time and place in order to not be considered an arrest, for which probable cause is required. The officer may order the individual to move or remain in a specific area in order to separate parties, maintain the peace, and for officer safety reasons. They may use reasonable and appropriate physical force in detaining someone and controlling their movements. They may handcuff the individual if they have reason to believe officer safety requires it. They may pat down the subject ONLY for weapons, but may not enter pockets or otherwise search if no weapons are detected. While detained, the individual is required to submit to the directions of the police, and a refusal to do so is a crime for which they can be arrested.

In this case the officer properly separated the husband from the wife so he could investigate to see if a crime had been committed. No force was used to get the suspect away from the porch and a discussion was ongoing when the suspect attempted to go back to the house. The officer correctly used minimal physical force to prevent the suspect from doing so, which is authorized under Stone-Terry. The suspect then instantly and unlawfully attacked the officer with deadly force and did in fact cause serious bodily harm to the officer, which fully justified the eventual use of lethal force by officers.

When one is detained, or arrested, one is required by law to submit peacefully and follow the lawful orders of the police. Refusing to do so is a crime. Assaulting a police officer merely because he tried to gently enforce his command to remain in place is also a crime. Responding to an officer blocking you and placing a restraining hand on you while you are lawfully detained by violently attacking him does not qualify as "self defense" because there was no unlawful use of force by the officer.

Officer was fully justified in using lethal force.

Nope.

Yup.

In Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren wrote
Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a ‘full’ search, even though it remains a serious intrusion. (392 U.S. at 26)
Chief Justice Warren continued:
The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. (392 U.S. at 29)

( bold mine )

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop[/quote]

That's what I said. This incident has nothing to do with an illegal search, it has to do with the detainee violently lashing out and brutally attacking the officer without any justification for doing so. The officer was not attempting to unlawfully assault or kill the detainee, which would have justified a "self-defense" claim. He merely attempted to restrain the detainee from returning to the house by interposing his body and placing his hand on the detainee's chest. At that point the detainee violently attacked the officer and several attempts by the officer and others to subdue the detainee failed, including using a Taser on him. The officer in fact suffered serious bodily harm by having his eye torn from its socket, and he perfectly reasonably believed he was in mortal danger, which justified his use of deadly force.

The situation went from a Terry/Stone detention to the commission of a violent crime the instant the detainee swung at the officer, which authorized the officer to use all necessary and appropriate physical force to subdue him, and the detainees refusal to surrender and his brutal attack eventually justified the use of deadly force in self-defense.

[mistermack]

In situations like this, I'm convinced that cops are killing people to prevent them from giving their own version of events.
You get it time after time. The cop gives a version where the dead person has instigated the violence, gone mad for no reason, and the cop had no option.
And Seth and others believe every single word. WHY? If you've just killed someone, your own account should be treated with the utmost scepticism. But when it's a cop, it's treated like fucking gospel.

So if you're a cop, what would you do, if you caused a fight, and it got out of control? Shoot to kill of course. And that's what they are doing. And not just cops, assholes like Zimmerman are picking up on the message.
But, what does it matter, so long as it's not YOUR brother, or son, or father.

What pisses me off in the UK is that they've made it illegal to film the cops. So if you catch them up to no good, it's YOU who will face the music, not them.

[Seth]

In situations like this, I'm convinced that cops are killing people to prevent them from giving their own version of events.

That's a valid concern and it definitely happens.

You get it time after time. The cop gives a version where the dead person has instigated the violence, gone mad for no reason, and the cop had no option.

Well, this guy had a "reason" for getting violent: He was drunk. And he had a history of drunkenness and a record of assaulting police before: "Records indicate he’d been arrested several times for public intoxication and had been convicted 12 years earlier for assaulting a peace officer..."

And Seth and others believe every single word. WHY? If you've just killed someone, your own account should be treated with the utmost scepticism. But when it's a cop, it's treated like fucking gospel.

According to the article the case was investigated and it's not the cop's word against the dead man's because there were other witnesses and ample forensic evidence of the assault.

So if you're a cop, what would you do, if you caused a fight, and it got out of control? Shoot to kill of course.

It's possible, but then again your insistence that every police shooting is an act of deliberate murder is pretty ludicrious.

And that's what they are doing. And not just cops, assholes like Zimmerman are picking up on the message.

What message is that? Perhaps the "when someone is trying to bash your brains out on the sidewalk or is trying to rip your eyes out and is tearing your face apart it's justifiable to use deadly physical force in self-defense?" Yeah, I think that's a pretty good message myself.

But, what does it matter, so long as it's not YOUR brother, or son, or father.

Just because you're related to someone doesn't mean they aren't an asshole and a violent criminal.

What pisses me off in the UK is that they've made it illegal to film the cops. So if you catch them up to no good, it's YOU who will face the music, not them.

Now THAT is utterly wrong, and it stems from not having a First Amendment. The trend here is towards equipping police officers with individual digital video cameras that they must wear on their uniforms and must keep recording while on shift. I favor that as a requirement for all police officers because the technology now exists at a reasonable per-officer cost.

[Gallstones]

[Hermit]

While I sympathise with the principle behind "stand your ground" legislation, this court ruling is absurd.

[Seth]

While I sympathise with the principle behind "stand your ground" legislation, this court ruling is absurd.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly it's tragic, and certainly the defendant was a dick-head for shooting someone without being sure of his target, but the court ruled that he did have a reasonable fear of imminent deadly danger. Unfortunately he applied that fear to the wrong vehicle by mistake. I can't condone what he did at all because he should have taken cover and waited to fire till he verified his target as being the correct one. However, the court ruled according to the law, and it's being appealed and I suspect the higher courts will not buy into the notion that even a reasonable fear justifies shooting the wrong person, even if it might absolve someone who wounds or kills a bystander because he missed his shot or it ricocheted or something.

However, I must agree with the defense attorney that the ones responsible for the innocent young man's death are the thugs who instigated the event in the first place, under the felony murder rule.

During the August hearing, Rutherford said the real villains in this case were the carload of teens that followed Scott’s daughter and her friends home from a club. They should be charged with “felony murder,” a charge that means that they caused Niles’ death, even though Scott was the one who put the bullet in his head, Rutherford said.

If a store owner shoots and mistakenly kills a bystander during an armed robbery, Rutherford said, the store owner isn’t charged with the bystander’s murder, but the robber.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/10/09/ ... rylink=cpy

[Blind groper]

I have now finished reading the book on the history of violence by Harvard University Professor of Psychology, Steven Pinker.

While he does not dwell on the gun issue, it is very clear that his research has shown that one of the things that has perpetuated violence in human society is the vigilante mind set.

That is : those people who are determined to carry out their own form of justice, rather than relying on the authorities, are perpetuating and increasing levels of violence in society.

There is little or no difference in the mind set of a violent criminal and a person who decides to use "self defense" principles to harm others. The violent criminals justify their own actions using their own weird code, such as justifying a murder by telling themselves that the victim brought it on himself. The vigilante, who uses violence to "defend himself" rather than use the police for protection, uses very similar self justifying arguments, but is doing as much harm to society as that criminal. The more people using the vigilante approach, the more violent society is.

Professor Pinker, who has done years of research into the causes of violence, makes it very clear that personal action such as advocated by Seth, is harming society and exacerbating violence, and leading to more, not fewer, killings.