1 - 10 Next
For a look at what's in store for Chicago as a result of "looser" gun laws, look to Detroit. After decades of it being very difficult just to purchase a pistol in Detroit, a reasonably liberal Concealed Weapons law took effect in 2001. Crime numbers have been dropping steadily ever since.
What would happen to a "civilian" for killing someone under the same circumstances? Is there any reason to treat a LEO any differently than anyone else? To put it a different way, is there any reason to hold a LEO to a different or lower standard than anyone else?
"Don't break the law and obey the commands of the police officer and you'll be fine!" Sure. John Crawford, in Walmart, didn't break the law, never got a chance to obey any commands. Tamir Rice didn't break any laws, never heard any commands. Edward Miller in Florida didn't break any laws, couldn't hear commands. Sixteen people outside the Empire State Building didn't break any laws, never heard any commands, got shot along with the guy the cops were taking down. Hey! No problem. It can all be straightened out in court, right? No one has the right to resist a police officer? What hogwash! Police have no authority to assault a citizen without resistance. (Arrest and whatever force is NECESSARY to accomplish that are not "assault". Neither is "posturing" in front of an officer, nor "touching" them in the absence of any actual hostility.) Apologies to the law and order crowd, but when an officer behaves in a criminal manner, it is absolutely legal to resist him, with lethal force if necessary.
OMG! We'd have to start treating it like...alcohol!! Thank goodness none of those commie/hippie/pinkos have caught on to the possibilities for the abuse of dihydrogen monoxide. With any luck we'll be able to keep a legal cap on that for the next century.
I guess I'm just dumb, but if I wanted to start a brewery somewhere where the licensing authority had no provisions for breweries, I'd assume that I didn't need a license...and flog my lawyers into supporting that position in winning style in court.
In response to:

The Future of the Gun

Schism Wrote: Sep 14, 2014 8:18 PM
It's called, "evolution in action"...
"This Week's Economic Data Should Be Taken With a Large Grain of Salt!" You mean there's so much "meat" there that it will take a large dose of salt to properly season it? Or maybe not...
In response to:

Ferguson and the Militarization Myth

Schism Wrote: Aug 23, 2014 4:27 PM
In all honesty, I'm not sure exactly where to start. You've go so many jingoistic, pro-force, pro-cop myths going here as to be completely opaque. "However, most SWAT elements do employ the use of fully automatic weapons, enhanced body armor, and equipment to address special threats and circumstances. But, far from "military" these teams are subject to the same rules of deadly force and civil liability as any other law enforcement officer. SWAT doesn't employ the use of hand grenades or bayonets, nor can they call in an air strike from a loitering drone. The bad guys have automatic weapons and so does SWAT, end of story." Point one, SWAT is was indeed developed to address "special threats and circumstances." So why is SWAT being deployed over 70,000 times a year across the country, with a significantly low fraction of these events resulting in any serious arrest or finding of meaningful evidence. And, for "elite troops", how is it possible for them to wind up at so many wrong addresses and shooting so many people who aren't even suspects? Hand grenades? Do you really want to go there in the light of the 9 month old baby who had one go off in his face, in his crib? Permanent injuries from a "distraction device", anyone? And please don't even start on the "same laws as everyone else" routine. If I ran around shooting family pets like SWAT does, I'd be spending a lot of time in jail. If I shot unarmed people on my property because "I felt in fear of my life", I'd be in jail. Even with a Castle Law and a Stand Your Ground Law, I'd be in jail. If I left homes splintered and partially disassembled behind me, I'd be paying for repair of damages for the rest of my life. "Qualified Immunity" is not invoked for the benefit of those hosting SWAT teams. It's not the equipment, John. It's the attitudes behind that equipment. The feeling on the part of so many LEO's, and "civilians" in reverse, that the cops are really all that's holding society together in the face of medieval hordes, and that most of those who give LEO's any static whatsoever prove, by their very resistance, that they are part of those hordes and therefore deserving of whatever measures any LEO wishes to dish out to them that get the rest of us resisting in fact.
So. Explain how Tomahawk missiles, using GPS, can hit within 10 meters of their target spot...every time.
I note that the article complains about a specific problem, notes is seriousness...and completely fails to say WHY this inaccuracy exists. Are there technical problems that prevent accurate locating? What are they? (Oh, you're calling from INSIDE a building! That doesn't define a technical problem, it merely implies one.) Is there some impact on the cell phone company's bottom line that contributes to this? Not discussed. This is not an article of analysis, it's just rabble rousing.
1 - 10 Next