Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
Distressing, but shows reality...
Last edited:
Christ almighty...
SCOTUS will put paid to it.
It’ll be interesting to see if they choose to hear this before any of the Trump ballot lawsuits.
Outstanding...
I'm quite conflicted on this. A lot of people at the school and local authority level are likely able to escape responsibility by supporting the parents to take the fall. Her attorney was also horrendous.
The genesis of the tragedy was when the parents got the kid the gun (& poorly secured it). The rest is a bit superfluous imo.
As much as I would like to get all the guns banned or heavily restricted, I think is not fair if she receive a harsh punishment. He was 15-16. Another thing would be the mother of the 6 years old. Leaving guns around to the point the 6 years old picks it up
But though a parent sure share responsibility on a 15-16 years old actions, shouldn't be that harsh IMO
But though a parent sure share responsibility on a 15-16 years old actions, shouldn't be that harsh IMO
There was some gross negligence on the part of school admin and local law enforcement though when you really read into the case. The prosecutor made some deals with people to get to this point. I'm not disagreeing the parents bear a significant responsibility but allowing others who could have helped prevent his to dance off into the distance isn't the feel good result it may appear to be imho.
She should receive the max penalty allowable by law.
We have different opinions, yes
Seems like a stretch to me to convict someone of involuntary manslaughter for the actions of another person, who themselves is culpable for the crime.
Also I have serious problems with them reading out the diary to the jury when there is no evidence that she read it or had any knowledge of the content, the witness then going off into an incredibly unprofessional and prejudicial diatribe when asked by the defence about that saying if she had seen it they would have charged her with murder, and bringing up an extra marital affair to 'impeach' her mothering. Stinks to be honest.
Also I have serious problems with them reading out the diary to the jury when there is no evidence that she read it or had any knowledge of the content, the witness then going off into an incredibly unprofessional and prejudicial diatribe when asked by the defence about that saying if she had seen it they would have charged her with murder, and bringing up an extra marital affair to 'impeach' her mothering. Stinks to be honest.
Not if you provided them with the means to do it when they would otherwise have not been able to acquire said means themselves.
So if they bought him a car, were teaching him to drive, they took the keys away, but he stole them and he decided to run people over would they be criminally culpable?
No no, not the car analogy again.
I actually don't know what the gun laws are like in Michigan but in some states minors are allowed guns under adult supervision. From the bits I saw of the trial they were taking him to the gun range with it.
I'm actually not a 2A person, but you have to live in the reality of that in the US
Logic is a bit wonky. If it's his car he cannot steal it. But anyway car and gun comparisons are never as good as folks think they are.
Typically this means allowed to use (possess) guns under adult supervision when engaged in legal activities (i.e. hunting or target shooting).
I appreciate what he's saying, even if he is a scummy criminal defense attorney but firearms require a higher standard of care so in this instance the outcome is correct as firearms are inherently likely to cause serious harm or death when used. They bought him the gun and taught him how to use it. They have some culpability for what happened next.
Prosecutors are far scummier than defence lawyers these days.
Having been in court as both a juror and a witness I'm going to have to disagree, but being Canadian may skew that perspective.
Good. Also, nice to see the lawyer patrol rock up to explain why a car and gun are totally the same thing. Funny that though, only one of those requires an education course, supervised training, a state administered competency test, a state administered test on the rules of operation, a permit while learning, a license to operate, and insurance.
Hawaii court says 'spirit of Aloha' supersedes Constitution, Second Amandment
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ha...-supersedes-constitution-second-amendment.amp
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ha...-supersedes-constitution-second-amendment.amp
Works for me. SCOTUS has been making shit up to justify their agenda the last few years, might as well do some good with that mentality. It will be reversed in about 2 minutes mind you, but I'll take it.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3tZrpoPqkf/?igsh=MWIweW45YW10OHU5MA==
This Team Trace/NewYorker is good - was always clear a guy called La Pierre would be a pussy/faker.
I think you need to explain yourself with that bizarre statement.
I've watched a lot of US trials in the post COVID years, mainly in Wisconsin and Florida as they have been a lot more open with cameras in court and in my experience prosecutors have been more likely to bend or break rules or cover up etc.
Particular cases that come to mind are Rittenhouse (5a issues, disclosure issues), YNW Melly (disclosure issues) and Zak Anderson (grubby way of getting prejudicial info in front of the jury with no way for the defence to get a remedy)
The latter two were probably guilty of the crime based on the evidence provided but dirty tricks were being played to secure the conviction (they failed so far with YNW Melly which had a hung jury, and the prosecutor was forced off the case)
I've only been impressed with the integrity of a prosecutor once, in the Theodore Edgecomb case, where he was very courteous and professional, helping the defence get off the hook where they had been incompetent, and was reasonable with his sentencing request based on the findings of the jury. Also the Darrell Brooks prosecution needs a mention for having the patience of saints.
Last edited:
So fecking bizarre.