Liberal-hater shoots up Unitarian church, kills two

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Little bit of a different standard. Guns are invented, designed, and perfected to kill, yet gun manufacturers and bullet manufacturers seem to be eternally surprised when they are used to kill people. You can’t say the same about a Ford Focus or a nylon cord; both have purposes 99% of the population will only ever use which have nothing to do with murder.
[/QUOTE]

Not all guns are designed to kill or even suitable for that purpose; a shotgun loaded with bird shot will hurt like a mothereffer but is unlikely to kill you.

In any case, I strongly suspect that the proportion of those who have fired a gun for the purpose of murdering someone is infinitesimal relative to those who’ve fired guns for other reasons. For example, I was on a rifle team for about a month when I was a littl’un (in England, in fact,) yet I’ve never murdered anyone*.

ETA:

But of course! No reason we shouldn’t require a background check before you buy a gun… or a car, kitchen knife, baseball bat or piece of string.

*not with a gun, anyway.

162

Oh, bushwah! Guns were invented to hurt or kill animals or people. Not to dislocate bits of medal, nor to hit targets.

ETA: There may be particular models that have been specifically designed for target shooting or distance shooting, but fundamentally, guns are designed as weapons.

163

[QUOTE=Oy!]
Oh, bushwah! Guns were invented to hurt or kill animals or people. Not to dislocate bits of medal, nor to hit targets.

ETA: There may be particular models that have been specifically designed for target shooting or distance shooting, but fundamentally, guns are designed as weapons.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, but if you want to paint with a brush like that, you’d also cover civilian nuclear applications, a child’s toy bow and arrow or catapult…

164

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Of course, but if you want to paint with a brush like that, you’d also cover civilian nuclear applications, a child’s toy bow and arrow or catapult…
[/QUOTE]

Yes. And?

Cars and ropes were not started from a design to kill people.

165

You know, we’re going down a road that really isn’t appropriate for this thread. Basically I don’t agree with Gomi’s opinion on free speech limitations, although I can appreciate his parallel when applied to guns and I’m still undecided about the latter. We’ve had so many conversations on gun control - let’s let this one go in this thread - OK? It’s really off topic.

166

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Yes. And?

Cars and ropes were not started from a design to kill people.
[/QUOTE]

Nor was alcohol, but you appear to be happy to find the bartender liable.

Again, how the product is used is not the responsibility of the producer or retailer. It is the responsibility of the buyer to use the product in a proper fashion.

Our Church Shooter is responsible for the death and destruction, not the people who manufacturered and sold his firearms, nor the rantings he might have read or heard, nor the automobile company whose product he used to drive to the church. HE is the one who did the shooting.

167

[QUOTE=Algher]
Nor was alcohol, but you appear to be happy to find the bartender liable.

Again, how the product is used is not the responsibility of the producer or retailer. It is the responsibility of the buyer to use the product in a proper fashion.

[/QUOTE]

Who is claiming the bartender is solely liable, for one thing. Any liability the bartender has does not excuse the liability of the drunk driver, assuming he didn’t have the good sense to kill himself in the crash.

It might have come to your attention at some point that alcohol in excessive quantities makes people act irresponsibly. Since we can’t expect someone on the verge of being drunk to act responsibly, why is it too much to expect someone who isn’t, and who has control of the drinks, to do it? Especially since the bartender is acting in a professional capacity.

If someone walked into a gunshop, was clearly deranged, and spoke in a loud voice about wanting to off someone, maybe not selling him a gun is a good idea.

168

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Who is claiming the bartender is solely liable, for one thing. Any liability the bartender has does not excuse the liability of the drunk driver, assuming he didn’t have the good sense to kill himself in the crash.

It might have come to your attention at some point that alcohol in excessive quantities makes people act irresponsibly. Since we can’t expect someone on the verge of being drunk to act responsibly, why is it too much to expect someone who isn’t, and who has control of the drinks, to do it? Especially since the bartender is acting in a professional capacity.

If someone walked into a gunshop, was clearly deranged, and spoke in a loud voice about wanting to off someone, maybe not selling him a gun is a good idea.
[/QUOTE]

Totally 100% agree and exactly what I am talking about.

[QUOTE=Algher]
Sure - we should treat people like intelligent individuals, and stop trying to blame others.

Blaming the bartender for the drunk driver is bullshit.
Blaming the gun shop for the shooter is bullshit.
Blaming the auto dealer for the road rager or street racer is bullshit.
Blaming the demogogue for the actions of the listener is bullshit.

In each of these we HAVE the problem identified, but we want to blame someone else too. It is part of the culture of sharing the blame, rather than accepting it.
[/QUOTE]

Caveat emptor, then - let the buyer beware and damn the consequences, this is all about PROFIT! Right?

What the hell is wrong with sharing blame? It’s not reducing the blame on the person who pulled the trigger, right?

Let me say it again for the cheap seats - responsibility is different for different acts, on a sliding scale, as previous mentioned several times.
[ul]
[li]The bartender has some responsibility for knowing someone is drunk, or continuing to serve them alcohol, especially when that person drives. Less so if the driver is not obviously drunk. [/li][li]The Gun Shop owner who sells guns or ammo without proper due-diligence and following the rules bears some responsibility when his guns are used to commit crimes. Less so if he followed the rules, but if the crimes couldn’t be committed without his guns, why the hell would he not be responsible to some degree?[/li][li]The auto dealer is responsible if he sells a fast car to a boy racer; the dumb ass who sells the nitrous bottle more so. But if he sells a car to a housewife, and little Jonny takes the car out and races it on the street, it’s hardly the dealer’s fault.[/li][li]And finally, the demagogue has some responsibility when they preach hatred. Not the ultimate responsibility of the person committing the act, but saying they are as pure as the driven snow just because they didn’t pull the trigger is asinine.[/li][/ul]

169

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Who is claiming the bartender is solely liable, for one thing. Any liability the bartender has does not excuse the liability of the drunk driver, assuming he didn’t have the good sense to kill himself in the crash.

It might have come to your attention at some point that alcohol in excessive quantities makes people act irresponsibly. Since we can’t expect someone on the verge of being drunk to act responsibly, why is it too much to expect someone who isn’t, and who has control of the drinks, to do it? Especially since the bartender is acting in a professional capacity.

If someone walked into a gunshop, was clearly deranged, and spoke in a loud voice about wanting to off someone, maybe not selling him a gun is a good idea.
[/QUOTE]

Shared liability still is a way for the perp to avoid some of the blame.

Yes, alcohol can cause problems. However, I have worked behind the bar in many states and nations and there are some that can hold their liquor and others who can not. You often do not know the impact until AFTER they have consumed (and stood up). Given how little alcohol is needed to be considered impaired, you might as well just outlaw bars with parking lots. It is also illegal to prevent someone from leaving. Thanks for the Catch-22 as well.

Let’s use another example for your gun shop. Can I refuse to sell to a black male who looks like he has gang affiliation, and when I do will you pay for my defense in the discrimination lawsuit?

Freedom has costs. Free speech that we enjoy in America is not available elsewhere (just ask Mark Steyn his thoughts on free speech in Canada, for example). I am happy to live with the demogogues and haters, guns in the homes, drunks at the bar, and hot rods on the streets. That is part of the price of freedom.

170

Sorry if this is off-topic at this point, I just saw the thread. Allow me to say :eek: holy fucking shit. I’ve been tossing around the idea lately of joining a Unitarian church. I know this doesn’t mean Unitarian churches are unsafe now or anything but goddamn. It’s one more thing to think about. Fuck. What a hateful piece of shit. If anybody out there reading this is thinking of doing something like this just please do the world one last favor and shoot yourself in the face first. Jesus fucking christ.

171

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Totally 100% agree and exactly what I am talking about.
Caveat emptor, then - let the buyer beware and damn the consequences, this is all about PROFIT! Right?

What the hell is wrong with sharing blame? It’s not reducing the blame on the person who pulled the trigger, right?

Let me say it again for the cheap seats - responsibility is different for different acts, on a sliding scale, as previous mentioned several times.
[ul]
[li]The bartender has some responsibility for knowing someone is drunk, or continuing to serve them alcohol, especially when that person drives. Less so if the driver is not obviously drunk. [/li][li]The Gun Shop owner who sells guns or ammo without proper due-diligence and following the rules bears some responsibility when his guns are used to commit crimes. Less so if he followed the rules, but if the crimes couldn’t be committed without his guns, why the hell would he not be responsible to some degree?[/li][li]The auto dealer is responsible if he sells a fast car to a boy racer; the dumb ass who sells the nitrous bottle more so. But if he sells a car to a housewife, and little Jonny takes the car out and races it on the street, it’s hardly the dealer’s fault.[/li][li]And finally, the demagogue has some responsibility when they preach hatred. Not the ultimate responsibility of the person committing the act, but saying they are as pure as the driven snow just because they didn’t pull the trigger is asinine.[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]

It is freedom, not profit.

You want to hold an auto dealer responsible when he sells fast cars to kids (but not apparently to housewives - which shows what you know)?

I have never said anyone was pure either - I have simply stated that the responsibility lies with the perp.

Your concept of product and retailer liability is completely, utterly, asinine. It would destroy business if carried to its logical extreme (paper used to print hate books, gasoline used to make molotovs, knives used to cut throats, rope used to tie people up). You would ask that every retailer have a detalied dossier on every customer, to then carefully determine exactly what and how the customer might use any object found in the shop.

Bartenders would have to run alcohol screenings on every patron as they come in the door (just in case they are already drunk).
Bartenders would need to inquire about the last time someone ate (food adjusts how alcohol is absored into the system).
Bartenders would need to run a weigh-in (alcohol / weight ratios are important to know as well).
Bartenders would need to ensure that nobody swapped drinks when he was not looking.

172

[QUOTE=Algher]
Shared liability still is a way for the perp to avoid some of the blame.
[/quote]

To use one of your own well-honed phrases, bullshit. Because someone else shares liability has nothing to do with penalties or blame on the perp.

Yup. Because as a store owner in most states, you’ve the right to refuse service to nearly anyone you choose.

Yeah yeah yeah, freedom ain’t free. It costs about $1.05.

You’re happy to live with this, I am not. This isn’t freedom, this is abuse. This is the power of the demagogue without power to stop them since they have no responsibility for their words. This way leads tyranny.

173

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
…You’re happy to live with this, I am not. This isn’t freedom, this is abuse. This is the power of the demagogue without power to stop them since they have no responsibility for their words. This way leads tyranny.
[/QUOTE]

Tyrants like to outlaw speech.

174

[QUOTE=Algher]
It is freedom, not profit.
[/quote]

Ahh, more soundbites. Great.

You sell to a responsible adult, you don’t assume they’re going to use a car as a testosterone toy. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Except for the “perp” who is purely responsible no matter what.

Oh, sweet baby Jesus, give me a break.

You sell guns, you have to make sure the person buying isn’t a criminal or on the mental health register; you have to run a background check. Hasn’t exactly slowed down the sale of guns in America, now has it?

You work as a bartender. You’re liable for selling someone alcohol when they’re clearly drunk. You’re liable if you sell someone enough drinks to get them drunk and then they drive home.

You take these reasonable statements and twist them to some farcical extreme and then complain that I am taking away freedom. Freedom to do what, exactly? Let you as a bartender serve people enough drinks for them to go blind? Sell guns to anyone who can stand as high as the counter-top? What kind of fantasy land are you living in?

[QUOTE=Algher]
Tyrants like to outlaw speech.
[/QUOTE]

No, tyrants in recent history started off by making some cracking speeches and telling their followers to destroy their enemies and giving their followers someone to blame. They didn’t restrict speech until they were already in power. Read up on history before spouting your sound bites.

175

[QUOTE=Algher]
Shared liability still is a way for the perp to avoid some of the blame.

[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a bartender (or his employer) would be civilly liable only, while the driver would be both criminally and civilly liable. Me, I’m for shooting drunks who kill people in crashes, but I’m just a liberal.

Is it illegal to call the cops if someone clearly drunk was going to present a danger to the public? The plaintiff in a trial would have to show that the bartender served a person who was already inebriated. If other patrons could testify that the guy seemed to be sober when he left, I doubt the plaintiff would have much of a chance (though there is no telling with juries.)

You could do away with parking lots, or you could require designated drivers. Just after I left Louisiana they started drive through liquor stores, serving drinks by the glass, well protected from the driver by Saran Wrap. Good idea?

Damn right I would. And I’d be all for defending a bartender who served someone who looked like a wino but who was stone cold sober.

We’re not talking about speech here. If someone wants to shout in a bar that everyone should drive drunk, fine. (Though that is a private area, and not covered by the Constitution.) There is a difference between talking about driving drunk and doing it. If you saw someone aiming a gun at someone else, would you try to knock it away (assuming it was safe to do so) or would you let the prospective shooter exercise his liberty? Would you let a four year old handle a gun? If something happens, after all, it’s the responsibility of the kid, not you.

176

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
You work as a bartender. You’re liable for selling someone alcohol when they’re clearly drunk. You’re liable if you sell someone enough drinks to get them drunk and then they drive home.
[/QUOTE]

Take a deep breath, and look at the bolded sentence.

How clear? Are they “clearly drunk” if they walk into three or more people or items of furniture on the way to the bar? One or more? If they slur their words? Sway? Smell funny? Hit on ugly women?

You can’t define things- particularly in cases where contributory negligence is concerned- and expect to end up with a workable tort system. Every bartender whose patron suffered an injury within six hours (or caused one) would be in court for months.

177

[QUOTE=Algher]

I have never said anyone was pure either - I have simply stated that the responsibility lies with the perp.

[/QUOTE]

A guy hires a hit man to kill his wife. The hit man does it. Does the guy have no responsibility in your book? He didn’t pull the trigger, so is he not the perp?

178

[QUOTE=Voyager]
A guy hires a hit man to kill his wife. The hit man does it. Does the guy have no responsibility in your book? He didn’t pull the trigger, so is he not the perp?
[/QUOTE]

He is a perp under US law, however. He solicited an illegal act. That is vastly different (IMHO) from the guy sitting at the bar drunk saying that he wishes his wife were dead.

Now, let’s talk about who ELSE should be held liable or responsible:

  1. The ISP or phone company that provided the communication?
  2. Craig’s List for hosting the advertisement (even if couched in fuzzy language like the prostitutes and drug dealers do)
  3. The gun shop that legally sold the hit man his weapon?
  4. The rental agency that rented the hit man his car?
179

[QUOTE=Algher]
He is a perp under US law, however. He solicited an illegal act. That is vastly different (IMHO) from the guy sitting at the bar drunk saying that he wishes his wife were dead.

[/quote]

If a bartender overheard that, I doubt there would be any legal obligation to do anything.
How about this case. Person Z hears Mr. and Mrs. Y have a fight. Mr. Z goes up to Mr. Y after the fight is over and asks if he wants his wife bumped off. Mr. Y never says yes, but hands the guy a gun.

[/quote]

You’re stretching, aren’t you? Phone companies and ISPs do not monitor content. I already said that there would have to be direct evidence a crime was in the offing for a gun shop to be liable. The car rental agency case is absurd.

None of these are similar to someone knowingly assisting someone to get drunk and then drive. Clearly if the bartender thinks there is a designated driver involved, it is a totally different situation.
Do you think fraternities and such that supply a kid - during a party with others - enough to kill himself with alcohol isn’t a bit liable? We’re not talking someone who raids the liquor closet, goes into his room, locks the door, and drinks himself to death. We’re talking someone being served enough to kill him.

180

[QUOTE=Voyager]
If a bartender overheard that, I doubt there would be any legal obligation to do anything.
How about this case. Person Z hears Mr. and Mrs. Y have a fight. Mr. Z goes up to Mr. Y after the fight is over and asks if he wants his wife bumped off. Mr. Y never says yes, but hands the guy a gun.

You’re stretching, aren’t you? Phone companies and ISPs do not monitor content. I already said that there would have to be direct evidence a crime was in the offing for a gun shop to be liable. The car rental agency case is absurd.

None of these are similar to someone knowingly assisting someone to get drunk and then drive. Clearly if the bartender thinks there is a designated driver involved, it is a totally different situation.
Do you think fraternities and such that supply a kid - during a party with others - enough to kill himself with alcohol isn’t a bit liable? We’re not talking someone who raids the liquor closet, goes into his room, locks the door, and drinks himself to death. We’re talking someone being served enough to kill him.
[/QUOTE]

I am not stretching - posters in this thread want to:

  1. Make gun shops liable for how their guns are used after sale.
  2. Make auto retailers liable for how their cars are driven.
  3. Make bartenders liable for how much alcohol is consumed (or how drunk the person is, or what they do after drinking - actually, the posters have been all over the place on this one so far).
    Those are all massive stretches in product and retailer liability.

If you want absurb, just read some of **GomiBoy’**s posts and who he thinks is liable. He is so concerned about how products might be used in the commission of crimes that he wants everyone in the supply chain to be held to some level of liability. If he does not believe that, then he can restate his posts. If you do not support that, then you can state it. Don’t blame me for reading your posts and applying them to the real world.

Now - your frat house example:
If a fraternity hazes a pledge with alcohol until the pledge dies - go after them. Hazing is already against the law, and providing alcohol to someone underage is also against the law.

For the bar example:
Bartenders, however, are a different sort. Their job is to sell you alcohol. In most states, two drinks in one hour is enough to make it illegal for you to drive. Shall we start prohibiting the sale of alcohol to anyone without a designated driver who has been identified to the bartender?
For your handing the gun example:
Sounds like a jury would have to decide if the husband had non-verbally solicited the crime by giving the gun to the shooter. Personally, I would probably convict. If however, the shooter simply overhead the arguement and then killed the wife - I would not vote to convict the husband.

My ISP examples, btw, are far from a stretch. Message boards and newspapers are regularly attacked for allowing the posting of illicit items. This is similar to EBay helping with the sale of illegal goods - for which they have been nailed in Europe. It is certainly not a stretch to wonder if those of you who seem to want to expand liability would also find others liable for allowing the hosting of a “killers r us” website.