Christian Glass was a young guy who called 911 for help when his car got stuck on a mountain road in Colorado. When he wouldn’t get out of his car because he was scared by the heavy police response with guns drawn, they shot him dead.
The police news release, issued to justify the killing, identified him as a suspect.
Which parts?
Red Flag laws? Probably not, with some exceptions with bad Red flag laws.
" the bill prevents people convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun to include dating partners rather than just spouses and former spouses". Naw, that’s solid as long as it is a conviction.
expanding background checks? Solid.
No suits have been filed yet.
So, yes, Red Flag laws.
Of course, that means that those with a restraining order have no protection.
I honestly don’t see how they are expanded. You can still buy a gun from a private individual, and you already had to get a background check to buy from an FFL.
It’s been in place 6 months, it takes a while for things to work their way to SCOTUS.
Gift link to the article.
I was listening to NPR and one person related a story he himself experienced in Memphis. He and a friend were picking up a pizza and were pulled over by a SCORPION patrol. The police demanded that the two get out of the vehicle with their hands up or they would have their “heads blown off”. When the person asked what they had done wrong, with guns drawn on them, the cops laughed and said it was “just a joke” and let them go.
The person reported a complaint but never heard anything about it and assumed it was just ignored.
While he clearly got off easy, since he’s still alive, it’s extremely disturbing. And while SCORPION has been disbanded and is receiving scrutiny and investigations, how many other units just like it are free to continue to conduct state-funded terrorism? Because I don’t know what else to call that behavior.
Indeed. At least, so far, that’s just the Fifth Circuit, but I’m sure the Supremes will uphold it.
And you especially would look askance at an airline that says, “Plane crash? There was no plane crash. Move along, citizen, and let us do our job.”
Make it a plane crashing every week or two and you’d be crazy not to.
This is but one chapter in the neverending saga of, “men’s right to own guns is more important than women’s right to be alive.”
I wonder if they would be so dispassionate if they knew commiting an act of domestic violence significantly increased the likelihood of commiting an act of violence against a police officer.
There should be a record of that. If it was done using email then there’s a trail to follow.
There is more than a plane crash or two a week, and we don’t hear about it in the media.
And the reason that you don’t hear about it is the same reason you don’t hear about everytime a domestic abuser shoots their partner for getting a restraining order, it’s just too common to be newsworthy.
When a commercial airliner goes down, that’s newsworthy, as it doesn’t happen often, and the number of people affected is larger. That’s because the FAA requires extensive training and testing before you are allowed to endanger the lives of more than a handful of people.
And the media also only talks about police abuse when it’s egregious and unjustifiable. For every time you hear about a George Floyd or Tyre Nichols, there are hundreds or thousands of cases of police misconduct. Whether they were just less documented, or they were more “minor”, they still leave people injured, or their lives damaged or destroyed.
Media headlines are always going to be biased towards the unusual, the commonplace just isn’t interesting. If someone just goes by the headlines, of course they will end up with a skewed view of the world. Often, reading past the headlines gives enough information to balance that view, but in televised news, that rarely happens.
Headlines will only ever show you the tip of the iceberg, and that’s not where the danger lies.
Well put k9bfriender, and this was the point I was trying to allude to.
When people say “The media is focused on assault rifles, even though handgun deaths are far more common” this conveys a number of misconceptions. Because handgun deaths *do* get reported in the media; local media is awash with such reports. They don’t tend to make the national news because they are far too numerous and the news report would be essentially the same every day: “lots of handgun deaths across the country today”.
But sure, if someone used a handgun to do a mass shooting, or assassinated someone famous or whatever (or accidentally shot someone on a film set), then it would make the national news.
Meanwhile the point DrDeth is making, about this kind of event being “anecdotal”…I think, in fairness to him, even he has dropped that point now, as it’s obviously very silly. Five officers beating someone to death unprovoked should very clearly be covered by the media, all the more so if there are still prominent politicians trying to cover and justify it.
Our own airline investigated the plane crash, and found the passengers to be at fault."
Yesbut- you’d be totally wrong by assuming, that due to all those reported plane crashes, airplane travel was unsafe. In fact millions of dudes make that unwise decision. Plane travel is safer that driving- per mile.
Woman can own guns too. Look, the level of evidence for a restraining order is much, much lower than a criminal conviction for spousal abuse.
Temporary Restraining Orders Require Little to No Evidence
The court papers required for a temporary restraining order in California can be filed by any individual. In San Diego and many courts in California, temporary restraining order requests are handled the same day they are filed. A Judge in each courthouse is assigned to review every restraining order request submitted that day.
This is true, but getting a restraining order is not evidence of domestic violence.
The Monterrey Park shooting was with a handgun- which the media called an “assault hand gun”.
If you think that was my point, you clearly didn’t get it. Of course the media needs to report such things. It is just that you can’t paint with a broad brush and make far reaching assumptions based upon what the media considers “newsworthy”. You’d never fly, you’d wonder why only attractive blonde females are abducted, etc, Those events are “anecdotal”.
Unless you do think that only attractive blonde females are abducted? 
Well they were reporting that the Sheriff used that term, so what exactly did you want the media to do with that?
And who cares what we call it anyway?
Who has made broad brush assertions? All I or others have said is that there should be accountability and not just brushing this under the carpet. It shouldn’t happen once, let alone how often this seems to happen in the US, and it’s thanks to dismissive attitudes as you have demonstrated in this thread.
The very poster I was replying to when I started this issue.
Modern law enforcement hasn’t been around for that long, relatively speaking. We didn’t have anything resembling an organized police force as you’d recognize it until the middle of the 19th century in the US (in the city of Boston). And it has evolved a lot since then, sometimes as a slow evolution and other times in dramatic ways as new laws are passed.
There is a web site I love, the Illustrated Guide to Law, which was created by a cartoonist who is also a lawyer (view his LinkedIn page for his credentials) and it covers Constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure. It also has a lot of history too. Here’s where he talks a bit about the history of policing in the US (this page is just the start):
I think we’re long past due for another dramatic paradigm shift in policing in the US. This country has often lagged behind the rest of the world and we have examples to draw from if we want to improve things.
Spotlighting the massive problems we have will hopefully pressure lawmakers into reform that is so badly needed, so that people are less likely to be the victims of the people who are supposed to be their protectors.
Call it what you want, but the gun (with homemade silencer) was over 2 feet long and had a extended (30 round) magazine. This is what it looked like:
OMG, I wouldn’t fire that thing with someone else’s hand.
Don’t be abusing a gun’s civil rights! Besides, looking at the picture provided, how can you not think that it is anything but a common target pistol and/or a deer hunting gun?
I am not a gun expert, but the first time I saw that I immediately said, “that looks like a MAC-10 submachine gun”. Not sure I was right, I fired up the Google machine and I am pretty sure my initial impression was correct.
Look at the picture, it’s identical. Here is the Wikipedia article on the weapon.
It is considered to either be a small submachine gun, or a “machine pistol” due to its small size. The magazine capacity is 32 rounds standard, which is what the gun in the incident was reported to be. Note that this weapon fell under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which expired in 2004) which means…
Calling it a “hand gun” isn’t accurate, given it was designed for fully automatic fire. No more than a military assault rifle is a hunting rifle.