18 Year old shot by school safety officer.

originally posted by: chr0naut
If firearms were restricted would there be a need for armed 'school safety officers'?

Other populous countries don't have them.

Look, at get that you live in New Vealand where the government basically wipes your ass for you but this isn't there.

Did their flight put anyone at risk? Officers, bystanders, etc? Did the officer have reason to suspect that was the case? Was he a felon fleeing custody (in certain states) ?

If no, then its not a good shoot.

Either way, public schools are a waste of space and time. Need to shut them down, throw out the unions and put their members on the street and go all in on private schools and home schooling.

a reply to: chr0naut

The 'school safety officer' was armed by the same statute that arms criminals and the law abiding members of the public.

Not true. Its already unlawful to own a firearm if you're a criminal, drug user, etc. Like all other laws involving criminalization of a particular activity, the criminals simply ignore the law because that is what they do.

Has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

So clearly the 2nd cannot protect against tyrannical government

Our founders (the only opinions that matter) disagree.

And yet the death toll, for hundreds of years, due to firearms enabled by the statute continues to mount up.

Nah, they would just find another way to kill each other. Not crying over some dead criminals that is for certain. I prefer them that way, less of a chance I'll have to shoot them defensively.

None of that applies to the situation here though. Its the individual, not the gun, who dropped the hammer here. Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't know enough. My instinct says fleeing from police is idiotic, but was this even a sworn LEO?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chr0naut
If firearms were restricted would there be a need for armed 'school safety officers'?

Other populous countries don't have them.

Look, at get that you live in New Vealand where the government basically wipes your ass for you but this isn't there.

Our government, like our country, is small and less intrusive, having fewer restrictive dictates than the US government has over its sovereignty (our legal statutes do not have to encompass state boundaries, and even city centric rulings, nor do we have the ethnic diversity of a more populous nation. Similarly, historically, we have had less legal writ spent on racially biased legislation, probably because we never had legally sanctioned slavery.

But I like the 'New Vealand' name. We are still strongly agrarian, in comparison to the USA and other industrialized and service-centric countries.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

The 'school safety officer' was armed by the same statute that arms criminals and the law abiding members of the public.

Not true. Its already unlawful to own a firearm if you're a criminal, drug user, etc. Like all other laws involving criminalization of a particular activity, the criminals simply ignore the law because that is what they do.

How do laws, like the Brady Act, prevent criminals from just getting someone else to purchase a gun for them?

To deal with this, you would have to place limits on the number of guns a single individual can purchase, which means tracking each purchase and each gun owner - sounds expensive and intrusive.

Of course criminals can even get around that by getting multiple people to purchase on their behalf.

And of course the criminals can still steal the guns from those who have legally acquired them even if you do all those other things.

But if people didn't have guns, that would stop the entire supply (except for illegal gun caches).

But if illegal guns are automatically confiscated every time they are located, eventually the criminals will become unarmed. Definitely, the cost of an illegal firearm would go up to the point where petty larcenists aren't going to afford one.

But since the police are still legally armed, while the criminals are successively disarmed, it means that the balance of firepower goes to law enforcement.

And since the police no longer have to assume that everyone they meet may shoot them, they can stop drawing their weapon immediately, first thing, on every encounter. Which will reduce the instances of overreaction police shootings of the public.

Has nothing to do with legal gun ownership.

So clearly the 2nd cannot protect against tyrannical government

Our founders (the only opinions that matter) disagree.

That was 200+ years ago and situations have changed.

Since then, we have had ample examples of Americans taking up arms against their own government (which they believed was being tyrannical) and failing to achieve the overthrow, or even policy change, of that government (It usually just got the reactionaries killed).

And yet the death toll, for hundreds of years, due to firearms enabled by the statute continues to mount up.

Nah, they would just find another way to kill each other. Not crying over some dead criminals that is for certain. I prefer them that way, less of a chance I'll have to shoot them defensively.

Some criminals would find another way to kill each other, but the majority would just not kill.

You cannot know the intentions of those speculative criminals. If they had no intention of actually inflicting any harm on you, and you shot and killed them, then you become a killer. Someone prepared to kill out of their own paranoia. A criminal of the worst kind.

None of that applies to the situation here though. Its the individual, not the gun, who dropped the hammer here. Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't know enough. My instinct says fleeing from police is idiotic, but was this even a sworn LEO?

The whole situation would not be possible if effective gun control actually existed in the USA.

I'm not calling for a gun ban. I'm suggesting that there can be better legislation, with overall public safety in mind as the guiding principle, and with few, or no, loopholes. And 'self defense' against an enemy that does not exist, or is a figment of the imagination, or is unknown, is an inadequate reason for gun ownership.

a reply to: chr0naut

Buying a gun for someone else who is a criminal is also illegal. Its contributing to a felon.

Cults do not qualify as a real revolt. neither does ruby ridge. So what uprising are you talking about? Jan 6th was not one either.

Just as we cannot know the intentions of a stranger,neither can you,OR anyone who writes legislation.

As to self defense against the unknown,well thats what Laws are for on top of having the ability to combat unknown threats.

Non US members common sense is not our common sense.

a reply to: JinMI

Mona Rodriquez is being removed from Life Support.

www.the-sun.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

The 'school safety officer' was armed by the same statute that arms criminals and the law abiding members of the public. I






Uhm... No. The officer is armed, by authority of the State. In the concept revisited by Camus, that the State requires a monopoly on violence in order to exercise authority is in no way, and on no level the same as what grants a citizen the right to arms.


The rest of your post is drivel, based on ignorance of the subject.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JinMI

Mona Rodriquez is being removed from Life Support.

www.the-sun.com...

well how else will they prosecute the officer for murder? bet her family is going to get paid in exchange.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Our government, like our country, is small and less intrusive, having fewer restrictive dictates than the US government has over its sovereignty (our legal statutes do not have to encompass state boundaries...

That is oxymoronic. The fact that the Federal Government needs to take into account each State shows the real power lies with the States.

From the OP's article

The 20-year-old father and his 16-year old brother are being investigated for their involvement in the incident, police told KTLA.

"I don't think my girlfriend deserved this. It was all for no reason," said Chowdhury.

Mobile phone video shows the officer fired two shots at the car as it nearly hit him while speeding away from a parking lot.

You have to be careful this is likely a "good shoot" IF she would've been the driver...although a damn tragedy all the same. They always are

And yet, she wasn't the driver. Good intentions count for nothing, negligent homicide at a minimum here