What's new
By:

El Paso Shooting

Zombie said:
It's not surprising at all, once you remember the shooter was white.
Click to expand...

The kid at the Garlic Festival in California was taken out. In a scenario like that, every moment the police allow the shooter(s) to live gives the shooter an opportunity to kill someone else. Everyone is in immediate danger. It might be normal to tell an armed assailant to surrender, lay down their weapon, get on the ground, etc., but once shots are fired, I think the game changes.

I'd also like to hear how these shooters were captured.
 
Catchall said:
The kid at the Garlic Festival in California was taken out. In a scenario like that, every moment the police allow the shooter(s) to live gives the shooter an opportunity to kill someone else. Everyone is in immediate danger. It might be normal to tell an armed assailant to surrender, lay down their weapon, get on the ground, etc., but once shots are fired, I think the game changes.

I'd also like to hear how these shooters were captured.
Click to expand...

Same. But I agree. In scenarios like that shoot first.
 
Just saw that El Paso is being treated as domestic terrorism. You can drop domestic imo. But, ****ing finally!
 
Stoked said:
Because it is against a SC decision. And not a 5-4 one. It’s already been tried and rejected as against the constitution.

Haynes v US, 7-1 against.
Click to expand...
The Haynes decision is an interesting one because it essentially makes the case that the federal registry as it existed then could lead to self incrimination of criminals who owned firearms which they legally unable to own. Thus they couldn't register them without incriminating themselves.

There's a legal argument underpinning this that as a nonlawyer I'm not sure I understand, but I'll try to explain. Basically they held that the gun registration was directed at a "highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activity" and concerned with "an area permeated with criminal statutes" where registration might form a "link on the chain of evidence" used to convict the registrant of a crime. This was the same argument outlawing registration of communists for example.

Now, I believe there are ways around this such that a federal gun registration program be made constitutional. If you write it so it applies to the general populace, and let's say enacts a tax on all firearms purchased, the registry would act as a regulatory device to ensure compliance to that tax. In the same way that vehicle registration, or even simply filing one's taxes, doesn't fall afoul of the fifth amendment, a gun registry wouldn't either.

Here's a link the PDF which explains this, hopefully better than I did.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2EhirpRuM9OKTjhCgf_0dw&cshid=1564949518537
 
Catchall said:
The kid at the Garlic Festival in California was taken out. In a scenario like that, every moment the police allow the shooter(s) to live gives the shooter an opportunity to kill someone else. Everyone is in immediate danger. It might be normal to tell an armed assailant to surrender, lay down their weapon, get on the ground, etc., but once shots are fired, I think the game changes.

I'd also like to hear how these shooters were captured.
Click to expand...
I was mostly being facetious, unlike (nonsuicide) bombers mass shooters definitely don't expect to make it out alive. The same depression that leads them to take on such a disgusting world view probably leads them to suicidal thoughts, so why not take out as many of those they hate while they're at it.

I don't know if the shooter gave himself up in El Paso, or if the crowds of people surrounding the shooter made it more difficult to simply take the shooter out. I'm sure each situation is a little different in that regard.
 
Zombie said:
The Haynes decision is an interesting one because it essentially makes the case that the federal registry as it existed then could lead to self incrimination of criminals who owned firearms which they legally unable to own. Thus they couldn't register them without incriminating themselves.

There's a legal argument underpinning this that as a nonlawyer I'm not sure I understand, but I'll try to explain. Basically they held that the gun registration was directed at a "highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activity" and concerned with "an area permeated with criminal statutes" where registration might form a "link on the chain of evidence" used to convict the registrant of a crime. This was the same argument outlawing registration of communists for example.

Now, I believe there are ways around this such that a federal gun registration program be made constitutional. If you write it so it applies to the general populace, and let's say enacts a tax on all firearms purchased, the registry would act as a regulatory device to ensure compliance to that tax. In the same way that vehicle registration, or even simply filing one's taxes, doesn't fall afoul of the fifth amendment, a gun registry wouldn't either.

Here's a link the PDF which explains this, hopefully better than I did.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2233&context=dlj&ved=2ahUKEwiBmMa9gurjAhUBuZ4KHYkuDx8QFjAPegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2EhirpRuM9OKTjhCgf_0dw&cshid=1564949518537
Click to expand...

I’m certainly no lawyer. And it’s entirely possible I’m misunderstanding the decision in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top