Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie

[sempel]

Haven't read every page in this thread - but just wondering if any of the people who buy the verdict and the hangfire explanation are proponents of Trump's idea of arming teachers in schools. Never mind the lack of training, just think about the probability of a tragic "accident" vs the probability of stopping an attack. That alone would seem to be enough to dismiss the idea. Presumably, Stanley knew how to safely operate his weapon - yet he killed a man ("accidentally").

Good question. I don't think the solution to curb violence is to introduce more guns/weapons. Just a recipe for disaster. But I'm also assuming the guns given to teachers won't be decades old with old ammo. But mishaps do happen.

Frankly, I'd say any numbers indicating less than two-thirds of the people believe a verdict of the courts was fair and proper is cause for concern. And for taking action to restore the trust in the law and justice sytem.

Almost a 1/3 of people are undecided. Maybe they don't have an opinion or don't think they have enough info to answer the question. Even here, many are speculating based on what is known via media and could easily have a different opinion if we were a member of the jury that gets a more detailed story.

 

[essguy_]

Good question. I don't think the solution to curb violence is to introduce more guns/weapons. Just a recipe for disaster. But I'm also assuming the guns given to teachers won't be decades old with old ammo. But mishaps do happen.

The problem is not just old ammunition. It's the lack of training. Here's a guy who legally owned a handgun in Canada - making him a minority even amongst Canadian gun owners. Yet his defence essentially boils down to ignorance and carelessness. He didn't know how to manage a misfire/hangfire. Worse, he didn't know the golden rule that you NEVER sweep anybody with a gun (loaded or unloaded) UNLESS you plan on shooting them.

 

[sempel]

The problem is not just old ammunition. It's the lack of training. Here's a guy who legally owned a handgun in Canada - making him a minority even amongst Canadian gun owners. Yet his defence essentially boils down to ignorance and carelessness. He didn't know how to manage a misfire/hangfire. Worse, he didn't know the golden rule that you NEVER sweep anybody with a gun (loaded or unloaded) UNLESS you plan on shooting them.

I think you can easily train someone on how to operate, store, and clean a gun. Very hard to provide enough training to teach them how/when to use it. Most occupations where guns are used (law enforcement) do a ton of training, not that they always get it right either.

What you might see is a kid who is using something non-lethal in a supposedly threatening manner getting shot by an overzealous teacher. I think the more obvious answer is trained police officers or security personnel. I'm thinking if you are planning to budget for guns/training for teachers, that same budget is more/less a wash to hire a couple of officers for each school.

 

[mandrill]

Haven't read every page in this thread - but just wondering if any of the people who buy the verdict and the hangfire explanation are proponents of Trump's idea of arming teachers in schools. Never mind the lack of training, just think about the probability of a tragic "accident" vs the probability of stopping an attack. That alone would seem to be enough to dismiss the idea. Presumably, Stanley knew how to safely operate his weapon - yet he killed a man ("accidentally").

Trump's idea is of course ludicrous - in fact perhaps the most ludicrous of all the ludicrous things that ludicrous man has said. Assuming you actually give Ms Jones the poetry teacher a firearm and she isn't scared silly of it, how on earth are you going to give non professionals the sort of crisis firefight training that Navy SEALS work years to acquire??!!??!!

I felt considerable sympathy for the sheriff's deputies who were lambasted and scapegoated by Generalissimo BoneSpurs. To expect ordinary police officers to intervene effectively in a mass shooting situation - especially one behind closed doors where the players(s) and situation are unclear - is unrealistic and unreasonable. Highly trained SWAT team officers would need at least a sitrep before they went into that building. And those are guys who are trained and equipped for this type of work.

Every day, the GOP and the POTUS become more and more assinine.

 

[danmand]

Hangfires are rare but happen - of course, one of this length is extremely rare - maybe even impossible to reproduce. They occur with older ammunition when the primer is activated but there is a delay before the propellent ignites. (vs a misfire which is a complete failure). Usually a hangfire is measured in fractions of seconds - but can sometime be longer. But long enough time to "check the weapon", run out, etc - would be very very very rare. Further - if he checked his weapon and was sure that it was a misfire (as opposed to a hangfire) - he should have ejected the cartridge. Any well trained, knowledgeable gun owner would know not to ever point a loaded gun at anything unless you were planning on shooting it - and after a misfire or hangfire - you should wait, and don't even eject the bullet until you're sure that it's not going to fire. (Unless you're in the military and in a firefight - in which case you tap rack and continue shooting.) So this verdict is troubling and anybody who buys it, should also acknowledge the stupidity of arming teachers if they buy that this was an "accident". Also - given the budget and pay of teachers in the U.S. - they may be more inclined to buy cheap or surplus ammunition - which increases the odds of misfires, and hangfires.

That is all correct. Even then, If somebody points a gun at another man's head, and this man ends up dead, I call it manslaughter.

Nobody with any knowledge of guns would ever point a gun (loaded or not) at anybody's head if he did not intend to kill.

I have had guns since I was 12 years old, and I have never once pointed a gun at anybody.

 

[sempel]

Trump's idea is of course ludicrous - in fact perhaps the most ludicrous of all the ludicrous things that ludicrous man has said. Assuming you actually give Ms Jones the poetry teacher a firearm and she isn't scared silly of it, how on earth are you going to give non professionals the sort of crisis firefight training that Navy SEALS work years to acquire??!!??!!

I felt considerable sympathy for the sheriff's deputies who were lambasted and scapegoated by Generalissimo BoneSpurs. To expect ordinary police officers to intervene effectively in a mass shooting situation - especially one behind closed doors where the players(s) and situation are unclear - is unrealistic and unreasonable. Highly trained SWAT team officers would need at least a sitrep before they went into that building. And those are guys who are trained and equipped for this type of work.

Every day, the GOP and the POTUS become more and more assinine.

Yeah, the scapegoating was BS. I don't know if they attempted to ascertain what the situation was though because at some point, intervention might be needed if it's clear it's not a hostage situation so much as a killing spree. But as mentioned, Trump's statement that he personally would have gone in unarmed is total BS. I'd like to boast that I'd run into a burning building to save someone and maybe I would but it's easy to state it without being put to an actual test. Very difficult to know how anyone will react in a life/death situation unless trained.