F$%ing Outrage in Texas

[blue2blue]

With regard to the incidence of guns used in self-defense, the study cited below found that between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually, equating to ~ two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%).

 

McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990". American Journal of Public Health 84: pp. 1982

[ermghoti II]

With regard to the incidence of guns used in self-defense, the study cited below found that between 1987 and 1990, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually, equating to ~ two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%). McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990". American Journal of Public Health 84 : pp. 1982

[blue2blue]

I can only go on the statistics that actually exist.

 

If you've got what you think are more accurate numbers, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

[BlueStrat]

I think if someone wants to live their life unarmed, have at it. Just don't make the rest of us do it. At least not until all the criminals voluntarily turn in their guns.

 

 

 

BTW the simple presence of guns is no indication of propensity to violence.

 

What are the gun violence statistics among young men in fatherless homes? Gang presence? Drug use? Illegal vs legal possession? prior criminal history?

[ermghoti II]

I can only go on the statistics that actually exist. If you've got what you think are more accurate numbers, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

 

 

That's fine, but that doesn't mean we need to apply inappropriate statistics to the argument, just because they are the only ones we have. The only survey that was done on defensive gun usage I know of was Kleck, and I have a lot of problems with that one. That said, the low end of his figures for usage adds up when you compare the description of the circumstances with the immutable outcomes (gunshot wounds are required by law to be reported to the FBI). He asked respondents if shots were fired, if anyone was hit or killed, etc. The figures for justifiable homicides are well established, so if you figure the ratios out, (eg, 1 defensive homicide = 20 non-fatal wounds = some number of misses or warning shots etc), you can check his math. The numbers point to something like 1-200,000 defensive encounters annually.

[Will Chen]

Wow, this thread took a left turn!

 

I was detained by police as a teen in Houston years ago for no reason other than having long hair and driving late at night. We were all personally searched as well as our car being searched. The cop even called for backup. The whole ordeal happened around midnight and took nearly 45 minutes. After which nothing. No warning, ticket (we weren't doing anything wrong) apology nothing. This of course was before the days of cameras in squad cars.

 

To the gun issue. Honestly, as civilized as we would like to pretend we are we are a fairly brutal society. People who want to hurt other people will with or without a gun. If all we had were knifes the stabbing statistics would be as high as gun violence. A gun is simply a tool, albeit a rather deadly one, that is used by some to fulfill the violent nature within. A gun in the hands of an emotionally stable and rational individual is no more likely to be used for violence than a knife or bat.

[veracohr]

IOW-a bad guy runs into your house screaming, with an axe in hand, during broad daylight. In most states, that's something akin to 'home invasion' and you can defend yourself as if it were a mortal attack. But if you encounter a bad guy just inside your back door, not visibly armed, and you're carrying a firearm, morally and legally you will be hard pressed to shoot him without some change in that situation. That's because you have a means of defense available, the aggressor isn't in a position to harm you (or showing an intent to do so) yet and you'd only be shooting to protect your property.

 

 

Is a much more reasonable approach.

 

People do not deserve to die just for trying to steal your things.

[tucktronix]

 

I don't know about that! I had a cop draw his gun on me for a speeding ticket about 7 or 8 years ago. He parked a ways back and I opened my car door and started to get out of the car. He pulled his gun from his holster, but did not point it, and very firmly told me to get back in my car. I believe I was driving a late model Ford Taurus at the time. I certainly did not resemble a thug, nor did I have any weapons, paraphernalia or meth labs in my car. Had I been anything other than completely obedient in getting back into my car; I have no idea what the officer would have done. As it was, I got a ticket without any further adieu.

 

 

You're weren't supposed to get out of your vehicle in the first place during a traffic stop. That officer probably did what he was trained to do.

[Dean Roddey]

I also don't believe you have the right to kill someone over a thing. I can understand how someone might want to, but it's clearly not an ethical or Christian (or whatever) thing to do.

I kind of take the approach of "Do unto to others as you would have them to do to your child should he get drunk and do something stupid." It's easy to act all tough and take a zero tolerance position, but it probably won't make nearly so much sense when you find that some like-minded person killed your child by shooting him in the back as he ran away with a stereo or something.

Though it's probably a moot point in a lot of cases whether you were wrong or not. If you killed the person, then it's your word against his and he probably aren't much in a mood to talk, so you can make up whatever you want.

[veracohr]

You're weren't supposed to get out of your vehicle in the first place during a traffic stop. That officer probably did what he was trained to do.

 

 

I took a driver's test a few years ago when I moved back to Oregon. I suppose it varies from state to state, but I don't remember anything saying "don't get out of your vehicle if you're pulled over".

[tucktronix]

 

I took a driver's test a few years ago when I moved back to Oregon. I suppose it varies from state to state, but I don't remember anything saying "don't get out of your vehicle if you're pulled over".

 

 

I'm not sure if it's part of a law, but it's always a good idea to remain in your vehicle. A person getting out of his/her vehicle can be seen as a threat or aggression against the police officer. Just a bit of common sense.

[BlueStrat]

 

implies a shoot first attitude. I can only assume based on your posts that your opinion is regardless of any imminent threat to your life or that of your family.

 

 

So what do you do? Ask him politely what he's doing in your home at 3 AM and whether or not he intends you any harm?

 

 

People do not deserve to die just for trying to steal your things.

 

 

On the other hand they ought not be surprised when it happens. Knowing that breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night to take things that they have worked hard for and in some cases are irreplaceable just might get your head blown off can be a powerful deterrent. Most people are chosen as victims because the criminal assess the threat level to them to be low. I like to keep 'em guessing.

[WRGKMC]

Anyone breaking into my house would have to deal with my dogs first. the older one would definalely chew ones ass up. if they did get past the dogs then it would have involved killing them then they have already gone past the point of being violent.

 

As far as getting out of a vehicle, What a cop will tell you is they prefer for someone to remain seated with their hands on the wheel in plain site till they ask you for your ID. Then and only then should you start reaching around. This is the least threatening humble approach to take which will more likely get you a warning vs a ticket. Anyone who gets out of a vhicle after being pulled over is going to get a going over. It appears like the driver doesnt want the officer to see or smell whats in the vehicle booze or weed or whatever. Of course this may be different if a vehicle is disabled and a cops rendering assistance but most dont want people wandering into traffic or taking a chance of fleeing on foot till they check your licene plates etc.

There are reasons for the methods, weather you like it or can deal with it is you're own personal problem. If you screwed up butch up and take the responsibility. If anything it shakes you out and makes you a bit more aware of your surroundings for awhile.

As far as the guy being pulled over in Houston with long hair, unless you look like a redneck or biker its an unusual look in this area. Because of the heat, the long oily smelly hair thing thing isnt very popular with the chicks. Natives also wear hats outside because of the sun (Any kind of hat not nessarily cowboy hats). With long hair, the hat doesnt fit or stay on well, you only sweat more and once removed you definately look like a cone head.

So my point is, cops arent stupid, If you got out of state plates, young kids, long hair. I'd sure profile you as being suspicious late at night. Having Grown up in a rock band and having cops harrass us all the time you either learn how to avoid situations to begin with or continue to get profiled, it your choice and right to look and do what you want but if you want to be a target and draw attention enjoy the results. Unless I'm playing out I perfer to be the invisable man. Even then it would be a cool stage effect.

[Dean Roddey]

A very self confident girl I used to know actually a number of times (by her claim anyway) used the old 'show him two pointed reasons why he shouldn't give her a ticket" trick. And she said it worked. Of course that probably wouldn't work so well with a guy. I guess you could show him one pointed reason why he shouldn't, but if it actually worked, you'd be worse off than if you just got the ticket.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I took a driver's test a few years ago when I moved back to Oregon. I suppose it varies from state to state, but I don't remember anything saying "don't get out of your vehicle if you're pulled over".

In California, it's just a well-known rule of the road. Not only do you not get out of the car ever (unless you're ordered to), but if a cop approaches the car, it's the best bet to have both your hands up on the steering wheel or in plain sight regardless.

If you get out of your car, it's standard practice for the officer to ready his/her sidearm. So, if you don't like people grabbing for their guns to possibly aim in your general direction, it's best to stay in the vehicle.

[WRGKMC]

Looks like the cop involved in this original post has resigned. Dont know if this is because of all the BS he was getting or and easier path for quelling contreversy. From all I've seen the guy was pretty much pressured out for doing his job. Pretty sad situation we're in when Media or personalities can decide peoples innocence and guilt in situations and that doesnt even include blogs and lawyers.

[veracohr]

So what do you do? Ask him politely what he's doing in your home at 3 AM and whether or not he intends you any harm?

 

 

You can point a gun and threaten an intruder without shooting to kill. Shooting should be a last resort, and shooting to kill even "more last resort" than that.

 

 

On the other hand they ought not be surprised when it happens. Knowing that breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night to take things that they have worked hard for and in some cases are irreplaceable just might get your head blown off can be a powerful deterrent. Most people are chosen as victims because the criminal assess the threat level to them to be low. I like to keep 'em guessing.

 

 

I'd rather have my things be stolen than live with the weight of someone's death on my conscience.

 

When it comes to irreplaceable things, I think the only things that really matter are lives.

[FireWithin]

...But let's be honest. The only way a white guy can earn that kind of treatment is by having a lapfull of meth and rifle exposed in the back seat...and a NAMBLA bumper sticker.

 

 

Bull{censored}. I've been treated MUCH worse than that for having done nothing other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In fact, this has happened more than once.

 

It's f'ed that cops act like this but don't try and make this a race thing...or a southern thing, it's happening everywhere and while I do not agree with the additude and actions of police all over this nation, had I acted in the manner that this guy did, I would have expected the same treatment or much worse.

[coyote-1]

That's Texas for you.

That is {censored}ing disgusting. The guy even asked the cop, "do you UNDERSTAND!?!?!?! MY MOTHER IS DYING!!!! I HAVE SECONDS!!!" and the {censored}ing douche-ass cop displayed absolutely no compassion. {censored}ing disgusting.

I wonder how many "law and order" types are feigning outrage at this cop, who (technically) correctly nailed the guy for running a stop sign, just because this is an NFL PLAYER.

We have what often seems a majority in this nation calling for zero tolerance, and for ever-increasing restrictions. Well folks, THIS IS THE RESULT of such things.

Anyone who has ever supported MADD, seatbelt laws, zero tolerance, etc better not be claiming to be on the player's side here.

[FireWithin]

What are the gun violence statistics Illegal vs legal possession?

 

 

Thats the numbers I'd like to see!

[tucktronix]

I wonder how many "law and order" types are feigning outrage at this cop, who (technically) correctly nailed the guy for running a stop sign, just because this is an NFL PLAYER.

 

Do you really think that the majority of the folks who are outraged feel that the NFL player should get preferential treatment?? I would tend to think that the outrage is directed at how a human being was treated by an officer of the law. Remember, the guy didn't tell the cop that he was an NFL player.

 

 

We have what often seems a majority in this nation calling for zero tolerance , and for ever-increasing restrictions. Well folks, THIS IS THE RESULT of such things. Anyone who has ever supported MADD, seatbelt laws, zero tolerance , etc better not be claiming to be on the player's side here.

 

Let's go back for a moment and look at what happened. The issue was never with the cop pulling the NFL player over for running the red light. The issue was with the lack of compassion and poor judgment displayed by the officer when the player clearly explained his situation to him. Whether or not I support MADD, zero-tolerance, etc, has very little relevance in this situation and I truly believe that a majority of police officers would have handled this case differently.

 

Here's one interesting tidbit that no one here has posted...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090330/ap_on_re_us/nfl_player_stopped_4

Notice that he never called for the firing of the officer, nor his resignation.. shows a bit of class on the player's part.

[WRGKMC]

The issue was with the lack of compassion and poor judgment displayed by the officer when the player clearly explained his situation to him.

 

He didnt need to have compassion and its not his job to judge. All he needed to do was give the guy a ticket. Period. What occured in the process occured because peoples think they can talk themselves out of a ticket. Weather the reason was valid or not is irrelative. If he had a valid problem they could have gotten it thrown out of court.

 

This was a black cop and there was absolutely no predjudice going on here just stupidity on the part of the driver and passengers who threatened the cop into action by jumping out of the vehicle when stopped. Thats a stupid threatening move.

Sure the driver may have been nervious and upset but do you know its actually illegal to operate a vehicle unless you are in complete control of yourself and the vehicle? The guy was breaking the law as much as if he was intoxicated if you go straight by the law. These people obviously werent in control. Running a light could have killed them and others so who'se wrong here? The people who have sympathy for those breaking the law. I have all the sympathy in the world for their loss and the fact they didnt make it in time to be there. I dont have any for them getting themselves in trouble in the process of getting there because they did it to themselves. Two wrongs don't make it right.

[G Geezer]

BTW

He resigned today
............

FWIW

[Jeff da Weasel]

What occured in the process occured because peoples think they can talk themselves out of a ticket.

 

 

So, you equate someone's mother-in-law dying to talking your way out of a ticket???

 

That sounds like something a complete asshole would say. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your meaning here. Maybe you didn't mean what you wrote here and I'm taking it out of context.

 

But if I didn't, I'm glad I'm not one of your family members. And I'm REALLY glad you're not a cop. You're not a cop, right?

[tucktronix]

He didnt need to have compassion and its not his job to judge. All he needed to do was give the guy a ticket. Period. What occured in the process occured because peoples think they can talk themselves out of a ticket. Weather the reason was valid or not is irrelative. If he had a valid problem they could have gotten it thrown out of court. This was a black cop and there was absolutely no predjudice going on here just stupidity on the part of the driver and passengers who threatened the cop into action by jumping out of the vehicle when stopped. Thats a stupid threatening move. Sure the driver may have been nervious and upset but do you know its actually illegal to operate a vehicle unless you are in complete control of yourself and the vehicle? The guy was breaking the law as much as if he was intoxicated if you go straight by the law. These people obviously werent in control. Running a light could have killed them and others so who'se wrong here? The people who have sympathy for those breaking the law. I have all the sympathy in the world for their loss and the fact they didnt make it in time to be there. I dont have any for them getting themselves in trouble in the process of getting there because they did it to themselves. Two wrongs don't make it right.

Yep... and I'm sure that if you were in this same situation when you're being pulled over for running a red light or stop sign and your loved one is dying, you would've acted differently...???

 

Really?? :facepalm: