h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. But I mean, come on, I had to say "I invoke Godwin's Law." It's so catchy.

(And considering what I was ORIGINALLY going to say...)

Bloody simposts....

Hoo, despite your confusing definition of your morality (it's OK to break into a home in broad daylight in a crowded neighborhood?) I find your post typical considering your views.

One thing, though- you have a girlfriend??

Hoo



Unfortunately, they were so stupid they didn't even get the car up to a speed to die from the impact?

Also, I do find the http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/ website rather pointless.

A 'www.whydidntthatcherdiein1959/1970/1979*.co.uk would be a better one.

She's done the damage now whether she's alive or dead means nothing...a apart from a sense of closure and as I'm not a Yank I don't do closure.

* delete as applicable based on when you think Thatcher really started screwing up the country...

"I would also ask again, how could a human being with any sense of morality whatsoever 'appreciate' the death of another human? To do so, whoever that human is and whatever they have done, is simply grotesque."

I'm utterly unsympathetic to the plight of felons shot while commiting their crime. I'd always rather a violent felon be dead rather than an innocent person be harmed.

The violent felon knows what he's doing is dangerous when he did it, so why should I care about his death?

Baron Grim: I think the self-defence thing is potentially a grey area. If there is a genuine threat to your life then I'd find it hard to condemn you for killing someone, but at the same time how many 'self-defence' killings are a knee-jerk reaction to media-created fear of Evil Criminals? They assume there is a threat and so act based on that assumption. That you overall respect life is highly laudable though. Mr. X "You can't honestly claim that there aren't people you'd rather see dead. And if you do, I don't believe you" Then spank my botty and call me a liar. I genuinely cannot think of anyone who I actually want to see dead. I suppose taking an entirely cold, objective stance there *are* people who the world would be better off without, but being human I'm neither cold nor objective. I do appreciate gallows humour, and do the Deathlist Game every year, but I wish death on nobody beyond the fact that it's inevitable and should not be delayed just because science us enables us to (I am pro-euthanasia because I think it is morally worse to keep someone alive and suffering than it is to kill them). Hoo: "Hah! Wow, you're a proper bleeding heart, aren't you?" I do not consider myself such, no. Hoo: "Presumably you don't find this in the least funny, either? http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/" Nope. And I find the fact that people want to have street parties when she does die distasteful. Hoo: "My sense of morality tells me that piling one wrong, on top of another, on top of another, makes any person who could do such a thing a very bad person indeed. The lifestyles such people lead, and the children they tend to produce in abundance, add little to the sum total of national health, wealth or happiness. They are a net drain on humanity as long as they live. So when, in the act of committing one of their crimes, such people are killed by one of the innocents they prey upon, then yes, absolutely, I'm glad they're dead." Right, so killing someone who's trying to rob you and being happy about it is morally okay? And is not reacting to a wrong with a greater wrong? Of course it is because all criminals are irredeemable scum. Except they're not. Many are desperate, having been downtrodden by society. There are especially frightening examples of this in the US where people commit crimes because they know that in prison they'll get the healthcare they otherwise cannot afford. Yes, some people are beyond help, and they should be locked away for the rest of their natural, but that does not mean all criminals should be tarred with the same brush, and it certainly does not give you the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. Two Bit: "I'd always rather a violent felon be dead rather than an innocent person be harmed." But can you honestly say that all criminals who are shot by the public are violent or have genuinely violent intentions? It's easy to assume they did after the fact, but if they're not there to defend themselves... "When the intruder arrived in the attic, the woman shot him five times." All the man actually did, according to the report, was be in the same space as the woman. Absolutely no indication that he intended to give violence. He might have just been intending to demand the location of any valuable items, but she shot him. Five times.

Not to mention that because of a very broken mental health system in the US, there are a lot of poor people suffering and acting in 'crazy' ways who are truly harmless out there. No one is suggesting that these people be put out of their misery by bystanders or 'law enforcement officials.' They are all someone's son or daughter and possibly somebodies parent or grandparent.

I don't know that most criminals are mentally ill. I suspect that they are not.

I'm very interested in the issue of the mentally ill and how that might relate to these incidents. We don't have a mechanism to track the mentally ill like we do with convicted criminals. On the flip side, there's an issue of discimination against the mentally ill. One of the things we in law enforcement are trying to cope with is how we deal with the mentally ill. There's a big effort in Georgia, and I assume throughout the nation, for law enforcement to deal with the mentally ill in crisis in a more effective ammner with an eye towards getting them help. We're doing it hand in hand with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. One of the things they're trying to do is get the mentally ill mainstreamed so that they can fully particpate in society.

There's an interesting and difficult conflict there.

I think there's probably a way to address it by limiting the impact of being mentally ill, but also exapnding the power of the state to interevene when a person presents a credible threat.

I don't think I have the vocubulary to adequately explain my thinking on this issue.

I've googled about the intruder shot five times

Was there any evidence that he was in fact violent, had any intention of being violent

so far all I have come up with that he was going to burgle the place, had gone to the lengths of checking that it was an empty property

He was coming after the woman and her kids. She had locked three doors between them and retreated to a crawl space. She shot him when he broke through the door to that.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-em-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite

Second Amendment:
In 1787 'arms' referred to single shot muskets and
pisstools. Though regarded as super weapons at the
time, only a very well-drilled army could fire and
reload at a rate close to three rounds per minute.

Modern assault weapons discharge multiple rounds per
second. One current argument among the gun-control
lobbyists is to reduce the capacity of ammo-clips
so that a shooter is obliged to reload occasionally,
giving the White Knights a three second window every
now and then so they can take him down.

The shooter who injured Congresswoman Cathy Giffords
(killing six others and wounding dozens) was taken down
by an unarmed by-stander while an armed citizen nearby
was waiting for an opening which never came.


~jwf~

New shooting at school in USA, two children shot, thankfully neither killed

Few other details yet but I suspect it may refocus minds so soon after Sandy Hook, politicians had been distracted after "dealing" with the financial cliff

With all the ubiquitous media coverage of the recent mass murders, especially the Newtown incident, I'm absolutely not surprised.

For those who haven't seen this yet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Live coverage: http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/report-at-least-one-person-shot-at-taft-high-school

"We have a suspect in custody," Pruitt said, adding that the person was believed to be a student.

Pruitt said he believes the student used a shotgun in the attack and that weapon has been recovered.

For the sake of accuracy, 1787 is when the Constitution was written. It was ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights was passed out of Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

This isn't meant to be critical. The constant reference to 1787 inexplicably bugs me.

Thanks for the link Baron Grim

Um, I have another question for anyone who can help

What happens after a shooting like the intruder one, investigation and legal wise?

>> constant reference to 1787 inexplicably bugs me <<

Duly noted.
I relied on the accuracy of a previous poster.
Never a wise thing to do.
A lie repeated often enough takes on a kind of
established Truth which is hard to change or remedy.
I regret my careless contribution to any distortion
of historical facts.
Yes, I honestly do.

~jwf~

That video's suggestions about minimising media coverage has a number of good points to make, BG. Thanks for the link.

If sensationalistic media coverage causes more mass murders,
why does it continue?
Because it sells media!
Why does it sell media?
Because so many people are susceptible to emotional button pushing.
What is wrong with emotional button pushing?
Emotional responses are without rational reason.

After a shooting? Well, you have a big mess. It's complicated.

First, you have to make the scene safe. Having more than one shooter is pretty rebut you have to clear the school and evacuate the students. Then you need to try to get accountability for students. Schools pretty much all have school safety plans which will designate evacuation plans and alternate sites for students to be evacuated to. Once the student iss are there then you try to reunion them with their parents. Parents will create a problem because they'll go straight to the school to get their kids and interfere with the response, evacuation, and accountability efforts by school officials and public safety.

While all this is going on, you'll have teams of law enforcement officers removing the wounded from the school and getting them to ambulances. If the scene isn't cleared by law enforcement, EMTs won't enter.

At the same time, local agencies will start setting up a command post, traffic control plans, and locations for press briefings. The responsibilityfor th scene will shift from law enforcement until the scene is safe, to fireside until the wounded are evacuated (unless they're all evacuated prior to the scene being cleared), back to law enforcement for the investigation, and finally back to the property owner.

Once all these acute issues are dealt with then you'll have people start working on the investigation and the school will probably start preparing for managing the aftermath and continuity of operations.

It's a big mess. Fire fighters tend to be pretty good at dealing with big issues like this because they have Incident Command ingrained in them from day one. They do everything as a team. Law enforcement isn't because we're used to working alone or in small groups.

I think that covers the basics. It's been a bit since I worked at a school. This is one of the things that I planned for, although I considered a typical school shooting to be a pretty remote possibility. I was always concerned more with a drive by type shooting.