A little background..
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … ?gnt-cfr=1
This should not be so rare, as I would prefer it to occur far more than it does. This needs to happen every time a minor obtains a weapon from an adult who did not consider the circumstances regarding the personality of the children nor properly secure the weapon to prevent unauthorized access.
It is one of those things that just sticks in my craw. Parents or legal guardians not taking responsibility for the actions of their minor charges.
While I will always have issue with conservatives values and culture giving the ok to giving a 5 year old a .22 rifle as a birthday present, I do insist that when a minor abuses a weapon that is in the possession of adults, the adults should be held liable for any damages or loss of life. This thing that happened in Michigan, if were not so tragic, would be considered incredibly dumb.
I recall a recent story about a young man who had his computer laptop sitting on his front porch. A neighbor kid went into this fellows yard and broke his computer. The man went to the boy's father demanding restitution for the damage. The boy's father told the man that he should not have left the laptop unattended in the first place, and denied the young man's request. It may well have to be settled in claims court. What sort of attitude is that?
Parents seem to want to give their kids a wide berth oblivious that society has rules for decorum and behavior. I got vexed with a former workmate who told me that adults were to blame if they could not accept and accommodate the boisterous nature of kids in general and hers, specifically. She let her kids RUN around the store, unsupervised. I asked her did it occur to you that either your children or store patrons may be injured or something might be broken that she would have to pay for? None of this supersedes her kids' right to "self expression".
Admonishing a nephew, I told him that Rights come with responsibilities and responsibility comes with rights. When you are old enough to be solely responsible for your actions, then you can do what you like, until then, you do as you are told by mom and dad.
Implicit in your complaint is that all parents can always control their children. That simply is not true. Even some pre-teens cannot be controlled by even the best intentioned parents, let alone "kids" that are 15, 16, 17 years old.
Understood Wilderness, but in this case common sense would have told any sentient human being in the role of a parent that introducing a firearm to this obviously troubled kid goes well beyond the concept of irresponsible.
Again, the assumption is that the parents "introduced" the gun to the kid. I haven't seen anything on that matter; with the information I have he could have broken into a safe and stolen it from the parents. Or they could have loaded it and handed it to him as you assume. Or anything in between.
The only information I've seen is that they are charged with involuntary manslaughter. Not even an indication on whether it was intentional, unintentional, accidental, the degree of carelessness or anything else.
McDonald said the 15-year-old was present Nov. 26 when his father purchased the 9mm Sig Sauer SP 2022 handgun used during the shooting as a Christmas gift. The suspect also posted images of the firearm online, calling it his "new beauty," she added.
His mother posted online about "testing out" the gift, too, she said. When the suspect was caught in class researching ammunition online, his mother texted him, "LOL I'm not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught," McDonald said.
Well, Wilderness, here is a bit more. It going to be hard to,
say that the parent were unaware of what they doing regarding the minor.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … ?gnt-cfr=1
What is your answer to this?
It’s one debate that would be pointless for me to get involved with because we don’t have a gun culture in Britain; not even the police or criminals carry guns.
But when I read your sentence “….conservatives values and culture giving the ok to giving a 5 year old a .22 rifle as a birthday present” I was shocked and amazed that it’s legal for children to own guns, even in America.
Although (on a lighter note) in reading that (with respect to your reference of a 5 year old) it did make me wonder what Americans think of our drinking laws in Britain e.g. not only is it legal in the UK for 16 year olds to drink alcohol in public if it’s with a meal at a table, and provided someone over the age of 18 buys the drinks; but also, in the privacy of your own home in Britain it is legal for children from the age of 5 to drink alcohol.
I guess, different cultures, different values!
I am still in awe that your law enforcement officers are not armed, while "Dirty Harry" is in vogue here.
While minors, in theory, cannot buy weapons (firearms), they can be bought by an adult and given to kids as a gift. We are way out in "right field" compared to you folks, so don't be surprised.
Generally your situation in Britain is true here, somewhat. It is illegal to serve alcoholic beverages to those under 21 and it is a quick way for an establishment to lose its liquor license. In the privacy of your own home, nobody is making a scene about kids being served alcoholic beverages. Just don't get caught hosting a party at your house where minors are being served.
I have fought for many years during the period between my 18th and 21st birthdays to have the legal drinking age lowered to 18. I am still of the generation that believes that if one is old enough to fight in military service, then you are old enough to drink.
Eighteen should be the line of demarcation as at this age you are legally held solely responsible for your actions. It is at the height of arrogance where older people want to hold a class of adults liable without the commensurate rights and privileges.
Great question, Arthur, thanks for your imput.
Oh Credence, that really dates you. We all know 18 year old's brain has not developed to the point they can logically decide not to do something they very much want to do.
But if you're dated, so am I. I you can give your life for your country you can give your liver for a good party (or 20 of them).
Wondering if charges will be brought for the school administration that let this boy continue his day when the
The morning of the shooting, Ethan Crumbley’s teacher came upon a note on his desk containing the following: a drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointed at the words, ‘The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.’ In another section of the note was a drawing of a bullet with the following words above that bullet: ‘Blood everywhere.’
The teacher brought this to school administration who as mandated reporters dropped the ball completely. This child should have been in an ambulance on the way to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and help. As a former educator in an age of shooter lockdown drills/protocol this is incomprehensible.
Probably not, no one can be held responsible for making the correlation between disturbing drawings and actual gun violence.
The parents were the ones that should have been in the know regarding a broad area of concerns that I could not expect the school administrators to be aware of.
School administration and I would assume that a psychologist was brought on board also were In possession of a picture that clearly indicated that this student was a danger to others. They have a responsibility, to report. They are actually mandated. The psychologist/counselor/social worker at minimum are mandated reporters. We have mandated reporting to take the situation to qualified professionals to determine someone's state of mind when they have shown in words or otherwise that they intend to harm others or themselves.
Yeah, the UN recognises 18 as the general guide for when one ceases to be a child, and I know from previous debates on these forums many Americans view even 18 too young and think 21 is the more appropriate age.
In contrast, Britain encourages its young to be ‘young adults’ e.g. the ‘Youth Parliament’ which was formed in 1998, and was given permission by the Labour Government (Socialist) Prime Minister in 2007 to sit in the House of Commons for one day, to debate and vote on issues; a tradition that every UK Government has honoured ever since.
The Youth Parliament is made of up children between the age of 11 and 18, elected by their peers in annual elections to represent the views of children and lobby Parliament; one of their long standing campaigns being to lower the voting age from 18 to 16.
Alex McDermott MYP: Votes at 16 UKYP House of Commons Debate Speech: https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZs
• In 2015 the Scottish Parliament lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 in Scotland, and
• In 2020 the Welsh Parliament lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 in Wales.
Yes it is great to be out on the streets and see the police unarmed, and knowing that no one else (not even criminals) are carrying guns. I think this video of an attempted robbery of a Jewellery store in London, England sums it up quite well:- https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg
In the UK the maximum fine for selling alcohol to any under the age of 18 is £5,000 ($6,600) for a first offence, rising to £20,000 ($26,000) for subsequent offences, and you can have your licence to sell alcohol suspended or forfeited but that is exceptional.
But of course it’s legal for anyone over 18 to buy an alcoholic drink for someone over 16 (provided it’s with a meal at a table) because it allows family with older teenagers to go out for a family meal and have a good time.
The reason that it’s legal for children over 5 to drink at home in Britain stems from two origins:-
• Firstly from medieval time to early Victorian, before proper sanitation of water, drinking water in Britain often carries deadly disease like typhoid and cholera so it was a lot safer to drink beer and wine than water; so much so that from the early part of the Industrial Revolution through to late Victorian times, it was a common practice in Britain for employers to supply their workers with ample beer and bread as a safe sustenance to keep them going through the working day.
• Secondly, it’s always been traditional across Europe for children to be given wine at the table, at home, during periods of celebration e.g. Christmas and Easter etc.
As regards illegal drinking: In my day (a long time ago) it was normal for kids to start drinking in pubs and nightclubs from the age of 16; I started drinking at 16, and my wife was corrupted by me at the age of 17, when we were first introduced in a pub by Gail (a mutual friend), who herself was only 16.
Albeit on our first date, I took my wife to be for a meal, and bought wine for the two us, which although she was only 17 was legal because I was 18 and we had the wine with our meal at a table.
Of course, things are a little different these days, because the authorities have since cracked down on underage drinking so a teenager can only buy an alcohol drink if they can prove (when challenged) that they’re over 18 with ID.
Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped the binge drinking among the young (teenagers over 18 and people in their 20s) which plagues British Society. One remedy the Government did try was to change the licencing laws so that pubs (bars) can stay open 24 hours a day instead of having to close at 10:30pm as they had to do in my day. The theory being that people would stagger their drinking over a longer period and not binge drink – but whether that strategy has worked is questionable.
Our son got a taste for vodka when he was about 12, at a friend’s BBQ party we attended; private party in a private home, so perfectly legal for children over 5 to drink alcohol. The mother (host) laced the children’s jellies with vodka, and very soon we had a lot of giggly children running around. The parents, instead of being shocked, found it amusing; – So I’m not quite sure what that says about British Society?
Teenage Binge-Drinking in Britain: https://youtu.be/LkiwMjxXHcw
"Yes it is great to be out on the streets and see the police unarmed, and knowing that no one else (not even criminals) are carrying guns."
Why is it a good feeling? Are you assuming, first that no one else is carrying guns and therefore police do not need that level of force and second that if you are not shot it means you won't be knifed, bludgeoned, gassed, poisoned, exploded, run over or in any other way killed by a murderer?
I understand that the level of violence in the UK is far below that of the US, but your assumptions are not backed up with facts.
People in the streets of the UK are not unarmed. This place has far more stabbings than here in the US. Maybe they should try knife control. But then the responsible knife users may get upset. At least they don't have to worry about guns.
"Knife crime: Fatal stabbings at highest level since records began in 1946"
There were 285 killings by a knife or sharp instrument in the 12 months ending March 2018, Office for National Statistics analysis shows.
The ONS says one in four (71) of all victims (285) were men aged 18-24.
The figures also show 25% of victims were black - the highest proportion since data was first collected in 1997.
Yes, of course different weapons are used when guns are not so prevalent. That's the whole point - that disarming the public does NOT stop the murders no matter how many times our politicians and others claim it will.
But the fact remains that the UK has a much lower violence rate than the US. Why? It isn't about guns, so what IS the reason? Because they drink like fish, at least compared to Americans?
I wouldn’t have disagreed with you; it wouldn’t surprise me if knife crime is higher in the UK than the USA, because in the UK we don’t have the guns.
However, out of interest, I did ‘fact-check’ form several sources and found the following data, which is interesting:-
• In 2018 there were 285 fatal stabbings in England and Wales, and 34 in Scotland, giving a combined British rate of 0.48 per 100,000 of population.
• In the USA the number was, 1,591, giving a USA rate of 0.49 per 100.000 of population.
It corresponds with the ONS data that you cited e.g. 285 fatal stabbings in England and Wales, and interestingly it would suggest that the level of knife crimes in the USA and UK (when population adjusted) isn’t that much different.
Yeah, and as we don’t have guns in the UK knife crime is a big thing to us, every major stabbing hits the news headlines, and…..
…..based on you opening comments, it may surprise you to know that the UK Government does have strict ‘knife control’ laws, that are heavily enforced by the police.
In the UK it is a criminal offence to be in possession of a knife in public, even if it’s concealed at the bottom of your handbag, shoulder bag or rucksack etc. The maximum penalty for being in possession of a knife in public in the UK is 7 years prison sentence.
When you buy a new set of kitchen knives, how do you get them home?
I would never make it in the UK. I have a conceal carry permit and always have a knife with me.
7 years in jail for having a knife in public...that's crazy.
Firstly, in order to buy knives in the UK you have to be over 18, and if there is any doubt you will be asked to provide ID to prove your age.
Secondly, when you buy a new set of kitchen knives they will be in their wrapper and you will have a receipt of purchase; so that it’s obvious to the police that you’ve just bought them and in the process of taking them home.
"Why is it a good feeling? Are you assuming, first that no one else is carrying guns and therefore police do not need that level of force and second that if you are not shot it means you won't be knifed, bludgeoned, gassed, poisoned, exploded, run over or in any other way killed by a murderer?"
It is not an assumption, it is a fact that firearms are simply more difficult to obtain in Britain. You just can't pick one up at your local Walmart.
"You can fact check me on this one, Arthur"
The overall homicide rates between the two nations, regardless of means and manner are starkly different. It was you, yourself, that questioned why Americans are so violent
If I lived in a country with 1/5 th the homicide rate of my present domicile, I would think that is cause for a "good feeling".
WHY do you think that the level of violence in the U.K. is far below that found in America?
You missed the entire point. The question was why it is a good feeling to see police unequipped to deal with violence at the level of gunfire, not why it was a good feeling to have a low violence rate. Yes, the UK citizenry is not armed like the US people; that was never questioned.
Yes, the homicide rates are very different - the question was, and is, "why is it different?". The answer is not that there are fewer guns (there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates); then what IS the answer?
We don't seem to care - our entire effort is to disarm the public rather than find and address why we are so violent.
It is a good feeling because the police do not need generally to be armed because the threats that are routine in America are far and removed there.
You, yourself, said that the fact that America is armed does not explain the higher homicide rates, as people can be killed with knives, skillets, sterling silver pickle forks and the like? So, NOW, the fact that America is so heavily armed explains the difference between the levels of violence within the two societies? So, did I actually catch you with your britches down, this time?
You have made your point about the prevalence of guns not being a factor.
I think conservatives would cease to have a reason to exist if they could not continually push the idea that the Left wants to disarm everyone. But what is true is that I will come down like a ton of bricks on abuse of the 2nd Amendment Right.
Well, considering that there were over 10,000 gun related crimes in the UK in 2000 I'd have to say that unarmed cops could be a rather severe disadvantage.
But I do get your point - in a quiet society, without the violence we see here, it would be a good feeling. Although, just as a side, I have seen where the bobbies are beginning to have guns available and some even carry them - it isn't as quiet as all that.
No - there is no correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates anywhere in the world. Being armed does not explain the difference in the violence we see here vs the UK.
I guess it depends on just how the 2nd amendment is "abused". How do you "abuse" an amendment guaranteeing the right to be armed? Shooting someone is a different abuse, after all - the right to be armed is not the right to kill, so killing by gun is not abusing the amendment. I guess is you have a suitcase nuke under your bed it could be considered abuse.
What the man said in the video with the machete is correct. If he did this in the United States, he would have been shot. You are right. We have two different cultures.
Thanks for the videos, the first one reminded me of the "Benny Hill" show.
And yes, in America, while I think that resourceful cops could deal with a man with bladed weapon in a non-lethal fashion, they would just probably just simply shoot him as an offensive threat.
Yes, the first video was very reminiscence of Benny Hill; but as least those in the videos wielding the knives, after they'd done their time in prison for carrying an offensive weapon, have a 2nd chance of life!
Cred it right. The person would be given instructions by a police officer to drop the knife. If he lunged at someone or looked like he was going to use it, he would be shot.
Over the years I have seen plenty of video footage on British TV News Channels showing American police kill unarmed people, sometimes in the back. One of the more famous such shootings, that shocked the world, being that of the Australian woman (an innocent victim of police crime) Justine Damond killed by police.
Yep, and we talk about reform with an emphasis on retraining and removing the beasts from the ranks, conservatives say that you are hamstringing the police regarding their ability to do their jobs.
Yes, it would seem that for as long as the conservatives, and the NRA, want to perpetuate gun violence then even just modest gun reforms in the USA will certainly be big uphill struggle.
"the conservatives, and the NRA, want to perpetuate gun violence"
You have NO idea what you are talking about.
The NRA provides classes and training for legal firearms owners. No member of the NRA has ever been accused of committing a mass shooting or even promoting gun violence. Yes, the NRA works to protect the rights of responsible gun owners. I am proud to be a member.
It's been proven again and again that gun laws don't work. When this happens only criminals have guns. That is not a society I want to live in. I am glad I live in a country where people have a right to defend themselves.
So, the main question is how to keep guns away from criminals. How to stop the flow of illegal guns coming into the USA from Mexico and other countries. That is our uphill struggle.
Even with all of the UK's control of firearms...it still has gun deaths every year.
Why isn't is zero?
Gun laws don't work? I don't find it out of bounds to legally hold gun owners responsible if minor children access and abuse the use of the weapon. How is that for starters?
It is ridiculous to imply that because we virtually have blood running in the street over abuse of firearms you expect a perfect record elsewhere as a comparison? There is no real basis to make such a gross analogy.
How do you explain the serious crime surges in Democrat cities and states? These are the places that tried to defund the police.
Yes, conservatives value the rights of law-abiding citizens over the criminals that would do them harm.
Democrats do have an unhealthy obsession with criminals and illegal aliens. It's almost as if they value them above legal citizens and those who obey the law. This makes them look really crazy.
Why this endless refrain about "Democrat cities"?
You have to be speaking about ALL major American cities as they have Democrat mayors, does that make all them Democrat cities?
That is where you find progressive, diverse and educated people, you had better be glad that they exist.
I do not support disarming the police, but I do support enacting needed reform within their ranks.
You're looking at life through a funhouse mirror, Mike, your perceptions of the Left and their views of crime and punishment are in error.
"That is where you find progressive, diverse and educated people, you had better be glad that they exist."
This is also where you find serious drug addiction, out of control crime, and criminals running free with no fear of consequences. Cities are not the only place where you find diverse and educated people. Trust me. I've lived in big cities, and I've lived in rural communities, and I would NEVER move back to a big city.
I think your views of conservatives and crime and punishment couldn't be more off. It's the conservative areas of the country that have the safest neighborhoods.
America’s Top 20 Cities for Crime, and What Party Runs Them
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/06/24/ … -runs-them
Conservatives areas are only safer because they are sparsely populated. As I told you before, cities in their very nature are different than rural areas.
I live in a semi-rural area with chickens and geese running around, I wouldn't move back into the urban jungle either. But my reasons and rationale are different from yours.
Sparsely populated means fewer police. Fewer per square mile, possibly fewer per capita. Doesn't that sound like a criminal's paradise? I'm not sure your statement holds merit - while rural areas are safer, I'm not convinced it is because there are fewer people. Far more likely, IMO, is because the culture is different. While some crime is accepted (how many farmers get upset at a few firecrackers?) violent crime, theft - those crimes that victimize other people - are simply not acceptable. Not just by law, but by culture and philosophy.
Rural people are also much more likely to defend themselves and their property against criminals. This undoubtedly plays a part, perhaps a large one.
"Rural people are also much more likely to defend themselves and their property against criminals."
You are spot on with that one. More people who live in rural areas are more comfortable with guns. They use them more often with everything from shooting at farm pests to hunting and more.
They just are very unlikely to use their guns on one another.
Yes, but sparsely populated area would actually have fewer criminals. The "American Gothic" you paint here of the intrinsically noble rural inhabitant, is not what I see. When the country folks have to move from the country into the city for advancement and economic opportunity, they lose the "country mouse" persona quickly, and have to adapt to the negatives associated with living in any large populated community. Obviously, they would take their chances with the negatives to obtain the advantages. They are not country mice anymore and that is the trend conservatives and Republicans most fear.
it was like comparing London with Detroit, in an environment where there is less crime, people have differing attitudes, it is not that people are different or better, innately. Their environment allow Londoners a level of comfort not found by those living in Detroit. So, outside of the environmental circumstances, they are no difference from anyone else. In my humble opinion, of course.
Where do you derive the idea that city dwellers are not going to defend themselves or their property?
LOL I would suspect that there are few criminals per capita in rural areas that the urban jungles. How else to they get by with so few police in spite of them having to cover a much larger area, with long response times and more time and resources spent simply moving around?
The "country mouse" designation is laughable - it is more the "country lion" and I think you are well aware of that. It is a part and parcel of what you don't like about conservatives - they really ARE much more willing, and able, to defend themselves and do so. The idea that urban people depend more on themselves than rural ones is completely backwards and you understand that as well as I do. It is reflected in red/blue maps, it is seen in how liberal cities are and how they treat criminals, it is seen everywhere you look.
"Country lion" more like a Panthera Atrox, an extinct prehistoric panther.
I am not aware of THAT, we all want to defend ourselves, Wilderness. The gun people need to just make sure that it is self DEFENSE and not something other than that, examples of which I have seen in the headlines lately.
Because millions of people can live in close proximity to one another means more accommodation and cooperation would be necessary than what would be the case in Mayberry. What would people trade to get better jobs and make more money than they can back on the farm? Does that reality scare conservatives, Wilderness? I understand you, but your position seems a futile one.
"we all want to defend ourselves, Wilderness"
For sure. That's why the liberal mantra is "Get the guns away!". Even you, a far left liberal recognizes that liberals do NOT want people to defend themselves or their property. Even try and you will end up behind bars.
Any form of violence, in self defense or not, will be done by police and NOT the citizenry.
It has got to be some sort of delusion that you hard right conservative types harbor. Yes, you will end up behind bars if the shootings are unjustified like running a truck after a jogging man, shooting him and calling it self defense. Yes, I have problems with vigilantism as participants seem to forget that there are niceties to be observed associated with following the provisions of the law and due process.
So, what is your beef, you got your "concealed carry" laws and gun permits, open carry and all of that? Just don't cross the line and abuse the weapons use or I will come down on the gun people like a ton of bricks. So, you all can play with your blunderbusses to your heart's content, just make sure innocent people are not hurt.
"Any form of violence, in self defense or not, will be done by police and NOT the citizenry."
I don't get it, where did you get this from?
PS, we had issues in this community about people (hillbilly types-Hatfield and McCoy) firing guns at random and, yes, as a prominent citizen in this community I complain about indiscrinate discharge of weapons as people can be killed or injured with stray bullets There is such a thing as being responsible in the ownership of any firearm. I am not talking about inhibiting the Right to self defense, here.
Credence, no one can look at the endless attempts to limit gun ownership at every opportunity, no one can look at calling a simple semi-automatic hunting rifle (low caliber, low energy to boot) an "assault rifle" used by the military in order to spread fear, and think the objective is not to disarm the public. No one can look at large cities banning the most common, cheap and effective method of self defense (a handgun) and think the goal is not to disarm the public. No one can look at the ever increasing cost (and difficulty) of simply purchasing a gun (beyond the cost of the gun) and think that the ultimate goal is not to disarm the public. No one can look at the insistence that we registering every gun (so govt. knows who owns what) and not understand it is a tool, not to save lives but to eventually confiscate those guns.
Not and be honest with themselves, anyway.
As far as "unjustified" self defense - try shooting a thief running out your door with your TV or jewelry and see where you end up. You are expected, and required, to let them take it and run; you may NOT take action (unless you are a black belt and Olympic sprinter to boot).
Maybe it's just me, and not the rest of the country (although I don't think so), but I'm tired of coddling criminals and simply watching them as they commit crimes because they might get hurt if we actually FORCE them to stop.
Readmikenow: Yeah, there were 33 fatalities resulting from offences involving firearms in the UK in 2019; which is less than one fatality a week.
While in contrast there were 19,141 homicides by firearm in the USA in 2019; no comparison.
Where you say “It's been proven again and again that gun laws don't work. When this happens only criminals have guns.”- Really? Guns are illegal in the UK (only 33 gun fatalities in the UK in 2019), and in the UK it is extremely rare for criminals to carry guns, hence neither do the police, nor anyone else.
Yes, I recognise that in the USA things are different, and the idea of tighter gun laws seem an impossible challenge; but promoting guns doesn’t help the situation, it only serves to promote gun violence – a vicious circle that America seems to have got itself into where there are more guns than people.
Yes, Arthur, any attempt to make even a rough comparison between the two societies regarding violence with firearms has to be considered to be a fool's errand, at best. The truly blind are amongst us are those that look , yet still do not see.
Who in their right mind is going to compare 33 gun fatalities over an entire nation with the thousands here in the same period and think that they are comparing apples with apples?
Yes, our societies are different, but facts do not change merely because we are on opposite sides of the pond.
Yes, you are talking about Mohammas Noor. He was a bad cop. He worked in a liberal city. They wanted him because he as a Somali and was the only Somali on the police force. He should have been taken off the police force long before that incident. Liberals don't care what members of their preferred group does; they just want to believe they're being inclusive. Her death was the result of liberal politics at its worst.
"Records from the city's Office of Police Conduct Review reveal some details about Noor's background. They show that Noor has had three complaints against him. Two are pending, and the third was dismissed without discipline. Under state law, details of open cases and cases that result in no discipline are not released.
The officer was also sued earlier this year after a May 25 incident in which he and other officers took a woman to the hospital for an apparent mental health crisis. The lawsuit claims Noor and the other officers violated the woman's rights when they entered her home without permission and Noor grabbed her wrist and upper arm. Noor relaxed his grip when the woman said she had a previous shoulder injury, the lawsuit says."
Yep, there are bad cops in every police force in every country; but that doesn't alter the fact that in the USA the police shoot dead hundreds of people each year:-
• 2019, the police in the USA killed 999 civilians,
• 2020, the police in the USA killed 1,021 civilians, and
• 2021, the police in the USA killed 830 civilians.
Yes, and hundreds of police get shot in the US every year.
By the end of last month there were over 314 police officers were shot.
Your statistics don't reveal how many civilians shot by police were engaged in criminal activity, threating someone with a gun or were shooting at police officers.
The UK doesn't have to deal with the drug gangs sneaking across their border to engage in the drug trade. Many dangerous gangs travel up through Mexico and sneak across our border bringing drugs, illegal guns, and more. You have the benefit of living on an island.
The liberals in our country get angry at any attempt to stop them. It's frustrating.
So what can America do to stop gun violence? A major report (several years ago now) from Harvard University researchers Thomas Abt and Christopher Winship reviewed the evidence, putting together the big take from 43 reviews of the research that covered more than 1,400 individual studies, while following up with on-the-ground fieldwork across the US and Latin America.
The big conclusion: Cities, states, and the federal government could make significant strides in fighting crime if policing resources were primarily dedicated to the most problematic neighborhoods, blocks, and even people — the ones communities know are causing trouble but don't get enough specific attention from the criminal justice system. And coupled with behavioral intervention programs for at-risk youth and adults, these types of policies could greatly reduce violence in the US.
We've had many of these studies and reviews for a while. Yet very often, all this evidence is glossed over as people instead resort to partisan debates.
Oversimplification of the problem and gross generalization does nothing to advance the issue toward a solution. That solution involves addressing the root causes of violence.
You've mentioned the "Defund the Police " movementbut I'd offer this: Homicides have also risen where police funding hasn't changed but been maintained.
Yet homicide rates are also increasing in these cities that didn't cut spending.
"In Houston, a city led by a Democratic mayor, killings have increased, but so, too, has funding for police.
Nashville, Tennessee, also led by a Democratic mayor, increased the police budget but has seen homicides spike 50% so far this year over last.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Fresno, California, have also seen more killings so far in 2021. Both cities have Republican mayors."
Where do you get this information? I notice you don't cite your sources for some reason.
Interesting article from the Tennessean. They don't provide links to their sources. They only provide links to other issues of the Tennessean.
So, here's one from the Tennessee Star that shows the top 20 most crime ridden cities in the United States are run by Democrats. At least this one has a link to its source.
https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/26/de … en-cities/
Quite an interesting contrast to have big city Detroit as number 1 on the list but tiny Pine Bluff Arkansas following closely behind. The link below is from 2013 and in terms of crime not much has changed there. These are ongoing systemic issues.
"Pine Bluff was once a thriving place to live where there were plenty of jobs.
It survived the great flood of 1927, the Great Depression and even the racial tensions which gripped the south during the 1960s.
But now it has all the hallmarks of a town falling into disrepair and in the last 30 years as many as 16,000 people are thought to have left the area.
Failing schools and poverty are all contributing to the town's high crime rates and the area is crippled with gang warfare fuelled by drug related crime.
Main Street is a parade of boarded up shops and the once mighty Hotel Pines, which opened in 1913, is crumbling away. "
I'd like to offer these as viable reasons/contributors to the ongoing crime stats.
When we simply label crime as a "liberal" Democrat" city issue we are oversimplifying, over generalizing and missing underlying issues. Correlation (Democrat mayor) does not mean causation (increased crime). You cannot ignore confounding factors.
How will we ever get a grip on violent crime if we continue to think this way?
These rankings also lead people to believe that you'll be caught in a crossfire of bullets if you dare set foot in any of these cities. Not the case in Pine Bluff. The crime stats come in overwhelmingly from one small area. I imagine that is the case in most of the cities listed.
And by the way. Pine Bluff has never enacted any Defund the Police initiatives.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … -town.html
"So what can America do to stop gun violence?"
The first step should be to stop limiting our efforts to gun violence as if the gun were a problem rather than the person behind it. As long as we maintain that the gun is the problem, whether by outright statements or insinuation ("stop the gun violence") we won't get anywhere and the bodies will continue to pile.
Can you imagine the crying out should we devote even more police resources to black, slum, gang infested neighborhoods? Whether we did the same for white, slum, gang infested neighborhoods or not we would have that dreaded label "RACIST!" shouted and shrieked to the stars.
"stop limiting our efforts to gun violence as if the gun were a problem rather than the person behind it"
Those who seek to divide with labels will continue to do so.i don't think it's racist to address crime where it is happening. But yes, we need politicians that are willing to rise above the overgeneralization and oversimplification of gun violence being "a liberal city issue" or a "defund the police" issue.
It's complex and multifaceted and it should be addressed as such. I agree that we should do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of certain individuals but I also believe and simultaneously implementing programs that may divert an individual from choosing a criminal path. Again, neither party has all the answers and neither is to blame. I do blame many of them for shamefully polarizing the issue.
I don't see substantial legislation by either side in recent history that has adequately addressed gun violence or crime for that matter. The last tough on crime bill of 1994 had limited effect.
It's time to hold politicians feet to the fire especially when you hear them talk about gun violence while blaming the opposite party and offering no solutions whatsoever.
"Can you imagine the crying out should we devote even more police resources to black, slum, gang infested neighborhoods? Whether we did the same for white, slum, gang infested neighborhoods or not we would have that dreaded label "RACIST!" shouted and shrieked to the stars."
Devoting more resources to policing does not mean ignoring constitutional rights, due process of law against profiling. Even these "vile" people you speak of have rights and they are not to exchanged for "more policing".
Disappointment, frustration and subsequent violence be it from mental illness or cognizant design is a part of life. To think that you can identify these people prior to their access to lethal weapons is a fallacy. The tools should not made available for one deluded person to kill so many, so quickly.
Are you saying that the differing gun violence statistics and the vastness in the difference shown by the numbers between the US and the U.K. can be explained solely by illegal immigration at our southern border? That is pretty lame, Mike?
It's a huge factor.
"One in five US prison inmates is a 'criminal alien'"
"The U.S. population is around 328 million. It’s estimated that about 11 million — or one in 30 — are illegal immigrants. Yet criminal aliens account for more than one in five federal prison inmates. Even assuming a pretty radical margin of error for the sake of argument, that would still mean illegal immigrants are drastically over-represented among the criminal population.
And the actual picture may be worse, since the government says it has no way to be notified of all imprisoned illegal immigrants. So, instead, it counts a subset of them that it learns about through identifiers such as an FBI number."
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration … inal-alien
So, you remove the illegal aliens, and you will discourage all of the American citizens are taken into their criminal activities.
These are only the ones that have been convicted. It boggles the mind to think of the amount of crime committed by illegal aliens where they get away with it.
I am one of those liberals that say that Noor should have been prosecuted as a rogue cop, operating outside established norms and procedures. Nobody here is protecting him.
Your insinuation regarding liberals protecting this man because he is non white is quite trasnparent and as usual, in error. So, the death of George Floyd also represents liberal policies at their worst? Rogue policing is rogue policing regardless of the color of the perpetrator.
Liberals went crazy of George Floyd.
They did nothing about Tony Timpa.
"Tony Timpa Suffered the Same Fate as George Floyd — But Received None of the Attention"
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ton … attention/
So, how does race not guide the liberal mind when it comes to who should have gotten justice?
Readmikenow: Since 1900 (in 121 years) there have been a grand total of just 68 Police Officers in the UK who have been killed in the line of duty:
• Shot = 31
• Run over etc. = 17
• Stabbed = 9
• Collapsed and died while in pursuit e.g. heart attack etc. = 5
• Bombed = 3
• GBH = 2
• Accidental Fall while in pursuit = 1
Shooting of Police Officer in the UK by Year:-
• 1900 = 1
• 1909 = 1
• 1910 = 3
• 1912 = 1
• 1913 = 2
• 1940 = 1
• 1952 = 1
• 1966 = 3
• 1969 = 2
• 1971 = 1
• 1975 = 1
• 1982 = 2
• 1984 = 2
• 1987 = 1
• 1989 = 1
• 1990 = 1
• 1992 = 1
• 1995 = 1
• 2003 = 1
• 2005 = 1
• 2007 = 1
• 2012 = 1
• 2020 = 1
You mockingly question why gun deaths are not zero in the UK. With just 33 gun deaths in the UK in one year, population adjusted (USA 5 times greater population size) that would be equivalent to just 165 gun deaths in the USA in one year; I’m sure with such low figures like that everyone would be chuffed.
Well as you say “By the end of last month there were over 314 police officers were shot.” in the USA - Well with there being more guns than people in the USA what do you expect?
Well actually yes wilderness, we do have good reason to feel safe on our streets in the UK, and it is borne out by the facts e.g. in the UK you are far more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a stabbing.
In 2018 there were 1,770 reported road deaths in Britain (23% pedestrians), compared to 319 fatal stabbing over the same period.
• 1,770 fatal road accidents in a year is an average of less than 5 fatal road accidents a day.
• 319 fatal stabbings in a year is on average less than one fatal stabbing a day.
So yes, with such low odds, we do feel safe to walk our streets in Britain.
Thanks, for the videos, Arthur, it is about the decorum of the society. A little old lady like that would be shot if she got in the way if such a bold robbery had occurred in America.
You folks have some interesting problems, binge drinking among girls?
Sometimes an entire ocean's separation can make a difference, I can't think of anything comparable going on here right now.
Yes, with rights/privileges come responsibilities. At least that is how I was raised. As far as should parents be held responsible for their child/minor I believe regarding liability for property damage and injury/death they should be. But peeking about it is a tangled web of laws. The key words are willful and negligence.
I see it akin to can an employer be held liable for an employee causing property damage or injury/death. Seems, they can under the right circumstances. Again the tangled web of law.
Good point, TSmog. This particular case is egregious because the negligence exhibited by the parents is shown to be so stark that it cannot be ignored.
I can see circumstances where the employer could avoid that liability if the employee was acting outside of the purview of his job. It is like the rogue cops, you don't get the benefit of "blue line" protections if your actions were not within the procedures prescribed under rules of conduct.
I knew a crumbly parent once. Her husband had to sweep up all the bits after an argument.
A rather scruffy looking pair in the photos, reminds me of a middle aged Bonnie and Clyde.
Agree 100%... With all, you have shared. your sentiments are on the money. However, sometimes the most responsible parents can't control what their children might do.
Teaching children about rights start at home.
"However, sometimes the most responsible parents can't control what their children might do."
You're right, but knowing that would discourage me from introducing an element into the mix that could prove dangerous and lethal if it would fall out from my direct control.
You and I agree on this one.
The parents should receive the maximum punishment possible by law.
They are a stain upon all responsible gun owners.
I know many people on the left don't like the NRA, but, if you have any questions about how to store your gun, the laws of your state, where to get gun safes and trigger locks, the NRA can provide the information.
There is no excuse for what these parents did with their firearm.
Like we all know, with rights comes responsibilities. I know many people who let their children shoot firearms of all kinds. Many take them hunting. These are people who teach their children how to properly respect a firearm and what it can do. They also teach them how to be responsible with firearms. Their children are closely supervised at ALL Times.
Many kids do have fun at a shooting range. It is a controlled environment that is closely monitored and supervised. Many of them also enjoy hunting.
Yes, Mike, I have problems with the NRA. But, like the Electoral College, the 2nd Amendment is enshrined in US law. That is the reality and we live with it. But, we are certainly going to come down hard on abuse and irresponsibility regarding possession and the unauthorized use of firearms.
I am certain that is is as you say, most gun owners are responsible. Unfortunately, each tragic and preventable massacre tends to bring these issues from the back to the forefront.
Why are homicides/suicides so much higher in US? We have too many guns. Period.
It will take time to put a period on it.
The fear of Tyranny from the Government is the greatest fear from gun owners. When Government/ military get rid of their gun, so will the public. Suicides and killing people that ones knows is also very important reason to stop it.
What kind of evidence can you offer that indicates guns as being the cause of our high homicide rate?
by Michael Collins aka Lakemoron 9 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the right to say what you want you have to take responsibility for what you say. Is...
by sharing the sky 3 years ago
Do parents own their children?This question can be interpreted in different ways; I'm open to reading what this means to everyone in their own personal responses. I've thought about this myself for years, first as an adolescent and now as a young adult. I've pondered it in different contexts and...
by nightwork4 11 years ago
Do you think parents are trying too hard to be friends with their kids instead of actual parents?i don't think parents should be friends with their kids but rather be parents who show their kids what is right and wrong.
by Peeples 5 years ago
Why do parents expect children to act like adults?Do we put too many standards on our children and in return take away some of the child in them?
by Shil1978 10 years ago
Do You Think Parents Should be Held Responsible For The Actions of Their Children?Children in the age range of 6 to 12 years!! Would also be interested in knowing your thoughts on children in the 12 to 18 year range - that is if your answer is going to be different for this age range!! Would...
by Shadesbreath 10 years ago
So, for those people who were arguing how "free speech" includes the "right" to "say whatever I want" no matter what the outcomes of your free speech are for other people (including getting people killed from your right to draw pictures that incite riots etc.), now I...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|