Alabama hostage question

[Baz]

An example of how society fails to be pro-active in preventing gun-related violence.

Has nothing to do with gun legislation.

This jackwagon's behaviour should have set off red flags to warrant immediate legal action. He killed the neighbor's dog with a pipe. That alone should have landed his azz in prison for 5 years minimum.

If he had 20 kids held hostage - trust me there would be a whole lot more publicity about guns than we are seeing now.

Wake up - a red flag is a red flag. If there's smoke there's fire. Idiot's are everywhere and they always telegraph ahead of time that they are dangerous.

[jyl]

Perhaps, if a person is believed to own guns, law enforcement should assign higher priority to investigating, arresting, and prosecuting when that person is accused of criminal or suspicious acts, at least those of a violent nature.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by jyl

Perhaps, if a person is believed to own guns, law enforcement should assign higher priority to investigating, arresting, and prosecuting when that person is accused of criminal or suspicious acts, at least those of a violent nature.

Nope, exactly the wrong response, and the same slippery slope that has us where we are.

The right thing to do is to try to learn from it, and then move on with our lives, knowing that bad things happen, and always will, so get over it. The overwhelming need by some to DO SOMETHING is absolutely the wrong mindset. As soon as you try to predict someone's behavior, then we are no longer free, so try something else.

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

The right thing to do is to try to learn from it, and then move on with our lives, knowing that bad things happen, and always will, so get over it.

Really? This is the way we are to progress as a society? Seems like a recipe for stagnation and nothing else. Regardless of the issue, a nod and furrowed brow is probably a bit short of what's needed to learn from any kind of heinous act. What's the point in "learning from it" if there is no consideration for ways to avoid repeat performances?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

Really? This is the way we are to progress as a society? Seems like a recipe for stagnation and nothing else. Regardless of the issue, a nod and furrowed brow is probably a bit short of what's needed to learn from any kind of heinous act. What's the point in "learning from it" if there is no consideration for ways to avoid repeat performances?

The alternative is a recipe for the erosion of your freedom, as has been the case. I don't see much benefit in "learning from it" either, other than maybe to arm bus drivers.

It is impossible to prevent repeat performances, so get over it, and move on.

[jyl]

My logic is: 1) a person who starts doing violent things to others is a high risk to continue committing violent acts, 2) a person with guns is more likely to harm other people in the course of his violent acts, so 3) a person doing violent things who also owns guns is a higher risk to harm others, and should receive higher priority attention from law enforcement.

Put another way, if you own guns, you better not behave in a violent, threatening way.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by jyl

My logic is: 1) a person who starts doing violent things to others is a high risk to continue committing violent acts, 2) a person with guns is more likely to harm other people in the course of his violent acts, so 3) a person doing violent things who also owns guns is a higher risk to harm others, and should receive higher priority attention from law enforcement.

Put another way, if you own guns, you better not behave in a violent, threatening way.

Define violent, threatening. Felons cannot own guns by law. Are you suggesting that penalty for activity that is not felonious?

Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict behavior. Thinking that you can, and affecting law abiding free people because of your emotional reaction to tragedy is not the answer.

[SteamWolf]

Guns would have fixed this.


Oh, wait....

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by bivenator

Maybe they should back off leaving snipers in place to pick him off if he pops his head out. I can't come up with a scenario in which the kid is unharmed during rescue. Maybe a flash grenade to stun and then a quick execution of the turd.

A flash grenade in a small enclosed space will not be good.

The sleeping gas is a good idea. Wait for the sound of snoring then pump it full of sleeping gas.

[jyl]

Maybe we can use this guy as an example. Per a NYT article:

"Neighbors described Mr. Dykes as perpetually either threatening others or seeing himself as under threat, his interactions with them limited to conspiratorial tirades against the government or warnings of violence, sometimes by brandishing a gun.

“He told us it was his land and anybody that went onto it would be killed,” said Ronda Wilbur, 55, who lives next to Mr. Dykes and said he once had beaten her dog with a lead pipe after it walked onto his property.

Before federal agents were stationed on his property and the national news media was camped out across the street, Mr. Dykes spoke in paranoid tones about surveillance and the government, neighbors said.

“He was more and more antigovernment, antipolice, anti-everything,” said Ms. Wilbur’s husband, John Wilbur, 59.

Mr. Dykes, who has lived in a travel trailer here for about two years, has a troubled past, including arrests on charges connected to drugs, drunken driving and, in Florida in 1995, unlawful display of a firearm. On Wednesday he was due in court in this county, accused of shooting at a neighbor in a dispute over driving on his property."

Quote de jyl

My logic is: 1) a person who starts doing violent things to others is a high risk to continue committing violent acts, 2) a person with guns is more likely to harm other people in the course of his violent acts, so 3) a person doing violent things who also owns guns is a higher risk to harm others, and should receive higher priority attention from law enforcement.



Put another way, if you own guns, you better not behave in a violent, threatening way.

Define violent, threatening. Felons cannot own guns by law. Are you suggesting that penalty for activity that is not felonious?



Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict behavior. Thinking that you can, and affecting law abiding free people because of your emotional reaction to tragedy is not the answer.

[BE911SC]

Let's hope he lets the kid walk out of there and then puts the barrel in his mouth and pulls the trigger.

[svandamme]

They can't put him to sleep in case he has some kind of detonator that requires a handle to remain pressed in. If he goes to sleep he looses his ability to keep the handle pressed in and the bomb goes off.


Dunno if he has anything like that, but then again, nobody knows

Second possible problem is a bomb with a timer that requires a reset.
Let's say the place blows if he doesn't do something every xx minutes...
They put him to sleep how long do they have to wait to be sure?
Let's say the timer is 20 minutes, they knock him out, wait 5 minutes
barge in there and find the kid chained up in a way that it takes em 15 minutes to cut him free? What if the timer bomb is hidden?

It's not that easy.

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by jyl

Maybe we can use this guy as an example. Per a NYT article:

"Neighbors described Mr. Dykes as perpetually either threatening others or seeing himself as under threat, his interactions with them limited to conspiratorial tirades against the government or warnings of violence, sometimes by brandishing a gun.

“He told us it was his land and anybody that went onto it would be killed,” said Ronda Wilbur, 55, who lives next to Mr. Dykes and said he once had beaten her dog with a lead pipe after it walked onto his property.

Before federal agents were stationed on his property and the national news media was camped out across the street, Mr. Dykes spoke in paranoid tones about surveillance and the government, neighbors said.

“He was more and more antigovernment, antipolice, anti-everything,” said Ms. Wilbur’s husband, John Wilbur, 59.

Mr. Dykes, who has lived in a travel trailer here for about two years, has a troubled past, including arrests on charges connected to drugs, drunken driving and, in Florida in 1995, unlawful display of a firearm. On Wednesday he was due in court in this county, accused of shooting at a neighbor in a dispute over driving on his property."

Not comforting that there is nothing stopping this whack job from visiting a gun show and buying all the weapons and ammo he wants. I suspect he did that very things and now an innocent bus driver is dead. Not comforting at all.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by jyl

Maybe we can use this guy as an example. Per a NYT article:

"Neighbors described Mr. Dykes as perpetually either threatening others or seeing himself as under threat, his interactions with them limited to conspiratorial tirades against the government or warnings of violence, sometimes by brandishing a gun.

“He told us it was his land and anybody that went onto it would be killed,” said Ronda Wilbur, 55, who lives next to Mr. Dykes and said he once had beaten her dog with a lead pipe after it walked onto his property.

Before federal agents were stationed on his property and the national news media was camped out across the street, Mr. Dykes spoke in paranoid tones about surveillance and the government, neighbors said.

“He was more and more antigovernment, antipolice, anti-everything,” said Ms. Wilbur’s husband, John Wilbur, 59.

Mr. Dykes, who has lived in a travel trailer here for about two years, has a troubled past, including arrests on charges connected to drugs, drunken driving and, in Florida in 1995, unlawful display of a firearm. On Wednesday he was due in court in this county, accused of shooting at a neighbor in a dispute over driving on his property."

OK, you have an excellent example... please elaborate on how it can be translated to another situation without affecting normal, law abiding citizens. Once you try to use your silly crystal ball, your entire plan falls apart. The hard, cold truth is that you cannot predict behavior, so it's best for you to simply grieve, and move on with your life, and stay the hell out of everyone else's with your emotional need to DO SOMETHING!

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jyl

My logic is: 1) a person who starts doing violent things to others is a high risk to continue committing violent acts, 2) a person with guns is more likely to harm other people in the course of his violent acts, so 3) a person doing violent things who also owns guns is a higher risk to harm others, and should receive higher priority attention from law enforcement.

Put another way, if you own guns, you better not behave in a violent, threatening way.

+1
Setting fires, torturing animals, and anger issues are common precursors to more serious anti-social behavior. It shouldn't be ignored.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

+1
Setting fires, torturing animals, and anger issues are common precursors to more serious anti-social behavior. It shouldn't be ignored.

Will one of you elaborate? Your hindsight is crystal clear, like your crystal balls, apparently. Here's your scenario: You have a "crazy" neighbor, who you know to own firearms, but he's committed no crimes, apart from being "creepy" or rambling on about the government watching him. You found your cat eviscerated, hanging from his porch one day, but he denies ever doing anything to it, despite repeated threats that he was "gonna git that damned cat one day".

What is your policy to be? Will you storm his home and take away his guns? Will you arrest him and have him mentally evaluated?

This is a free country, so you better get it right.

[jyl]

Appears he was arrested numerous times before. Guessing charges were not filed or dropped or he was able to plead to something minor. Why? Sometimes it is because police/prosecutors have limited time/resources and have to prioritize. Maybe if his cases could have been given a higher priority, there would have been a felony conviction. As a ex-felon, he wouldn't have been able to legally own weapons. But, you say, a felon can still buy guns using the gun show route? Yes (until that loophole is closed), but then when he paces his property with his guns, that's reason to arrest him and take away those guns. Again, if he was made a priority by the local police.

We don't know enough details to say this definitely would have happened. But it would increase the odds.

Let's turn it around. Why do you object to higher priority being placed by law enforcement on possible crimes by gun owners?

[BE911SC]

Again, let's hope he lets to kid go free--and didn't rape the kid while in there--and then he finally does the right thing and blows his brains out.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Will one of you elaborate? Your hindsight is crystal clear, like your crystal balls, apparently. Here's your scenario: You have a "crazy" neighbor, who you know to own firearms, but he's committed no crimes, apart from being "creepy" or rambling on about the government watching him. You found your cat eviscerated, hanging from his porch one day, but he denies ever doing anything to it, despite repeated threats that he was "gonna git that damned cat one day".

What is your policy to be? Will you storm his home and take away his guns? Will you arrest him and have him mentally evaluated?

This is a free country, so you better get it right.

Go back....back....and further back......post #21. And I quote:

This jackwagon's behaviour should have set off red flags to warrant immediate legal action. He killed the neighbor's dog with a pipe. That alone should have landed his azz in prison for 5 years minimum.

Now that's how to handle things - you do bad stuff your azz is mine.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Will one of you elaborate? Your hindsight is crystal clear, like your crystal balls, apparently.

You don't sound like someone who wants to have a serious discussion. Take it to PARF.