Gun Violence 3: Thoughts and Prayers Continue to be Insufficient

[BensAllergies]

The talk about school safety is justified because mass shootings don’t belong anywhere but schools can be somewhat secured unlike grocery stores. But I have wondered why we don’t talk more about gun safety storage. How many children accidentally shoot themselves or others because of irresponsible gun owners? Healthcare workers don’t deserve more work especially not regarding guns because crazy 2A people, but it makes sense to me that education about gun storage safety goes hand in hand with education about car seat safety at well visits.

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

If the NRA are so in favour

I keep seeing everyone talking about the NRA being the big bad behind the reluctance refusal to do anything about gun control. 

But although the NRA certainly is vociferous and smack in the public eye, theybare only a tiny fraction of the weapons industry. They are the ones with the big money in politics, and dictating what they want.

As long as US policies can legally be bought, nothing will change. Big Corp will continue to rule the country.

[Ozlsn]

27 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

But although the NRA certainly is vociferous and smack in the public eye, theybare only a tiny fraction of the weapons industry. They are the ones with the big money in politics, and dictating what they want.

Oh totally. My point remains though that if their membership is 70+% in favour of some moderate restrictions they could also stand up and say that, and that would put pressure on legislators to actually move legislation with bipartisan support forward.

29 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

As long as US policies can legally be bought, nothing will change. Big Corp will continue to rule the country.

I hope not, but suspect so.

[Sarcastically spinster]

A couple more things worth clarifying along with @Melbelle's excellent comment on the page before.  (Also note, this is not a pro-gun post.  However, I have concerns about some facets of some of these proposed gun legislative efforts, and there are others that may not be mine but that I know are common concerns of other conservatives.  

One of my personal concerns, especially with waiting periods, relates to domestic violence.  There've been so many cases I've heard of where women tried to get a gun because of domestic violence/stalking concerns, couldn't get one right away because of a waiting period, and were murdered before the waiting period ended.  In many cases they already had a restraining order against the person in question.  Right now there's still so much wrong with domestic violence response in this country.  Most women are no match for a man who wants to kill them without something capable of delivering incapacitating force at a distance.  I'm not, at all, saying those lives matter more.  But this type of situation is something that needs a solution figured out as part of whatever solution we end up with as a country to gun violence.  Right now most law enforcement has a track record of blowing off concerns of domestic violence victims.  More robust handling of domestic violence in the legal system, easier access to safe houses, training law enforcement on taking it seriously and consequences for those who blow off concerns, etc., can all be part of the solution, but that's going to be a slow process of systemic changes, and I don't want attempts to protect one population to end up exposing another in the meantime.  I'd have to think there could be some kind of balance found between those needs.

 

The definition of militia and the intent of the 2nd amendment - generally speaking in colonial times, every able-bodied man within a certain age range was automatically, by default, part of the militia.  It wasn't equivalent to our modern National Guard.  Those arguing that the 2nd amendment means that pretty much anybody should be able to own a gun actually, in fairness, *are* accurate to the original meaning of "militia".  My understanding is that currently the US code defines two types of militia - the "organized militia", which would be National Guard, etc., and "unorganized militia", which is every able-bodied man from 17-45.  Those who wrote the 2nd amendment lived in a world where every able-bodied man owned firearms and regularly trained with them along with the other men in the area.  They also trained with, owned or had provided to them but the local armory, the most advanced technological weapons available to them.  A militia was intended for national defense.  It was intended for exactly what the Ukrainian people are doing.  For the average American citizen to be trained and equipped to a level that allowed them to be competitive against the trained professional military of the superpower of their day.  Whether or not this still necessary and whether the 2nd amendment should be modified to reflect our current world is a thoroughly legitimate conversation.  However, the 2nd amendment as written and intended, even though technology has advanced from what was known then, was meant as "the general populace should be able to obtain and train with the most technologically advanced equipment to be able to effectively fight the professional soldiers of any invader".  There are plenty of people that believe that the 2nd amendment currently does support their right to own tanks, fighter jets, missiles, etc., and I think it would be hard to prove in court that they're wrong.  Substantive change is probably going to involve a constitutional amendment.  Certainly there are many who are never going to be convinced that "well-regulated militia" excludes them.  

 

One of my pro gun ownership friends recently pointed out, and it is actually accurate, that more mass killings have been carried out by governments than by mass shooters (~20k gun-related murders in the US last year, which would total 5 million gun murders in the US if a constant level through the nearly 250 years of US history, while Stalin alone has 20 million victims).  Most serious gun owners that I have encountered do not want to own guns just for home defense/personal defense, but because they see it as a deterrent to the government.  They look at the strict gun control laws of the Weimar Republic before Hitler came to power that meant the German populace was largely disarmed and unable to meet the SS/brownshirts with equal force, and similar events in history (though it's disputed that it was actually a contributing factor).  Many gun control laws are going to continue to meet a lot of resistance because of that perspective.  I'm not advocating for that perspective.  But it is a perspective that is out there and is going to continue to influence the conversation.  It's the perspective that causes many on the right to make an association between guns and freedom.  It's going to be hard to gain support for increased restrictions from a lot of conservatives without a change in that perspective.  

[GreyhoundFan]

This is insane: "Ohio Gov. DeWine says he'll sign a bill arming teachers after 24 hours of training"

Quote

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is poised to sign a bill on Monday allowing teachers to carry guns in class after 24 hours of training, over opposition from teachers and a police group. Backers say the policy will make schools safer, but critics say that's not the case, citing experts' analysis.

The new law dramatically reduces the amount of training a teacher must undergo before they can carry a gun in a school safety zone. Instead of more than 700 hours of training that's currently required, school staff who want to be armed would get training that "shall not exceed" 24 hours, House Bill 99 states.

"DeWine, who had campaigned for gun restrictions after the mass shooting in Dayton in 2019, said signing this bill is part of an overall plan to harden school security," according to the Statehouse News Bureau.

A contested approach gets Ohio's legal backing

The new legislation is similar to a controversial policy adopted by a school district in Madison Township, Ohio, in 2018 to make it easier for staff to carry guns. A group of local parents sued, saying teachers should have peace officer training before they can bring a gun to work.

The Ohio Supreme Court sided with the parents last summer. But now the 24-hour requirement is becoming state law.

The bill's backers include state Sen. Frank Hoagland, who calls it "a common-sense, proactive step in securing our schools from the threat of an active shooter."

Of the few people who testified in favor of the bill in the last hearing on the legislation, one was the CEO of S.T.A.R.T, a company Hoagland founded to advise schools and other entities on security and crisis preparation, as the Ohio Capital Journal notes.

In more than a year of debate on the legislation, witnesses spoke to oppose it more than 360 times, while around 20 people spoke in favor.

DeWine says the law will give schools an option

Both the Ohio Federation of Teachers and Ohio Education Association urged DeWine to veto the bill, saying it is "dangerous and irresponsible" to put more guns in schools in the hands of people who aren't adequately trained.

"House Bill 99 will make Ohio's students less safe in their schools," the organizations said in a joint statement.

Its opponents also include Moms Demand Action and the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio.

The FOP's Mike Weinman testified that the bill would create a jumble of school district requirements and result in inadequately trained teachers who will then confront a confusion of roles.

When armed, a teacher's first responsibility is to act as a first responder, Weinman said: "She will be required to abandon her students and respond to whatever threat may be in the building at a moment's notice."

But the governor has previously signaled his support for the bill, and he confirmed the timing of his signing the bill into law in an interview on Sunday with local TV station WFMJ.

"No school has to do this. This is up to a local school board," DeWine said, adding that some schools might have security officers or other plans to deter or counter an active shooter scenario.

"The best thing is to have a police officer in the schools," he said. "They can be plain clothes, but some schools may not be able to do that."

Studies and experts say it's not a good idea to arm teachers

One longtime researcher of school shootings recently told NPR that he has found that arming teachers isn't a good strategy "because it invites numerous disasters and problems, and the chances of it actually helping are so minuscule."

In 2020, an analysis by RAND concluded that there were "no qualifying studies" on whether arming staff in K–12 schools causes or prevents a range of negative outcomes, including deaths or injuries from accidental shootings to suicides, crime and mass shootings.

But the RAND analysis also said that in the decades since two federal laws on gun-free schools were adopted in the early 1990s, it's become much less likely that a student will carry a weapon, be it a gun or a knife.

"In 1993, 12 percent of students reported carrying a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days," RAND stated, adding, "in 2017, only 4 percent of students reported bringing a weapon to school."

The analysis also noted that despite the terrible tragedy of school shootings, "most students killed with firearms are shot in their own homes, typically because of a domestic dispute, accidental or negligent discharge of a gun, or suicide."

States' laws on guns in schools differ vastly

At least three U.S. states — Alabama, Oregon and Utah — let anyone with a concealed-carry permit bring a gun into a K–12 school, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

It's part of a patchwork of policies about guns on campus, with varying levels of training and licensing requirements. All but a handful of states allow law enforcement to bring guns onto school grounds. But from there, the laws diverge.

In at least 18 states, school authorities can allow anyone they choose to carry a gun on campus in some cases, according to the NCSL.

 

[smittykins]

On 6/10/2022 at 4:22 PM, Melbelle said:

Just for clarity sake, you must be 18 to legally purchase a gun in the US.  This is the same age at which you can vote and purchase cigarettes in the US,

I thought the cigarette age was raised to 21.  I know that Onondaga County, NY(where Syracuse is located)raised their age to 19 several years ago.

ETA: https://www.cdc.gov/statesystem/factsheets/mlsa/Minimum-Legal-Sales-Age.html

Edited June 14, 2022 by smittykins

[47of74]

Covid Kimmy announced Iowa will allocate $100 million for school safety

Quote

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds talked about the state’s latest efforts to address school safety during a press conference on Tuesday.

Those efforts include the creation of a School Safety Bureau and expanding access to mental health services across the state.

Reynolds said the state is allocating $100 million for school safety measures, mostly from federal American Rescue Plan funding. The School Safety Bureau will be staffed with specialists dedicated to school safety. It will implement technology, including an app, to make it easier for the public to anonymously report threats and provide specialized response training for educators and law enforcement. The bureau is expected to be fully operation by the start of the next school year this fall.

Under the new school safety plan, law enforcement will provide emergency radios to schools for use in reporting concerns and make active shooter training available for educators, houses of worship and first responders. The bureau is intended to supplement state and local law enforcement’s current efforts.

Doesn't say a word though about reducing access to weapons though.

[Alisamer]

So these existing gun regulations sound good on paper, but they are clearly not being fully enforced in many places. I still think there is no reason anyone anywhere should be able to just go buy a gun and 2 hours later go shoot up a place with it, which did actually happen just a week or two ago. I recently read an article about a situation (Bryant Gumble's show maybe, I think the video is from 2014 or 2016) where a 13 year old was sent to buy cigarettes, alcohol, a lottery ticket, and a gun at a gun show. Guess which one he successfully bought? Yep, the gun. 

I intellectually get the "freedom" argument. I kind of get the "but the government..." argument somewhat although I think it's ironic that the people most wanting guns to oppose the government are the ones least likely to be actually "oppressed" or attacked in any way by the actual government. Just like it's ironic that Republicans claim to be for "small government" and vote against actually needed regulations for environmental or economic reform, while trying desperately to regulate what children can be taught, what medical treatment trans kids are allowed, and whether women who become pregnant have any choice in whether to remain pregnant.

On 6/13/2022 at 1:43 AM, Ozlsn said:

Oh totally. My point remains though that if their membership is 70+% in favour of some moderate restrictions they could also stand up and say that, and that would put pressure on legislators to actually move legislation with bipartisan support forward.

This. So much this. If the NRA is in favor of any restrictions at all, or in favor of enhanced enforcement of existing restrictions, why in the world do they not SAY SO publically and frequently. It's not like there isn't a bi-weekly mass shooting they can use as a reason to post their priorities. It's not like they can't go on twitter and post what they actually are about, or even spend some of their gobs of money on media to make people aware of their goals. Or even just to promote the fact that hey, we're about safety, and here's what we do to help make guns safer. 

Maybe they are doing these things and I'm not seeing it, but I highly doubt it. If the NRA tweeted out anything saying "we support these gun regulations" and/or "Please secure your guns, here's how..." I'm pretty sure it'd have been noticed and promoted by now. I've never seen it. And Twitter is free, easily accessible, and widely viewable. They could simply and easily clarify their views.

Instead they offer "thoughts and prayers" and continue to glorify guns while supporting politicians who oppose any gun control at all. 

I don't see how it's possible to do too much more to make schools safer from guns, without also making guns harder to get. And preferably banning military style guns entirely among civilians. 

This Saturday there was a shooting at a mall (which was having a carnival) not far from my house. It didn't get much press outside the local area apparently because only 3 people were injured and no one actually died. The shooter? A 17-year-old. A 17-year-old and an 18-year-old had an argument, and the younger one pulled out a gun and shot 3 people, not including the 18-year-old he was arguing with. The 18-year-old? He pulled out a gun too! Ruled as "self defense" which is fine, but yet another situation where a guy with a gun did not stop someone from shooting others. 

Why in the world were either of them carrying guns to the mall? For "protection" maybe? IDK. I just want this to stop. 

[formergothardite]

23 hours ago, Sarcastically spinster said:

serious gun owners that I have encountered do not want to own guns just for home defense/personal defense, but because they see it as a deterrent to the government.  Th

These sort of people are living in some sort of a delusion.. I know those sort of folks and they tend to get real angry when it is pointed out that their stash of guns will mean nothing if the government came knocking intent on taking them out.

Until people stop living in some sort of fantasy world where they would be able take on the United States military, we will never get anywhere. We have a group of people clinging to hunks of metal making political decisions based on some macho man fantasies. No wonder America is failing to stop children from being slaughtered in the school rooms.

[Alisamer]

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

These sort of people are living in some sort of a delusion.. I know those sort of folks and they tend to get real angry when it is pointed out that their stash of guns will mean nothing if the government came knocking intent on taking them out.

Until people stop living in some sort of fantasy world where they would be able take on the United States military, we will never get anywhere. We have a group of people clinging to hunks of metal making political decisions based on some macho man fantasies. No wonder America is failing to stop children from being slaughtered in the school rooms.

Truth. Half of them are nobodies that the government would never have a reason to go after. The ones who have got government attention (Jan 6 for example), aren’t going to be helped by a gun or 20 when a swat team is at the door tossing in teargas. The government isn’t sending the military against the conservative minority, and if they did guns aren’t going to help much if at all. 

[danvillebelle]

I cannot get the link to work, but I was just watching the 4K upgrade video of Bowie's I'm Afraid of Americans (it's on his official youtube channel).

The fact that this song is MORE relevant now than it was 25 years ago when it came out is both horrifying and infuriating. 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by danvillebelle

[47of74]

The Buffalo shooter has been charged with Federal hate crimes

Quote

The white gunman who killed 10 Black people in a racist attack at a Buffalo supermarket was charged Wednesday with federal hate crimes and could face the death penalty if convicted.

The criminal complaint filed Wednesday against Payton Gendron coincided with a visit to Buffalo by Attorney General Merrick Garland. He met with the families of the people who were killed and placed a bouquet of white flowers tied with a yellow ribbon at a memorial outside the store, which has been closed since the attack.

“No one in this country should have to live in fear that they will go to work or shop at a grocery store and will be attacked by someone who hates them because of the color of their skin,” Garland said at a news conference addressing the federal charges.

Garland, who halted federal executions last year, did not rule out seeking the death penalty against Gendron. He said the Justice Department would follow long-established procedures in weighing whether to seek capital punishment and that the “families and the survivors will be consulted” in the process.

There's definitely part of me that thinks Gendron should be executed for his crimes and I hope if everything points to it Garland doesn't back down from seeking the death penalty. 

[Cartmann99]

*Screams profanities, throws furniture*

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on the Uvalde massacre: “God has a plan”

Quote

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said recently that he would tell parents of young children killed in the Uvalde school shooting that "God has a plan."

Paxton, who took the leading role in a failed Supreme Court case aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 election, went on a media blitz to fight calls for gun restrictions shortly after an 18-year-old shooter killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in the West Texas town of Uvalde.

In an interview with right-wing radio host Trey Graham, Paxton acknowledged that it is "difficult to give comfort" to families who lost their kids. "If I lost one of my children I'd be pretty devastated, especially in a way that is so senseless and seemingly has no purpose," he continued. "I think ... I would just have to say, if I had the opportunity to talk to the people I'd have to say, look, there's always a plan. I believe God always has a plan. Life is short no matter what it is. And certainly, we're not going to make sense of, you know, a young child being shot and killed way before their life expectancy."

Paxton's comments last week came ahead of emotional testimony by parents of Uvalde victims in the House last week. Kimberly Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was killed in the attack, pleaded for Congress to take action on gun safety in response to the massacre.

"We understand that for some reason, to some people — to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns — that guns are more important than children," Rubio said while testifying with her husband, Felix. "Somewhere out there, there is a mom listening to our testimony thinking, 'I can't even imagine their pain,' not knowing that our reality will someday be hers. Unless we act now."

Dr. Roy Guerrero, a Uvalde pediatrician who treated some of the victims, made a similar plea as he described how children's bodies were "pulverized" and "decapitated" by the bullets from the AR-15-style rifle used by the gunman, to the point that "the only clue as to their identities were the blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them."

"Making sure our children are safe from guns, that's the job of our politicians and leaders," Guerrero said. "In this case, you are the doctors and our country is the patient. We are lying on the operating table, riddled with bullets like the children of Robb Elementary and so many other schools. We are bleeding out, and you are not there. My oath as a doctor means that I signed up to save lives. I do my job, and I guess it turns out that I am here to plead, to beg, to please, please do yours."

But after the heart-wrenching testimony, all but five Republicans in the House voted against a package that would raise the age to buy an AR-15 from 18 to 21 and toughen existing gun laws. Senate Republicans have already ruled out any new gun restrictions, as have Republican state leaders in Texas.

Paxton's immediate response to the shooting was to call for arming teachers, which some schools in Texas already do despite strong pushback from teachers.

"We can't stop bad people from doing bad things. We can potentially arm and prepare and train teachers and other administrators to respond quickly. That, in my opinion, is the best answer," Paxton said following the shooting.

Other Texas Republicans have also tried to blame anything but widespread easy access to guns. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called for "door control" in schools and Gov. Greg Abbott pushed an emphasis on mental health — despite slashing funds for mental health treatment.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, after Wednesday's hearing suggested that the answer is more "prayer."

"Look, maybe if we heard more prayers from leaders of this country instead of taking God's name in vain, we wouldn't have the mass killings like we didn't have before prayer was eliminated from school," he said.

Paxton in particular has a long history of opposing gun restrictions in response to mass shootings in Uvalde, El Paso and Sutherland Springs, arguing that mass shooters are "not going to follow a single gun law" even though gun laws prevented the shooter from getting a gun until he turned 18 — the legal age to purchase an AR-15, but not a handgun — just days before the attack.

Paxton has a close relationship with the gun lobby. The NRA, the Texas State Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund have all contributed heavily to his campaigns. Paxton also signed an amicus brief backing the NRA's petition asking the Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on high-capacity magazines. He even "welcomed" the NRA to Texas after the group tried and failed to file for bankruptcy to dodge a corruption investigation by New York's attorney general.

After a gunman killed 26 people in the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting, Paxton argued that the only answer to gun violence was more guns.

"In Texas at least we have the opportunity to have concealed carry," he told Fox News. "And so if it's a place where somebody has the ability to carry, there's always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many."

After another gunman killed 23 people at an El Paso Walmart, Paxton again argued that more guns were the answer rather than fewer guns.

"The best way is to be prepared to defend yourself," he told CBS News.

Ironically, Paxton himself cannot buy a gun under federal law, because he has been under indictment since 2015 for breaking state securities law.

Researchers have found no evidence that arming teachers or other school personnel has any effect on school shootings. A review of 89 journal publications and media reports by researchers at the University of Toledo and Ball State University similarly found that armed school resource officers, restrictions on the number of school exits and active-shooter drills do not help either.

The "ideal method for eliminating school firearm violence by youths is to prevent them from ever gaining access to firearms," the researchers concluded, adding that "unfortunately, studies have found an alarming rate of firearms accessible to youths."

 

[Becky]

10 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

*Screams profanities, throws furniture*

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on the Uvalde massacre: “God has a plan”

 

Jesus wept.  Could he really be THAT clueless?  God has a plan?  A plan that calls for the senseless, violent, horrific murder of 7-year-old children?  Ken, your god is an asshole, and so are you. 

[Cartmann99]

Uvalde Hires Private Law Firm to Argue It Doesn’t Have to Release School Shooting Public Records

Quote

The City of Uvalde and its police department are working with a private law firm to prevent the release of nearly any record related to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in which 19 children and two teachers died, according to a letter obtained by Motherboard in response to a series of public information requests we made. The public records Uvalde is trying to suppress include body camera footage, photos, 911 calls, emails, text messages, criminal records, and more.

“The City has not voluntarily released any information to a member of the public,” the city’s lawyer, Cynthia Trevino, who works for the private law firm Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech, wrote in a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The city wrote the letter asking Paxton for a determination about what information it is required to release to the public, which is standard practice in Texas. Paxton's office will eventually rule which of the city's arguments have merit and will determine which, if any, public records it is required to release.

The letter makes clear, however, that the city and its police department want to be exempted from releasing a wide variety of records in part because it is being sued, in part because some of the records could include “highly embarrassing information,” in part because some of the information is “not of legitimate concern to the public,” in part because the information could reveal “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime,” in part because some of the information may cause or may "regard … emotional/mental distress," and in part because its response to the shooting is being investigated by the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and the Uvalde County District Attorney. 

The letter explains that Uvalde has at least one in-house attorney (whose communications it is trying to prevent from public release), and yet, it is using outside private counsel to deal with a matter of extreme importance and public interest. Uvalde’s city government and its police department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Motherboard.

The city says that it has received 148 separate public records requests (including several from Motherboard), and has lumped all of them together, making a broad legal argument as to why it should not be required to respond to many of them. Earlier this week, Motherboard reported on a similar letter sent to Paxton by the Texas Department of Public Safety, which wanted to suppress body-camera footage because it could expose “weaknesses” in police response to crimes that criminals could exploit. (The main seeming weakness in the Uvalde response was that police, in violation of standard policy and protocol, refused to risk their lives to protect children.)

For example, the city and its police department argue that it should be exempted from releasing “police officer training guides, policy and procedure manuals, shift change schedules, security details, and blueprints of secured facilities,” because these could be used to decipher “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime.” The Uvalde Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety have been pilloried by the press and the public for standing in the hallway while a gunman killed children—against standard protocol—and for preventing parents from entering the building to save their children. The letter also argues that the department should be exempted from releasing body camera footage simply because it could be “information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision.”

It is impossible to say what records, in particular, the city and the police are referring to in many parts of the letter. For example, it says it cannot release an individual's criminal history because it would be "not of legitimate concern to the public," because it could be "highly embarrassing," and because it would violate their common-law right to privacy. But the letter does not talk about who the records would be about, why they wouldn't be relevant to the public, or why they would be highly embarrassing.

“They claim that the compilation of individuals’ criminal history is highly embarrassing information, which is a strange cover. The embarrassing information is the inept police response,” Christopher Schneider, a professor of sociology at Brandon University who studies police body cameras and the disclosure of footage from them, told Motherboard, noting that suspects' criminal histories are released by the police all the time without anyone having requested them. “They have no problem using information like that against individuals of the public. The information disclosure needs to go both ways, if that’s the case.” Disciplinary or criminal records for members of the police, for example, would be obviously relevant public information in a case in which the police response has been highly criticized. "It’s rather ripe to say any of this is not of legitimate public concern," he added. "The whole country is trying to figure out how to not allow this to happen again."

This is a relatively common sort of argument, but it shows yet again that the deck is stacked against the public disclosure of public records when they are inconvenient or embarrassing to the police.  

“The case that’s being made contains some particularly asinine stonewalling,” Schneider said. “It seems like the city is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, and seeking a ruling to suppress this information from being released.”

Schneider says that lumping together all 148 public records requests, and asking for a legal ruling on everything at once, seems like a tactic to prevent the release of anything and everything.

“It appears that they’re conflating all of the information requests as a justification to not release the stuff we should be seeing. If it’s an officer’s email to his wife, yeah, we don’t need to see this. But the body-worn camera footage is of concern. They’re conflating all of this information together to suppress the legitimate stuff,” he said. 

In his research, Schneider said that body-worn cameras often do not do what they’re supposed to do, which is hold police accountable to the public. This is because public records laws are often written in such a way as to provide wide latitude to police to decide what the public actually gets to see, and allows them to “regain control of the narrative” when it is convenient for them. 

“It’s not a coincidence journalists run into this problem [of not being able to obtain body camera footage] over and over again,” Schneider said. “The law is by design, the privacy rules are by design to make it absolutely as difficult as possible to release the information.” 

 

[Flossie]

This says to me that everyone involved is saying to each other "We screwed up, you screwed up, and we all could have done things better.  Let's circle the wagons and protect each other. 

Age the case.  Make the families work for every shred of evidence they need for their lawsuits.  Many of them will eventually run out of money and/or not be able to emotionally continue.

In the meantime, keep offering thoughts and prayers, and promise to do better in the future.

Public interest will lessen with each new mass shooting, depriving plaintiffs of valuable emotional and monetary support.  Future jurors may be more likely to be desensitized and not be as likely to hand out large payouts ["Oh, that's so sad, but it's been a while now.  You've been grieving, as is understandable, but it's time for you to move forward.  Here's some money, not as much as you asked for, but your're not the only people who've lost someone to guns."]

But behind it all are a lot of people who are only worried that someone is trying to take their guns.

[47of74]

Someone wrote into the Dubuque Telegraph Herald to say (correctly) the 2A does allow for sensible regulation.  Some arm chair scholar who doesn’t know jack shit about the Constitution felt compelled to respond. Leading to me reply.

Of course I had to edit it since the Dubuque TH fucksticks were whining that my truthful comments were a bit obscene. 

[Cartmann99]

Cops Never Even Tried to Open Classroom Door in Uvalde Massacre, Report Says

Quote

Police officers responding to last month’s mass shooting at an Uvalde, Texas, elementary school never even tried to open the door to the classroom where young children were trapped with the gunman, according to a new report. A law enforcement source cited by the San Antonio Express-News on Saturday said surveillance footage revealed no attempts by officers to open the door during the entire 77-minute siege at Robb Elementary School. Nineteen children and two teachers were killed during that time. In the wake of the massacre, police claimed part of the reason they took so long to confront the shooter was because officers could not access the classroom and needed to wait for a key. But the law enforcement source told the Express-News that the gunman, Salvador Ramos, could not have locked the classroom door from the inside, and investigators believe it may have been open the whole time. In addition, the source said, a forcible entry tool called a halligan bar was available to officers throughout the siege, which would have allowed them to open even a locked door. The police response to the deadly attack is currently under investigation by the Texas Rangers and the FBI.

 

[47of74]

Jesus there must be some bad ass deer in Iowa now that I've left

Quote

Iowa deer hunters will be allowed to use semi-automatic weapons including AR-15 rifles to kill deer in more parts of the state during a newly created antlerless season in January under a bill signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds.

Iowa lawmakers passed the bill in May and it was signed by Reynolds on Friday. Advocates say the new law will help control the deer population and respond to complaints that excess deer eat corn and are hazardous to motorists.

Iowa has had January deer hunting seasons in the past but they were limited to a few counties where the deer population was more of a problem.

 

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

I am trying to find a good link, but Pete Arrendondo had been elected to the Uvalde City Council and had applied for a leave of absence.  From what I have gathered, the city council was either going to grant it or table the issue to essentially leave it in limbo.  A woman who lives two doors away from Robb Elementary did her research and discovered that if a city council member misses three consecutive meetings, he or she can be voted off the council.  (There had already been a petition to remove him started but that process took at least eight months and the other remedy took at least two years.)  She implored the council to vote on the leave of absence that night and to deny it, thus forcing him to either show up at the next meeting or not show and risk being voted off the council.  Others had already spoken up against the leave of absence but due to her research and pointed urging to essentially make him put up or shut up, the city council held the vote and unanimously denied the leave of absence.  Arrendondo will either have to show up at the next meeting or risk being voted off the council (something that appears inevitable if he doesn't show.)  I still cannot understand how he and the mayor thought the lies would go unchallenged and how it would all play out in their favor.   

[GreyhoundFan]

20 hours ago, AlmostSavedAtTacoBell said:

I still cannot understand how he and the mayor thought the lies would go unchallenged and how it would all play out in their favor.   

They’re rethuglikans, they believe they can lie with impunity because they’ve always gotten away with it. Frankly, I don’t think most of them would know the truth if it but them in the ass. 

[Howl]

I was mulling this over last night/this morning. 

There have been so many mass shootings at schools, the Las Vegas shooting, other random shootings in various places, streets, clubs, malls, stores, churches, workplaces. 

The rhetoric raging out of control on various reich wing social media often calls for death for prominent politicians they hate, like Schumer and Pelosi or others, like Fauci. 

And yet, so far, there have been no assassinations, with the exception of the shooting at the baseball game.  Is security better now? 

I was thinking back to the assassinations of JFK and RFK and Martin Luther King, the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.  

And, good grief, the inflammatory  rhetoric around Obama when he was in office.  I knew there was always a possibility that he'd be killed. 

Anyway, just contemplating all this. 

 

[Howl]

Oh,  my.  The Pope's spokesman just released a statement clarifying that if a person is "pro-life" then the corollary is that they MUST be for gun control.  

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Having an IQ under 70 must be a requirement to get elected to office as a rethug these days:

 

[Shrubbery]

Just got a news alert that there has been a parade shooting in Chicago with at least five dead …😖😖😖

Seriously, what is wrong with people??