Footage of 3-year-old with handgun on Today show


PDA






Sportcat
July 27, 2004, 10:41 AM
Saw it this morning. Parents are "drinking beer" and target shooting while the 3-year-old finds a pistol (never stated if loaded or not) and plays with it for a few seconds.

Footage was taken a by a neighbor who stated "we haven't spoken in years." Neighbor also said that "there are several red flags over at that home."

Parents had kids taken away by authorities.

While I agree something should happen to the parents for not monitoring their child, and drinking while shooting, to me this appears to be a neighbor who is holding a grudge and was looking for something to get her neighbors in trouble.

Found a link to another site with the footage here: http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2077307

If you enjoyed reading about "Footage of 3-year-old with handgun on Today show" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gunsnrovers
July 27, 2004, 11:05 AM
From the news I've seen and what's been posted here and the other like I saw earlier, sounds like this parents could be the problem. Easier for them to blame the neighbor with the video you don't like for turning you in then to admit you screwed up. The neighbor may have been trying to get them in trouble, but not knowing the neighbors story, maybe the parents are ones who instigate it.

Drinking and guns don't mix. That's a powerful theme here and rightly so. Toddlers and guns don't mix either. Getting your children to understand how to safely enjoy firearms is a good thing if they want to participate, but a 3 year old handling a firearm is neglect. In many states, kids and guns is a crime.

I'm looking forward to the day when my 3 year old little guy gets to go to the range with dad, but for know he's limited to helping dad clean them. Also noted the child didn't appear to have ears or eyes on. :(

Jeff

CAS700850
July 27, 2004, 11:34 AM
I used to be involved in prosecuting caes of child neglect and abuse. While, onoccassion, there would be a liberal social worker who saw allwong a child to handle and/or fire a gun as neglectful, I can proudly say that those claims never went anywhere close to the court system.

With that said, allow me to say the I hate people like this, because they make it all the more difficult for responsible gun owners to pursue their interests. Stories like this, and especially the video, play right into the hands of gun control advocates, and gives them a powerful and emotional image to support the cause. Can't you hear someone playing the tape, explainig why their new pet bill should be passed probiting any person from owning/possessing more than one firearm, as the video shows that no person can properly secure more than one firearm, and keep the children safe?

Sportcat
July 27, 2004, 11:45 AM
Matt Lauer of the Today show described the footage as "graphic and shocking" and warned parents before the story aired.

middy
July 27, 2004, 11:46 AM
While I hate nosy neighbors and meddling government agencies, I have to think that they did the right thing in this case. People like this give gun owners a bad name.

sturmruger
July 27, 2004, 11:55 AM
That is pretty sad. We wonder why we still have adults mishandling firearms. It is probably because when they were children they watched their parents do stupid stuff, or they were allowed to do dumb things as kids so when they are adults they don't seem so dumb.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 12:27 PM
Don't care. It was absolutely none of the neighbor's business and the cretin had no right to film anything on someone elses property. Before you say this is an exception, there are no exceptions. It was an invasion of privacy. If you excuse it because this time it happened to, maybe, catch something dangerous then don't complain about it when someone catches you doing something, anything, in fact.

I hope the parents are well off financially and, when all is said and done, I hope they spend a great deal of time and money making certain the neighbor serves as an example for others not to nose in where you don't belong.

Blue Line
July 27, 2004, 12:55 PM
well if its wrong to video, photgraph etc then it would also be illegal to LOOK at your neighbor. If you don't want anyone to see how stupid you can be with a firearm put a high privacy fence up. What the gun owning parents did is not safe firearms handling. Fortunely the kid didn't blow his head off on camera.
I agree with everyone else here - images like this give us all a bad name.

sendec
July 27, 2004, 12:59 PM
I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:

1) If the neighbor who taped the incident did not trespass on the defendent's property there is no violation of privacy. The open field doctrine and the plain view doctrine would apply to governmental agents, and may shield a citizen from any unearned liability. I doubt that they could argue a reasonable expectation of privacy for an activity that took place out in the open.

2) It IS the neighbor's business - they have an ethical obligation to take appropriate measures to shield a child from harm. As a detective I investigated a case where a neighbor overheard the mother of a young child yelling at her husband to stop molesting the girl (I am not going to use the exact language or decribe the act that she discovered him doing, except to say that the circumstances would have earned him a mandatory life sentence). I was furious because the neighbor waited several hours to report the incident, instead of doing so immediately. I cannot see a moral justification for ignoring a heinous crime like this because "it's none of anyones business" though the Kitty Genovese case demonstrates that all too often people will not get involved.

jdkelly
July 27, 2004, 01:01 PM
I'm not a laywer, but I don't think there is any law that prohibits filming anything out in public, as in this case.

They are out in the open, I'ts not like they were inside their house being video taped through the slits in the blinds.



Respectfully,

jdkelly

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 01:06 PM
Why is it that increasingly these days people feel the need to str-e-e-e-e-tch to justify their stance? Comparing "looking" in your neighbor's direction to deliberately videotaping their actions is an absurd and non-sensical transparency. And what does it matter whether the image reflects badly? What is your point? Whether it reflects negatively or positively is immaterial. It should have never existed.

As for the kid A) We have no idea if the gun was loaded. B) We have no idea if the kid would have actually harmed anyone. C) If we're going to be truly pragmatic about this, the story of one dead kid would have far less "legs" than this piece of wrongly acquired videotape does. Just Darwin in action, next story please. That's cold but it is also very true.

The actions of the neighbor were wrong. And those actions have far greater potential repercussions, especially these days, than the (assumed)stupidity of the parents. If you truly disagree then how about I move in next to some of you and begin to film everything you do? Really want to bet that sooner or later I don't get vid of you doing something immensely stupid/thoughtless and/or illegal(whether you're aware of the law or not)?

J Miller
July 27, 2004, 01:08 PM
Me thinks this is another case of total hysterical over reaction. Much ado over nothing.

Here's a pic of me when I was wee lil one playing with a gun.

I don't know why but my pic wont download. Just picture a 5 YO with a S&W Chiefs Special in his hand and grin on his face. Nobodys freekin business but ours. Like 2nd amendment says: People should mind their own damn business. I hope the parrents win against these busybodies and sue the crap out of them.

Yes boys and girls that IS a real gun. And as you can see mom and dad (he took the pic) were both present. And if I remember correctly, dad was known to drink a bit. Now to you hysterical types, go and arrest my parrents, go ahead I dare you.

J:fire:e

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 01:09 PM
As for the other two of you, fine. Whatever. I hope something similar happens to you someday. I hope I am around to hear about it. As for myself, I moved out in the sticks so as not to have to tolerate intrusive busybodies with nothing better to do than snoop. if I had to endure something like this I assure you I would spend pretty much everything turning this neighbors life into something less than pleasant.

Mind your own business, people. Or don't EVER whine when someone else minds it for you.

J Miller
July 27, 2004, 01:12 PM
This should have been with post above.

Still won't download my pic. Sorry.

Joe

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
July 27, 2004, 02:35 PM
I suppose that when my father taught me how to shoot and began my training in responsible firearms handling....when I was four years old...means I was abused as a child, huh?

Of course, there was never any alcohol involved...my folks don't drink, at least not inappropriately, and it was all done prior to the creation of inexpensive video recording equipment with long lenses.

No wonder I just want to be left the hell alone.

Regards,
Rabbit.

PBIR
July 27, 2004, 02:49 PM
There is nothing responsible about going downrange to check your targets while your 3year old kid stays with the weapons unattended. It is the very epitomy of irresponsible firearm handling.

Gunsnrovers
July 27, 2004, 03:20 PM
There is absolutely NO relationship between a 5 year old being supervised handling a pistol, a 4 year old being taught to shoot, and a 3 year old left alone with guns while his parents are drinking beer and shooting targets.

The two above examples are totally irrelevent.

jdkelly
July 27, 2004, 03:26 PM
As for the other two of you, fine. Whatever. I hope something similar happens to you someday.----2nd Amendment

If I'm stupid enough to do something embarrassing in public, then I'd deserve ridicule. I'm a big boy I don't need to get even.


...if I had to endure something like this I assure you I would spend pretty much everything turning this neighbors life into something less than pleasant.

I guess that's where we are different, I think that every second and every penny I'd spend plotting revenge on someone is time and money truly wasted. You can't get either back, and all you have to show for it is hate.

I was wondering, did you have problems with your neighbor(s) in the city?


Respectfully,

jdkelly

TonyB
July 27, 2004, 03:51 PM
Gun owners like this make us all look bad......I believe in a live and let live ,mind your own business way of life too.....but these people need to be slapped.I've been around guns sense I was a todler too,but we NEVER mixed alcohol and guns......these people are a-holes...:fire:

Gunsnrovers
July 27, 2004, 04:05 PM
It's all fun and games to scream about your rights, but it's a down right pisser when someone mentions that other nasty R word. Responsibility.

Girlwithagun
July 27, 2004, 04:31 PM
First, for the record, I believe the parents were at fault for not teaching their child not to pick up a gun without their permission and obviously the child was not handling the gun properly. But....

There do not seem to be enough facts to find out what really happened and I am surprised that people would form strong opinions without knowing all the facts. Especially in a group of gun owners who are often criticized or unjustly accused. Was this gun loaded? The parents say no. How far away were the parents? Were they really drinking alcohol? You all know all well as I do that the media stretches the truth and even flat out makes stuff up to suit their agenda. So, all I can see wrong with this picture without further evidence is the fact that they did not teach their child not to touch a gun without permission. This is assuming that the parents did not give permission, and if they did, they should have taught the child how to properly handle a gun first.

I was also shocked to hear people in this thread and the other one of this subject talking like it was horrible that a 3 year old should be handling a gun in the first place. Kids should never be underestimated- this goes both ways. My 3 year old has been out shooting with us (with eyes and ears of course) and my husband has helped him shoot a .22 rifle (with my son doing some of the holding and my husband pulling the trigger). He has been drilled since he could understand about gun safety. He knows the basic rules (if you see a gun, don't touch, tell mommy or daddy) and has been tested a re-tested and never once failed. He also asks sometimes to see my carry gun and I'll tell him ok but we have to make it safe first so he'll tell me to take out the magazine and pull back the slide. Then I will let him hold it and he knows to not put his finger on the trigger and to not point it at anyone. Now, my 2 year old is not at that point yet and therefore not allowed to hold a gun on his own.

If the news report would say tomorrow "Neighbor witnesses 3 year old picking up a gun, parents have arsenal of weapons", they may just be talking about me. And to that, I would say, put your binoculars away, I choose education over ignorance. :neener:

CentralTexas
July 27, 2004, 04:50 PM
When did all the "For the Children" types join this forum?

This is only an issue because it's a GUN, quit thinking like the other side.
EVERY day I see kids not in car seats or playing in front yards with parents too far away to prevent them from running into the path of a car etc.

Yeah those parents should have been more careful BUT this is only an issue because it's a GUN.

Do you see Matt and Katie bringing on video a neighbor took of kids riding bikes without helmets?????

Perspective folks!

CT

sumpnz
July 27, 2004, 05:14 PM
As for the kid A) We have no idea if the gun was loaded. B) We have no idea if the kid would have actually harmed anyone. C) If we're going to be truly pragmatic about this, the story of one dead kid would have far less "legs" than this piece of wrongly acquired videotape does. Just Darwin in action, next story please. That's cold but it is also very true. A) What's the FIRST rule of gun safety. All together now: Treat every gun as though it were loaded at all times.

I don't care if you could tell from the video that the mag had been dropped and the slide was locked back. No 3 year old can know how to personally verify that the gun is unloaded, at least none that I've ever been around.

B) Immaterial to the issue. Do we let drunk people drive just becuase they might get home safely?

C) That is disturbing on more levels than I can mention without violating The High Road code of conduct.

calvinike
July 27, 2004, 05:16 PM
Come on. We all know the only reason this made the news is that it involved a child and a gun. This is red meat for the media. It never would have been aired if it was a video of child riding a bike without a helmet.

Regardless;

1. Shooting and drinking do not mix.
2. Gun Safety Rule #1 - All guns are loaded.

These parents, and I use the term loosely are idiots. They give all gun owners a bad name and play directly into the "anti's" stereotypes. There is absolutley no defense for their behavior.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 05:26 PM
Bumped to the next page, just cause I can.

rock jock
July 27, 2004, 05:28 PM
I hope something similar happens to you someday.
I'm sure you do, but the people posting on this thread are probably not the type to be that irresponsible. That neighbor may very well have saved that young boy's life, or the life of another child.

Let me ask you, 2A, if you're out in your backyard and see a small child in a pond next door that appears to be drowning, would you trespass onto your neighbor's property to save his life?

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 05:34 PM
Yes. Now tell us, how does that fit with what the topic of this discussion is? Did this neighbor go and take the gun away? No, she taped it and ran to the cops. That certainly protected the child, didn't it? Does merely picking up a firearm equate to drowning these days? No? Then why try and use the comparison?

BTW, there's any number of people here that irresponsible. if not in this exact situation then in some other. People make mistakes, including you and I. The nice thing for us is we didn't have some parasite next door to record it all for posterity.

Blue Line
July 27, 2004, 05:34 PM
sorry but for as much as you don't like it there is nothing illegal about videotaping that is clearly in your view.

While I do agree about the neighbor doing something regarding getting the gun away from the child.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 05:36 PM
Scenerio One:

Mom and Dad are in the backyard drinking something. They're happily sending lead down range while, behind them, sits Jr. He's enjoying all the noise and laughter and watching Mom outshoot Dad. Near him are a couple pistols he could probably get to if he wanted but hey, he really doesn't wanna and this bright sun is kinda making him sleepy anyway...

Across the way sits Nosy the Neighbor. With her camcorder. Again. She's taping the entire thing. Again. Even Dad going down range to check the targets and Jr passing out in the stroller. Later she loads this tape up and heads for the Cop Shop, where she passes it on to the resident Crime Dog. now Crime Dog, he's not too keen on gun owners and rednecks and people who disagree with him. Nosy says that all that noise and smoke is injurious to the child, not too mention being left out in the sun, plus it is placing him in an enviroment of violence. Now Crime Dog, well, he pretty much agrees. So up the ladder he passes the video and his impressions to...

The Persecutor. Now Mr Persecutor isn't really looking to make a name for himself. He'd love to have a gun manufacturer lawsuit of his very own but knows it's never going to happen. So he's stuck doing droll stuff like prosecuting druggies and violent felons. No headlines there these days, but he does his best. But now what should fall into his lap except a VIDEO of some redneck, beer swilling(at least it looks like it's beer. We're sure about the BEER word on the label but that word "ROOT" we're still thinking on...) throwbacks subjecting their innocent and helpless child to roaring noise and smoke(who snuck the front stuffer in here!?) and all the "Culture of Violence"tm that goes along with it, not to mention and excessive sun tan. It's time to put a stop to this cultuire of violence. it's time to teach people that spreading their ugly habits is simply NOT going to be tolerated.

Call out the SWAT!

Call out the Child Welfare Services.

And before you know it the parents are charged, the kid is who knows where and the media is talking about how horrible it is to subject a child to such things in this enlightened age. Not only can it happen, it has, minus the video, right here in Indiana.

*********************************************************

So tell us, is it still OK? Now the "crime" fits with the leftist take on shooting and "responsibility" but not with "our" take on it. Only the perceptions are different, and the perceptions of much of society ARE very different from ours...Discuss.

Scenerio Two:

HIYA! I'm Squirrel Bait, yer new neighbor! Pleased to meetcha!

Now if'n you don' mind, er even if ya do, I'm gonna set me up this tripod right here on the corner of my porch an' on top o' that I'm gonna mount my camera. I'm gonna run this here pair of cables back inside to the comp and the wall outlet and I'm gonna record every damn thing that goes on in your backyard from now till hell freezes solid in the hope of nailing you for something.

No, I don't mind a'tall if'n ya build a big high privacy fence. Y'all'd be amazed how tall they make these tripod thingies these days. And that just means ya must have somethin' to hide anyway which'll make my story even better when I go to the po-po. So g'head! By ALL means, please.

Why am I doing this? Because I can and there's nothing you can do about it and there's even a whole half a nation full of people that will pat me on the back if I ever do catch you doing something that I don't approve of and can spin it into some terrible social ill.

So y'all enjoy yer lives. invite me over fer some burgers sometime and I might even go easy on ya's.

**********************************************************

So tell us, what IS the difference? Of course none of us has ever done anything dumb/illegal or sufficiently non-PC that an activist neighbor/cop/prosecutor could make hay out of it, right? Tell us how the above is wrong and do it within a context that allows you to continue to defend this spy.

Were this kid's parents also wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Since nobody got hurt it really isn't anyone's business. Certainly not Nosy the neighbor and most assuredly not ours or the government's. But you go ahead and fit the above two tales into thr same box with this story and make it all work together if you can.

Strings
July 27, 2004, 05:50 PM
Odd... I hadn't heard anything about drinking. And it's my understanding that the child got the gun out of the trunk, where the parents had left it not only unloaded, but inoperable (am 620 WTMJ).

People make mistakes. Happens all the time. And, if you were to bust every person who has a beer or two while shooting, it would by ONLY the people on this board fighting to preserve our rights (and a few of them would be missing too).

Maybe Junior was napping, woke up, and got out of the car...

Maybe dad thought he had the trunk latched...

THere are WAY too many variables on this one for everyone to start judging. But I'll tell ya what: go outside and grab a rock, and feel free to throw it at the parents...

Hope everyone understands the bleedin' message there...

Blue Line
July 27, 2004, 05:50 PM
what ever situation you can think of if I'm in a situation where I can see somthing I can video it. Nothing illegal about it as long as its either a public place such as the sidewalk in front of your house or on my own back 40 its not illegal and won't be anytime soon. So be careful when you shoot the moon it might make the tonite show :D

gunsmith
July 27, 2004, 05:53 PM
If you are close enough to videotape a 3 yr old with a handgun then you are close enough to be shot by a 3 yr old with a handgun.

If you let your 3 yr old play with loaded guns you had better do it behind closed doors.

As far as seatbelts,I have gotten off my motorcycle at stop lights and asked parents to put a seat belt on their youngsters- If I do it in a polite manner,they allways respond in a positive friendly way.

Yes it never would have been on TV if it was a seat belt or if it was a 3yr old driving a car or the like, so I agree with calvinike.

The videographer probably had enough of the idiots next door.
In this case he may well have saved one child-or even himself if the kid sent a few rounds his way by accident.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 05:53 PM
A) What's the FIRST rule of gun safety. All together now: Treat every gun as though it were loaded at all times.

That's a nice line. I agree with it in application. But in reality it's a Standard. The FACT remains you and I haven't got a clue in this case.

I don't care if you could tell from the video that the mag had been dropped and the slide was locked back. No 3 year old can know how to personally verify that the gun is unloaded, at least none that I've ever been around.

And in this case no 3 year old was injured. So what we have is a mistake and probably a learning experience...at least until it became a media circus.

B) Immaterial to the issue. Do we let drunk people drive just becuase they might get home safely?

Pointless comparison with no relevence.

C) That is disturbing on more levels than I can mention without violating The High Road code of conduct.

Really? Then you advocate "observers" for every potential mistake and possibly dangerous act that anyone may do at any time that may involve their children? No? Then you subscribe to the same theory, just not when there's video that might refelct badly on us.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 06:11 PM
If you are close enough to videotape a 3 yr old with a handgun then you are close enough to be shot by a 3 yr old with a handgun.

You're also close enough to disarm the 3 year old or tell the parents about it or leave if you're that in fear for your life. What, exactly, does standing there taping the incident and doing nothing say about the person doing the taping?

If you let your 3 yr old play with loaded guns you had better do it behind closed doors.

OK, but since it doesn't appear these people "let" their 3 year old do it, what do you suggest?

As far as seatbelts,I have gotten off my motorcycle at stop lights and asked parents to put a seat belt on their youngsters- If I do it in a polite manner,they allways respond in a positive friendly way.

I'd smile and nod in that way people do when someone really odd is entirely too close then drive away and comment to my wife about how meddlesome some people are, assuming she didn't say it first.

The videographer probably had enough of the idiots next door.

Unless the spy was "the idiot next door" and wanted some form of petty revenge which does, in fact, look much more likely here.

In this case he may well have saved one child-or even himself if the kid sent a few rounds his way by accident.

Baseless assumption built on an emotional reaction.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 06:15 PM
what ever situation you can think of if I'm in a situation where I can see somthing I can video it. Nothing illegal about it as long as its either a public place such as the sidewalk in front of your house or on my own back 40 its not illegal and won't be anytime soon. So be careful when you shoot the moon it might make the tonite show

I am reasonably confident that if I made a habit of specifically taping you and yours, especially if your children were involved you could find a myriad of legal means to make my life absolutely suck. The fact is that no, you do not get to just tape your neighbors anytime you want and expect no repercussions.

Anyway, I've made my point here pretty clearly. I've asked quite a few people today about this scenerio, too. Had to go to auction and so I got to gab with a whole heard of fairly independent minded people. The only support I find for the spy is here, on this board. Not to say that people don't think the parents were possibly idiots, just that the neighbor was just as much of one on a variety of levels AND that that kind of snooping should never be lauded, even if it does good in a specific event. Maybe ESPECIALLY if it does good. It's a whole can o' worms we don't want to open.

bill2
July 27, 2004, 06:19 PM
The parents were irresponsible in this case, not because of the beer but that they didn't know (at least from the video it seems that way) that their kid was handling a gun unsupervised. I have had a couple of beers with a friend while shooting, in Idaho just a few weeks ago, and there was no problem at all.
That said, this would never have been an issue if it had involved anything besides a gun. It's curious that it even made it to the Today Show - how did that happen? Considering the number of news stores that occur every day it's obvious they picked it because it would show gun owners in a bad light. Also, Matt Lauer wasn't interested in a factual interview, for example, when the neighbor said that there were a number of red flags he didn't ask her to back that up. Also, her excuse about why she didn't go to help the child was simply BS. All in all, even though the parents were wrong, this was not a nationally newsworth story.

rock jock
July 27, 2004, 06:23 PM
Yes. Now tell us, how does that fit with what the topic of this discussion is? Did this neighbor go and take the gun away? No, she taped it and ran to the cops. That certainly protected the child, didn't it?
Actually, it did for future events. At the time, the neighbor would most likely have placed her/himself in some degree of danger by rushing over to grab the gun of the child's hands. Not by the child, mind you, but rather by the adults who probably would have welcomed the opportunity to pounce on someone they didn't like.
Does merely picking up a firearm equate to drowning these days? No? Then why try and use the comparison?
Yes, it certainly does, because in both situations there is a reasonable assumption of danger on the part of the child. However, I noticed that you dodged the question. So, I'll ask it again:

"if you're out in your backyard and see a small child in a pond next door that appears to be drowning, would you trespass onto your neighbor's property to save his life?"

Now, please keep in mind that I expect your answer to be completely consistent with your aforementioned doctrine that there are NO exceptions to an invasion of privacy, as you yourself state:
Before you say this is an exception, there are no exceptions. It was an invasion of privacy.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 06:36 PM
At the time, the neighbor would most likely have placed her/himself in some degree of danger by rushing over to grab the gun of the child's hands.

By your own words the spy was already in danger by remaining there to tape the incident.

Not by the child, mind you, but rather by the adults who probably would have welcomed the opportunity to pounce on someone they didn't like.

Another baseless assumption. We have not one single clue what their reaction would have been

Also, I clearly stated my answer. It was Yes. Don't know how I could have made it any more plain. Now note the rest of the answer: Now tell us, how does that fit with what the topic of this discussion is? Did this neighbor go and take the gun away? No, she taped it and ran to the cops. That certainly protected the child, didn't it? Does merely picking up a firearm equate to drowning these days? No? Then why try and use the comparison?

Since you replied to my answer I'm not certain how you can then say i didn't answer. Also I am not certain how you can equate picking up a firearm to the real-time act of drowning which you posited. One is the possibility of danger, a rather remote one probably, while the other is the actual event of dying. Saving a life in immediate danger is not the same as spying on someone, ignoring the possible danger and running to the cops with what you think is negative evidence.

Oh, note, before you say I am invading someone's privacy by saving a drowning victim I'd suggest that all the screaming for help and thrashing is a request and thus having been invited over to save someone's bacon the question of invasion no longer exists. Or does your hypothetical also include total silence from the drownie?

gunsmith
July 27, 2004, 06:47 PM
I think your're a good guy,but I disagree.

I aint going into someone elses yard to disarm their three yr old when their drunk parents are standing around with loaded guns...

As they say "thats what the cops get the big paycheck for"

Taking a loaded gun away from an angry/scared 3 yr old is above and beyond my duty as a concerned citizen.

fourdeuce82d
July 27, 2004, 06:47 PM
"The fact is that no, you do not get to just tape your neighbors anytime you want and expect no repercussions."

<p>
Well..they might egg your car...they might come over and beat you like a red-headed step-child.. they might even get their panties in a twist on an internet board over the unfairness of it all.

But based on what I remember from school- if you're in the open, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the imagery is not used for financial gain...I think you're (legally) fair game.

might not be right, might not be neighborly..but I'm pretty sure it's legal.

I'd be happy to look at any evidence you have to the contrary.

rock jock
July 27, 2004, 06:49 PM
By your own words the spy was already in danger by remaining there to tape the incident.
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. There is a world of difference between remaining on your own property and filming an incident 40-50 yards away and physically intervening in the situation. Kinf of like the difference between taking pictures of a lion at the zoo and actually jumping in his cage.:rolleyes:

Another baseless assumption. We have not one single clue what their reaction would have been
Yes, we do.. We have a quote from the neighbor - "we haven't spoken in years" and the fact that the moron parents were armed at the time. It is in fact a very reasonable assumption that the act of physically intervening would be met with hostility, possibly even gunplay.

Since you replied to my answer I'm not certain how you can then say i didn't answer. Also I am not certain how you can equate picking up a firearm to the real-time act of drowning which you posited. One is the possibility of danger, a rather remote one probably, while the other is the actual event of dying. Saving a life in immediate danger is not the same as spying on someone, ignoring the possible danger and running to the cops with what you think is negative evidence.
The validity of the comparison is really moot. What is at issue here is your blatant inconsistency. On one hand you forcefully condemn ANY exception to a right to privacy and the next you tell us that you would ready to trespass if the situation demanded it. What greater violation of a right to privacy is there than property trespass?

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 06:53 PM
Well..they might egg your car...they might come over and beat you like a red-headed step-child.. they might even get their panties in a twist on an internet board over the unfairness of it all.

But based on what I remember from school- if you're in the open, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the imagery is not used for financial gain...I think you're (legally) fair game.

might not be right, might not be neighborly..but I'm pretty sure it's legal.

I'd be happy to look at any evidence you have to the contrary.

Or since you are filming my children I might accuse you of being a pervert, scouting my place for a possible victim. Or my wife might accuse you of being a stalker. Or I might accuse you harrassing me. I'm quite sure I could get an attorney who could convince a jury of one or all of those things, especially in this day and age. So, again, you don't get to whip out that recorder and film to your hearts content and expect nothing in return.

jefnvk
July 27, 2004, 06:55 PM
I'm not saying that you shouldn't treat all guns like theyre loaded, but allow me to throw two situtations out:

1. Gun unloaded, trigger lock on (if any of you can tell if there is a trigger lock on that thing, you must have been the parents or the kid), internal lock on, hammer down, safetys on. Basically a paperweight.

2. Gun loaded, cocked and unlocked, 2# trigger pull, bullet in the chamber, inside a soft case the kid has decided to play catch with.

Which is safer? Both are irresponsible. I am all for treating all guns as loaded. In situtation #1, I think you would have a hard time shooting yourself. #2, no child endangerment case, because no visible threat, at least to someone else.In school, I was always taught that in a sexual discrimination case, it didnt matter what you meant to do. It doesn't matter how the other person takes it. If someone else sees it and reports it, too bad for you. Seems to be the same way for guns.

And as for the videotaping people in their yards, if the girl next door was sun bathing nude, and I taped it, do you think that argument would hold?

rock jock
July 27, 2004, 07:01 PM
And as for the videotaping people in their yards, if the girl next door was sun bathing nude, and I taped it, do you think that argument would hold?
Legally, yes. If you want privacy from amateur papparazzi, stay inside or get a privacyfence.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 07:03 PM
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.

If you are close enough to videotape a 3 yr old with a handgun then you are close enough to be shot by a 3 yr old with a handgun.

They weren't your words though, sorry. But they are still correct and applicable.

Yes, we do.. We have a quote from the neighbor - "we haven't spoken in years"

Ahh, so if the other neighbors say that the spy is mentally unstable and has harrassed them for years which is WHY they don't talk you'll automatically accept that, too? Get the point?

and the fact that the moron parents were armed at the time.

Morons? Really? Do you know them? Do you know who they are or how they live or what they feel? Maybe you are right, but the fact remains your ad hom is yet another baseless assumption.

It is in fact a very reasonable assumption that the act of physically intervening would be met with hostility, possibly even gunplay.

Entirely predicated on your assumptions. As I said, we don't actually have a clue. You're entitled to your opinion but understand that that is ALL it is.

The validity of the comparison is really moot.

Hardly, since it directly reflects on your entire scenerio as well as your next comment...

What is at issue here is your blatant inconsistency.

On one hand you forcefully condemn ANY exception to a right to privacy and the next you tell us that you would ready to trespass if the situation demanded it. What greater violation of a right to privacy is there than property trespass?

Neat how you now claim the vailidity of the comparison isn't important AND ignore the last point I made, referring to the FACT that a drowning person will very likely be screaming for all he or she is worth. THAT negates the question of trespass since it is a request for help. Did the three year old or his parents ask the spy for help? Is standing there taping the incident "helping"? Also it is probably worth noting that I wouldn't likely save a drowing person if they didn't call for help since I wouldn't be spying on them while they were swimming and thus wouldn't know they were drowning.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 07:05 PM
Legally, yes. If you want privacy from amateur papparazzi, stay inside or get a privacyfence.

I made note of a very tall privacy fence in my second scenerio. I also then noted my hypothetical neighbor fully planned on taping over top of it. Nobody lodged a single protest. So, are you now saying that anything outside is fair game for a peeper except under certain circumstances yet to be defined?

rock jock
July 27, 2004, 07:39 PM
a drowning person will very likely be screaming Hmmm. To quote you "a totally baseless assumption".

Did the three year old or his parents ask the spy for help? A 3-year old cannot recognize nor understand the lethality of a gun. As for the parents, they are morons. And speaking of moronic, this conversation has reached that point. So, I bid adieu.

Cosmoline
July 27, 2004, 07:44 PM
The best neighbor is one at least two miles distant. This whole civilization thing is highly overrated in my book.

sumpnz
July 27, 2004, 08:18 PM
A) What's the FIRST rule of gun safety. All together now: Treat every gun as though it were loaded at all times.

That's a nice line. I agree with it in application. But in reality it's a Standard. The FACT remains you and I haven't got a clue in this case. Ummm, my point there was that you were, in effect, saying that since the gun probably wasn't loaded then it's a "no harm, no foul" kind of thing. Since none of here was able to, at the time of the incident, personally verify that the gun was not loaded we have to assume that it was. Therefore it is still a very bad thing that this happened.
I don't care if you could tell from the video that the mag had been dropped and the slide was locked back. No 3 year old can know how to personally verify that the gun is unloaded, at least none that I've ever been around.

And in this case no 3 year old was injured. So what we have is a mistake and probably a learning experience...at least until it became a media circus.Again you seem to be saying "no harm, no foul." I very much disagree.
B) Immaterial to the issue. Do we let drunk people drive just becuase they might get home safely?

Pointless comparison with no relevence. No less relavent than the seatbelt, or drowning comparison. Drunk guy drives home from the bar and manages to avoid killing or injuring anyone in the process. Is that somehow OK for him to do? Becuase if you think it's OK for the kid to play with the gun without competent supervision you'd also probably think the drunk guy driving is also OK. I don't buy that.

C) That is disturbing on more levels than I can mention without violating The High Road code of conduct.

Really? Then you advocate "observers" for every potential mistake and possibly dangerous act that anyone may do at any time that may involve their children? No? Then you subscribe to the same theory, just not when there's video that might refelct badly on us.Hardly. That was directed at my disgust at your statement that it would be better for the kid to blow his own head off, or someone else's head off than for us gunnies to get a little bad PR. Bad press can be counteracted; not easily, I know but it is possible. It's kinda hard (i.e. impossible) to put a 3 year olds brain and skull back together.

I don't think the neighbor should have been nosing around, but I'd rather have that happen than the kid die. What should have happened is the neighbor should have alerted the parents to what their kid was doing. If they refused to take any action, then perhaps involving the authorities might have been appropriate. WRT to videotaping, the neighbor did not hoist it over a privacy fence to spy. They were in plain view and though some of us might find it distasteful for her to videotape the events, it was hardly illegal or what any court would determine an invasion of privacy. Sticking a camara over a privacy fence, putting it in an RC airplane and flying over the property, or using IR camaras to look through a wall all would qualify as an invasion, but that is not what she did. Had she done that I would be clamoring for her to go to jail (along with the parents of the kid getting into at least some trouble - not enough info to say if jail is strictly necessary in this case).

WildWilli
July 27, 2004, 08:37 PM
It made the news because it was a kid and a gun...period!

The anti-gun media LOVE this kind of propaganda, they can spin it so many ways.

Would Mrs. Cravits next door cranked up the ol' video if the kid had been playing with a plastic 5 gallon bucket (which kill way more kids every year than guns)? NO. probably not.

They said on the news tonight that the gun WAS NOT LOADED but that was no excuse.

The moral of the story is :

DON'T HAVE CHILDERN! (or neighbors)

Duh :D

joe sixpack
July 27, 2004, 08:52 PM
Interesting discussion so far, and I can see the points of the various sides.
I'm going to throw this in for fun:

The below is taken from a thread about Jelly Bryce, legendary
lawman. I do not recall any objections voiced in the thread about
it's content.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34088
------------------------
D.A. Bryce was born in 1906 in Mt. View, Oklahoma, a small town in southwest Oklahoma. There was a story that went around in later years that baby Bryce had been allowed to teethe on his daddy's pistol and had thereby imbibed some of his later ability with hand guns, a tall tale,obviously.

Not so, says Bryce's sister, Lila Dawson. "When he was a baby they let him teethe on Daddy's unloaded pistol. They propped him up with pillows there in the crib and let him go after it."
---------------------------------

Either the idea of "all guns are loaded" is new and people's ideas of guns were different, or perhaps this guys parent's were child abusers and deserved to be humiliated in public without all the facts being known?
There is a good possibility that the parents didn't watch him all the time
while he chewed on the gun, or that perhaps they might have been drinking on occassion when he was innocently knawing on the handles.
Imagine having them open the door to their home and seeing that little
baby boy sucking on a handgun. Time to call the cops or at least Matt...

The point being that just because a video shows... or someone says...
doesn't mean all the facts are known. However, if you see some kid
masticating the barrel of a gun, waiting until all the facts are known
might be too late.

So, the lady videotaping may be considered guilty in not doing anything about the situation at the time it was happening. If the gun had been loaded and had gone off killing the little child, whether or not she would be prosecuted along with the parents is doubtful, but should she shoulder
some of the blame?

Which leads me to my final questions - do you think we are becoming an individuated society, where people don't care to know each other or are afraid to communicate? And is this a good thing?
Admittedly, having your neighbors shooting in the back-
yard while imbibing some alcoholic liquid refreshments might cause anyone
to hold their tongue, especially if you already have had an argument or
two. Still, if we all go about being afraid we may eventually
wind up with no one other than the gov speaking for us...



cheers, ab

gunsmith
July 27, 2004, 10:01 PM
They sure did things different back in the day!
Didn't Annie Oakley and other sharpshooters of those days do things like shoot a cigar while it was it was being smoked?
Looking at pictures of those days you see loaded guns being pointed right at the photog....

Anyway back to the issue at hand. First year law students could tell you that the videographer wasn't violating any privacy laws.

The parents are so stupid they make me look smart!:cool:

joe sixpack
July 27, 2004, 10:20 PM
heya 'smithie

Re: AO shooting cigars outta people's mouths:
you had to have some real (fill in the blank) to be the one with the
smoke in your mouth.

calvinike
July 27, 2004, 10:35 PM
How is this behavior defensible? It isn't. The fact that they got caught on tape is immaterial. If I decide I want to masturbate on my front porch, maybe I should live someplace where the neighbors can't see.

These people did a stupid thing: drinking and shooting, and leaving their kid unsupervised.

Would it really be any different if they had been drinking and reading the New York Times while their 3 yr. old was playing by the pool?

Again the answer to the above question is, because of media bias, yes. The Today crew have pools, but abhor firearms. We all know this.

Gunowners are stereotyped as redneck Neandertals. The media loves to perpetuate this and will continue to do so as long as our clueless brethren continue to provide the fodder.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 11:39 PM
Ummm, my point there was that you were, in effect, saying that since the gun probably wasn't loaded then it's a "no harm, no foul" kind of thing. Since none of here was able to, at the time of the incident, personally verify that the gun was not loaded we have to assume that it was. Therefore it is still a very bad thing that this happened.

Not disagreeing that it was a bad thing. But bad things do happen and we learn from them and, hopefully, nobody gets hurt. I once found my son firing up the tractor. Not some little lawn tractor but the NAA Ford with a sickle bar and a bush hog on it. What possessed him to do it? Better yet, how did he ever get that persnickety old thing to start?! Possible result? He could have been just as dead as this kid could have. Lesson learned? Don't leave the keys in the tractor. And yes, just as with that incident I do see it as "no harm, no foul".

No less relavent than the seatbelt, or drowning comparison. Drunk guy drives home from the bar and manages to avoid killing or injuring anyone in the process. Is that somehow OK for him to do? Becuase if you think it's OK for the kid to play with the gun without competent supervision you'd also probably think the drunk guy driving is also OK. I don't buy that.

I didn't claim that those were particularly relevant, but they were the examples presented. But the drunk driver comparison is a particular stretch. I'm not "defending" the actions of the parents(the "drunk driver) but denigrating the actions of the person who, in your scenerio, would follow the drunk home, film him throwing up in his own backyard and THEN call the cops.

Hardly. That was directed at my disgust at your statement that it would be better for the kid to blow his own head off, or someone else's head off than for us gunnies to get a little bad PR. Bad press can be counteracted; not easily, I know but it is possible. It's kinda hard (i.e. impossible) to put a 3 year olds brain and skull back together.

Not what I said, though. I see it as better that somebody do themselves in than to accept the spying of anyone. The alternative to that is to approve of anyone spying anywhere if it saves just one life.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 11:42 PM
Hmmm. To quote you "a totally baseless assumption".

No, a fact of general behavior. Not always but certainly often enough to base a general decision on in a what-if scenerio.

A 3-year old cannot recognize nor understand the lethality of a gun. As for the parents, they are morons. And speaking of moronic, this conversation has reached that point. So, I bid adieu.

No, this is what they call debate. I'll presume that since you avoided the rest of the post to take a line out of context you concede the point.

2nd Amendment
July 27, 2004, 11:45 PM
Anyway back to the issue at hand. First year law students could tell you that the videographer wasn't violating any privacy laws.

And any first year law student could also tell you, whip that cam out and there's a lot of things you can find yourself charged with or sued for that do not specifically involve invasion of privacy. Regardless, I haven't argued a point of law, I have argued against the acceptance of this kind of meddling.

Barring evidence of systematic abuse or neglect on the part of the parents the spy looks like far more of a cretin in this than do the parents who simply screwed up.

carpettbaggerr
July 28, 2004, 12:15 AM
And any first year law student could also tell you, whip that cam out and there's a lot of things you can find yourself charged with or sued for that do not specifically involve invasion of privacy. Such as....
Barring evidence of systematic abuse or neglect on the part of the parents the spy looks like far more of a cretin in this than do the parents who simply screwed up. Perhaps to you. But allowing a 3 year old to handle a firearm while you are downrange is more than just "screwing up".

jdkelly
July 28, 2004, 08:39 AM
2nd Amendment,

...Regardless, I haven't argued a point of law, I have argued against the acceptance of this kind of meddling.---2nd Amendment

Then what did you mean by:

It was absolutely none of the neighbor's business and the cretin had no right to film anything on someone elses property.---2nd Amendment

If you meant morale "right" as opposed to legal "right" then that's just your opinion, so don't film your neighbors.


Some would think that it is a duty to act on a child's behalf, to ensure the child's safety. It is much more responsible then advocating the child's possible death through in action. as you do in the quote below.

Just Darwin in action, next story please. That's cold but it is also very true.---2nd Amendment


Which, when you think about it, is exactaly what the neighbor did by not acting immedaitly when the child picked up the hand gun.

I guess you and the "cretin" have at least a little in common.


...I assure you I would spend pretty much everything turning this neighbors life into something less than pleasant. ---2nd Amendment

Isn't that what the "cretin" was doing to it's neighbors?


Hummmm, 2nd Amendment, did you send that video in?


Respectfully,

jdkelly

griz
July 28, 2004, 09:25 AM
I find it incredible that there are people here who expect perfection from parents. I know of a case where a mother left her two small kids, around 2 and 4 as I recall, in the tub long enough to answer the phone. When she came back the youngest one had drown. Terrible situation, but it's the kind of mistake parents make every day, often without realizing the possibility of danger. Nobody thought they should take her other child away from her.

Why is the situation different in the video? Because it's a gun and our society is drifting away from the idea that guns are common tools. Swimming pools, buckets, household chemicals, and automobiles kill more children than guns, but evrybody is used to that. Wish I had the answer to this mess.

Bobster
July 28, 2004, 11:08 AM
I too was one of those shocked and sickened at the video footage, but only a tad more than the response of some of the posters in this forum.
I of course mean those who make excuses for the TOTAL LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY of the parents. I suspect that you would have had the same excuses if the gun was loaded. Or the child was shot himself.
That child was also learning irresponsibility with guns.

Sorry folks, it's the militant, ignorant voices of a few on this thread that fuel the anti gun lobby, and make all gun owners look bad, not just them selves.

I believe that all have a right to their opinion, regardless of ignorance. Opinions stand by themselves. And I stand by mine. Do I mean this as a flame? Oh yeah.

BOB

Daniel T
July 28, 2004, 11:14 AM
I find it incredible that there are people here who expect perfection from parents.

Perfection? No. Minimal competence? Yes. It's hardly expecting perfection to expect that a parent would keep a gun out of the hands of a 3 year-old who is using it as a toy.

2nd Amendment
July 28, 2004, 11:49 AM
jdkelly, come back when you can actually offer something up in context and accurate. Seriously, not an attack just a fact that that was too weak to even bother with.

Bob. What part of "not defending the parents" do you not understand? I am condemning the parasite next door. There's a difference.

Daniel T. Yes, you're expecting perfection. Know what a child is doing every minute of every day for all its life...even when you think you know and the kid is actually doing something else you don't allow and wouldn't tolerate, such as this case. Unless you have kids and have never, once, discovered them doing something you did not approve/anticipate then give it a rest. Oh, if you never have caught them? That just means they got away with it...

It's sad that the people on this board of all places will offer such knee-jerk reactions because it might make us "look bad". And yet these same people wouldn't be making the same noises if it were a pool or a car, or my tractor mentioned above...just a gun. :rolleyes: So we've not only bought into the anti-gun spiel ourselves but the "it takes a village" mentality, too. Sad. Pathetic really.

Particularly funny is the fact I have not talked to one, single, solitary, person outside this board that agrees with the prevailing opinion here. While the parents get varying degrees of contempt from different people(more from men than women, oddly enough) the spy is universally condemned. For taping others lives. For taping instead of doing something. For running to the cops instead of discussing the situation... Well, carry on. I wouldn't want to interrupt the back-slapping brigade anymore.

BrokenPaw
July 28, 2004, 11:53 AM
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" applies. 2A, if people do something in their yard, which is visible to a casual observer who is on his own (or public) property, they have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy. If they don't like being observed from these places, they may build a privacy fence.

If they build a privacy fence, they now have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the neighbor places a camera on a high tripod to see over the fence, he is now invading that privacy.

Another point: you say a drowning victim implicitly calls for help by screaming. What if you happened to look into your neighbor's yard (notwithstanding the fact that you would never ever do this because it's his private property) and you saw his three-year-old floating face-down in the kiddie pool. No screaming. No thrashing. Just floating face down. You have no implicit cry for help. You have no explicit invitation. So do you risk trespass by going to check on the kid, or do you go about mowing your lawn because after all, it's none of your business?

If you see someone breaking into your neighbor's house late at night (again, notwithstanding the fact that you never look beyond your own yard for fear of violating someone's privacy) do you call the cops? To do so would be a violation of the prowler's privacy, not to mention your neighbor's, would it not?

-BP

hso
July 28, 2004, 11:53 AM
Part of me says it's a natural selection opportunity to remove stupid genes from the pool.

Another part says that we have a responsibility to look after minors and protect them from endangerment from strangers and parents.

Any yet another part says that these folks are such a bad example of what WE are supposed to be about around here that we don't want them having guns anyway.

Gunsnrovers
July 28, 2004, 11:55 AM
I don't get the gene pool arguement. Who says the kid is stupid or lacking in genes? He's three.

Now if the parents shot themselves.....

Bobster
July 28, 2004, 11:55 AM
No problem 2nd Amendment. I did understand "not defending the parents". I wasn't defending them either.

Gunsnrovers
July 28, 2004, 12:03 PM
2nd Amendment, my son goes NOWHERE near a pool, a tractor (or my 1964 Rover which is like a highway legal tractor most of the time), or a car, my garage with tools, etc. without some supervision. Things happen, but it's my JOB and RESPONSIBILITY to do everything I can to prevent accidents. They left firearms out readily accessible to a child. Same thing as leaving your kid out on the rear patio with a pool and your in the front yard talking to your neighbor. Same thing as putting you kid in a car with keys in the ignition (or the ever popular leaving your baby in a car seat in the car with windows rolled up on a hot day). Same thing as putting you kid in a tub full of water and going away to take a phone call. It's your job to be a parent. You're supposed to be the smarter one in the relationship. If you don't want to do the job, don't take it.

2nd Amendment
July 28, 2004, 12:20 PM
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" applies. 2A, if people do something in their yard, which is visible to a casual observer who is on his own (or public) property, they have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy. If they don't like being observed from these places, they may build a privacy fence.

I'm not the one arguing legality. I have argued the general moral position. I have specifically noted that you don't need that privacy fence anyway. There's plenty of other ways you can wreck my life via the legal system if I insist on taping YOUR life.

Another point: you say a drowning victim implicitly calls for help by screaming. What if you happened to look into your neighbor's yard (notwithstanding the fact that you would never ever do this because it's his private property) and you saw his three-year-old floating face-down in the kiddie pool. No screaming. No thrashing. Just floating face down. You have no implicit cry for help. You have no explicit invitation. So do you risk trespass by going to check on the kid, or do you go about mowing your lawn because after all, it's none of your business?

OK, if we are going to keep this accurately reflecting the story here I would, in the case of your drowning victim, merely videotape it till the parents showed up, then turn it over to the cops as evidence of their negligence. Afterall, they were "downrange"(elsewhere) while their child played with the pool... That IS an accurate comparison to this case.

Now to answer your question specifically, yes, I would do something. Already answered that before. Totally different scenerio, though. Also, "implicitly" is not my word. I was specific in my terms. ALSO, I never said I would never look in a neighbor's yard, since that would probably be a physical impossibility unless one walks around with one's eyes closed. I said I would not spy. Would not camp there watching their every move. Would not tape their lives. And as a result the odds actually are I probably wouldn't notice a quiet drowning victim. *shrug* Why would I notice? But assuming I got lucky(or the victim got lucky) I would do what I could.

If you see someone breaking into your neighbor's house late at night (again, notwithstanding the fact that you never look beyond your own yard for fear of violating someone's privacy) do you call the cops? To do so would be a violation of the prowler's privacy, not to mention your neighbor's, would it not?

Once again, to keep it accurate to THIS event I would tape the incident then, if some device stolen turned up as a criminal weapon/tool later I would turn the tape over to the cops as evidence of the neighbors negligence. That's the accurate comparison here.

But this isn't actually comparable. We're not talking about anythign the neighbors are doing that I might not approve of. We aren't talking about any need to tape their lives or spy. We're talking about walking out the backdoor to get in one's own car and finding some goobers crawling in the window in front of my face. Hard to miss.

I'll offer up this caveat that I am not trying to be a snot, since I know I constantly come across as condescending, but if you're going to try and catch me with my pants down you're going to have to come up with scenerios that better compare to the event in question. That and not try to posit absolutes that i never claimed to subscribe to, in order to marginalize me enough to fit into whatever box you're trying to build.

And for this thread, again, I am done. I've clarified my point repeatedly and I am in no doubt of whether I am on firm ground. Nobody disagrees with me in regards to the sheer contemptibility of the spy except some of the people on this board. *shrug* Like I said on page one, I hope someday someone tapes some mistake some of you make. Maybe then you'll have a different outlook on things. Me? I bought everything in my line of sight so I don't ever have to worry about it. :)

jdkelly
July 28, 2004, 12:37 PM
2nd Amendment,

I just pointed out your conflicting statements and the similiaily of your statements to the actions of the "cretin". I don't see where I was inaccurate, perhaps you can explain as I'd want to correct my errors.

You really haven't answered the questions in my posts, and that's fine. I'll just assume you chose not to.

I tried to make my posts logic direct and simple by using your own statements. I can't feed it to you in a simpler form. Remember though, my attack is on your thought process, it's conflicts and it's lack of reason. This is also not intended as a slam on you.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

flatrock
July 28, 2004, 01:29 PM
3 year olds should be supervised when around guns. Walking off to check a target and leaving you're 3 year old at the car isn't unreasonable, unless you're leaving guns there with the child.

Would I have taken the videotape to the police? Well, I wouldn't be video taping my neighbors in the first place. However, if I witnessed this I would definately go have a few words with the parents.

I wouldn't involve the police unless I thought is was necessisary to do so after talking to the parents.

I respect people's privacy, but if the irresponsible actions of a parent are putting a child at serious risk I'm going to my best to put a stop to that, but the first step is to see if this is just an example of normally good parents just screwing up on this occasion.

If the neighbor had seen a series of incidents where the parents had done stupid things that placed thier child at risk, then maybe the video taping and going to the police were perfectly justified.

It depends a lot on specifics about the situation that we don't know in this case.

fourdeuce82d
July 28, 2004, 01:47 PM
"Or since you are filming my children I might accuse you of being a pervert, scouting my place for a possible victim. Or my wife might accuse you of being a stalker. Or I might accuse you harrassing me. I'm quite sure I could get an attorney who could convince a jury of one or all of those things, especially in this day and age. So, again, you don't get to whip out that recorder and film to your hearts content and expect nothing in return."

You could also accuse me of being from the planet Zandor, and plotting an invasion of Earth. It's interesting that this went from a discussion of privacy issues in general to the suggestion that I personally shouldn't film you. Just to make it clear, I certainly have no wish to film you. Trust me.

You or your charming wife certainly COULD accuse a "mad cineast" of anything you wish to-of course in evaluating your complaint, the local DA would take into account your reputation for probity and rectitude within the community, and based on your posts in this thread...I don't think he'd be in any danger.

But regardless of whatever plot you concoct to wreak vengeance on demonic camera wavers.... we're talking about the legal issues. And nothing you have said has addressed that.

Once again- regardless of the moral "rights" or "wrongs" of the issue, regardless of what you'd do to me or anyone else that films you or your family- none of your threats change the fact that it is legal. It may not be nice...but it's legal.

2nd Amendment
July 28, 2004, 02:22 PM
You really haven't answered the questions in my posts, and that's fine. I'll just assume you chose not to.

I answered in both the literal and the abstract. If the answers aren't what you were looking for then I can't help that. if you actually think I did not answer then you're going to have to try to explain that in some detail.

2nd Amendment
July 28, 2004, 02:44 PM
You could also accuse me of being from the planet Zandor, and plotting an invasion of Earth. It's interesting that this went from a discussion of privacy issues in general to the suggestion that I personally shouldn't film you. Just to make it clear, I certainly have no wish to film you. Trust me.

This is why I wind up being accused of being obnoxious in debates. people come along with things like this. Do you actually think the "you" and "me" were referring to you and I directly and ONLY? They are generalities. They have nothing to do with any specific interaction between you and I or any other specific person in this thread.

Also, no I could not accuse being an alien. There's no crime or intent in being an alien. :) OTOH accusing you of actual crimes is legit.

You or your charming wife certainly COULD accuse a "mad cineast" of anything you wish to-of course in evaluating your complaint, the local DA would take into account your reputation for probity and rectitude within the community, and based on your posts in this thread...I don't think he'd be in any danger.

There you go taking it to a personal level again. Debate isn't on a personal level. Get over it already. As for my personal credibility, if I accuse you in this county you better have a damn good attorney. That's not ego, nor any particular accomplishment of my own. Just a fact I frankly have to thank my family's very long history here for. But even if that were not the case you still need to think on this, rather than getting your feathers ruffled:

I tell "you" to stop filming "me". Then "I" demand it. Then "I" call the cops and file a complaint. It's now established that you are indeed videotaping "me and my family". Then I sic my attorney on you. Civil suit. Whether the local prosecutor picks it up or not isn't germaine to the issue. Of course he probably WILL because there's already a history of complaint and in this day and age of sexual predators, internet porn and knee-jerk responses to charges of harrassment and stalking he'd need a very good reason to NOT do anything. He has voters to answer to...

Also, keep in mind "I" don't even have to win. All I have to do is take the accusation public and let the grape vine do the rest. "You" then have to defend yourself in court, spend money, get an attorney, figure out an explanation of why "you" were filming "me", get your attorney to believe it AND get all your friends, family and people who look at you funny on the street to believe it. And before you accuse me of being mean keep in mind, "you" are the one that decided it would be a blast to disrupt someone's life.

But regardless of whatever plot you concoct to wreak vengeance on demonic camera wavers.... we're talking about the legal issues. And nothing you have said has addressed that.

No, we haven't been talking about the legal issues. At least I haven't. I am interested in the moral issues and the slippery-slope aspects of encourging this sort of behavior. The rest of you keep trying to fixate on the legal issues since you apparently don't want to deal with my preferred issues. I'd guess THAT is because most have already admitted they find the spy's actions distasteful, at the very least. But in reply to the legal issues I have told you that you ARE vulnerable. While there may not be an issue of "privacy" under the law that is not the ONLY issue that applies.

Once again- regardless of the moral "rights" or "wrongs" of the issue, regardless of what you'd do to me or anyone else that films you or your family- none of your threats change the fact that it is legal. It may not be nice...but it's legal.

And again, I am not the one arguing legality. I am arguing the moral and slippery-slope aspects. Aspects you just hinted that you agree with. AND in reference to YOUR legal fixation I am telling you what CAN happen to you. "You" being a general term used to refer to anyone invoilved in such a situation.

jdkelly
July 28, 2004, 03:49 PM
2nd Amendment,

I answered in both the literal...

No you didn't, perhaps you missed them, perhaps not.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

2nd Amendment
July 28, 2004, 05:04 PM
OK,JD, once again I swapped people to whom I was replying so:

2nd Amendment,



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Regardless, I haven't argued a point of law, I have argued against the acceptance of this kind of meddling.---2nd Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then what did you mean by:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was absolutely none of the neighbor's business and the cretin had no right to film anything on someone elses property.---2nd Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you meant morale "right" as opposed to legal "right" then that's just your opinion, so don't film your neighbors.

Both the moral question as well as the slippery-slope aspect. At what point do we cease to encourage snooping? That is a developing plank of the "security at all costs" people, who want you to spy on your neighbors, your children to spy on you, the feds to spy on everybody... Where do we draw the line and if not early on then we all know how hard it is to stop something, or roll it back, once it has a good head of steam.

As for the legal, that wasn't my main point or interest but, as I have said, someone doesn't have to nail you on privacy grounds. There's lots of other ways to go after someone determined to make a nuisance of themselves.


Some would think that it is a duty to act on a child's behalf, to ensure the child's safety. It is much more responsible then advocating the child's possible death through in action. as you do in the quote below.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Darwin in action, next story please. That's cold but it is also very true.---2nd Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does not take a village. Far better that someone occasionally screw up than that we open the floodgates for broad meddling. We're all here and healthy without that kind of inter-dependent crap. Now, you disagree with where I draw the line? OK, then where do you draw it? If it is further along the slope then it's going to be even tougher to justify, let alone enforce. If you don't draw any lines then I freely admit we're just not going to be able to communicate.


Which, when you think about it, is exactaly what the neighbor did by not acting immedaitly when the child picked up the hand gun.

I guess you and the "cretin" have at least a little in common.

Nope. I was not nor do I advocate spying but, having done it, it says even more offensive things about this person's character that she stood there and made her little movie in hopes of destroying these people and/or getting her "15 minutes" rather than ACT to possibly save someone. That's as disgusting as her pre-occupation with these people's lives.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...I assure you I would spend pretty much everything turning this neighbors life into something less than pleasant. ---2nd Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Isn't that what the "cretin" was doing to it's neighbors?

How so? One is a response to harrassment, the other is the harrassment itself. So, if someone is taping your life how long would you put up with it before speaking to that person? Before pursuing other actions? These people weren't talking, you say? And where is your evidence, let alone proof, that this very act on the part of the spy is not exactly what created the stand-offish situation in the first place?


Hummmm, 2nd Amendment, did you send that video in?


Respectfully,

jdkelly

You were doing good till that last line. :)

hso
July 28, 2004, 05:09 PM
Gunsnrovers,

The child is the product of the gentics of the parents therefore he almost certainly carries the "Stupid Gene", whether recessive or dominant I don't know. :scrutiny:

I'm assuming the parents have no other progeny and that they will not reproduce further ending the genetic line there.:uhoh:

'Course, I like your idea just as well.:evil:

jdkelly
July 28, 2004, 08:45 PM
It was absolutely none of the neighbor's business and the cretin had no right to film anything on someone elses property.---2nd Amendment

The point I was making was the "creatin" didn't do anything illegal by filming it's neighbors. Some, such as yourself would find that distasteful, while others would cheer.

I won't argue either side myself.


Now, you disagree with where I draw the line? OK, then where do you draw it?---2nd Amendment

I usually let the law(s) decide where the line should be. I may not always like it, but the effort it takes to do wrong to others is to great. It would likely also hurt my image of myself.


The last points I made, that is the similarities between your views/actions and the "cretin's",ie:

1) the "cretin" leaving without helping the child and your Darwin comment
along with
2) the "cretin" causing it's neighbor so much anguish and your threat to do the same to your's---

Were little more then just somewhat tongue in cheek.

As for not being able to communicate, well may(be) not on these points, but there is always GUNS.


Respectfully

jdkelly

twoblink
July 28, 2004, 10:14 PM
As gun owners, we should really inflict harsher penalties and request harsher penalties when parents neglect firearms in places where untrained children might inadvertantly hurt themselves or others; as well as "drinking on the gun" as I call it.

Booze + Firearm = NEVER SHOULD HAPPEN

3 year old + firearm = NEVER SHOULD HAPPEN

I don't blame the neighbor for videotaping something that should NEVER HAPPEN.

and they are lucky I'm not on that jury.. because I'd throw the book and the kitchen sink at them.

Not only are they a poor reflection on parenting in general, they are a poor reflection on gunowners, and I resent that as one..

What we need to do, is speak badly about such happenings so we don't appear to be "supporting such behavior"... Which we shouldn't be supporting anyways.

If you can't handle the responsibilities of firearm ownership by not drinking while shooting, then DON'T OWN ONE. If you can't handle the responsibilities of raising a child, THEN CLOSE YOUR LEGS.

''nuff said.:barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Footage of 3-year-old with handgun on Today show" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!