Senseless Tragedy in MN
- Thread starter Eagle103
- Start date
- Status
jrfoxx
Member
Certainly possible, but I would think its WAY more likey the guy was just a moron with little to no regard/respect for gun safety. The odds that it was a planned murder woul be more likely if he shot an adult, but I would have to think that the VAST majority of the times a kid is intentionlly killed by a parent, it 's a "crime of passion", spur of the moment, "just lost it in anger" kida thing, versus a planned deal where he'd take him to the woods, under the premise of hunting, with a story all concocted, to commit a premeditated murder on an 8 year od. Always possible though, as stranger things have happened, and there are some serious wackos out there fully capable of it, so....
zxcvbob
Member
Of course it's not the same, but Cheney had been drinking before he went shooting, and it was never established how much, and he wasn't tested after the incident.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Alright. Yes, I had missed it, thank you for correcting my misperception.
This could be another one of my misperceptions, but it was my understanding that Cheney was drinking or had been drinking; he was not tested for alcohol precisely because they were worried that he'd pop positive on a breathalyzer. Kinda like with Ted Kennedy, but again, I could be not remembering correctly.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Ah. Looks like Minnesota Bob and I simul-posted.
Anyway, in this case, I think the guy should go to prison, bigtime, but I definitely do NOT think that marijuana should be considered an aggravating factor -- the alcohol -- maybe.
But for all of those who think that pot is the "devil's weed" and is rightly treated EXACTLY THE SAME as crack cocaine, heroin, and meth, well... take that precise mental framework, transfer it slightly over from pot to guns, and now you'll fully understand how rational people can continue to blame inanimate objects for societies' ills.
Anyway, in this case, I think the guy should go to prison, bigtime, but I definitely do NOT think that marijuana should be considered an aggravating factor -- the alcohol -- maybe.
But for all of those who think that pot is the "devil's weed" and is rightly treated EXACTLY THE SAME as crack cocaine, heroin, and meth, well... take that precise mental framework, transfer it slightly over from pot to guns, and now you'll fully understand how rational people can continue to blame inanimate objects for societies' ills.
Those who believe their judgment is not impaired when they are under the influence of alcohol are just plain wrong. You can get away with a lot of stupid without a negative outcome, but that does not mean those actions were not stupid. Its a numbers game.
A single drink is rarely enough to impair one's judgment enough to make one a hazard to one's self or others. Two or three in a short period of time almost always does.
Its not possible for one whose judgment is impaired to judge the extent of that impairment, since the impairment affects judgment so negatively.
A single drink is rarely enough to impair one's judgment enough to make one a hazard to one's self or others. Two or three in a short period of time almost always does.
Its not possible for one whose judgment is impaired to judge the extent of that impairment, since the impairment affects judgment so negatively.
Deanimator
Member
That MIGHT be, but it's FAR from guaranteed. It's entirely possible that he'll just shrug and get on with what passes for his life, whether in prison or not. If he thought that being under the influence of liquor and dope while carrying a gun was a bad idea, he wouldn't have done it in the first place. He probably blames "god" or "fate" or "luck", NOT himself.
Clearly this isn't the same thing, but I'm always bothered by people who say of those who commit horrific crimes, "He shouldn't be executed. He should have to sit in prison for the rest of his life and THINK ABOUT what he did." Well, I've got news for you, for a lot of those freaks that's the next best thing to being free to keep on doing what they were doing. You can bet that guys like the two NAMBLAites who murdered, raped and mutilated the Curley kid CONSTANTLY think about what they did. I'll bet you don't want to see what they do WHILE they're thinking about it either.
Don't assume that everybody thinks the way you do. Some people are stupid. Some are evil. Some are BOTH.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Absolutely, very true and I agree 100%. What I disagree on is the idea that we should go ahead and, as a society, kill everyone that offends us enough.
There has been enough proof to me to show without a doubt, there are men and perhaps even women on death row who are innocent of the charges which were going to put them to death. That's one mistake that can't be taken back. But that's really my only argument against the death penalty. Multiple murders, beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, I won't argue with that.
One note: at this time, I think it's still way more expensive to the state to execute someone than it is to house them for the rest of their lives, so there is a financial aspect to it as well. I suppose now we'll have some members of THR say we should do it the Chinese way -- one bullet to the back of the head and charge the family for the cost of the bullet, right?
moe.ron
Member
How is it more expensive to execute somebody rather than house them for 30 years???
Well, at least partly because we house them for 25-30 years before we execute them...
Add in court costs for the thousands of appeals they and their lawyers will file (hyperbole) and the fact they are not housed with the general population...
moe.ron
Member
I did forget the lengthly appeal process...
An Accident?!?!?!? like he "accidentally" drank and got stoned?!?!? Those beers just rolled off the table and fell down his gullet?!?!?!?
This is tragic, but the tragic part is the one that got hurt was not the stupid one..........
Stupid SHOULD hurt. It is just unfortunate that stupid does not hurt the deserving.........
And for those of you that insist on drinking and hunting/plinking/carrying... do me a favor: Stay the hell away from me and mine. I'm not real interested in proof of intoxication or legal standards...........
rainbowbob
Member
Dennis:
Just because you're lucky doesn't mean you're good - or smart. And brother, you are one lucky fellow.
XDKingslayer
member
And he deserves to have that image burned into his memory and have it haunt him with every last breath he draws.
I am not a hunter myself heck I am just getting into handguns. With that said I hope this guy gets locked up for a long long time. I have been shot by a drunk hunter. He and a buddy were hunting about 100 yards away from my house in a field/wetlands that our neighborhood surrounds.I was making my son's bed who was 2 years old at the time. The bullet entered the house came through his pillow and hit me in the butt. If my son would have slept for another 5 minutes he would be dead. This person was at .07 in his statement he said that he had been drinking the night before and his judgment wasn't impaired but he did not notice the no hunting/trespassing signs every 25 yards. As of right now 3 years later he is still in jail for attempted manslaughter along with all the other charges. He did not once even say he was sorry all he was saying was how my family wrecked his life because we called the cops when I got shot. Sometimes you can't fix stupid you can only hope they don't shoot you in the ass.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i used to confuse being lucky with skill. i used to be a pothead first class too. funny how when i quit the one the other became apparent to me.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Oops, didn't see this until now.
Yes, as far as I remember, the average stay on death row is 11 years, but there's all kinds of required appeals and extra court sessions and so on to try and eliminate any innocent ones. Or at least, that's the theory. I think it's the innocence project dot org that helps fund things like DNA testing that wasn't available for people when they were charged for their crime, for example, or because DNA testing is still so expensive, they sometimes help convicted felons in obtaining new evidence to show their innocence.
I very well could be wrong, but I believe the costs to have one convict taken through the death penalty process is 1 to 1.5 million or more. That figure also includes all the legal costs that us tax payers pay for this person while he navigates the appeal process.
I know I was shocked when I read about the costs for someone on death row. It's astronomical.
Chris
I know I was shocked when I read about the costs for someone on death row. It's astronomical.
Chris
How the do you know what he blames? This is a man that accidently shot his own son. He didn't purposley got out kidnap, rape, kill, rob, steal, anything or anybody. Sure, he's an idiot. I won't argue with that. But he KILLED his own son. This isn't Ed Gein or someone like that, but just a dumb man hunting.
Like the other poster said, it's not uncommon for guys to drink a little while hunting. Is it stupid? Yes. But it doesn't mean that everyone who does it is a sociopath. No. What was the blood alcohol level? Also as previously mentioned, marijuana can stay in the system for a month. What were the THC levels in his blood?
All I'm saying is let's hear the whole story before we tar and feather the guy.
Aguila Blanca
Member
No, it's not bull****. An accident that takes a human life is defined as manslaughter if the person who created the accident acted foolishly. The other possible charge would have been negligent homicide. (They may be the same thing in terms used by different states -- IANAL)dennisH87 said:
Are you suggesting that someone who kills a bystander by violating God-knows how many laws and safety rules ... should NOT be charged, because it was "an accident"?
Aguila Blanca
Member
Post #4Sage of Seattle said:
dennisH87 said:
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Thanks, Aguila, I had that pointed out to me earlier. I did miss some posts and I can't agree with giving him a pass, myself. I just don't think killing him is the best thing to do in this case.
I don't agree with what you wrote, but I probably agree with your sentiment. I take medication daily, for my blood pressure, I am therefore under its influence 24/7/365. I shoot regularly. I take aspirin now and then to alleviate headaches, definitely a mood altering drug, because I can be downright nasty with a real booming headache, and get calmer when I take the aspirin. Same as for some other medications I have taken, some much stronger than aspirin and definitely affecting how I feel mentally (and in fact meant to affect mental state but without diminishing your capacity for thought or action - though they can and you have to be aware of how they effect you before doing certain things like shooting). Luckily for me none I have ever had to take diminished my mental or physical capacity, nor diminished my capacity to make well thought out or split second decisions under stress. Even luckier for me, I don’t take em anymore. I do like my recreational cocktail now and again, or a beer, ale, or glass of wine. That does not mean I would ever drink and shoot. Nor would I ever smoke an illegal substance and shoot. I would not do either, not even just a little bit especially when both are known to diminish both mental and physical capacities - even in fairly small amounts.
That said, I think we need to be careful of what we say, especially in today's world of rabid anti-gunners. Why, well because when you make a statement like the one above, they grab hold of it and say to the public: ‘Look this is what a pro gun person said!’ in an attempt to regulate or restrict our rights regarding arms even more than they already have done so. Its sort of like how some hunters are against black-guns to some degree and thus have caused a rift between certain classes of gun owners. The antis use this to the max, and now you hear guys like Senator Charles Schumer (NY) persistently saying that a gun should be banned because it is not a hunting gun, or something like these bullets were ot meant for hunting, and using quotations from hunters who are anti black-gun. This all began because of indiscrete things that people said that wound up having unexpected consequences. The thing is you really have to expect the worst from politicians like Schumer, and guys like him will use whatever ammo you give him to shoot us down; and that is all the better for him and his cause if that ammo comes from gun owners.
All the best,
Glenn B
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked