“I've a case on my desk. Woman got a protective order against her boy friend. Three months later she moves back in- while the PPO is still in effect. A year later, they have an argument- he tells her to leave. She calls in the police to have him arrested for violating the PPO- so she won't have to move back in with her sister.
And then there are the REAL cases- where someone has been horribly abused. I don't really have a problem with holding someone's guns during a TPO. I actually think it's a good idea. I would want strong safeguards in place to ensure that (if the matter doesn't end in a Domestic Assault conviction or a PPO) that the person could swiftly and easily reclaim their firearms.”
KaKaaw on May 7, 2014 at 11:20:00
“I understand stand those situations; I worked for a District Attorney for some time as a victim's advocate, but I also understand the argument against restricting rights based on accusations rather than convictions. I don't know, it is sticky either way.”
“They have influence because their 5 Million members not only get out and vote, they contribute time and money to their candidates. And their support is not limited to republicans; they've helped elected a great many Democrats.”
“You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. The cartridge consists of the bullet, case, primer, and the gunpowder. Try to have at least a basic understanding of the subject if you're going to discuss it.”
“And I've found no actual crime tech who finds value in the idea of tagging gunpowder. As one pointed out to me- in his 30 years in the field, he had never encountered a case where the suspect had used hand-loaded ammunition. And if it's factory ammo- all that would do would be to ID the batch lot- which does nothing in solving the crime.”
“Gun violence is at an all-time low, despite the raise in the number of guns in private hands, the number of gun owners, and the number of CCW holders.
You clearly do not trouble yourself with facts, or truth.”
“Guns are required to be registered in Texas?????? Since when? And please cite the code section.
The point you're overlooking is that these murderers were already legally barred from having firearms. Where did they get he gun? From the same sources they get illegal drugs from- other criminals.
Drug dealers will trade drugs for guns- one reason guns are such high value targets for thieves. And even with universal background checks, that will not change.”
“With the exception of the universal background check, can you point to specific statements by the NRA leadership rejecting such things? And if you can, could you make sure it's the ENTIRE statement in context?
I'm a NRA Life member- I was curious about this Luntz survey- no NRA member I know knows any NRA member who took it. Odd.”
murphthesurf3 on Feb 5, 2013 at 17:27:37
“As to the survey- similar ones were done by Johns Hopkins, PEW and Gallup. As to positioning...the NRA is clever in its wording but in that the NRA list of what it does support is very limited- almost infinitesimal...it is reasonable to deduce that the rest is unacceptable.”
“"When the assault weapons ban comes to the floor, proponents including us will have to contend with the fact that very few assault weapons are actually used in a crime," Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety and co-founder of the centrist-Democratic organization Third Way."
Really? Then how does banning them affect gun related crime/violence? After all, that's been the justification for banning these firearms- to reduce gun-related violence.
Nice to see someone admit they're basically a bunch of lying hypocrites.”
jonpluc on Feb 5, 2013 at 12:39:21
“Assault rifles are Constitutionally protected weapons. The Supreme Court under Miller found that the Second Amendment protections pertains to guns " commonly in use today". As there are many millions of assault weapons in civilian society, it would be difficult to argue that the weapon isnt covered under Miller.”
“Really? Or far more likely he went out to his vehicle after having a meal at the restaurant (or parked it and was on his way in), and saw her bouncing up and down through the windshield.
But thanks for letting the rest of us know you're into that kind of peeking.”
“Interesting comment. Based on the language used by the complaining tourists, and the fact that these are reported by Thomas Cook, I would have wagered the majority of these people were either English, or perhaps Australian. Amazing how you immediately determined they were American. Must be that "Super-Canadiandar".”
“So- off the subject, but I am curious- do you always used crude sexual comments when you're losing a discussion? Or is that just your standard MO in any discussion with a woman?
Nice to see further proof of that meme- " "Liberals"- only tolerant if you agree with them". And thank you for making the "War on Women" a bipartisan effort.”
“And I would reply that an outside academic's claim of a superior understanding of a culture over a native member of that culture regardless of the language the academic uses in stating such claim is still redolent of smug condescension,. I might further opine that defending that claim with the statement "Being born somewhere does not afford one immediate credibility." reeks of the same condescension. El-tahawy is an educated, widely traveled woman who has lived in both the MENA and the West, yet you appear to disregard her observations and conclusions because Marks' language is "dispassionate and academic"?
Or perhaps I am mistaken, and you merely argue with my opinion of Marks' attitude?”
“Curious- Marks appears to claim a deeper, more complete understanding of Islam, the Middle East, Arab culture and society and how women fit and function in that world than Eltahawy. She further appears to base that claim on her travels in the region and her interviews with a number of people. Yet Eltahawy was born, raised, educated in Egypt, working as a journalist in that country for over a decade.
Odd. One might even say- smugly condescending.”
Caernarvon on Apr 28, 2012 at 18:46:17
“She wouldn't be the first western journalist to hang out in the Middle East for a few months and come back thinking she knows it better than the natives.”
Samah Marei on Apr 28, 2012 at 10:11:39
“Being born somewhere does not afford one immediate credibility. I would argue that dispassionate and academic more appropriately define her piece than smugly condescending.”
“File him under "bunch of people who know nothing about the beyond ... news reports".
I do criminal law for a living- been on both sides of the table, and I've read the ruling. I was immediately stuck by the fact that the defense in the Federal hearing NEVER called Coles so they could examine him about the "confessions". I was also shocked that the defense had a witness who was available- in the hallway right outside the courtroom- whose testimony they deemed critical yet never called to the stand. I also found it significant that most of the "recantations" were actually not recantations- and at least one was a unsworn statement - not even notarized.
Also- as noted elsewhere- there were numerous other witnesses who identified Davis as the shooter. They didn't know Davis, had no connection to him, and those witnesses have never changed their testimony.
As to "what if it hadn't been a cop"- doesn't change anything. Still the murder of a security officer attempting to stop an assault.”
“No- the only people who claimed to doubt the verdict are his defense team, the usual anti-death penalty crowd, and a bunch of people who know nothing about the case beyond the misleading and incomplete news reports. Have you read Judge Moore's ruling concerning the "recanting" witnesses? Are you aware that there were numerous other eyewitnesses who identified Davis as the shooter?
The witnesses now claiming they were forced to implicate Davis are people who live in his neighborhood. I suspect they have been influenced by his family and friends. But read Judge Moore's ruling and form your own opinion. As he pointed out, the "recantations" are in fact not recantations. Only the DEFENSE characterizes them as such.”
talkmedown on Sep 22, 2011 at 13:07:56
“What about the law enforcement guy? Wasn't he from the FBI? That alone casts enough doubt for me. Also, what if this had not been a cop?”
“This "news report" is flawed. Fails to mention that Judge Moore found NONE of the "recantations" credible, except one- and he found that witness had so clearly lied at the trial that no juror would have believed him (claimed to have been in two places miles apart at the same time). Also failed to mention that at the 2010 Federal hearing the defense begged for and had months to prepare for, the defense FAILED to call available witnesses, but chose instead to present affidavits.The defense also never made any real attempt to have Coles (the person they claim is guilty) present so he could be examined about his alleged "confessions". Without Coles there, those alleged confessions are hearsay and inadmissible.
If you don't understand the significance of those facts- go ask a good criminal law attorney to explain it for you.
Better yet- go read Judge Moore's opinion. It's online.”
“So- Russell Simmons read Judge Moore's 172 page opinion in which he explains why he found the "new version" testimony of the recanting witnesses not credibly?
No? Then why on earth is he running his mouth about something he clearly knows nothing about? Because if he had read it, then he would know that the "recantations" were NOT credible- and that there was physical evidence which linked Davis to the gun used to kill the officer. Evidence collected from an earlier shooting where Davis shot a man in the face.
But that doesn't fit Simmons' agenda,so he ignores it.”
“Not at this point. Here's a newsflash: Troy Davis is guilty. Why? Because a jury after a trial on the merits found him guilty. Doesn't matter if YOU think he's innocent- he's already BEEN PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW AFTER RECEIVING DUE PROCESS.
In short- your comment makes no sense, and reflects either a failure to engage brain before starting mouth, or simply not actually paying attention to what's going on. Work on that.
At this stage- the guilty party (proven guilty in a court of law and found guilty by a jury) has to prove that the "new evidence" if heard by a jury would result in a different verdict- that the "new evidence" would raise reasonable doubt in the minds of a rational trier of fact.
Judge Moore ruled it did not.”