Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

VA Tech Shootings - Gun Control, Bush, all things politics

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

VA Tech Shootings - Gun Control, Bush, all things politics

Old 04-29-07, 10:02 PM
  #651  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,854
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
That is the most funny, entertaining, and yet terrifyingly humorous article I have ever read.
Old 04-29-07, 10:48 PM
  #652  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this guy legit or is he a satirist?

That has to be some of the most out there stuff I've ever read if he's serious.

"Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling and empty building. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm."

WTF.
Old 04-29-07, 11:27 PM
  #653  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,854
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
Assuming he's not kidding...

What about knife attacks, Dan. Dan? Hey, Dan? Why are you not responding to my question? Why are you running away from me? Dan?
Old 04-29-07, 11:39 PM
  #654  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,836
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Assuming he's not kidding...

What about knife attacks, Dan. Dan? Hey, Dan? Why are you not responding to my question? Why are you running away from me? Dan?
That's all addressed in next week's column, in which he proposes house-to-house sweeps for knives.
Old 04-30-07, 12:35 AM
  #655  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,854
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
Better clip your toenails now while you still can.
Old 04-30-07, 06:14 AM
  #656  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Duran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Someone mail that moran a copy of the Constitution.
Old 04-30-07, 01:08 PM
  #657  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too bad, we can't tax stupidity.
Old 04-30-07, 01:52 PM
  #658  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by grundle
We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."
That is all well and good, but again I'll go back to....I'd rather have a good defense lawyer, than a great mortician. If someone is on my property and is a threat to my family, you better believe i'm emptying my clip if he is aggressive (pulling out a weapon is aggressive)

-p

Last edited by NotThatGuy; 04-30-07 at 01:57 PM.
Old 04-30-07, 01:56 PM
  #659  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JasonF
Good plan, Dan Simpson! It worked so well with alcohol, drugs, and prostitution -- it's sure to work with guns!
Not to mention we forgot about the lost amendments that state it is our right to have prostitutes, alcohol, drugs, etc. Of course, it sometimes feels like the gov't 'forgot' about some of the OTHER amendments that *did* make the final cut.

-p
Old 04-30-07, 02:30 PM
  #660  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,985
Received 27 Likes on 11 Posts
Serious question - what, if any, are the penalties for carrying a weapon, concealed or otherwise, while intoxicated? I realize that this will vary from state to state, but I would like to get a sense for what the laws are like for this sort of thing.
Old 04-30-07, 08:40 PM
  #661  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,712
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
not sure if it's been updated, but here's the city of Buffalo's

H. No person shall carry a firearm, shotgun, rifle or air gun in the city while such person
has 1/10 of 1% or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by chemical
analysis of the person's blood, breath, urine or saliva.
I. No person shall carry a firearm, shotgun, rifle or air gun in the city while in an
intoxicated condition.
J. No person shall carry a firearm, shotgun, rifle or air gun in the city while the person's
ability to safely carry such weapon is impaired by the use of a drug.
K. Any person who carries a firearm, shotgun, rifle or air gun in the city shall be deemed
to have given consent to a breath test and a chemical test of the person's breath, blood,
urine or saliva for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of the person's
blood, provided that any test is administered at the direction of a police officer having
reasonable grounds therefor. A chemical test must be administered within two hours after
such person has been placed under arrest for a violation of this section or any other law or
ordinance involving the use or possession of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or air gun, or within
two hours after a breath test indicates that alcohol has been consumed by such person.
Upon the trial of any action arising out of an arrest for a violation of Subsection H, I or J
of this section, the court shall admit evidence of the amount of alcohol or drugs in the
blood of the person carrying the firearm, shotgun, rifle or air gun as shown by a test
administered pursuant to this section. Evidence of a refusal to submit to a chemical test
shall be admissible in any trial, proceeding or hearing based upon a violation of such
subsections, but only upon a showing that the person was given sufficient warning, in
clear and unequivocal language, of the effect of such refusal and the person persisted in
such refusal.

M. Penalties for offenses. A violation of any provision of this section shall be punishable
by a fine not to exceed $1,500
Old 04-30-07, 08:43 PM
  #662  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Isn't a .08 the standard for a DUI/DWI?
Old 04-30-07, 09:17 PM
  #663  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.08 or .1....depends on your state.

-p
Old 05-01-07, 01:34 AM
  #664  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 38,048
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by bhk
Too bad, we can't tax stupidity.
I think we do already. It's called Lotto.
Old 06-02-07, 03:17 PM
  #665  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Peoples Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277253,00.html

Man Kills 9, Wounds 17 in Philippines <b>Knife Rampage</b>
Saturday, June 02, 2007

MANILA, Philippines — A man armed with a 21-inch-long knife <b>killed nine people</b>, including six children, and <b>wounded 17</b> others in a rampage early Saturday in a central Philippine province, police said.

The man first attacked and wounded five members of his cousin's family with whom he lived in a remote village outside Calbayog city in central Samar province at around 2 a.m. local time, said Senior Police Officer Jessie Gianan, desk officer at the Calbayog police station. One of the cousin's sons, aged 7, died later in a hospital, police said, correcting an earlier report that two sons had died.

The man then barged into a neighbor's house, where he stabbed and hacked to death a 37-year-old pregnant woman and her three daughters and two sons, aged 1 to 9. Two daughters survived, Gianan said by telephone.

He entered two other homes where five people were sleeping, killing two men, and then returned to a wake where he had been drinking earlier and attacked everyone in his path, Gianan said.

A total of 17 people were wounded, he said.

The man then surrendered to another villager who turned him over to the authorities. It was not immediately clear what prompted the rampage.

The pregnant woman's husband apparently quarreled earlier with the assailant at the wake. The husband, a fisherman, was at the Calbayog fishing port when the attack occurred, a niece of the woman said by telephone from a local funeral parlor. She gave no other details.
_________________________

Guns, knives, whatever. A person determined to kill is going to kill. Banning shit doesn't stop anything.
Old 09-27-07, 09:55 AM
  #666  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was catching up on my blog reading, and TLP is one of my regular reads, so I thought I'd share a good write up on the difference between being mentally ill and just being evil, in regard to Cho and VaTech. There are previous writings on Cho that are also worth reading:

Source: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/...os_mental.html

A Final Thought On Cho's Mental Illness

A thoughtful reader concerned about backlash against the mentally ill asked me to write a piece basically saying that not all mentally ill people were homicidal maniacs.

It's a fair request, but in this case it's counterproductive. Here's what I mean: you want to say that "not all mentally ill people are violent." You want counterexamples to Cho's example. But that's a defensive posture, unnecessary because... Cho wasn't mentally ill. He was a sad, bad man who killed people because his life wasn't validated. There was no psychosis, there was no cognitive impairment, there was no psychiatric impairment in insight in judgment. There was a lack of sex, but that's not yet in the DSM.

Not to reduce his life down to a soundbite, but he was a guy who thought he deserved better by virtue of his intelligence and suffering; found himself in a sea of mediocrity but couldn't understand why he couldn't therefore excel; and, worst of all, found that all the things he thought he deserved eluded him-- especially hot chicks, who not only dismissed him and found him creepy, but, worse, chose to be with the very men he thought were obviously inferior to him. It's Columbine all over again. It's almost even the same day.

Forget the Prozac, forget the involuntary commitment (where he was found by the court to be "a danger to himself and others"-- that's standard boilerplate, it is clinically meaningless). Those are red herrings. You may as well blame wearing black t-shirts. He's not mentally ill; he's an adolescent.

The difference, the single difference, between us and him is that when we were sulking in high school, we listened to Pink Floyd or U2. He watched Oldboy. We had a battered copy of a Playboy down at the creek under a rock, that was so creased we had to infer the boobs. He had the internet. Maybe we bought a pocket knife, or-- wow-- a butterfly knife. He bought two Glocks.

In other words, the difference is this: he decided to shoot 30 people, and you didn't. That's it. I know it's not a satisfying answer, I know we want explanations, but there aren't any. Forget genes, forget DSM. He chose to do something bad, he knew it was bad, but he did it anyway.

Don't worry about the mentally ill. Worry about the nut politicians and media outlets who will look to the easy and convenient excuse of mental illness, rather than have to do the hard work of figuring out why our society is melting.

Older posts on Cho (just edited to include the one I thought relevant, and one the POV I argue for) HERE
-p

Last edited by NotThatGuy; 09-27-07 at 10:00 AM.
Old 04-10-08, 01:22 PM
  #667  
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Glendale, next to L.A.
Posts: 18,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/...YEUl9sdHADMQ--

Va. Tech families reach $11M settlement

By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago

ROANOKE, Va. - Families of the victims in the Virginia Tech shootings have reached a tentative $11 million settlement with the state, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday. The deal is designed to prevent future lawsuits.

Kaine said a "substantial majority" of families of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings agreed to the settlement.

Peter Grenier and Douglas Fierberg, who represent 21 families, also confirmed the settlement but would not discuss its terms until final papers are drawn in a few days.

Kaine spokesman Gordon Hickey described the settlement as "a work in progress."

"We're discussing things with the families. There's still a confidentiality agreement we're honoring until it's signed and in place," Hickey said.

Attorney General Bob McDonnell's office had no comment on the settlement, spokesman Tucker Martin said.

Seung-Hui Cho, a mentally disturbed student, killed 32 victims and wounded two dozen others at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 before committing suicide. Twenty-two families had previously filed notice with the state that they may sue.

It was not immediately clear whether the settlement was significantly different from an earlier state proposal, the details of which were obtained last month by The Associated Press. That proposed deal totaled roughly $8.5 million plus the cost of reimbursing and paying for medical and psychological treatment for victims' families and survivors.

That proposal called for representatives of each of those killed to receive $100,000. A pool of $800,000 was set aside for the injured in the plan, with individuals eligible to receive up to $100,000 apiece. Families of those killed could seek additional money from a $1.75 million hardship fund, and other money was to be set aside for attorneys' fees and a fund for charities.

The settlement also would give the injured and victims' families a chance to meet with the governor and university officials several times to discuss the mass shootings and changes on campus since then.

By accepting the proposal, family members gave up the right to sue the state government, the school, the local governments serving Virginia Tech and the community services board that provides mental-health services in the area.

The student gunman had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005 and was ordered to receive outpatient mental health care, but never received treatment.

In October, the families and surviving victims received payments ranging from $11,500 to $208,000 from the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, set up in the days after the shootings to handle donations that poured into the school. That fund will remain open for contributions to scholarships for five years.

Families originally were told they had to respond to the state's offer by March 31, but the deadline was extended.

Those amounts seem pretty small when people commonly receive millions of $$$ in an accident where they survive.

I know this is a different circumstance and the people that were killed cannot collect any money, but the difference in payouts seems to be pretty big.

Chris
Old 04-10-08, 02:16 PM
  #668  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,349
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by mrpayroll
Those amounts seem pretty small when people commonly receive millions of $$$ in an accident where they survive.

I know this is a different circumstance and the people that were killed cannot collect any money, but the difference in payouts seems to be pretty big.

Chris

VT was not a direct actor in this though. The big paydays you are referencing generally come from the actor who directly caused the 'accident.'

And there can be still be collections (wrongful death, right of survivorship) for those killed.
Old 04-10-08, 07:25 PM
  #669  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,854
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
VT was not a direct actor in this though. The big paydays you are referencing generally come from the actor who directly caused the 'accident.'

And there can be still be collections (wrongful death, right of survivorship) for those killed.
It could be argued VT's actions delayed LE from intervening, and thus, more lives lost. In addition, you have a documented history of VT professional personnel such as professor Lucinda Roy who told campus police about his weird writings and she thought he had revenge scenarios. So, VT would be a direct actor for postponing needed action on many occasions.

Not too hard to come up with a lawsuit. Depending on the evidence, and it appears we have it, VT would be held liable. No reasonable doubt needed in a civil case.

Not sure why these families are just taking whatever VT offers. A "substantial majority" of the families are idiots. Cho was taking pics of women under his desk, allegedly stalking other women on campus, his own roommates said he was stalking other people and had extremely odd behavioral issues.

What more do you want? The guy was a freaktard, just waiting for a moment to enact his wrath on a population, and VT officials didn't catch it. They should have. If they would have kicked him off campus, but he came back and killed, I wouldn't hold VT responsible because they did all they could legally do.
Old 04-10-08, 11:48 PM
  #670  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
It could be argued VT's actions delayed LE from intervening, and thus, more lives lost. In addition, you have a documented history of VT professional personnel such as professor Lucinda Roy who told campus police about his weird writings and she thought he had revenge scenarios. So, VT would be a direct actor for postponing needed action on many occasions.

Not too hard to come up with a lawsuit. Depending on the evidence, and it appears we have it, VT would be held liable. No reasonable doubt needed in a civil case.

Not sure why these families are just taking whatever VT offers. A "substantial majority" of the families are idiots. Cho was taking pics of women under his desk, allegedly stalking other women on campus, his own roommates said he was stalking other people and had extremely odd behavioral issues.

What more do you want? The guy was a freaktard, just waiting for a moment to enact his wrath on a population, and VT officials didn't catch it. They should have. If they would have kicked him off campus, but he came back and killed, I wouldn't hold VT responsible because they did all they could legally do.
The only one legally responsible for Cho's actions is Cho. Just to get this straight for you, the legal standards in the US are "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. I think for most of these families this is probably a "bird in the hand" issue. If they were to pursue this adversarially, they would not necessarily end up with more money, or any money at all.
Old 04-11-08, 12:01 AM
  #671  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
It could be argued VT's actions delayed LE from intervening, and thus, more lives lost. In addition, you have a documented history of VT professional personnel such as professor Lucinda Roy who told campus police about his weird writings and she thought he had revenge scenarios. So, VT would be a direct actor for postponing needed action on many occasions.

Not too hard to come up with a lawsuit. Depending on the evidence, and it appears we have it, VT would be held liable. No reasonable doubt needed in a civil case.

Not sure why these families are just taking whatever VT offers. A "substantial majority" of the families are idiots. Cho was taking pics of women under his desk, allegedly stalking other women on campus, his own roommates said he was stalking other people and had extremely odd behavioral issues.

What more do you want? The guy was a freaktard, just waiting for a moment to enact his wrath on a population, and VT officials didn't catch it. They should have. If they would have kicked him off campus, but he came back and killed, I wouldn't hold VT responsible because they did all they could legally do.
I've been of the opinion that if the University had acted on people's fear of the guy prior to the shootings that the ACLU would have been called and they would have ended up getting sued for picking on the poor non-white guy for is off-kilter creativity.
Old 04-11-08, 07:26 AM
  #672  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,349
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
It could be argued VT's actions delayed LE from intervening, and thus, more lives lost. In addition, you have a documented history of VT professional personnel such as professor Lucinda Roy who told campus police about his weird writings and she thought he had revenge scenarios. So, VT would be a direct actor for postponing needed action on many occasions.

Not too hard to come up with a lawsuit. Depending on the evidence, and it appears we have it, VT would be held liable. No reasonable doubt needed in a civil case.

Not sure why these families are just taking whatever VT offers. A "substantial majority" of the families are idiots. Cho was taking pics of women under his desk, allegedly stalking other women on campus, his own roommates said he was stalking other people and had extremely odd behavioral issues.

What more do you want? The guy was a freaktard, just waiting for a moment to enact his wrath on a population, and VT officials didn't catch it. They should have. If they would have kicked him off campus, but he came back and killed, I wouldn't hold VT responsible because they did all they could legally do.

I still don't consider that a direct actor. The direct actor is the shooter and nothing will change that. Note that just because I don't think someone is a direct actor doesn't mean that I think that there can't be negligence. Although in this case, I think establishing the proximate causation prong of negligence is an enormous hurdle. Between that and sovereign immunity, that's exactly why these families should take what they are being offered and be grateful to get that on top of the private donations they've received. I've made no secret of the fact that I don't understand these government-funded large-tragedy payouts (a la 9/11). As a VA taxpayer, it annoys me even further.

If schools, particularly those of the size of VT, started kicking out every kid who has weird writings, they aren't going to be in business too long.

Last edited by Red Dog; 04-11-08 at 07:29 AM.
Old 04-11-08, 08:59 AM
  #673  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,854
Received 21 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by foggy
The only one legally responsible for Cho's actions is Cho. Just to get this straight for you, the legal standards in the US are "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. I think for most of these families this is probably a "bird in the hand" issue. If they were to pursue this adversarially, they would not necessarily end up with more money, or any money at all.
I'm fully aware of legal standards in the US.

But thanks for the Wiki definition. I often can't find that link in my favorites for a good legal retort.

Like I said, reasonable doubt is not an issue in a civil case.

And if you think the families were to pursue a lawsuit and would not necessarily win, then why would the school offer money? Because they're nice? Because they like giving away money? Because the administration woke up in the morning and thought at the same time, "Hey! Let's give all the families a 100K each!"

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 04-11-08 at 09:03 AM.
Old 04-11-08, 09:04 AM
  #674  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,349
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
And if you think the families were to pursue a lawsuit and would not necessarily win, then why would the fucking school offer money? Hmmm? Because they're nice? Because they like giving away money? Because the administration woke up in the morning and thought at the same time, "Hey! Let's give all the families a 100K each!"

It's often cheaper to settle (even if you believe your chances of winning are 99%) than to pay one's own lawyers for a trial defense that could take years to litigate. Believe me, the state's lawyers have crunched the numbers - it's simple cost/benefit analysis.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.