Ranxerox

No.  I agree that the homeowner bears some fault, but I am not willing to let the police off the hook for their role in this.  Neither resident of the house realized that the people pounding at were police officers.  I consider this prima facie evidence that the officers did not do a good enough job identifying themselves.  Yelling "this is the police" once at people who may be asleep or in a distant part of the house behind closed doors is not sufficient identification.  I work in health care, and we don't fool around with identification.  We don't say are "are you so-and-so", and when they dumbly nod yes, proceed to give them potentially dangerous medications.  No, we ask them to identify themselves with name and birthdate, then we check these against both their patient ID bands and our own records.  Going the other way with identification, we get the patient's attention, make eye contact, tell them our name and job title and what we plan to do with them, and then we give them a chance to respond.  So, these cops failed.  They didn't even make sure that they were at the right address before proceeding, and they identified themselves only once to people that for all they knew were asleep or out of the range of full hearing.  That is a procedural failure, in that either they failed to follow the department's procedure or the procedure itself was inadequate.
 
Yelling "this is the police" before pounding on the door is good, but they needed to repeat the yell several more times in case they were not heard or understood the first time.  Also, having the the flashing lights from their patrol car streaming through the windows would have really brought home that this was actually the police at the door and would convey the information to people who don't hear well.
 
 
Yes, I understand that.  However, a huge part of our problem is that we have dumbed things down way too much.  See my earlier post statement about right to bear arms and the right to be a moron.  Barring extenuating circumstances, pointing a gun at someone is assault with a deadly weapon (yes, the misdemeanor form of this charge, but still).  People should be taught that it is not alright even when they are on their own property and it is night time.  This is important information for the public to understand and if we don't talk about after a tragedy like this, when will we talk about it?

Okay, but here is the thing.  The man and his wife did not know that they were cops.  Indeed, while the wife was in a shoot out with the police, she took a moment out to call 911 and tell them that intruders had just killed her husband.
 
The police department has come out and said that given the circumstances - late at night, people pounding at his door - that the husband was perfectly within his rights to open the door with his gun drawn and ready.  According to police department, the man who was killed didn't do anything wrong, and the only thing wrong that the police did was go to the wrong house.  Yep, nobody made any big mistakes, despite the fact a man died and there was firefight between the police and the wife that could have resulted in more deaths.  Alright, I am over simplifying, there is to be an investigation of the incident and the investigation may lead to more findings a suggestions.  However, those would suggestions for future police raids.
 
So, I have some of those amateur opinions that you dislike so much.   The husband and wife in the house did not know that it was law enforcement; this represents huge failure on the part of both the officers involved and the police department's policies and procedures.  It brings to mind the poor women in Sacramento who got shot when the man skulking outside her window that she drew a gun on turned out to be a cop.  When law enforcement shows up they should announce themselves in no uncertain terms. Leave the cherry lights on the patrol car going and announce that you are the police repeatedly when showing up to make an arrest.  
 
Also, when you are a gun owning home owner or renter,  if you don't feel safe opening your door without your weapon drawn, don't open your door at all.  Talk through the door until you know what is going on.  All three of these tragedies could by a short conversation through a locked door.
 
Here in America we feel that we both have a right to own guns and to be morons.  One of those rights needs to go.

Okay, but here is the thing.  The man and his wife did not know that they were cops.  Indeed, while the wife was in a shoot out with the police, she took a moment out to call 911 and tell them that intruders had just killed her husband.
 
The police department has come out and said that given the circumstances - late at night, people pounding at his door - that the husband was perfectly within his rights to open the door with his gun drawn and ready.  According to police department, the man who was killed didn't do anything wrong, and the only thing wrong that the police did was go to the wrong house.  Yep, nobody made any big mistakes, despite the fact a man died and there was firefight between the police and the wife that could have resulted in more deaths.  Alright, I am over simplifying, there is to be an investigation of the incident and the investigation may lead to more findings a suggestions.  However, those would suggestions for future police raids.
 
So, I have some of those amateur opinions that you dislike so much.   The husband and wife in the house did not know that it was law enforcement; this represents huge failure on the part of both the officers involved and the police department's policies and procedures.  It brings to mind the poor women in Sacramento who got shot when the man skulking outside her window that she drew a gun on turned out to be a cop.  When law enforcement shows up they should announce themselves in no uncertain terms. Leave the cherry lights on the patrol car going and announce that you are the police repeatedly when showing up to make an arrest.  
 
Also, when you are a gun owning home owner or renter,  if you don't feel safe opening your door without your weapon drawn, don't open your door at all.  Talk through the door until you know what is going on.  All three of these tragedies could by a short conversation through a locked door.
 
Here in America we feel that we both have a right to own guns and to be morons.  One of those rights needs to go.

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.
 
This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Al Jaffee, longtime Mad magazine cartoonist, dead at 102

And as Ronin, he's tragically malicious.

Here's the crew for the Artemis II mission

OK, I'm going to go on another meandering post here with my current thoughts re: gun laws. As before, I'm using a post as a jumping off point, but that isn't meant to single out Old Man. That'd be mean. We need to be nice to our elders.
 
 
The problem with features lists is human ingenuity. Someone will engineer something just as capable in short order. Here's a more effective features list:
 
1. Is a long gun(rifle or shotgun). That means it can be fired from four points of contact. A handgun, you get two hands, that's it. A long gun, you have a hand on each end, a shoulder and a cheek. That adds massive stability, and increases hit probability exponentially for an average shooter. No brace nonsense here, since they're all designed to allow four points of contact. (They seem to be out for now anyway.)
 
2. Fires calibers commonly used in long guns. So, none of those Shockwave** type non-shotguns, pistol-grip shotguns, or AR/AK pistols, braces or not.
 
That's it. Super easy to enforce feature list. But what to do with it?
 
Here's one way to look at it: I remember my very first introduction to the concept of "rights" in grade school. We were introduced to the concept that rights weren't absolute with the old saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." That's a fair standard. How can it be applied to a right to keep and bear arms?
 
Well, inside your house, and on your private property, you're a lot less likely to do collateral damage. So, have your long guns at home. They're actually great at repelling mutant zombie hordes. As a bone to the pro-gun crowd, get rid of the short barreled rifle and short barreled shotgun restrictions in the NFA. It won't matter in step 2.
 
When you step out into public, you are now at much higher risk of shooting someone who isn't you, or stuck living with you. You're now in the public space, and everyone around you has a right not to have your bullets lodged in their tender parts. But we have that pesky Second Amendment, with that pesky "bear" word. Still: No long guns outside. If you're going hunting or to train, fine. Transport them locked up and unloaded. (Most states have laws about transporting firearms in your vehicle along those lines already.) Do your activity. Pack up. Go home. Don't bring them to Starbucks or just haul them everywhere you go, "just in case." Walter Mitty is not invited into the public sphere, sorry. So, that leaves handguns.
 
Now, we aren't limiting handguns so much. For one, they were specifically called out in the Heller decision as the example of a weapon commonly in use, and thus held to a higher standard as far as restrictions go. And, frankly, they do a lot less collateral damage (though may be slightly more likely to cause it due to being more difficult to aim) than long guns. Around 80% of handgun shooting victims survive if given immediate aid and taken to a trauma center, due to the their wounding characteristics (poking holes rather than liquidating interior body parts with hydrostatic shock). Does that mean we allow just anyone to carry a handgun in public, any which way? Nah. Nobody likes having holes poked in them, or being in that other 20%.
 
Now, if you've got your firearm to protect your home and keep it at home, fine. No requirements aside from the normal background check. There are ample firearms safety resources available. My state (WA) incentivizes safe storage for firearms by removing the sales tax from safes. Something similar could be done for safety training, perhaps. But training requirements for exercising a fundamental right at the most basic level is probably a bit much. (Though there are lots of things to do to encourage both safe storage and general safety.)
 
But you want to take your weapon outside? You'd better be a) a damned good shot, b) inoculated to stress by fire/no fire training and testing, c) very thoroughly vetted by a background check, and d) very well-versed in self defense laws. School shootings aside, I'm also getting annoyed by just plain idiot shootings where people imagine themselves to have all kinds of non-extant rights, like the right to start an altercation then shoot the person when you get your ass kicked by said person, or the right to stand on your lawn and point your weapons at people who aren't on your curtilage. This carry permit should also be national, same as a driver's license. (It'd be a heck of a lot harder to get than a DL, too.)
 
So, now you have probable cause to stop folks with rifles or shotguns who are running amok. You allow anyone who wants to and who can qualify, to carry outside the home. Is it idiot proof? No. Does the simple definition necessarily prevent anyone from engineering around it? Eh. I came up with that on the fly, so maybe not, but the general idea of long guns stay at home, handguns can come out if they're in responsible and skilled hands should be easy enough to grasp.
 
None of this solves any root problems, because the tools used to commit the crimes do not cause the crimes. But it's more sensible than other toothless bans, while still allowing the exercise of the right mostly unimpeded.
 
Frankly, your brain is a better self-defense tool than a firearm. Not associating with idiots and following some basic situational awareness and crime prevention practices will do more to keep you safe than a gun. I still believe it should be an option on the table, but as the years pass, I see more and more that we just don't live in a society that's really mature enough for all of the responsibilities that come with our rights.
 
So, now I'm sitting at:
 
Raise gun ownership age to 25 Keep long guns at home, no additional restrictions to purchase or possess than normal background checks (but fix that system) Take the SBR and SBS off the NFA (because it won't matter so much at home) Carry outside the home only if highly qualified, but it's a national carry Red flag laws are problematic from a 4th amendment perspective, but appear to be needed (haven't gone into this lately) Red flag laws should have serious consequences for abusers whether it's false reporting or losing or damaging property (guns) Background checks for all transfers of firearms ownership National reporting requirements for law enforcement that are consistent for all crime reporting Provide enough funding for the ATF for it to enforce current laws*  
 
*I haven't gone into this, but this is to address the straw purchaser concerns. I keep seeing these numbers of suspected straw purchases being traced back to certain states or even certain dealers, and a lot of whining about what a big problem this is. Why? If you know the origin point of the weapons points to particular dealers, why haven't those dealers been shut down by ATF stings  yet??? Either someone is lying about these numbers or the ATF isn't being funded enough to do their jobs. I suspect the latter, though I've seen enough of the former to not take it off the table.
 
 
** Picture of a Shockwave under spoiler tag, for the curious. It's another of those engineering around a definition things:

 
 
 
 

He isn't lying.
 
The health insurance provisions are not limited to minors. They refer to the definitions in the prohibitions for care of minor sections as to what constitute "gender clinical interventions," but say nothing about being limited to health insurance coverage for minors.

They are, it’s unfortunate they were allowed to go as far as they did, but given the behavior exhibited a day in court is their legal right. May the former POTUS also receive the opportunity to exercise that right.
 
I would hope that the responsible institutions will be prepared if they need arises again.

I think many of those allegations about deSantis may end up being true, but for now, we'll have to stick to what he's said and done on the record.

Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
 
No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.

Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
 
No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.

Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
 
No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.

Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
 
No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.

Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
 
No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.

Whether or not Stewart's tactics are underhanded depends on whether he legitimately considers teenage gang members to be children.  At a certain age, it is not a hard thing to do.  Personally, I consider everyone under twenty a quite a few people over 20 to be children. 
 
No one is born a violent gang member and no one needs to die one.  Of course if you die young, you  lose the ability to walk away from that life.  Gang diversion and gang intervention programs age great, but why are we limited to those solutions.  We could do those things and make gun access harder to get.  Yes, they could still stab one another, but knives simply are not as good at killing people as guns in the hands of the untrained.  Everything that reduces the chance of dying young gives the young and foolish more time to turn their lives around.

Saw the latest Ant-Man & Wasp movie, liked it! Wasn't sold on MODOK but not because of the CGI, but still fun. Lots of praise to Majors and Michelle for this movie, but I have to give props to Rudd who showed some chops as 'dad who felt the sting' when his daughter clearly felt let down by him, and 'angry dad on rampage for daughter's sake' ... among others. Scott Lang in the comics is so so for me... Scott Lang in the movies? One of my favs. Didn't see that coming.
Solid 7 out of 10 for me, maybe higher.

Yes, the survey that they did was vague and didn't address many important issues.  Still, it is worth noting that most Republicans thing that Muslims can good Americans, that the US government should do more in the way of gun control, and racism still exist in America; while, a majority of Democrats believe that most Republicans are so extreme that they would not agree to those reasonable statements. 
 
Also, apparently most Republicans believe that a majority of Democrats are ashamed to be Americans, want to abolish ICE and have completely open borders.  They also think that most Democrats want the the the US to become a socialist country.  Given how broad of a definition many Republicans have for what is socialism that last one might be true from their perspective.  However, the other ones all seem pretty straight forward and I doubt that the two sides have substantially different ideas on what it means to have an open border or abolish ICE.

Example  given include that the US should have completely open borders, should adopt socialism, that most police are bad people and that not even the law abiding should have access to firearms 
 
No, those are things that Democrats believe that all the majority of Republicans disagree with.

Both Both Republicans And Democrats Severely Overestimate How Extreme The Other Side Is
 
The ironic thing about this is that all the factors that one would expect to lead to more accurate assessments only make things worse.

Both Both Republicans And Democrats Severely Overestimate How Extreme The Other Side Is
 
The ironic thing about this is that all the factors that one would expect to lead to more accurate assessments only make things worse.