Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Another shooting rampage.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Another shooting rampage. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 1:12:17 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
From an article by Mark Steyn:

Unarmed Man Goes On Shooting Rampage
By Mark Steyn
December 6, 2013 7:23 AM
.

A mentally disturbed man is wandering through traffic outside New York’s Port Authority Bus Terminal. Naturally, the NYPD open fire. They miss the guy. However, the sidewalks being full of people, they manage to hit two female pedestrians, one of them already using a walker, which comes in handy when the coppers shoot you in the leg.

So the DA charges the guy with assaulting the women:

“The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.

Ah, yes: the “situation” injured the innocent bystanders. If you outlaw guns, only situations will have guns.

The defendant is looking at 25 years in jail for the crime of provoking law enforcement into shooting random citizens. If this flies in New York, then there is no law.

~~~~~~~

I post the article for balance, since there is such a plethora of coverage when there is a shooting in a schoolyard.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 4:07:42 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
Have to chuckle at the presentation of this 'article'.

1 ) There is not a link from a credible source of news here. Typically the author of these posts never places a link. So a 30 second google.com search turned up the usual suspects: right wing, pro-gun, and anti-government and anti-facts groups. When only certain groups are pushing for something not in the main stream media coverage, it generally means people are pushing an agenda for the benefit of a very small percentage of the population. In this case, those that hate the government and feel firearms are some mystical items of protection.

2 ) That the story is the same printing on ALL the sites viewed from '1' above. Not one of them offering a different perspective or additional information to the original 'story' written. In other words, questioning the authority of what is written is wrong, but questioning what is wrong with authorities is right. Not one of these stories explains....WHY...the police drew guns and fired. Would that not be a good question? As typically they do not draw their arms unless the suspect was drawing a weapon of some type.

3 ) Here is one more example in which drawing and firing a weapon accurately is not a piece of cake. As medical science can explain, that when the human body experiences the 'fight or flight' response, blood draws out of the extremities (i.e. hands and feet) towards the central part of the body. This makes holding a firearm and accurately shooting it considerably harder. While most police will practice to over come such human conditions, it does still happen. For those that do not practice this stuff acting and drawing a firearm, the effects will be the same or worst. Which makes it ironically funny for right winters and anti-government types to bash on the police for this, when in effect, reduces their own credibility with firearms if caught in the same or similar situation. Its not funny that the events unfolded were really bad for bystanders.

4 ) "A mentally disturbed man is wandering through traffic...". What evidence does the author have to show the man in question was mentally disturbed? There is no video, photos, or independent eye witnesses to verify the person in question. I've known drunk and drugged out people to do some amazing dumb and unwise things. And most of those are not '...mentally disturbed....' individuals. So where is the hard evidence of this accusation?

5 ) You can tell this is not 'news' but rather 'propaganda' by the 4th 'paragraph': Ah, yes: the “situation” injured the innocent bystanders. If you outlaw guns, only situations will have guns. No serious journalist would write this crap, not even if they worked for FOX News! One more reason not to take this 'story' seriously.

6 ) Why was the suspect pursued by the police in the first place? This goes along with '4' above in that there would need to be....something....of a reason for police to pursue this person. Which crime was the suspect charged with exactly? Oh that' right, in the author's greed to push the propaganda he forgot about THE FACTS.

A person that will take this 'story' as 'legit', is best of placing all their money for investing purposes under their mattress. And then taking the financial hit years down the road like a man. A good investor that makes many times their initial investment years later typically examines not just the information, but the source(s) of that information. They check how valid the information and source is and even check up on the information from time to time depending on the length of the investment. Which is to say, someone with a healthy dose of wisdom would not accept this story 'as is' since it leaves a huge amount of information out. The purpose of a journalistic quality news article is to FULLY explain the 'who's', the 'why's', the 'how's', the 'when's', and the 'where's'. To the best of their knowledge without inputting political agendas with the work. That would be how a PROFESSIONAL journalist operates. This guy who wrote this piece is neither a professional nor a journalist.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 4:37:44 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Well, since your google skills are so obviously incompetent.

Will the Times do?
How about CNN?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9248817
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/15/2-bystanders-struck-as-nypd-cops-fire-at-man-near-port-authority-bus-terminal/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130914

Now as for your snickery about the similarity of the wording. Perhaps you would care to compare the wording on the sources I provided - and comment on their professionalism?

I thought not.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/3/2014 4:49:26 PM >

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 4:44:24 PM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
Good grief, the way this is written and coming from Mark Steyn, its tongue and cheek. One thing is not in doubt, the cops, for what ever reason they decided to shoot, missed their intended target and hit 2 innocent bystanders. I don't doubt what the prosecutor was quoted as saying either and I wouldn't be surprised if the charges have the potential of getting the guy 25 years. I would also infer from the satire that if the man was indeed mentally deranged, in Steyns opinion, 25 years is excessive. If ya want more info, why not just look it up ?

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 5:00:41 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:


I post the article for balance, since there is such a plethora of coverage when there is a shooting in a schoolyard.


I'm not being sarcastic, Phydeaux - I'm genuinely lost. What sense of 'balance' are you referring to, here?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 6:12:57 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline
It probably took more time to edit out the fact that this took place 4 months ago, than to simply link to a more complete story...

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/16/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130916

_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 7:01:57 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


I post the article for balance, since there is such a plethora of coverage when there is a shooting in a schoolyard.


I'm not being sarcastic, Phydeaux - I'm genuinely lost. What sense of 'balance' are you referring to, here?


We've had what 3 threads (some unmoderated) with hundreds (thousands) of posts when a crazy shoots people in a school yard. Hundreds (thousands) waxing poetic on how government restrictions are needed.

The balance is that the presentation of shootings that highlight the ridiculousness of gun regulations; the overweening nature of government authority; and the even handed nature of media.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/3/2014 7:04:46 PM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 7:06:36 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

It probably took more time to edit out the fact that this took place 4 months ago, than to simply link to a more complete story...

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/16/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130916


a. I quoted Mark Steyn in his entirety. At least on the website where it was presented. No editing other than cut and paste artifacts like ads.
b. You linked to the same article I did....

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 7:50:30 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline
No, everyone can easily see that I linked to the Sept 16th update with the person's name and the reason the police fired, you didn't link to anything in the OP.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

It probably took more time to edit out the fact that this took place 4 months ago, than to simply link to a more complete story...

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/16/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130916


a. I quoted Mark Steyn in his entirety. At least on the website where it was presented. No editing other than cut and paste artifacts like ads.
b. You linked to the same article I did....



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 9:32:00 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

We've had what 3 threads (some unmoderated) with hundreds (thousands) of posts when a crazy shoots people in a school yard. Hundreds (thousands) waxing poetic on how government restrictions are needed.



We've had a hell of a lot more threads than that, Phydeaux. It was interesting how a lot of the usual "guns are evil" suspects steered clear of that last unmoderated one though.

What I don't ever seem to see are any of the anti-gun folks coming forward with what it would take to accomplish their goal. Get the Senate, with a 2/3 majority, to pass an amendment to the Constitution that repeals the 2nd, then get 2/3 of the states to ratify that new amendment.

Of course, even after that, somebody will have to go out and collect them. That might not be real pretty, in every case.


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 11:32:44 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
I'm just curious here, are you saying that the prosecutor is RIGHT to charge the guy with assault?
I mean you went ON AN ON about the source and tone of the article etc etc etc, even going as far as to call it PROPAGANDA, but seem to have ignored the fact that it DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!

soo care to weigh in on weather you feel the charges are justified?

or is it as the woman who was SHOT lawyer said "Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” she said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?smid=re-share&_r=2&

< Message edited by BitYakin -- 1/3/2014 11:33:53 PM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/3/2014 11:49:14 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well, since your google skills are so obviously incompetent.

Will the Times do?
How about CNN?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9248817
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/15/2-bystanders-struck-as-nypd-cops-fire-at-man-near-port-authority-bus-terminal/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130914

Now as for your snickery about the similarity of the wording. Perhaps you would care to compare the wording on the sources I provided - and comment on their professionalism?

I thought not.


You REALLY did not understand what I stated, did you? More so, why should I have to do your work on a post when your to lazy to show where you got the information from originally. I simply plugged in the title of the article. An all the sites that came up were as I stated above.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/4/2014 12:08:46 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well, since your google skills are so obviously incompetent.

Will the Times do?
How about CNN?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9248817
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/15/2-bystanders-struck-as-nypd-cops-fire-at-man-near-port-authority-bus-terminal/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130914

Now as for your snickery about the similarity of the wording. Perhaps you would care to compare the wording on the sources I provided - and comment on their professionalism?

I thought not.


You REALLY did not understand what I stated, did you? More so, why should I have to do your work on a post when your to lazy to show where you got the information from originally. I simply plugged in the title of the article. An all the sites that came up were as I stated above.


I understood your post completely. Given the author and the date you were incapable finding an article.
I certainly wouldn't be advertising that fact, but to each their own.

somewhere in there, you tried to suggest the uniformityof the story in all the right wing sources apparently unaware let the same phenomenon occurs pretty much across the journalistic spectrum.

did I miss something?

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/4/2014 1:03:34 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline
The notion that the person committing a serious breach of the law can be held responsible for inadvertent harm to people, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, it isn't new, or unused.

And as usual, all we've got are some breathless infotainment blurbs and part of one side of the story.





quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

I'm just curious here, are you saying that the prosecutor is RIGHT to charge the guy with assault?
I mean you went ON AN ON about the source and tone of the article etc etc etc, even going as far as to call it PROPAGANDA, but seem to have ignored the fact that it DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN!

soo care to weigh in on weather you feel the charges are justified?

or is it as the woman who was SHOT lawyer said "Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” she said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?smid=re-share&_r=2&



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/4/2014 12:17:19 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
FR
This does address the myth that we are safer letting the cops do the shooting.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/4/2014 1:26:55 PM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
WOW sounds like a DEFINATE MAYBE there!

I wonder if anyone remembers a thread where there was a drive by shooting at a mans house and he returned fire and hit a bystander?

I wonder if anyone remembers your position on THAT SHOOTING?

I wonder if you said of THAT ISSUE that we only had infotainment blurbs and not enough information to make a judgement?

whereas here we have this info, the man was UNARMED, no shots were fired BY HIM, and police not only shot at an unarmed man, but MISSED and hit innocent bystanders

as for NOT ENOUGH info, the link YOU provided mentions EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS and VIDEO of the incident!

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/4/2014 3:10:39 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
Does mummy know that you're shouting in public?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/4/2014 4:03:46 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Does mummy know that you're shouting in public?


STOP TAKING THE PISS MOONHEAD!

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/5/2014 11:23:35 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
They're shooting the wrong people!
I want them in Washington doing their shooting.
Maybe we should start a fund for "Free Ammunition and Train Ticket Fund for Nuts."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Another shooting rampage. - 1/5/2014 11:27:21 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well, since your google skills are so obviously incompetent.

Will the Times do?
How about CNN?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9248817
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/15/2-bystanders-struck-as-nypd-cops-fire-at-man-near-port-authority-bus-terminal/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/14/nation/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130914

Now as for your snickery about the similarity of the wording. Perhaps you would care to compare the wording on the sources I provided - and comment on their professionalism?

I thought not.


You REALLY did not understand what I stated, did you? More so, why should I have to do your work on a post when your to lazy to show where you got the information from originally. I simply plugged in the title of the article. An all the sites that came up were as I stated above.


I understood your post completely. Given the author and the date you were incapable finding an article.
I certainly wouldn't be advertising that fact, but to each their own.

somewhere in there, you tried to suggest the uniformityof the story in all the right wing sources apparently unaware let the same phenomenon occurs pretty much across the journalistic spectrum.

did I miss something?



(Phydeaux, the "hide" button is your friend.)

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Another shooting rampage. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094