Orlando massacre

[tjc3844]

She can likely avoid charges by saying she feared he would kill her if she alerted authorities. Slippery slope.

I was shocked when they had attorneys discussing this. Apparently, just knowing his plan but not warning anyone is not a crime. The attorneys said she would have had to provide him with "material support" in order for her to be charged with a crime. They said she didn't have to actually participate in the massacre. Something as small as driving him to surveil the crime scene would be enough. Pretty screwed up IMHO. Standing by and letting people get slaughtered should have consequences!

 

[Anarchy99]

Do people on the terrorist watch list know they are on the terrorist watch list? Or is it like double secret probation? Serious question.

Bit of both from what i understand. Apparently one effective measure has been investigating suspected people a bit then monitoring their devices in the days and weeks afterwards. Can of worms. Apparently cell phone usage has lead to a lotta drone activity overseas the last 10 years as well. There is a lot of resources dedicated to this kind of stuff, as well there should be.

 

[EdHochuli'sTriceps]

This is my favorite argument - what do you think is going to happen when 'the shit hits the fan'?

yeah the oppressive government has drones and f--king lasers in space that can fry your f--king domicile like an insect under a magnifying glass

that these yuks think they're going to keep them at bay with their closet full of guns is f--king laughable

 

[EdHochuli'sTriceps]

Yeah right! He was probably a closeted Irish Catholic terrorist too masquerading as a Muslim.

gee it's almost as if as soon as you found out this POS was from a muslim background you drew your conclusions and will now just cleanwave away anything that contradicts them

 

[Mr. Wade Garrett]

yeah the oppressive government has drones and f--king lasers in space that can fry your f--king domicile like an insect under a magnifying glass

that these yuks think they're going to keep them at bay with their closet full of guns is f--king laughable

This is my favorite argument against guns. "Can't beat the government, so may as well hand over your right to defend yourself with a smile."

Akin to, "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, then you should have no problem with the government searching everything you own and do."

 

[Anarchy99]

I'll ask the question again - what exactly do you think is gonna happen when 'the shit hits the fan? '

 

[YourBuddyRayhad]

I always thought those survivor people think there would be massive domestic unrest rather than a military takeover. I don't really know any personally tho

 

[EdHochuli'sTriceps]

Akin to, "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, then you should have no problem with the government searching everything you own and do."

i guess, if you think unfettered access to weapons is as important as civil liberties being, as the kids say, a thing. i don't

i don't trust the government, but i don't think i'm going to be intentionally poisoned by the water fountains at the park, either

an effort to make it harder for shithead lunatics to get ar 15s is not something that i would interpret as anything other than an effort to protect the public

the aclu doesn't punk congressmen into demanding indictments for killer pigs, either. hard to see the nra and people who after the charleston shooting saw themselves as the victims of a conspiracy to take their guns and rebel flags as anything but authoritarian

 

[cleanwave]

Haven't watched it, but bet it has something worthwhile in it.. maybe

 

[NickleDimer]

The insurance idea is intriguing. Can't imagine the resistance the NRA would put up.

Explain this idea in more detail, Dmill. What's the transfer of riskin such an insurance contract? Wouldn't ADP be against this for the same reasons he was against Obamacare? The government has no business forcing someone to buy insurance!!

 

[NickleDimer]

It seems like the ex and father slipped into full out damage control instantly. Their canned responses reminded me of the disingenuous statements about politicians and sport stars admitting to sexual addiction a few years back. How convenient!

 

[Anarchy99]

Explain this idea in more detail, Dmill. What's the transfer of riskin such an insurance contract? Wouldn't ADP be against this for the same reasons he was against Obamacare? The government has no business forcing someone to buy insurance!!

Well, I would considering buying a 1966 Vette a pursuit of happiness, for which I have a right. And i need insurance to use that. If i walk into an emergency room in need of care, I have, under law, a patient's bill of rights where I cannot be refused care. The person giving me the care is forced to be insured. So this is nothing new. Adp's argument is valid to some extent, but it all ends when it costs the responsible money. Which is the case here.

Can't walk out of a gun shop without insurance. It's basically liability insurance just like you have with an automobile or homeowners. That gun is used in a shooting, the insurance company is on the hook for a wrongful death.(provided it is not ruled self defense of course) So you will have the insurance company vetting people extremely well. Mental illness? Probably won't get insured, so can't buy a gun. On the terror watch list? I would expect some tough insurance questions. PTSD? Hate to say it, but it's going to be tough. Want to own 50 guns? that's a big policy with a big premium. Really what this is, protection for all of us to some extent. A better vetting process. You want a single hand gun that you would only use to protect your home? Have one magazine of ammo? That's a minimal premium. Hunting rifle with x amount of rounds? Minimal premium. Stocking up on semi automatics? Wear shirt that says "if you know how many guns you own, you don't own enough?" I would expect to pay a decent amount. I would be in favor of caps on the liability - or some kind of workable equation that allows insurance companies to make a profitable bet in all likelihood. And if yo think is a tax on poor undereducated red necks in large part? Well, it's about time they pay SOMETHING.

 

[EdHochuli'sTriceps]

Haven't watched it, but bet it has something worthwhile in it.. maybe

pauline kael over here

 

[Mr. Wade Garrett]

Haven't watched it, but bet it has something worthwhile in it.. maybe

View embedded media

I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, and i hate the government more than the next guy. So i started watching this.

I'm 30 minutes in and comedian Joe Rogan is so far the most credible source for how bankers have created presidential puppet regimes since Kennedy.

 

[cleanwave]

Thanks Wade, let us know some more, good, bad or ridiculoso

 

[tjc3844]

Well, I would considering buying a 1966 Vette a pursuit of happiness, for which I have a right. And i need insurance to use that. If i walk into an emergency room in need of care, I have, under law, a patient's bill of rights where I cannot be refused care. The person giving me the care is forced to be insured. So this is nothing new. Adp's argument is valid to some extent, but it all ends when it costs the responsible money. Which is the case here.

Can't walk out of a gun shop without insurance. It's basically liability insurance just like you have with an automobile or homeowners. That gun is used in a shooting, the insurance company is on the hook for a wrongful death.(provided it is not ruled self defense of course) So you will have the insurance company vetting people extremely well. Mental illness? Probably won't get insured, so can't buy a gun. On the terror watch list? I would expect some tough insurance questions. PTSD? Hate to say it, but it's going to be tough. Want to own 50 guns? that's a big policy with a big premium. Really what this is, protection for all of us to some extent. A better vetting process. You want a single hand gun that you would only use to protect your home? Have one magazine of ammo? That's a minimal premium. Hunting rifle with x amount of rounds? Minimal premium. Stocking up on semi automatics? Wear shirt that says "if you know how many guns you own, you don't own enough?" I would expect to pay a decent amount. I would be in favor of caps on the liability - or some kind of workable equation that allows insurance companies to make a profitable bet in all likelihood. And if yo think is a tax on poor undereducated red necks in large part? Well, it's about time they pay SOMETHING.

Please explain in detail how your insurance plan would work in this set of circumstances. It's 2:00 A.M. and you are awakened by the sound of glass breaking in your living room. So, you grab your gun and head to the living room. In the corner, you see a shadowy figure. You pull your gun and fire. When you are able to see better, you see it's a cop who actually has pursued a thief who broke into your house. The cop is dead and his wife who is now left without a bread winner for her three little kids sues you for 3 million dollars in a wrongful death lawsuit. Does the insurance company immediately write the check to the widow or do they say "too bad - our customer had the right to defend his home from intruders?

 

[TheJoker203]

Whoever said anyone is insurable for a price is incorrect. Insurers wouldn't touch these risks with a ten foot pole. It's similar to residual insurance markets in hurricane-prone areas of Florida. State-run companies (the industry is regulated on a state, not federal basis) are created and all insurance entities doing business must participate in the losses of the insurance pool based on total premiums or some other written measure. Not sure what the alternative or real answer is, but insurance would be a painstakingly long process to properly assess and price this risk, and would likely be uninsurable due to the random nature of these attacks.

 

[tjc3844]

Whoever said anyone is insurable for a price is incorrect. Insurers wouldn't touch these risks with a ten foot pole. It's similar to residual insurance markets in hurricane-prone areas of Florida. State-run companies (the industry is regulated on a state, not federal basis) are created and all insurance entities doing business must participate in the losses of the insurance pool based on total premiums or some other written measure. Not sure what the alternative or real answer is, but insurance would be a painstakingly long process to properly assess and price this risk, and would likely be uninsurable due to the random nature of these attacks.

I agree, TheJoker. It's a totally unworkable idea. I think we need to get military type weapons out of the hands of the population. Even that won't solve the terrorism problem. Let's assume we could get the guns away from terrorists. They'd just switch to bombs or machetes. The only way to try to end this problem is at the source. Thank God we weren't politically correct during WWII. I guess we couldn't have flattened German cities or dropped the bomb on Japanese cities. I want the next president to call on Congress to declare war on all known terrorist groups - ISIS, Al Queda, Al Nusra and any other such group. Then bomb the shit out of them until there are no terrorists left.

 

[Mr. Wade Garrett]

Dude, you're wrong. Life Insurance exists.... and EVERYONE dies.

 

[Mr. Wade Garrett]

Then bomb the shit out of them until there are no terrorists left.

That's definitely going to work.... specifically when they find, and bomb (according to you), a sleeper cell in Port St Lucie, USA. Goodbye terrorists.

Not to mention that "bombing the shit out of" places definitely doesn't create more terrorists. Problem solved.

Now, onto killing the family members of these people, which you also called for.

 

[Anarchy99]

Please explain in detail how your insurance plan would work in this set of circumstances. It's 2:00 A.M. and you are awakened by the sound of glass breaking in your living room. So, you grab your gun and head to the living room. In the corner, you see a shadowy figure. You pull your gun and fire. When you are able to see better, you see it's a cop who actually has pursued a thief who broke into your house. The cop is dead and his wife who is now left without a bread winner for her three little kids sues you for 3 million dollars in a wrongful death lawsuit. Does the insurance company immediately write the check to the widow or do they say "too bad - our customer had the right to defend his home from intruders?

The cop gets a pension, but he's in your house and that's self defense. You have a right to defend your house. A cop would be foolish to follow a guy into a window in any event - as he climbs in it gives the perp a great opportunity to hurt or kill him. Don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Cops usually don't do that intentionally. In any event it's your house, and pretty much everything is self defense on your own property in a case like this. That is pretty much the law now. And in your case, a widow can sue the homeowner in that case in any event. ( i don't think she would win) The trickier thing is domestic violence. Huge number of gun deaths are within a family.

 

[Anarchy99]

Whoever said anyone is insurable for a price is incorrect. Insurers wouldn't touch these risks with a ten foot pole. It's similar to residual insurance markets in hurricane-prone areas of Florida. State-run companies (the industry is regulated on a state, not federal basis) are created and all insurance entities doing business must participate in the losses of the insurance pool based on total premiums or some other written measure. Not sure what the alternative or real answer is, but insurance would be a painstakingly long process to properly assess and price this risk, and would likely be uninsurable due to the random nature of these attacks.

Which risk? A responsible gun owner with a hand gun in his home for self defense? Feels like easy money to me. I also think you can set certain parameters on the carriers liability that allows them to be fairly sure of a profit. Airlines have accidents and they are insurable. Cars have accidents involving death, drunk driving and liability and the users are insurable. There are 300M guns in the country - and in the scheme of things, the odds are in the insurers favor if they do their job correctly. And if there are liability parameters...it's a money maker.

 

[tjc3844]

That's definitely going to work.... specifically when they find, and bomb (according to you), a sleeper cell in Port St Lucie, USA. Goodbye terrorists.

Not to mention that "bombing the shit out of" places definitely doesn't create more terrorists. Problem solved.

Now, onto killing the family members of these people, which you also called for.

I said we had to get the problem at "the source." i.e. The Middle East.

 

[cleanwave]

Paris police chief & lady get stabbed to death by Islamic nut.

Didn't hear MSNBC or Obama talk about this, they just went after Trump.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-crime-idUSKCN0YZ2KA

 

[Anarchy99]

Paris police chief & lady get stabbed to death by Islamic nut.

Didn't hear MSNBC or Obama talk about this, they just went after Trump.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-crime-idUSKCN0YZ2KA

I wish Hollande would just use the term Radical Islamic Extremists - probably would have prevented this.

 

[cleanwave]

Generic jihad jokes on life & death issues. You're a card.

 

[About2BeBanned]

Generic jihad jokes on life & death issues. You're a dickhead.

Fixed for burrs.

 

[lowry99]

I was shocked when they had attorneys discussing this. Apparently, just knowing his plan but not warning anyone is not a crime. The attorneys said she would have had to provide him with "material support" in order for her to be charged with a crime. They said she didn't have to actually participate in the massacre. Something as small as driving him to surveil the crime scene would be enough. Pretty screwed up IMHO. Standing by and letting people get slaughtered should have consequences!

This has been the law as long as the country has been around (and before that in England) and I'm fine with it. You don't have a legal obligation to rat people out, or to save people, if you hear about something, unless it's your job, like a lifeguard or maybe a cop in this situation, or you are or were involved in the plot at some point. Maybe they won't even do it, lots of slippery slopes involved. Whatever. Law won't go there. Between you and God.

But if she aided in any way then put her away for conspiracy. Being involved with this not likely to be one of the better things to go to a woman's prison for.

 

[Anarchy99]

This has been the law as long as the country has been around (and before that in England) and I'm fine with it. You don't have a legal obligation to rat people out, or to save people, if you hear about something, unless it's your job, like a lifeguard or maybe a cop in this situation, or you are or were involved in the plot at some point. Maybe they won't even do it, lots of slippery slopes involved. Whatever. Law won't go there. Between you and God.

But if she aided in any way then put her away for conspiracy. Being involved with this not likely to be one of the better things to go to a woman's prison for.

What by example might constitute a conspiracy?

 

[lowry99]

Not my area of expertise but could be a lot of things from what I remember -- just being involved. Participating in any way in planning (like tjc said helping case out a target). Potentially giving someone the idea, and discussing for a bit, offering suggestions. Obviously providing any materials. Lots of cases about people participating in planning, not participating in the act, and "withdrawing" from the conspiracy. At that point, you're supposed to tell authorities, or else you're on the hook if it happens even if you told the other(s) who did it you're out.

If all that she may have done is discuss with him around the house, offer suggestions probably difficult to prove here beyond a reasonable doubt since he's dead.

 

[Anarchy99]

Not my area of expertise but could be a lot of things from what I remember -- just being involved. Participating in any way in planning (like tjc said helping case out a target). Potentially giving someone the idea, and discussing for a bit, offering suggestions. Obviously providing any materials. Lots of cases about people participating in planning, not participating in the act, and "withdrawing" from the conspiracy. At that point, you're supposed to tell authorities, or else you're on the hook if it happens even if you told the other(s) who did it you're out.

If all that she may have done is discuss with him around the house, offer suggestions probably difficult to prove here beyond a reasonable doubt since he's dead.

So if she drove him to case the joint, knew about it because he was talking about it, helped him purchase ammo (either driving him or buying some herself) - that would do it?

Personally, I hope they toss her away for a while. Sounds like she knew and did nothing. The old man too. Him more for being an Ahole than anything...

 

[lowry99]

So if she drove him to case the joint, knew about it because he was talking about it, helped him purchase ammo (either driving him or buying some herself) - that would do it?

Helping him purchase ammo more than enough I would think, she'd best plea it out at that point. Also, since it happened I think she'd just be charged with the murders (consipiracy you can be guilty of even if it doesn't happen), sort of like if you drive a getaway car, you're an accessory to it.

 

[Anarchy99]

I said we had to get the problem at "the source." i.e. The Middle East.

Are you not aware that we drone the shit out of people over there on a daily basis in fairly large numbers? That we have troops on the ground still, and that we spent 7 years at "the source" in massive numbers and it didnt really do anything but produce more terrorists? Or have you been locked away in fantasy land the last decade and a half?

 

[Novacatt94]

Or have you been locked away in fantasy land the last decade and a half?

Close. Stoned out of his mind or blacked out drunk, depending on the day.

 

[collinch]

What by example might constitute a conspiracy?

Look at Oklahoma City bombing.

Tim McVeigh - carried out bombing got death penalty

Terry Nichols - Active Participant in the planning but not in the actual carrying out of the act...Serving a life sentence

Michael fortier: sold some guns for McVeigh...profits used to help finance attack. McVeigh and Nichols told him of plot and asked for his help. He refused to participate but also did not go to the police or report it to anybody . He was sentenced to 12 years in jail and served 10

 

[NickleDimer]

TheJoker203 nailed it. Most would stay away, smart companies would cherry pick the best risks, like they do with hurricane/flood, and then let the government create some shitty program that isn't actuarialy sound for the rest. It would probably be redundant anyway and just lead to ridiculous never-ending litigation. A win for big business - insurance and law firms. A big zilch for everyone else. Contact a class of 98 grad to draft the legislation, set up some hollow non-profit lobbying websites and give a western PA a handjob to promote the idea.

 

[NovaNation1188]

Considering an toddler (3 years old or younger) shoots themselves or another person on a weekly basis in the US, I would imagine there would be a pretty high premium on any family with children.

I'm 100% for insurance. Sh*t happens with these guns outside of the occasional psycho terrorist. That money should come from the gun owners/insurance, not "go fund me" after a tragedy.

 

[tjc3844]

Are you not aware that we drone the shit out of people over there on a daily basis in fairly large numbers? That we have troops on the ground still, and that we spent 7 years at "the source" in massive numbers and it didnt really do anything but produce more terrorists? Or have you been locked away in fantasy land the last decade and a half?

Really, Anarchy? Gosh I'm so glad you told me about the drone strikes! Actually, before Obysmal withdrew the troops to fulfill a campaign promise, we had won the war and there was relative peace in Iraq. Check the history. The troop withdrawal created a vacuum which, in turn, caused the rise of ISIS. I know you won't agree so this is just another fruitless discussion.

 

[EdHochuli'sTriceps]

Really, Anarchy? Gosh I'm so glad you told me about the drone strikes! Actually, before Obysmal withdrew the troops to fulfill a campaign promise, we had won the war and there was relative peace in Iraq. Check the history. The troop withdrawal created a vacuum which, in turn, caused the rise of ISIS. I know you won't agree so this is just another fruitless discussion.

translation: i'm talking out of my ass again and won't be bothered with backing any of it up

 

[Anarchy99]

Really, Anarchy? Gosh I'm so glad you told me about the drone strikes! Actually, before Obysmal withdrew the troops to fulfill a campaign promise, we had won the war and there was relative peace in Iraq. Check the history. The troop withdrawal created a vacuum which, in turn, caused the rise of ISIS. I know you won't agree so this is just another fruitless discussion.

I won't agree because it's not based on any remote hint of reality. Guy sits there and complains about spending then wants 150K troops to occupy a region endlessly. Fact is, the region is finally starting take part in securing itself. This is a simple fact you can understand with just a little bit of reading. We are supporting a number of these actively, with troops, weapons, strikes and intelligence. Next time you spout off about the debt (and deficit) remember that you are in favor of spending roughly 1T a year on occupying Iraq.