Homeless Man Found With Weapons, List of Names: Do You Fear Copycat Killers?
Heisenberg
2012/08/03 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
108 votes
|
|
34% | |||
|
209 votes
|
|
66% | |||
SANFRANCISCO.CBSLOCAL.COM reports:
San Francisco Police displayed an array of weapons and ammunition Wednesday that were found in a homeless man's car last month in Golden Gate Park.
Read More: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/08/01/homele...
My "point" is that I don't think the officer should do anything more than write me a ticket for speeding, what do you think?
If you arrested me for having weapons in my car, you would be violating my civil rights, but I'm sure you wouldn't care about that.
He has no money and there's no good publicity in defending gun owners. I think he's screwed.
Plain truth: the U.S. ideal is not the U.S. reality. If you exercise all your freedoms publicly, expect to be the subject of detainment or worse. Moreso if you are part of the "underclass" of poor and/or non-white citizens.
Not being able to afford his own attorney, he'll get a hack that works for the system who will convince him to lie down for that in order to avoid prison. Whether he's scared enough to go along or not, he will be villainized, publicly described as a mental case by the authorities, and locked away. And that will be the last we hear of him.
Until the gun control bill with his name on it comes along, anyway.
We don't unless we want to live in an oppressive police state where the government has total control over every action we can take. Does that type of society temp you?
Are my rights conditional?
Not to you I don't. I do not need your permission, nor anyone else's permission to carry my weapons.
My rights are inalienable.
You are a demented individual.
As I stated, his carrying all his guns and such in the car makes sense when he is identified as homeless. He has no other place. If he could afford a storage building, he would probably be trying to live in it.
Does he own the arms legally? My guess is he does, and probably has since before he lost his residence.
The only actual crime I can see is the marijuana. I expect all weapons charges are vague technicalities about them being in the car or hidden/concealed.
What you seem to favour is the arrest of citizens on suspicion of crimes that have not happened (speculated on the basis of irrational fear stirred up by unrelated events), as well as unwarranted search and seizure.
Some is paraphrased, but tried to stay true to what was said:
Written Part:
When police found a cache of guns, knives, a shotgun, 5,800 rounds of ammunition and camouflage gear in Robert Johns’ car on July 21st it was thought they may have diverted some kind of planned attack. (also newscaster says: he had in addition, a rifle, two handguns and an assortment of knives and is charged with possession of a short barrel shot gun)
Also in that vehicle was a list of names of political leaders, reportedly including President Barack Obama.
Police says:
We don’t have a specific threat, except that he intended to harm a family member.
Newscaster:
First run in with the law was 3 weeks ago, and they took 2 guns off of him. They admit that they should have done a more thorough search . . . and at another point, “He had harassed people on the street.”
Neighborhood persons:
They are afraid of his friends and don’t want to be identified. They never made eye contact with him, and he stood out. "There are so many volatile people out there, and he was one of them." They remember he had a fight with another homeless person, and (I think) kicked him out from the car. They are glad he is off the street. He had harassed people on the street.
My impression: still not much evidence of anything, nor justification for the arrest and search. I wonder about the police confiscating weapons previously -- did they have legal grounds for doing so?
"We don’t have a specific threat, except that he intended to harm a family member."
Vague. Certainly no verification that he had the weapons for that purpose. And the officer was not required to specify what harm was intended to a relative, how such was determined, or what might have motivated the supposed "threat."
Ever watched "Cops" on television? How common -- stupid, but common -- is it that someone being arrested starts bellowing threats about the person they believe called the police to arrest them? Is that a crime, or evidence of an intended crime?
As for claims of people on the street: people always talk crap when someone is arrested or gets in trouble. Anything they observed suddenly gets warped into an ominous sign. It means nothing. Rarely would such people repeat most of it in court (even if it's worthless there, being hearsay), but they all rush to the news cameras to run their yap for that moment of excitement.
This your opinion, but the most dangerous, meaning murderous group (without defined root causes) according to the Justice Department, is older white men 45 to 75. (younger male executed murders seem to be related to gangs and drugs) And though he is younger, 37 I believe, you sure would not know it from looking at him, and he seems to carry a bitterness about him consistent with "anger action" from what the people said. Additionally, it is too easy to avoid the police, and if you can't do that twice within a three week period, then that is an indicator that something is going on. I would take him quite seriously, especially given the extra "nerve" provided to emotionally unstable people by a recent happening like the Colorado thing.
I think it is very, very dangerous to let a propensity toward his right to bear arms, make us unaware and lax for what would otherwise be alarms and alarming behavior. Had he acted like any of this, minus the guns, he would just be another wierd homeless person. With the guns, he is something else. An unstable homeless person with a list of people he wants to hurt, and one he admits out loud that he intends to hurt. Th...
This your opinion, but the most dangerous, meaning murderous group (without defined root causes) according to the Justice Department, is older white men 45 to 75. (younger male executed murders seem to be related to gangs and drugs) And though he is younger, 37 I believe, you sure would not know it from looking at him, and he seems to carry a bitterness about him consistent with "anger action" from what the people said. Additionally, it is too easy to avoid the police, and if you can't do that twice within a three week period, then that is an indicator that something is going on. I would take him quite seriously, especially given the extra "nerve" provided to emotionally unstable people by a recent happening like the Colorado thing.
I think it is very, very dangerous to let a propensity toward his right to bear arms, make us unaware and lax for what would otherwise be alarms and alarming behavior. Had he acted like any of this, minus the guns, he would just be another wierd homeless person. With the guns, he is something else. An unstable homeless person with a list of people he wants to hurt, and one he admits out loud that he intends to hurt. That is a whole different thing. And if gun proponents don't see that, they are worst than anti gun people who think they all ought to be taken away. There must be balance.
So I ask you this. If he were black, with the same situation exactly, would your opinion be the same? Please be honest, and don't take it as an attack. I've made no assumptions, but am trying to understand your full point of view. I've been looking at some of the posts on here, and there is a pattern when discussing gun control, that I'm trying to figure out. You appear to be a very reasonable person, so I'm asking you. There are others I would not ask because it requires the ability to execute honest self evaluation.
What maybe you should know is that I have been there (destitute/homeless). So I am inclined to empathize, and it's got nothing to do with skin color.
Mostly single women with kids will do whatever they have to in order maintain a car above all else, because it gives them some protection. A lot of newly homeless will also stay in a car or van, as a way of storing and protecting whatever belongings they still have. More than self-protection, I would think that the guns were something he held on to because they could be hocked to buy fresh clothes, toiletries, food, or other perishable necessities if his situation didn't get better. They're compact relative to value.
Unfortunately, having things can make you a target. There are usually a few looking for an easy mark to rob or molest; typically hard drug users needing their fix. The shelters can be nice, providing meals and blankets and access to a phone line, but that's also where predators hang out.
I managed to get an old lawnmower in OKC and used that to earn money in the summer. I was on foot, and had to use a shelter's phone, though. A church across from the shelter allowed me store the mower and sleep there.
In KC the shelter was packed and fights/robberies happened every day. Lots of people on Heroin. Maybe some on Crack. That was the early '90s.