Gunshop employee charged

[jrandom]

that's bullshit and you know it.

You asked, "should every little infraction of the law be punished equally?"

I answered "no".

I don't actually think we disagree; you're just pissed off that I was all mean and called you names.

This calls for banana cream pies at dawn, I think. Name your second.

[FilthyLuka]

The fact that some dick got shot does not alter the crime.

But the circumstances in which he got shot does. Theres a difference between shooting some random dude that walks in and shooting a person threatening to cut you the fuck up.

The difference being homocide or self defence, the later of which (in my oppinion) should not be punished

Denden

[FilthyLuka]

This calls for banana cream pies at dawn, I think. Name your second.

mmm... banana cream pies... Damnit fish! now you've gone and gotten me all hungry!

[The_Dover]

You asked, "should every little infraction of the law be punished equally?"

I answered "no".

I don't actually think we disagree; you're just pissed off that I was all mean and called you names.

This calls for banana cream pies at dawn, I think. Name your second.

Again?

No, I can see from your other posts that you think Greg Carvell should rightly be charged with the shit he has been.

I do not.

But the circumstances in which he got shot does. Theres a difference between shooting some random dude that walks in and shooting a person threatening to cut you the fuck up.

The difference being homocide or self defence, the later of which (in my oppinion) should not be punished

Denden

Had he shot some random dude then the charge he is currently facing would be the very least of his worries and quiet possibly would not have been brought against him.

[jrandom]

How about I repeat a point I made a while ago, and comment that Greg C's not being charged over shooting the guy; he's being charged over how he stored the gun.

I think we all grasp that now.

The other point I just made was an attempt to show that if the attempted robbery itself had not taken place, quite likely common sense and expediency would not have resulted in a prosecution, regardless of what Greg C had been doing with his pistols.

But when there's guys lying around bleeding and media on the scene, it's difficult for the cops to do anything but be sticklers for the law.

Anyone got any useful remarks about the best way to make a law change happen?

[FilthyLuka]

Had he shot some random dude then the charge he is currently facing would be the very least of his worries and quiet possibly would not have been brought against him.

hmm... good point... Cookie?

[FilthyLuka]

Anyone got any useful remarks about the best way to make a law change happen?

Cream pies? Oh! shit, my bad. you said usefull

[jrandom]

you think Greg Carvell should rightly be charged with the shit he has been.

I do not.

No no. That's not really what you think. You really think that the shit Greg Carvell did should not be illegal. When stuff's illegal, there's got to be a line somewhere beyond which the police will lay charges instead of letting it go.

Having something come out in a very public, media-driven manner tends to force it to cross that line. No way could the cops have let this go - it would have taken about 30 seconds from any announcement that no charges were being laid for the media to be all over it like rabid dogs, pointing out that Greg must have been carrying that pistol illegally.

Not laying charges just wasn't a practical option.

I do hope that all this prompts a law change.

[The_Dover]

How about I repeat a point I made a while ago, and comment that Greg C's not being charged over shooting the guy; he's being charged over how he stored the gun.

I think we all grasp that now.

The other point I just made was an attempt to show that if the attempted robbery itself had not taken place, quite likely common sense and expediency would not have resulted in a prosecution, regardless of what Greg C had been doing with his pistols.

But when there's guys lying around bleeding and media on the scene, it's difficult for the cops to do anything but be sticklers for the law.

Anyone got any useful remarks about the best way to make a law change happen?

I am fully aware of what he has been charged with.

The fact is had he not been allegedly guilty of this offence then he would possibly now have some interesting scars and a good story for the grandkids.

If he had survived.

Charging him with one crime because another (which he was the victim of) took place is quite frankly ridiculous and whether media driven or not should not have occured.

[FilthyLuka]

suckfull... it appears that we live in a society that has more concern for the views of the media than whats right and wrong... bleh

Denden

[The_Dover]

No no. That's not really what you think. You really think that the shit Greg Carvell did should not be illegal. When stuff's illegal, there's got to be a line somewhere beyond which the police will lay charges instead of letting it go.

You are wrong. I do not think he should be charged.

Yes I do think someone who sells guns should also be entrusted to protect them from falling into the wrong hands.

Having something come out in a very public, media-driven manner tends to force it to cross that line. No way could the cops have let this go - it would have taken about 30 seconds from any announcement that no charges were being laid for the media to be all over it like rabid dogs, pointing out that Greg must have been carrying that pistol illegally.

Not laying charges just wasn't a practical option.

I do hope that all this prompts a law change.

It was an option. It would just require leadership and balls. Something that our government and heads of public office sorely lack.

[ManDownUnder]

Charging him with one crime because another (which he was the victim of) took place is quite frankly ridiculous and whether media driven or not should not have occured.

Yes and no. Holding him accountable for his actions? I have no problem with that. This is simply a test of whether he did the right thing in the eyes of the law. I personally think he did the right thing and think most reasonable people would have done the same. There was an aspect of premeditation to it though - which has all involved unfortable... the availability of a loaded gun (if I have my facts right).

Making that weapon ready in anticipation is questionable and the outcome of a robbery could have been entirely different if a theif knew of the weapons presence and used it to their tactical advantage - who knows, they may have used it to gain access to a virtual armory.. or not.

What would the charge have been then? I'm not sure of the technical detail but failing to secure a loaded firearm would be the basis of it in my mind. That's a basic tenet of firearm law. The outcome does affect the crime, despite the actions being exactly the same.

Whether the law is acceptable in this situation is the question (which is, what I suspect you are getting at?). In which case the law itself needs to be tested.

Either way it hurts the guy financially which is where I believe the initial injustice is

[ManDownUnder]

It was an option. It would just require leadership and balls. Something that our government and heads of public office sorely lack.

Yes - but the leadership and balls of Greg were already on display when he shot the guy (IMHO). Leadership and balls of thre Govt are currently lacking - strange considering the pronounced swagger of Mizz Clark

[The_Dover]

Would you expect a ticket for an unwarrantable vehicle (blown bulb for example, borderline tread depth which you were aware of but "were getting fixed tomorrow") if you were involved in an accident in which you were found to be not at fault and the vehicle condition was not a contributing factor?

If Greg C were involved in the scenario above, a charge of failing to secure a loaded firearm would be the least of his worries. A gunshot wound or other injury would be higher on his list of priorities.

The man was defending himself and his property and is going to suffer because of it.

We have dickheads in suits calling for legal precedents to be set and people to suffer, the focus should be on the knob with the machete.

[jrandom]

Would you expect a ticket for an unwarrantable vehicle (blown bulb for example, borderline tread depth which you were aware of but "were getting fixed tomorrow") if you were involved in an accident in which you were found to be not at fault and the vehicle condition was not a contributing factor?

Probably, traffic cops being the cunts they generally are. I wouldn't really be able to argue against it, though, would I?

The man was defending himself and his property and is going to suffer because of it.

We have dickheads in suits calling for legal precedents to be set and people to suffer, the focus should be on the knob with the machete.

Yeah... shit happens, precedents do sometimes need to be set. How about we just stop argy-bargying about it and contribute to his defense fund?