D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?

---

No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.

---

There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?

---

It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.

---

So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.

.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.

Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.

---

If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.

---

And you always say the point is missed...

The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.

You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.

The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.

With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.

---

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.

And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.

---

Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.

---

I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime. But again, that's not my point.

I understand why gun owners feel they need one. But for many, it is 100 percent a fear-based motivation -- and one that is disproportionate to the existing threat.

That's fine. I can empathize with most of those people. I'm just asking them to extend that same courtesy to others.

---

The threat is not uniformly distributed.

---

I never said they were. See my point on my brother-in-law.

But when 25 percent of the country owns guns, and only 1.3-6.7 percent of violent and property crimes involve defensive gun use, it's hard to make a great argument for guns as a particularly necessary or effective self-defense tool on a global scale.

Situationally, there are absolutely cases where guns are a necessary deterrent or self-defense tool. But in far more cases than not, they provide little but peace of mind.

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?

---

No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.

---

There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?

---

It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.

---

So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.

.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.

Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.

---

If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.

---

And you always say the point is missed...

The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.

You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.

The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.

With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.

---

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.

And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.

---

Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.

---

I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime. But again, that's not my point.

I understand why gun owners feel they need one. But for many, it is 100 percent a fear-based motivation -- and one that is disproportionate to the existing threat.

That's fine. I can empathize with most of those people. I'm just asking them to extend that same courtesy to others.

---

The threat is not uniformly distributed.

---

I never said they were. See my point on my brother-in-law.

But when 25 percent of the country owns guns, and only 1.3-6.7 percent of violent and property crimes involve defensive gun use, it's hard to make a great argument for guns as a particularly necessary or effective self-defense tool on a global scale.

Situationally, there are absolutely cases where guns are a necessary deterrent or self-defense tool. But in far more cases than not, they provide little but peace of mind.

---

Underneath this discussion is a motive. Are you in favor of banning guns? If so, you're only going to achieve a black market.

Verdict is in.

Bet he is guilty on all counts.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?

---

No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.

---

There were over 800,000 aggravated assaults in 2019. Is that statistically insignificant?

---

It depends on what you mean by statistically insignificant. Is that number far too high for a nation with our resources? Absolutely. Is it high enough to justify a fear-based campaign to arm every adult in America? No, it's not. In a country of 330 million people, that issue impacts less than 0.25 percent of the population. We've failed to make policy decisions based on much larger percentage risks on many, many occasions in the past.

I think we can all agree that the United States has a violence problem that needs to be addressed. But stating such does little rationalize the fact that only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes.

---

So 11 unarmed black folks deaths to police a year out of 44,200,000 people, .0000002 of folks a year, with your reasoning here nothing to worry about at all..... yet it is the 1# social issue in America today.

.0017 people have died of covid, less than 2/10 of 1%. Nothing to worry about right?. Wrong.

Violence is an issue, Covid is an issue, be prepared. The vast majority of people don't "worship guns", they simply want to be prepared.

---

If you think that's my reasoning, you should really reread my post. I'm not surprised in the least that the point was missed, though. Bring up guns and this crowd loses its damn mind.

---

And you always say the point is missed...

The point is that it is good to have a firearm, to be well trained, and to be ready to defend yourself if the terrible unlikely event ever occurs.

You are the one using stats .25 of 1% to say the concern is overblown, or that it will likely never happen. Very likely I will never be struck by lightning, but I behave in a way that I know it could happen and am precautious.

The problem is, you miss the point. I never see gun people in a frenzy about guns, just anti gun people saying they are in a frenzy. Gun people just don't want their right to defend themselves with a firearm taken away. It has happened in other countries, and we have nuts in this country that would do it here if they could.

With statistically unlikely incidents, it certainly doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be prepared for lookthose incidents. It would be far better if they were prepared, every single adult.

---

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Why is it not only OK, but prudent for you to prepare yourself for a possible but statistically unlikely scenario but absurd for young Black men to feel a need do the same in interactions with law enforcement.

And therein lies my point, which was never about infringing on your gun rights. As long as you store and operate your guns safely, I couldn't care less what you do. What I do care about is empathy and understanding. Fear is a strong motivator for all people -- even that which is not particularly reasonable or rational. Instead of dismissing the real fears of those we disagree with as silly or stupid, perhaps we should seek to understand why they feel the way they do.

---

Based on numbers from the Violence Policy Center, a group often cited by gun control advocates, there are more than 5 million violent crimes and 15 million property crimes per year in the US. If you only count property crimes where the victim is present, there are about 2.5 million. So let's say 7.5 million cases altogether in which the victim might have a use for a gun. Victims used a gun for protection about 100,000 times per year, again according to the VPC. These are not trivial numbers. In comparison, there are about 6 million car accidents per year. No one would say it's irrational to wear a seat belt on that basis.

---

I would argue that if owning a gun only protects somewhere between 1.3 and 6.7 percent of victims on the extremely rare occasions they're a subject of violent or property crime, it's irrational to think guns are the solution to crime. But again, that's not my point.

I understand why gun owners feel they need one. But for many, it is 100 percent a fear-based motivation -- and one that is disproportionate to the existing threat.

That's fine. I can empathize with most of those people. I'm just asking them to extend that same courtesy to others.

---

The threat is not uniformly distributed.

---

I never said they were. See my point on my brother-in-law.

But when 25 percent of the country owns guns, and only 1.3-6.7 percent of violent and property crimes involve defensive gun use, it's hard to make a great argument for guns as a particularly necessary or effective self-defense tool on a global scale.

Situationally, there are absolutely cases where guns are a necessary deterrent or self-defense tool. But in far more cases than not, they provide little but peace of mind.

---

Underneath this discussion is a motive. Are you in favor of banning guns? If so, you're only going to achieve a black market.

---

My motive in this thread has nothing to do with gun control. I'm not a gun guy myself, and I think we should do more to keep guns out of the hands of those prone to commit crimes with them, but I understand that owning weapons is a constitutionally protected right and that won't be changing anytime soon.

My motive is to get those motivated by (often irrational) fear to understand that those they disagree with are also motivated by their own, different (often irrational) fears. And as a society and culture we should try to do more to hear and understand each other.

Probably so. A quick verdict usually means that in a criminal trial.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Murder 2 is actually an easier threshold than I would have thought. It may come into play here.

Unintentional act, in the course of another crime, as in assault.

So if you knock someone out with a single punch, they fall and hit their dead on the sidewalk and die,
murder 2 is a possibility.

Certainly very possible here.

---

You might get charged with it in that scenario but you would basically never get convicted of it.

And you would have to prove that restraining a suspect is assault.

nein51 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Murder 2 is actually an easier threshold than I would have thought. It may come into play here.

Unintentional act, in the course of another crime, as in assault.

So if you knock someone out with a single punch, they fall and hit their dead on the sidewalk and die,
murder 2 is a possibility.

Certainly very possible here.

---

You might get charged with it in that scenario but you would basically never get convicted of it.

And you would have to prove that restraining a suspect is assault.

---

I don't know, but I just have a feeling the jury will consider keeping his knee on him for 3 minutes after he had even passed out an assault.

It wasn't assault when they took him to the ground, it became one in the eyes of many people when they stayed on him grinding in, long after he was able to respond in any way to the grinding knee.

Guilty of manslaughter only is my bet

I'm heading down to the bunker berfore the fireworks start. Got plenty of water, my transistor radio and my tinfoil hat. Been nice knowing you.

Guilty on all counts.

Guilty on all counts

The appeals process should be interesting on this one.

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."

Appeal will fail also. And the coward wouldn't even testify.

sombear said:

---

Appeal will fail also. And the coward wouldn't even testify.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I think you are wrong on that assumption.

Booray said:

---

Going to jail today

---

Are you going as a prisoner or visiting someone?

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Going to jail today

---

As a prisoner or visiting someone?

---

As a prisoner

---

Sorry to hear that, hope you make bail.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Going to jail today

---

Are you going as a prisoner or visiting someone?

---

tommie said:

---

Just turned on CNN to see Jeffrey Toobin squeeze out some analysis. He's not on. What gives?

---

I saw what you did there! All hands on Deck!

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Appeal will fail also. And the coward wouldn't even testify.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I think you are wrong on that assumption.

---

Based on what?

The prosecution put on a good case; the verdict was well within the evidence.

---

Wait and see. A lot depends on the sentence, but the venue, lack of sequestering the jury, and the media behavior are all in play here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Appeal will fail also. And the coward wouldn't even testify.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I think you are wrong on that assumption.

---

Based on what?

The prosecution put on a good case; the verdict was well within the evidence.

---

Wait and see. A lot depends on the sentence, but the venue, lack of sequestering the jury, and the media behavior are all in play here.

---

Hail Mary worked in Minnesota a long time ago. Not this time.

Venue-so much publicity that it would not have mattered where tried. Where was the judge going to transfer it to that there was less of a chance of pre-judging.

On sequestering and publicity, the defense has an incredible burden. In context, the evidence supports the verdict so it becomes very difficult to demonstrate that publicity changed what the verdict was.

tommie said:

---

Just turned on CNN to see Jeffrey Toobin squeeze out some analysis. He's not on. What gives?

---

He's not on because his laptop camera/Zoom chat window was.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Appeal will fail also. And the coward wouldn't even testify.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I think you are wrong on that assumption.

---

Based on what?

The prosecution put on a good case; the verdict was well within the evidence.

---

Wait and see. A lot depends on the sentence, but the venue, lack of sequestering the jury, and the media behavior are all in play here.

---

Hail Mary worked in Minnesota a long time ago. Not this time.

Venue-so much publicity that it would not have mattered where tried. Where was the judge going to transfer it to that there was less of a chance of pre-judging.

On sequestering and publicity, the defense has an incredible burden. In context, the evidence supports the verdict so it becomes very difficult to demonstrate that publicity changed what the verdict was.

---

As I said, wait and see. I disagree about the evidence supporting the verdict for Murder 2, that's going to bite the prosecutor I think. Had a solid 3 but got greedy, could lose it all because of that.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If I was a police officer, I would resign TODAY.

---

If you can't do your job without violating citizen's rights then resigning is a good idea.

---

I bet you don't even know any LEOs personally.