WWTBAM Bored

News says "details at 11"

Congrats on beating Bob J out on the headline.


Here is a news story for a local Wichita TV Station. Wichita is about 30 miles from Hesston if I recall correctly. <---- Click here

Authorities said four people (including the shooter) were killed and 14 wounded shootings spanning from Newton to Excel Industries in Hesston.

A pretty detailed background on the 'alleged' shooter for being such a new story....

Click here for the story

BackInTex wrote:A pretty detailed background on the 'alleged' shooter for being such a new story....

Click here for the story

That is why police need the ability to remove all guns from the house when a complaint is made against them.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:A pretty detailed background on the 'alleged' shooter for being such a new story....

Click here for the story

That is why police need the ability to remove all guns from the house when a complaint is made against them.

A complaint isn't the same as knowing someone is guilty.

How do you propose to get around innocent until proved guilty?

Jeemie wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:A pretty detailed background on the 'alleged' shooter for being such a new story....

Click here for the story

That is why police need the ability to remove all guns from the house when a complaint is made against them.

A complaint isn't the same as knowing someone is guilty.

How do you propose to get around innocent until proved guilty?

If he'd been brought in on child molestation charges, do you think they'd still have let him hang around kids until his trial?

He wasn't accused of molestation, SSS.

He was accused of getting abusive with his ex-girlfriend.

On the basis of that one incident from which she sought protection, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

And note...the suggestion that was as depressed and an alcoholic came just from the ex-girlfriend. On that basis of that statement alone, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

Jeemie wrote:He wasn't accused of molestation, SSS.

He was accused of getting abusive with his ex-girlfriend.

On the basis of that one incident from which she sought protection, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

And note...the suggestion that was as depressed and an alcoholic came just from the ex-girlfriend. On that basis of that statement alone, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

Then there's his felony record and history of domestic violence, along with a bunch of trigger-happy Facebook photos he posted, that a website was able to dig up in a few minutes....

Jeemie wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:A pretty detailed background on the 'alleged' shooter for being such a new story....

Click here for the story

That is why police need the ability to remove all guns from the house when a complaint is made against them.

A complaint isn't the same as knowing someone is guilty.

How do you propose to get around innocent until proved guilty?

I don't. Note I said remove, not confiscate.

Bob Juch wrote: I said remove, not confiscate.

Oh, O.K. That makes it all better, constitutionally.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote:He wasn't accused of molestation, SSS.

He was accused of getting abusive with his ex-girlfriend.

On the basis of that one incident from which she sought protection, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

And note...the suggestion that was as depressed and an alcoholic came just from the ex-girlfriend. On that basis of that statement alone, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

Then there's his felony record and history of domestic violence, along with a bunch of trigger-happy Facebook photos he posted, that a website was able to dig up in a few minutes....

OK...touché. I did not scroll all the way down...this case is probably different.

But my original response was to Bob Juch, who was advocating for gun removal if a person had just a complaint filed against him/her. Just a complaint, mind you...nothing else.

You realize how easy it is to have a complaint filed? On that basis, the guns should be removed out of the person's possession?

Jeemie wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote:He wasn't accused of molestation, SSS.

He was accused of getting abusive with his ex-girlfriend.

On the basis of that one incident from which she sought protection, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

And note...the suggestion that was as depressed and an alcoholic came just from the ex-girlfriend. On that basis of that statement alone, he should have his constitutional rights violated?

Then there's his felony record and history of domestic violence, along with a bunch of trigger-happy Facebook photos he posted, that a website was able to dig up in a few minutes....

OK...touché. I did not scroll all the way down...this case is probably different.

But my original response was to Bob Juch, who was advocating for gun removal if a person had just a complaint filed against him/her. Just a complaint, mind you...nothing else.

You realize how easy it is to have a complaint filed? On that basis, the guns should be removed out of the person's possession?

Where did I say it was just a complaint? I'm talking about when police respond to a domestic violence call or when someone has been threatening violence. The process should be the same as a restraining order.

Still no, Bob, because it's easy for someone to make a claim of domestic violence.