Category: Crime
A proposed amendment to the US constitution (Updated)
I would like to suggest the following amendment to the US constitution:
No person shall be convicted of a felonious crime or subject to lengthy term of imprisonment or loss of civil rights, or ruinous fine, or a sentence of death, save that either:
1)The intent of the accused to knowingly commit the specific alleged crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in open court
OR
2)The felonious actions of the accused be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in open court to have resulted in actual bodily injury, actual physical harm, or death, to another person
The goal here is to require intent for non-injurious crimes; no more strict liability.
(Edited to add the italicized words – the accused must have either meant to commit a crime or the injury must have been serious enough to merit a felony indictment. Please pass the BATFE and Sen Lautenberg some Kleenex)
How Not to Kill a Bat
A Minnesota man is in trouble after trying to use a .38 to kill a bat that got into his home. Apparently the bullets penetrated the walls of a nearby townhouse. If you insist on using a projectile weapon to kill a bat, I’d suggest an air gun. But really, bludgeons work fine on bats. When I had one in the house once, I just threw a trash can over it, scooped it up, and let it outside.
Misplaced Grief
The family of a victim of the Craigslist Killer blames the gun shop that sold him the gun. The killer apparently sole the identity of someone who could legally purchase the pistol. There’s no sure way to defend against this, despite what John Rosenthal says:
“You couldn’t do this in Massachusetts,’’ said John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, a Newton-based group. “That’s why he went to New Hampshire.’’
It might be harder in Massachusetts, since you’d have to apply in the right jurisdiction, but does Rosenthal really want to suggest if someone was using a stolen identity that they wouldn’t issue? They’d be sure to catch it? Maybe it’s a little harder in Mass, but everyone can be fooled, and serial killers are notoriously intelligent and resourceful. I’ll bet one could be had on the streets of Dorchester with no ID required at all, if one were so inclined.
A Solution to the UK Crime Problem
Killing for the Revolution
Now we know the motive of the Public Shooting Range Killer. Apparently he was plotting to overthrow the government, and was stealing his way into an arsenal. The Patriot-News is noting that “Rebel activity” is on the rise. Geez. No one tell Darth Vader. Peake is apparently pleading that he found Getgen dead, and merely took the rifle off of him. He’s also refusing to name the group he belongs to.
I’ll be surprised if this guy got more than one other person to buy into the notion of stealing and robbing their way to revolution.
Public Range Shooter Caught
Some excellent good old fashioned police work have lead authorities to get a suspect into custody. Sounds like the alleged murderer was a correctional officer. Police called out the SWAT team to bring him in. I would like to note this is a use of SWAT teams I can approve of. I also got a chuckle out of this:
For two days, authorities scoured the range for evidence — a tough job because of all the spent shell casings littering the grounds. By the end of last week, police said they knew the kind of gun used to kill Getgen.
Yeah, not the place I’d want to have to gather evidence on a shooting — but they did it, and got their man. I am very happy they caught this guy. This was indeed a case of murdering the guy to get his gun, which made him very dangerous to have roaming the streets, which hopefully after a fair trial, he will never see again.
Update on Cumberland Public Range Shooting
They’ve performed the autopsy, but aren’t releasing details, except to say he was shot multiple times from a distance. They are still asking people to keep an eye out for his rifle which was taken from him.
Dry Ice Bomb a DD?
Something doesn’t smell right:
The mother of a 14-year-old boy accused of making bombs out of dry ice appeared in court Tuesday. The woman, 39, is charged with possession of a destructive device and child abuse. She was arrested over the weekend and released on her own recognizance.
Wait a minute, since when is a dry ice bomb a destructive device? But sure enough, look at Nebraska law and it defines it as:
Any explosive, incendiary, chemical or biological poison, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, (F) booby trap, (G) Molotov cocktail, (H) bottle bomb, (I) vessel or container intentionally caused to rupture or mechanically explode by expanding pressure from any gas, acid, dry ice, or other chemical mixture, or (J) any similar device, the primary or common purpose of which is to explode and to be used as a weapon against any person or property; or any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subdivision (7)(a)(i) of this section from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
So it would seem if you pick up some dry ice for your freezer in Nebraska, you better not have any bottles or sealable containers! But there is a section that would get most people out of trouble:
(b) The term destructive device does not include (i) any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon to be used against person or property, (ii) any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line-throwing, safety, or similar device, (iii) surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4684(2), 4685, or 4686, as such sections existed on March 7, 2006, (iv) any other device which the Nebraska State Patrol finds is not likely to be used as a weapon or is an antique, or (v) any other device possessed under circumstances negating an intent that the device be used as a weapon against any person or property;
But it’s interesting that the Nebraska Unicameral considers a dry ice bomb, normally a prank device, to be the equivalent of heavy artillery or weapons of mass destruction legally.
Changing Technology Challenges the Law
Under Pennsylvania law, if these “stun gun bandits” robbed a Starbucks with a gun, you’d be legally justified in shooting them. But they are robbing with a stun gun, which is not deadly force. In many states, you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony, and robbery counts. Pennsylvania is not one of those states, however.
Could you claim self-defense for the use of deadly force if you had a pacemaker or bad heart, and were threatened with a taser? More importantly, if you’re carrying a firearm, and are threatened with a taser, can you claim self-defense because they could use the taser to disarm you?
If it were me, I’d probably spray them. But I’m not sure that’s the smart move. I tend to think the use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony is the correct standard. That standard does have its roots in common law. If you’re committing a robbery, you’re taking your life into your hands. No matter what the instrument. That seems, to me, to be the right balance.