NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/11/atlanta.shooting/index.html

:eek:

I'm glad I'm in Connecticut!

Oh lord, here comes the anti-gun brigade *Rolls eyes*

Edit:

Of course, my prime reaction should have been to express sympathy and condolences, not to worry about my own partisanship. I was in error, but do not doubt that I possess said traits.

Guns dont kill people. Bullets kill people! :D

*ducks*

It was the deputy's gun.

The killer did not come into the courthouse with a gun.

He took the deputy's gun.

Oh lord, here comes the anti-gun brigade *Rolls eyes*

Edit:

Of course, my prime reaction should have been to express sympathy and condolences, not to worry about my own partisanship. I was in error, but do not doubt that I possess said traits.


I couldn't see a anti gun arguement here as the guy grabbed a gun off a officer then went postal.

It was the deputy's gun.

The killer did not come into the courthouse with a gun.

He took the deputy's gun.

Your point being...?

I couldn't see a anti gun arguement here as the guy grabbed a gun off a officer then went postal.

If this dude had been properly restrained, he shouldn't have been able to get the gun off the officer. I'm just sayin...

I'm not going to argue about who has guns or why; Who doesn't have guns or why; Who should have guns and why; OR Who shouldn't have guns and why.

I just want to say that when they find this guy - kill him. Right there on the spot. No trial, no time in jail, no visits from supporters and family. There is no mistaken identity - they know who did it and I don't want to see him take one more breath after they catch him. I especially don't want to see the taxpayers supporting this waste of humanity!

I'm generally not so brutal, but in this case, where there is no question of guilt, get rid of the scum! And yes, I would say that, even if it was a friend of relative of mine...

It was the deputy's gun.

The killer did not come into the courthouse with a gun.

He took the deputy's gun.That's true.

And, the deputy's gun is somehow different from all the other guns humanity uses to kill one another?

Holy shit! Hey, you "outta my cold, dead hands" crowd: Defensive much? You all threw out half a dozen "not the gun's fault" posts before anyone said anything else.

Not, "Wow, I'm going to watch CNN." Not, "What a big manhunt." Not, "What a tragedy."

Talk about a one-note song.

That's horrible.

This isn't remotely an issue of gun control. No matter how stringent those laws are made, deputys will still have guns. Period. This is about a wacko accused of rape who now gets to add murder, attempted murder, assault and carjacking to his list of crimes.

That's true.

And, the deputy's gun is somehow different from all the other guns humanity uses to kill one another?

You're right - a gun is a gun is a gun.

But as long as we have a system in place whereby people who commit crimes are arrested and prosecuted, we will have to provide those who do the enforcing with some way to control the offender - hence, the cops have guns.

In all the anti-gun arguments I've heard, I've never heard anyone say to take the guns away from law enforcement, just hunters and hobbyists and collectors and the idiots who keep loaded guns somewhere where a child can easily find it and fire it.

I heard this morning on the radio and I'm thinking the same thing now as I did then: what the fuck? He TOOK the deputy's gun FROM THE HOLSTER, shot 2 people, escaped from the EIGHTH story of a building, tried to jack MULTIPLE CARS, pistol whipped a guy and FINALLY managed to escape in some one else's car. What dipshit allowed THAT to go down? So much for defense with firearms, he should have been taken down before he shot the judge, much less ESCAPED FROM THE EIGHTH FUCKING STORY OF A STATE BUILDING.

I could go on about how women shouldn't be cops, but then i would be sexist. Did you hear what was said, e took the gun of a female deputy, help the courtroom hostage, and id you hear the part in the end about the deputy in the elevator crying? I do realize that many men can' handle it, and that many women can, but i thought you were supposed to be trained to do this. to protect and serve, not cower in an elevator. this is also why the guards in prison't don;t have guns while with prisoners.

He shot her in the mouth. Women shouldn't be cops.

I heard this morning on the radio and I'm thinking the same thing now as I did then: what the fuck? He TOOK the deputy's gun FROM THE HOLSTER, shot 2 people, escaped from the EIGHTH story of a building, tried to jack MULTIPLE CARS, pistol whipped a guy and FINALLY managed to escape in some one else's car. What dipshit allowed THAT to go down? So much for defense with firearms, he should have been taken down before he shot the judge, much less ESCAPED FROM THE EIGHTH FUCKING STORY OF A STATE BUILDING.

Well, that's exactly the kind of shit they should have expected when they arrested Tommy Vercetti.

Defense with a firearm depends largely on your mindset.

If you're not a person willing to kill when necessary, and constantly assessing that necessity, you might as well be carrying a bag of marshmallows.

The bad guy here was definitely willing to kill.

The deputy was not. In fact, it looks like the deputy wasn't even willing to fight, nor expecting one.

I've been personally assaulted three times, and each time I was able to stop it by using my pistol. Although I didn't kill anyone, I did make it quite clear to the asshats in question that I meant to kill them.

this is also why the guards in prison't don;t have guns while with prisoners.
I'm not going to comment on the women police officer thing except to say I disagree, they should be for a number of reasons.

However, the above is what struck me most. That just seems like a bad idea to have guards with guns near the prisoners. If you think that it's neccisary to have a gun in the courtroom, and I can see the argument, have them not near the prisoners. Because, well, this is because.

I'm not going to comment on the women police officer thing except to say I disagree, they should be for a number of reasons.

However, the above is what struck me most. That just seems like a bad idea to have guards with guns near the prisoners. If you think that it's neccisary to have a gun in the courtroom, and I can see the argument, have them not near the prisoners. Because, well, this is because.

Courtrooms are one of the places where an M26 Taser would be a good idea.

Defense with a firearm depends largely on your mindset.

If you're not a person willing to kill when necessary, and constantly assessing that necessity, you might as well be carrying a bag of marshmallows.

The bad guy here was definitely willing to kill.

The deputy was not. In fact, it looks like the deputy wasn't even willing to fight, nor expecting one.

I've been personally assaulted three times, and each time I was able to stop it by using my pistol. Although I didn't kill anyone, I did make it quite clear to the asshats in question that I meant to kill them.
Listen, this is not about gun-control, you people are fucking OBSESSED. The first dman reply involved "here comes the anti-gun crowd" without a single reason to post it. You people need to get the fuck over the gun thing and get on topic. Shit, every post I see you make involves you blowing up in my face about some irrelevant shit and ranting about that.

Here is what we need in courtrooms - big people trained in hand-to-hand combat with billy clubs. If you have armed guards, shit like this can go down.

Listen, this is not about fucking gun-control, you people are fucking OBSESSED. The first dman reply involved "here comes the anti-gun crowd" without a single reason to post it. You people need to get the fuck over the gun thing and get on topic.

No, I'm not obssessed. It's relevant, because obviously the deputy wasn't ready to kill anyone, much less defend herself.

Courtrooms are one of the places where an M26 Taser would be a good idea.
Generally speaking you don't want any weapon near a prisoner that you wouldn't want him (or her) to have.

Generally speaking you don't want any weapon near a prisoner that you wouldn't want him (or her) to have.

The nice thing about a Taser is if the prisoner somehow manages to get a hold of it, he gets only one shot, and that one shot isn't going to kill you.

It also permits a small person to subdue just about anyone. So you can feel free to tase the prisoner if they just look like they're going to get out of the chair at the wrong time.

No, I'm not obssessed. It's relevant, because obviously the deputy wasn't ready to kill anyone, much less defend herself.
Besides the fact that you ARE obsessed, that is not entirely relevant. The person who had the gun STOLEN FROM THEIR HOLSTER obviously wasn't going to be shooting anyone. What the hell were the other people in the building doing?

I just want to say that when they find this guy - kill him. Right there on the spot. No trial, no time in jail, no visits from supporters and family. There is no mistaken identity - they know who did it and I don't want to see him take one more breath after they catch him. I especially don't want to see the taxpayers supporting this waste of humanity!

I'm generally not so brutal, but in this case, where there is no question of guilt, get rid of the scum! And yes, I would say that, even if it was a friend of relative of mine...

I'll go one further. I think the general public should be enlisted in the hunt for this guy. I'm pretty sure that my neighbor who lets his dog bark all night looks suspicously like the suspect.

Generally speaking you don't want any weapon near a prisoner that you wouldn't want him (or her) to have.

Just like you should never design a jail that you wouldn't want to spend a week in.

Besides the fact that you ARE obsessed, that is not entirely relevant. The person who had the gun STOLEN FROM THEIR HOLSTER obviously wasn't going to be shooting anyone. What the hell were the other people in the building doing?

Someone noted earlier that one of the deputies had their gun taken away. That's not a gun control statement. I didn't make a statement on gun control.

I did make a statement on defense with a firearm. Which is not a gun control statement. It's a statement on tactics and preparedness - which applies to law enforcement, military, etc.

If you let someone potentially hostile get close enough to take your gun, you are violating the training that most law enforcement officers receive. It is that inattentiveness, and that failure to recognize a lethal situation, that allowed the gun to be taken in the first place.

As to the other deputies, I count them as equally negligent in their duties. I believe this is largely a case of:
a) bad training for the deputies
b) bad procedures for handling potentially violent prisoners
c) bad policy for not wearing body armor
d) bad policy for firearms in the courtroom (a remote stun belt is better)
e) bad luck

I don't think there's any question of taking this guy into custody. He's already demonstrated he's willing to shoot and he's probably going away forever if caught (I'd guess, perhaps incorrectly, that GA has the death penalty).

So there's no reason why this guy won't hold court in the the streets when authorities catch up.

If anybody wants to start a pool, I'll wager it happens at 8:20 tonight. EST.

I'll go one further. I think the general public should be enlisted in the hunt for this guy. I'm pretty sure that my neighbor who lets his dog bark all night looks suspicously like the suspect.
Yeah, and shooting is too easy. I suggest a lynch mob is gathered and he is stoned to death. That will show him next time!

I don't think there's any question of taking this guy into custody. He's already demonstrated he's willing to shoot and he's probably going away forever if caught (I'd guess, perhaps incorrectly, that GA has the death penalty).

So there's no reason why this guy won't hold court in the the streets when authorities catch up.

If anybody wants to start a pool, I'll wager it happens at 8:20 tonight.

Too bad he isn't here in Virgnia. We have the death penalty here.

Also, just because a jurisdiction doesn't have the death penalty, doesn't mean the police won't give you a lead shampoo when they find you.

I remember in the early 1980s, some young man killed an undercover policeman. The police in Washington DC (a notably liberal jurisdiction with no death penalty) went all out to find him. One day, he was in a cab and was stepping out when several undercover and uniformed police on the street recognized him and opened fire without a word. They found over fifty bullet holes in his body, and the cab was riddled (somehow, the driver was not hit).

I don't think the police there would let him live.

But the question is what time? How long can this guy run after shooting a judge? I think I'm generous by giving him another 4.5 hours.

But the question is what time? How long can this guy run after shooting a judge? I think I'm generous by giving him another 4.5 hours.

I figure by midnight.

I wonder why the judge was not down behind the kevlar lined desk :confused:

But the question is what time? How long can this guy run after shooting a judge? I think I'm generous by giving him another 4.5 hours.


I dunno, there was a bank robbery at a bank that was in the same building as an FBI office that is in charge of investigating bank robberies and they never caught the guys.

I wish I knew their secret.

don't you usually escort the suspect with handcuffs and at least two officers, thats in britian anyway. but then again we dont have many gun crimes

This would have never happened if they had put a stun belt on him.

Let the baliff hold the remote.

If he even looks cross-eyed, you let his genitals fry.

It's not like he could take something like that off and use it on someone else.

I dunno, there was a bank robbery at a bank that was in the same building as an FBI office that is in charge of investigating bank robberies and they never caught the guys.

I wish I knew their secret.

So what are you saying? Like never?

As a side note, only like 3% of guys who escape from custody last more than 6 months.

So what are you saying? Like never?

As a side note, only like 3% of guys who escape from custody last more than 6 months.

That's because "outlawry", as invented in Iceland, still works.

So what are you saying? Like never?

As a side note, only like 3% of guys who escape from custody last more than 6 months.


no, im saying "i dunno" :p

This would have never happened if they had put a stun belt on him.

Let the baliff hold the remote.

If he even looks cross-eyed, you let his genitals fry.

It's not like he could take something like that off and use it on someone else.
I have seen video of cops being tested with thoes

OMG lol makes a tazer look like a squirt gun (direct shock to the kidneys got to HURT)

I have seen video of cops being tested with thoes

OMG lol makes a tazer look like a squirt gun (direct shock to the kidneys got to HURT)

Yes, and if the guy knows anything about what you've strapped onto his jock, he's going to be an angel.

I don't think the police there would let him live.

I don't know. There is so much scrutiny when an officer shoots a criminal, that I think no matter how much any officer would want to shoot the guy without warning, if he or she isn't letting emotions get in the way, he/she won't just kill him on sight without him doping something first.

But, this may all be a moot point, because if this guy has killed so many so far, he is going to start shooting the minute he knows they have found him.

I agree with the remark that a taser is much more useful in a situation like this, but after watching a show on police weaponry and how it's evolved, I am more interested in the guns they are developing that will not fire unless the person handling the gun matches the information that iw programmed into the gun (DNA/fingerprint).

I know this is just reiterating what other people said, but I have to put my two cents in.
What the hell were they thinking? Whacking him in the head with a club or zapping him would have been quite effective, and would have been safer for everyone. Morons.

Yes, and if the guy knows anything about what you've strapped onto his jock, he's going to be an angel.
Not to mention full built in hand restraints (at least the ones I saw the hands were crossed palms down locked to belt)

The guns that work best for individual users rely on a ring that has an RFID chip in the ring, and a reader in the pistol. The RFID chip is given such a short range that if you're not holding the pistol correctly with the ring on, it won't fire.

So, if you're struggling for your own gun, and are holding it by the barrel, it won't fire.

If someone without the ring has the gun, it won't fire.

The problem is one of reliability. No law enforcement or military people want a gun that won't fire when they want it to. Evidently, the safety system will fail to fire when the user IS wearing the ring and IS holding the gun properly.

That's a problem.

For courtrooms, the stun belt is the easiest solution.

As far as I know, the reason he wasn't shackled was because they didn't want to impress the jury the wrong way, as he was on trial. If the guy doesn't act like a clown and tries to keep low, he could possibly make Mexico, if he goes all out it isn't too much of a drive from Atlanta.

To go on another sideline-I like the honesty of the reporter who got his Honda jacked. He not only includes the fact that he was clocked and fell to the ground, but that he got up and ran into a set of garbage cans. No embelishing to make himself look cool there (except refusing to get in the trunk)

As far as I know, the reason he wasn't shackled was because they didn't want to impress the jury the wrong way, as he was on trial. If the guy doesn't act like a clown and tries to keep low, he could possibly make Mexico, if he goes all out it isn't too much of a drive from Atlanta.
That is the reason people detest the stunbelt but it looks better then shackles at least (looks more like a weightlifters belt and most of them now can fit under cloths as long as the hand restraint function is not used)

For courtrooms, the stun belt is the easiest solution.
Or you can train the deputies in something actually useful - judo. Some dumbass gets out of hand and his ass gets handed to him

Or you can train the deputies in something actually useful - judo. Some dumbass gets out of hand and his ass gets handed to him
Judo? They should learn the art of teh samurai.

Judo? They should learn the art of teh samurai.
They can learn the art of Batman for all I care

Nichols is in Custody now.

Guns dont kill people. Bullets kill people! :D

*ducks*
That's what Chris Rock said and I love his idea. Instead of making strict gun control laws, just set the bullet prices for like 5000$ each. So all these people are gonna be pointing guns and saying, "I'd shoot you if I could afford it."

Then tomorrow they come back and say, "Guess what? I got a new bullet but I'm not gonna use it because there goes 5000$ down the hole."

That's what Chris Rock said and I love his idea. Instead of making strict gun control laws, just set the bullet prices for like 5000$ each. So all these people are gonna be pointing guns and saying, "I'd shoot you if I could afford it."

Then tomorrow they come back and say, "Guess what? I got a new bullet but I'm not gonna use it because there goes 5000$ down the hole."

It is too easy to manufacture ammunition.

I make my own projectiles, and I load my own cartridges to the tune of several thousand rounds per week.

It's the only way I can afford to practice. You couldn't make that idea work if you wanted to.

That's what Chris Rock said and I love his idea. Instead of making strict gun control laws, just set the bullet prices for like 5000$ each. So all these people are gonna be pointing guns and saying, "I'd shoot you if I could afford it."

Then tomorrow they come back and say, "Guess what? I got a new bullet but I'm not gonna use it because there goes 5000$ down the hole."

Besides, this guy used the deputy's gun.

Are you going to tax the police?

Wouldn't one obvious solution be to ban guns from court buildings. Then no matter who gets free, it's going to take them a whole lot of effort to kill someone.

If someone's being brought to the court from a prison, then there's no need for a gun as you'll have them in a secure situation. If someone's on trial but have been let out on bail, then they're obviously not dangerous enough to be watched over by armed deputies anyway.

I liked the fact that when he surrendered... our news reports "the Suspected shooter has been arrested." errr... several Eye-witnesses identified him... the police know who it is....why is he still suspected?

Guns dont kill people. Bullets kill people! :D

*ducks*
Guns don't kill people.
I kill people.

Wouldn't one obvious solution be to ban guns from court buildings. Then no matter who gets free, it's going to take them a whole lot of effort to kill someone.

Police can't wear their guns in the courthouses but Marshalls can. If Police had guns in the courthouses, this incident wouldn't have occured or that he wouldn't have gotten out of the courthouse.

If someone's being brought to the court from a prison, then there's no need for a gun as you'll have them in a secure situation. If someone's on trial but have been let out on bail, then they're obviously not dangerous enough to be watched over by armed deputies anyway.

Innocent until proven guilty. You take him out of his orange jumpsuit and cuffs and lead him/her into the courtroom. Lot of room for incidents especially when you have a 5'7 female on a 6'1 200 lb man.

Innocent until proven guilty. You take him out of his orange jumpsuit and cuffs and lead him/her into the courtroom. Lot of room for incidents especially when you have a 5'7 female on a 6'1 200 lb man.

But still the point stands that without any guns around it would be unlikely that he'd manage to kill anyone.

But still the point stands that without any guns around it would be unlikely that he'd manage to kill anyone.

Did you know that the day before this happened, he was caught trying to sneak in 2 homemade knives? Frankly, I think everyone should be armed in courthouses. Especially the Baliffs.

But still the point stands that without any guns around it would be unlikely that he'd manage to kill anyone.
Not to mention police/deputies/whoever should be TRAINED in something other than shoddy shooting skills they shouldn't be defaulting on, trqained in something like, oh I dunno, how to take down some one bigger than yourself in case you need to.

i live in Atlanta i knew that guy whould be cought. Most people arnt very smart. I mean he let the girl go. gezz idoit

Did you know that the day before this happened, he was caught trying to sneak in 2 homemade knives? Frankly, I think everyone should be armed in courthouses. Especially the Baliffs.

Not until now. I'm assuming he was checked either outside the courthouse, or in the foyer. You could still have no guns within the main building.

Not until now. I'm assuming he was checked either outside the courthouse, or in the foyer. You could still have no guns within the main building.

It is still easy to smuggle in a weapon. Frankly, the Baliffs should be armed to protect the justices.

Not until now. I'm assuming he was checked either outside the courthouse, or in the foyer. You could still have no guns within the main building.
Ignore Corneliu, you can defend yourself against small knives without the aid of a gun, obviously. Not to mention, last time I checked they had metal detectors and cops patting people down at the entrances to state buildings. How about we stop relying on guns and actually learn something useful that we may use without the guilt of needlessly killing some one being on your conscious

Ignore Corneliu, you can defend yourself against small knives without the aid of a gun, obviously. Not to mention, last time I checked they had metal detectors and cops patting people down at the entrances to state buildings. How about we stop relying on guns and actually learn something useful that we may use without the guilt of needlessly killing some one being on your conscious

I guess someone here doesn't realize that you don't need a metal gun to smuggle a gun into a place. Don't tell someone to ignore someone else either. We are having an intelligent conversation.

I guess someone here doesn't realize that you don't need a metal gun to smuggle a gun into a place. Don't tell someone to ignore someone else either. We are having an intelligent conversation.
That's disputable

That's disputable

Between us? Yea! Between us, you fail to see the otherside because it doesn't agree with your beliefs.

Between him/her and I, we are.

Everyone knows the common crook walks around with ice bullets and guns that don't set off metal detectors.

Everyone knows the common crook walks around with ice bullets and guns that don't set off metal detectors.


*sighs*

Don't believe me then. However, it is possible to make a gun to beat a metal detector. Put bullets into something else that is metal and put that thing in the little tray, and there you go. You smuggled in your gun and the bullets.

Everyone knows the common crook walks around with ice bullets and guns that don't set off metal detectors.

Wasn't the gun with ice bullets from one book in the Revelation Space series?

Wasn't the gun with ice bullets from one book in the Revelation Space series?
It was one some movie where Daymon Williams was an assassin or something

Police can't wear their guns in the courthouses but Marshalls can. If Police had guns in the courthouses, this incident wouldn't have occured or that he wouldn't have gotten out of the courthouse.



Innocent until proven guilty. You take him out of his orange jumpsuit and cuffs and lead him/her into the courtroom. Lot of room for incidents especially when you have a 5'7 female on a 6'1 200 lb man.

Hey, I'm a 5'7" female and I can shove open a door my 6'5" 300 pound roommate holds closed. You'd be surprised how much strength you get from being really pissed.

Hey, I'm a 5'7" female and I can shove open a door my 6'5" 300 pound roommate holds closed. You'd be surprised how much strength you get from being really pissed.

Here's a question, what if you get caught off guard? Getting blindsided severly hampers your reaction time.

I do want to know where that extra security was at that was requested by both the judge AND the DA.

Hey, I'm a 5'7" female and I can shove open a door my 6'5" 300 pound roommate holds closed. You'd be surprised how much strength you get from being really pissed.
And if you were trained in physical combat instead of how to just shoot some one

Hey, I'm a 5'7" female and I can shove open a door my 6'5" 300 pound roommate holds closed. You'd be surprised how much strength you get from being really pissed.
Pff. He should have know to wedge his foot against the bottom of the door. What kind of agitator is he? Every good older sibling knows that trick...


On topic-I don't believe in treating the accused like as a guilty person, however-once the cat tries to bring knives in certainly you should be allowed to treat him as a guy who tried to bring knives in a courtroom.

Hell, I tried to bring in a saxophone mouthpiece once and they almost tackled me. I was just there for a traffic ticket, too.

Listen, this is not about gun-control, you people are fucking OBSESSED. The first dman reply involved "here comes the anti-gun crowd" without a single reason to post it. You people need to get the fuck over the gun thing and get on topic. Shit, every post I see you make involves you blowing up in my face about some irrelevant shit and ranting about that.

Here is what we need in courtrooms - big people trained in hand-to-hand combat with billy clubs. If you have armed guards, shit like this can go down.

If you go back, I think you'll find I noted I was in error here. However, the reason for our comments is that this, like every other tragedy involving firearms, is inevitably going to be used to condemn firearms and their use and their very existance. OF COURSE the dude didn't stroll into court packing a nine, you dolts, it's just going to end up with someone saying "This just shows that guns have no place in our society, as he wouldn't have been able to do that if there had been no guns!". Which is true, but missing the point.

Anyways, they got the guy. Sadly seems like they didn't take him out then and there, but that opens the doors for some unpleasantries...

How about we stop relying on guns and actually learn something useful that we may use without the guilt of needlessly killing some one being on your conscious

I'm struggling to find the guilt in shooting a rapist (And now murderer) stone cold dead... really, I am. Except maybe that he didn't suffer enough.

Oh, and Bitchkitten? I get this weird feeling that it would have been the accused who was really pissed, and the officer was sorta just there.

Odds are this man can be sentenced to death 2-3 times over. Once at the Georgia state level for the judge, again for the reporter and the deputies. Again at the Federal level for killing a Federal agent. Odds are it will not be many years before this fellow walks his last mile.


As for the courtroom, I wonder if someone will suggest that judges begin to act like liquor store owners and keep a loaded pump shotgun concealed atop their bench?

Odds are this man can be sentenced to death 2-3 times over. Once at the Georgia state level for the judge, again for the reporter and the deputies. Again at the Federal level for killing a Federal agent. Odds are it will not be many years before this fellow walks his last mile.


As for the courtroom, I wonder if someone will suggest that judges begin to act like liquor store owners and keep a loaded pump shotgun concealed atop their bench?

Or arm the Baliffs and allow the cops to carry their firearms inside the courthouses of America.

If you go back, I think you'll find I noted I was in error here. However, the reason for our comments is that this, like every other tragedy involving firearms, is inevitably going to be used to condemn firearms and their use and their very existance. OF COURSE the dude didn't stroll into court packing a nine, you dolts, it's just going to end up with someone saying "This just shows that guns have no place in our society, as he wouldn't have been able to do that if there had been no guns!". Which is true, but missing the point.
This just shows there is no reason to have guns in a courthouse, even by the marshalls. Why don't we train them in something that will be helpful and not allow their guns in the court house? If some assassin sneaks in a anti-metal detector gun and bullets, it won't matter if they have guns will it because the person is obviously far better trained than the twit marshalls who got their gun stolen




I'm struggling to find the guilt in shooting a rapist (And now murderer) stone cold dead... really, I am. Except maybe that he didn't suffer enough.

They never convicted him of rape, this was the trial to decide it, I think they are going to ignore that charge after this point.

They never convicted him of rape, this was the trial to decide it, I think they are going to ignore that charge after this point.

No, that charge will still be there and the new charges will be added to it.

So I was watching my news channel over the weekend, and the newscaster says: "Atlanta courthouse gunman goes down like a coward."

Now I was reasonably assured, like the Legs feller, that this was going to end in a little ole fashioned gunplay. But it didn't.

My question to you all is what in tarnation are these newscasters doing saying things like: ". . . like a coward"? Would they rather he went out like a man? Are they impugning his masculinity cause he didn't kill a few cops on his way down? WTF?

This just shows there is no reason to have guns in a courthouse, even by the marshalls. Why don't we train them in something that will be helpful and not allow their guns in the court house? If some assassin sneaks in a anti-metal detector gun and bullets, it won't matter if they have guns will it because the person is obviously far better trained than the twit marshalls who got their gun stolen
So what do you do if the guy's friend comes in with one gun and kills everyone in the building?

And if you were trained in physical combat instead of how to just shoot some one

the female deputy was trained in physical combat, as are all police.

It doesn't do any good when someone fractures your skull, then takes your gun and shoots your jaw off.

You have to be ready for the attack, or it won't matter what you know.

I have a demonstration that I do for my class about once a month.

I have a pistol in my waistband, and they get to attack me. The pistol is unloaded.

Even when attacked from behind, if I know the attack is coming, I always have the pistol out first and the hammer falls on the empty chamber BEFORE anyone can touch me.

It's a lesson that I teach - you don't go up against a man with a gun who is READY to use it.

You have to wait until someone is NOT READY.

If he's READY, you're as good as dead. You stand a better chance trying to run away if you can.

Not to mention police/deputies/whoever should be TRAINED in something other than shoddy shooting skills they shouldn't be defaulting on, trqained in something like, oh I dunno, how to take down some one bigger than yourself in case you need to.

Most courts in the US forbid the criminal from being in shackles during his actual trial. That's why she took his shackles off - so he could put on a three-piece suit.

Most jurisdictions use a stun belt - you put the belt on around the waist and groin. It comes with a remote. You mess with anything, and your genitals get 100,000 volts.

Atlanta doesn't have them, but I bet they will now. The belt is on under your clothes, so it doesn't influence the jury by its appearance.

Most police don't train often because they work a lot of overtime already. They don't workout, don't fight at a dojo, and don't spend time at the range unless they have to.

I know that I personally fire more rounds per year than my entire county police force does in a year. And I know I'm a much, much better shot.