If any other state but UT

Guns are often featured in the news media. Here you can post links to such news items and discuss them.

If any other state but UT

Postby AlanM » Sun 18 Dec 2016 5:18 am

If this had happened in any other state, the officer would have waited outside for several hours for backup.

Image

This happened over 2 weeks ago but the body camera footage has just been released.
Utah Police Release Body Cam Video in School Shooting Incident

The original story:
Police say student, teacher jumped into action after shot fired at Bountiful school
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
AlanM
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sat 02 Jun 2012 10:07 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby D-FIN » Sun 18 Dec 2016 8:50 pm

I just have to say "way to go!" for those parents who actually noticed something was not right and investigated. They are the heros who stopped this incident from being something much worse. The officer was quick and cautious and was able to take control without being a dick about anything. Overall great job!
You can't win the sheep over to your side if your always showing them your fangs.

NRA RSO
D-FIN
Sniper
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat 29 Dec 2012 8:39 pm

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby DaKnife » Mon 19 Dec 2016 4:00 am

Good job to the parents, but I have to dispute Alan's claim that in any other state the officer would have waited for several hours for backup. that hasn't been the case since Columbine.

An officer is not going to go in alone, he will wait for one additional officer then they will move in as a team offering support, or at most they will wait until they have a four man fire team then move in. But the old doctrine of waiting for SWAT to form and roll out is dead and has been for 20 years.

Good job to both the Parents and the officer, but mostly the Parents who were aware enough to recognize a problem immediately and acted to stop it.
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby gravedancer » Mon 19 Dec 2016 4:43 pm

DaKnife wrote:Good job to the parents, but I have to dispute Alan's claim that in any other state the officer would have waited for several hours for backup. that hasn't been the case since Columbine.

An officer is not going to go in alone, he will wait for one additional officer then they will move in as a team offering support, or at most they will wait until they have a four man fire team then move in. But the old doctrine of waiting for SWAT to form and roll out is dead and has been for 20 years.

Good job to both the Parents and the officer, but mostly the Parents who were aware enough to recognize a problem immediately and acted to stop it.


Id have to partially disagree on the good job to the parents. While its good that they noticed something was off with their son that morning and started checking for missing firearms in the house, its bad that the teen had unrestricted access to the firearms in the first place, and it wouldnt surprise me if the parents eventually end up getting charged with something over that.
Image
http://bit.ly/2vHUiug will get you around the auto filtering of the domain on this site
gravedancer
Sniper
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2011 1:46 pm

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby Luv10mm » Mon 19 Dec 2016 5:07 pm

gravedancer wrote:Id have to partially disagree on the good job to the parents. While its good that they noticed something was off with their son that morning and started checking for missing firearms in the house, its bad that the teen had unrestricted access to the firearms in the first place, and it wouldnt surprise me if the parents eventually end up getting charged with something over that.


Sadly, I tend to agree. It's not enough to have your kid go to juvi and to know he likely has mental illness, you also have to endure a trial or similar to show you it's your fault. I'm saying this sarcastically, but with a strong hint of truism.

Sigh, a sad/scary situation all around.
Luv10mm
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri 16 Jul 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby althor » Mon 19 Dec 2016 7:33 pm

gravedancer wrote:
DaKnife wrote:Good job to the parents, but I have to dispute Alan's claim that in any other state the officer would have waited for several hours for backup. that hasn't been the case since Columbine.

An officer is not going to go in alone, he will wait for one additional officer then they will move in as a team offering support, or at most they will wait until they have a four man fire team then move in. But the old doctrine of waiting for SWAT to form and roll out is dead and has been for 20 years.

Good job to both the Parents and the officer, but mostly the Parents who were aware enough to recognize a problem immediately and acted to stop it.


Id have to partially disagree on the good job to the parents. While its good that they noticed something was off with their son that morning and started checking for missing firearms in the house, its bad that the teen had unrestricted access to the firearms in the first place, and it wouldnt surprise me if the parents eventually end up getting charged with something over that.


What do you know about how much access the teen had? What, to you, constitutes 'unrestricted access'? What law prevents a teen from having access?
User avatar
althor
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu 11 Oct 2007 10:50 am
Location: West Jordan

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby justBeth » Mon 19 Dec 2016 11:43 pm

In the original new stories it was made clear that the firearms were locked in the safe, that the teen did not have access, and that the parents did not know how he had obtained access. As a parent who has raised teens, they can be a sneaky lot and it is unfair to assume that they allowed their child to have access. I am very impressed with how they responded before, during and after the incident.
While others have pointed out that police no longer stage and wait for large numbers to respond it is important to note that normally high schools in Utah have an armed resource officer stationed in the school. Sometimes the officer is responsible for 2 schools close together, but not usually. It didn't sound like the first on scene officer was a school resource officer but he likely would have expected another officer to already be on scene and in need of backup. In any case he handled the situation extremely well, I hope his actions are held up as an example for other agencies.
justBeth
Novice
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun 22 Dec 2013 12:46 am
Location: Magna, UT

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby bagpiper » Tue 20 Dec 2016 1:15 pm

Luv10mm wrote:
gravedancer wrote:Id have to partially disagree on the good job to the parents. While its good that they noticed something was off with their son that morning and started checking for missing firearms in the house, its bad that the teen had unrestricted access to the firearms in the first place, and it wouldnt surprise me if the parents eventually end up getting charged with something over that.


Sadly, I tend to agree. It's not enough to have your kid go to juvi and to know he likely has mental illness, you also have to endure a trial or similar to show you it's your fault. I'm saying this sarcastically, but with a strong hint of truism.

Sigh, a sad/scary situation all around.


I have to respectfully, but very firmly disagree with both of you in the general case, and in this specific case given what information we have reported so far.

So-called "safe storage" laws which quickly become "strict liability" laws impose tremendous costs on gun ownership. And I'm not talking about the cost of the safe or even the cost of moving the safe. I'm talking about bankrupting, go to prison, never get a good job again in your life kind of costs.

The gun grabbers have been pushing strict liability (they like to call it "safe storage") laws for a while now precisely because they know that such laws will turn into effective bans on most people being able to own, much less carry guns. And parents will be at higher risk than the childless. Well, who transmits the pro-RKBA culture to the next generation? Certainly not the schools, ministers, or Hollywood these days.

A generation ago, the gun grabbers really targeted hunting. Hunting the reason that many persons were part of the RKBA culture. A generation before that, they attacked shooting clubs and ranges in public high schools and colleges. They also attacked ROTC and JrROTC. Our opponents--the very enemies of human freedom--are and always have been in this for the long game. When they managed to undermine the citizen-militia mindset, and with the post-Vietnam era moving from conscription to all volunteer military, RKBA culture really shifted from militia and military preparedness to just hunting. As the urbanization of the nation continued, hunting became less common.

It was the skyrocketing violent crime of the 90s, with the subsequent shift to non-discriminatory issuance of carry permits, and the federal ban on scary looking guns that really shifted RKBA to solidly self-defense, opening up large segments of urban and suburban populations. These folks might never hunt, might have zero interest in military service, but they value an effective self-defense.

Notice that nobody suggest that when a kid who shows up with a knife at school and attacks people that he should never have access to that knife. Nobody suggest the parents should be liable because he had access. Similarly when kids kill themselves and friends with poor driving. Unless the parents actively served the kids alcohol, or turned a complete blind eye to use of alcohol in their homes, almost nobody suggest that the parents should be held liable for the carnage created by teenage drivers. Readily available automobile liability insurance will cover the financial costs, and parents almost never face any risk of criminal charges over the bad driving of their teenagers.

Imposing a higher standard of liability when the tool involved is a constitutionally protected item is completely "bass ackwards".

We must not accept any higher level of liability or duty of care than we would accept for our car keys, gasoline, household chemicals, or household drugs (either OTC or Rx).

Now, the one exception I will make is when a situation is unusual and clearly warrants special precautions.

If one has a drug addict living in the house, then one is probably well advised to keep all drugs that can be abused locked up...and maybe nail down everything that might be stolen and sold to support the habit. If someone in the household is prone to cutting or other abuse of self, similar precautions regarding other household items is warranted. If a teenager or other household member is suicidal, violent, or criminal, then one should lock up his guns. If a felon or other firearms prohibited persons live in the home, they legally must not have constructive possession of firearms.

But lacking these types of situations?

My children are--so far as I've been able to discern--reasonably well adjusted, healthy, law-abiding, and so on. I don't think a thing about leaving my car keys on the table. Medicine is kept in a cabinet beyond reach of young visitors, but fully accessible to everyone in my household. I keep a couple of 5 gallon cans of gasoline in the garage for law mowers and ATVs.

Most of my guns are kept in a safe to prevent theft. But the home defense shotgun and my EDC piece are not. The EDC gun is on my person, or placed on a high shelf near my bed when I'm sleeping or showering. I could get some kind of quick open safe for it. But why? I have no rational, objective reason to need to secure it from anyone in my household.

But there are those who would hit me with both criminal and civil strict liability if it isn't secured and someone in my home goes off the rails without any warning at all.

Worse, there are those who would hit me with strict liability--criminal and civil--if anyone ever gets a hold of my guns regardless of how they are stored. IOW, the fact that my gun was misused becomes prima facia evidence that I failed to secure it. It matters not how it was stored. If someone, anyone, got to it, it wasn't secure enough. So trigger locks, inside a safe, inside a locked storage room with alarms, becomes insufficient to protect me against liability.

If you think I'm exaggerating, ask yourself, honestly, how much you know or knew about how the guns in this story were stored before condemning the parents for not having them secured sufficiently. For you two, I suspect that you known the kid had to spend 2 hours cutting into a safe or had somehow stolen the combo, you'd be more forgiving. But many won't be.

It is the same mindset that says "there are not accidents, only negligence." Well, we can't just drive down the freeway at 15 mph in case there is black ice. In total, that is more dangerous than driving 55 or 65 or even 75 most days. Even with cold temps, one simply cannot slow down slow enough to prevent a likely spin out if there is a patch of ice.

In the case at hand, the kid has zero prior record so far as we can tell. Nothing has been reported to suggest his parents should have been taking unusual precautions with their guns. And, its been reported that the guns used were usually kept in a safe. Whether they were out for some reason, or whether the kid somehow gained unauthorized access we don't know.

But with what we do know, there is zero reason to condemn the parents at all. Something may surface to change that. But nothing so far.

If we accept strict liability for gun owners, we will end up with very few of us able to afford the risk of gun ownership.

Apologies for the length of this post. I hope at least a few read it and think about it. With Heller and McDonald in hand, with the majority of States being non-discriminatory in the issuance of permits, and with a growing number moving toward permit-free carry, THIS issue of liability for gun owners is the next great battle we face, along with universal registration.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby DaKnife » Wed 21 Dec 2016 2:12 am

:agree:
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby Luv10mm » Wed 21 Dec 2016 5:10 pm

Sorry, I should have only quoted the last part of gravedancer's comment. "I tend to agree" that the parents may end up in court over this, and I don't think it will help anything. I don't really have an opinion about the parenting and access to firearms itself. Honestly sounds like they did a pretty good job.

I agree with bagpiper that safe storage laws are sketchy at best, and unfairly affect the poor. As someone who grew up with accessible firearms all over the house, the whole concept of locking up guns cause the teenagers are gonna go loony or shoot someone, is very foreign to me. Plus, I don't think government should be telling me I have to do it. Let common sense and reason dictate. These comments aren't meant in any way to dismiss the difficult issue of mental illness and how it may relate to RKBA.
Luv10mm
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri 16 Jul 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Re: If any other state but UT

Postby D-FIN » Wed 21 Dec 2016 5:11 pm

By teenage years unless you have a specific reason to I see no reason for teens not to know where the guns are and how to use them. If I'm not home and there is home invasion I want them to also have a chance to defend themselves. The responsibility is to teach the kids safety and how to handle the firearms.

The problem here is not the kid had firearms. The problem is why did the kid feel heed needed a firearm to solve whatever problem he was having. Could be he had some sort of meant break but most likely he was being tormented by other kids and I'm sorry to say sometimes even teachers to the point of breaking. If you want to stop this kind of violence you have to stop the triggers that cause it. Available guns at home are no the triggers. Bullying is huge problem in schools and I'm sorry to say this but many teachers just freaking ignore it because they don't want to get in the middle of it. We need to teach our kids that its ok to speak up to both parents and teachers and administrators about issues. Then parents need to do something about it. Too many times schools let things keep happening because they have no proof of whats going on or don't have the power to do anything. Well something needs to be done. That may mean we have cameras in all the common areas of the schools to capture and document incidents one they are reported.
You can't win the sheep over to your side if your always showing them your fangs.

NRA RSO
D-FIN
Sniper
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat 29 Dec 2012 8:39 pm


Return to Guns in the News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest