|
Post by Clipper on Apr 29, 2011 15:14:56 GMT -5
www.uticaod.com/breaking/x729225263/Cooperstown-teen-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-murderI guess it is a "just" end to a very sad situation. I have to agree that the boy belongs in prison, but it is terribly sad that a youth has to start his adult life in a correctional facility. It is also sad that the Lippitt boy must start HIS adult life with a memory of such race related horror. Do we blame violence on television? Video games? Poor parenting that resulted in racist beliefs? Something somewhere along the line has left this boy with the idea that it was okay to shoot a fellow human being. That in itself speaks volumes of what goes through young minds in these troubled times.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Apr 29, 2011 16:05:29 GMT -5
The fact that his attorney even contemplated a plea tells me the mental illness defense was total bullshit to begin with. He may have issues NOW after he shot himself, but highly unlikely when he went after and shot Lippett.
They ought to toss his father in with him for having the nerve to put up signs asking to save his son.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 29, 2011 16:12:57 GMT -5
When appropriate, it's the attorney's duty to advise the accused that he'd better plead because his case won't prevail in front of a jury. That is different than the attorney not believing in the truthfulness of the defendant. As for the father, I have to assume he believed he was in the right in his efforts to save his son.
In any event, it is an unfortunate case and had the shooter not had access to a gun we'd be looking at a lot less serious crime. I'm a gun owner and I do not care for the government controlling my guns, but here we have a case where control from anywhere would have helped. Like at home.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 29, 2011 17:27:15 GMT -5
Is this a case of gun access because the father didn't have his guns in a locked cabinet and didn't have trigger locks on his weapon? I don't think so. I always had my guns locked up with both trigger locks and a gun cabinet, and the one time that one of my boys managed to get his hands on a 22 we had bought for him and take it out without supervision, the 22 was taken away and sold. Made a big impression as to how seriously I took gun issues and how serious I was about controlling their use. No kids here any more, and I have two weapons loaded for self defense, safety on and no round in the chamber.
Simple enough for me. Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and people that are that damned stupid deserve to rot in prison to make sure that they get the message that shooting fellow humans is not an acceptable behavior.
If this kid was intent on killing black people, he would have simply used a metal bat, or a knife, or ran over him with a car, had he not had access to a gun. The victim was probably lucky that a small caliber weapon was used rather than smacking the kid in the head with an aluminum bat. This isn't a gun issue. It is an idiot issue, and the idiot is going to jail to be reprogrammed, however sad that may be. Hopefully the reprogramming will set the lad on the right path.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 29, 2011 20:32:36 GMT -5
When appropriate, it's the attorney's duty to advise the accused that he'd better plead because his case won't prevail in front of a jury. That is different than the attorney not believing in the truthfulness of the defendant. As for the father, I have to assume he believed he was in the right in his efforts to save his son. It's the attorney's duty to advise the client on his best options. But, the client bears the ultimate decision of whether to accept a plea to go to trial. At least in a criminal trial, you don't have to have the defendant testify. Regardless, while you cannot elicit perjurious testimony, you have to let the client testify in narrative form, e.g. What is your recollection of the events of that day? <long-winded answer> Then what happened? <long-winded answer> And after that? <long-winded answer> Anything else? <long-winded answer> In any event, it is an unfortunate case and had the shooter not had access to a gun we'd be looking at a lot less serious crime. I'm a gun owner and I do not care for the government controlling my guns, but here we have a case where control from anywhere would have helped. Like at home. I disagree. It appears this kid was hellbent on trying to kill this boy. If not a gun, substitute an axe, machete, bat, or truck! Remember, a criminal is intent on breaking the law, no matter the cost. If this kid went as far as to obtain a firearm, load it, hunt the boy down, and pull the trigger, it is irrelevant that he held a gun. Nothing was going to stop this kid from accomplishing his goal.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 29, 2011 20:39:57 GMT -5
He admitted that it WAS motivated by race and hate. What more does anyone have to hear to know that he was guilty as hell and that he would have found a way to kill this young black lad. Instead of recovering after surgery or the 22 cal. bullet wound, he would be a vegetable after taking a beating with an aluminum bat instead.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 29, 2011 21:29:15 GMT -5
Well, I'm certainly not arguing that the kid should be forgiven the minor indiscretion of taking aim at a fellow human being and pulling the gun's trigger! And I'm not advocating gun control. My point is that had the gun not been available to him, it's possible things would have taken a different path. This is not a thought we should run from, rather we have to face it. As Second Amendment advocates, we cannot ignore the misuse of guns and I believe we still have a responsibility to discuss the best ways to keep them out of the hands of those who should not have them. That doesn't mean we side with the "Brady bunch" and outlaw the private ownership of guns, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 29, 2011 22:15:46 GMT -5
It's not about gun control Dave. It is about common sense when it comes to kids gaining access to guns. Simple common sense tells a responsible gun owner that guns should be locked up and secured where there are kids or teens present.
However sad, it is not a case of further restricting gun rights in order to avoid such a situation. Other countries have 12 and 14 year olds carrying guns and killing people as soldiers and terrorists. We are lucky to live in a land where that is not prevalent or acceptable.
Would there have been a lesser crime if he didn't have the gun? Not necessarily. If his hatred had festered to that point he may have snuck up behind the boy and cut his throat with a Case knife or steak knife. He might have thrown gasoline on the kid and tossed a match. We can't legislate or prevent all crimes. Sometimes we are forced to accept the idea that sad shit happens and disgusting crimes are committed by disgusting people with extreme and radical thoughts and motives. If he was hell bent on killing a black person, he would have found some way ot Git'r done.
However sad it is to see this whole thing play out. A black kid lives his life knowing that it is a world where people hate so badly that they attempt to kill people simply because they are a different color, and another teen goes to prison for 11 years because he doesn't have respect for human life or equality among races.
Hopefully seeing this baby faced youngster going away in shackles to serve 11 years in prison will deter some other young kids from performing any such horrific acts.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 29, 2011 23:44:55 GMT -5
It's not about gun control Dave. It is about common sense when it comes to kids gaining access to guns. Simple common sense tells a responsible gun owner that guns should be locked up and secured where there are kids or teens present. Exactly. What would you say to legislation (if it doesn't already exist) that would make the parent of a child in such a situation criminally liable for wanton disregard of safety in leaving a gun unlocked in a house with children under 18? Would that be "gun control" in the manner we usually think of and oppose? Or would it be the proper care an elected government takes to protect citizens from harm, such as treating reckless driving as a crime.
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Apr 30, 2011 5:37:41 GMT -5
Dave, I would say no to that legislation. I was 8 when I got my first BB gun. By the time I was 15, I had 4 or 5 rifles and shotguns of my own and could go shooting or hunting whenever I wanted (Seasons permitting, if I had ammo and my homework was done).
Me and my friends were responsible Gun Owners long before we were of legal age to drink beer or drive on the road. That came through Education and close oversight of my early hunting and target practicing days. I like trigger locks but they weren't cheap and they do restrict my own access to them as well as others. Most of my Firearms are locked in some manner or another and I don't even have kids in the house regularly or untended ever, that should be my choice, not a law.
Truth is, unless the key ring was around my neck 24/7 I would not have unhindered access or control over them, I cant carry that many keys with me all the time, I would need a tool belt! Before we try more restrictive laws, we should require education for everyone while they are young!
Teach them early what the real dangers, safety and acceptable applications of force are. Right now, kids are taught about these things Via Video Games, Television and the Cinema. In school they learn immediately that Guns are Evil and Dangerous but never how they can be safe to own and use. It is truly the ignorant human element that makes them a danger to anyone, not informed citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
I truly believe that education is paramount to the safe exercise of many legal and time honored traditions and rights of passage. Most things we do in life could and do pose risks, we don't tell kids they can never do these things, we teach them how to do them safely. From the moment they can talk and listen, we teach them safety and the inherent dangers of Web Surfing, Food, Alcohol, Driving, Crossing roads, climbing trees, swimming, boating and RVing, why not Weapon Safety?
When children, teens and tweens are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities, they most often choose the right paths. When they dont and some won't, we unfortunately must prosecute them for their crime and finish the education for those who are still learning,"This is what happens if you break these laws".
Parents now a days believe if they just tell kids no and forbid discussion and access, the kid will do what they are told. Its never been the case before, why would that work now?
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Apr 30, 2011 5:51:40 GMT -5
Dave, I thought such laws do exist where the parents or gun owners do have the responsibility of keeping their weapons secured. At least to me, someone who doesn't even own a firearm, it would seem very logical to keep a firearm locked up. There is a certain amount of responsibility that comes with owning certain property. If you loaned your car out to someone and they got into an accident, its going to fall on your insurance and therefore your liability. Not criminal liability but civil in the least. I think it is a fair conclusion that gun owners should be responsible to keep weapons secured and if they don't they should be held liable. I believe in the 2nd amendment and I also believe it carries a big responsibility with it, which is why I've never exercised that right. I just have not wanted to take on that responsibility as yet in my life. I am in total agreement with Clip on that if he were so hellbent on killing, he would have found other means to do it. Firing a gun just makes it easier to not have to get up close and personal. You can visualize just about anything being used as a weapon. Hell, he could have beaten the kid to death with the receiver from a payphone. However, it is also possible that the easy access to a gun made the decision to go after someone that much easier to make. www.wktv.com/news/local/120899334.htmlAnd yet his family still cannot accept the fact that it was racially motivated.
|
|
|
Post by corner on Apr 30, 2011 7:05:18 GMT -5
It's not about gun control Dave. It is about common sense when it comes to kids gaining access to guns. Simple common sense tells a responsible gun owner that guns should be locked up and secured where there are kids or teens present. Exactly. What would you say to legislation (if it doesn't already exist) that would make the parent of a child in such a situation criminally liable for wanton disregard of safety in leaving a gun unlocked in a house with children under 18? Would that be "gun control" in the manner we usually think of and oppose? Or would it be the proper care an elected government takes to protect citizens from harm, such as treating reckless driving as a crime. already on the books
|
|
|
Post by corner on Apr 30, 2011 7:09:19 GMT -5
could have just as easily run him over with a truck there must be a back story to this, as well. he was targeting blacks in particular did one steal his girl friend was there previous altercations lots of potential issues here unless he is just some nut job who woke up on day and said im gonna kill me a black man today. bottom line is hes going where he belongs and guess what, hes the minoiity there i give it 2 months before they find him hanging after they make him toss a little salad
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 30, 2011 8:33:20 GMT -5
I won't argue the point that if he really wanted to maim or kill the other kid there are certainly a number of means for him to do so. However, I'll maintain that shooting ... if you have access to a gun ... is probably going to be the easiest way to off an opponent of any size or ability, and from a safe distance if you can aim. And I'm sure at least a few of us can think of times when had we a gun in our hand bad things might have happened.
Corner, I suspected there must be such a law on the books. After all, it's a natural. I wonder if it will be applied in this case.
So, just to sum up: 1. I don't think the kid is innocent. It appears he is guilty. 2. I'm not in favor of gun control, but 3. I recognize that there may have to be some restrictions for safety purposes and I think this is certainly a field ripe for argument!
JG, I think the day is unfortunately long gone when all of us 13 year olds ran around the country side with our .22 guns slung from our bikes.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 30, 2011 9:20:13 GMT -5
I think it would help if we knew how he obtained the gun. I have not completely followed this story. But I remember the kid entered a police station with the firearm and tried shooting the victim before barricading himself in aother part of the station to attempt to take his own life.
If he took it from his father's stash, then his father should be investigated to see how he stores them. If he stole it from somewhere else, then no amount of laws will prevent that. Criminals, by definition do not follow the law.
|
|