Kansas City Fireman Loses It

[mikeb302000]

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/12/3073695/firefighter-allegedly-waves-gun.html">The Kansas City Star reports

A few minutes later, the man showed up in the station with a gun and “began waving it back and forth and pointing it at” four firefighters who were sitting in a common area. The man “stated he was going to shoot them all,” police reports said.

The fire captain told the man to put his gun away. The man complied and left.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">The One Strike You're Out Rule is quite flexible on the question of jail time. In many cases it could result in none, this case for example, should probably require psychiatric treatment rather than incarceration.

The part which is not flexible is the loss of gun rights. You do something like this, one time, and you never again own guns legally. It's simple.

Some may consider that severe, but first consider a couple things. What this fireman did was a heartbeat away from murder. If he'd pulled the trigger, even unintentionally in his ranting and waving the gun around, no one would object to the loss of gun rights. I say there is so little difference between that and what actually happened that he's guilty of one strike.

Imagine what would happen if we removed guns from everyone who commits any offense of any kind. Imagine how many second and third offenses would be avoided, some of which would have been worse than the first. The result would be that the pool of gun owners would be of a higher quality. Everyone wins.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

5. "the firemen involved all declined to press charges"

What is this, the middle ages?

Do firemen, or anyone else, "press charges" where you're at?

Where I'm at, it's the police who investigate and lay charges where a crime is determined to have been committed, and the prosecution service that prosecutes the accused.

So basically you're saying ... what?

That if someone threatens a bunch of people with a gun and they all "decline to press charges" ... for whatever reason ... the person should be left to wander the streets with a gun?

Maybe next time it won't be firemen he threatens. Maybe it will be his wife, and he'll do more than threaten. But who cares?

This is an example of a nice thing about requiring a licence for firearms possession.

If it is determined that prosecuting would not be in the public interest, the licence can be revoked without the person ending up with a serious criminal conviction in a situation that may be more a matter of mental health problems than criminal conduct.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

9. try speaking in little words, you may have more success

Who lays charges when a crime is committed in Kansas City? Who is the prosecutor when a crime is committed in Kansas City?

The victim? A witness? Joe the barber?

Think hard now.

Is the situation different from where I'm at?

I don't think so.

In the middle ages, and before that, there was no criminal law as we know it. There was no public prosecution or public prosecutor. Things changed.


Maybe there won't be a next time. Maybe they'll get him some help. Maybe pigs will fly.

Maybe an individual who threatens other people with a firearm should not have firearms.

Yeah, I think that was it. Sorry if the concept was too complex for you.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

17. educate me

Well it looks like you'll have to educate yourself a little more on the American justice system. Very obvious that the victims in this case have a say in the matter. As well they should.

C'mon. Chapter and verse. Where is that laid out?

Explain to me how it works when the victims are threatened by the accused after the incident and decide not to "prosecute" as a result of the threats.



edited to clarify question

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

19. no need

I know that in the USofA and its various states, victims/witnesses are not prosecutors.

You can pretend to think otherwise, and thus make yourself look foolish, all you like.

Shall I prove to you that the earth is not flat, too? I can't possibly know what weird and wonderful nonsense you might claim to believe next, but I assure you, I do not plan on undertaking to disabuse you of whatever other strange notions you might hold.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

25. Maybe an individual who threatens other people with a firearm should not have firearms.

Normally I disagree w/ every thing you post. This however, is 100% spot on.

Carry on

[RSillsbee]

24. As a former lawyer you should know

there's no point in trying a case when all your witnesses pretty much tell you they won't be testifying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Say it ain't so!

We got laws about that rubber hose stuff but isn't that only for the accused?
I thought we could still victimize witnesses.

Go figure.

[-..__...]

29. So... do we revoke their license before they're found guilty...

or after they're found innocent?

[iverglas]

35. since a licensing scheme has precisely bugger all to do with criminal law

you revoke a licence when grounds for revoking it, according to the eligibility criteria set out in legislatiion/regulations, are determined to exist.

You may have noticed how things work this way with licensing schemes.

[-..__...]

41. Suspend/deny someones Constitional right...

based on the determination of some politically appointed bureaucrat?

I don't think so.

[iverglas]

45. don't think what you like

Don't be pretending I said it, though.

It really is sad, how so few people seem capable of civil discourse.

[mikeb302000]

56. sho said a politically appointed person? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

44. We already have that.

If it is determined that prosecuting would not be in the public interest, the licence can be revoked without the person ending up with a serious criminal conviction in a situation that may be more a matter of mental health problems than criminal conduct.

If the person is involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent, then he can't legally own firearms.

[iverglas]

46. I say "A"

You say "Y"

and never the twain shall be related.

[iverglas]

3. oh look, it's civil discourse!

Look while you can, anyhow.

[gejohnston]

6. you mentioned your "one strike rule" before.

have anything new to add? Heartbeat away from murder if it were loaded. Since he was escorted to a mental hospital (depending if he admitted himself or sent by a judge) that may or may not turn out to be a one strike situation.

[mikeb302000]

12. since the "one strike" thing is my idea

I get to decide who violates it. This fireman certainly did. What are you trying to say actually, that what he did was OK, that he should continue to own firearms?

[gejohnston]

28. simply saying that you are being redundant

and that simply showing obvious examples of violators does not add anything to the debate. Where would you get that I said what he did was OK?

[rrneck]

49. Who gives a fuck what you decide?

You just said more than you realize.

[petronius]

7. That's pretty solid logic. Do you apply it to other situations as well:

DUI? Assault? Child neglect? Construction fraud? Other? :shrug:

[iverglas]

10. maybe you can demonstrate this

Just, you know, hypothetically.

How would this logic apply to

DUI? Assault? Child neglect? Construction fraud? Other?

I think it does, to DUI. I think you lose your driver's licence. Not for life the first time, but then there actually is a distinction here.

Oh, well, you may say you think that driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.01 over the legal limit is equivalent to threatening a group of people with a firearm. And that denying someone permission to possess firearms for life is equivalent to denying permission to drive for life ... because possessing firearms is such an integral part of modern life that many people could not, oh, hold jobs otherwise. G'head. I won't really care.

Child neglect? I think a supervision requirement will commonly be imposed, and any subsequent children will be included if a risk is determined to exist.

Construction fraud? I dunno. If the fraud jeopardizes life and limb, I think there might be some pulling of licences or the like.

I just can't really tell what you were getting at, though. What were you getting at?

[petronius]

11. "I just can't really tell what you were getting at, though."

Really? Then you should try harder. Or pretend less...

[mikeb302000]

13. no, only guns.

[Kennah]

50. At least you're honest about your irrational hatred

[SteveM]

51. Yep, truth outs. nt

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tortoise1956]

15. This rule is too inflexible

If a person is found to be guilty of a violent offense such as battery or armed robbery, or if a formal evaluation finds someone to be mentally unsound, then I agree that they should take away the right to own guns. That would certainly seem to apply in this case. However, not all crimes rise to this level. Examples would be non-violent misdemeanors such as petty theft, possession of marijuana, or check kiting.

There are already laws on the books that mandate any felony conviction will result in the automatic forfeiture of second amendment rights. The main problem is that the court system is overloaded, which results in many felonies being reduced to misdemeanors through the plea-bargaining process.

[iverglas]

20. yeah, that's another great thing about a licensing scheme

Individuals can be considered on their own merits and record.

In Canada, the only actual disqualifying factor for a firearms permit is an actual firearms prohibition order, which is made as a term of an individual offender's sentence for a particular offence, commonly a firearms offence, a crime of violence or a drug-related offence.

This blanket "forfeiture of rights", that's just not how things are done in modern liberal democracies ... apart from making no sense ...

[tortoise1956]

22. A serious question

I'm not sure if you agree with me or not. It's late, and my mind is a little (Ok, a lot) fuzzy. I think we are in agreement on this rule being unnecessarily harsh.

I went on the internet and found the following link.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003494

At one point it states that prohibition orders are mandatory for certain crimes, and discretionary for others. If this is true, then Canadian law is similar to American law concerning forfeiture of the ability to own a gun.

However, I don't know if this is a valid website or not, or even if it's accurate. Can you tell me if this is a trustworthy source?

[iverglas]

36. quick summary here

http://www.gnb.ca/0227/ppom/PDF/Sentencing_DPP23.pdf

Offence Grid re Firearms Prohibition

Mandatory Prohibition Order

Criminal Code, section 109 applies to the following

• an indictable offence punishable by at least ten years imprisonment, in which violence against a person was used, threatened, or attempted;
• one of the following Criminal Code offences-
s. 85: using a firearm or imitation during the commission of an offence
s.95(1): possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
s.99(1): weapons trafficking
s.100(1): possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking
s.102(1): making an automatic firearm
s.103(1): importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized
s.264: criminal harassment
• drug trafficking offences contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (ss. 5(3) and (4), 6(3) and 7(2));
• any offence involving a firearm or other regulated items which, at the time of the offence, the offender was prohibited from possessing pursuant to a prohibition order.

Discretionary Prohibition Order

Criminal Code, section 110 applies to the following

• a summary conviction offence involving actual, threatened, or attempted violence an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of less than ten years involving actual, threatened, or attempted violence
• an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of less than ten years involving actual, threatened, or attempted violence
• an offence committed by an individual who was not subject to a prohibition order at the time of the offence, and which involved a firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, any kind of ammunition, or an explosive substance

Discretionary orders may last for any period up to ten years

In determining whether a discretionary prohibition order should be issued, the issue for the Court is whether it is desirable in the interests of the safety of any person to make such an order.

If, in the circumstances outlined in s 110(1) of the Criminal Code, the Court does not make a prohibition order, or makes an order prohibiting the possession of only some items, the Court is required to give reasons pursuant to s 110(3)of the Criminal Code.

The actual Code in slightly more opaque language is here:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-45.html#h-45

For a mandatory prohibition order
- first offence - for life, as regards restricted and prohibited firearms/weapons (includes handguns and some semi-auto rifles); ends 10 years after release from prison, as regards other firearms (ordinary sorts of long arms)
- subsequent offences - for life in all cases

Sorry, I'd had the types of offences right (violence, drugs, firearms) but memory failed on the mandatory part. I don't know whether that's been tested. Someone could try to have it struck down on constitutional grounds (cruel and unusual, and the Supreme Court has struck down some mandatory sentences on that ground) or seek a constitutional exemption (where it is cruel and unusual in a particular person's circumstances). The latter might be argued by, say, an aboriginal person who needed a non-restricted firearm for sustenance / engaging in constitutionally protected or treaty rights to hunt, maybe if they were convicted of a non-violent drug offence or some such.

In any event, one distinction between that and the US is that an order is mandatory only in the case of certain offences subject to certain sentences. The rough equivalent of a US "felony" is an indictable offence, and that covers shoplifting (which can and always is be prosecuted by summary conviction, counterpart of misdemeanour, but is still an indictable offence).

Also, the drug offences for which a prohibition order is mandatory are trafficking, importing/exporting and production, not possession.

A discretionary prohibition order may not be made as part of a sentence where the crime is not one of those violence/drugs/firearms ones, i.e. no prohibition order may be made in a sentence for for theft, fraud, DUI, etc. The list is exhaustive.

However, I also checked optional terms of probation orders, and "abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon" is one of them. The distinction is that this term lasts only as long as the probation order, i.e. while the person is still at large on conditions during the sentence, whereas a firearms prohibition order is for a long period after release from prison or for life. And again, that term would not be imposed for a theft or DUI conviction, to my knowledge.

Generally speaking, any kind of mandatory sentence -- be it the nature or length of the sentence -- has long been frowned on in Canada except in cases where the courts bow to Parliament in matters of important public policy, e.g. the minimum sentence for murder, repeat drunk driving, and there are others. They are seen as contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (one of which is due process).

Since the extreme right-wing (by our standards) Conservative Party and its "tough on crime" agenda (crime being on the decline) got the upper hand, there has been nothing but a steady stream of proposals for minimum sentences, obviously opposed by anybody with a clue about actual sentencing practices (sentences for serious crimes always exceed whatever these minimums would be already, since judges aren't actually fools, and these minimums simply are not always suitable for some offences/offenders).

More than you asked for ... ;)

[tortoise1956]

40. Thanks!

I started reading through the actual code. Had to stop, my ears were bleeding...now I remember why I decided that a career in the legal system was not for me!:crazy:

Right off the top, it appears that there are quite a few similarities between the two codes, at least as far as mandatory orders and handguns/semi-auto rifles. I don't think we have anything comparable to a discretionary order. Of course, the list of offenses differ somewhat. All in all, there is more leeway in the Canadian code.

One thing I was wondering about - US law allows convicted felons who have served their sentence and have been released, to petition for reinstatement of their civil rights. Is there anything in the Canadian code similar to this? Also, I noticed that discretionary orders can be requested in cases where the authorities have reason to believe that the person of interest may be a danger to themselves and others.

All in all, the Canadian code is more flexible in many ways. I'm not too keen on police being able to request discretionary orders for those who haven't been convicted, but the case can be made that this is analogous to US citizens being restricted through psychiatric evaluations.

Thanks again for posting this information for me!

Small edit for old keyboard...

[mikeb302000]

26. when I talk about "one strike"

I'm talking about any fuck-up with the gun. I'm not talking about other non-violent crimes. In fact in some cases, I'd like white collar criminals to be untouched by this. But if you drop a gun in the restaurant and it doesn't go off and no one is hurt, sorry, you're out. And we work our way up from there.

[ileus]

23. by any offense you mean like a traffic stop? jay walking?

[PavePusher]

30. Let's apply this to voting too...

vote for the wrong person (i.e. the loser) and you lose your voting rights... forever.

Hey, at least it's logically consistent....

[iverglas]

37. one of our colleagues suggested in another thread

that everybody here seems to have taken one postsecondary course in logic and just can't get over it.

I'm afraid I see too much evidence to the contrary, myself.

[-..__...]

31. This is pretty much SOP for any fire department...

(unofficially, of course)...

The younger firefighter declined to prosecute for the shoving, and the three firefighters and captain also declined to prosecute for the alleged aggravated assault.

“The issue is being handled internally,” said Battalion Chief Joe Vitale, a department spokesman.

It's been that way for generations, and always will be.

Unless circumstances make it impossible... you never rat out a brother firefighter to outside sources.

What happens in the station... stays in the station.

[iverglas]

39. exactly

The victims/witnesses didn't decline to "press charges" or "prosecute", they made it obvious that they declined to testify. A prosecutor had no case without victims/witnesses.

Refusal of victims/witnesses to cooperate in a prosecution (or a decision that a prosecution is not in the public interest, e.g. if the individual has mental health problems rather than criminal intent) doesn't mean that the individual in question should be permitted to continue possessing firearms.

Neither a criminal conviction nor a mental health committal is needed to make that completely clear.

[-..__...]

42. Perhaps I should have made it more clear...

What happens in the station... stays in the station

Meaning... it was uncharecter like and dishonorable to even report the incident to the police and/or higher ups.

That sort of conduct is frowned upon unless the situation is out of control, and no other alternatives exist.

[iverglas]

47. I don't think I was misunderstanding

That sort of conduct is frowned upon unless the situation is out of control, and no other alternatives exist.

And that kind of attitude can put the public at risk.

I represented the emotionally abused/traumatized wife of a firefighter once ... I remember one of the people involved (prosecutor, cop, not sure) describing the lifestyle as "four days on, four days drunk".

It is not dishonourable to report somebody behaving that way to anybody, particularly when a firearm is involved, ffs. I'm sure you weren't saying that it is in your own opinion.

[azureblue]

32. What is the NRA's published policy

on events like this (waving a gun around and threatening people with it)? And what is the NRA's proposed solution to this?

[gejohnston]

33. throw his ass in jail or the funny farm. Pretty basic

since they supported the Federal Firearms Act, and NICS, lose his gun rights for life.

[azureblue]

34. then that's the final word

If the NRA says it, then that's that. End of discussion. put him in jail and take away his guns.

[gejohnston]

38. Or if a judge orders him to a mental hospital, same effect

what answer were you expecting?

[SteveM]

53. You seem fascinated with the NRA. Do you follow their every proposal?

[SteveM]

52. Ah! Another project for you. Let us know what you find. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

43. It is already "one strike and you're out".

The fact of the matter is, we already have a "one strike and you're out rule."

If you are convicted of certain felonies, even once, or if you have a restraining order against you, even once, or if you are involuntarily committed to a mental institution even once, or adjudicated mentally incompetent even once, you lose your second amendment rights.

Imagine what would happen if we removed guns from everyone who commits any offense of any kind.

Like jaywalking? Littering? What kind of offenses, beyond what NICS already covers, are you talking about?

Also, I assume "we" would be people living in the United States. You don't, so you should say "you".

[mikeb302000]

54. I've answered this already, but here goes

I'm talking about gun offenses, starting with dropping a gun in a public place. That and anything worse should be treated seriously enough that you lose your gun rights.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. "Imagein what would happen..."

"Imagine what would happen if we removed guns from everyone who commits any offense of any kind."

that is a rediculous premise for a "what if" scenario. That's like saying "Imagine the lives saved if we removed all illegal drugs from society." It's a conditoin that just cannot happen. If crimanals (or anyone, really) wants to get an item they will likely be able to get it. Removing guns from people who have comitted offenses of any kind is nearly impossible with 300+ million guns in america under no central registry.

[mikeb302000]

55. gun offenses.

It's not so impractical. It's just another way of saying that we should stop allowning gun misuse to go unpunished.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. Generally, a gun offense (along with any other felony conviction) does diqualify gun ownership.

The problem is that we have, literally, hundreds of gun laws so when you commit a crime you've probably broken a dozen laws... and then prosocuters use these charges as plea-bargain bargaining chips. THEY PLEA THESE GUN VIOLATOINS AWAY!!!

We have the laws and tools in place to combat gun offenders... we have them. What we need to do is make gun offenses MANDITORY. We need to actually USE the laws we have. What good is proposing more gun legislatino if it's always getting thrown away pre-trial?

I agree with you, mike.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Any offense of any kind??? Forever??

That is rather drastic. So in 1965 I parked, put a nickel in the meter, but didn't finish my business untill one hour plus 15 minutes. I come out and have a parking ticket, I stuff $2.00 in the envelope that is attached to the ticket and put it in the red ticket box, and go on my way. Over parking was an offense, I pled guilty by paying the fine, and now you want to deny me the right to have a gun because of a parking ticket 46 years ago?