Oscar Pistorius (Blade Runner) Arrested (Read 548 times)

    This is from the United Press International:

     

    "Sources close to the investigation told the South African newspaper City Press  there were no signs of forced entry, and that the first shot was fired in the  bedroom, before Pistorius' girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp locked herself in the  bathroom."

    Read more:  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/02/17/Pistorius-investigators-No-intruder/UPI-30591361115154/#ixzz2LB21v1kS

     

    The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

     

    2014 Goals:

     

    Stay healthy

    Enjoy life

     

       

      Oh and Tony - I was listening to BBC today and I wonder if any of his friends saw the changes to the person he was becoming. Would they have been able to help him find assistance to deal with his issues? Then I asked myself what would I do if I started seeing these signs with a family member or close friend. No answer but tough questions.

       

      Interesting.  The thing about mental illness and anger management is that they're not static issues.  You could have legal guns, be as responsible as any gun owner out there, but then go through a bad patch, and suddenly you owning those guns is a lot less safe for you (gun suicide) and those around you (domestic violence, and, yeah, mass shootings, although those are statistically small).  At that point, I guess it does fall to your friends and family to intervene and get them out of your possession for some period.  I'll invoke that analogy I otherwise dislike:  like taking the keys away from a drunk friend.  So, my question is, is this a step taken by gun owners?   Have you ever taken a friend's guns away?  Talked about doing so?   Know that it happened?

      C-R


         

        Interesting.  The thing about mental illness and anger management is that they're not static issues.  You could have legal guns, be as responsible as any gun owner out there, but then go through a bad patch, and suddenly you owning those guns is a lot less safe for you (gun suicide) and those around you (domestic violence, and, yeah, mass shootings, although those are statistically small).  At that point, I guess it does fall to your friends and family to intervene and get them out of your possession for some period.  I'll invoke that analogy I otherwise dislike:  like taking the keys away from a drunk friend.  So, my question is, is this a step taken by gun owners?   Have you ever taken a friend's guns away?  Talked about doing so?   Know that it happened?

         

        I've removed firearms from a family member's home during a bout of deep depression but that was family. Not an easy chore but is was pretty obvious to everyone what was needed so no gray areas.

         

        The OP story pre-crime is likely not so cut and dried. I've read some accounts at UK newspapers that mention previous GF have stated "he had a dark side". Not sure what that really means or if true (court can determine this) but in hind sight there seems some warning signs. Interestingly enough SA does have some pretty serious weapons laws on the books but I can't speak to enforcement of those.

         

        One question to your though. Are you saying that only gun owners would have the opportunity or responsibility to help a friend or family member by removing weapons from the person? I'll take it that is not your intent as I would counter it should be beholden to any friend or family member to find help for such a person. Be it removal of weapons or other items (prescription drugs alcohol, etc) that would cause this person to harm themselves or others.

         

        My bigger question - why are friends and family not stepping up? What causes this hesitation? Seems each time one of these events happens, the signs are there but little is done. After the event, there is a rush to focus on symptoms (guns, clips, etc.) instead of getting to the root cause. Unfortunately this seems to point right back to each of us stepping up and that is very hard indeed.


        "He conquers who endures" - Persius
        "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

        http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

        zonykel


          It's a difficult topic. Not to get too off-course, but I got an email recently about a ceremony for a Navy officer who was murdered. Intrigued, I looked him up in the news. Turns out he was (allegedly) stabbed to death by his brother. Not sure if just one or both were drunk, but alcohol was involved. The younger brother (21) is the one who is accused of stabbing the other (25).

           

          We are emotional beings. Our state of mind can be altered. None of us can really say, "I would never do that". Most cases of violence actually take place among friends and family, not strangers. The whole "familiarity breeds contempt" notion, appears to ring true.

           

          When you look at how you treat your loved ones, do you ever wonder why you don't treat strangers or co-workers in the same manner? Why do we feel the "freedom" to talk to our loved ones in a meaner way than those who are not close to us?

           

          Anyway, not sure what happened to Oscar Pistorious, or what his relationship was with his significant other. But the signs must have been there in the past.

           

          On to a different case: there was a boxer (Edwin Valero), who had a history of violence vs. his wife. Even with all that history, he still killed his wife. He ended up committing suicide a few days after he was arrested. There was some intervention in this case prior to the murder, but obviously not enough. In Valero's case, he had been in a motorcycle accident that caused permanent damage to his skull. Not sure if it impacted his brain, but he was denied license to box in the U.S for some time due to the injury. Other countries cleared him to box, though. Who knows if this head injury changed who Valero was, but the end result was sad, nonetheless.


          Feeling the growl again

             

             At that point, I guess it does fall to your friends and family to intervene and get them out of your possession for some period.  I'll invoke that analogy I otherwise dislike:  like taking the keys away from a drunk friend.  So, my question is, is this a step taken by gun owners?   Have you ever taken a friend's guns away?  Talked about doing so?   Know that it happened?

            Yes, though I am not going into detail.  It was not pleasant but was the right thing to do.

             

            One problem is legality.  Unless you have legal cause it is you who gets in trouble if you take their property and they don't like it.  Firearm theft, if that is what they deem it to be, is, as it should be, no small matter.

             

            The mental health angle is a tough nut to crack.  It is hard to diagnose, subjective, and prone to abuse with regards to firearms restrictions.  But the fact remains that it is nearly impossible to get someone into the mental health system unless they want to be, and that is a major problem.  I've known several people who were so messed up that they clearly had no business running free among the public but nobody could do anything about it until AFTER they did something serious, like hanging another student out a dorm window by their feet.

             

            It would be hard to find people not in favor of keeping firearms away from the mentally unstable.  Yet it is hard to accurately and fairly determine who fits this profile.  The people closest to them are undoubtedly in the best position to see the warning signs, and need to act. In discussion about the CT tragedy my wife and I agreed that had we a child who was acting as that individual was, to the point that we were considering psychiatric help, all of the guns would have been stored with someone else.  The problem right now is that even if you see the signs, there are few resources and legal avenues available to get or force the individual to get help.

            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

             

               

              One question to your though. Are you saying that only gun owners would have the opportunity or responsibility to help a friend or family member by removing weapons from the person? I'll take it that is not your intent as I would counter it should be beholden to any friend or family member to find help for such a person. Be it removal of weapons or other items (prescription drugs alcohol, etc) that would cause this person to harm themselves or others.

               

               

              Yeah, that's reasonable.  I was thinking of it as gun owners talking to each other, discussing proper firearms storage, etc.  Like maybe on ShootingAhead, there's a thread about when to take someone's guns away. Or is it not talked about much?  Interesting point about theft of firearms; I imagine that is a serious charge.


              Feeling the growl again

                 

                Yeah, that's reasonable.  I was thinking of it as gun owners talking to each other, discussing proper firearms storage, etc.  Like maybe on ShootingAhead, there's a thread about when to take someone's guns away. Or is it not talked about much?  Interesting point about theft of firearms; I imagine that is a serious charge.

                 

                Proper storage -- safe selection, reliability, what to do around kids, etc -- is a relatively common topic.  Taking someone's guns away is more infrequent, because as I said you typically do not have any legal standing to do so.  Real-life example, step dad has his step son's gun after splitting with his wife and step son (in another state) wants the gun back.  Step dad knows he is unstable, into trouble, and something bad will likely happen if he gets it back.  Discussion ensues and basically it is determined to be unlikely he has legal standing to keep it.  Best suggestion is that he takes it on a "fishing trip", where he "accidentally drops it over board", and gives the kid cash compensation for the "lost" firearm.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                JimR


                  I'm guessing that when these discussions of intervention take place, the top-of-the-list item to be made inaccessible is the gun.


                  Feeling the growl again

                    I'm guessing that when these discussions of intervention take place, the top-of-the-list item to be made inaccessible is the gun.

                     

                    Genius.  Since cocaine and heroine are the source of so much of the crime and murders in this country, let's just make them illegal...dang, we did and they are still readily available despite being single-use, unlike illegal firearms...

                     

                    South Africa's gun laws are already far more restrictive than any state in the USA, yet it did not prevent this.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     


                    No Talent Drips

                      Just when it appeared the tone was improving...

                       

                      You should go get the clap just so you can give it to her. --beef


                      Not dead. Yet.

                         

                        Genius.  Since cocaine and heroine are the source of so much of the crime and murders in this country, let's just make them illegal...dang, we did and they are still readily available despite being single-use, unlike illegal firearms...

                         

                        South Africa's gun laws are already far more restrictive than any state in the USA, yet it did not prevent this.

                         

                        I'm betting that in many cases guns do not need to be completely inaccessible.  Of course that is impossible.  But if it is hard, or somewhat hard to obtain, many won't go to the black market to obtain one.  Killing people is not necessarily addictive so the drug comparison doesn't work.  Maybe Dexter would disagree.

                         

                        Perhaps some will try to get a gun, and when denied will give up.  Even if that prevents only ten 2(?) percent of homicides, it's probably worth the inconvenience to the rest of us.

                        How can we know our limits if we don't test them?

                        C-R


                           

                          I'm betting that in many cases guns do not need to be completely inaccessible.  Of course that is impossible.  But if it is hard, or somewhat hard to obtain, many won't go to the black market to obtain one.  Killing people is not necessarily addictive so the drug comparison doesn't work.  Maybe Dexter would disagree.

                           

                          Perhaps some will try to get a gun, and when denied will give up.  Even if that prevents only ten 2(?) percent of homicides, it's probably worth the inconvenience to the rest of us.

                           

                          Your comments seem to predispose an intent to gain use of a weapon to commit harm. The vast majority of people wanting a weapon are interested in a proper use. If I read your comment correctly, it is just this type of stereotyping that creates a false logic path. You assume parties are interested in the worst and create solutions based on this theme. I would counter that the majority of people wanting to own weapons are not interested in the worst acts but rather sport, hunting or self defense and the minority are interested in harm. However, the harm gets more press than the proper and non-invasive use.

                           

                          The previous discussions focused on involvement when people had a change of state in mental health or personal circumstance. Your solution of restrictions does not address this at all.

                           

                          Its a confusing post.


                          "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                          "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

                          http://ncstake.blogspot.com/


                          Not dead. Yet.

                            You assume parties are interested in the worst and create solutions based on this theme. I would counter that the majority of people wanting to own weapons are not interested in the worst acts but rather sport, hunting or self defense and the minority are interested in harm. However, the harm gets more press than the proper and non-invasive use.

                             

                            I was responding to Spaniel's post.  I don't assume that.  I agree that most people that own guns use them for perfectly fine uses.  My point is that tougher restrictions for psychological/anger management people would not stop the problem entirely, but it would stop a certain small percentage of homicides at the cost of a bit more hassle for the valid users.  It seems though, that some gun users are not able to weigh inconvenience vs loss of life.

                            How can we know our limits if we don't test them?

                            C-R


                               

                              I was responding to Spaniel's post.  I don't assume that.  I agree that most people that own guns use them for perfectly fine uses.  My point is that tougher restrictions for psychological/anger management people would not stop the problem entirely, but it would stop a certain small percentage of homicides at the cost of a bit more hassle for the valid users.  It seems though, that some gun users are not able to weigh inconvenience vs loss of life.

                               

                              Those laws are already on the books via background checks her in the US. Plus in SA there is a definite restriction for access to weapons for mentally ill persons. Are you advocating something in addition to these laws or are you saying they don't work?


                              "He conquers who endures" - Persius
                              "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

                              http://ncstake.blogspot.com/


                              Feeling the growl again

                                 

                                I'm betting that in many cases guns do not need to be completely inaccessible.  Of course that is impossible.  But if it is hard, or somewhat hard to obtain, many won't go to the black market to obtain one.  Killing people is not necessarily addictive so the drug comparison doesn't work.  Maybe Dexter would disagree.

                                 

                                Perhaps some will try to get a gun, and when denied will give up.  Even if that prevents only ten 2(?) percent of homicides, it's probably worth the inconvenience to the rest of us.

                                ...

                                It seems though, that some gun users are not able to weigh inconvenience vs loss of life.

                                 

                                I understand your logic and there is nothing wrong with it but to C-R's point, those laws are already in place.  Background checks and in various states waiting periods.  Lengthy permitting processes to buy handguns in some states.  I'm not aware of any data that shows waiting periods to actually reduce crime incidence however, and the problem with background checks is that a lot of people would pass just fine until they actually do something horrible.  It appears South Africa has stricter background/psych testing than anything in the US yet Pistorious passed.  The CT shooter tried to buy a gun and was denied (waiting period, I believe) before killing his mother and taking hers.

                                 

                                Regarding your last statement, there may be people like this but IMHO it would be a very small minority.  What many gun users push back on are 1) adding more inconveniences which actual gun users realize are not always as trivial as they seem to people not affected by them, which don't do anything to solve the problem as those bent on wrong don't follow them or have easy work-arounds; 2) adding more regulations which are on the face well-intentioned, but bear either a strong risk or a virtual certainty of being abused for the purpose of violating the Second Amendment.  If you think people are insensitive to the loss of human life you probably don't completely understand where they are coming from; I think those people are rare on both sides of the issue.

                                 

                                As examples of #2, when the Chicago gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court the legislation replacing it required training, yet that training was banned in the city.  Poor people on the south side wanting a firearm were still effectively banned from having one despite the outright ban being lifted; the courses were expensive and too far away for them to get there.  This is where some of the pressure against private sale background checks originates; someone has to do those, and they are going to charge you with a fee, and you have to go somewhere that will do them.  Some people will get priced out of what is supposed to be an inherent right.  One major reason voter IDs were struck down as it was deemed too inconvenient for people to get to a DMV office to get one and overly burdened a Constitutional right; very similar issue.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand