And this is what asshole policemen who canât do their jobs and follow procedure cause.
Or because even white gun nuts do not always get due process and instead are sometimes chosen by the police as the designated convict to build the case and coerced confession around.
If I had been falsely accused(assuming that to be the case) I might want as many guns as possible in hands not belonging to the corrupt police.
But itâs okay, because the police always âknowâ whoâs guilty; itâs fine to plant evidence and coerce confessions.
âAfter conferring in Polish with Dowlutâs parents, refugees who had immigrated after the war, Judge Frank X. Kopinski opted for lenience. âMy logic tells me you should be sent away, but my heart says no,â the judge told Dowlut, according to the Tribune. Dowlut was put on probation and graduated from Washington High School in January 1963 with a good academic recordâ
Yeah, that checks out. If a Polish-American judge doesnât let fine Polish-American boys get away with (literally) murder, who will? Edit: This was actually during his armed-robbery trial, not the later murder trial. Still, it boggles the mind.
Yup. Sounds like a fine reason to weaken a constitutional amendment.
Holy shit.
In his Stanford article, he quoted a study on gun ownership that asserted, âIt perhaps goes without saying that the âaverageâ gun owner and the âaverageâ criminal are worlds apart in background, social outlooks, and economic circumstances.â
I would have thought that the whole NRA division of âgood guysâ (who should have guns) and âbad guysâ (who should get shot by the good guys with guns) wouldnât be perpetuated by a guy who undeniably committed a string of serious crimes (some involving guns) in his youth, even if he didnât shoot his girlfriendâs mother (which, frankly, it sounds like he did, even if the police royally fucked things up). I mean, does he consider armed robbery to just be youthful hi-jinks?
It does suggest a certain mindset in the NRA. And they seem to be the body interpreting that amendment for the purposes of law.
50 years old news is old.
Yes, because guns are what got the conviction thrown out, amirite? Good thing honest 'Murican citizens held the cops accountable at gunpoint andâŚ
âŚwait, what? The Supreme Court threw out his conviction? Since when does the Supreme Court have guns?
As for assuming a false accusation, please note, Dowlut already had a criminal history before the murder case. Car theft, hit-and-run, malicious trespass, armed robbery, theft of weapons, construction of zip guns - the kid was a terror, and he repeatedly denied his guilt. He should have gone to juvenile detention, but his judge showed leniency at the request of his parents. And then he personally knew the woman he was accused of murdering - the mother of a girl he had been seeing, who had disapproved of their relationship, and who seemed to suspect Dowlut of having gotten the girl pregnant.
Now, that doesnât justify the way the police responded, but it sure paints a pretty damning picture of the odds of his innocence.
Itâs also very odd that after the Supreme Court threw out the conviction and ordered a new investigation, that new investigation never occured.
Hey, now! He was a -responsible- armed robber! He didnât shoot anyone, he just fired his gun into the air, which is as harmless as target practice! 
Wow. A lot of stuff in such a few words. First of all, letâs assume that this DOES actually suggest a mindset. Letâs review the facts:
A man is convicted of murder. His case is eventually thrown out. He goes on to the army, and gets a law degree. He eventually goes to work for a non-profit. This reflects badly on the non-profit. OK. Perhaps. Letâs follow this logic some more.
Letâs look at another case. Man accidentally is responsible for the death of a woman. Because he is rich, he does NOT go to trial for manslaughter, but gets off with a slap on the wrist. Man goes on to become a US Senator, the 3rd highest elected position in the land. Chappaquiddick incident - Wikipedia So, what does this say about the Democratic party? Are you outraged at them? If not, then what is the difference?
Also, suppose he dedicated his life to the defense of the 1st Amendment. Would you feel differently? What about the 4th or 5th Amendments. Would he still be scum, or would you admire him for turning his life around. What is the difference? He happens to defend a part of the US Constitution that you do not like.
You go into this assuming that the NRA is a bunch of hooligans, when nothing could be further from the truth. In general, the members of NRA are really big on law and order. However, they also feel that the law should be reasonable and not attack both honest people and the Constitution in a useless attempt at âfeel goodâ legislation.
Am I allowed to dislike the NRA and Ted Kennedy?
Because I find that quite easy. Iâll even throw in the rest of his corrupt family, if you like. 
Paleontological conservative alert: All politics will always be 1970s politics.
Except when itâs been actively hidden for 50 years.
RightâŚbecause the people who enforce criminal law decisions come riding unicorns and wield rainbows.
Still doesnât make it any less old news.
Yawn.
So they can⌠what? Have a big gun battle? Is this the kind of nation we want to live in? Iâve been falsely accused of stuff once or twice, and it never once occurred to me to open fire on the police.
Iâve known quite a few NRA members, and they were good, responsible people. The members arenât the problem.
The problem is the leadership that will happily fight for your right to military weapons that have no legitimate use outside of a battlefield, but are ideal for murdering a lot of people in a hurry. The problem is leaders who advocate armed violence against anybody who suggests even the most basic forms of regulation of the weapons industry. The problem is leadership who will actually smear the grieving parents of murdered children, calling them phony agents of a nefarious gun-snatching conspiracy.
Iâd say thatâs a problem.
So they can reduce the headcount of a SWAT team that swarmed in without bothering to check if they actually got a proper address.
Some jurisdictions already made it legal as a form of self-defense. I think it counts as reinforcing the âcastle doctrineâ, or how it is called. May make it more palatable even for the testosterone-poisoned cops to do a knock-and-serve at daytime instead of flashbang-and-kick-in at night.
Iâm not sure Iâm the one whoâs coming across as âoutragedâ.
