Recommended Posts
Shotgun 1
QuoteAm I the only bothered that Wallgreens turned those pictures over to police?
Last time I checked there's nothing illegal about posing in a G string with your guns. Weird, yes, but illegal, no.
Assuming they gave the police these pictures before the murders, that is.
I am under the impression that the photos were turned over after the murders, once the investigation began.
Shotgun 1
QuoteQuoteAm I the only bothered that Wallgreens turned those pictures over to police?
Last time I checked there's nothing illegal about posing in a G string with your guns. Weird, yes, but illegal, no.
Assuming they gave the police these pictures before the murders, that is.
I am under the impression that the photos were turned over after the murders, once the investigation began.
Actually, I just re-read one of the articles about this, and it says that he dropped off the roll of film and then later picked it up. So, if the police got the photos from Walgreens, then that implies that Walgreens had kept a copy of them. (Which would be somewhat unethical, but not particularly surprising. However, it's unclear if that is what happened.???)
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteAm I the only bothered that Wallgreens turned those pictures over to police?
Last time I checked there's nothing illegal about posing in a G string with your guns. Weird, yes, but illegal, no.
Assuming they gave the police these pictures before the murders, that is.
I am under the impression that the photos were turned over after the murders, once the investigation began.
Actually, I just re-read one of the articles about this, and it says that he dropped off the roll of film and then later picked it up. So, if the police got the photos from Walgreens, then that implies that Walgreens had kept a copy of them. (Which would be somewhat unethical, but not particularly surprising. However, it's unclear if that is what happened.???)
I knew a guy in college who worked at walgreens. He said the photo lab guys has a book with dupes of all the best shots. as you say... not particularly surprising.
--
Rob
Rob
kallend 1,622
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAm I the only bothered that Wallgreens turned those pictures over to police?
Last time I checked there's nothing illegal about posing in a G string with your guns. Weird, yes, but illegal, no.
Assuming they gave the police these pictures before the murders, that is.
I am under the impression that the photos were turned over after the murders, once the investigation began.
Actually, I just re-read one of the articles about this, and it says that he dropped off the roll of film and then later picked it up. So, if the police got the photos from Walgreens, then that implies that Walgreens had kept a copy of them. (Which would be somewhat unethical, but not particularly surprising. However, it's unclear if that is what happened.???)
I knew a guy in college who worked at walgreens. He said the photo lab guys has a book with dupes of all the best shots. as you say... not particularly surprising.
Well, it seems that Loughner is a really good fit to the profile of an assassin, according to the 1999 Secret Service Exception Case Study Project, by Fein and Vossekuil.
So maybe it really IS possible to make early identification of dangerous nutcases, IF the deniers decide to open their minds and concede that there ARE experts in this area.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rhaig 0
Quote
Well, it seems that Loughner is a really good fit to the profile of an assassin, according to the 1999 Secret Service Exception Case Study Project, by Fein and Vossekuil.
So maybe it really IS possible to make early identification of dangerous nutcases, IF the deniers decide to open their minds and concede that there ARE experts in this area.
yes, there are profiling experts.
so are you proposing we profile every single american based on personal activities and then put them on the NICS list, and if they want to buy a gun they can fight the battle in court?
unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.
That is, unless they're you, but in that case, they won't share the answers.
--
Rob
Rob
kallend 1,622
QuoteQuote
unfortunately, you'd be hard pressed to find a profiler that would feel they are accurate enough to remove someone's rights.
I consider the assassin's victims right to live to outweigh your right to convenience. A very smart Supreme Court justice once observed that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
normiss 622
IF they become assassins.
That's a mighty big IF.
That's a mighty big IF.
kallend 1,622
It's a shame that you consider your convenience in easy access to guns to be more important than other peoples' lives.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
david3 0
Quote
Well, it seems that Loughner is a really good fit to the profile of an assassin, according to the 1999 Secret Service Exception Case Study Project, by Fein and Vossekuil.
So maybe it really IS possible to make early identification of dangerous nutcases, IF the deniers decide to open their minds and concede that there ARE experts in this area.
Yes they are experts with 20/20 hindsight. I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. We should never stop trying. Do you agree that no matter what is done, even an outright ban (I know you are not suggesting an outright ban) on guns would not keep someone else from using a gun in a violent crime in America?
Am I the only bothered that Wallgreens turned those pictures over to police?
Last time I checked there's nothing illegal about posing in a G string with your guns. Weird, yes, but illegal, no.
Assuming they gave the police these pictures before the murders, that is.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites