Montana Man Slams 13-Year-Old to Ground, Fracturing His Skull, for Not Removing Hat During Anthem

[HomerJS]

Define in hard terms what qualifies as "mental illness". Vagueness is not acceptable. Someone has Seasonal Affective Disorder, are they mentally ill and should not own? Someone who had counseling and perhaps medication due to grief from a loss of a loved one? Those who had postpartum depression years ago? What in concrete terms rises to "mental illness" sufficient to deny arms?

Am I wholly for denying some who have been properly deemed dangerous, but who makes those determinations defines what they are? You, me, Democrats, Republicans, politicians?

As you can't speak for anyone else what should be done and how do you make sure that this is done without political or with non-scientific agendas?

I don't know why we can't issue psychological tests to determine if person should have a gun.

Anyone with anger issues should not be issued a gun.

 

[Meghan54]

And all this arguing over something that represents approx. 4% of people who own or are trying to own guns. Video games, mental illness....all issues which are simply dancing around the core issues of gun violence.

 

[Paladin3]

Just to add to it... explain how you want mental illness defined. I used hyperbolic examples to hopefully get you to be specific, but instead you just got defensive and whiny.

I'd prefer to see guns confiscated from anyone who commits assault. I don't care the circumstances, because a gun in the hands of someone who already lacks the restraint to avoid violence is a gun that's going to be misused.

And to be clear about my point, milkshakes aren't assault.

Not sure what the milkshake is in reference to, but we've got laws that already cover all of this. What I may think is or isn't mental illness or an assault isn't really the issue. I'll abide by the legal definitions and judgement of the courts.

A conviction for assault, or any kind of violent crime, will already cause you to fail any background check to own a gun. And any felony or violent misdemeanor conviction automatically suspends your 2A rights and you lose all your guns, unless you petition a judge to have your rights reinstated at some later point. And even if the state reinstates your 2A rights, it's possible for you to still be prohibited federally from owning a gun.

It's sad that many folks who want more gun control aren't even aware of the laws already on the books. So, if I'm gonna be "defensive and whiny" I'm gonna smack you around with the facts along the way. Enjoy.

 

[Paladin3]

I don't know why we can't issue psychological tests to determine if person should have a gun.

Anyone with anger issues should not be issued a gun.

I agree with your last sentence, but we can't have a person's constitutional rights be taken away solely on the opinion of any one person, even a medical professional. That decision has to be made in a court of law or we deprive the individual of due process.

How tempting would it be for a well-meaning doctor to decide NOBODY should own a gun and fail every patient he examines? And how comfortable would you be with instituting the same psychological tests before allowing someone to vote? Do you think a staunchly conservative or liberal doctor is competent to decide something like that? What might they do for what they see as the "greater good?"

We can't take the easy way out when deciding complicated issues like constitution rights. Due process in a court of law is vital.

 

[Paladin3]

And all this arguing over something that represents approx. 4% of people who own or are trying to own guns. Video games, mental illness....all issues which are simply dancing around the core issues of gun violence.

Far less than 4% of the gun owners commit all the gun violence. And please don't throw in the absurd fear of violent video games into the mix. That's a non-issue compared to actual mental illness. Killers may like violent video games, doesn't mean violent video games turns people into killers.

And none of this is dancing around the issue, unless you believe the gun is the problem rather than the hand that wields it. Then were back to the "just ban them all" argument which is an impossible dream. Nice to think about, but no practical way to implement while maintaining anything close to a relatively free and democratic society.

IMHO, the core issue of all violence is that some human beings are flawed and commit violence upon their fellow man without sufficient cause. And we have a, flawed IMHO, viewpoint that if we just figure out a way to prohibit particular weapons, that everyone will stop fighting and play nice.

And that in pursuit of a gun-free country, it's okay to strip the law-abiding of their 2A rights and take their guns away first. All without any workable plan to get guns away from those who would criminally misuse them. Because getting a few guns is better than getting none, even if those guns were being used legally and safely for perfectly legal pursuits. Because they hate guns, and it's far easier to focus hate and fear on an object that figure out how to control violent individuals. See, they have no idea what to do about the evil that lurks in the hearts of some human beings. And we're back to guns=bad, m'kay.

 

[jackstar7]

Not sure what the milkshake is in reference to, but we've got laws that already cover all of this. What I may think is or isn't mental illness or an assault isn't really the issue. I'll abide by the legal definitions and judgement of the courts.

A conviction for assault, or any kind of violent crime, will already cause you to fail any background check to own a gun. And any felony or violent misdemeanor conviction automatically suspends your 2A rights and you lose all your guns, unless you petition a judge to have your rights reinstated at some later point. And even if the state reinstates your 2A rights, it's possible for you to still be prohibited federally from owning a gun.

It's sad that many folks who want more gun control aren't even aware of the laws already on the books. So, if I'm gonna be "defensive and whiny" I'm gonna smack you around with the facts along the way. Enjoy.

What's fun is that none of what you said prevents someone who commits an assault from owning a gun. I think there should be laws for that, but you're not going to like 'em.

Also, if you don't understand the milkshake thing there's a feature of the internet that we're on where you can use one of several search engines that will give you useful results. It works just like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=mil.....69i57j0l4.2407j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And all this arguing over something that represents approx. 4% of people who own or are trying to own guns. Video games, mental illness....all issues which are simply dancing around the core issues of gun violence.

I'd argue that the number of people with mental problems are far more responsible for mass killings than most other things. Video games? There's nothing there.

 

[jackstar7]

I'd argue that the number of people with mental problems are far more responsible for mass killings than most other things. Video games? There's nothing there.

I'd argue that the number of people with mental health problems is the vast majority (or more likely 100%). It's just that most people go un-diagnosed and untreated particularly because of the absurd stigmatization of mental health treatment.

How about we deal with the culture of misogyny as a real threat? And the general insecurities tied to it that also overlap with people who think they need to own guns?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Here is the real core of the gun control argument.

IMHO, the core issue of all violence is that some human beings are flawed and commit violence upon their fellow man without sufficient cause.

We agree with this.

And we have a, flawed IMHO, viewpoint that if we just figure out a way to prohibit particular weapons, that everyone will stop fighting and play nice.

But disagree here. You are the one that seem to think that we can stop the violence. I don't believe that is possible. I accept that people are going to fight and not always play nice. That means I believe that all we can do about it is keep them from being quite so deadly when they do.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'd argue that the number of people with mental problems are far more responsible for mass killings than most other things. Video games? There's nothing there.

Have to admit though it’s kind of funny that republicans think Americans are horribly unequipped to play some video games but are just fine to play with guns.

 

[Paladin3]

But disagree here. You are the one that seem to think that we can stop the violence. I don't believe that is possible. I accept that people are going to fight and not always play nice. That means I believe that all we can do about it is keep them from being quite so deadly when they do.

I don't know how you will keep the best tool for killing out of the hands of those who choose to kill. Just like I don't know how to keep liquor away from those under 21 or illegal drugs away from those who want them.

 

[Paladin3]

Have to admit though it’s kind of funny that republicans think Americans are horribly unequipped to play some video games but are just fine to play with guns.

God, I'm tired of reading cheap shots like this at an entire political party when we've got real problems to solve.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

God, I'm tired of reading cheap shots like this at an entire political party when we've got real problems to solve.

That’s is the solution they’ve offered. Video games. Several of them in the last two weeks. Perhaps if the party that, you know, controls things wanted to have an actual discussion on substantive solutions that the majority of the country seems to agree on they wouldn’t be ridiculed on the topic.

Just a thought

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[Maxima1]

I don't know how you will keep the best tool for killing out of the hands of those who choose to kill. Just like I don't know how to keep liquor away from those under 21 or illegal drugs away from those who want them.

Really? Other countries proved that bans work. Hell, look at full-auto here even. You can't get your hands on one that easily. Just an FYI: increasing the age of drinking led to less vehicular fatalities and legalizing drugs like marijuana contribute to a modest increase in consumption of said drug.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't know how you will keep the best tool for killing out of the hands of those who choose to kill. Just like I don't know how to keep liquor away from those under 21 or illegal drugs away from those who want them.

Then that is just a failure of your imagination. There are many ways to get tools out of the hands of people. Notice what tools they use, and consider why they choose those tools as opposed to others. There are other tools much better at killing large number of people. So why those?
The answer is that the tools they choose are easy and legal acquire, cheap enough to afford, pose little risk to own. and easy to use. Change any of those factors and you will see a marked decrease in the number of people that use them.

Your 'It can't be done, so why try' attitude is the biggest problem. If we gave up on every problem this quickly we would still be sitting in caves hiding from the dark.

 

[Paladin3]

Then that is just a failure of your imagination. There are many ways to get tools out of the hands of people. Notice what tools they use, and consider why they choose those tools as opposed to others. There are other tools much better at killing large number of people. So why those?
The answer is that the tools they choose are easy and legal acquire, cheap enough to afford, pose little risk to own. and easy to use. Change any of those factors and you will see a marked decrease in the number of people that use them.

Your 'It can't be done, so why try' attitude is the biggest problem. If we gave up on every problem this quickly we would still be sitting in caves hiding from the dark.

It's not that it's can't be done. It's just that the tools you are talking about making illegal are currently legal and protected by the 2A of our constitution. And overwhelmingly owned legally and used for common legal activities. 99.92% of guns in 2013 didn't hurt anyone in any way, legally or otherwise. I'm assuming guns have a pretty similar safety record ever year.

So, considering the vast majority of guns given up in a ban would be legally owned guns from law-abiding citizens, I don't see how this would solve the gun violence problem. And not to mention it would rob every law-abiding citizen of the right to self-defense, since a gun is the overwhelming tool of choice for that.

Not to mention handguns kill far more than any rifle, let alone the small subset of assault rifles. And we have tons of other preventable deaths that occur but we never talk about banning those items.

So, I'm not really arguing that a gun ban is impossible, it's just impossible while still maintaining a relatively free and democratic society. If the government can strip away one constitutional right just because a tiny number of people abuse it, what about the right to vote or the right to free speech or assembly or any other right?

And, for the record, my attitude isn't "why try." My attitude is that I'm not giving up my 2A rights in a vain attempt to stop the tiny number of folks who misuse them criminally. If I was a criminal I'd be happy to see a gun ban pass because then I'd be the only one armed. Why do you think shootings always occur in gun free zones?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's not that it's can't be done. It's just that the tools you are talking about making illegal are currently legal and protected by the 2A of our constitution. And overwhelmingly owned legally and used for common legal activities. 99.92% of guns in 2013 didn't hurt anyone in any way, legally or otherwise. I'm assuming guns have a pretty similar safety record ever year.

So, considering the vast majority of guns given up in a ban would be legally owned guns from law-abiding citizens, I don't see how this would solve the gun violence problem. And not to mention it would rob every law-abiding citizen of the right to self-defense, since a gun is the overwhelming tool of choice for that.

Not to mention handguns kill far more than any rifle, let alone the small subset of assault rifles. And we have tons of other preventable deaths that occur but we never talk about banning those items.

So, I'm not really arguing that a gun ban is impossible, it's just impossible while still maintaining a relatively free and democratic society. If the government can strip away one constitutional right just because a tiny number of people abuse it, what about the right to vote or the right to free speech or assembly or any other right?

And, for the record, my attitude isn't "why try." My attitude is that I'm not giving up my 2A rights in a vain attempt to stop the tiny number of folks who misuse them criminally. If I was a criminal I'd be happy to see a gun ban pass because then I'd be the only one armed. Why do you think shootings always occur in gun free zones?

You were doing so well. Then you had to go down the gun free zone hole.

No mass shooting in history has been shown to have been done in a place because it was gun free. They don’t always occur in gun free zones. That’s made up. It’s untrue. I can give you a huge list of mass shootings where guns were allowed.

The last two. Walmart permitted carry and the other was on the streets of Ohio where concealed carry is permitted and the guy was taken down within 32 seconds of the first shot. He still gunned down 26 people because he was legally able to obtain a 100 round drum mag.

Mass shootings happen where someone has a grievance or an attachment. It’s that simple. To throw out the gun free zone line tells me you really aren’t open to honest discussion on the subject. You say you are but that’s not what you’re demonstrating.

 

[Maxima1]

Holy shit.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/us/montana-national-anthem-assault-plea/index.html

Lance Jasper, Brockway's attorney, said last week that his client is a military verteran who has a severe traumatic brain injury and has problems with impulse control. Between that and being a disabled veteran who is "uber patriotic," Jasper said, Brockway is influenced by the rhetoric of President Donald Trump.

Referring to times the President has spoken out against athletes and others that kneel or protest during the national anthem and when he suggested possible jail time or loss of citizenship for burning the American flag, Jasper said, "Curt takes that literally and views the President as the commander in chief and when he sees it happening, he feels he needs to do something about it."

"He told me 'I guess I messed up because he got hurt. But I'm a patriot,'" Jasper said.

Jasper said he intends to present his client's neuropsychological evaluation to the court. "Curt says he was given an order from (the) commander in chief to make sure people are patriotic," Jasper said.

 

[mikeymikec]

Using that defence must surely be so personally demeaning. Not only is it an admission that one is so fucking gullible that one would take their cues without bothering to think for one's self (let alone from Donald Trump of all people), but surely it conjures the ghosts of past primary school teachers / parents admonishing one's past self along the lines of "and if they told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do that as well?!?".

I wonder if the mental capacity of anyone adopting such a defence is (or at least should be) called into question to the point that they run the risk of never being allowed to drive a car again, etc.

 

[senseamp]

Was just reading an article about how shitty Montana is:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...ighest-suicide-rate-desperately-needs-shrinks

Montana is cursed with the highest suicide rate in the nation, and it’s higher in this predominantly rural part of the state than in any other region.
...
Montana’s Department of Public Health and Human Services last year reported a 2017 survey that suggested about 15% of all seventh-and eighth-grade students in the state had attempted suicide one or more times in the preceding 12 months.
...
Rural Americans are twice as likely as their urban counterparts to kill themselves, and many of the stresses they face are getting more intense.
...
In 2017, Glendive’s last department store, a Kmart, closed, part of a nationwide constriction blamed on the rise of internet retailing. That closure meant the closest general retailer was a Shopko in Sydney, about 50 miles away. In June, Shopko Stores Inc., a discount chain with stores in 24 states, went bankrupt, abandoning all of its locations.

It's hilarious to me that Republican states are anti-immigrant while their real problem is they can't attract enough people to provide the population densities needed to sustain even basic services like psychiatry and retail.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's not that it's can't be done. It's just that the tools you are talking about making illegal are currently legal and protected by the 2A of our constitution. And overwhelmingly owned legally and used for common legal activities. 99.92% of guns in 2013 didn't hurt anyone in any way, legally or otherwise. I'm assuming guns have a pretty similar safety record ever year.

What a terrible argument. I can say the same thing about literally everything. 99.9% of nuclear weapons did not hurt anyone this year, 99.9% of surface to air missiles did not hurt anyone this year. So, why do we ban them. 2A protects your right to own each of those as well! This is literally a 'why bother' argument for laws in general since I could make this argument about just about anything.

And not to mention it would rob every law-abiding citizen of the right to self-defense, since a gun is the overwhelming tool of choice for that.

Here is where I can turn your argument around on you. I don't have any specific stats on it, but the vast majority of the time that a gun is used against a person it is not in self defense. So if the 'most use' case is to be used then the most used case for guns is not self defense but criminal activity.
(I know the most use case is target practice, but we could carve out an exception to allow people to go to a range and target practice with a gun that never leaves the premises.)

Not to mention handguns kill far more than any rifle, let alone the small subset of assault rifles.

I agree, that is why any solution we come up with needs to address them as well. I'm not talking about a assault weapon ban, I'm talking about sweeping reform of what sort of firearms are legal in general.

And we have tons of other preventable deaths that occur but we never talk about banning those items.

Yes we do. We talk about banning things that have little utility but have a lot of potential to cause harm, and talk about improving safety for items that can cause harm but have a lot of utility. I was just discussing on another forum those little electric scooters that have taken over the cities and how we need to address the issues around them, specifically requiring helmets.

So, I'm not really arguing that a gun ban is impossible, it's just impossible while still maintaining a relatively free and democratic society.

So the UK, Canada, and Australia are not relatively free and democratic societies? The sort of restrictions I'm talking about fall somewhere between those three. A tiny bit more restrictive than Canada, and not quite as restrictive as the UK.

If the government can strip away one constitutional right just because a tiny number of people abuse it, what about the right to vote or the right to free speech or assembly or any other right?

We already limit all of those more than we limit the ownership of firearms. The right to assembly is all but gone altogether. You now need the governments permissions to assemble, they can require you to pay a fee, and carry insurance, and even then they are likely to harass and disrupt your assembly on a whim. Look at what happened to the Occupy Wall St movement, or the Straight Pride Parade in California (as much as I disagree with them, they should have the right to assemble).

I have said it several times just in this thread, we have already agreed that the 2A does not allow you to own any weapon you wish, we already limit firearms in multiple ways, all I am saying is we increase the list of things and ways we limit them.

If I was a criminal I'd be happy to see a gun ban pass because then I'd be the only one armed. Why do you think shootings always occur in gun free zones?

First off if there is a shooting it is not a gun free zone is it? Next the entire idea that more shooting happen in gun free zones is stupid. How many shootings have taken place in sport stadiums? Lots of people there, no guns allowed, no shootings? Why is that? Because they actually enforce the gun free zone.

Next, if you were a criminal you would be stupid to want gun bans. It will make the cost of guns and ammo skyrocket and will cause you to do real time if you get caught doing even a minor crime. Why do you think that criminals never carry uzi's or AK-47s? It is because getting caught with one guarantees you go away for a long time. It is the same reason that it is rare for a criminal in the UK to carry a gun. They can certainly get them, they just don't want the problems that they cause.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I wonder if the mental capacity of anyone adopting such a defence is (or at least should be) called into question to the point that they run the risk of never being allowed to drive a car again, etc.

Yes, even if he wins this defense sees him held against his will in a psychiatric hospital (probably) for life. His lawyer is literally making the case that his client is not able to tell the difference between right and wrong and therefore can not be held responsible for his actions. You don't get to go free even if you win that case.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes, even if he wins this defense sees him held against his will in a psychiatric hospital (probably) for life. His lawyer is literally making the case that his client is not able to tell the difference between right and wrong and therefore can not be held responsible for his actions. You don't get to go free even if you win that case.

I think that’s the point, the guy appears to be unable to be in public without someone at sometime being in danger.
Maybe to care for the guy there needs to be a court order.

 

[feralkid]

Looks like his attorney screwed up. Trump didn't tell him to dump 13 year old kids on their head for not removing their hat for the anthem.

Not in so many words, but the sentiment is LOUD and clear.