This is why I hate Texas and want the majority of their population to die horrible horrible deaths

What the hell:

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in. Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.

The boys say they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano's body outside.

That's terrifying. But it gets worse:

Many people in Laredo — a town just across the Rio Grande from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where drug violence runs rampant — defended Gonzalez's actions. In online responses to articles published by the Morning Times, comments included statements such as "The kid got what he deserved" and calls to "stop the unfair prosecution."

Jesus Christ in a bathtub, what is wrong with these people? Your constitutional right to property does not take precedence over another person's right to life, you under-evolved troglodytes! Shooting anyone at close range in the back is not self defense, it's an execution. Shooting a kid who stole some of your shitty snack food in the back at close range as he kneels on your floor begging for mercy is not self defense, that's murdering a child.

This guy should rot in prison for the rest of his disgusting, worthless life, as should every member of the jury that apparently is A-OK with shooting an unarmed, crying child in the back. The only thing I can hope for is that the family of the victim sues the asshole into oblivion.

Paging Due Process...Due Process to Philadelphia, please

Ramsey said he and Nutter were in agreement on Nutter's crime-fighting strategy, including Nutter's promise to employ a controversial "stop, question and frisk" policy to target illegal weapons.

Though outgoing Commissioner Johnson has warned that Nutter's stop-and-frisk strategy could risk "disaster" by alienating the public, Ramsey said the aggressive tactic was a "valuable tool" as long as it was conducted within the law.

"You need reasonable suspicion in order to stop them," Ramsey said in an interview the day his selection was announced. "There's a way in which you interact with people - you don't want to alienate folks by being rude and abusive. Usually when people get stopped by policemen, what they complain about is not the initial stop, they complain about they way they were treated and disrespected by the police officers." (link)

No, what makes people feel alienated is the arbitrary revocation of their constitutional rights, dumbass.

As much as I wish it were, owning a gun is not illegal. Therefore, even if Officer Joe Incompetent, star of the Philadelphia Police, sees someone who he thinks is carrying a gun, there's no probable cause to stop them. If Officer Joe sees someone who he thinks is carrying a gun, and matches the description of someone who was recently involved in a shooting, then sure, stop him. But unless there's that probable cause, the police have absolutely no right to stop you.

Nice thought, anyway

There's absolutely no chance of it actually working, but on paper, Mogadishu now has a better, more sensible gun-control policy than almost anywhere in America.

Mogadishu, as in 'violent conflict for several decades now'. As in 'Black Hawk Down' took place there. As in 'vile, disaster-torn hellhole'.

Yeah. They now have more gun control than we do. And I think something's a little bit off about that.

Again, our gun laws fail

The Virginia Tech shooter should not have been able to purchase a gun, as he'd previously been ruled a danger to himself. He did anyway.

If America had stricter gun laws (eg, reminiscent of the UK, where unless it's a historical artifact, you cannot own a handgun), there wouldn't be shops selling pistols all over Virginia, so the issue of doing proper background checks would be pretty well irrelevant.

Post-disaster news

Now that we have an idea of what happened, the news outlets get to spend the next week throwing crap at us. The shooter's personal history. The victims' histories. Maps, graphics, interviews with paid-for 'experts' on psychology and guns and violence and anger. Stupid stuff.

Stupid like this headline, courtesy of the Times: Gunman Showed Signs of Anger.

No shit he showed signs of anger. Generally people who are stable and content don't commit mass murder.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out which I think is a more despicable waste of media resources: the 24/7 coverage of "the aftermath" of the VT shootings, or the coverage of Britain's Prince Whatever dumping his girlfriend. Really a toss up, I think.

...

Over 20 dead in a shooting on the VA Tech campus.

Jesus Christ on a stick, what is wrong with people? or the world?

Gun control? Why?

Argh. Between senator's aides carrying unlicensed weapons around the Capitol and this, I'm really missing the UK's attitude towards guns right now.

Reasons why I like the UK more than the US, # 1,242

Real gun laws. Meaningful gun laws.

Some places in the US, you can legally own automatic assault rifles. In the UK? If you want to legally purchase a gun you'd best come up with an extraordinary reason why.

On the other hand, the UK does have stuff like this, the apparently infinite Diana Debacle.

OK: she was a public figure, sure. I'm a bit baffled by that as well, but I just don't get celebrity culture. Whatever. She died in a car accident. Most non-crazy people (ie, those who don't believe the CIA had her picked off) understand what happened: she got in a car. The driver was drunk. The driver drove very fast, into a tunnel. The driver crashed. Neither driver nor passenger were wearing seatbelts. Both driver and passenger died. The same thing happens a tragic number of times, around the world, every year. It's a huge problem here in NM.

So, OK, maybe the persistent interest is nothing more than Pretty White Girl syndrome. She was rich, attractive, charismatic, 'upper-class', and died young.

What the hell is left to inquire into? A guy was drunk. He got in a car accident. People died. What does anyone expect the investigation will say? "Yes, we...forced him to get drunk?"

I don't get it.

Only in America, part XXVII

Last night I was on the train coming back to NJ (that majestic land across the sea, and by sea I mean "the Delaware river" and by majestic I mean "no actually it rather sucks") after an evening on the town with a friend.

We sat down towards the front of the car, with one seat in front of us. In that seat was Some Annoying Guy (SAG), wearing a white hoodie and listening to music on his phone without the benefit of headphones. I hate when people do that, and, at one point, when he started rapping along with it, I almost politely asked him to shut the hell up. For whatever reason, though, I didn't.

SAG stood as we approached his stop, and there was a loud thunk and that slight skittering noise - you know, you drop something, part of it goes sliding across the floor. I assumed he maybe dropped...I don't know, his phone, or a PSP or something. He's searching basically under our seat for whatever it is that tried to escape.

Victorious, SAG stands up, and the dude is holding a gun.

As in, he dropped a gun. On the train. Right next to me.

On average, I'd say I made two journeys on public transportation every day in London. I was in London for six months; that's about three hundred some trips. Know how often I saw a gun? Maybe four or five times, always firmly attached to police.

The first time I take the train back in the States? Someone drops a gun beneath my seat.

If you're going to be an idiot and carry a gun around, would you please have enough courtesy to carry the thing and not throw it around? Thanks.