Thursday, June 17, 2010

Amy Bishop Indicted in MA

Yahoo News reports on the latest in the Amy Bishop case. Link sent by Il Principe with the comment, "too bad the Mass DA dropped the ball on this one back in the 80s‏."

CANTON, Mass. – A biology professor charged with killing three of her colleagues at an Alabama university has been indicted in the 1986 shooting death of her brother in Massachusetts, prosecutors announced Wednesday.

Authorities had originally ruled that the shooting of Amy Bishop's brother was an accident, but they reopened the case after Bishop was charged in February with gunning down six of her colleagues at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, killing three.

Bishop, 45, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her 18-year-old brother, Seth, Norfolk District Attorney William Keating said.

Keating said he did not understand why charges were never brought against Bishop.

"I can't give you any explanations, I can't give you excuses, because there are none," he said. "Jobs weren't done, responsibilities weren't met and justice wasn't served."

I don't think there's all that much more here than what we've already discussed. I suppose the new indictment for the old shooting is newsworthy, but perhaps not for the reason everybody thinks. Sure they may have dropped the ball in Massachusetts all those years ago, or perhaps that shooting was really an accident, to me it doesn't matter much.

What needs to be pointed out is the relaxed and accepting attitude we have towards people who misuse firearms, even in states that are unfriendly to guns. I say "one strike you're out," especially if that strike is a big one. I'm sure the pro-gun voices, the ones who oppose any and all restrictions on guns, would demand proof and stats, but I'm simply appealing to common sense. When someone demonstrates the ability to make a mistake with a gun once, I say they are more likely to do so again, especially is the sanctions are light or non-existent.

Therefore if we remove guns from all those who misuse them, even in the slightest, we wouldn't be guilty of punishing people for what they might do in the future, or profiling people in any way, we'd be administering the strictest behavioral standards on people with guns, and we'd only be punishing the abusers.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

1 comment:

  1. "I say "one strike you're out,""

    Yeah. That's really going to work.

    Chicago is essentially a "zero strike you're out" city, yet it's estimated 100,000 of it's citizens own handguns anyway.