Friday, July 23, 2010

Two Strikes You're Out

The Chigcago Tribune reports on the antics of a clumsy deputy.

A Lake County sheriff's deputy has been placed on leave after her gun fell out of its holster and skidded across the floor of the crowded courthouse lobby Wednesday morning.

The gun did not discharge, but the incident, which occurred about 8:30 a.m., prompted at least one witness to phone security.

The sheriff's office confirmed the courthouse deputy is the same officer who accidentally shot herself while retrieving her service weapon from the trunk of her car in the Lake County Courthouse parking garage in February 2009. The bullet went through Deputy Karen Harris' hand and then lodged in her abdomen, but she eventually recovered and was able to return to work.

What's your opinion? Should she be given another break and after some administrative leave with pay, return to duty? Or, do you agree with me, that she should have been fired and stripped of her gun-owning rights after the first incident?

Please leave a comment.


  1. I think she should be fired for incompetence, but she shouldn't lose her rights. She's free to be an idiot, but she shouldn't be paid for it.

  2. But AztecRed, that solution leaves MikeB out in the cold. He doesn't get the satisfaction of knowing he had exercised control over her life, like any good Statist should. Nope, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

  3. No, that dog won't hunt. People who prove they're too irresponsible to handle guns safely are a danger to OTHERS. Get it?

  4. Yup, they are a danger to others.

    So are people who drive distracted by whatever electronic toy they have in the car. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who are downright stupid or dangerous. But, until she does something that harms someone, she hasn't necessarily committed a crime, and we should not be so willing to jump up and claim that she must be disarmed because she's incompetent.

    (Don't get me wrong, if I was her coworker, I'd sure be trying to talk her into an extended leave of absence, or perhaps working at a desk somewhere. I don't think she's necessarily safe, but to rule that she must lose her rights is another step entirely, and it's wrong. Freedom requires that we err on the side of rights and liberty, not caution.)

  5. Using your own comparison, if I want to be free to talk on the cell phone while driving I risk getting arrested. So, restricting someone's "rights" to make the other people safer is done all the time - same with the seat belt and the helmet on a motorcycle, same with buying rocket launchers for personal use.

  6. No, MikeB, you've missed it. You should be free to talk on your phone, or not wear a seatbelt, or buy the rocket launcher. The issue is what happens if you cause an accident while talking on your phone while driving.

    In other words, if you f*ck up, you man up and pay for it, either in money or jail time. (and if you won't man up, then the state sends the men in blue to make you man up.)

    But the freedom to do it should never be lost just because someone else (MikeB) doesn't like it.

  7. Anonymous, first of all, why don't you "man up" and tell us who you are. Commenting anonymously is for pussies.

    Secondly, what you said is ridiculous because the freedoms your talking about endanger others. It's too facile to say, give me freedom and if I fuck up, I'll pay the price because I'm a man. What are you in high school?

    You said, "But the freedom to do it should never be lost just because someone else (MikeB) doesn't like it."

    That's the ridiculous part. It's not because I or someone else "doesn't like it." It's because we live in a society, sometimes a crowded one. We need rules to keep the people from harming each other. Your libertarian philosophy would be great if all the libertarians were intelligent and considerate people. But I'm afraid people aren't like that.