on the Milwaukee man who asked his friend to shoot him in order to win his girlfriend back. It didn't work.
Sure, and after they get this one expunged, maybe Cardella can request that his gun rights be returned even though he did have one other felony. Of course by then Wezyk will be back in action, guns and all.The judge sentenced him to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service, and at a separate hearing this month, gave the same sentence to Anthony D. Woodall, 20, of South Milwaukee, a friend of Cardella who lined up Wezyk to do the shooting. Woodall was convicted of the same felony as party to a crime. If they both complete probation successfully, the court will consider a motion to expunge this offense from their records.
I think a little time in jail would have done these boys some good. But I feel much more strongly that losing their gun rights for life would have done them and everyone else around them more good.
What do you think. I would apply the one-strike-you're-out rule, or the MikeB is King rule, as it is sometimes known, even to people who drop a gun. I see that as the least offensive type of misuse, but one worthy of a severe response. When someone actually misuses a gun purposely, like these two did, they should never be allowed near guns again.
The reason for such severity, both in the case of negligence and in the case of wrong action, is based on the idea that anyone who does something like this once, is more likely to repeat it than someone who's never done it. I realize some people would be unfairly swept up in a policy like this, people who might have learned a lesson and never repeated the mistake, but just think of all the reckless and stupid people who would be helped.
Negligence and stupidity with guns would drop to an all time low after about ten years. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
How would this compare with people that ask doctors to end their lives? In this case, the guy just wanted to be injured. It sounds like all involved were consenting adults, why is it a crime in this case but euthanasia is ok?
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding, right? You're not? Okay, let's see if you can use your head for something besides a mount for your ballcap.
Requesting that someone shoot you to end your suffering from a terminal disease is pretty drastic, but in some circumstances might be the requesters only available option (although there are numerous less ghastly ways to take one's life); asking someone to shoot you so that your girlfriend will feel sorry for you is fucking insane.
There, see the difference?
Mikeb302000:
This situation seems to have worked out better than the one I read about a month or two ago in a local paper. A guy had his friend shoot him, just to wound him a little--he got shot more than a "little" and bled out on the way to the hospital. Wattafuckin'maroon.
So you are ok with people commiting suicide or asking others to kill them if they use "less ghastly ways?" That is not insane, but wanting someone to only hurt you to get attention is insane. Are you one of the people that thinks commiting suicide should be against the law and the punishment be the death penalty?
ReplyDeleteC'mon Jim, you're usually more coherent than this.
ReplyDeleteInstead of making inane comparisons, please just tell us what you think abou these guys. Was it OK what they did?
"Was it OK what they did?"
ReplyDeleteI thought whatever two consenting adults do in privacy was always ok now.
Jim, what two consenting adults do sexually is no one's business.
ReplyDeleteShooting someone is, including the fact that it can all too easily involve a bullet flying through a wall, floor or ceiling, killing or injuring another person.
Sex doesn't usually involve that unique sort of risk of both property and personal physical damage.
It is as intellectually dishonest as the inane, bogus Pez dispenser analogy that Red Az made here recently. Or do you just not think more clearly than that? Because if you do, you shouldn't require one of us to point out the glaringly obvious flaws of fact and logic inherent in your comment.
Jim said:
ReplyDeleteHow would this compare with people that ask doctors to end their lives?
Do you have any idea how euthanasia works in this country, in the few states like Oregon where there is some form of it, or in other countries like Switzerland or the Netherlands where it exists legally? There are strict rules to determine that no one is benefitting financially, as a form of legal murder. There are strict criteria addressing the issues of possible recovery - or not; as well as consideration of acute pain which is no longer manageable by medication. There is also serious evaluation of the patient's mental health condition, to separate out problems like depression which do not qualify for euthanasia.
Can you show me a single quality necessary for someone to have their request for a medically based euthanasia, a dignifed ending of death which gives control over an intolerable, unendurable situation to empower someone that is evident in this situation?
Or are you going to continue to make the same kind of specious, trivial, intellectually dishonest bogus arguments that seem to be the best you and your confreres can come up with on this blog?
I'm astonished, and disappointed that you are, apparently, incapable of critical argument or thinking above the nonsense thinking one would normally expect from a kindergarten aged child.
That comparison might actually be unfair to five year olds...
dog gone - if the gunshot were to injure another person or property then that would no longer be activity between two consenting adults, so I am not sure how that comes into play here.
ReplyDeleteWe know that willfully being injured by another person is legal since BSDM is not against the law - again assuming two (or more) consenting adults are involved. So this is not simply an issue of the injury incured but I assume it is specifically that a gun was used. If this guy had asked the other man to stab him, would that have been a crime? What if he just asked him to whip him or punch him?
I just think it is interesting that we have legalized a form of killing through euthanaisa, but this is illegal.
There is an inherent risk of injury to others that does not parallel consenting sexual activity.
ReplyDeleteAs to BDSM, there is no legal evidence that I can find that hurting another person is legal. Certainly those who run BDSM establishments tend to be arrested for running disorderly houses even when there is NO sex for pay activity. I don't believe that it is legal to stab anyone either; that is specious. I would point out that you appear to be a bit ignorant of BDSM; while it CAN involve sexual activity, it doesn't necessarily do so.
My understanding is that sex acts which are consensual ARE private, and therefore not anyone else's business. My understanding is that any injuring or killing of another person, including if it involves sexual acts, is illegal, and that a sexual act in conjunction with harming does not confer immunity from prosecution on the basis of consent.
Therefore - a specious argument / comparison.
Laci has had an interesting career in the law; perhaps he will way in with a better legal explanation than I provided. If he isn't too bored with all of this.
Wow, I've been saying that Conservative has become synonymous to insane or feebleminded in the USA, but Jim has just come along and proven it.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, saying that causing an injury, or death, between consenting adults is acceptable is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever made.
On the other hand, the US has come up with its perverse interpretation of self-defence--what the hell? WHy not make it a defence to murder to say "the other person wanted me to kill him".
Seriously, Jim, are you smoking something?
You can make arguments about "victimless crimes" which is where the consenting adults and sex acts comes in with varying arguments that these are not "victimless crimes".
But bodily injury or death?
Come on!
While saying that the act was a mutual fight might downgrade various forms of assault to lesser offences--it is still an illegal act.
Society, you know what society is, don't you, Jim? It's what keeps things from falling apart into a state of anarchy. Or are you one of those libertarian idiots that believes government is a bad thing?
If you are, I strongly suggest that you look into the Border Reivers which existed between England And Scotland during the 16th and 17th Centuries to see what happens when there is no government.
Or just move to Somalia where there hasn't been an effective government for the past 20 years.
Or are you too much of a wimp to walk the talk?
While digging into Jim I forgot to complete this thought:
ReplyDeleteSociety, you know what society is, don't you, Jim?
Society has an interest in keeping order and preventing societal harms. Nothing wrong with the old Nanny State, Jim, since you could do with a good English Nanny to whip you into line.
But, society does not condone acts of violence. Likewise, it wants to prevent the vendettas that occur when law and order collapses.
Which takes us to where the Libertarian Idiocy really plays out in places like the England-Scotland Border in the 16th & 17th Century, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The fact that the right wanted to institute its concept of "deomcracy" in Iraq should have caused intelligent people to pause, but I am seriously wondering about the great American public.
Especially our Jim.
I thought the inane pez comparison was FWM, wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteThe stupid pez analogy was FWM, commenting on a different post.
ReplyDeleteI'm generally rather tired and annoyed with these false analogies which are indicative of superficial, non-critical thinking being passed off as informed opinion when they are anything but that.
Laci - what is your take then on the legal killing of another through euthanaisa (my original question)? How is that considered ok and the injuring of another consenting person is against the law? Should we also outlaw euthanaisa?
ReplyDelete"But, society does not condone acts of violence."
ReplyDeleteI think if you look into the history of mankind you would rethink that statement. Society has always condoned acts of violence - just against certain groups depending on the time and location. Can you point out any society that has not acted violently at some point?