The poor Detroit cops are really being ridiculed for this one. But, it seems to me the obvious explanation is that the shooter only told the firemen he was "involved" in the shooting, like a witness maybe, not that he was the author of it.The incident relates to a quadruple shooting that happened around 1:30 a.m. Saturday morning on Inverness on the city's west side. Two men were killed and two others were injured.Police say that at around 3:20 a.m. Saturday a 36-year-old man went to a Detroit Fire Engine Station near the scene of the shootings. He reportedly told the fire fighters that he was connected to the shootings.However, when Detroit Police were called, they said the patrol units for the area were busy handling high priority runs and no one was dispatched to the fire house.Firefighters say they kept the man at the fire station for almost four hours waiting for a police patrol car to pick him up. Eventually they put the suspect in a taxi and sent him to the 10th Precinct where he was taken into custody.
In any case, people love to blame the cops whenever possible. And goodness knows they deserve it many times, but not in this case.
What the story does show, though, is another mass shooting that took place in a non-gun-free zone. I guess the pro-gun crowd is just going to have to shut up about that one. Every day we find examples which put the lie to their oft-repeated nonsense that mass shootings usually happen in gun free zones.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It was a multiple shooting, not mass. A mass shooting occurs when you have a captured group of victims like a church, school, store or offices and the like. You know, gun free zones.
ReplyDeletePlus look at how much the population of the police force has declined in recent years. In the last ten years the force is only 1/3 or less than it was. The police force cant even respond to a hit and run, traffic accident and such.
Detroit is becoming an abondoned city. From houses to entire skyscrapers are abandoned, empty. No residents, no tax base, no law enforcement.
I don't think you can add that qualifier to the definition. "A captured group of people," give me a break, will ya?
DeleteIts a legal definition Mike, not mine. Captured, corralled, housed, restrained, restricted exit, or what ever term you wish. The term applies to places like a movie theater, a church, a classroom, a office, a home or anywhere, open events like football games, outside school events, play grounds, amusement parks, a rally, a group large or small, that make egress slow or impossible.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, the term "captured group" is a qualifier that applies to situations like those examples listed. And almost all of those examples are where gun free zones are posted.
There are never any gun free zones on the highway or surface streets, sidewalks, in your car, walking in neighborhoods, most parking lots and so on. These places have plenty of free egress and escape options as well as people are spread out and not tightly packed.
The term mass and multiple also has separate legal definitions as well. To lump them all together to make a point is simply disingenuous.
I haven't seen that definition. I think you made it up, or perhaps you read it somewhere where someone else made it up in order to better control the argument.
DeleteNot made up, in the Texas and federal crime disposition of charges to be made by prosecutor's.Penal code definitions. Do a little research and you will be surprised what you can find. Dont use blogs, go into penal codes from federal, state and local legal terms and applications.
ReplyDelete