Columbia man accused in shooting thought new Missouri gun law protected him

[pstokely]

Source: Fox 4

A Missouri man told police he thought the state’s new “stand your ground” gun law would protect him after allegedly shooting another man Monday, according to police.

Karl O. Henson, 23, admitted he opened fire while running after a man whose back was turned, he later told officers in a probable cause statement.

Henson, who faces charges of armed criminal action and first degree assault, told police, “the only reason I thought it was OK to shoot at him while he was running away was because of what happened with the new year with the gun law change,” officer Spirit Stevens wrote.

Missouri instituted the “stand your ground” law in January, 2017, after the state legislature guaranteed the passage of Senate Bill 650 in September, despite Governor Jay Nixon’s earlier veto. The law allows people use deadly force instead of running away, as long as they believe deadly force will be used upon them

Read more: http://fox4kc.com/2017/01/26/missouri-man-accused-in-shooting-thought-new-gun-law-protected-him/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=588b212a04d30119f50f6e32&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

[KG]

1. yay guns! and the idiots wielding them!

[Hoyt]

2. Typical white wing gun fancier, just looking for justification to shoot someone, even one fleeing.

Gun nut shot at a guy 6 times for stealing his Iphone. Christ.


?quality=85&strip=all&strip=all

[AllaN01Bear]

8. interisting ideas. i also notice that even when those were suggested the gun owners get upset.

they sound sensible to me.

[Judi Lynn]

20. Couldn't run fast enough to get it back, so he dropped him.

No one ever has to accept a loss like a human being would, if he has a gun.

Guns: the perfect solution for the criminally insane.

[DeminPennswoods]

3. Can't fix stupid

nt

[Ilsa]

4. Ignorance is no excuse. NT

[Sancho]

5. Here's the kind of law that Missouri should have passed....

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[safeinOhio]

7. pretty good ideas.

One I have been thinking about that could save many accidental deaths. All semi-auto hand guns must not be stored or carried with a round in the chamber. Seems most toddlers that shoot themselves or others, do so by just pulling the trigger. It only takes a half second to work the action to load the chamber, almost child proof, like those med bottles.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. So, basically you only want the 1% to have guns.

This sounds lot like how Republicans want to restrict access to voting by poor people.

This is where you give it away.

" If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance. "

No guns for poor people, and likely even middle class. That's what you're saying.

[Sancho]

13. Yep...if you are too poor to drive or buy groceries, you don't need a gun!

Owning guns should be primarily for sport. If you have a job that requires a gun it's for work. Sport is a hobby, and poor people have to choose cheaper hobbies. For most people, the gun insurance would be simple rider on their homeowners policy. If you have a safe home, a safe history, training, and safe storage, then your insurance company will be your friend. If you have a poor record, mental issues, etc., then your insurance will be costly if you can get it at all.

It's AMAZING how many "poor" people seem to be able to collect a large number of expensive guns!! Have you been to a gun show?

The cost of a license and insurance is no more "expensive" than any other costs for all the different insurances we have today, except that your money now is going to pay for all that violence and mayhem occurring as we speak from dangerous people having guns!

This idea is nothing like "republicans" - there's NO restrictions on guns - only a way to keep dangerous people away from guns!

[AtheistCrusader]

14. So, poor people are dangerous?

Yep...if you are too poor to drive or buy groceries, you don't need a gun!

Sport is a hobby, and poor people have to choose cheaper hobbies.

This idea is nothing like "republicans" - there's NO restrictions on guns - only a way to keep dangerous people away from guns!

Are you even listening to yourself as you type this crap? There's NO correlation between 'dangerous people' and 'poor people'. If you think there is, by all means, cite some peer reviewed evidence.

[Sancho]

16. No...you're the one who said you were too poor to own a gun...

if you are dangerous, you should not possess a gun. I really don't care how much or how little money you have in your wallet.

If you can't afford a gun, that's too bad, but it's not up to the government to give you one for free.

If you want to spend your grocery money and house payment on guns, then go ahead.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I'm not, in fact, I meet some of the storage and insurnace requirements you specify.

But I am not everyone, and I give a shit about people who cannot afford these things, yet might live in neighborhoods/circumstances that actually warrant having tools for self defense, MORE than my own needs.

Some of these things can be done, but most just price poor people out of firearms for any purpose.

[Sancho]

19. If dangerous people don't have easy access to guns, then the need for self-defense is a small issue.

That's easy to see internationally.

I don't think any economic arguments supersedes the idea that dangerous people should not have easy access to guns.

Required insurance is ONE of the ways to help a comprehensive issue so there are few loopholes.
1.) Insurance companies keep statistics about what makes situations and why certain people are more likely to be dangerous.
2.) Required insurance is easily part of most state government agencies.
3.) Insurance costs are only "excessive" if you are a bad risk. Many homeowner's policies could be made to fit gun licensing for very modest costs as long as your possession is safe.
4.) Insurance records might be useful to track down illegal sales or criminals without some "national database".
5.) Insurance would provide a layer of safety checks: gun security, children in the home, etc. where you would be motivated to reduce your premium or meet insurance standards above some minimal legal threshold.
6.) Insurance applications might ask questions or look a medical records to see if possessors have a history of depression, arrests, or background indicators of potential misuse without the need for a court to declare that you are insane.
7.) Insurance might be site specific for use a shooting ranges, hunting, or on-the-job. Again, it's just a check to reduce the misuse.

A lot of the mass shootings and murder/suicides, and accidental shootings can be prevented if dangerous people are denied a license - and than license is necessary to possess a gun. If you know an easier or cheaper way to prevent dangerous people from quickly and easily getting their hands on just about whatever guns they desire, then let us know a better plan.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Have you not ever seen someone beaten to death?

They're still dead. Just to be clear.

Again, you are conflating poor people with 'dangerous people' when you target lawful gun ownership with increased fees/taxes/premiums, and time out to go take training courses. Dangerous people aren't going to give a shit and likely already deal in stolen firearms anyway.

Your idea of increasing the price to price out 'dangerous people' is just as wrong as instant classifications of people with mental health issues as 'dangerous', when in reality, they are more likely to be victims of violence, than perpetrators of violence. (I note you've gleefully made that error as well.)

6.) Insurance applications might ask questions or look a medical records to see if possessors have a history of depression, arrests, or background indicators of potential misuse without the need for a court to declare that you are insane.

So, basically you're managing to shit on the poor, and people with mental health issues.

https://news.ncsu.edu/2014/02/wms-desmarais-violence2014/

Your idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

[Sancho]

22. I specifically said...NOT A MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS...but an assessment of safety to have a gun.

...and you don't have any idea of what I've seen (which has included people being shot and beaten.
(I've also worked professionally with diagnosed emotional and mentally ill people.)

You are the one who is denying the fact that our society needs to prevent DANGEROUS people from easy access to guns.

It has nothing to do with money or where you live. Some shootings are accidental, some by criminals, some by the emotionally disturbed, some by children.

People who possess guns should be reasonably safe, reasonably trained, and reasonably competent. Even a person without a diagnosed illness might be at a time in their life where they face a crisis. Even a wealthy person might confront an attacker. We cannot keep all bad events from happening.

What we can do is take positive steps to prevent violence with guns - because almost every shooting is caused by someone that some other person knew was dangerous, or the situation of guns in the hands of children was preventable. If you took steps to obtain a license, it would make it possible to possess a gun for sport or defense; not ban guns; and still prevent a large number of deaths. If your state did or did not require insurance is a minor detail. If some states required insurance, the cost vs. benefit would play out in time. Does any state currently NOT require auto insurance? Why not?

Again, I say to you.......what is your better idea besides keeping guns away from dangerous people??

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Pricing poor people out of firearms does not 'prevent dangerous people from easy access to guns'.

It prevents poor people from easy access to guns, which is not the same overlapping population as 'dangerous people'.

Actual material steps:
1. Follow up on NICS denials. When someone attests and swears in writing that they are eligible to purchase a firearm, and the NICS check reveals they are not eligible, you have prima facie evidence a crime was just committed. We investigate and prosecute literally zero of these cases every year.
2. Registration. You've talked about licensure in terms of making it expensive. It need not be. This would enable teeth for the Lautenberg Amendment, allowing police to actually come take firearms from people who have active domestic violence restraining orders against them. The police 'collect guns' from such subjects now, but without registration there is no list to say 'give us XYZ firearms', and know that the scumbag with the restraining order or misdemeanor DV conviction, isn't hiding one or two for nefarious purposes.
3. Mental Heath Care as normal medical insurance. Firearms are simply very effective means of committing suicide. Take away the guns entirely, you have not addressed the suicide problem, even though it would be beneficial to do so because then fewer suicides would be successful. I'm not going to argue that's not the case, but it does not solve the problem. That said, mental conditions that lead to self harm, is the actual problem (And this accounts for more than 1/3 of all firearm-related fatalities.) and addressing THAT would pay dividends well beyond just firearm related deaths. These conditions should be treatable no different from a broken leg.

I'm not opposed to safe storage. I'm not opposed to liability insurance requirements for concealed carry licensees. I'm ambivalent on the 'training' aspect of CPL or open carry. Frankly, the training out there isn't great, and is weak on the subject of WHEN it is lawful to use deadly force (firearm or otherwise) in self defense, leading us back to the screwball in the story of the OP, who for some reason thought it was ok to hunt a person down like a dog and use deadly force for a petty theft. That's not ok. Obviously. Current firearms training is often weak on that differentiation, in my opinion. What you really need is a class led by a defense attorney to explain the ramifications of deadly force in self defense, the why's, the how's and the why its a last damn resort, not an easy solution to a problem.

[Sancho]

25. Yep...I knew it was a legalistic issue...

1.) if you wait for swearing and diagnosing, you won't PREVENT anything. There needs to be a lower threshold where a questionnaire and interview are appropriate. For example, you might have to read traffic signs at the DNC to get a driver's license, but they don't diagnose or prescribe glasses. If you have a history or self-report being dangerous, then you should be cleared before having easy access to a gun.
2.) I don't think a license should be expensive at all. I have "licenses" to rent scuba equipment...simple evidence of course completion to keep me from killing myself, but not an expensive license for a hobby. A license is not the same as a gun registration. I'm interested in the PERSON, not the gun.
3.) Yes, we all wish that emotional and mental illnesses were treated. Guns make impulsive decision efficient. All too often it becomes a MURDER/suicide. Taking an overdose or jumping off a bridge is less likely to involve the kids and spouse.

The "stand your ground" here in FL is a disaster...and I was with an attorney today discussing someone who is in fear of a dangerous person that the authorities don't have the "evidence" to hold or charge, but multiple witnesses say he is threatening. He can legally possess a gun in Florida. Until he actually commits a crime or openly says he's a danger, he is loose as a goose. That's why we need a LICENSE that restricts access to guns until you are deemed likely to be safe; as opposed likely to be dangerous.

I'd rather err on the side of safe. That's why we wear seatbelt, quarantine contagious people, and make you turn off your cell phone during takeoff. I agree the "carry permit" training is usually a joke.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. You didn't say dangerous earlier. You said depression. These are not the same thing.

Lots of people struggling with depression aren't dangerous, to others or themselves.

Licensure might be ok in some scenarios, for instance, concealed carry. But broad-brush, no, because we don't license civil rights.

"All too often it becomes a MURDER/suicide."

What does 'all too often' mean? Can we get some hard numbers around that so we even know what success looks like when approaching the problem?


Stand your ground has nothing to do with the scenario you outlined.

[HopeAgain]

6. So if it is not illegal than it is autmatically moral?

No conscience in this man, apparently.

[HAB911]

9. More to come!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202144

[cab67]

10. These laws will eventually go away, and it'll start in Florida.

Back in the 1980's, there was a series of high-profile murders in which the victims were European tourists. Several countries issued travel advisories against visiting Florida. Florida very quickly passed laws that, among other things, allowed prosecution of juveniles as adults.

I'm not defending those laws - only pointing out that when the tourism industry is threatened, Florida responds.

Eventually, someone from another country will be shot by a yahoo claiming "stand your ground." Travel advisories will be issued, and the tourism industry will beg to have these laws overturned. The gun lobby is strong, but not that strong.

[randome]

12. Huh. Good point. Sounds right.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. Try taking a gun to Disney World and see what happens.

[ManiacJoe]

24. Disney just turns you around at the metal detectors.

Or you can store the gun in their security lockers (before the screening), from what I have read.

[ManiacJoe]

15. Before one can claim Stand Your Ground, one first has to claim self defense.

Henson cannot do that.