Fatal Cop Shooting Suspect Killed In Standoff

[ellisonz]

December 19, 2011 12:50 PM

WEBSTER (KDKA) – The suspect in a shooting that left one officer dead and another injured has died.

According to police, the suspect was shot and killed during a standoff at his home Monday morning.

He has been identified as Eli Franklin Myers, 58, of Webster, Westmoreland County.

---------

Myers used to work at a gun shop and was a hunting enthusiast who had many weapons in his possession.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/12/19/fatal-east-washington-cop-shooting-suspect-dies/

Traffic stop gone bad...

#61 - http://www.odmp.org/search/year/2011



Police Officer John Dryer was shot and killed as he and another officer made a traffic stop on I-70, near East Beau Street, in East Washington at approximately 11:00 pm.

As Officer Dryer and a second officer waited for a tow truck to arrive the man exited his vehicle and opened fire. Officer Dryer was shot in the head and fatally wounded, and the second officer was shot in the hand. Officer Dryer was transported to Washington Hospital where he was pronounced dead at about 1:00 am.

----------


Officer Dryer is survived by his parents and his 17-year-old son.

Read more: http://www.odmp.org/officer/21057-police-officer-john-david-dryer#ixzz1h1YkUJjg

[PavePusher]

1. So, what is your commentary/proposals? n/t

[ellisonz]

2. You can go check back on the other thread...

Where you just posted the exact same thing dude.

[petronius]

4. This is a very tacky post, ellisonz, I encourage you to remove it

Using the tragic murder of a police officer in a thinly-veiled attempt to smear DUers as insensitive to violence is commonly and correctly described as grave-dancing, and IMO does not fit with our community standards...

[ellisonz]

7. Well I respect you...but...

I've just been told by over half this forum that nothing is wrong with the gun culture in this country. If they wish to ignore the realities of what goes on daily in this country it's perfectly within their right to place me on ignore, it's now functional. My intention is not to grave dance but rather to call attention to the very dangerous work that police officers do. I'm sorry if it's seen that way, but frankly I'm disgusted with the disrespect that I've been treated with. I suppose to those who wish to see that way have at it; but I for one am tired of seeing the defense of unlimited gun rights go unchallenged on this board. This story is from today - it is current news, and I would point out that this forum is not just Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[petronius]

11. I wasn't referring to the OP, I was referring to the "crickets" post

Discussion about gun rights from any perspective, including crimes involving guns, is the purpose of this forum. Your OP fits within that, although I think you could have made a more effective contribution to the conversation by including some of your own thoughts.

The "crickets" post, however, is as I described it (IMO of course) - despite whatever irritation, anger, offense or disgust you were motivated by when posting it, I think you should nuke it...

[ellisonz]

12. Done.

Let's see if the members of the forum who have called me ignorant, confused, and dishonest, would care to admit that we have a tremendously problematic gun control policy and that the answer is more and better gun control. Let's see if a single one can admit that otherwise they might as well rename this group the National Rifle Association Group. I am tired of gun violence harming my friends and family. Enough is enough; it's time for a wake up call.

[petronius]

15. Thank you! (nt)

[one-eyed fat man]

16. How about more and better criminal control?

Right now, this very minute somewhere, someplace, someone who should not be buying a gun is being "stopped" by the Brady law. They tell me millions have been, I have heard everyone from Janet Reno on trumpet the numbers for almost twenty years.

Stopped?? Maybe annoyed, possibly inconvenienced, but stopped?? Not fucking hardly!

If Charles Manson broke out of San Quentin and walked into the first available gun store and tried to buy a gun under his real name and social security number, what would happen?

The clerk would take the 4473 can call it into a special number for FFLs and request a NICS check. The clerk would run the check, and without disclosing a reason, instruct the clerk to deny the sale. End of story.

Nobody calls the local law and says, "Hey your fugitive is in Billy Bob's Bait, Bullets and Bridal out on the highway."

Ol' Charlie is free to amass another harem of love-starved hippie chicks to slice and dice movie stars, buy guns from dope dealers, but according to those who know gun control best he counts as another "stop."

Every one of those attempts to buy a gun was in itself a felony, but no one gets arrested. This observation is not new. It was made back in 1994. When asked how come no one had been arrested under the law, the Attorney General sneeringly responds that it was never intended to arrest people, the law was symbolic.

The point of gun control laws has always been to pass laws that the criminal will not obey. This ensures that there will be no effect on crime. This is, of course, a reason to pass more ill-crafted laws because the object is not to control crime but to get guns to the point where only that state and the criminal possess them.

[ellisonz]

17. You couldn't be more wrong.

More better laws is the only solution. Otherwise you can just guarantee tragic outcomes...and I'm not prepared to accept that. Are you advocating allowing criminals and the insane to walk into a store and buy a handgun, extended magazines, and all the ammo they want? That's not clever, that's inane.

*Insert picture of Jared Lee Loughner*

[one-eyed fat man]

19. You don't get it

What is the point if they can walk out of the store and buy a gun elsewhere? You think the criminal walks out of the gun store and decides to give up his life of crime to become a monk in Tibet? If a crook goes shopping for a gun it's a good bet he has some nastiness in mind, maybe, just maybe, if he tips his hand by shopping for one maybe somebody should check him out? Arrest him for the attempt? You tell me. it's YOUR law that gives him a pass!

It is not one bit harder to find a gun on the black market than it is to buy the weed you smoke. In fact, ask the guy you get you dope from if he can get you a gun and what kind of background check he needs.

Loughner is a perfect example of failure. His mother worked for the sheriff's office. He perjured himself on the 4473 when he denied being an unlawful user of marijuana. He failed an Army drug test, knowing well in advance he'd have to undergo one. As far as being a nut case, it appears half of Arizona, or at least those who could find a TV crew or an open microphone were willing to say how nuts he was and how they all "knew" it was him as soon as they heard the news, etc etc.

But not a single one took action to have him committed to a mental institution. NO ONE, NOT ONE, NADA.

So there was no background to check.

But even if Loughner had been rejected he could again, get a gun from stocking dope dealer. Heck, he probably has one in he took in trade from a little old lady who only hijacked cars on Sunday after church.

If you can't find an illegal source of guns where you are you probably couldn't find a prostitute in Las Vegas using Craigslist.

[ellisonz]

20. Hey...don't look at me...I'm not the one encouraging doing away with a failed system.

I want to make it work. You're just making my pointf or me...the system is broken and until it gets fixed nothing is going to stop the violence. You're lucky if it hasn't affected your life, because it's sure affected mine and I am sick of making apologies for NRA insanity.

I'd have had Loughner submitted to a police psychology screening before he could buy a gun; I'd squeeze the black market supply. You seem content to do nothing, and that's sad.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. What you've overlooked in your moral entrepeneurship is the system hasn't failed.

The violent crime and murder rates in the US are at their lowest points in 40-odd years.

What has happened to those you know *is* a tragedy- but that doesn't mean Constitutional protections should
go out the window.

"I'd have had Loughner submitted to a police psychology screening before he could buy a gun"

Prior restraint, and entirely unconstitutional.

"I'd squeeze the black market supply"

What, a War on Guns to go with the War on (Some) Drugs and the failed War on Alcohol?

[ellisonz]

22. Because of gun control...

I'd end the War on Drugs as we know it and wage War on Gun Violence. God, I hate those terms.

Are you for doing nothing?

I think a strong case can be made that violent crime and murder rates are down because of gun control and better policing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. But gun laws are far less restrictive than they were forty years ago- and there are far more guns...

...in civilian hands.

Certainly, I'd like to see more done. The Feds should spend more money to improve reporting of prohibited persons to
the NICS, and I'd like to see those filling out a Form 4473 falsely *actually prosecuted*- as of now, it's a law in name only.

[ellisonz]

29. So you're for gun control...

- that sets you apart from many others in this thread. I would maintain though that the advent of background checks makes a big difference. You can't simply make it an equation of restriction vs. guns - you actually have to look at the specifics.

[PavePusher]

31. You are purposely being obtuse.

No-one here advocates no gun control. We simply disagree with your proposals, and have presented you with arguments that they won't work as claimed. Arguments you have not refuted.

And specifics are what you have not really offered.

[ellisonz]

41. I've refuted the basis of most of your studies which are narrowly constructed...

...to produce a certain result. I have refuted them and have been told that historically based arguments are not worth much compared to a simple correlative statistical argument. I've offered specifics and been told out of hand that they are unconstitutional when the reverse is the truth. Go back and read the previous threads instead of repeating the same question over and over like a befuddled grade school student.

[one-eyed fat man]

34. Learned nothing from the Eighteenth Amendment?

Prohibition failed to control alcohol in any meaningful way, corrupted governments, and enriched criminal enterprises.

The War on Drugs continues to fail to control drugs in any meaningful way, corrupts governments, enriches criminal enterprises and has millions of potheads denying any responsibility for the 30,000 dead Mexicans killed fighting over their market share.

But your are certain THIS TIME, it will work with guns. The same cartels that dig tunnels with rail cars and elevators into San Diego would be completely unable to provide the gangs of LA all the AKs and RPGs their money can buy?

Smoke a lot of that stuff, do you?

[gejohnston]

44. more than you

you are in denial.

[ellisonz]

45. Ok.

[gejohnston]

46. Utah's murder rate

is slightly less than Finland's.

nice but absurd cartoon. Says more about your argument than than Utah.

[ellisonz]

47. Have another.

[one-eyed fat man]

52. No, don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs.

I know the War on Drugs is not working. You're having no difficulty getting your dope. I doubt you are getting organic, dead Mexican free, fair trade, free range, weed. I doubt you care where it comes from as long as you get it. If you have any complaints it might be the quality is low, you don't like the seeds and stems.

Your money supports the cartels. You are a stake holder in their killing and corruption and purposefully deny your money plays any role in it.

[ellisonz]

53. Oh please...

I buy American. Are you kidding yourself here? Also - you really need to stop projecting, pick up some newspapers, and stop pretending I'm the one giving the cartels power. It's the right-wing politicians, who incidentally fully agree with your claims about gun rights, that are enabling this travesty. Seriously, get a grip on how the whole game is being played - and I can tell you for a fact, no one I know, and almost no one outside of perhaps the Mexican immigrant community on the West Coast buys Mexican marijuana. It all goes to places where we can't grow a high quality product for the same price. Please, seriously, if you don't believe me post that same argument in GD and see what you get in response.

[beevul]

57. Where do you see anger in that post? N/T

[one-eyed fat man]

26. Here, try this out

You and your ilk passed a law with no intent of enforcing it. Lets make an extreme example.

Suppose a criminal attempts to buy a gun from a legitimate source, the clerk calls it in and the voice on the other end says, "He's a felon, detain him for the police, they are on the way."

Your approach is to stop drunk driving by taking the keys away from sober people. And it works just about as well.

[ellisonz]

27. That's a ludicrous example...

Presumes zero training on behalf of the clerk and then some more hyperbole for good measure.

If that's the best you can do...

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Hardly- the NICS is run by the FBI, who also run the national crime databases.

And clerks in gun stores are often armed. Don't dismiss the idea out of hand.

[SteveW]

40. Have you been in this forum when "universal" b.g. checks was debated?

This was covered thoroughly over a period of some days. The proposal was to extend the NICS test (now applied only to FFL dealers) to every firearm transaction -- even among individuals. Many problems were identified, and solutions proffered. Funny thing, very few gun-controllers took part in the discussion. Was the Brady proposal a failure, and gun-controllers knew it? Or did gun-control advocates merely want to up the ante, and forget about "improving" NICS, even if it were made universal?

I don't know what you mean by NRA insanity; I don't keep up with all they do. What are they proposing?

Be aware that the mentally ill have had many constitutional rights re-enforced over the law 40-50 years; among them is strengthening due-process (5th Amendment) which calls for adjudicated findings of mental incompetence for any number of actions denying rights or privileges. A "police psychology screening" (why it should be police escapes me) does not constitute due-process. As for black markets, this is ALWAYS the result of prohibitionist schemes and policies. Squeeze all you want, illegal transfers should result in arrest and prosecution.

[SteveW]

39. "more better laws" don't seem to have worked. Your proposals?

You should respect pro-2A folks here more:

"Are you advocating allowing criminals and the insane to walk into a store and buy a handgun, extended magazines, and all the ammo they want? That's not clever, that's inane.

"*Insert picture of Jared Lee Loughner*"

This is the kind of approach advocates of gun-control have usually take. The response you got from One-eye was on point. No one here advocates what you are asking, "clever" or otherwise. BTW, there are more than a few people who think the NICS b.g. test probably has no effect on thwarting criminal activity, and in all honesty, I cannot dispute them. Yet, I continue to support the law. Gun-controllers wanted the law, they got the law. The fact you seem to think it ineffective probably points up what critics of NICS have said: This and many other gun-control laws are not effective in thwarting crime.

NOTE: Cho of Virginia Tech infamy did not use "extended magazines" to commit the worst mass-murder on a college campus. He used additional magazines, and even had a spare pistol. "Extended magazines" probably just got in the way.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. How so?

>would care to admit that we have a tremendously problematic gun control policy and that the answer is more and better gun control.

The FBI just released it's preliminary Uniform Crime data for 2011.

Once again, crime, including violent crime, is down. In fact, we are now at the lowest crime rates in decades, despite record numbers of firearms being in circulation.

Yes, anecdotes like the one you posted are tragic, but are rare, and becoming increasingly so.

Why do you think more gun control is called for when violent crime rates continue to decline in spite of more liberal firearm laws and increase numbers of firearms in circulation?

[aikoaiko]

37. you referred to 'the defense of unlimited gun rights go unchallenged on this board'

I cannot believe you really mean this. While we get an extreme poster on either side of the issue from time to time, the pro-rkba folks on this board are not for unlimited gun rights. Many are for the reform of the more useless laws but that is a far cry from unlimited rights.

Yes, police work is dangerous. Criminals are violent and committing acts of violence to average folk who also need the means to reasonable protect themselves.

[SteveW]

38. Many errors and false assumptions on your part...

"I've just been told by over half this forum that nothing is wrong with the gun culture in this country."

Who has told you there is "nothing wrong with gun culture in this country?" You certainly haven't told us who these people are. You haven't even identified "gun culture."

"If they wish to ignore the realities of what goes on daily in this country..."

Meaningless. You ignore many things which go on daily in this country, don't you? In any event you have not told us what realities concern you, or why they concern you; such concerns would best be expressed in terms of policy changes. What are yours?

If you are concerned with the "dangerous work that police officers do," I think everyone here shares those concerns. Your point? Beyond whatever "disgust you feel about how you have been allegedly "disrepected," THIS in reality seems to be your concern:

"I for one am tired of seeing the defense of unlimited gun rights go unchallenged on this board."

Perhaps you are new here. Postings which challenge of the straw position (and that is precisely what it is) of "...unlimited gun rights..." are posted here daily.

Again, you have not related the news story to any argument you wish to make.

I think what frustrates you is this:

(1) Arguments made for gun-control are for the most part met and defeated by good argument;
(2) The patently mean-spirited attacks on pro-2A folks has not "gone unchallenged," a type of "argument" relied upon frequently.

Respectfully, I CONTINUE to await your explanation of the relevancy of your post to public argument.

[beevul]

50. Do you read your own posts?

"but I for one am tired of seeing the defense of unlimited gun rights go unchallenged on this board"

If you're going to be making statements like the above, you have no room to complain when people characterize those statements, or you as their author, as "ignorant, confused, and/or dishonest".

Do you REALLY believe that "unlimited gun rights" exist anywhere in America? Do you? Really?


Or do you mean relative to what YOU think gun rights should be, with limitations you approve of?


Any way you cut it, one of those words - "ignorant, confused, and/or dishonest" applies to (at the very least) that statement, no matter HOW you explain it. Though some may say the real kicker, is that apparently, you thought that nobody would notice.

Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time.

[ellisonz]

51. How about tired?

Tired of being fed bullshit about how individual gun rights are more important than civic rights. And yes, I do believe that turning a blind-eye to the rampant criminality that pervades the gun industry is de facto unlimited gun rights.

Do you really think we can't have gun homicide rates approaching Australian or French levels? Do you really not see the degree of denialism that goes on amongst the gunners?

Seriously, go read this thread and tell me that they wouldn't have near unlimited gun rights if they could: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721111

Do you read what some of the Gungeonites are posting? Here's a taste:

"In real life, knife robberies are more violent, and produce more injuries...Strong arm robberies are the most violent of all, almost always producing injuries."

"Since you get most of your gun knowledge from Brady, did you believe the Al Qaida guy who said you can buy machine guns at gun shows with little problem?"

"Buying a gun or guns is an excellent act of defiance toward Gun Prohibitionists."

"The government does not have the legal authority to determine my firearms needs, regardless of how many think it has the power."

"Yes, my time and money is far more important to me than the acts of criminals. I fail to see why I should think otherwise."

Not trying to call out - just pointing out the level of denialism that goes on in the pro-gun community. You try debating 6 people who want to have the season ad nauseum conversation that denies basic chains of causation and correlation, flinging insults, and engaging in what any sociologist would term groupthink.

[beevul]

54. You aren't the only one.

"Tired of being fed bullshit about how individual gun rights are more important than civic rights. And yes, I do believe that turning a blind-eye to the rampant criminality that pervades the gun industry is de facto unlimited gun rights."

The right to keep and bear arms, whether you like it or not, IS a civil right. A constitutionally protected one at that. We can go on for days about "coulda woulda shoulda" or that you disagree with the current state of things, but doing so, all that happens is you lose sight of reality:

It is what it is. Calling it otherwise, wishing, hopeing, or preying, that it were otherwise isn't going to change it.

Now, on to the "rampant criminality that pervades the gun industry"...You have provided no evidence of criminality of the gun industry. Furthermore, you have not provided any smidgen of a large pile of evidence it would require to prove "rampant" criminality.

As for your link, excuse me if I don't take the word of a one percenter and anti-gunner, or the "studies" he pushes for.

Yes, I read what people post here.

""In real life, knife robberies are more violent, and produce more injuries...Strong arm robberies are the most violent of all, almost always producing injuries."

Your problem with this statement is? If you can disprove it, do so, if not, don't whine about it.

"Since you get most of your gun knowledge from Brady, did you believe the Al Qaida guy who said you can buy machine guns at gun shows with little problem?"

Well, you HAVE, iirc, posted things from brady, which anyone with anything remotely close to any sense of objectivity knows, is a dishonest group.

""Buying a gun or guns is an excellent act of defiance toward Gun Prohibitionists."

I tend to agree with that sentiment, and think the gun prohibitionists could use a figurative poke in the eye now and then. If you aren't one, why would this statement bother you?

""The government does not have the legal authority to determine my firearms needs, regardless of how many think it has the power."

The problem with that statement is?


"Not trying to call out - just pointing out the level of denialism that goes on in the pro-gun community."

The problem with you pointing out "denialism", is that, to these eyes, you haven't factually established anything for anyone to be denying, though its clear you think you have.

"You try debating 6 people who want to have the season ad nauseum conversation that denies basic chains of causation and correlation, flinging insults, and engaging in what any sociologist would term groupthink."

You haven't established any "basic chains of causation". Do you understand that?

As far as flinging insults, while I myself as well as many of my colleagues of the pro-gun stripe have been guilty of it on occasion, factually, that pales in comparison to the insults we recieve from your colleagues on the other side.

If you doubt that what so ever, I suggest you read the guns forum archives, as they'll bear out what I say, as fact.

[ellisonz]

55. So we should have no debate and all agree on a highly painful issue?

1. So are you saying that former Chief Justice Warren Burger is being dishonest when he said that “The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” - If we can't change anything, why even have elections?

2. I think your whole argument about the gun industry ignores the entire reaction to the assault weapons ban, which many acknowledge here lead to a dramatic increase in attempts on behalf of the gun industry to sell things such as modification kits to get around the regulations. Is nobody responsible for what they sell in this country?

3. So all the political cartoonists and critics are wrong about the nature of this debt? If you believe that, you're selling a bill of goods, of deceits and distortions. Two wrongs don't make a right. I was immediately received with disrespect. People are tired of the violence, if you can't understand their outrage there is no sense in us having further discussions.

I suggest you consult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Logical_Pitfalls_in_the_Gun-Violence_Debate - that is the only evidence I have seen from the pro-gun side that on average guns protect people and reduce crime.

[beevul]

56. I don't recall anyone saying that.

"1. So are you saying that former Chief Justice Warren Burger is being dishonest when he said that “The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” - If we can't change anything, why even have elections?"

Thats HIS OPINION. It is in the minority.

"2. I think your whole argument about the gun industry ignores the entire reaction to the assault weapons ban, which many acknowledge here lead to a dramatic increase in attempts on behalf of the gun industry to sell things such as modification kits to get around the regulations."


I think you don't know exactly what youre talking about here. The assault weapon ban, BY LAW, made the selling of rifles with a certain number of "evil features" illegal. Gun companies afterwards sold rifles WITHOUT those features. It also made the selling of large capacity magazines manufactured past a certain date unlawful. Magazines manufactured BEFORE that date were available NEW bduring the entire duration of the ban.

If strict compliance with the letter of law equals "rampant criminality" in your view, its no wonder you get into insult/shouting matches with people in this forum.

"Is nobody responsible for what they sell in this country?"

Yes, gun manufacturers and retailers are precisely as responsible and accountable for the misuse of the lawful product that they make and sell, as auto manufacturers and retailers are.

Whats the problem with that?

"3. So all the political cartoonists and critics are wrong about the nature of this debt? If you believe that, you're selling a bill of goods, of deceits and distortions. Two wrongs don't make a right."

Its not at all clear to me what exactly is meant by the above, so I will refrain from comment until that changes.


"I was immediately received with disrespect."

You come into this forum, pushing things which have been disproven, citing one percenters who are KNOWN anti-gunners as your sources, claiming things as fact without citing any unbiased sources or empirical evidence, and you expected...what, exactly?


"People are tired of the violence, if you can't understand their outrage there is no sense in us having further discussions."

The violence, as has been cited repeatedly in this forum, is declining, in spite of RECORD gun sales.

If people are tired of the violence, I suggest focusing on the causes of the violence, rather than the implements the violent choose to employ when engaging in it.

Those open to such things are generally met with open minds hereabouts. Those that "jump the gun" (pun intended) aren't.

[ManiacJoe]

6. Interestingly enough, those crickets include you, ellisonz

> 39 views and not even a single comment about Officer Dryer or his family.

If ellisonz had included such a comment in the OP, we would as least know why the OP was posted.

[ellisonz]

8. If I didn't care I wouldn't have posted, no?

Don't like it, get me banned from the forum. Otherwise, it's enough already and I will post away.

[rl6214]

5. And your point?

Oh that's right, you don't post one, you've just got your dancing shoes on.

[ellisonz]

9. What's your point?

We should look the other way?

[rl6214]

10. You are just the latest in a long line of gun control zealots that posts

drive-by news postings of gun happenings in the news=dancing in the blood of the victims.

[ellisonz]

14. Ha...

I wonder what the rest of DU thinks...also, knock off the personal attack.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Well, I think you're trying (and failing) to gin up a moral panic

I think the second paragraph of the first citation explains things best:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

Moral panic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A moral panic is the intensity of feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order.[1] According to Stanley Cohen, author of Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972) and credited as creator of the term, a moral panic occurs when "[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests."[2] Those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are known by researchers as "moral entrepreneurs," while people who supposedly threaten the social order have been described as "folk devils."...

...Various researchers have shown that fears of increasing crime or an increase in certain types of crime are often the cause of moral panics (Cohen, 1972; Hall et al. 1978; Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). Recent studies have shown that despite declining crime rates, this phenomenon continues to occur in various cultures. Japanese jurist Koichi Hamai (浜井浩&#19968 points out how the changes in crime recording in Japan since the 1990s led to the widespread view that the crime rate is rising and that crimes are increasingly severe. This became an election issue in 2003 with a moral panic over the "collapsing safe society."[16] Some critics have pointed to moral panic as an explanation for the War on Drugs. For example a Royal Society of Arts commission concluded that "the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, ... is driven more by 'moral panic' than by a practical desire to reduce harm."[17]...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_entrepreneur


Moral entrepreneur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A moral entrepreneur is a person who seeks to influence a group to adopt or maintain a norm. The moral entrepreneur may press for the creation or enforcement of a norm for any number of reasons, altruistic or selfish. Some examples of moral entrepreneurs are: MADD (mothers against drunk driving), the anti-tobacco lobby, and the pro-life movement.

The term "moral entrepreneur" was coined by Howard S. Becker. In his view, moral entrepreneurs fall into roughly two categories: rule creators, and rule enforcers. Rule creators can be seen as moral crusaders, who are concerned chiefly with the successful persuasion of others, but are not concerned with the means by which this persuasion is achieved. Successful moral crusades are generally dominated by those in the upper social strata of society (Becker,1963). There is political competition in which these moral crusaders originate crusades aimed at generating reform, based on what they think is moral, therefore defining deviance. Moral crusaders must have power, public support, generate public awareness of the issue, and be able to propose a clear and acceptable solution to the problem (Becker, 1963).

After a time, crusaders become dependent upon experts or professionals, who serve to legitimize a moral creed on technical or scientific grounds. Rule enforcers, such as policemen, are compelled by two drives: the need to justify their own role, and the need to win respect in interactions. They are in a bind; if they show too much effectiveness one might say they are not needed, and if they show too little effectiveness one might say they are failing. Rule enforcers just feel the need to enforce the rule because that is their job; they are not really concerned with the content of the rule. As rules are changed, something that was once acceptable may now be punished and vice versa. Such officials tend to take a pessimistic view of human nature because of constant exposure to willful deviance.

References: Becker, Howard S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press. pp. 147–153.

[ellisonz]

23. I've actually read that Becker work.

Are you feeling any pangs of conscience yet?

Or are you just content to say I'd drive people to heroin use by restricting their access to alcohol after repeated DUIs?

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. No, but all these accounts of satanic ritual abu..., err gun crimes

are *definitely* giving off a Summer of the Shark vibe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark

Summer of the Shark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Summer of the Shark refers to the coverage of shark attacks by American news media in the summer of 2001. The sensationalist coverage of shark attacks began in early July following the Fourth of July weekend shark attack on 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast, and continued almost unabated—despite no evidence for an actual increase in attacks—until the September 11 terrorist attacks shifted the media's attention away from beaches. The Summer of the Shark has since been remembered as an example of tabloid television perpetuating a story with no real merit beyond its ability to draw ratings...

[ellisonz]

28. If only...

The difference in statistical magnitude disproves your claim. I still maintain that the main contributing factors to the reduction in violent crime rates are gun control, better policing, and just for fun let's throw in better medical treatment.

[hack89]

32. Gun laws are now laxer, there are fewer police on the streets and ..

affordable health care is beyond the reach of many Americans - what reality do you live in?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. What color is the sky in your world?

Gun control laws are being repealed all the time. There are far fewer of them now than 10 years ago.

Police departments are short staffed in the extreme.

Medical treatment has nothing to do with crime rates.

In other words - your factors, in reality, consist of the exact opposite you claim. Arguably one could look at the reality as it is, compare it with your claims and conclude that you support getting rid of all gun control laws and all police since this would lead to an even further reduction in crime...

[Atypical Liberal]

36. You really need to do some research.

I still maintain that the main contributing factors to the reduction in violent crime rates are gun control, better policing, and just for fun let's throw in better medical treatment.

You are completely wrong.

You really, really, need to go spend a couple of hours Googling "Violent Crime in the United States".

Violent crime in the US is now at it's lowest point in decades. Yet we currently have record numbers of firearms in circulation. The election of President Obama in 2008 sparked a massive spike in firearm and ammunition sales yet violent crime rates have continued to decline since then, as they were well before his election.

Since 1986 we have gone from virtually no states allowing concealed carry to now every state except one allowing it. We are also seeing more and more states passing "castle doctrine" style laws that remove the duty to retreat from victims of crime.

Now I will NOT make the case that the reason we are having reduced crime rates is because of more firearms. We can't make that case. But we can certainly make the case that more guns do not result in increased crime rates.

There have been many reasons proposed for the decreased crime rate. One of them is that the price of cocaine crashed from its high in the 1990s. Another is that the drug trade has more or less stabilized and matured, with less internal struggles in the distribution chains. Another is that, for good or ill, the United States has incarcerated huge swaths of the population in the age, sex, and race range most likely to be involved in violent crime (young black males). And because of this, that same swath of the population has been unable to procreate.

[rl6214]

48. What personal attack?

you are really no different than the others that post whatever google news item they can find and post nothing having to do with policy, law, etc...

[ellisonz]

49. The jury disagreed with you - your bit about "dancing" is a personal attack.

Edit: I didn't alert that one because I figured you'd get the message. Civility is the new rule of the day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=1807

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Personal attack. I don't think it's "dancing in blood" to post about gun violence in a forum on gun control.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:00 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[ileus]

13. LEO's please don't ever let your guard down.

Besafe, stay alive....

[ellisonz]

42. Shooting Leaves Local Police Searching For Answers

December 19, 2011 8:29 PM

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — On a typical day, Officer James Kuzak travels to UPMC Mercy for physical therapy as part of his long journey back from a near fatal shooting in April, but today is not typical.

“It’s been a rough day,” he said.

----------

“I think the stress is placed on every person in today’s world with the economics, with losses of jobs, everything,” Kuzak said. “The stress starts to get to people and I think it just carries over into a lot of their interactions with police.”

-----

“I think we’re just living in a more violent society these days,” he said. “When the police are under attack, who’s protecting the lawful people — the people who are trying to live a good life?”

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/12/19/shooting-leaves-local-police-searching-for-answers/