Another Interstate sniper on the loose

[miko2d]

lazs2: nash... The white murder rate here is less than 2.5 per hundred thousand.   your murder rate is about 1.8...

 I have to alert you to an amazing disparity of the US statistics.
 When counting victims, the hispanics are counted separately from whites and blacks, so a murder of a hispanic by a white is an inter-racial crime.

 But when reporting the crime rate, whites/hispanics are counted as a single "white" cathegory despite the fact that hispanic crime is much higher than white crime.

 It would probably not reduce the murder rather to that lower than most european countries but would lower it significantly nevertheless.


beet1e: That's because a guy who owns three guns...

 beet1e,
 I believe 80 million people in US own firearms.

As for why gun ownership soared in recent years - Sept.11,2001 is the answer. Many folks rushed out to buy a gun to deal with the perceived threat of Al Qa'eda in the aftermath of the tragedy of that day. Money down the drain...

 If you believe that BS, you are not using your brains.
 Here are the main reasons for increase:
 - Many people planned to get a gun already but never got to it and the 9/11 (or Beltway sniper) was just a mental straw that made them schedule an appointment, not a cause.

 - If there is any hard causal link between increase in gun purchases and 9/11 it is that people expect the government to clamp down on gun ownership and so they got into it to be grandfathered into any regulation and before the prices rise and paperwork increases. There is a brisk sale going in US in pre-ban and post-ban rifles, with the pre-ban receiver being worth 3-5 times as much as an identical post-ban part.

 - Those who bought weapons as a result of 9/11 did not buy them to fight Al-Qaeda - though most would probably shoot an armed terrorist is they see one. The 9/11 just illustrated the inherent risks and instability and made people think what would happen if there is a serious disruption.
 So they bough the guns to use for defence against americans in case of a breakdown of civil order, not against the terrorists.

 miko

[lazs2]

beetle... again.. you ignore the data and espuse what you think may be happening... most guns in the U.S. before 1992 were unrefgistered we have no way of telling how many are used or kept in the box. fact are that between 3/4 and 3 million times a year those guns are broken out and used to stop crime... fact is... our crime rate is going down and yours is going up.   I know... it shouldn't be that way but it is.  hardly seems fair eh?  that you would go to all that work and.... GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS FOR NOTHING..  but... don't condem us to that .

in most areas (the U.S. is full of country rural areas)... you don't need a range..  you simply shoot in your back yard or close to it.   In big cities the restrictions against ranges, and firearms in general make ranges rare.    

but I agree.... most people don't shoot nearly enough.  ya gotta admit... it's good clean fun eh?

lazs

[Toad]

One-hour response to mauling

Charges may be filed by end of the week in fatal dog attack

By Charlie Brennan And Sarah Huntley, Rocky Mountain News
December 3, 2003

KIOWA - The Elbert County sheriff acknowledged Tuesday that it took more than an hour for a deputy to respond to the first 911 call made after Sunday's fatal dog attack.

The sheriff's office, in a two-paragraph statement released in the evening, said that the lone patrol deputy on duty Sunday morning was handling a domestic-violence complaint when the call about the dog attack came in at 9:54 a.m.

A deputy working in the county jail went out instead, and was later joined by two officers from the Elizabeth Police Department.

"Total elapsed time was about 1 hour and 10 minutes," the statement said.

Three pit bulls killed horse trainer Jennifer Brooke, bit her friend and severely wounded a neighbor, whose son opened fire on the dogs with a shotgun, killing one. The deputy and police officers finished off the other two.

Elbert County has a population of about 14,500, but its residents are scattered over more than 1,850 square miles of often rugged high plains terrain.

Earlier Tuesday, Undersheriff Jim Underwood said that having one deputy on patrol is a normal staffing level for a Sunday.

Underwood also said that criminal charges in the case may be filed by the end of the week.

Jacqueline McCuen, 32, owner of the dogs allegedly responsible for Brooke's death, has a lengthy criminal history in Colorado and Iowa, including convictions in Iowa for prostitution and forgery.

Seven investigators have been assigned to the investigation into Brooke's death, Underwood said in a press conference Tuesday afternoon. The death has sent shock waves through her quiet, rural northwest Elbert County community.

"We will be filing charges, hopefully by the end of the week," Underwood said.

Mike Knight, spokesman for the 18th Judicial District Attorney's office, which includes Elbert County, said two charges that could be filed against McCuen are criminally negligent homicide and ownership of a dangerous animal. Both are class-five felonies, punishable by up to three years in prison.

"Until we have the facts and everything with us that we can look at, I can't pin anything down specifically," Knight said. "Clearly, we'll look at every possibility and determine what would be appropriate."

McCuen and other members of her family haven't been spotted at their home in the 42600 block of Ricki Drive since three of their dogs allegedly got loose and attacked Brooke at daybreak Sunday, then showed up four hours later on the nearby property of Clifford Lynn Baker.

Baker was also attacked and suffered numerous bites on both arms before he and his son repelled the three animals with blasts from a double-barreled shotgun. The animals were ultimately killed on Baker's property late Sunday morning by officers responding to a 911 call.

A Denver attorney who is reportedly representing McCuen didn't return a call Tuesday seeking comment on Sunday's attack.

But the Elbert County undersheriff said Tuesday that investigators have had contact with McCuen and her family, although he wouldn't disclose their whereabouts.

"As far as I know, we know where they're at," Underwood said.

John Sarcone, county attorney for Polk County, Iowa, which includes Des Moines, said that McCuen was sentenced to five years in prison in 1992 on a felony conviction for forgery.

He said McCuen received probation for a 1996 misdemeanor prostitution conviction. Sarcone said that McCuen also was charged in Polk County with third-degree theft and escape, but he couldn't provide further details on those Iowa cases.

Colorado charges against McCuen have included marijuana possession, failure to appear, false reporting and fugitive counts.

One consistent thread in McCuen's legal history is the trouble caused by her dogs.

Before moving to Elbert County, McCuen had contact with animal control authorities in Aurora on three occasions.

Each Aurora incident occurred at McCuen's former home, a ramshackle white house on a rural stretch in the 20000 block of East Colfax Avenue. The house is for sale.

The first contact, which resulted in a written warning, stemmed from an anonymous complaint. The animal control agency sent McCuen a notice in April 2001 saying that she had failed to license her dogs, failed to attach rabies tags to their collars, failed to obtain permits allowing the dogs to be exempt from neutering and was in violation of an ordinance that limits pet owners to three adult dogs and one litter of puppies younger than six months.

A little more than a year later, in August 2002, animal control officers took a stronger stance, issuing a court summons after discovering the situation hadn't improved.

At that point, McCuen also was cited for allegedly violating standards of humane care. The summons indicates there were problems with the dogs' pen, water supply and general housekeeping. Five days later, a second summons was issued. That summons included charges of public nuisance, which is typical for chronic offenders, and failing to keep the dog area clean. The records indicate that McCuen had six dogs.

"We don't know if these are the same dogs or different dogs (from the ones involved in the fatal attack)," said Cheryl Conway, public relations specialist for Aurora Animal Control.

"We never had any complaints about these animals being vicious."

The two Aurora summonses were combined into one court case. McCuen agreed to pay a $165 fine to resolve the matter, Conway said.

A short while later, McCuen moved out of Aurora.

More recently, she was charged by Elbert County authorities in April with failing to keep a vicious dog under control and was due in court in that incident Jan. 7.

A neighbor won a small claims judgment against McCuen when two of McCuen's dogs attacked her as she was walking past the home April 12.

The news of Brooke's death this week brought to light additional tales from neighbors who say they were terrorized by McCuen's dogs.

Kate Messinger, who can see McCuen's residence from her own, said that more than a year ago she was menaced and pinned to her car in fear during a surprise appearance by two of McCuen's pit bulls, one of which was a female that had clearly recently delivered a litter of puppies.

"I was getting in my car to leave, and I saw them there and I stopped. I said, 'Hi puppy,' because they weren't doing anything; they were just standing there," Messinger said.

"Then, one of them started to growl and bark and come at me. I was next to my car, and I turned, and just stayed really still. It was probably three feet from me. It would growl and bark at me every time I moved, and if I stopped moving, it would stop."

Messinger said she escaped jeopardy by waiting until the more menacing of the two dogs became distracted long enough for her to leap behind the steering wheel.

There is no question that the dogs were McCuen's, Messinger said.

"I have walked by there a hundred times, and I know these dogs," she said.

Messinger confronted McCuen's husband that day, she said. He assured her he would install new fencing on his property, and Messinger said he made good on that promise. Other neighbors have confirmed that they saw new fencing erected at the McCuen residence after complaints had been made about their dogs running loose.

Messinger was surprised to learn that McCuen's dog that bit the passerby in April had not been removed by authorities.

"I thought when a dog aggressively bites someone, the dog is taken away," she said. "Obviously, we were all at risk in this neighborhood. There are a whole lot of kids and horses out here. The sheriffs knew about it, so I think it's pretty disappointing that they didn't take that dog out."

An autopsy was performed on Brooke on Monday, but Elbert County Coroner Sandy Graeff said Tuesday that a report would not be complete for six to eight weeks. She did not know of any funeral arrangements for Brooke.

At Brooke's residence Tuesday, a few hundred yards from the horse barn where she was attacked, several people were inside her home, but they urged visitors to go away.

Glenn Bui of the American Canine Foundation said that standing laws are enough to keep the public safe, as long as the laws are enforced.

"If there was a breed ban" in Elbert County, the dogs' owner "is the type of person who wouldn't even follow it," Bui said.

Staff writer Owen. S. Good contributed to this report.

Highlights a lot of points made in this thread, doesn't it.

Hey, grab your cell phone!

[gofaster]

My weapon of choice against dogs is a baseball bat.

They're all gone, but I'm still here.

[beet1e]

Lazs,

Your crime rate is not going down. That is, the rate at which crimes are committed is not going down. Nashwan has it - and you are wrong. Now your "crimes per capita" stat might look better, if there has been a significant influx of law abiding folks into the US...

...but the crime rate - the rate at which crime is committed - is going up or remaining static.

You still haven't provided stats for population increase, and therefore cannot substantiate your own claims that crime "is going down". Post back with the population stats!

[SOB]

Here's a new direction: Who really gives a flying poop what Beet1e or Nashwan think they know about the US or what their opinions are?  Their opinions might be valid if they were US citizens, but they aren't so...

[wrag]

A baseball bat against 3 pitbulls?  NO THANKS!  I've owned pitbulls and I have to say I would be very worried if I had a baseball bat against 1 pitbull!  

THEY ARE FAST AND QUICK!  (this may sound like the words I used FAST and QUICK means the same thing, they do not, fast refers to speed, quick refers to manuver)

Mine ran at me at an angle did a quick turn and hit my left leg knocking it into my right leg and down I went!  I would have had trouble hitting him with a bat.  I've seen people kick and hit pit's with seemingly very little affect.  He wasn't an overly large or heavy pitbull either.

Oh and the Pitbull's I have owned have been on the smallish side.

I further seem to recall reports of the Spanish using dogs against the American Indian population during the 1600's and 1700's and the Indians mainly lost.

IMHO anyone in the case mentioned that only had a baseball bat would have been in some real trouble!!!!!

[GtoRA2]

gofaster
 You versus 3 angry agressive pitbulls? I do not care how big you are. I would put my money on the dogs. Have you ever owned one? I have he was a sweatheart, not agressive, but he was strong, and very hard to handle when he got excited, I am not a small man, and I had to work hard to controll him.

I would not want to have to bet my life on a bat. I would much rather have the proper tool. In this case a gun. Even with a gun, versus three pits I would want to have a tree to climb to better the odds.



I would also rather have the choice to own guns even at the risk of them being used on me, then not have them and maybe need them or have to depend on the police coming to save my life.

[Mini D]

LOL! Beet1e... stop being a twit.  There's more guns now and more people now, but there isn't an increase in crime.  Kinda dispells the more guns = more crime myth.

Even in GB... crime is returning to pre-ban levels... but that's OK cause it's still lower than the U.S.  Of course, it does mean that gun bans are simply a bandaid that fall off quite quickly, but feel free to ignore that too.  You're police will continue to arm themselves with more and more guns while you insist you're country is safer without them.

MiniD

[Gman]

...and I'll wager that the US homicide rate never gets as low as that of Britain.

Ok Captain Logic, apply that to Canada.  My province of ALberta has firearms ownership rates higher than the state of Texas.  Our murder rate, much less violent crime rate, although not decreasing, is certainly far less than the UK.  Compare our "bad areas" to those of London, and we have a FAR FAR safer land to live in.

It must be the firearms, and the fact that there is lots of them, right Beetle?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mini D
There's more guns now and more people now, but there isn't an increase in crime.  

Probably because your gun crime has already passed saturation point. Now, any criminal who wants a gun already has one, or two, or five... but he only has two hands, so even if he had ten guns he would be no more dangerous than if he had only two. The only way you can manipulate the stats to show a lowering of US crime is by using the recent influx of law abiding people who have helped to dilute your per capita crime rate.

As for our gun ban - pretty transparent actually. I consider it a pre-emptive measure to stop things getting as bad as they are in the US...

Gman, did you know that various deadly nerve agents such as tabun and sarin are made up of precursors which, on their own, are harmless? But mix 'em up and you have a concoction which even in minute quantities can kill many thousands. Same with guns - on their own harmless, just as hostilities between ethnic minorities in deprived areas should be harmless. But put the two together, and...

I have never been to Canada, but I'm guessing that like countries such as Switzerland and Sweden, you don't have ethnic unrest/drug dealing/turf wars on the same scale as your southern neighbour. You have one of the two ingredients - guns. We have the other - social unrest/drugs/ethnic minorities in deprived areas. The US has both problems together - BOOM!

[Torque]

Originally posted by Gman
Ok Captain Logic, apply that to Canada.  My province of ALberta has firearms ownership rates higher than the state of Texas.  Our murder rate, much less violent crime rate, although not decreasing, is certainly far less than the UK.  Compare our "bad areas" to those of London, and we have a FAR FAR safer land to live in.

It must be the firearms, and the fact that there is lots of them, right Beetle?

That's interesting do you have a link to the stats on ownership and the type of barrel?

The crime and homicide rates in Alberta are considerable higher than that of Ontario. Alberta doesn't have the population density, ethnic diversity or the gang warfare as seen here, yet the crime is alot higher and on the increase.

Interesting enough a child in Alberta is twice as likely to die from a firearm as is the national average.


Ontario Violent crimes  1.8   Total criminal offences 1.6
                           
Alberta  Violent crimes  3.8   Total criminal offences 3.9

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020717/d020717b.htm.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Curval
Toad...I don't want to re-open THAT particular can of worms.  My point was merely that I have read article upon article about how citizens owning guns have saved lives.  Here we have one, again, in which a life was taken.

How did gun ownership help the woman shot by this killer?

Answer..it didn't.

That is all.

It's true Curval, gun ownership didn't stop this crime. Gun ownership does stop many crimes in the US each year though. Many times it's just the presence of a gun that stops the crime.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by AKIron
Could it be they don't fear the punishment because the punishment isn't fearsome? I bet I could come up with  punishment that anyone would fear, and greatly so. Still, no arguing some would believe they could get away with murder but a severe enough punishment would no doubt deter others.

I don't really know, just guessing here. I wish the severity of the crime would dictate the level of criminal activity (within reason of coarse) but I doubt it. I do feel however that the punishments we have already are severe enough. The evil animals that would murder no matter what because they just believe they'll get away with it. Their 'thought process' just isn't like the majority of normal people. Those that would murder will do so anyway. Those that wouldn't seriously even contemplate killing in cold blood wouldn't do so even if the punishment was less.

Even if the maximum penalty was say 25 years behind bars for murder, I'd seriously doubt the murder rate would rise any significant degree. Would you actually murder someone because of the lack of severity of the punishment? I know I wouldn't no matter what the penalty would be. I'm not talking about killing someone in self defense of yourself, family, friends, etc. I'm talking about going out and murdering someone.

I don't really know you, but from what I've seen of your posts here, I'd guess you to be an ethical, moral, upstanding family man of strong beliefs. I'd bet you to not seriously even think of killing another in cold blood.

I just wish that we'd have perfection in our prosecution of murder suspects where the innocent are always set free and only the truly guilty were convicted. I'd rather a guilty man rot behind bars for the rest of his miserable life than an innocent man being put to death. Unfortunetly, the legal costs alone in having the death penalty is just so much more than letting him serve out his life sentence.

Those murdering animals just don't think like we do.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Kirin
BS! Didn't it say the firefighters also were dodging the bullets? I bet two of those hero type guys could have stopped an unarmed maniac. A gun, yet better two of that kind, put here life at danger. That noone else got hurt was pure luck. One should be happy that maniac was not as gun-nut as some guys are here...

No...the guns didnt put those people's lives at risk, a maniac did. Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of anything...unless....someone picks it up and makes it do something.