Man gets 33yrs 4 kill sparked by hotsauc
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 06-12-2009 - 2:47pm |
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas City man has been sentenced to 33 years in prison for killing a man during a melee that erupted when someone threw a bottle of hot sauce.
The Kansas City Star reports that 29-year-old Jarvis T. Williams was sentenced Thursday for his convictions on second-degree murder, three counts of assault and four counts of armed criminal action.
Prosecutors claim he fired more than 20 rounds from an assault rifle into a car in October 2005, killing 22-year-old Gary Scott and wounding three others.
Prosecutors said the victim had thrown a bottle of hot sauce at a woman's car, angering Williams.
Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com
Remainder of article at http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_hot_sauce_killing.html








Pages
I was speculating on the phrase "assault weapon". "Utter nonsense"? Consider. The rounds were fired into a motor vehicle. UNLESS one of the rounds rendered the vehicle inoperable, or one of those rounds incapacitated the driver so (s)he couldn't drive, it means the weapon fired TWENTY rounds into a vehicle which presumably could have moved away from a weapon with less speed of fire--like a handgun or a rifle.
Lethality is a direct function of fire speed and ammo type. You might disagree with that statement, but on the basis of what?
Would help immensely in debating and discussing to know more particulars of this incident:
What specific kind of weapon was used?
How long did it take to fire off those rounds?
Did the shooter have a record of any kind?
Were any of the participants in the altercation operating under the influence of intoxicating substances? (Frankly, that would explain both the hot sauce and the disproportionate response.)
Just a reminder. We don't know if the reporter used the phrase "assault rifle" or if the prosecutor used it. Either way, I don't see how you can state that "The rate of fire is no higher than most other firearms, regardless of the magazine being used. As for the ammo, it's standard full jacket boat tail", without knowing far more specifics about the shooting than were included in the OP. You said "we still don't know what weapon was actually used in the incident in question."
The NRA gave token approval to the idea of background checks knowing damn good and well, that the "train had left the station" for those already possessing weapons.
I ask once again, why does any civilian NEED a weapon with the ability to fire numerous deadly rounds within a short period of time? Using the argument of defense against criminals possessing similar arms is to ignore what that so-doing will almost certainly result in escalation, just as is the case with conventional and nuclear weaponry.
Am willing to give the NRA kudos for trying, when they get onboard with a non-proliferation type of platform. Until then, they're not interested in the well-being of anybody else but firearms owners, regardless of the cost to society as a whole. And it's costing us big time.
Edited to correct poorly worded phrases
Edited 6/14/2009 10:51 pm ET by jabberwocka
Jabberwocka
Like you and I both have noted, until we know what weapon was used it's difficult to make exact comments on many aspects of the event.
"
Was comparing the rate of fire and lethality of the "assault rifle" weapon to NON-automatic/NON-semi-automatic weapons; NOT to other weapons with any automatic capabilities.
Ammunition comes in a variety of sizes and types. Some varieties are meant to travel farther, inflict more damage, and/or take down, by sheer force, a larger being. Would really like to know WHY the killer had access to anything as potent and lethal as the weapon and ammo he used in the shooting.
It's too late to do anything about the firearms which are currently in the hands of private owners, except to keep track of those owners who have registered and make sure that they're not using those weapons in criminal ways. We will have berserkers running amok and killing wantonly for years to come, thanks to NRA's insistence on avoidance of restrictions. :-(
"Despite these successes, Mr. Lapierre, the NRA CEO, spoke almost in doomsday terms this weekend about opponents of the Second Amendment. "The bomb is armed and the fuse is lit," he said. "They are going to come at us with everything they've got, and we are going to be ready for them. If they want to fight, we will fight."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0518/p02s04-ussc.html
I DO want to see private ownership of semi-automatic weapons banned. Precedent doesn't necessarily mean that a concept or practice is sound. Slavery was legal in these United States for almost a hundred years before being contested in a civil war and subsequently outlawed.
Take another gander at the Second. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...." The NEED ("necessary") expressed there is for a "well regulated militia" and state security, NOT personal whim or personal security.
Jabberwocka
Sorry for the delay in getting back into posting, but I've had serious IT problems and a raging case of bronchitis over the last week and a half.
"
Thought you might be on vacation. Figured whatever kept you from responding was significant. Hope both you and your computer are recovering--did you infect each other?!
And away we go. No, I still don't have any specific information on the weapon used but confess to not looking very hard for the information past the initial attempt some time ago. Sites then seemed to be variations of the K.C. paper piece or commentary on the story from blogs and boards.
I vigorously, absolutely, vehemently disagree that registration of a lethal weapon is "dangerous"*. Without registration and its attendant background checks, ANYBODY with money could easily and legally procure any kind of legal weapon. Sorry-assed as the system is with its limited powers, the situation could be much worse. And if the NRA had its way, there probably wouldn't be any firearm which was illegal. They are ever so much more concerned about their personal "freedoms" than how that exercise might adversely affect society as a whole. Do enlighten me though why it's worse for those in California or NYC to register firearms (and let me know how many of those beleaguered gun-owners NEED to carry anything).
As regards private ownership of semi-automatic weapons, by all means do let me know where any civilian NEEDS such a weapon. I'll be looking specifically for their involvement in that well-regulated militia. Politically correct semi-assault weapons? Does a semi-assault weapon exist which inflicts no lasting damage? Or are we defining PC in some other fashion?
I ask again, as I have frequently in the past, how many firearm owners have EVER been part of a militia meant to protect their state's freedom or security. "Well-regulated militia", says the Second. Excuse me while I snort with derision at the idea that the intent was to give RKBA on the premise that those untrained/UNREGULATED individuals would be "available" in the event of some pressing need not met by the Guard or our armed forces. The state militias which are not part of the National Guard are vestigial at best, nor do all the members of those militias provide their own arms. Guard units are armed by the state. The Supreme Court has been lackadaisical at best in logically parsing both the intent and wording of the Second so their "logic" doesn't impress me at all. How many situations have arisen in, say the last 50 years, when citizens were "CALLED FOR SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME"? Hmmmm? I'm waiting! Bated breath!
IF you ignore the first clause of the Second which stipulates the intent of the amendment, then you could "logically" argue for private ownership of either semi-automatic or automatic weapons. But you would have to deliberately eliminate (on the basis of who knows what) those words. I do not ignore them but repeatedly bring focus back to the sole purpose for RKBA, which bit the dust long ago when we started having standing armies and the National Guard.
*That requirement is about the only way anybody with a lick of sense could lay claim to the "regulated" part of the Second. And I contend that registration "regulates" but does NOT "well-regulate" or have aught to do with "militia".
Jabberwocka
The first of the month I was on vacation (if someone without a job can have a "vacation") in AL with my in-laws to go to Bama Jam, but when we got back I developed bronchitis almost immediately.
"
Sorry for your computer woes. I unexpectedly lost my laptop to massive system failure about a year and a half ago. Little/no backup. Felt like a big chunk of my life had gone missing. I still have the hard drive in an enclosure, hoping that my skills or computer technology will someday be up to the task of retrieval. Kinda feels like I'm carrying around a loved one's ashes, waiting for the day of resurrection!
Antibiotics can certainly be useful. For goodness sake, don't get pneumonia!
Supposedly the purpose of gun registration is precisely to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them (and this relatively piddling measure still doesn't stop the first time whackos). The "logic" to opposition seems to be that it won't be 100% effective in stopping criminals. Yeah, well, neither is any other prophylactic or punitive measure, regardless of issue. Are you saying we should not have rules if they can't guarantee full efficacy? Just yesterday, here in New Mexico, a man went into an Alco store and shot his wife for walking away from an argument. Injured her but didn't manage to kill her so he went off and shot himself. Too bad he didn't reverse the sequence of events! There have been so many similar situations of late, in which there were far more fatalities per incident.
Nor am I buying the money end-run argument. If you (generally speaking, not specifically MM) break the law by refusing to comply with registration requirements and if you go out and shoot someone, at least they can throw something more at you, the perp, than just attempted manslaughter.
BTW, I just googled H.R. 45 and at least the first four pages of hits are nothing but the usual phobic and kneejerk reaction. One wonders if gun crowd realizes that we're talking about lethal weapons, not their genitalia. For some people, there's very little difference. Do you remember the old military jingle to keep the nomenclature straight?! "This is my rifle and this is my gun, one is for business, the other's for fun"? Didn't make much sense to females, but I digress.
There isn't much which can be done to register firearms which have already been sold and are in private ownership. But we required voters to register to avoid fraud. Certainly requiring the registration of deadly firearms is no less pressing; and no less do-able. I feel no sympathy whatsoever for those poor souls who have to do without semi-automatic weapons. Again, the question: What the aitch eeee double hockeysticks do they NEED such weapons for? That militia*****gasp, cough, choke, wheeze (Tic-tacs ain't working and anyway, I didn't say "baited breath" thank you very much!)****?
THERE IS NO VIABLE MILITIA. It's a joke, a total hoot to use an archaic institution which nobody belongs to anymore! An exercise in sophistry! Well-regulated, remember? Lacking a well-regulated militia whose citizen soldiers have to provide their own weapons, the Second is an anachronism. And WWII was over fifty years ago.
Have a hot toddy for that bronchitis--juice of one lemon, couple tablespoons honey, at least 1/4 cup good strong whiskey, and 1/2 cup boiling hot water. If that first toddy doesn't work, have another until the pain stops (one way or other)!
Jabberwocka
The PC problem turned out to be a stick of DDR which was well and truly toasted... lost count at something over 3000 of the number of registers which couldn't pass a simple read/write test.
"
Pages