Ken: On July 7 the Chicago Tribune headline in inch tall all caps read, “NO BAIL FOR SUSPECT.” The judge, it was reported, felt alleged mass shooter Robert Crimo III was “a threat to the community.”
Duh, ya think? Robert and his family were long since known to authorities, but he was still able to legally buy the semi-auto rifle that was used to shoot into the crowd of Fourth of July parade watchers, killing six and injuring many more. The police nabbed Crimo later that evening. The evidence seems incontrovertible and includes his confession. It looks at this point that he will stand trial, be convicted and become a lifetime guest of the Illinois Department of Corrections.
On the other hand, I think we should give some thought to reinstating the death penalty for this singularly heinous crime. The death penalty in Illinois was suspended by statute signed into law by Governor Pat Quinn in 2011, and I assume it could be reinstated by statute in 2022. Might not the death penalty serve not only as punishment but also as a deterrent to future evil doers.
Joe: As I mentioned to you a while back, I’ve always favored the death penalty in multiple murder cases, killing of a police officer, etc., where the evidence of whodunit is overwhelming. It can be stated in simple terms. There is no defense that the person did not do it. The killing of a police officer is one of the worst of all crimes, because they represent authority, pillars of democracy, faithfulness, and when called for a problem they always show up. We need a state representative to sponsor a bill to place a referendum on the ballot for the voters to decide the issue.
With shootings by young people who live in a home with their parents, the question of parental responsibility and liability both civilly and criminally is now being debated. What is your view on this?
Ken: After looking at some demographic statistics on the web, I would venture that a decent estimate of the number of teens and 20s kids living at home is about 50 million — half males, so about 25 million. Divorce rate is 50%, so give or take, we have 12 million or so young men living in disruptive households. That’s a large number to deal with when providing some form of due process before depriving a citizen of a constitutionally granted right. I am very skeptical about the Red Flag warnings or other attempted interdictions actually making any more difference in the future than they have in the past. But maybe a “take ‘em alive” (if at all possible) policy and a few public executions might enter into the thoughts of a would-be shooter.
Joe: The shootings at Uvalde, Highland Park and Sandy Hook were all with assault high-powered rifles, making the shooting more lethal. The scene afterward on the bodies of adults and kids (slaughtered innocents) had to be horrific with unspeakable injuries. Each round can inflict greater damage to the human body then a round from a handgun. When the bullet hits human flesh, it tumbles and spins ripping the body apart, butchering the victim. A stomach wound from an assault rifle can cause the abdominal cavity to explode. When that type of weapon gets out of the house and is used either intentionally or negligently to injure or kill someone, mothers and fathers of young men living at home accused in such a shooting face scrutiny.
Depending on the facts, like ignoring warning signs, they can easily become an accomplice, resulting in a criminal case. A civil suit for damages would be a slam dunk. Dealers and manufacturers think they are protected from liability over gun violence. Good luck with that. Look at the $73M settlement with the manufacturer in the Sandy Hook massacre.
Ken: I really don’t understand the reasoning behind the passionate focus on the semiauto rifle. According to the latest statistics released by the FBI, in 2019 there were about 6,400 handgun homicides and 350 rifle homicides. That’s about 5% long gun. The assault weapons ban was already implemented once during the Bill Clinton years and appeared to have no statistical impact. It isn’t the gun that decides to shoot up a school, and the shooter will choose an available weapon. It is more important that state and local government provide resources to institute a rigid security protocol for the schools.
The next thing to do is calm the turbulent and stressful American social environment, starting with the economy. Undo the Joe Biden early restrictions on oil production. Increasing the supply will reduce the cost of gas and reduce inflation — this country is not ready yet to abruptly do without petroleum. And then let’s crack down on crime ala Rudy Giuliani by supporting the police and prosecuting wrongdoers whether for carjacking or shop lifting or violent protesting.
We should seriously consider getting the illegal guns and gunners off the street by reinstating “stop and frisk.” And one more big one — build the wall at the southern border to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs. This snippet from the web shows the importance of the unsettled national environment; ”On average, adjusted for age, the annual U.S. suicide rate increased 30% between 2000 and 2020, from 10.4 to 13.5 suicides per 100,000 people.”
As for foreign policy, it would help ease the angst if we could work our way out of involvement in the war in Ukraine and promote a deal between Zelensky and Putin before Russia bombs every Ukrainian city to rubble and the U.S. becomes a combatant.
Joe: In Highland Park as we write this, Cooper Roberts an 8-year-old boy is struggling to stay alive after a round from an assault rifle hit him, severing his spinal cord. He is paralyzed from the waist down. We have more than 300 million guns in America. No one is trying to take them all away, nor could they.
But to limit mass shootings and the resulting carnage, there is a serious need to get this assault weapon off the streets. It’s not needed for recreational hunting, nor needed in defense of one’s home. Fired in a house, a stray bullet could penetrate the wall killing a neighbor. Further, with a madman armed with an assault rifle, it’s extremely dangerous for police to have to confront that person. Reinstituting a ban on the weapon is something so obvious that it boggles my mind to have to even write about it.
At a legal seminar I attended not that long ago, a ban, which is favored by most Americans, was discussed. The speaker noted that when government won’t act, it is up to trial lawyers to drive change and do what is necessary to shift the economic costs of misuse to those associated with these military weapons. That is coming.
