OMG JD, put in black and white for us. You know, the "profiling" thingy. Since you think it's a case for profiling.

 

When did I say I thought it is a case for profiling? Some of you sure like to put words in people's mouth to compliment your own post.

 

I can't believe I've made numerous posts on this. I'm not sure how to explain it better...

 

I understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty IN COURT. I also understand that I can form my own opinion based on the facts presented to me via the internet. Got that?

 

I don't recall saying they were guilty anyway...

 

So what are you saying then? What I have gathered from your last statement is that you are entitled to form your.own opinion. Which like anyone else, you are entitled to that. Clearly you were leaning towards guilty, but yet you say you never said anyone is guilty. It's confusing to say the least, sk what was your opinion again?

When did I say I thought it is a case for profiling? Some of you sure like to put words in people's mouth to compliment your own post.

 

You can be as honest as you want, my feelings arent hurt easily. But 6 big guys with what looks like a gun could fall into the category of profiling, if people that are not those six big guys, incited panic, which reporded gunshots being fired in several locations, due to the fear of 6 big dudes carrying something that resembled a gun, which it turned out it wasn't and no one was arrested at that time.

 

Some would question why the people who said a gun was shot were not charged with filing false charges, as an airsoft gun sounds nothing like a real one. I say give them a break, they may not know what a real gun sounds like. But yet no one is willing to give these kids a break for making a bad decision of playing with a toy anyone can by at Walmart.

 

...

 

Wait, since I have a daughter at UK, then I can sue these four individuals? Because as I see it, UK didn't do anything wrong. Who do I call for advise, JD?

 

Of course you can. You can sue anyone for pretty much anything in civil court these days. Just be aware if you lose you could face a countersuit. If you need advise for counsil just look for civil attorneys in a phone book.

 

...

 

The key word you forgot to read is "could." I never said it was or is profiling. I said given the circumstances a previous poster made about 6 big men with what looked like a gun "could" fall into profiling. It's hardly a case for it, nor did I claim it was. I was just responding to a previous post where someone defended the situation because "people had seen 6 big men with what appeared to be a gun" after a shots fired call. I believe you missed the original quote.

So what are you saying then? What I have gathered from your last statement is that you are entitled to form your.own opinion. Which like anyone else, you are entitled to that. Clearly you were leaning towards guilty, but yet you say you never said anyone is guilty. It's confusing to say the least, sk what was your opinion again?

 

:lol2: I have made my position very clear. Do I think they did it? Yes. Is it possible they didn't? I guess so. But unless we're being fed nothing but lies from everyone involved, they did it. Just to be clear, I know they haven't been proven guilty in court...before you bring that up.

 

:lol2: I have made my position very clear. Do I think they did it? Yes. Is it possible they didn't? I guess so. But unless we're being fed nothing but lies from everyone involved, they did it. Just to be clear, I know they haven't been proven guilty in court...before you bring that up.

 

You say you think they did it.. What is "it?"

 

Were they firing off handguns, rifles, etc.. which would coincide with the reports of multiple shots fired. Or were they playing with a toy, that somehow was mistaken from a much larger gun when fired?

You say you think they did it.. What is "it?"

 

Were they firing off handguns, rifles, etc.. which would coincide with the reports of multiple shots fired. Or were they playing with a toy, that somehow was mistaken from a much larger gun when fired?

 

I think I'm going to stop here. I feel like I've been duped by someone trying to troll me.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but its a sad day in time when you can't play with an airsoft gun.. If they are that dangerous why not ban them instead of real guns that are regulated and serve a purpose.

 

 

I think the danger is that it's so easily mistaken for a real gun. Some look pretty realistic, and everyone might not have a ton of exposure to guns, so I understand how someone could take a glance at once, especially from some distance (and not wanting to get any closer to inspect if it's a real one), could genuinely think that it was an actual gun.

 

People can play with Airsoft guns. If you are playing with them in the middle of a college campus (in the courtyard of what is probably the most densely populated section of student housing) given some of the events we see in the news like the theater shooting at Aurora, shootings at military bases, college campuses being locked down because of gun violence, then it's not really the same as if you are in your dorm room or at an off-campus house playing around with one in the yard.

What would the punishment be if there wasn't a lockdown and they only just for caught by the cops with the air soft gun? Do you punish based on the panic they created, or do you punish them soley on having the air soft gun? I'm torn

 

Good question. To me, the biggest deal in this whole thing is the disturbance it caused. I definitely look at it differently if that's the case, no two ways about it.

 

College kids in general do stupid things all the time. It's the first time that kids are out of the nest and out on their own. There are probably worse things that happen that no one discuses on here because it doesn't get the publicity from shutting down campus and/or it being an athlete who is involved.

So then there was a crime correct?

 

IMO, far from it if we're talking about "discharging a firearm" in the spirit of the law.

 

I don't have access to Westlaw or Lexis anymore, but I'd be willing to bet somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000 that there's absolutely no precedence for charging someone with "discharging a FIREARM (within city limits)" when it's anything but an actual gun that could kill someone.

 

 

On the other hand... if you go into a bank with a BB gun that looks realistic and act like it's a legit gun, then you're going to be charged with a lot of crimes that are just as bad as if it were an actual weapon.

 

 

What's the difference between those???

 

To me, the most glaring difference is how the subject used the object. Take a BB gun and threaten someone as if it were real (or give them a reasonable explanation as to why they thought that was the case)-- you'll probably get one broke off in you.

 

"Discharge a BB/Pellet gun (within the city limits)" and do it under the same statutes that you'd use to prosecute someone who did the same with a weapon that could actually cause death and try to make that stick-- someone will probably laugh you out of court.

These gun free zone have not stopped school shooters yet...have they?

 

 

Now we don't know that. There could have been potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of potential shooters that went somewhere with bad intentions then saw the no weapons signs and realized that they weren't allowed to have their guns there and went home, right? I mean, they've got to be at least as effective as restraining orders, right? Those always work.

It would be interesting if this happened at UC instead. People would be saying that it was typical of a UC athlete, that UC still keeps their name of UC meaning University of Convicts or University of Criminals.

 

I will say that the one week thing will change, as UK gets more facts as well as more outcry from parents and others. I would say at least a year and up to expulsion, which I would be satisfied anywhere in between.

 

 

If you are dumb enough to walk around the edges of UC's campus with something that looks like a gun but actually isn't, then you get a Darwin award when someone blasts you.

 

Clifton =/= Lexington. No two ways about it. This is coming from someone who himself spent a year in NKY and has some family living there. Not really a way to compare the two other than to say that if you are playing around with a BB gun that looks realistic on the outskirts of UC's campus, your first worry might not be a police officer shooting you.

They will be charged with 2nd degree disorderly conduct.

 

Here's the wording of that:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19925

 

Looks like it's right up there with failure to disperse, disrupting meetings and processions in the second degree, desecration of venerated objects (the kid in the pic with the Jesus statue that was discussed here recently).

 

I was going to include loitering here, but looking up the definition of loitering made it seem a little worse than the charges they are trying to bring here.

 

 

I've worked a total of around 22 hours, not counting an hour commute each way, over the past 2 days, so I haven't kept up with this story. I can say that if they're going to be charged with 2nd degree disorderly conduct (and keep in mind I said charged, not convicted), then that tells me almost all that I need to know.

Who is bringing up the charges? If they were not arrested and charged by police a grand jury would have to charge them. If that's the case you could change police to Fayette County in my response, it works either way.

 

Probably the district attorney... that's who usually does.