Another US Shooting...

Seriously, Wikipedia, so far, has the best collection of information regarding this shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Santa_Monica_shooting

Perpetrator: John Zawahri.

This man had a domestic dispute with his father and brother. He shot them. Carjacked some lady (but made her drive him to the Santa Monica College). Then he shot more people once he got there. The police shot and killed him in a gunfight.

Obama was also in Santa Monica at the time. I believe it was just coincidental. Tinfoil hat peeps may say it was staged.

I've no idea about more details other than the stuff in the Wikipedia articles and what the LATimes interviews have gotten.

Here is part of what I want to talk about (but feel free to discuss the shooting and any aspect of this particular shooting):

"Santa Monica Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks said Zawahri and a family member had been enrolled in the college as recently as 2010, and police had contact with Zawahri in 2006, but because he was a juvenile then, authorities couldn't release further information. Zawahri was a student of Santa Monica High School before enrolling in Santa Monica College."

He's dead and was clearly a felonious criminal during his last moments of life. Why is he getting "juvenile" protection? Should not these records be released? Did no his former life and records become public domain the moment he decided to unload some rounds into people? I think a person loses the rights to "juvenile records" protection once they do something like this. Don't the victims' families deserve to know the "whys" and the history of this young man?

Still not sure why, in USA, random civilians are allowed to own guns.

Originally posted by Intrepid37
Still not sure why, in USA, random civilians are allowed to own guns.

Not sure, yet, but it appears that the perp did not own the guns he used. That's what the LATimes news article said when I read it an hour or two ago.

Well, in this case the victims' families are more or less the same as the perpetrators' families, so not sure whether they don't already have access to these documents or not.

Originally posted by Intrepid37
Still not sure why, in USA, random civilians are allowed to own guns.

It's in their constitution. Also, USA is not the only country that allows random civilians to own guns.

@DDM: That'll teach them to bash Wikipedia. For some reason the juvenile record protection policy reminded me of Japan, where info on several (in)famous child-killers(children who are killers, that is) is kept under wraps.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Well, in this case the victims' families are more or less the same as the perpetrators' families, so not sure whether they don't already have access to these documents or not.

2 out of the 5-7 people killed and/or injured where John's family.

There's many more people affected by this shooting other than his family.

Yeah I saw this on the news. I'm going to start counting them from here to see how many there are between now & june 2014,this is getting ridiculous now.

Originally posted by Intrepid37
Still not sure why, in USA, random civilians are allowed to own guns.

You're right, only gang members and criminals should have them, just like in Mexico, a country with one of the highest murder rates on earth

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's dead and was clearly a felonious criminal during his last moments of life. Why is he getting "juvenile" protection? Should not these records be released? Did no his former life and records become public domain the moment he decided to unload some rounds into people? I think a person loses the rights to "juvenile records" protection once they do something like this. Don't the victims' families deserve to know the "whys" and the history of this young man?

I really don't get the policy of making a person's life history public the moment the commit a felony.

looks like i lost that bet. I had five to one odds the next one would be in, Kansas. There goes $100...,oh well

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I really don't get the policy of making a person's life history public the moment the commit a felony.

Well, I like to be more specific with that things I state so my argument does not end up being a strawman, like yours just did (whether intentional or not, on your part).

From my perspective, I don't get the policy of keeping a person's juvenile criminal record and medical records (which are relevant to a case) secret just because a dead murderer was a minor when those crimes and psych. info. were generated.

The counter to the above would be your perspective:

From my perspective, I don't get the policy of releasing a person's juvenile criminal record and medical records (regarless of them being relevant to a case) secret because a dead murderer was a minor when those crimes and psych. info. were generated and should be protected because they were a minor.

Now, if you did not want to state the above, quoting my post or even addressing the topic is pretty much irrelevant to this thread. However, I do welcome that type of discussion into this thread regardless of the irrelevancy because I do enjoy discussion of stupid laws.

So I'll talk about the topic you wish to discus: why should a felon be afforded all the lawful privacy protections of law abiding citizens, in your opinion?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Obama was also in Santa Monica at the time. I believe it was just coincidental. Tinfoil hat peeps may say it was staged.

Originally posted by dadudemon
From my perspective, I don't get the policy of keeping a person's juvenile criminal record and medical records (which are relevant to a case) secret just because a dead murderer was a minor when those crimes and psych. info. were generated.

I feel like its implicit in this that you think those records should be released but if that's not what you meant I'll admit to misreading what you wrote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
From my perspective, I don't get the policy of releasing a person's juvenile criminal record and medical records (regarless of them being relevant to a case) secret because a dead murderer was a minor when those crimes and psych. info. were generated and should be protected because they were a minor.

Yeah, that's basically my position. Though it occurs to me that I was thinking of general public access rather than police access to those records, which might have been what you were talking about.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I'll talk about the topic you wish to discus: why should a felon be afforded all the lawful privacy protections of law abiding citizens, in your opinion?

Because I believe it is part of the responsibility of government to protect all of its citizens and their rights, no matter what. Rights should be rescinded only in order to protect other citizens. Unless a person does something so heinous that all protection of law ought to be revoked I dislike the idea of restricting a person's rights for less than practical reasons (ie prisoners don't have freedom of movement). From the pragmatic angle even a convicted felon could be innocent and removing a person's right to privacy cannot really be undone.

Obviously in this case he is a) clearly guilty and b) dead so that doesn't matter very much but edge cases seem like a poor basis for policy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I feel like its implicit in this that you think those records should be released but if that's not what you meant I'll admit to misreading what you wrote.

In the section you quoted, I was specific: the person is dead, they are definitively a murderer (as in, the police killed him in a shoot out (or more broad sense, the person admitted to it or there is irrefutable evidence (DNA, video evidence, digital records, etc. in any combination that makes it impossible for anyone to deny (beyond reasonable doubt, basically))))*, and they had a juvenile criminal record and/or psych. info. that is relevant to the case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, that's basically my position.

Glad to read: I tried to represent your argument as well as I could.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Though it occurs to me that I was thinking of general public access rather than police access to those records, which might have been what you were talking about.

I was talking about the victims and victim's families having access to that information: need to know (i.e. he had a troubled past and he raped somebody at 15, killed animals at 10, or something similar). That's why I asked this: "Don't the victims' families deserve to know the "whys" and the history of this young man?" However, I did not outright state I meant "affected family members, only", so I hope that's clear, now.

The families, if they are curious and/or want some form of closure. The court and anybody involved with that stuff should definitely have access to that information, however; that is my perspective. FOIA might grant non-family members access to this information, as well, however. What about boyfriends/girlfriends? What about best friends n'stuff? It starts to become a mess.

Moving on to the families: I think it might be a little easier for at least some family to move on or forgive if they had the whole story. That may not be the only reason the family wants that information: they may just want to know, out of pure curiosity, how big of a monster this person really was.

I see no reason the public, unrelated to this type of stuff, would have a need. The fascist (or libertarian, lol) would say it should be public domain...maybe? What do mainstream libertarians think of criminals' privacy rights?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because I believe it is part of the responsibility of government to protect all of its citizens and their rights, no matter what. Rights should be rescinded only in order to protect other citizens. Unless a person does something so heinous that all protection of law ought to be revoked I dislike the idea of restricting a person's rights for less than practical reasons (ie prisoners don't have freedom of movement). From the pragmatic angle even a convicted felon could be innocent and removing a person's right to privacy cannot really be undone.

I disagree, for the most part. Whenever you commit a crime and are convicted by a jury of your peers, you should immediately lose most rights to your privacy. This actually happens, now. The only difference is I want is the ability to open up juvie records for the affected families. I do not know if the juvie records are kept from the courts and law-enforcement, however. Are they?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously in this case he is a) clearly guilty and b) dead so that doesn't matter very much but edge cases seem like a poor basis for policy.

Well...I'm kind of being very specific, though. This "fringe" case is exactly what I'm talking about. I would not feel comfortable removing juvenile privacy for a person, later in life, that stole a car (that's a felony in most states, depending on the circumstances)...unless they stole the car to run several people over (and kill them).

*Holy ****. Four aside comments? That's a
first for me. I think I've spent too long reading too many publications from pompous professors...time to be done with school, I think. It's ruining me. lol

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's dumb by their standards--why would he be anywhere close to a false flag operation? That's like if LBJ were having a martini on one of the ships involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

It's too late: I've already seen the commentary regarding it. The tin-foil hat community went ape-shit with this (just go to any major news site and read the facebook comments at the bottom of the articles, you'll get some lulz).

Some say it was to show that even our president was close to these things, piss patriots off (it's our damn president, even if he's a damn lib!), and cause them to want to finally give up gun rights.

Another is similar in that it was supposed to have the young man try to go for Obama. Appeals to the patriotism thing, again.

There were at least 2 other arguments and 1 of them was really good, actually...I just don't remember them because I dismissed it. If I remember or find them, I'll PM you the link (Ush does not like that conspiracy crap, shitting up these threads).

I think by far the most shocking part about this story is this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seriously, Wikipedia, so far, has the best collection of information regarding this shooting.

Come along way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...I'm kind of being very specific, though. This "fringe" case is exactly what I'm talking about. I would not feel comfortable removing juvenile privacy for a person, later in life, that stole a car (that's a felony in most states, depending on the circumstances)...unless they stole the car to run several people over (and kill them).

(You said this last but it goes to the whole discussion.)

Your argument seems to be based on an appeal to a more general principle, not that this case is so horrific that a special rule should apply.

Tangent:

I have a real issue with political philosophers relying on strange edge cases to make points that are irrelevant or nonsensical in real life. For example: An ethics teacher of mine once tried "if there is any case where the death penalty is justified then the death penalty is justified."

When I talk about these kinds of thing I tend to think of them in terms of "what should the law be?" rather than "what is good in this case?" Just because there is a case where there is a better option doesn't mean that the law ought to be rewritten.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was talking about the victims and victim's families having access to that information: need to know (i.e. he had a troubled past and he raped somebody at 15, killed animals at 10, or something similar). That's why I asked this: "Don't the victims' families deserve to know the "whys" and the history of this young man?" However, I did not outright state I meant "affected family members, only", so I hope that's clear, now.

I just can't think of a reason for them to need this knowledge. They might want it but I really don't like the idea that we can remove a person's rights just because we want to. We don't strip a person of the right to privacy for lesser crimes so why do it for murder? I can't see what substantive thing is gained.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What do mainstream libertarians think of criminals' privacy rights?

There's not (really) a mainstream libertarian position on anything. I imagine you'd have the extreme "criminals have no rights" and extreme "criminals keep all rights" positions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree, for the most part. Whenever you commit a crime and are convicted by a jury of your peers, you should immediately lose most rights to your privacy. This actually happens, now. The only difference is I want is the ability to open up juvie records for the affected families. I do not know if the juvie records are kept from the courts and law-enforcement, however. Are they?

Once you're in prison a lot of rights are stripped for the practical purpose of keeping you in prison but I don't think your life is made an open book. If that's the way it is I think that's a mistake. Sure, your a public figure, to be talked about and investigated but anything that is normally inaccessible should stay that way. You can never give back that kind of privacy once it is taken.

I believe sealed juvenile records are kept from the police but always not from the courts. Judges can have access to sealed records.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
(You said this last but it goes to the whole discussion.)

Your argument seems to be based on an appeal to a more general principle, not that this case is so horrific that a special rule should apply.

Tangent:

I have a real issue with political philosophers relying on strange edge cases to make points that are irrelevant or nonsensical in real life. For example: An ethics teacher of mine once tried "if there is any case where the death penalty is justified then the death penalty is justified."

When I talk about these kinds of thing I tend to think of them in terms of "what should the law be?" rather than "what is good in this case?" Just because there is a case where there is a better option doesn't mean that the law ought to be rewritten.

But I'm being rather specific. I'm not talking generally like you want to. I've even clarified that I would not apply this to something like grand theft auto...or any case. I've gone as far as to state that the murder stuff would have to be proven to be absurdly guilty (no room for reasonable doubt). Those are the requirements I have. I am specifically talking about those 'fringe cases'. I don't want it generally applied to all "definitively proven guilty" criminals.

Hey, violent sex offenders. Maybe those, too. But, like I said: it'd have to be proven to the point of absurdity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just can't think of a reason for them to need this knowledge. They might want it but I really don't like the idea that we can remove a person's rights just because we want to. We don't strip a person of the right to privacy for lesser crimes so why do it for murder? I can't see what substantive thing is gained.

In the section you quoted, I put the reasons. And, yes, privacy rights are already stripped when you commit a crime. I'm just arguing that the protection of juvenile records is arbitrary. What is so special about a person when they were a minor? What would their "young" days be sealed but everything else isn't?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's not (really) a mainstream libertarian position on anything. I imagine you'd have the extreme "criminals have no rights" and extreme "criminals keep all rights" positions.

Nah, there is a mainstream position on almost everything political from libertarians. I can look it up, later.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Once you're in prison a lot of rights are stripped for the practical purpose of keeping you in prison but I don't think your life is made an open book. If that's the way it is I think that's a mistake. Sure, your a public figure, to be talked about and investigated but anything that is normally inaccessible should stay that way. You can never give back that kind of privacy once it is taken.

Yeah, your life is made an open book, pretty much. Anything related to the case, before, during, and after trial, is made available to the "victims" or victims' family members in most states (I can't say for certain because I am not familiar with all states). Even the contents of your parole hearings are made available. Your crimes and even arrest records are publicly view-able in most states. Like, holy crap, dude...I cannot think of too much that is kept private once you become a 'serious' crime felon. It is even worse than I thought, once I started thinking about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe sealed juvenile records are kept from the police but always not from the courts. Judges can have access to sealed records.

So the only thing I am wanting are these records to be given to victims' families (and possibly friends) and the investigative police. So it would appear we are 1 out of 3.

Let's go back to the main topic: Regarding those records and the type of crime I am talking about, what is so special about a person when they were a minor that deserves protecting?