nt

The Kentucky woman who shot her boyfriend in the head and face multiple times said she was giving him “the nose job that he wanted,” detectives said.

Investigators revealed a string of gruesome new details at a preliminary hearing Thursday for Shayna Hubers, 21, the Eastern Kentucky University student charged with murder in the slaying of on again-off again boyfriend Ryan Poston, 29.

“She said she couldn’t stand to see him deformed [after shooting him in the face]. She said he was vain,” Highland Heights Detective Bill Birkenhauer said in a chilling testimony before the Campbell County District Court.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-shot-boyfriend-gave-nose-job-detective-article-1.1193488

department that checks them. I would suspect she did fingerprints when she turned the paperwork in. That is normally how it works. I know, I had to go through a similar process.

Carol Bowne's fingerprints to the state police for their review.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they had not done so and that dragging their feet in such a manner is customary procedure for the department - all the better to discomfit anyone who isn't wealthy, politically connected, or some sort of celebrity from having the most effective means for their self-defense.

But the news probably will not carry that part.

Well, no fingerprints, no gun. So she doesn't get to defend herself.

Oh well, hopefully her psycho ex won't try to kill her.

which is not the fault of requiring background checks before purchasing a gun. If it got hung up in bureaucratic limbo, that's a separate problem.

The way the article read, to me, was she had submitted some initial paperwork but not the fingerprint part.

I think we can all agree that background checks should be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Where we'll differ is where to draw that line (1 day, 1 week, or whatever, for the research and paperwork) but taking more than a month does seem to me to be too long. The other question this raises is what should happen if it does end up taking longer, but that'd also depend on why a particular application took longer.

to take more than 15 minutes, actually, there's no excuse for a permit to purchase a firearm, which is a civil right.

When any cop in the USA pulls someone over for a traffic violation, they have the ability to know in a matter of moments, the criminal history of the cars registered owner... If another person is driving, they will have that information in a few more moments.

And that is without fingerprints.. Yea, take us back to the 1950's with that one........

It is NOTHING BUT PURE BS that it takes 30+ days for a gun permit check...

'Not researching the subject on which I opine', is only one of your failings
in this thread.

You've blamed the victim all through it, from failing to choose a form of self-defense
more acceptable to you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post21

to not being selective enough in her choice of paramours:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post19

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post109

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post162

nt

that again sir is just sickening and I wish you would stop it.

is when we try and educate on weapons or like this the process, we are derided for quibbling about details. It does help to know at least some things before making wild statements like that. The worst thing is even after he has been corrected and said he did not know how the process worked, he kept making that statement and kept those prior posts up. IF I am found to be wrong, I edit or self delete. This poster refused to edit or self-delete where he blamed the victim for her own death.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168288#post19

Jurors, please read the linked post for context as I fully expect this post to be alerted no by the poster.

Seems they already have a provision that you must be approved upon application to the top law enforcement official in the county where she resideDDD.

Had several of those of those type laws .

In the South.

During Jim (large, raucous black bird) days.

or deny an application is too long, imho. In this day and age, with everything digital (it is, right?) a minute should be more than enough. Oh, wait, it's not, yet? Ok, then how about 2 weeks, if all the paperwork is submitted correctly in the first place? That seems reasonable to me.

She could still have been killed if she had a gun, but if she was legally able to pass the background check, then she should have had the right to try defending herself in every legal way from this asshole who killed her.

I still think she had other options, too, that she didn't pursue, and she made some bad choices too, but I'm *not* blaming her for Eitel killing her. That's all on him.


G'night.

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 07:31 AM - Edit history (1)

if fine with you, we will never agree with that. It should take no more than 15-20 minutes in this digital age. It is the gun control laws that you guys wanted that caused the delay for her to have HER CHOICE of protection. She might be alive today if she was ALLOWED to have HER CHOICE of protection. We will never know though as she was not due to the gun control law. And you sir are indeed at least putting partial blame on her once again and it it still just as sick. Yes Mr Eitel killed her not the knife, and there is a possibility it would not have happened if she had a firearm for protection as was HER CHOICE.

You have been less than truthful in many ways. And I can not believe that you can/will change so suddenly.

I have given him many times to come clean on issues about me and he never does. It would take a lot for me to trust that individual. People can change, I guess. I just do not see it in his deeds or other postings.

"nuff said.

Our resident gun control people that have been here lately will be be eerily quiet.

The article is unclear.

...was DENIED her.... She tried to jump thru the hoops, and it was not enough..

In most states she would have been allowed her desired weapon, in minutes...

People that insist on strict gun control directly contributed to her untimely death.

too bad the control side did not allow her to exercise that choice. New Jersey, enough said.

and not recommended against armed assailants, especially the type that is legal in NJ. Worse than useless in rain, indoors, head wind.
http://www.loyola.edu/club/maru/self-defense/resources/mace

IOW, she was denied her right to life and choice, by denying her the most effective means of self defense.
Gun control activists have as much right telling a man or woman how they deal with their personal security as Bible thumpers do regarding his or her family planning: Zero. Recommendations from Dr. Oz, you (unless you happen to be a self defense expert/trainer), or self important pompus assholes like Piers Morgan should have even less say.

Do you think he will come back with some reply?

Was it windy or rainy when she was stabbed? Pepper spray might have saved her life.

The type that is legal in NJ is capable at most minor irritation, not incapacitation. That means he would still be slashing with a knife. Even then, what is legal is capable of only one shot.
Maybe she did explore other options. The point is, the police violated the law by not getting the permit to her within 30 days. A gun is the most effective means. It is her natural human right to have the most effective means available.
Did you read this part in the link:
The products covered by this consent agreement include Mace and other chemical self-protection products. We advise that you limit your use of Mace in accordance with these restrictions:

and she's too intimidated or scared to actually use it, so he takes it from her and shoots her instead. That's the scenario you'd prefer?

Maybe we should be praising NJ's laws for making the killer resort to a knife instead of arriving with a gun himself

and common in the movies. There is no evidence that it happens in real life and is sexist bullshit. In fact, most gun control arguments come from the movies and TV and have no basis in reality. IOW, my hypotheticals are informed, yours are not.

you can not admit that some the gun control you people push for, removed the choice from this poor lady and she is dead now. Now you are trying to put the blame back on her as she did not choose a much less effective means of defense. That sir, is just not right and I suggest you rethink your argument.

it is sad

Was a nail.

Since she couldn't get a super-duper restraining order she had to defend herself

The gun killed nobody. Seems other weapons were used.

and I quote:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

So not only was a firearm the defensive strategy she was denied a choice of, it was also the one most likely to have kept her alive.

For added gun control irony and EM repellent, she was murdered not with a gun, but with a knife.

Now he might start something in the safe haven, but I doubt that also as it does not fit the narrative.

So she chose not to exercise other options, or plan ahead to arm herself earlier, or maybe not date that asshole in the first place, but somehow this thread is becoming about me again? Try and stay on topic.

And I am not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. Too bad he did not give her advance notice of him being abusive.

in the body but not the subject line meant the subject line was directed at me, not a hypothetical conversation with Ms Bowne.

I will post what I want. She tried to exercise her right but was stopped buy the gun control crowd. To bad they prevented her from choosing the method she wanted.

Talking about 'classy' and blaming the victim

It did seem in my humble opinion he did just blame the victim. I hope I am wrong and he will either edit or self delete that disgusting post. I know he id better than that.

Nice, I'm making Chicken Cacciatore spread over Bowtie pasta.

Recipe please.

I grilled boneless chicken tonight. We had that along with brown rice, grilled mixed onions and mushrooms, Paule Dean style green beans (butter and crumbled bacon) and some local beer.

We'll likely cook the rest tomorrow.

Yummy.

You're blaming the victim.
Truly vile and disgusting.

people normally conduct Purpose Code "C" background checks on those with whom they plan to interact with socially. Right.

Truly vile and disgusting.

Repugnant.

What next? "Well, if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have left the house dressed like that and without a male member of her family to escort her."

But the poster refuses to do that.

It's not like the police themselves can't get a BGC done in a reasonable amount of time. You place all the burden on the victim while going through contortions to exonerate the police (who would, coincidentally, be charged with enforcing the regime of fantasy laws you favor).

But perhaps if you had gone out dressed a bit more conservatively and drank less..."

Nope, not victim blaming at all

Lack of enough gun control contributes to 30000 American deaths a year.

I think the overall balance suggests there should be more gun control, not less.

The suicide rate in gun-free Japan is more than the US murder rate and suicide rate combined. Which would seem to indicate that gun control does not do much to affect suicide rates. You can also look at before and after suicide rates after stricter gun laws were enacted in the UK and Australia. The firearm suicide rate went down, but not the overall suicide rate. Those that serious about ending their lives simply found other unfortunately successful means to do so.

So I'll take suicides out of the figure. Instead of 30000 to one, we're down to 18000 to one, then.

to 11K

I flipped the 18k and the 12k, since I don't usually separate them.

But I still would request a group host ban me to prevent me posting by mistake in this group in future.

So I think that we can conclude that we have a culture of violence in the good ol' USA. Guns are just a part of the problem--but a significant part. We also have cops shooting and killing citizens at an outrageous rate--400 so far this year. Australia had 105 people killed in 22 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shootings-in-2015-approaching-400-nationwide/2015/05/30/d322256a-058e-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html

http://theconversation.com/shoot-to-kill-the-use-of-lethal-force-by-police-in-australia-34578

than Australia. If you want to see a "culture of violence" you might want to check out Brazil.
Guns are irrelevant. There are more legal guns in the US and Australia than ever before and crime is still dropping.
We also have more people than Australia.

Since the US non-firearm murder rate exceeds the overall rate (both guns and all other means) for countries like the UK, I conclude that the US is more prone to violence than some other countries. The UK and Australia in particular have numerous social support systems and economic helps that we lack in the US. Aside from the often mentioned single payer healthcare, let me highlight wages and what the working folk actually earn.

Waiter/Waitress in Australia:
$16,414 - $33,033 (in USD using today's exchange rate)

Waiter/Waitress in USA:
$7,072 - $34,664

The folks at the bottom of those scales make less than half in the US. The top end of those ranges pay is comparable but in the US those folks are likely paying for their own healthcare.

Young people are often at the low end of the scale. They may be high school grads without a degree or college grads with over $50,000 of loan debt. Most of the undegreed are looking at getting unskilled work. The degree holders are competing for jobs and some won't find one before needing to make those loan payments. Some of those degree holders may be taking some of the unskilled jobs.

Where does this leave folks in the US? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think college costs less in the UK or maybe it's free as it is in some countries.

Bankruptcy?? Good idea; here in the US those student loans don't qualify. Thank you Republicans. Bankruptcy will keep you from being evicted from your overpriced apartment but those loans will always be there to garnish your pay along with interest and penalties. Guess what. If you're a single parent that cosigned your kid's college loans and he/she hasn't found a job to pay them, you're on the hook. If you're working as a waiter or waitress or some other low paying job, just make sure your kid doesn't die because if they do, you're still on the hook.


What a system! Frustration, arguments, strife and hopelessness; the perfect environment for a place with a violence problem.

I can't remember exactly but I think the average age of violence perpetrators is between 17 and 24. I feel blessed to be a part of this experiment in wealth diversity.

I'm starting to think shamash doesn't understand how to post links to sources; either that or he's shamming us. In my post 262 I noted he posted irrelevant graphs which did not corroborate anything he said in his post.

shamash:... Doesn't seem like their {Australia} gun laws did anything for the overall murder rate.

Shamash, I believe those are not rates on your graph, but total murders. If so Shamash posted a graph which shows overall murder. From 1995 - 97 Australian murder total was approx. 315. The gun buyback was 96/97. Murder spiked only one year 1999 to approx. 345, but has been lower than 315 for 6 of the 10 yrs to 2007 (shamash's graph limits), remained at parity for 3 yrs, rose the 1 year 1999.
I approx'd the murder figs for the ten years 1997 - 2007 as follows (290,345,315,310,315,300,265,265,280,260) and they average out to 295. So from 1996/97 buyback year, total murder is on average 20 murders less each year since the buyback.

Also, the firearm percentage used in murder in 1996/97 was approx. 25%, in 2007 it was ~15%, which corroborates with the drop in murder totals over the ten year period. If aussie population grew, this will be enhanced by comparing murder rates with firearm rates.

One wonders what shamash is trying to pull, with his illogical weird science.

Does not like to block people as this group likes all viewpoints. It is up to you like one of our regulars to check what groip they are posting in. The funny thing is he relized his mistake, self deleted the post and EM, the host over there still blocked him. No SOP violation, I would like to know the excuse, as to me it is a clear abuse of a hosts powers.

the post is in the other 'gun control' group, not the one that actually believes in useful gun control.

It would be helpful, in fact, if a group host would ban me in this group, so that I don't post in the wrong 'gun control' group in future.

Shut down dissent in your safe haven and then come here to deliberately stir up shit.

It's very obvious what he's trying to do here.