Sheriff's Department: Adelanto teenager perishes in accidental shooting

There are 11 comments on the Nov 14, 2010, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story titled Sheriff's Department: Adelanto teenager perishes in accidental shooting. In it, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that:

A teenager is dead after being accidentally shot on Saturday night by his cousin, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Chino Native

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#122 Nov 16, 2010
Checkpoint Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess they don't have schools out there in cow town..Remember, a colon is used before and explanation that is proceeded by a clause that can stand by itself. Thus the sheriff's department is telling you this..CLASS DISMISSED!
The Sheriff's department always release the shootings to the paper that is the only way they they get the story. That is nothing new. What you don't know until you read it is they didn't do the shooting..just responded to it. Have another beer checkpoint...and then maybe drive through one.
SHA

San Diego, CA

#123 Nov 16, 2010
It really kills me how a life has been taken and all you people have nothing but negative opinions how would you feel had that been your child,friend,mother,father and people have nothing but negayive thoughts i really dont think you would take too litely to that so how about we all say a prayer for this grieving family and keep your daragatore comments to yourself R.I.P Tyree Richardson
Outraged

Adelanto, CA

#124 Nov 16, 2010
Could it be because we're sick and tired of watching people from poor towns (Note: I didn't imply race or gang membership! shoot, stab and kill each other, and then try to cover it up?

I grew up with parents who were avid gun collectors. All our guns were kept in locked gun safes, with trigger locks. Even as a 7 year old, I attended NRA shooting safety classes, where I was taught to respect the weapon for the tool of deadly force that it can be. My parents never had a loaded gun, either on their person, or in their house, and neither do I.

I've yet to see a single death result from an unloaded and properly secured weapon.

Since: Oct 09

Apple Valley, CA

#125 Nov 16, 2010
SHA wrote:
It really kills me how a life has been taken and all you people have nothing but negative opinions how would you feel had that been your child,friend,mother,father and people have nothing but negayive thoughts i really dont think you would take too litely to that so how about we all say a prayer for this grieving family and keep your daragatore comments to yourself R.I.P Tyree Richardson
It wouldn't be my family, because I take precautions to prevent it.

Since: Oct 09

Apple Valley, CA

#126 Nov 16, 2010
SHA wrote:
It really kills me how a life has been taken and all you people have nothing but negative opinions how would you feel had that been your child,friend,mother,father and people have nothing but negayive thoughts i really dont think you would take too litely to that so how about we all say a prayer for this grieving family and keep your daragatore comments to yourself R.I.P Tyree Richardson
Society has been telling people for years and years about how to keep your kids safe. And for years and years people have ignored all the things that we've said. Now, that the thing that they were warned about, and they ignored has come to pass we're supposed to feel sympathy?

I, for one, feel anger that a kid had to die, because their arrogance wouldn't allow them to listen to another who cared more about their kid than they did.

Somehow, I told you so just doesn't say enough.

Since: Oct 09

Apple Valley, CA

#127 Nov 16, 2010
Outraged wrote:
Even as a 7 year old, I attended NRA shooting safety classes, where I was taught to respect the weapon for the tool of deadly force that it can be.
That's the key...respect for the thing that can take a life. You don't stinking play with a loaded gun.

You don't pick it up unless you're willing to kill something.

Hopefully, these people have learned a valuable lesson. Unfortunately, the cost was a life.
Outraged

Adelanto, CA

#128 Nov 17, 2010
No, I pick up my guns all the time. But only to clean and admire them. I don't intend to ever have to kill anything! A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. The anti-gun crowd who insists "guns are only for killing" has never seen a serious gun collection, where the items can rise in value 30% annually. Just firing one of those rare guns, even once, can knock 1/3 off their value. Some people collect stamps, I collect guns. To each their own.

Since: Oct 09

Apple Valley, CA

#129 Nov 17, 2010
Outraged wrote:
No, I pick up my guns all the time. But only to clean and admire them. I don't intend to ever have to kill anything! A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. The anti-gun crowd who insists "guns are only for killing" has never seen a serious gun collection, where the items can rise in value 30% annually. Just firing one of those rare guns, even once, can knock 1/3 off their value. Some people collect stamps, I collect guns. To each their own.
I'm not talking intending to, but prepared to. You misunderstand me. I'm not against guns. I'm against those who cannot respect their purpose having one.
True

AOL

#130 Nov 21, 2010
You still missed my point. My point was not that it was written to be changed, but instead my point was that at the time it was written they couldn't have been expected to envision the future as we now know it. They couldn't have been expected to know that we would in the future have huge armies to protect us, Navy with thousands of ships to not ony protect us but fight all over the world. Have nuclear weapons that can rocket across oceans or continents or have airplanes, let alone jet aircraft to protect us or bomb others. In most of our country the only line of defense might be a local militia because it could take days or weeks to get help from our government forces with no telegraphs, telephones or radios to use to summon help. In that time armed citizens would likely be the ONLY way to protect citizens from invaders, whether foreign or domestic, or even a mob of three or four criminals that might threaten local citizens. Since the local law might consist of one simple constable or similar law officer with no others for miles or possibly hundrds of miles.

Even then, what they were speaking of since they were thinking in terms of a militia was most likely rifles rather than handguns. The fact that these same rifles might also be used for supplying their families with food made it only more reasonable to give us the right to bear these same arms even if the intent was to make them available for protection. In any event, you have to wonder if their intent was for people to have they type of weapons that are available today. Because if you take into consideration what our founders thought of as "arms", primitive rifles and muskets, the things our modern firearms can do would probably be considered "witchcraft" to them.
True

AOL

#131 Nov 21, 2010
Second Amendment wrote:
<quoted text>
We are going to disagree on this one. Again, some of your points are great, except that they don't apply to the Second Amendment or to any of the Amendments included in the Bill of Rights.
We must not forget this important passage. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Note that the Constitution only lists a few rights. To get the Constitution approved, the authors agreed that a Bill of Rights would be added to more clearly lay out the unalienable Rights alluded to in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights included 12 unalienable rights, including the Second Amendment.
The term unalienable rights refers to human rights that are fundamental, right that are not awarded by human power, and that cannot be surrendered. They are by definition rights retained by the people. Unalienable rights may also be considered to be natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be unalienable. Our Founding Fathers were great thinkers, and they deliberatly chose not to define natural or human rights, but provided a framework for adding (and removing) those rights (women voting, blacks, poll taxes, prohibition). However, it is abundantly clear, they never intended the unalienable rights to be removed - that's why they called them "unalienable."
So back to your argument, the second amendment was clearly never written or intended to be adapted to changing conditions. Even if it were, which way would the change go? In many peoples' eyes, the purposes of keeping arms is as important today as it was back in the 1700s, and in many areas, it is more important today. Take a drive around many neighborhoods, day or night, and the need to bear arms becomes readily apparent.
You still missed my point. My point was not that it was written to be changed, but instead my point was that at the time it was written they couldn't have been expected to envision the future as we now know it. They couldn't have been expected to know that we would in the future have huge armies to protect us, Navy with thousands of ships to not ony protect us but fight all over the world. Have nuclear weapons that can rocket across oceans or continents or have airplanes, let alone jet aircraft to protect us or bomb others. In most of our country the only line of defense might be a local militia because it could take days or weeks to get help from our government forces with no telegraphs, telephones or radios to use to summon help. In that time armed citizens would likely be the ONLY way to protect citizens from invaders, whether foreign or domestic, or even a mob of three or four criminals that might threaten local citizens. Since the local law might consist of one simple constable or similar law officer with no others for miles or possibly hundrds of miles.

Even then, what they were speaking of since they were thinking in terms of a militia was most likely rifles rather than handguns. The fact that these same rifles might also be used for supplying their families with food made it only more reasonable to give us the right to bear these same arms even if the intent was to make them available for protection. In any event, you have to wonder if their intent was for people to have they type of weapons that are available today. Because if you take into consideration what our founders thought of as "arms", primitive rifles and muskets, the things our modern firearms can do would probably be considered "witchcraft" to them.
yourmombeeatch

Phoenix, AZ

#132 Jun 15, 2011
Da Judge wrote:
Why would they do this, and then try to cover it up? Blaming the shooting on a drive-by, and making a false police report, is not standard practice.
There is another side to this story that we haven't yet heard.
Race of the victim? Let me guess!
what is that supposed to mean? i bet your race is white! you f*ck!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

San Bernardino Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 5 hr tom wingo 29,642
Anybody know a nutjob named John Colby? Sat lara 10
News 'Brockovich' town getting smaller and smaller Fri Oskar Schindler 2
News Man beaten by San Bernardino deputies in video ... Fri Horse 4
News California bill would end fines for brown lawns... Apr 23 H20 the new Oil 1
Dating in San Bernardino Apr 20 dwhite0460k 6
News So-Cal drag show draws big names (Oct '08) Apr 20 Barbara Halston 49
More from around the web

San Bernardino People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]