Gunpoint to teen for a...........meatball sandwich?

Nick Koenig
Article #6
North County Times
Police: Men took Pa. teens sandwich at gunpoint
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/police-men-took-pa-teens-sandwich-at-gunpoint/article_6555955f-3a9e-5218-ab07-a6a12572a21b.html

Way to Represent Lunch Money Theft

     Two men approached a teen and held a gun aiming at the teen's head. They soon searched the teen's pockets, not caring of anything else, but a meatball sandwich. The two quickly fled the seen into a car, which the teen soon reported to the police. The cops soon found the thiefs and sent them to jail, ordering a $150,000 bail to be free.

     This represents something we learned in class by the amendment of fair trial. These two men need a $150,000 bail to get out of prison, which shows the bail is under a reasonable price, showing stealing a sandwich instead of killing an innocent teen is a very big deal. The bail isn't an excessive fine, which is okay to the police and the jury and judge at the trial.

     I have seen this happen on the news before. A theft for something not important. If your going to steal a sandwich while holding a gun to a teen's head and leave them with their phone is the most stupid crime I have ever heard of. Many people do it, and it is not cool. Go spend a couple bucks rather than going to jail for how many years. $6 sandwich is not equivalent to a $150,000 fine for bail.

     My opinion is that these criminals are plain stupid. If I were to do this (which I would NEVER EVER do) I would be more careful. These criminals didn't seem to mind that they could have been reported by leaving a phone with a teen, and even not covering their licence plate. This kid was smart to act normal and to do nothing wrong to get him/herself killed. He/she was also smart to report the licence plate to the police.

Bearing Arms For Women Being Urged?

Nick Koenig
Article #5
North County Times
South Carolina sheriff urges women to carry guns
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_ce3c6eae-3d6a-5d5a-9764-250a55f90eae.html

     Guns for Women in South Carolina

     A South Carolina sheriff is urging women to get a permit for owning a gun and have it with them at all times. He suggests a .45 caliber weapon because they aren't as accurate. Accurate for what? Stories of 'desperate men' have been going around........and the sheriff wants the women to protect themselves from intruders. He wants them to use that kind of gun so they don't exactly kill the man but hurt him for safety. He also said fanny pack women can carry a hand gun in their purse while jogging. He added then to walk in groups and it's better to carry a gun than a mace.

     This relates to what we studied in class because it is the amendment of bearing arms. One person is allowed to own a gun with a permit showing they didn't get the gun illegally. If you use your gun unlawfully (shooting random people) then you will go to jail, but for self defence is okay. The sheriff is doing this just for the women's safety, not to start chaos or a rampage. Will South Carolina follow the sheriff's concern?

     I have seen this happen in CSI shows. My friends probably don't have a gun laying around our homes. In CSI, the people who are in trouble usually have a secret gun underneath their mattress or in a nightstand drawer. My dad is in the Marine Corps, but that doesn't mean he can own a gun. He still needs a permit. The closest thing to a gun my family has is a B.B. Gun to shoot rodents at night.

     My opinion is that the sheriff is absolutely right, but maybe to close to the edge. He noted 'mace' which is those weapons with the spikes on the ball you swing around. Now, you tell me. Do women in South Carolina own maces? A gun is fine for self defence, but why add 'mace' to the story? The sheriff seemed really concern, telling the women tips of what gun and what to do while doing independent activities. Is this sheriff concerned a little TOO much?

Protesting a Drunken Crash

Nick Koenig
Article: #4
North County Times
China cop accused of drunken crash; crowds protest
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/international/article_7ef8e958-ccc5-5e66-9dd6-0e5e6128dad6.html

China Cop Accused Of Drunken Crash While Crowds Protest

     A China cop was accused of drunk driving killing 5 people in a car crash in Beijing. Angry protesters went around flipping over police cars in their furious rage. The way of the deaths were crashing into poles which fell and fatally crushed 5 people and injured 3 more. Xinhua News Agency said the county police department had set up a special investigation team. Road Rage and Drunken Driving reports have increased due to new drivers with little experience.

     This relates to what we are studding in class because it involves protesters which go under the amendment of Freedom of Assembly because people are joining together to show what they feel of this outrage. Also the Freedom of Speech for saying what they think about it and the right to protest (which I think is Assemble). This is part of the Bill of Rights which was in the last chapter we studied with the first 10 amendments. Everyone can show there feelings in some way but I don't think of flipping over POLICE CARS necessary. The police station should have taken care of this more seriously by punishing the man (if he lives) and not just taking the bodies to a funeral room with no investigation (mentioned in the article).

     This relates to my life people many people die from car crashes. I think the most efficient way of dying in a car crash is due to drunk driving. This is worse than drunk driving because it's a cop, whom has to follow the law, and has the permission to go any speed if trouble happens, so that's double trouble. I had a friend who died and it's not good and now instead of someone who died on the news and now you want to move on with your life, you feel a deeper feeling for others. It's just you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

     My opinion is that the protesters have a right to protest. For the police department, collecting bodies for a funeral and not investigating is like destroying evidence. If one doesn't see evidence you destroyed, they aren't sure what happened. If you don't investigate, your not sure what really happened except for witnesses telling you their OPINION. Peoples opinion are different in various ways. Some could say it was an accident, some could say it was a suicidal move, some could make up another different story. That's why you can't be so sure and need crucial evidence.