Pennsylvania mayor arrested after pointing gun at group of teenagers, police say

I put this story here since it involves a local official (like police officers) and his overreaction of resorting to violence over a minor incident. Very similar to how those in power abuse that power for their own means, which I believe is in the spirit of this forum.

Kevin Gross, the mayor of Derry Borough, east of Pittsburgh, is now facing multiple charges including aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person and harassment stemming from the incident alleged to have taken place there Sunday night.

But, what was it all about?

Pennsylvania State Police told KDKA that the incident started when the teenagers got into an argument over a marker and “some graffiti being drawn on a bench,” which resulted in Gross’ son getting a scratch on his arm.

“It was over the younger children having the marker and not giving the marker back,” Trooper Stephen Limani told the station.

The 38-year-old mayor, police say, eventually showed up with a loaded revolver, pointed it at a 15-year-old boy and ordered him to the ground.

Source: Pennsylvania mayor arrested after pointing gun at group of teenagers, police say

In addition, he also did the same to other children there.....OVER A SCRATCH ON HIS SON'S ARM????

Seriously?

He should have his right to carry revoked IMO, in addition to the current charges against him for this act of stupidity. This is what happens when parents do not let the kids work out these little problems between themselves like it used to be.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Unfortunately this is why I think we do need gun regulation, not everyone is responsible enough to own them, sadly.

You take people like this mayor that already clearly have power issues and you allow them to have dominion over others, no doubt you're gonna have a bad time.

a reply to: Krakatoa

that 15 yr should have been carrying and protected himself from a reckless gun owner

A gun isn't a talisman that solves all problems.

This asshole needs jail, revocation of his right to bear arms, and summarily removed from office.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Krakatoa

that 15 yr should have been carrying and protected himself from a reckless gun owner

Sure didn't take long for the asinine comments to start.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

Unfortunately this is why I think we do need gun regulation, not everyone is responsible enough to own them, sadly.

You take people like this mayor that already clearly have power issues and you allow them to have dominion over others, no doubt you're gonna have a bad time.

But, you also cannot blame and punish EVERYONE for the actions of a few either, right? After all, we are all innocent before being proven guilty. Just like not all immigrants are members of MS-13, or selling drugs.

Blanket justice is never an option, especially when it contradicts a Constitutionally protected right.

a reply to: nemonimity

Unfortunately this is why I think we do need gun regulation, not everyone is responsible enough to own them, sadly.

We already have gun regulation. This guy is a MAYOR. A person in a position of public trust and among those even California would deem qualified to carry.

Short of taking guns away and repealing the second amendment, what regulation would you propose to prevent something like this?

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Krakatoa

that 15 yr should have been carrying and protected himself from a reckless gun owner

Sure didn't take long for the asinine comments to start.

so more guns not the solution? got it.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Of course not that's why I didn't say confiscation, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

Oh look another "official" who thinks they are above the law.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Do you have anything to add that has substance or are you going to be a pigeon?

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

Of course not that's why I didn't say confiscation, the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them not the ones who can.

And, we have that already. In this case, are you psychic? Are you in favor of thought crime analysis? Because, that is the road you are advocating, punishing "pre-crime".

So a Democrat with a gun did something wrong? Where have I heard that before?

a reply to: Krakatoa

There is no pre crime, you can go that route if you want but our values are supposed to be based on the actions of people not supposition. Deciding to punish people before the do wrong, is inherently wrong.

I'm advocating gun regulation, not confiscation and trying to goal post move isn't going to change anything. Either you're responsible enough to own a gun or you're not, I feel the same way about driving.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

There is no pre crime, you can go that route if you want but our values are supposed to be based on the actions of people not supposition. Deciding to punish people before the do wrong, is inherently wrong.

I'm advocating gun regulation, not confiscation and trying to goal post move isn't going to change anything. Either you're responsible enough to own a gun or you're not, I feel the same way about driving.

But, there are already loads of regulations ans laws on the books. So, what would you have suggested to prevent this incident above the existing laws (which will be applied as punishment to him here).

You are advocating pre-crime....by stating,

the goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them

How do you know beforehand?

Who is the judge? You?

a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm not sure where this psychic phenomenon is coming from, as far as I'm aware theres no way to predict the future. You base the outcomes on what people have done, not what they say or you think they'll do (legally, not personally).

Just because there are already regulations doesn't mean they are correct or useful, they need to be set up in a functional way to benefit those who follow the rules and to punish those who don't.

I have no idea how you would try to set up a system that judges people ahead of time. I don't think there's a way to do that that wouldn't impact personal liberties.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm not sure where this psychic phenomenon is coming from, as far as I'm aware theres no way to predict the future. You base the outcomes on what people have done, not what they say or you think they'll do (legally, not personally).

Just because there are already regulations doesn't mean they are correct or useful, they need to be set up in a functional way to benefit those who follow the rules and to punish those who don't.

I have no idea how you would try to set up a system that judges people ahead of time. I don't think there's a way to do that that wouldn't impact personal liberties.

Then why are you asking for just such a thing?

Laws are not there to prevent crime, they are meant to punish those that break that law. They cannot be punished or prevented from doing something beforehand. A law is only a social contract that asks you to follow. If you do not, it outlines the punishments if you do not follow them. People that are intent on not following the laws, for whatever reason, will NOT be prevented from doing so because of mere words on paper.

Why don't people think of that before they spout off about "we should do more, add more laws, etc...". If there was a real problem with firearms in this country, there would be THOUSANDS of deaths every single day. I'd say the laws in place are actually working quite well considering there are over 100 million legal firearms in possession at this very moment.

a reply to: Krakatoa

What are you talking about? I have not once said I wanted to lock up people for what we think they might do. You keep defaulting to this as if it's some sort of existential nightmare waiting in the wings at my beckon call. If we didn't have laws and regulations the mayor would get to keep his gun after threatening little kids with it. That's just not acceptable, it's rather weird your up in arms over the guy but you don't think he should be punished or have his rights stripped for being a nut.

He deserves to have his gun rights taken away and yeah i support the laws that allow for that.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Krakatoa

What are you talking about? I have not once said I wanted to lock up people for what we think they might do. You keep defaulting to this as if it's some sort of existential nightmare waiting in the wings at my beckon call. If we didn't have laws and regulations the mayor would get to keep his gun after threatening little kids with it. That's just not acceptable, it's rather weird your up in arms over the guy but you don't think he should be punished or have his rights stripped for being a nut.

He deserves to have his gun rights taken away and yeah i support the laws that allow for that.

WTF are you smoking???

Please read my OP again. If you read it closely you will see I stated this quite clearly...

He should have his right to carry revoked IMO, in addition to the current charges against him for this act of stupidity.

Care to apologize now for your lack of reading comprehension?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you going to apologize for yours?

Just kinda sucks you when people misrepresent what you say and try to change your position huh?