Guns, mental illness, drugs, and laws.
Makell L. Meyerin of Spring Grove, Illinois.
Heroin addict from the age of 14. She had a long arrest record, included felony burglary, for which she was sentenced 5 years.
Makell's mother said the only time she heard of her daughter was when she was on the news for committing another crime.
On May 23, 2018, in Antioch, Lake County, Illinois, Makell and her boyfriend were going door to door, asking for money.
When the cops were called, they sped away, and Makell fired at the cops with a Beretta Cx4 Storm Tactical Carbine.
Was it legal for her to have it?
Why no! It wasn't!
Makell and her boyfriend got away and then stole a Prius and overdosed in it.
The cops were called AGAIN, and Makell led them on a chase.
This is the video. She didn't survive, but the video isn't gruesome.
Makell's mother said the only time her violent career-criminal daughter was sober was when she was...incarcerated.
Her autopsy showed that she was full of opiates, cocaine, benzodiazepines, fentanyl, heroin, and buprenorphine.
So: Drug laws failed and gun laws failed.
In fact the entire criminal justice system failed.
What's the only thing that would've worked?
A long sentence in a state psychiatric hospital.
Makell L. Meyerin --all by herself--create two enormous crime scenes.
The cops said they'd never had a situation in which someone had fired a long gun at officers in two entirely separate places.
And THIS thing is a pistol converted to a tactical carbine.
For mass shootings, it's BETTER than an AR-15.
We can either face reality, or we can continue to allow the drug-addicted mentally ill to continue to commit ever-increasingly violent crimes.
ALL VIOLENT CRIME HAS PLUMMETED.
Except for crime committed by the violently mentally ill.
The answer is easy.
It's not about "criminalizing mental illness."
It's preventing the mentally ill from committing crimes.
and that sir is the answer... but, they closed them all 🤔
Truth! Thank you, Thomas for voicing it!
@ThomasWic Early in the video when the cop was approaching the car, he knew they had probably overdosed. Guess that knowledge is common now for LEOs as it happens daily. Got me thinking. In my opinion, narcan should only be used for LEOs & EMTs who have to deal with this crap. Why use it on anyone who will continue to use drugs and very possibly cause harm to the first responders willing to save them.
You never know what is a person's bottom.
Maybe this use of narcan will be the one that takes.
Took me 10 years to quit.
Sure glad no one gave up on me
LIFE IS VALUABLE
@EarlThePearls I'm thrilled that you kicked it. Sorry if I'm irritating you, Earl. Not my intention. I'm going thru a rough patch myself the last few days; feeling down and a bit frustrated. This is my issue, not yours. Peace.
@Baline No worries - My comments are not addressed to you specifically.
I have noticed in general lately that some people seem to think killing folks for whatever small reason is fine.
If one goes armed, one needs to figure out the level at which you will kill a person
I assume if one carries, one is prepared to kill, yes?
@EarlThePearls not necessarily. I think there are armed folks who carry just in case and have decided ahead of time that if firing their weapon is required, they will aim to maim.
Extremely dangerous idea. People move, dodge, rush victim. How can one aim to maim. Don’t ever draw a weapon unless you intent to shoot to kill. There is no other reason to shoot. If your life is in danger, or if you’re fearful for your life, you defend yourself, using every action or skill you possess. Don’t apologize. This is a life or death situation.
@Victoria99654 Okay, I've been trying to let this go but it seems that the context was missed. I think Earl's 'General Comment' was more figurative than literal.
I could be wrong, that was just my take and why I replied to him exactly as I did.
The conversation has moved into how to use a gun.
Use of narCan on the folks who od just because they know they will be resuscitated is a valid concern.
The draw of Heroin is strong.
You need more as time goes by.
I hope you pass through your rough patch soon!
Sending positive thoughts your way
@EarlThePearls @Baline back in the day, a retiring MP taught me: that is not a magic wand. If you unholster said pistol, you'd best be prepared to shoot it. If you do shoot, you had best intend to hit someone. And if your are shooting someone, killing them is an expectable outcome. You can stop anywhere along the way, but these are the expectations
As I've heard it put, waving a gun you don't intend to use _lethally_, is just wasting time you could have used to get away.
@EarlThePearls I ponder that situation often. I used to think, shoot to maim then escape. My husband has convinced me, if you've pulled your gun the person you are aiming at doesn't care about your life so don't worry about theirs. There's also the thought of retaliation. God forbid the person you've maimed gets a slap on the wrist then comes looking for you. It's a huge decision, one I pray I never have to make. @Baline
When you said "I assume if one carries, one is prepared to kill, yes?"
and Penn answered "If someone breaks into my home, then yes."
and then you ask her "You personal belongings (not human) are worth killing for?"
I am sorry but this is question isn't spurring on conversation. It more like an assaulting Penn's character.
If a woman is home and someone is breaking into her house, I don't think they would be thinking of their "personal belongings".
@ilumanous @Penn4421 @Baline
This is a personal example. I woke up one night to see somebody up to his waist inside my son's car. Can I shoot the guy?
I chose to put a pair of pants on run out to the car and body slam the door with him in. He managed to get away anyway but I'm sure he hurt like hell the next day.
I could have chosen to do nothing or if I were armed I could have killed him dead what's the right answer?
And leaving your home to go after someone breaking into a car is different than being in your home and having someone breaking into your home.
In your situation they were entering an empty car...
She was saying that she would be prepared to kill if someone was breaking into her home.
It's my observation reading comments of people. I don't think the people I am referring to have been in your situation
The replies I have received show that most here have thought that through.
It doesn't bother me one way or the other if one carries a weapon. Just be a responsible person if you do.
I've made it over 6o years without needing one yet. I am fortunate.
Others not so much
Example to illustrate the point I made above
The dead man shoved this guy so hard that he fell down. Then the dead man stepped forward.
Ever seen what people to those who are lying on the ground?
Drejka pulled his gun, the dead man stepped back, and then Drejka fired.
The whole thing is a clusterf*ck on every level, but it's clear that Drejka didn't carry a pistol in order to shoot people for "whatever small reason."
He was assaulted with great force. Only then did he pull his pistol.
You are deeply dishonest.
Initiation of violent force (in answer to gestures, words) can easily put someone in fear of their life. That's CODED IN OUR DNA.
And yet, from the video, normative (SHOULDS/OUGHTS) projections are made:
1) What impact initiated violence OUGHT to have on a victim of assault.
2) How quickly (in fractions of seconds) a victim OUGHT to calmly reason that his perpetrator is not really a threat to his life.
3) How the assaulted victim OUGHT to interpret movements.
My grandfather told me about a neighbor of his who was assaulted by her burglar.
As they wrestled she struggled to get to her gun in a drawer near the front door.
When she succeeded, gun in hand, the burglar fled out the front door.
She emptied six rounds into his back, ran back, reloaded, and continued to scream for help, her gun trained on the bullet-riddled corpse.
To her he was STILL A THREAT; retreat didn't automatically mean that she was safe.
Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.