Apple TV+ examines John Lennon's murder in new December series

AppleInsider

Three-part Apple TV+ documentary series "John Lennon: Murder without a Trial" will stream from December 6, 2023, and Apple has released a teaser trailer.

"John Lennon: Murder without a Trial" (Source: Apple)

First announced in October 2023, the Apple TV+ series details Lennon's murder, and the fate of his killer, Mark David Chapman.

Describing it as a "deeply researched examination of John Lennon's 1980 murder," Apple TV+ says that it features "exclusive eyewitness interviews and previously unseen crime scene photos."

Subscribe to AppleInsider on YouTube

Produced for Apple by 72 Films, the researchers were "granted extensive Freedom of Information Act requests from the New York City Police Department, the Board of Parole and the District Attorney's office."

The result is that the "includes exclusive interviews" with people ranging from a taxi driver who witnessed the shooting, to the doorman who heard Lennon's last words.

Read on AppleInsider

appleish

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

applezulu

Appleish said:

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

For the gun enthusiasts thinking about replying with some version of “It’s not the guns. If Chapman didn’t have a gun, he could’ve murdered Lennon with a knife or a car or a big stick,” just remember you’re also making a great argument for getting rid of guns altogether. If it really isn’t the guns, then everyone can fulfill their Second Amendment rights for hunting or self-defense or guarding against gubmint tyranny with a knife or a car or a big stick. There can be no infringement if it’s solely the user’s intent that defines any object equivalently as a weapon. 

Heck, we could also save billions from the Pentagon budget by getting rid of expensive guns and bullets and issuing a tactical spork to each service member. 

If you find that to be ridiculous, you’ll have to find some other reasoning that takes into account the fact that guns are among the most effective and efficient tools for killing people, and should thus be regulated with that fact always in mind. 

edited November 2023

kiltedgreen

Appleish said:

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

I think that last sentence might be better worded as “The NRA is an anti-Life terrorist group.” Those bullets aren’t selective …

edited November 2023

ilarynx

Sir Paul on his best friend and guns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPTpWtdA9OA

edited November 2023

filemakerfeller

AppleZulu said:

Appleish said:

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

For the gun enthusiasts thinking about replying with some version of “It’s not the guns. If Chapman didn’t have a gun, he could’ve murdered Lennon with a knife or a car or a big stick,” just remember you’re also making a great argument for getting rid of guns altogether. If it really isn’t the guns, then everyone can fulfill their Second Amendment rights for hunting or self-defense or guarding against gubmint tyranny with a knife or a car or a big stick. There can be no infringement if it’s solely the user’s intent that defines any object equivalently as a weapon. 

Heck, we could also save billions from the Pentagon budget by getting rid of expensive guns and bullets and issuing a tactical spork to each service member. 

If you find that to be ridiculous, you’ll have to find some other reasoning that takes into account the fact that guns are among the most effective and efficient tools for killing people, and should thus be regulated with that fact always in mind. 

Or, as the great Jim Jeffries put it: "the only way to defeat a bad guy with a chainsaw is to have a good guy with a chainsaw"

ilarynx

Maybe the AppleTV show will spark a few people to look into the gun violence epidemic in the US. A good start would be a thorough reading of the 2nd Amendment AND the Constitution in total. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

Reading the 2nd Amendment, the first half cannot stand on its own. It is the first part of the full sentence. The first part is frequently omitted but doing so gives an incomplete and false reading of the Amendment. "A well regulated Militia..." is how the sentence is initiated. Separating the first from the last part creates an error of both grammar and logic.

On the word “Militia” itself, it is mentioned 4 times in the original Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power...

[Clause 15.] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

[Clause 16.] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article. II.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ...

This gives proper context for how the Founders viewed and defined "Militia" and is a clear description in the wording of the Constitution as to what a “Militia” is and how it functions, as later referenced in the 2A. It is not defined as the personal armory of Bubba and Cletus. 

Also, the 2A states “Arms” not “guns” - taking the “originalist” by-the-word approach, "arms" is everything from pistols, muskets, and canon of that time, to machine guns to bazookas to Abrams tanks to fission arms. Once you conclude that as a society we’ve determined that some “arms” are not appropriate for civilian use, the only question is where to draw that line. 

It will be interesting to see how much the AppleTV program on John Lennon's murder delves into the subject of gun violence in general. If at all. 

applezulu

ilarynx said:

Maybe the AppleTV show will spark a few people to look into the gun violence epidemic in the US. A good start would be a thorough reading of the 2nd Amendment AND the Constitution in total. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

Reading the 2nd Amendment, the first half cannot stand on its own. It is the first part of the full sentence. The first part is frequently omitted but doing so gives an incomplete and false reading of the Amendment. "A well regulated Militia..." is how the sentence is initiated. Separating the first from the last part creates an error of both grammar and logic.

On the word “Militia” itself, it is mentioned 4 times in the original Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power...

[Clause 15.] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

[Clause 16.] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article. II.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ...

This gives proper context for how the Founders viewed and defined "Militia" and is a clear description in the wording of the Constitution as to what a “Militia” is and how it functions, as later referenced in the 2A. It is not defined as the personal armory of Bubba and Cletus. 

Also, the 2A states “Arms” not “guns” - taking the “originalist” by-the-word approach, "arms" is everything from pistols, muskets, and canon of that time, to machine guns to bazookas to Abrams tanks to fission arms. Once you conclude that as a society we’ve determined that some “arms” are not appropriate for civilian use, the only question is where to draw that line. 

It will be interesting to see how much the AppleTV program on John Lennon's murder delves into the subject of gun violence in general. If at all. 

Well, sure, but you should read The District of Columbia, et al v. Heller, where the Godfather of Constitutional Originalists, Antonin Scalia, twists himself into activist knots to relegate the first section of the Second Amendment into an inconsequential "prefatory clause" that he claims exists only in service of his creative reading of the "operative clause" in the latter part of the one sentence, where he creates an absolute individual right to gun ownership out of thin air. 

Were Justice Scalia actually an originalist even when it didn't serve his political preferences, he'd have acknowledged that the Second Amendment is a response to the prevailing concern that standing armies were dangerous fuel for fires that could be lit by wanna-be tyrants, and that the national defense would be better served by citizen militias, and that those citizens would need to have access to arms for the purpose of defending the country when called to serve in the militia. These folks had recent memory of the abuses of the British King's standing armies in the colonies, and thus preferred to keep the armies occupied as farmers and merchants during peacetime. This is also why the Third Amendment immediately follows the second, prohibiting soldiers from turning someone's house into an involuntary barracks. 

Both the Second and Third Amendments are very much a product of their time. These amendments were ratified by men who were only six years past the US Revolutionary War. Protecting themselves against the abuses of the Redcoats was what was on their minds, not creating an absolute right for every individual to go armed with handguns and armalite-style semi-automatic rifles wherever they please. 

rattlhed

Until you can guarantee that every bad guy with a gun has that gun taken away, then you'll never convince me that law abiding citizens should not be able to defend themselves in an equal or superior manner.  

ilarynx

rattlhed said:

Until you can guarantee that every bad guy with a gun has that gun taken away, then you'll never convince me that law abiding citizens should not be able to defend themselves in an equal or superior manner.  

I agree 1000%!!!1! Which is why I have thousands of rounds of ammo for each of my 17 rifles, 10 hand guns, 8 shotguns, 5 fully automatic machine guns, 3 mortars, and 2 grenade launchers - just as the founding fathers envisioned a well regulated Militia. 

Now I am NOT paranoid (although I know that everyone says this about me when my back is turned), I’m just working to make sure that I’m protected from some random bad guy who has it out for me. I’m almost there. Just a couple of bazookas and some land mines and THEN I’ll feel safe. Mostly. Maybe. It’s a scary world out there. 

I’m

so

frightened. 

  

muthuk_vanalingam

ilarynx said:

rattlhed said:

Until you can guarantee that every bad guy with a gun has that gun taken away, then you'll never convince me that law abiding citizens should not be able to defend themselves in an equal or superior manner.  

I agree 1000%!!!1! Which is why I have thousands of rounds of ammo for each of my 17 rifles, 10 hand guns, 8 shotguns, 5 fully automatic machine guns, 3 mortars, and 2 grenade launchers - just as the founding fathers envisioned a well regulated Militia. 

Now I am NOT paranoid (although I know that everyone says this about me when my back is turned), I’m just working to make sure that I’m protected from some random bad guy who has it out for me. I’m almost there. Just a couple of bazookas and some land mines and THEN I’ll feel safe. Mostly. Maybe. It’s a scary world out there. 

I’m

so

frightened. 

  

Talk about sarcastic posts - This is one of the best in AI forums in recent times. Well done.

applezulu

rattlhed said:

Until you can guarantee that every bad guy with a gun has that gun taken away, then you'll never convince me that law abiding citizens should not be able to defend themselves in an equal or superior manner.  

Funny thing. Most people just want common sense regulations, not to take all your guns away. Things like requiring a background check for all sales or transfers of a gun. A sensible gun owner should want that, if for no other reason than to make a record of the transfer, so that if a gun you sell or give away turns up at a crime scene, you don't become a suspect, and don't become subject of a lawsuit for failing to do due diligence and giving or selling a gun to a convicted felon who then commits a crime with it.  How about regulation or restrictions on ownership of certain types of firearms? Nobody needs a military rifle (whether or not it's "limited" by being merely semi-automatic rather than fully automatic.) Here's another one: when a minor child gains access to a gun  and injures or kills himself or someone else, hold the gun's owner criminally negligent for failing to properly secure it and keep it away from children. How about requiring gun owners to have liability insurance, which can be priced based on quantity and types of firearms owned, their level and frequency of firearms training, and whether they have and use things like gun safes and trigger locks to secure their firearms? Oh, another one: remove the prohibition of the use of computers for the federal government's records on things like background checks, gun registrations and ballistics records, and then fund the ATF, FBI, etc., to purchase and operate the hardware to computerize old records and maintain current records, so that police investigations of gun crimes can actually be carried out in a precise and timely manner. Finally, remove the prohibition of federal agencies like NIH and CDC from comprehensive epidemiological research on gun violence.

Any one or combination of those things would help reduce gun violence and make us all safer, which would reduce the need for "law abiding citizens" to live in fear and feel like they have to participate in an arms race with "every bad guy with a gun." All of those things should and would come before any real suggestion of the government 'taking away your guns." 

The current reality is that the NRA, in service of gun manufacturers, works against passage of any reasonable regulation of firearms because they want the loopholes that make it easy for "bad guys" to get guns, because that's one of the most effective tools for selling guns to "law abiding citizens." Arms dealers used to do this on an international military scale: promote conflict and sell weapons to both sides. Starting in the 70s and 80s, they realized that by becoming Second Amendment absolutists, they could do the same thing in the domestic market. It's very intentional that this would manifest itself in your own statement above. Gun makers make money both ways. They get paid for the guns that end up in the hands of 'bad guys,' and then they'll get paid again when you buy guns out of fear of the bad guys with guns. So while they keep making bank by convincing people like you that more guns is the only answer, we will all keep losing our friends, relatives and even musical heroes like John Lennon to more and more gun violence.

edited November 2023

ilarynx

FileMakerFeller said:

AppleZulu said:

Appleish said:

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

For the gun enthusiasts thinking about replying with some version of “It’s not the guns. If Chapman didn’t have a gun, he could’ve murdered Lennon with a knife or a car or a big stick,” just remember you’re also making a great argument for getting rid of guns altogether. If it really isn’t the guns, then everyone can fulfill their Second Amendment rights for hunting or self-defense or guarding against gubmint tyranny with a knife or a car or a big stick. There can be no infringement if it’s solely the user’s intent that defines any object equivalently as a weapon. 

Heck, we could also save billions from the Pentagon budget by getting rid of expensive guns and bullets and issuing a tactical spork to each service member. 

If you find that to be ridiculous, you’ll have to find some other reasoning that takes into account the fact that guns are among the most effective and efficient tools for killing people, and should thus be regulated with that fact always in mind. 

Or, as the great Jim Jeffries put it: "the only way to defeat a bad guy with a chainsaw is to have a good guy with a chainsaw"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0