Friday, November 7, 2014

Greta Van Susteren Interviews Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi

Guns dot com

He admitted he wasn't doing too well before he joined the Marines.  A real interviewer would have asked him to elaborate on that. The Marine Corps takes lots of low-intelligence individuals with serious mental problems as long as they can learn to march and run and salute. They're called cannon fodder.

When he said he was kept for 30 days in four-point restraints to the bed, I wish Greta had asked him how he ate or went to the bathroom.

About his guns, she might have asked him why the guns were in the car and not in a gun safe. What state was his concealed carry permit issued in and did that allow driving around in California with guns in the car?

27 comments:

  1. Hmm--"soft-ball questions"? What purpose would be served, aside from indulging someone's perverse, malignant sadism, by subjecting a PTSD sufferer to a third degree grilling?

    About his guns, she might have asked him why the guns were in the car and not in a gun safe.

    It could be that Ms. Van Susteren already knew that guns locked up in a safe are of little or no defensive utility. Most of us, after all, do know that.

    What state was his concealed carry permit issued in and did that allow driving around in California with guns in the car?

    I don't know where in the truck the guns were, whether they were cased or not, or loaded or not, but I'm pretty sure that transporting cased, unloaded guns is legal even in California without a concealed carry permit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another content-free comment from Kurtie.

      "What purpose would be served, aside from indulging someone's perverse, malignant sadism, by subjecting a PTSD sufferer to a third degree grilling?"

      Can we all assume that Tahmooressi wasn't forced, coerced or otherwise compelled to appear on Ms Faceliftgonewrong's show?

      "It could be that Ms. Van Susteren already knew that guns locked up in a safe are of little or no defensive utility. Most of us, after all, do know that."

      Sure. Kurtie/ All mindreaders and psychics do know that.

      "I don't know where in the truck the guns were, whether they were cased or not, or loaded or not, but I'm pretty sure that transporting cased, unloaded guns is legal even in California without a concealed carry permit"

      I see. So, we must assume that Andy had completely safed his iunloaded weapons and, in fact, turned them into decorative planters because...Kurtie says so.

      Delete
    2. I commented on the weapons in the truck in one of the earlier. Hopefully Mike wont mind me reposting. I think the laws concerning car carry vary from state to state. However, I'm pretty sure that in California, the state that never met a gun law it didn't like, its a no-no.

      "Howdy FJ,

      I did some looking and also found some disturbing details that suggest that he would have been in some trouble even if he were stopped in the US.

      "He said inspectors soon found three weapons, all loaded. Tahmooressi has said he volunteered the information about the guns to inspectors.
      A .45-caliber pistol was in a door pocket beneath the driver’s side window, Gonzalez said. The two other weapons were also within reach, he said. He described them as an AR MR-2 rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun. Tahmooressi previously described the rifle as an AR-15. '
      http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/14/tp-vets-story-of-border-mix-up-contradicted/

      So apparently three seemingly uncased and loaded firearms in the cab of the truck. Plus two of the three are considered bad medicine in Mexico because civilians are forbidden the use of "military" calibers, of which .45ACP and 5.56mm are two. I'm sort of surprised the 12 GA didn't qualify too since the US Army uses it.
      And apparently his attorney has also been caught coaching his client as to his story too. I know that NEVER happens in the US. I cant speak to what the norm is for Mexico, though the truck driver who took a wrong turn with a load of ammo, there seemed to be some behind the scenes wheeling and dealing.
      Perhaps its simply something as simple as the way things work in the legal system there. "

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/05/more-on-ex-marine-andrew-tahmooressi.html

      In light of the friendliness of the Mexican prisons, and the recent cartel violence which has even spilled into the tourist world. (I wonder who has done more beheadings, the cartels, or ISIS) I'm surprised that people even want to travel there.
      But then, my foreign travels at the behest of the government has eliminated any interest in traveling anywhere outside the US.

      Delete
    3. As I called him in another post, he's definitely a gun criminal.

      Delete
  2. Would it be an less of an injustice if he we locked in a Californian prison for having an "assault weapon"? I suppose the prison conditions are better, but I bet California would not have let him go so easily.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Welcome home Andrew. Looks like he's having the time of his life.

    Two hundred and fourteen days in hell!

    That picture of him sitting in a chair in the warden's office is chilling. His face doesn't look too beat up considering how many times the Mexican guards slapped him.

    I'm not sure I could sit through and entire forty-five minutes of interviews. But, to me, it would be far more interesting to hear about what happened in the Mexican federal court.

    Here's hoping that he gets straightened out quickly and finds meaningful employment. He seems like a nice kid. He deserves a shot at happiness. Also hoping he has enough sense not to run out and buy more guns.

    Judging by the fact that this case took six months to wind its way through the courts, I doubt that the faithful FOX viewers had much to do with his release. And Greta didn't really give up hope. I think she just gave up on caring at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought that was pretty funny too - Fox News got him out. Hahaha

      Delete
  4. Kurt,

    It's a truck. The guns were in the cab. I don't recall any drama about the Mexican authorities checking out any gun safes.

    TS,

    If he had been caught by SDPD, he most likely would have paid a fine and possibly faced confiscation of his weapons. BFD! The best thing that could have happened to Andrew that night would have been a simple confiscation of illegally transported guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know of many gun laws that are simple infractions paid. Just about everything is a misdemeanor or felony- especially in California. They could have hit him with a misdemeanor for loaded transportation, or a felony for possession of an "assault weapon" (because I doubt he installed a bullet button when he crossed into California). I still say he's better off that the Mexicans got him than the SDPD. Prison, loss of gun rights for life, felony record ruining any chance of a decent career... Yeah 7mos of hell is probably better.

      Delete
    2. That's pretty funny. Your excessive love of the gun is really whacked out. 7 months in hell is a small price to pay.

      Delete
    3. 7 months in hell is a small price to pay.

      It's "a small price to pay" for a victimless "crime"?

      Delete
    4. Nice change in direction, Kurt. TS and I were talking about the price you nuts are willing to pay for continued gun ownership.

      Delete
    5. Missed the sarcasm--I see it now. My mistake. Wasn't an attempt at a "change of direction."

      Oh--and I, of course, am not a "nut," and TS is pretty clearly not one, either.

      Delete
    6. I'm not really following. Neither is a price that should be paid. But when I talked about the trouble he'd be in if California got him, I mentioned two other things than loss of gun right: he'd be in prison for years (not just 7 months), and any chance of a decent career would be ruining with a felony record. He went through some rough times, but at least he can put it behind him with a clean slate.

      Delete
    7. Kurt claiming he's not a nut.
      Thanks for the laugh Kurt.

      Delete
  5. It could be that Ms. Van Susteren already knew that guns locked up in a safe are of little or no defensive utility. Most of us, after all, do know that.

    You're fucking kidding, right? You don't believe in a society of laws, then get the fuck out of the U.S.A.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a truck. The guns were in the cab.

      I knew about the truck, but not about the cab--thinking it was at least possible that the guns were in one of those locking toolboxes some people keep at the front of their truck beds.

      As for California gun laws, according to handgunlaw.us (page 8), without a carry permit, all three guns would have to be unloaded to comply with California law, but if the long guns weren't so-called "assault weapons" (and even in California, there are AR-15 variants that aren't, and most shotguns aren't), the only one that would have to be in a locked container is the handgun, and there are plenty of pistol cases that can be secured with padlocks.

      Whether or not Sgt. Tahmooressi was in compliance with all those ridiculous laws, I have no idea--just responding to Mikeb's question about a carry permit, to point out that even without one, the sergeant could plausibly have been within the law. Why that should be important to Ms. Van Susteren is another question entirely, of course.

      You're f**king kidding, right? You don't believe in a society of laws, then get the f**k out of the U.S.A.

      Not sure what's up with the shrieking outrage, Junior--yeah, I derive both great pleasure and great joy from breaking gun laws, and in doing so, see myself as at least as entitled to the legacy of this nation as someone so servile as to docilely comply with unjust laws, but that really has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

      Mikeb chastised Ms. Van Susteren for not asking why Sgt.Tahmooressi had the guns with him, rather than locked up somewhere else, and I noted that guns locked up elsewhere are of no use in a self-defense situation.

      Delete
    2. "Whether or not Sgt. Tahmooressi was in compliance with all those ridiculous laws, I have no idea-"

      After reading what ssgmarkcr wrote above, you still have no idea? Is this another example of your honesty?

      Delete
    3. After reading what ssgmarkcr wrote above, you still have no idea? Is this another example of your honesty?

      Obviously not--I made that comment hours before reading the information SSG has helpfully provided (thanks, SSG). So, fine, Sgt Tahmooressi is an alleged "gun criminal" on both sides of the border.

      Again, I had never claimed he was in compliance with California law--just that with the information I had at the time, he may have been. Fortunately, I've heard no indication that he is, or will be, up on charges for any California gun law violations, which might explain why Ms. Van Susteren would not have thought the topic worth bringing up.

      Delete
    4. And I'm still curious, Mikeb, why you object to Ms. Van Susteren's supposed "soft-ball questions"--why would it be preferable to subject a man who had been suffering from PTSD before spending seven-and-a-half months at the famously tender mercies of the Mexican "justice" system, to a third degree grilling?

      Aside from common decency, which I realize can be a hard sell with you, what do you suppose would be the effect on Ms. Van Susteren's ability to continue to bring interviewees onto the show, if she were to develop a reputation of browbeating emotionally damaged veterans?

      Delete
    5. "I made that comment hours before reading the information SSG has helpfully provided"

      Since when do you shoot from the hip? You're so obsessed with being right, you check everything out BEFORE committing yourself. So, either way you fucked up and got caught.

      About why she should have asked him some appropriate questions, it would have illuminated the situation a bit. Instead, what Fox News did was put together another fabricated Obama attack. The poor Marine (as if he were still on active duty, they refer to him as Sgt.) was left behind and abandoned by Obama personally.

      Delete
    6. Since when do you shoot from the hip? You're so obsessed with being right, you check everything out BEFORE committing yourself. So, either way you f**ked up and got caught.

      What the hell are you talking about? Acknowledging up front that I don't know is not "committing [my]self," unless you mean I was "committing [my]self" to being honest. My email notification of SSG's comment came at 6:19 AM my time (UTC-06:00). I commented that I had no idea of the details of how the guns were being transported almost three hours before that.

      Sure, I could have researched it, but I didn't feel like doing so at the time (3:25 AM), so I instead simply acknowledged what I didn't know. How you reconcile that with I "f**cked up and got caught" is one of your particularly bizarre mysteries.

      About why she should have asked him some appropriate questions, it would have illuminated the situation a bit. Instead, what Fox News did was put together another fabricated Obama attack.

      Ah--I see, Ms. Van Susteren should have browbeaten a suffering man because doing so would have made the Obama administration's lack of action on Sgt. Tahmooressi's behalf more forgivable (somehow). Got it.

      By the way, it's not particularly uncommon to refer to former officers and NCOs by their last rank in the service. It's often done as a sign of respect. That, I suppose, is what you find so objectionable.

      Delete
    7. "The poor Marine (as if he were still on active duty, they refer to him as Sgt.) was left behind and abandoned by Obama personally. "

      Fox isn't the only one referring to him as Sgt. Even CNN is doing it. As for him getting the title, he's apparently a reservist. I'm not sure why they are using the title as a reservist.

      Delete
  6. Believe it or not, it was I who informed Mike of this news in February.

    Feel free to post your thoughts on the Dog Report.

    http://dogreport.blogspot.com/2014/05/making-political-hay-out-of-misfortunes.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. I get emotional. It's a passion with me. I don't want to think that there are unstable drivers with heavy weaponry out on the freeway with me.

    The good news is that he has never threatened or killed anyone. I hope Andrew makes it through to the other side.

    And I guess if someone feels safer with a gun... as long as they just go about their business and mind their Ps and Qs and don't cause any problems, I don't suppose law enforcement or anybody else will ever be the wiser.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The greatest concern here is that the VA has very likely submitted his name to the NICS system as a "prohibited person" in terms of firearms purchases. Time for him to look into 80% AR-15 (and even AR-10) receivers and 1911 frames.

    "Gun control" is a disease; ingenuity and a defiant spirit are the cure.

    ReplyDelete