On the wonderful site called the brain police there's a post up that's just too good to resist. It's got one of our favorite themes, the out-of-control police. But it turns tragic when one of our other favorite theses comes in, defensive gun use.
I don't want to make light of such a terrible situation, but what's the lesson here? Should the poor woman have had heavier fire power? What would have happened if she had had no gun at all? I'll tell you, she'd probably be alive and those cops would be in a lot less trouble than they're in right now.
What's your take on this bizarre story?
No Knock warrents should be illigal. There is little gained from suprising a home owner with a search warrent and an Entry Team, and the end results of a mistake are VERY grave.ReplyDelete
you mean the notion of out-of-control police committing crimes and trying to cover them up is not tragic? the tragedy only begins when some non-police individual owns a gun, in your eyes? corrupt, violent and criminal "law enforcement" doesn't rise to that level, you say?ReplyDelete
So you think that COPS willing to commit multiple offenses wouldn't hesitate to show an innocent woman and frame her....oh wait, they did that.ReplyDelete
Are you saying this only occurred because a 90 year old woman tried to defend herself from out of control cops?
By the way, 90 years old with a crappy revolver and she still managed to wound all 3 if I read the story right...not bad.
No knock warrants should be illegal, and cops who blatantly break the law should be punished (as was the case here)ReplyDelete
As far as I'm concerned cops who kick in doors in no-knock raids should be treated as what they are. Home invading thugs.
Hell, I live in a family of cops and still take that position.
Nomen said, "you mean the notion of out-of-control police committing crimes and trying to cover them up is not tragic? the tragedy only begins when some non-police individual owns a gun, in your eyes? corrupt, violent and criminal "law enforcement" doesn't rise to that level, you say?ReplyDelete
I'm not saying that at all. The police acting like this is indeed tragic. But, the tragedy I was talking about was the death of the lady, which as it turned out was the result of her trying to protect herself by using a gun defensively.
By the way, from the other thread, I really thought you guys agreed that criminal offensive use of guns outnumbered the defensive ones. I thought you always maintained that the defensive incidents although not nearly as numerous as the criminal ones were necessary to keep the balance, so to speak. Now I understand what you're saying.
So, does this one count? The woman used her gun defensively and got killed for her trouble?
"I'm not saying that at all. The police acting like this is indeed tragic. But, the tragedy I was talking about was the death of the lady, which as it turned out was the result of her trying to protect herself by using a gun defensively."ReplyDelete
The Police wounded her, then let her bleed to death while they worked to frame her, and you think it's BAD that people might want to defend themselves?
"So, does this one count? The woman used her gun defensively and got killed for her trouble?"
This woman was assaulted by criminal Police officers, and defended her self. In this case the bad-guys won. Also in this case the Bad guys are on YOUR side of the gun-control issue Mike.
BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS! Her death is in part your fault!
How wrong can you be!!!!
But, the tragedy I was talking about was the death of the lady, which as it turned out was the result of her trying to protect herself by using a gun defensively.
IF the POLICE hadn't lied, IF the POLICE hadn't raided her house, IF the POLICE hadn't executed a no knock warrant, that lady would be alive.
It wasn't HER use of the firearm but the POLICE that caused her death.
Next you'll be saying that some woman wanted to be raped because of the way she was dressed. Ridiculous !
Bob, I'm afraid you've got it wrong. All those ifs are true, so are many others. The fact remains, the cops shot her because she fired at them through the door. Otherwise they were going to just kick the door in and exercise their no-knock.ReplyDelete
So, as sad as it is, her totally justified defensive action got her killed. Of the supposed million of them a year, do you think that's the only one that ended badly?
what bob said.ReplyDelete
y'know, it's an odd thing; on one hand, you'll see some folks arguing that guns cause crimes, murder, mayhem and death, as if the folks who wield the guns don't matter --- not going far enough back in the chain of causation, as it were. yet here, mike argues that self-defense against violent home invaders is what caused those same criminals to shoot the homeowner dead, plainly going back one step too far. how come murder is never, apparently, the murderer's fault? and why is it so difficult to navigate this causative chain to find the right level of abstraction for the debate?
Criminals have started using 'no knock' tactics to try and subdue their victims. They bust into peoples homes screaming "police" and hope that people like you are home to willingly comply.
The police broke the law and murdered this woman. While she may have been shot because she shot at men breaking into her home, she died because the police let her to cover their own *sses.
This is a fact. They were found guilty of it. And you're being an apologist for them.
The others have answered the root cause quite well. What you are doing is blaming the victim. Sorry you didn't get the root cause.
Then you say
"Of the supposed million of them a year, do you think that's the only one that ended badly?"
No, I don't think it is the only one that ended badly. But what you want to do is take away their right to decide, to try. And that doesn't make sense to me.
Let's say there are many crimes out there where the defensive use of guns ends badly. No proof of that but let's give it a common sense approach.
So we have people with firearms to defend themselves against rapists, muggers, murderers---taking away the firearms from the victims makes those crimes end BETTER how?
Isn't it the right of the person to risk their lives defending their lives, their body or their money?
This woman's blood is on your hands, Mike.ReplyDelete
YOU are partially responcible for her death.
But since Mike lives here in Italy with no death penalty and lax prision terms for mafia figures, Mike won't do any hard time for your accusation that Mike is is part responsible for that woman's life.
Mike - Using your "logic" if the cops (criminals) that did this to her didn't have guns she'd still be alive too.ReplyDelete
Blame the fucking cops that acted criminally Mike. What kind of sick person blames the old lady merely trying to defend herself?
The same kind of person that claims an attractively dressed woman was asking to get raped.ReplyDelete
"Criminals have started using 'no knock' tactics to try and subdue their victims. They bust into peoples homes screaming "police" and hope that people like you are home to willingly comply."ReplyDelete
Yup, the thugs around here have started doing that around here during home invasions as well.
Somebody kicks down my door, I don't care if they say "Police" or "Avon Calling" they're getting shot.ReplyDelete
Without a doubt there are reasons to suspect the "Police" breaking down doors.ReplyDelete
From today's Star-Telegram:
FORT WORTH -- An off-duty Everman officer eating dinner in south Fort Worth Wednesday night returned to his truck to find that someone had broken in and stolen two guns, his bullet proof vest and Everman police badge.
The burglary occurred about 10 p.m. at the TGI Friday’s restaurant at 12750 South Freeway, according to a Fort Worth police report.
Everman spokeswoman, officer Anita Bledsoe, said someone busted out a window to gain entry into the pickup of James Spradley Jr., an Everman school resource officer. She said the stolen guns — a Glock 26 that Spradley had just purchased and a Bersa .380 — had been secured in a lock box in the pickup’s back seat.
Bledsoe said it was unknown if the truck was randomly targeted.
“What’s really surprising is he has a really tall truck,” Bledsoe said. “You’d actually have to get up on the step bar to actually see what’s in his truck. I don’t know if they did just target a vehicle and that’s when they saw the guns and took them.”
Now Mike, Is this officer irresponsible for leaving firearms in his locked truck?
Remember that some people have to obey the laws. I'm not sure if this restaurant was posted, but here is a blurb from the Virginia Citizen's Defense League website:
The parent company of T.G.I.Friday's, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, Inc. has a company policy that no one may carry a gun in their restaurants. This came to light as a result of an open carry incident in a T.G.I. Friday's restaurant in Alexandria.
The manager told the patron that there is a company policy prohibiting guns in any of their restaurants.
It turns out this is true. Guns are banned in company stores. There are SUPPOSED to be "No Guns" signs at the front doors, though the Alexandria company owned store has no such sign as this is written (7/5/07), but it is assumed that since this has been so highly publicized, this sign will be posted soon.
So we have a law abiding, heck law enforcing citizen obeying the law, leaving firearms in a hard to see into, locked vehicle with at least one firearm secured inside another locked container. And Mike will claim this is part of the flow and blame the victim of the theft.
(Do you tell children involved in child porn that they are responsible also Mike?)
Then we have criminal(s) out there with police gear and weapons.
All I can say is the police better start knocking and asking. I'll cooperate with any legitimate warrant but will act to protect my family also.
Bob, I say no. This man is not at fault. In fact, I've said before that the laws which say you can carry a gun in a holster but must remove it and lock it in your glove compartment before going into certain places are stupid and counterproductive. But, unlike you, I say this is an argument in favor of further restrictions not fewer ones.ReplyDelete
So, other than the general responsibility that I keep trying to say all of you bear, this man bears none at all for the theft, only the thief does. However, it does perfectly illustrate how the "flow" theory works. These guns moved from the good guys to the bad. That's classic "flow" theory.
Once I suggested that the dad of a teenager who had his guns stolen by the son was irresponsible. That was a reasonable leap, I felt, which I could not make in this case.
This story supports another theory that you often deny. Fewer guns mean fewer problems. What was he doing with guns anyway? Was he protecting himself from possible attack? Was he exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, in which case who am I to question it? Whatever the reason was, look at the results. Bad news, Bob.
"Once I suggested that the dad of a teenager who had his guns stolen by the son was irresponsible. That was a reasonable leap, I felt, which I could not make in this case."ReplyDelete
What makes it reasonable that the dad is responsible but the cop isn't?
The dad had the firearms secured as required by law. Otherwise charges would have been pressed against him. He followed the law the same as the cop. So, why is he responsible for a criminal act when the cop isn't?
However, it does perfectly illustrate how the "flow" theory works. These guns moved from the good guys to the bad.
Mike, you are right. Let's pass some laws to stop this flow of guns.
What I suggest is we make it against the law to steal something that belongs to someone else. Oh, wait......we did that.
What I suggest is we make it a law that we can't leave firearms visibly displayed in cars. Oh, wait.....we did that.
How about making it a law that you have to secure your firearms. Oh, wait.....we did that.
See the problem with yelling "There should be a law" every time something happens. We have so many laws to already cover the problem.
Now, on to the flow. When does it become a priority for society to act on a problem. What level of flow requires society in general to give up many of their rights.
How about stolen cars? Surely some/many cars that are stolen are part of the "flow" of cars used in crimes, right?
Should we make it a law that people have to lock their cars in a garage? (Firearms must be secured, why not cars?) How about all those apartment dwellers, the condo owners, the inner city denizens that don't have access to secure storage? Wouldn't the cost be prohibitive to them?
The same situation exists for many people with firearms. A minimum gun safe starts around $49 bucks and goes up. Large gun safes can start around $700.
How about drunk driving? Surely that is a problem that in spite of all the laws we need to address right? Let's require alcohol breath test interlocks on all the cars. After all, since approximately 1 in 139 licensed drivers drive drunk. (Personally, I think the number is much higher). That works out to about 0.72% of all drivers. Isn't that high enough to require people to give up their rights?
Now, even the most slanted estimates we've given you only show 0.2% of the guns are involved in crime per year. If we aren't willing to give up our rights for drunk driving at 3 times the level of firearm crime...why should we add more laws, more restrictions for firearms?
There are plenty of checks on firearms already. We can't make anything proof against misuse.
Now let's move onto your next lies. Sorry Mike but at this point they've gone beyond misguided opinions into lies. Unless you can present evidence to support your opinion, I'll consider them lies.
Fewer guns mean fewer problems.
Again, statistic after statistic. Study after study proves you wrong on this. Show the evidence.
What was he doing with guns anyway? Was he protecting himself from possible attack?
YES. Simply yes. First, he's a cop. Think that people he's arrested might remember him and seek to do his family and himself harm? Surely he has the right to protect himself.
Also, as a police officer, doesn't he have a higher level of community responsibility? Would you want him to see a crime in progress and pass on by or try to stop it?
Second, everyone has a right to protect themselves from possible attack. Granted the possibility of him being attacked is higher then mine but as we've stated many times. It isn't the odds, it is the stakes that makes the trouble worth it. I don't want to stand over the bodies of my family regretting that I could do nothing to protect them. Do you?
Was he exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, in which case who am I to question it?
Exactly, who are you to question it? Should we question your right to worship as you choose? Your right to assemble peacefully?
If the criminal hadn't broken into the car, his exercise of his rights would have gone unnoticed by everyone. Now remember, this wasn't a case of the criminal seeing the firearms and trying to steal them. The crook broke into the car NOT knowing firearms were there in all probabilities. That was a big truck...the firearms wouldn't have been visible.
Whatever the reason was,the reason was, look at the results. Bad news, Bob
The bad news is that someone BROKE THE LAW Mike. And it wasn't the COP. Would it really matter all that much if baseball equipment had been stolen? A bat can be, has been and is easy to use in crime then a gun. The bad news is we have people who would break the law and your efforts are directly contributing to the problem.
It is the effort of you and people like you that keeps people disarmed. It is the effort of you and people like you that force people to leave firearms in their cars instead of carrying them.
Why are you trying to deprive people of their rights Mike?
We don't try to deprive you of your rights.
"it does perfectly illustrate how the "flow" theory works. These guns moved from the good guys to the bad. That's classic "flow" theory."ReplyDelete
Yes, and had THE LAW not forced him to leave it in the car rather than on his person the "flow" from good guy to bad guy couldn't have happened.
Without that restriction this would never have happened at all, yet you say the solution would be MORE restrictions. That makes no sense Mike.
Thirdpower said about the cops, "This is a fact. They were found guilty of it. And you're being an apologist for them."ReplyDelete
An apologist for power-abusing cops. You really know how to hurt a guy, Thirdpower. The fact is, I'm anything but that. And I didn't blame the old lady for getting herself killed.
You are lying again.
And I didn't blame the old lady for getting herself killed.
Earlier you said
The fact remains, the cops shot her because she fired at them through the door.
You blamed her for shooting at the cops, you said she wouldn't have bee shot if she hadn't fired at them. That is blaming her.
"And I didn't blame the old lady for getting herself killed."ReplyDelete
Hey Mike, you're lying out of your ass here.
You said, and I quote
the tragedy I was talking about was the death of the lady, which as it turned out was the result of her trying to protect herself by using a gun defensively.
YOU JUST BLAMED HER FOR THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE COPS. YOU BLAMED HER FOR HER OWN DEATH.
That's like blaming someone hit and killed by a drunk driver by saying "well, if they hadn't been driving a car this wouldn't have happened."
Sorry Mike, but your attitude here is despicable.
Mike and Bob, Touché. You two have cornered me in a trap of my own making. Congratulations. You get to call me despicable on my own blog. Good for you.ReplyDelete
The fact is, and I think you both realize it, I said the woman got killed because she fired defensively, not in order to assign blame for the killing, which obviously falls to the cops, but to point out a failed defensive use of the gun. Defensive gun use was the theme of my original post, as opposed to renegade cops abusing their power. This story illustrates how the stats on defensive gun use are inflated. My take on the story had only to do with that not who was at fault.
So, knock yourselves out. You're not doing anything to further our discussion by trying so hard to trap me with my own words, which I repeat, you did very deftly.
Do you think we get a little tired of sanctimonious, arrogant people trying to take away our rights...and then blame a VICTIM for the police shooting her?
Do you think we get a little tired of you defending policies that are designed to take away our rights?
Do you think we get tired of repeating information, ideas, concepts over and over again?
Do you think we get a little tired of showing page after page of EVIDENCE to have you deny it or dismiss it with what appears to be a smug condescending attitude?
Do you think we get a little tired of you saying one thing, then trying to claim I really didn't say that...as in this case?
Words have power, they have meaning. When you denigrate a 90 year old woman for defending herself, that irritates a few people.
So forgive us if we call you a liar, when you are clearly lying.
Forgive us, if we see the OUT OF CONTROL POLICE as the issue, despite your apparent attempts to blame the victim.
Forgive us if we see you trying to blame us for another killing. As in, If she didn't have a gun the police wouldn't have killed her...so therefore everyone needs to get rid of their guns. Might not be your exact words, but pretty close to your meaning, eh?
Forgive us if we get a little snippy after all the crap we take from you and other gun grabbers.
You do run an open board here Mike, we just wish your mind was as open as your commenting policy.
Bob said, "You do run an open board here Mike, we just wish your mind was as open as your commenting policy."ReplyDelete
Actually, I'm a very open-minded guy. I'm open to many of your points about guns, just like I'm open to many ideas that favor capital punishment. Overall though, after reading and considering, my mind has not been changed on either issue. That's not the same as being close-minded.
Do you look at the evidence, the statistics and openly evaluate the trustworthiness of them?
Do you weigh the defensive gun use stories and statistics and give them a fair hearing?
Do you think about the moral position you would place people in if you succeeded in disarming America?
Many people won't give up their firearms, many people NEED their firearms in order to defend themselves....you are willing to place my daughter in jeopardy for the actions of others.
How can you explain to her, all 120 pounds, 68" of young lady, that she has to fight hand to hand against a mugger or rapist because you think there are too many guns in America?
How can you tell people, some with asthma, that they have to give up their effective defense against criminals because their firearms may one day be stolen and used against some one in a crime?
Is that keeping an open mind about the opposing side ?
You dismiss statistics, research and evidence in other countries because you simply say "it would be worse if there were more firearms". But you don't present any evidence showing proof or a counter to the facts.
You dismiss the same information in America. More guns have been entering society, more states have been allowing concealed or open carry since 1987, and yet the violent crime rate has been trending down.....and you reply?
Sorry Mike, color me a little skeptical if you say you have an open mind.
Let me ask you this, research around. Look for people who freely admit they've changed sides after STUDYING THE ISSUE.
Count how many who have, after study, become anti-gun....I've not found any. Then count how many who have, after study, became pro-gun, they are legion.