Sgt. Joe Harris was killed during a July 16 stakeout in the Jemez Mountains. State police say the 46-year-old Harris and Deputy Theresa Moriarty were in a cabin when Joseph Henry Burgess, known as the "Cookie Bandit," came through a window.
Burgess was handcuffed after a short scuffle, but state police say he was able to pull a .357 revolver from the small of his back and shoot Harris. The sergeant, despite being wounded, shot and killed Burgess.
It's hard to believe that Harris could have made such a terrible mistake as not disarming the suspect, a mistake that cost him his life as well as that of his prisoner.
An interesting aspect of the story is that the gun was traced.
State police said Thursday that the gun Burgess used belonged to David Eley.
According to the FBI, Eley was reported missing in July of 2006 when his family called authorities concerned they hadn't heard from him.
After the missing person's investigation revealed nothing, it was presumed Eley had died accidentally in the mountains. He and Burgess were frequent visitors to various campgrounds in and around the Jemez Mountains.
Now it is believed that Burgess killed Eley and took his gun. This is not only classic "gun flow," but it illustrates one of the great problems with people arming themselves supposedly for protection. In too many cases these people, who think they're making themselves safer by carrying a gun, are doing a disservice to themselves and to society at large. Many times the criminal ends up with the gun, to everyone's detriment.
I say guns are not the answer, at least not for regular people. There are exceptions, people who are highly trained, or who live or work in remote or dangerous places, of course these people would need serious training too. Shooting a few bullets at a paper target once in a while probably is not sufficient for the average person to benefit from having a gun.
Owning a gun for protection should be the rare exception to the rule, not something recommended for everyone and anyone.
What's your opinion? When we talk about DGUs are we considering all the times the gun is taken away by the criminal and used on the owner? I don't hear much of that, but I'll bet it happens. What kind of training do you think is necessary to make someone a responsible gun owner? Isn't it more than just gun-handling? Isn't there a mental aspect, a psychological makeup that many people just don't have? Considering that they're possibly going to face hardened criminals like Burgess, wouldn't this be an important part of it?
What do you think?
Wow, where to start?
ReplyDeleteFirst, everything both you wrote and the statements by police are complete conjecture. Noone knows what happened yet that doesn't stop you from "filling in the gaps" by using your imagination.
"An interesting aspect of the story is that the gun was traced."
Gee, a gun used to kill a cop was traced. Routine procedure.
"State police said Thursday that the gun Burgess used belonged to David Eley."
We don't know this. All the trace tells us is that at one point in time, Eley bought that gun from a licensed dealer. We can not assume Eley was in actual possesion of the weapon if and when he had contact with Burgess, which is also conjecture.
Look at it another way, if this was the extent of the story...
"After the missing person's investigation revealed nothing, it was presumed Eley had died accidentally in the mountains."
And then I came along and posted a blog that Eley was killed in the woods by a swarm of rabid tse-tse flies.
I would be full of crap, wouldn't
"Now it is believed that Burgess killed Eley and took his gun. This is not only classic "gun flow,"
It is ASSUMED yet you state it as fact. Eley could have lost his gun in a poker game for all we know.
"it illustrates one of the great problems with people arming themselves supposedly for protection."
Conjecture wrapped up in a guess.
"Many times the criminal ends up with the gun, to everyone's detriment."
If it's so easy for a criminal to take away someone's gun, then you advocate that if ever confronted by a criminal with a gun, one should simply take it away, right?
Oh, that's right, antis believe law abiding citizens don't know how to use a gun defensively and yet criminals are masters at using them offensively.
"I say guns are not the answer, at least not for regular people."
Define regular people. Do you think that only police officers should have guns?
Uh, this example may not be the best one to argue that stance.
"Shooting a few bullets at a paper target once in a while probably is not sufficient for the average person to benefit from having a gun."
I asked a cop from Philly what the annual training was to recertify with their duty weapons.
He responded it's 60 rounds on paper targets once a year.
"There are exceptions, people who are highly trained, or who live or work in remote or dangerous places"
Exceptions like highly trained cops who leave a handcuffed criminal in possesion of a gun tucked into their pants?
Oh, you think people who live in dangerous places can have guns? Like the inner cities cess pools of Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Detroit, blah blah blah.
"When we talk about DGUs are we considering all the times the gun is taken away by the criminal and used on the owner?"
That would not qualify as a DGU.
"Considering that they're possibly going to face hardened criminals like Burgess"
Uh, hello! This is why many choose to own and/or carry a gun.
You really do need to start checking your assumptions.
Some good points there, kavaman, I admit. Especially, "Conjecture wrapped up in a guess."
ReplyDelete