Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Update on the California Shooting of Soldier

Guns are too readily available for things like this to happen.  And every person who gets their hands on them, legally or illegally, is convinced they need it, they want it, and they should have it with as few impediments as possible.  And yet people don't think THEY might be exactly the wrong person to have a firearm, or that they might be making the wrong decision about shooting someone.

Or does anyone here think that a disagreement over football teams is worth shooting someone? Can you spell 'P-O-O-R  I-M-P-U-L-S-E  C-O-N-T-R-O-L?  It is the hallmark of gun violence.

From MSNBC.com:
Suspect in shooting that left soldier paralyzed surrenders
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. -- The man wanted in connection with the shooting of a soldier who was attending his own welcome home party Friday in San Bernardino turned himself in Monday afternoon.
The suspect, identified as Ruben Ray Jurado, surrendered to authorities at the Chino Hills Sheriff’s Station.
AP
Ruben Ray Jurado is accused in the shooting of soldier Christopher Sullivan.
Jurado was to be brought to San Bernardino City Police station for questioning and then booked, according to police.
Earlier Monday, authorities released a mug shot of Jurado, who allegedly shot Army Spec. Christopher Sullivan. The 22-year-old soldier, who was on leave, remained hospitalized Monday in critical condition.
Family members say the Purple Heart recipient suffered two gunshot wounds, which shattered his spine and left him paralyzed.
Sullivan was at his own welcome home party Friday night in the 2800 block of North Garner Avenue.
At the party, Sullivan's brother got into an argument over football teams with Jurado, who was an acquaintance of Sullivan and had played football with him in high school, police Sgt. Gary Robertson said.
Jurado punched Sullivan's brother and Sullivan intervened. Jurado then pulled a gun and fired multiple shots, hitting Sullivan in the neck, Robertson said.
Sullivan was wounded in a suicide bombing attack last year in Kandahar while serving with the 101st Infantry Division. He suffered a cracked collar bone and brain damage in the attack and had been recovering in Kentucky, where he is stationed. He was home on leave when the shooting occurred.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Sullivan joined the military in 2009.
Fabian Salazar, a soldier who served with Sullivan in Afghanistan, said Sullivan rushed back to try to rescue other soldiers after the bomb blast propelled him several feet, leaving him dizzy and disoriented.
"I know he would take a bullet for his brother," Salazar told the newspaper. "And if you asked him again after all this... if he would take a bullet for him again, he would say yes. That's the type of person he is."
Information from The Associated Press and NBC Los Angeles.

25 comments:

  1. Dog Gone,

    And yet, you didn't think that you were the wrong person to own or to carry a gun. Your point would be?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dog Gone,

    And yet, you didn't think that you were the wrong person to own or to carry a gun. Your point would be?

    December 27, 2011 11:04 PM

    WTF are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  3. GC - I met the same criteria that I have posted here repeatedly, criteria YOU don't meet.

    I used my permit for very limited carry, and then only during the time period when I had a criminal restraining order. When I did carry, I had it for use against one known specific overtly threatening person during a finite period of time; you carry because of some unknown person or persons might make some unknown, currently non-existent threat.

    I made far more effort to rely on non-lethal resources rather than pretty much only lethal weapons unlike you, including carrying a cell phone.

    I never ever posed and promoted a view of firearms for defense that relied on an historically inaccurate, unsafe, and just plain stupid image. I have a much more objective and pragmatic view of firearms - particularly what they cannot do, than you do, and when they are not an appropriate weapon.

    The situations Greg that you believe are appropriate occasions for use of a firearm are just plain scary, and frankly WRONG, and dangerous.

    I took not only what appears to have been far more rigorous training than you did, my permit came from my own state, having met the stricter criteria than yours.

    I also was thoroughly briefed by a criminal attorney who was part of a law firm kept on retainer by my father for business and occasional family legal matters, at my father's insistence, just to be sure I understood the potential implications of all possible aspects of firearm carry related legal issues. That very thorough briefing tracks very closely with what I've learned about firearm law from Laci in private discussions. So, I also understand more about concepts of self defense, mens rea, etc. than you appear to know Greg.

    There were many occasions and places I did not carry, unlike you who carry it regularly. And unlike you, I KNOW that I am equally resourceful with a firearm as without it.

    Most of all though, I'm just generally a lot more confident and a lot less fearful than you are Greg. That translates into I'm less likely to make a mistake and shoot someone when it is not legal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. dog gone said "you carry because of some unknown person or persons might make some unknown, currently non-existent threat."

    I don't understand. You advocate for less firearms because of violent acts, but also say that there is a non-existent threat. Could you clarify that for us, ummm, not smart people?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dog Gone,

    In Minnesota, as in Arkansas, carry licenses are shall issue. You could keep yours and carry as long as you wanted. You made your choice, and I've made mine. So far, mine's working out well for me. I hope that yours does the same for you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greg, I don't think there's any double standard if that's what you're looking for.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "dog gone said "you carry because of some unknown person or persons might make some unknown, currently non-existent threat."

    I don't understand. You advocate for less firearms because of violent acts, but also say that there is a non-existent threat. Could you clarify that for us, ummm, not smart people?"

    Can you restate that in a less tortured way?

    I was having a beer with a cop I know last night. I mentioned the "DGU" that someguy furnished a link to--the one where the pro-active homeowner was arrested as part of an ongoing cocaine distribution investigation by the FBI. The cop thought it was hilarious.


    I think,btw, that Greg Camp has crossed the line from gunzloon to gunzbuffoon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Democommie,

    Let me help you out. Dog Gone yammers on about this incident of gun violence and that incident of gun violence and on and on, yet she tells us that there's no reason to carry a gun just in case.

    Mikeb302000,

    Here's the problem: A pacifist can argue that it's never acceptable to use a gun and be consistent in that position. Dog Gone, on the other hand, has admitted that on several occasions, she has been willing to use violence to defend herself. She supports allowing the police to use violence to protect society (they carry guns, and they use them as weapons). All that's left for her is to debate the techniques of gun carry and use. But she's always dismissive of anyone who disagrees with her, so the argument comes down to "I'm good enough and smart enough to carry, and you're not." Does she stick out her tongue after saying that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. democommie said "I was having a beer with a cop I know last night. I mentioned the "DGU" that someguy furnished a link to--the one where the pro-active homeowner was arrested as part of an ongoing cocaine distribution investigation by the FBI. The cop thought it was hilarious."

    I guess that's a learning experience for us all. Not all victims of gun violence is an innocent bystander.

    ReplyDelete
  10. someguy wrote:[democommie]the one where the pro-active homeowner was arrested as part of an ongoing cocaine distribution investigation by the FBI. The cop thought it was hilarious."

    someguy -I guess that's a learning experience for us all. Not all victims of gun violence is an innocent bystander.

    What it shows is that every person shot is a victim, regardless of any other aspect of their conduct. Clearly it shows that not all shooters / shootists who fire on an intruder are innocent either.


    Someguy, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you 'knew' the guys you brandished your weapon at intended to rape your wife.

    ReplyDelete
  11. dog gone: "Someguy, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you 'knew' the guys you brandished your weapon at intended to rape your wife."

    If you actually read my posts, you'd know my answer. I've answered it at least twice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You've said they "weren't there for a friendly visit".

    You haven't indicated anything more sinister than that to justify drawing a gun on them.

    Nor did you reasonably explain why you expected them to get past a locked door.

    The stats on burglaries imply a much greater amount of time for that to occur than the time that elapses after a 911 call, and it also implies they are able to bypass the locks without fear of someone interfering with them.

    Burglaries, which have the higher numbers of locks bypassed do not usually occur with someone awake and present on the other side of the door.

    So using the lower figure of people breaking in for a robbery, or home intrusion, you still have not made it clear that these guys were trying to break in, why it was not a stupid idea to open the locked door, or if they were sentenced to jail, versusjust being taken to the 'cop shop' for questioning.

    You also have failed to explain how you justified drawing a weapon if they had not drawn theirs, in terms of an imminent threat.

    ReplyDelete
  13. dog gone said...
    "You've said they "weren't there for a friendly visit".

    You haven't indicated anything more sinister than that to justify drawing a gun on them.

    Nor did you reasonably explain why you expected them to get past a locked door."

    If I was in the wrong, I would have been arrested. You haven't explained why you would expect a locked door to keep someone out, but don't waste my time or yours.

    I didn't have to explain myself to a jury and certainly don't have to do it here. I suppose you'd have preferred I let them get half way in and then tortured them with a baseball bat.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Let me help you out. Dog Gone yammers on about this incident of gun violence and that incident of gun violence and on and on, yet she tells us that there's no reason to carry a gun just in case."

    You disingenuous piece of filth. You and someguy and the rest of you gunzloonz yahooz deny the possibility that restricting the access of the violent crazies and career criminals exists--knowing it's a complete FUCKING LIE. You pretend that you have some sort of superior ability to assess "threat" and the right to be a vigilante--an incredibly stupid surmise on your part.

    You're a fucking joke.

    " guess that's a learning experience for us all. Not all victims of gun violence is an innocent bystander.

    December 28, 2011 2:14 PM'

    Actually, it wasn't a learning experience for me, I was already well aware that gangzstaz like to shoot each other.

    What I was NOT aware of, prior to your pointing to the situation as proof of a legit DGU--and upon being shown that it was anything but refusing to own your mistake--is that you would go the same route as Greg Camp in cranking up the GPMOTG*.



    * Goal Post Mover Of The Gunzloonz

    ReplyDelete
  15. someguy,

    Correct me if my memory is wrong, but didn't you say that the two thugs had chased your wife, forcing her to run inside? Does Dog Gone really think that we must hold an interview with them to learn what their actual intentions were? It doesn't matter to me if they wanted to rape her or forcebly ask for a cup of tea--your situation was a legitimate gun use.

    Dog Gone,

    When two men chase down one woman, that's a disparity of force. (It's two against one, regardless of sex.) We can argue the merits of opening the door, although by moral right, when someone invades another's property, that should be enough for the owner to eject the invader, but the story here is about two thugs who had some kind of criminal intent.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "When two men chase down one woman, that's a disparity of force. (It's two against one, regardless of sex.) We can argue the merits of opening the door, although by moral right, when someone invades another's property, that should be enough for the owner to eject the invader, but the story here is about two thugs who had some kind of criminal intent.

    December 28, 2011 6:53 PM"

    You're going to ask someguy for a copy of the report he filed with the police and bring it to class to show the rest of us, right, teach?

    No? Well, then, just keep runnin' your piehole--and we'll keep on pointin' and laughin'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You're going to ask someguy for a copy of the report he filed with the police and bring it to class to show the rest of us, right, teach?"

    So I take it you have seen the police report from DG about her 11 year old self stopping two people from invading her home? Whats that? you haven't? I assume you are laughing at her too then?

    ReplyDelete
  18. democommie said..
    A bunch of crybaby bull shit and then...
    "What I was NOT aware of, prior to your pointing to the situation as proof of a legit DGU--and upon being shown that it was anything but refusing to own your mistake--is that you would go the same route as Greg Camp in cranking up the GPMOTG*."

    I didn't deny I posted the link. When I read it, there was nothing about the homeowner being wanted. When you read it a few days later, I can only suppose that the story had been updated. Then you came back like a good little boy and let all of us know that the homeowner was a criminal. Good boy, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greg Camp said...
    "someguy,

    Correct me if my memory is wrong, but didn't you say that the two thugs had chased your wife......"
    your memory is correct. dogy dogs problem seems to be two things. First, I didn't know the intentions of the visiting fellas and that I opened the door for them instead of letting them break my door.

    "your situation was a legitimate gun use."

    Thank you, I think dog would prefer that I beat them with a bat and send em to the hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Someguy named Pinocchio:

    "I didn't deny I posted the link. When I read it, there was nothing about the homeowner being wanted. When you read it a few days later, I can only suppose that the story had been updated. Then you came back like a good little boy and let all of us know that the homeowner was a criminal. Good boy, thanks."

    Oh, boy, I fear you've been reading too much of Greg Camp's torrid/florid/horrid prose.

    This:

    "democommie:
    here's one for you, you can find the rest if you like
    http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/intruder-killed-despite-wearing-body-armor/article_83c410b8-2cad-11e1-95f8-0019bb2963f4.html

    December 26, 2011 6:58 PM"

    was your original comment re: the "home invasion".

    The story at the link is timestamped;

    Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:58 am | Updated: 10:18 am, Thu Dec 22, 2011.

    The story about the homeowner being arrested on drug charges is here (http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/suspect-sought-following-deadly-shootout/article_19b43736-2e5e-11e1-a6f4-001871e3ce6c.html)

    Timestamped:

    Posted: Saturday, December 24, 2011 1:34 pm | Updated: 2:25 pm, Sat Dec 24, 2011.

    So, it appears that the story about the homeowner being arrested was written and published about two days before you put the link to the earlier news story in your comment.

    I've mentioned that you may have been precipitate in your justification of the homeowner's DGU. You chose to ignore my admonition that you should be a bit more selective in choosing whose actions you characterize as a legitimate DGU.

    Now, you want to dodge the onus of responisibility for your rash actions. Tsk, tsk.

    ReplyDelete
  21. democommie: Since you were making such a fuss over this, I just had to go look at that story again. Indeed, I did not read the whole story. Looking at the whole timeline thing that you laid out for me (I don't have the inclination to double check it)it appears that the story wasn't updated after I read it, but before. Apparently I didn't read beyond the "call crimestoppers" part. But I did this time.

    democommie said "I've mentioned that you may have been precipitate in your justification of the homeowner's DGU. You chose to ignore my admonition that you should be a bit more selective in choosing whose actions you characterize as a legitimate DGU."

    Indeed


    "(Lt. Bobby) Martin said the homeowner, Rudolph Deandre Davis, had a right to protect his home and would not be charged in relation to Wednesday's shooting."

    ReplyDelete
  22. someguy:

    Okey-dokey. So, what you're saying that Dre Davis is a good role model for the DGU crowd? Fine. I think he's goin' bye-bye for the crack beef, so the next time somebody "breaks into his house" he won't HAVE a gun to shoot anybody with. Unless of course he just breaks the law.

    ReplyDelete
  23. democommie said...
    "someguy:

    Okey-dokey. So, what you're saying that Dre Davis is a good role model for the DGU crowd? Fine. I think he's goin' bye-bye for the crack beef, so the next time somebody "breaks into his house" he won't HAVE a gun to shoot anybody with. Unless of course he just breaks the law."

    I ignore a lot of your posts, even though they're directed at me, because you have nothing substantial to contribute. In the few days that I've been reading posts at this blog, your's seem to mostly consists of making up your own acronyms, that you later have to explain, calling names and, I'm sure your best attempt, trying to make fun of people. You parrot words and phrases that you read other people using and your attempt at communicating your own thoughts is a fail at best.

    I've posted before, and you've responded to, when you anti-rights folks run out of argument, you misinterpret and twist the information provided to you. Just as you've done here. You're trying to play some gotcha game where there is no prize.

    Nothing in my post said that Mr. Davis is a good role model for the DGU crowd. The snippet from the news article, only shows that, even though this man is under indictment, he still has the right to defend himself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. someguy is pouty.

    "I've posted before, and you've responded to, when you anti-rights folks run out of argument, you misinterpret and twist the information provided to you. Just as you've done here. You're trying to play some gotcha game where there is no prize."

    And what you've been doing with dog gone on this and other threads is...what?

    You know, as well as I do, that your original comment with the first link to that story about the home invasion was intended to deflect my question about YOUR DGU, which you are unwilling or unable to document.

    You made a claim that you had drawn your gun and forced two intruders to leave your property and I am curious how you did that and what the subsequent actions were by the police. You say that they ran off. Were they later apprehended? Do you even care (I think I already know the answer to that)? After being confronted by a homeowner with a gun did they decide to just kill the next person that they wanted to rob, rape or ask to donate to their church's building fund?

    You make extraordinary claims, like Greg Camp. And, like Greg Camp, when pressed for verifiable documentation you decide that you don't need to provide it. That's fine. No proof means it's a STORY; an interesting, even compelling story, but just a story.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "No proof means it's a STORY; an interesting, even compelling story, but just a story."

    So DG has a nice story about an eleven year old girl supposedly beating up 2 would be intruders?

    ReplyDelete