Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Massad Ayoob

BEEN A HELLUVA WEEK

Saturday, February 9th, 2013

Sorry to have been away from the blog so long, but from the afternoon of Sunday, February 3 to the early morning hours of Saturday, February 9, I was involved in the premeditated murder trial of an armed citizen who killed a man who violently attacked him. On Friday, the jury came in with a complete acquittal.  At least one happy ending for an otherwise ugly week.

On the larger front, news was much grimmer.  We learned that the madman who murdered Navy SEAL hero Chris Kyle and another man, both of whom were trying to help the slayer cope with PTSD, had been set loose on society after threatening murder and suicide last September. In the rush to symbolically pillory gun owners, media and legislators largely ignore the real problem: homicidal maniacs who need to be institutionalized, and aren’t.

At this writing, Christopher Dorner remains at large. This extremely dangerous fugitive, who claims to be very heavily armed, is a fascinating study of good, evil, and madness.  His Facebook artifacts show he had a lot of ego investment in being a member of two forces of good, the United States Navy and the Los Angeles Police Department.  Feeling wronged when he failed at both, he embarked on a murder spree that is the very antithesis of the heroes he identified with.  Once a designated, uniformed protector of the innocent, he now murdered two helpless people: the daughter of a cop he didn’t think had done enough for him, and her fiancé. Nothing less than absolute evil. He then opened fire on police officers from cowardly ambush, murdering one, and fled when they returned fire. Dorner’s actions set the stage for a tragic mistaken identity shooting subsequently by police.

Dorner sent a “manifesto” to CNN, damning the private ownership of AR15 rifles, “high capacity” magazines and the like, and praising Piers Morgan and the White House for their anti-gun efforts, while committing murder with the same type of weapons. He apparently feels his hurt feelings justify the murder of those who’ve done him no harm, and that of course is madness, as seen through the prism of common sense if not through that of the M’Naghten precedent.

But then, the same hypocrisy – take things away from law-abiding citizens, because monsters use them to murder those self-same law-abiding citizens – is shared by supposedly sane people in positions of power.  I’m told that some of the media have soft-pedaled the spree-killer’s praise for the anti-gunners, but you can read the whole manifesto HERE.

Dorner’s murderous spree is unlikely to end well.  I see a possibility, though, that he’ll turn himself in to one of his heroes, perhaps Piers Morgan; there’s enough narcissism in his “manifesto” that he might want to live to praise himself longer and more publicly, like the recent mass-murderer in Norway, instead of dying in a sick “blaze of glory.”  Time will tell.

71 Responses to “BEEN A HELLUVA WEEK”

  1. Randall Says:

    Mas made the following statement which I want to address …

    “But then, the same hypocrisy – take things away from law-abiding citizens, because monsters use them to murder those self-same law-abiding citizens – is shared by supposedly sane people in positions of power.”

    I own 5 “assault” rifles myself and a number of magazines in excess of 10 rounds (ie. so called “hi capacity”). While I am not in favor of banning things, we do need to understand the thought process of those who do. There is some logic in their position. They believe that if rifles accepting “hi capacity” magazines and the magazines themselves are banned, then over time, the supply will dry up. Mass murders would then have to choose weapons that in theory cannot be fired as quickly, thus potentially reducing the death toll in a mass murder. There is some logic in this and I would not call those who take the position as being “insane”. One should be able to take shots faster with a 308 M1A with 20 round magazine than with a 308 Browning BAR (4 round mag). I would say that the anti-gunners some assumptions that are questionable, because they have not completely thought out the problem from the point of view of a mass murderer who wants to kill but does not have an “assault” rifle available.

    I wanted to point all this out because I don’t think the name calling and belligerency that many express towards the anti-gun people, is helpful. Calling them “socialist libs”, etc. DOES NOT get us where we want. Try instead to convince people with logic. I realize there are those who can not be convinced because their mind is made up and they won’t listen. But try with those who will listen.

    It is looking like what might happen is universal background checks. I have no objection to that. If we are going to have background checks for new rifles picked up at your gun dealer or FFL then why do it whenever a gun changes hands. Anyway, please contact as many representatives in congress and contact the President, to express your opposition to bans. Tell them you are an independent voter but will vote republican if the ban happens. They do care about votes!

  2. Eddie Says:

    Damn that little bastard! I’m pretty sure I knew this guy Routh. I served with him and he didn’t have any PTSD! That little shit was a mechanic for the Cor and never saw any action. Therefor; no PTSD. The guy was into drug use though.

  3. Randy Says:

    Glad to see you’re back, Mas. It’s great that you could help this fellow in court out to a successful conclusion.

    Well, that manifesto of Christopher Dorner is quite a read. He almost gets you feeling sorry for him and then he makes a left turn and runs off the rails. Makes you wonder if someone else didn’t get ahold of the Manifesto and put in some of their own thoughts and wishes. But then I guess that is what schizophrenics do.

    It will be interesting to see if the anti’s use his dislike of personal ownership of AR’s to bolster their own agenda. Wouldn’t that be funny if they started quoting him?

  4. Andy Says:

    Mas,

    Firstly- I’m sorry your week was exhausting, but of course you can (and obviously do) find solace in the fact that you did the right thing (get a man acquitted). Men like you who strive to do the right thing are always busy because you never run out of work; whether it be doing the right thing proactively on your own, or cleaning up the “work” of people who failed to do the right thing either by choice or by incompetence. I learned that lesson during my service in the USAF, and I’m sure your current job(s) as well as your peace officer background has at least a few parallels.

    Secondly- your assessment of Dorner and other anti-gun people (and their mentalities) seems pretty dang spot-on to me. We will never know if someone who wants me (us) disarmed truly intends to (eventually) kill me (us) by some means because of some “imagined wrongings” they can fabricate against me (us), but I will always be wary of the possibility…especially since we have current evidence of such unfolding right before our eyes.

    Thirdly- I ask everyone reading this for hopes and prayers for the victims and would-be victims of Dorner…and that any and all psychopaths- such poor excuses for a men- are caught; either by physical or ballistic means, I don’t care by this point.

    PS
    Not to derail the topic, but what is your assessment on the mistaken identity shooting you mentioned?

  5. Russ Says:

    Welcome back, Mas. I always enjoy your writings. Yes, it’s been quite a week. I sure wish one of the FNC shows would have you on to talk about self defense, guns in general, and the Second Amendment — Hannity, perhaps. I’m not overly impressed with the level of “pro-gun” ‘experts’ I’ve seen being interviewed. Anyway… welcome back.

  6. Randy Says:

    This for Randall who likes universal background checks. Our local newspaper explained that universal background checks will include make, model, and serial number. In other words registration. Maybe someone with first hand knowledge can elucidate.

  7. Jaji Says:

    One problem with trying to convince people with logic (as suggested by Randall): The other side is *not* utilizing logic, they are using emotion and deception to get their agendas enacted.
    While I agree that the ultimate goal is to dry up supply, they never come out and say that. It’s “if it saves just one life” or “we have to do something or even the totally shameless “we have to keep more Newtowns form happening”. Sen Feinstein will never respond to the logic that “assault weapons” are used in less than 1% of firearms crimes, those who wish to ban guns will never respond to the logic that “gun free zones” don’t work, and if you feel that you can respond to the rushed anti-gun laws in NY state with logic, then you are sadly deluded.
    I should contact my legislators? You mean the ones in CT who are all co-sponsors of the Feinstein bill and the corresponding House bill? Those are the people who will respond to logic surrounding the truth about firearms owners? Wait…I have written them, under the misguided notion that I could correct their misunderstandings about guns. The response was a “thank you for writing…and please donate to me” letter.
    I choose to call these people names, but only because they apply: They are opportunistic liars, and I dare anyone to prove me wrong.

  8. Paul Edwards Says:

    @ Randall

    1. Large capacity Magazines. As to individuals, if you happen to on the receiving end of an assault by someone using a weapon with a “High Capacity” magazine, then you are certainly at a disadvantage, if your weapon doesn’t have at least the same capacity as your attacker?

    2. Large capacity Magazines. If we could limit the police and the military to non-high capacity magazines too, there might still be a level playing field, but since that is highly unlikely, then all common citizens also need to have the same weapons and magazines as the Government, who might now-a-days be using their might and power, to oppress the American people, and that is the basic intent of the Second Amendment, to start with.

    3.Background Checks. The real reason they are pushing for these checks is to have a complete record of all weapons, ammunition, and anything else, that the Government will attempt to later “Confiscate”, as that has always been the next step of Governments, through out history, so while the idea of weeding out the mentally unfit may sound good, and is always stated as the justification for Registration and Background checks, that is merely camouflage to conceal the actual intent of those hoping to eventually disarm and subjugate the armed citizenry of America.

    4. Labeling. The Liberal Left, by whatever names or terms you may address them, have been outright lying, distorting, and twisting the facts regarding all situations which they wish to denigrate, demonize, or marginalize, for countless years. So, to my way of thinking, to attempt to treat them fairly and equitably, makes about as much sense as “Bringing a Knife to a Gun Fight”.

  9. Andy Says:

    Hey Randall,

    The “logic angle” has been tried. Very often, and probably more times than you or I are even aware, logic is either dismissed or ignored. Remember that our elected officials are basically just winners of a popularity contest: they are not necessarily (or even in practice) intelligent, reasonable people who will respond to logic ro plain old common sense.

    Also, screw background checks, universal or otherwise. The Constitution does not say “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, UNLESS YOU CAN’T PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK CREATED A FEW GENERATIONS IN THE FUTURE.”

  10. Old NFO Says:

    Glad you’re back, and glad your testimony helped!

  11. Mas Says:

    Plaskon, you’ll need some documentation that the link was falsified. It is my understanding that the document I linked to was the original manifesto. You may have gotten hold of one of the redacted copies. Remember I mentioned “soft-pedaling”? Last I knew, the guy’s facebook site was gone, too.

  12. guntotin-mama Says:

    In Plaskon’s defense – I read a copy yesterday that did NOT contain the AWB comments. I’ve gone back to check those links to provide a copy here. And now they both contain the pertinant AWB information, albeit differently in both instances.

    I won’t speculate any further on this, except to say it does raise a question or two in my mind.

    Glad you’re back!

  13. WT Says:

    Glad you’re back, Mas, and able to help the person who rightly defended himself.

    Those individuals who live in non-gun friendly states probably can’t do anything to convince their elected representatives to change their minds on gun control (Senators Feinstein and Boxer in CA, for example). It will be up to the states with representatives who do have gun-friendly legislators to bring a reasoned, balanced approach to any future gun control laws. Supporting the lobbying efforts of the NRA, USCCA, and other pro-gun advocate groups is probably the most effective way to ensure our views are heard and advocated to Congress.

    I don’t believe we’re at the stage yet where we can’t reason with gun control folks on the importance of protecting and defending our Second Amendment rights. I shudder at the possible results of an inability to find common ground and waking up one day to find our Second Amendment rights seriously degraded or denied. When you look at the rushed gun-control legislation that NY recently passed and read about the legislation being proposed in CA, CT, and NM, thinking about the possibility of gun registration and confiscation being part of life in these United States is chilling. And what would a United States be without the protection of the Second Amendment?

    As a person who has relatives who have lived under martial law in WWII under Imperial Japan, and experienced it first had in the early 70′s-80′s with a corrupt President Marcos, I can tell you that we don’t want to be living with police armed with automatic weapons patrolling our neighborhoods and marketplaces, and putting up with the imposed curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to us civilians. And by the way, having no weapons allowed to be owned by us, because the government collected them all.

    Some say it can’t happen here in the United States, that we have a tradition of the rule of law. But those who ignore or forget history, whether our own history, or the history of other countries that have disarmed their civilian population, are doomed to repeat it, bringing about a situation that destroys from within.

  14. Lazy Bike Commuter Says:

    There was no “mistaken identity” in the shooting of the two women…there was a total and complete failure to identify.

    Two hispanic women in a Tacoma are not “mistaken” for a large black man in a Titan.

    Add to that that other officers responding to the shooting also fired on a black Honda Ridgeline that they thought must be a blue Titan, and there is a whole lot of awful going on there.

    If there was justice in the world, the officers involved would be going on trial for attempted murder. Even if either truck DID contain Dorner, last I checked you still don’t get to just shoot at people.

  15. Marc-Wi Says:

    The original manifesto has in excess of 20 pages, the powers that be have cut it down to 11 which would be Plaskon’s version.
    Glad you’re back, mas, and glad the good guys prevailed.

  16. Joshua Says:

    Dorner’s actions set the stage for a tragic mistaken identity shooting subsequently by police.

    Let me be clear that I understand why the police opened fire. The vehicle was a dark-colored truck and it was driving slowly and erratically. The police were scared. Three people were already dead, including one cop. They were probably out of their minds on adrenalin when they saw that truck coming their way.

    But what are the facts? The police shot at a truck, of a different make/model and color than the suspect’s vehicle, and driven by two Asian women instead of one large black man. Is that really “mistaken identity”? Would that claim hold up if anyone except a police officer was making it?

    In gun safety courses, we are taught to, “always know your target and what is behind it.” It seems like these officers failed to meet the first part of that rule. The fact that they believed that their target was Dorner doesn’t excuse that they were wrong. When a citizen accidentally shoots his or her relative in the dark, believing them to be an intruder, aren’t they still charged with a crime? Why should this be any different?

  17. Rusty A Says:

    Mas,

    Congratulations on the acquittal. Was this the case in Ohio?

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/03/16/manslaughter-not-guilty.html

    Rusty A

  18. Russ Says:

    Randall: Registration *always* leads to confiscation. Your universal background-check support is misguided, unless you want to ensure “universal registration.” It isn’t the government’s business what guns I buy, or from whom. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t grasp this. The government is *not* your friend.

  19. Jim W Says:

    Mas:

    Your last paragraph is missing a word:

    “I see a possibility, though, that he’ll [Something here?] himself in to one of his heroes, perhaps Piers Morgan….”

  20. Mas Says:

    Jim W: Thanks for the catch. There was indeed a word missing. It should have read, “turn himself in.” Fixed now, thanks to your sharp eye.

    Rusty A: No, the case I worked on was in West Virginia. Thanks for submitting the interesting Ohio case, though.

  21. Sian Says:

    Criminals are always strong supporters of gun control.
    Nothing new here.

  22. ChuckM Says:

    Isn’t it “telling” that many merchants in Big Bear are said to have closed their businesses and headed home to get their guns to protect their homes?

  23. Hanza Says:

    I heard on TV news tonight that the officers that fired on the truck in “mistaken identity” have been put on administrative leave.

  24. Matt in Tampa Says:

    Mas, here’s something that will cheer you up and show that not every elected official in this country has lost their mind.

    A citizen who spoke up in support of the 2nd Amendment at a city council meeting was asked to surrender his lawfully carried concealed weapon, and he refused. When the councilman who made the motion to disarm the citizen failed to get support from his fellow council members, he left the meeting in a huff. Citizens turned out in support the next day, too.

    This is the link to the news story about it:
    http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/02/09/councilman-asks-man-to-turn-in-his-weapon-look-what-happens-next/?subscriber=1

    This is the link to the YouTube video of the actual meeting (the video is also in the news story):
    http://youtu.be/TxHnCei4wzg

    I believe this meeting was actually being held because the Second Amendment Foundation had threatened to file suit over the city’s earlier ban on weapons in public parks. The ban was repealed after this meeting, as I understand. Go citizens, go 2AF!

  25. Joshua Says:

    I heard on TV news tonight that the officers that fired on the truck in “mistaken identity” have been put on administrative leave.

    Hanza: My understanding is that’s standard practice following any use-of-force. I don’t believe that it has any bearing on whether they will be disciplined for this specific incident.

  26. KiA Says:

    his manifesto definitely takes a left turn with the AWB rant. it doesn’t make sense. he starts by defending his name and justifying his actions against what he sees as a corrupt police department. then goes on to defeat his own argument by saying he should not have had guns so easily — essentially giving the power only to the people (LAPD) that he does not respect?

    the crazy man’s argument: only the police should have guns, but they lie, have no integrity and abuse civil liberties; the honorable officer (Dorner) should not have guns either because one day he may lose his marbles and try to defend his honor. so nobody should have guns (AR, silencers, hi-cap magazines, whatever he’s goin’ on about).

    my response is best summed up by General McAuliffe, “Nuts!”

  27. Captain Bob Says:

    Regarding “Universal Background Checks” we might be able to gain ground here if we give a little. What if “we” ( pro gun folks) supported and agreed to UBC’s IF the gov’t eliminated the firearm details section? I always wondered why, if the 4473 form was to do a background check on the PERSON BUYING THE GUN, was it necessary to record the details on the gun he/she was buying? If he/she was cleared to buy a firearm, what difference does it make if it is a .22 rifle or a Glock .40? Or if it’s multiple guns?
    I’m not a proponent of BGCs but we might actually be able to get rid of the firearm details we now have to give and are saved on paper. Better still, transfers between family members are exempt. It would definitely put a damper on gun shows but we would not be adding to a National Gun Registry as we are now for new gun purchases or used gun interstate transfers. And it just might stop people who shouldn’t have guns from buying them. Of course, the good old gov’t might make it hard for legitimate buyers, too but they do that sometimes now, anyway.
    Comments?

  28. Jamie (from Phoenix) Says:

    I hope they capture him alive. I want him spouting his anti-gun rhetoric in court while on trial for murder. I want his hypocrisy on the public record where it can’t be hidden.

    If he’s shot (even if it’s necessary), the media will just play him for a tragic martyr.

    ~Sir Brass

  29. wg Says:

    Increasingly the federal government is just going through the motions. Only 62 prosecutions out of 72,600 denials (see http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/biden-to-nra-we-dont-have-the-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/ ). Universal background checks will invariably create a new set of criminals–thoise who are buying and selling guns–it will not however stop mass killings. Neither will limits on semi-automatic weapons, magazines, etc. One mass killing was committed with dynamite, another with ammonium nitrate and diesel, and yet another with gasoline (arson).

    BTW, it is illegal in every state and against federal law for an individual to intentionally sell a weapon to a felon, mentally disturbed person, people using illegal drugs, non-citizens, etc. When was the last time that you saw this enforced?

    The real issue is that of people choosing to kill other people, not the means that they choose. Thus, every regulation only hinders the law abiding while not really stopping the murderous. Most spree killers exhibit signs of mental illness and violence long before they “break”. Maybe we should focus on controlling those with violent and murderous natures before troubling the innocent and turning them into unwitting criminals.

  30. Noah Vaile Says:

    Randall: You are what radio talk show hosts call a “seminar caller.”

    To begin you are absolutely wrong on registration. It only leads, sooner or later, to confiscation.

    As for high-capacity magazines and the weapons that accept them. The argument that a lower/limited capacity magazine/weapon would ‘slow down’ the mass-murder rate is inane. “No guns at all” makes better sense in that way of thinking… and ultimately comes to “no guns” in fact.

    What we need to do is provide “care” for this segment of the population that seems prone to psychopathologic behavior. They aren’t hiding among us, they make their presence clear. They have threatened, they have worried their family members and friends but they have not been treated.

    And we have to maintain the means by which the populace can protect itself, which is free access to firearms. The government will not protect us from violence any more than it protects us from itself. It is our personal and constitutional right and duty to protect ourselves.

    Let’s not limit our own rights in the name of protecting ourselves. Wasn’t it Ben Franklin who said, “those who would surrender their freedom for safety will end up with neither.”

  31. Pro Arms Steve Says:

    Those who think “universal” background checks are an acceptable compromise should keep in mind that the government, meaning BATFE, already considers that any change of possession of a firearm constitutes a “transfer.” Unless universal background checks are limited to permanent change of ownership of a firearm, simply loaning a gun to someone, sharing a gun with someone in your family (such as a family heirloom) or agreeing to store someones guns (such as a family member who needs to leave guns behind during a military deployment or a temporary business transfer), would all require a background check, and the resultant fees, each time the guns change hands. If the checks were only required on actual change of ownership, it could be workable. But allowing for non-ownership transfers (without a background check) would then be seen as another “loophole” by the anti-gun people. Any such compromise would need to be carefully researched by people knowledgeable of how the “system” works, or the unintended consequences could be unnecessarily burdensome. So far, analysis of laws by knowledgeable people seems problematic.

  32. Jacob Morgan Says:

    What should be done is to add anyone with a current prescription for major tranquilizers to the instant check system. In 1968 the mentally unstable were prohibited from buying guns, but that was pointless as back then the mentally unstable were pretty much all residing in state hospitals.

    Other thing to do is to get the Feds out of “mental health” completely, and have the states take it back. The danger of incarcerating the politically incorrect is a real concern, but if the Feds got out of it that would be less likely. What is likely, what is happening, is every time someone, who 50 years ago would be weaving baskets in group therapy, goes on a spree all of society turns into a nanny state.

    Problem with ending personal transfers, is how to enforce it? Forget the de facto registration of subsequent transfers, if the burden of proof is on the owner that none of the guns were acquired illegally after the law, one’s entire collection would have to be registered.

    Regarding magazine capacity, first of all, it is unpleasant to think about, but if a creep had shown up at Newtown with an over-under 12 ga and a bandoleer of shells, would the outcome have been any different? How about a bolt action / fixed magazine Lee-Enfield? British troops could get off 20-30 aimed (as in hit a target 100 yds away) per minute. How many minutes was it until the cops showed up? Facing unarmed kids and untrained women teachers, what gun wouldn’t do? A strong man could use an axe to the same effect. But such is the fate of “gun free” zones.

    On the flip side, what if four hoodlums decide to do a home invasion on a remote farm house? It took trained FBI agents 70+ rounds to stop Platt and Matix in the 86 Miami shootout. If a gang of thugs decides to invade one’s home, in such a case a handy carbine with a large magazine is prudent.

  33. Roger Says:

    A little history for you all from this side of the pond. Great Britain required no licensing of rifles until after WW1 when rifles and pistols required a license. This was because many ordinary soldiers brought weapons home, so many so that the government feared a revolution such as that had occurred so recently in Russia. The ‘licence fee’ was set at more than a weeks wage for an ordinary working man putting rifled barrel firearms out of reach to most law abiding people. Shotguns were exempt. This was the start of a very slippery slope ending in the situation we have today. I would urge all Americans to resist registration or licensing of ANY kind as the long term result is plain to see here today.
    Of course gun crime still exists today and we currently have a trial running for the murder of two police officers by a man using a glock with and extended magazine and a hand grenade. Naturally all three items have been illegal for years but as we all know criminals pay no regard to the law anyhow.
    Finally I would have to say that the accidental shooting in the search for Dorner prove without a shadow of a doubt that civilians need hi capacity magazines.
    The police fired 30+ shots at the vehicle yet(fortunately) the occupants survived. Now the Obama administration expects you to defend yourself and you families with just 7 rounds! You may well be up against multiple attackers and unlike the police you will probably not have the advantage of body armour, a partner and further backup on route! The fact that even the police were not able to achieve this given their hi capacity weapons and extensive training should be held as a practical demonstration of the proposed changes idiocy.

  34. Roger Says:

    Mas, sorry meant to add well done for helping out the good guys once again!

  35. Old Man Says:

    California wants more gun laws! Whets wrong with this picture? Woman gets a restraining order tells the Judge he has said he will kill her. She calls the Cop’s they say until he does something we can’t move. One of their own get killed now look they are paying overtime to make sure there are armed guards at the other cop’s houses 24/7. How many dead women will it take in Calf. before the jerks wake up? Now they want to get rid of all black guns registered them and get rid of them or go to prison. Then the cops will have them and the nuts will have them and we can really create a bunch of dead unarmed people. There will be a ten mile long train of cop cars going to the graveyard crying about showing respect, but how long will the train be for a killed unarmed woman? This and the over the top shooting by negligent trigger happy cop’s is what gets a target painted on the forehead of the good cops like Mass. I am worried that there will be copy cat killings due to the media’s slanted reporting of this incident. We are coming critically close to a tipping point with this gun control situation and all it will take is a few more nuts to spring out of the wood work and it will be a full blown mess. If Donners 20 page manifest was doctored then some news agency needs to lose their rights to report news Jump all over their first amendment rights and let’s see what a dry that produces?

  36. Randy Says:

    The form 4473 stays with the dealer until he/she goes out of business then it is turned over to the ATF. It is used for tracing firearms. When a background check is made at the purchase no information about the firearm is transmitted to the ATF. Some dealers, I have heard, plan on a fire when they go out of business.

    Here in IL we have a FOID card (Firearm Owners Identification) and you have to undergo a backgroung check to get it. You have to show it to buy a firearm, ammo, primers, powder. I have even been asked for it because I was buying a #25 bag of shot! People from out of state can purchase anything except a firearm with only a drivers license! Go figure.

    I don’t know about other gun shows. The one that our club hosts at our County Fairgrounds that I participated in; I was given a phone number to call in a backgound check on gun purchases. Oh, and when purchaseing a firearm you will have a 72 hr wait for a handgun and 24hr wait for a long gun. This, after waiting months or maybe weeks, if you are lucky, to get your FOID!

    Gun Laws are like taxes. Never enough and they never go away!

  37. Jack Says:

    Dianne feinstein in 1993 wrote the first FAILED assualt weapon bill with all the Clintons behind her. It appears to me she was elected in 1992 and has waged a self proclaimed war against gun owners with a few friends in power such as chuck shumer and never gives up. Here we are 20 years later and she is pushing for the same crap. They don’t believe in law abiding citizens owning these kind of guns for protection or sport. However when they go about they have armed guards carrying these very same guns. When the Clintons daughter got married not to long ago besides the heavily armed Secret Service the anti gun Clintons hired Black Water security and had 2.5 million dollars worth of additional heavilly armed guars protecting their family with all the same guns we are dared not to own. Their lives are obviously worth more then me or you if you believe in their gun ban they are pushing because they have all these guns at the ready they complain are so dangerous 24/7.

  38. WT Says:

    Roger, Randy and Old Man are right. Once that camel pokes it’s nose under the tent, the whole camel will follow shortly. One more compromise on universal background checks, FOIDs, magazine capacity limitations, etc, and we’ll be giving up the fight for the preservation of our beloved Second Amendment rights!

  39. Paul Edwards Says:

    Regarding “Prolonged Detention”, the question, to me is;
    Other that the real Islamic, Muslim Jihadists, Who will Obama declare to be a “Terrorist”, for the purposes of his “Prolonged Detention” law?

    Well, to me, it will be: All Gun Owner’s, All Veterans, All Religions, Anyone who believes in God, Duty, Honor, Country, and everyone who doesn’t, think like, or agree with, Obama, in any way, shape or form.

    What really bothers me about the actions that Obama is taking, and the laws he is attempting to enact, is that these do not seem to be activities of a “Lame Duck” President who will leave the Oval Office at the end to this term of Office?

    Aside, from attempting some kind of forcible “Take Over” of the American Government at the end of his last term, all that he really needs to do is to railroad thru a Bill to nullify the “No Third Term” statute (Which the Democrats have already tried to do, at least 7 or 8 time, so far), and we already know he has been able to buy enough Votes, create enough Tombstone Voters, Nursing home Voters and other election frauds, to steal this last election, if not his original election, so what is there to prevent Obama from just “Re-Electing” himself, as many times as he wants in order to complete the destruction of America, as we know and love it, and transforming it into his Father’s Dream for Kenya, Africa?

    After that, once Obama has built up his “Civilian Enforcement Units”, fired all the Military Generals who refuse to “Fire on American Citizens” and even all those grunt troops who “Who Vill Not Follow Orders”, like a good NAZI Storm Trooper, we already know that The Government is already Stockpiling 7,000 Fully Automatic AR-15 “Personal Defense Weapons” and Billions of rounds of ammo, which should be more than sufficient to subjugate an unarmed American citizenry.

    Read this New York Times article, then watch Obama’s Video:

    President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition

    By WILLIAM GLABERSON
    Published: May 22, 2009
    President Obama’s proposal for a new legal system in which terrorism suspects could be held in “prolonged detention” inside the United States without trial would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free.

    There are, to be sure, already some legal tools that allow for the detention of those who pose danger: quarantine laws as well as court precedents permitting the confinement of sexual predators and the dangerous mentally ill. Every day in America, people are denied bail and locked up because they are found to be a hazard to their communities, though they have yet to be convicted of anything.
    Still, the concept of preventive detention is at the very boundary of American law, and legal experts say any new plan for the imprisonment of terrorism suspects without trial would seem inevitably bound for the Supreme Court.

    Mr. Obama has so far provided few details of his proposed system beyond saying it would be subject to oversight by Congress and the courts. Whether it would be constitutional, several of the legal experts said in interviews, would most likely depend on the fairness of any such review procedures.

    Ultimately, they suggested, the question of constitutionality would involve a national look in the mirror: Is this what America does?

    “We have these limited exceptions to the principle that we only hold people after conviction,” said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell. “But they are narrow exceptions, and we don’t want to expand them because they make us uncomfortable.”

    In his speech on antiterrorism policy Thursday, Mr. Obama, emphasizing that he wanted fair procedures, sought to distance himself from what critics of the Bush administration saw as its system of arbitrary detention.

    “In our constitutional system,” Mr. Obama said, “prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

    But Mr. Obama’s critics say his proposal is Bush redux. Closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and holding detainees domestically under a new system of preventive detention would simply “move Guantánamo to a new location and give it a new name,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested this month that as many as 100 detainees might be held in the United States under such a system.

    Mr. Obama chose to call his proposal “prolonged detention,” which made it sound more reassuring than some of its more familiar names. In some countries, it is called “administrative detention,” a designation with a slightly totalitarian ring. Some of its proponents call it “indefinite detention,” which evokes the Bush administration’s position that Guantánamo detainees could be held until the end of the war on terror – perhaps for the rest of their lives – even if acquitted in war crimes trials.

    Mr. Obama’s proposal was a sign of the sobering difficulties posed by the president’s plan to close the Guantánamo prison by January. The prolonged detention option is necessary, he said, because there may be some detainees who cannot be tried but who pose a security threat.

    These, he said, are prisoners who in effect remain at war with the United States, even after some seven years at Guantánamo. He listed as examples detainees who received extensive explosives training from Al Qaeda, have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden or have otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans.

    Other countries, including Israel and India, have had laws allowing indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, said Monica Hakimi, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan who has written about the subject. But, she said, few provide for essentially unending detention, and several European countries have restricted preventive detention to days or weeks.

    Mr. Obama’s proposal, Professor Hakimi said, appears to be “an aggressive approach that is not commonly taken in other Western developed countries.”

    In a letter to the president on Friday, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said he was not sure Mr. Obama’s idea would prove constitutional, and added that “such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world.”

    Some critics of the Bush administration, who have become critics of Mr. Obama as well, have long said they are skeptical that there are detainees who are a demonstrable risk to the country but against whom the government can make no criminal case.

    But some proponents of an indefinite detention system argue that Guantánamo’s remaining 240 detainees include cold-blooded jihadists and perhaps some so warped by their experience in custody that no president would be willing to free them. And among them, the proponents say, are some who cannot be tried, in part for lack of evidence or because of tainted evidence.

    Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Mr. Obama’s proposal was contrary to the path his administration apparently hoped to take when he took office. But that was before he and his advisers had access to detailed information on the detainees, said Mr. Wittes, who in a book last year argued for an indefinite detention system.

    “This is the guy who has sworn an oath to protect the country,” he said, “and if you look at the question of how many people can you try and how many people are you terrified to release, you have to have some kind of detention authority.”

    Civil liberties lawyers say American criminal laws are written broadly enough to make it relatively easy to convict terrorism suspects. They say Mr. Obama has not made the case persuasively that there is a worrisome category of detainees who are too dangerous to release but who cannot be convicted. The reason to have a criminal justice system at all, they say, is to trust it to decide who is guilty and who is not.

    “If they cannot be convicted, then you release them,” said Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. “That’s what it means to have a justice system.”

    Follow the below link to the complete New York Times article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=0

    If you want to watch the video of Obama, while he announces this “Constitutional Prolonged Detention”, while standing in front of the original copy of the US Constitution, then go to the following link”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0

  40. Hanza Says:

    @joshua:

    Yes I know it is SOP. I was just reporting that it was being done.

  41. drake Says:

    BREAKING: Police Scanner Recording Reveals Plan to Burn Dorner Cabin
    Posted on February 13, 2013
    Nick reported this last night when the audio recording of the police scanner wasn’t exactly clear. It seemed that the cops had planned to burn down the cabin where ex-LAPD and cop killer Christopher Dorner was holed-up. Well, here’s the scanner recording, clear as a bell. At 1:02: “We’re going to go forward with the plan . . . with the burn.” There’s a long pause and then “copy.” Then “wanted to . . . like we talked about.” It gets worse. “Burners [police slang for extremely hot teargas canisters] deployed and we have a fire.” The operator repeats the phrase. Question: did I wake up in Communist Russia today?

  42. drake Says:

    Chris Dorner gun battle in Big Bear 2/12/201
    Video fire fight took place with Chris Dorner other day from youtube.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M-iYcNuwtQ&feature=player_embedded

  43. Al Eakin Says:

    Wow — you’re calling the criminally-negligent hosedown of a couple of citizens a “tragic mistaken-identity shooting”, AND blaming on Dorner instead of the trigger-happy cops? I’m a big fan, and satisfied student, but I’m pretty disappointed by that whitewash job.

  44. Patrick Says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57569058/cbs-reporter-caught-near-gun-battle-with-ex-cop/

    A CBS News reporter found himself caught in the middle of a dangerous situation while reporting on the a gun battle between police and fugitive ex-cop Christopher Dorner in Big Bear, Calif., Tuesday.

    CBS News reporter Carter Evans at scene of gun battle near Big Bear, Calif.
    / CBS
    The bullets could be heard flying through the air when Carter Evans, a Los Angeles-based CBS News reporter called into KCAL-TV.

    “We are right in the center of the action here,” Carter said, as the scene unfolded live on TV.

    Evans was in a civilian vehicle off of Highway 38 when authorities began shouting at people to leave the scene. One cop shouted, “Hey, get the f**k out of here, pal.”

    Evans told KCAL “we don’t know where to go.”

    “We’re staying here, we don’t want to get caught in the crossfire ourselves,” he said.

    After some more gunfire and shouting, anchor Sandra Mitchell said she was trying to check back in with Evans. “Carter, are you there?” she asked. Evans did not respond, but unidentified voices could be heard in the background, “Down! Keep it down!”

    2 deputies wounded in hunt for ex-LA fugitive cop
    KCAL: Transcript of Carter Evans’ call

    Evans is okay and unharmed. A couple of hours later, he called in again to say he was about 100 yards away from the cabin Dorner was hiding in. “It was like being in a war zone,” he said of the gunfire.

    “We did not know what we were rolling up on … We just knew we were following some of the search team, and we jumped out of our vehicles to get down,” Evans said.

    Evans added that 20 feet ahead of his location he could see a rifle on the ground, ammunition, an assault weapon, clips and a bullet proof vest from one of the two sheriff’s deputies who were wounded in the fight.

  45. Mas Says:

    Art Eakin, I wrote that Dorner’s actions set the stage for a tragic mistaken identity shooting. Please tell me if you think that WOULDN’T have happened if the cops weren’t looking for a serial killer/cop killer who had declared war on them and their society, and also please tell me where I “whitewashed” anybody.

  46. Mike Says:

    Mas,

    If the Banks didn’t keep money on hand, they would NOT be robbed, so it is their own fault? Right? If the woman wasn’t at that spot the rapist was waiting for a victim, she wouldn’t be raped, so it is Her fault? Right?? That kind of thinking is simply a cop out! (pun intended)

    Dorner had some screws loose, there is NO doubt there. But those Cops should be arrested the same as any other pants wetting idiot that shoots up innocent people out of fear. How can we depend on such incompetence? No thought, no concern, and no ACCURACY. (You KNOW they had no concern for the backdrop either!!)

    If I received a death threat and then out of fear I blindly shoot up a person driving by in a vehicle of a different make/model/color and driven by the wrong gender who’s 1/3 the size… I’d be held accountable! I’d be in Jail, not paid Vaca!

    I respect your Opinion on firearms, you are quite knowledgeable BUT i have Yet to see you NOT back up every scared cop out there that screws up! The cops that were ‘fired upon’ by Jose in AZ but he never took his AR off safe? They only hit him 1 out of 4 times? he was in small a Hallway! Where was the concern for the child and wife in that situation? OR the neighbors they shot up?

    There are Countless cases out there like that too! I guess, on the bright side, it is Job Security for you; all that retraining needed before they are safe to be in public with a gun! The Sheriff in Mayberry had the best idea, make them carry thier bullet (yes, singular) in their pocket. LOL J/K but I do feel like WAY too many are highly UNDERtrained!

    As for Gun Control, IMO, they will not confiscate them, just ‘restrict access’ to them. by that i mean that anyone, who isn’t a criminal/mental health problem/anger issues can have one! Nice Huh??

    BUT consider the following scenario (or countless others!)

    ‘Your DR said you were depressed Mr X, so lets take those guns into safe keeping until you are better.’

    ‘Mr X, your medical records state that you tried Marijuanna in HS, I’m afraid that makes you ineligible to possess any firearms; give us the BB gun also please!’

    ‘Mr X, there was a domestic dispute at your place of residence so we will need to…’ This works for Apt neighbors too! Wouldn’t want them anywhere they could Get at them right?

    ‘Mr X, the police officer said you raised your voice when they broke into the wrong house, shot your dog, and sat on you, while handcuffed, for 3 hours while straitening things out so we’re going to just take things into safe keeping for now…’

    ‘Mr X, we see that your SS# starts with a number so GIVE UP THE GUN!’

    There are SO many laws on the books today that not even the ‘mostest superest cop’ could know them all for just their state & city and that is where they will hit gun owners. Look up a book called ’3 felonies a day’

    Well, whatever, nothing I say or do here today will do anything to get the Police the training they SO desperately need OR change the fact that they should be held to Much more rigid standards/requirements due to their position in society and their ability to abuse that power.

  47. Mike Says:

    To clarify, in the AZ shooting i haven’t heard of them hitting anyone else, they just punched a Lot of holes in his neighbors homes.

    Mas, I have another question, this one about AR’s. I would NEVER own one myself ;-) ;-) nudge nudge, but find them to be excellent weapons, fun plinkers, and a pure mechanical artwork.

    BUT…

    Why are they used so much in Urban combat?

    My understanding is they want them for their penetration ability and high rate of fire but in an apt complex or other high density area, isn’t overpenetration (like in the AZ case) a huge detractor? they could go with frangibles, but then they lose penetration.

    I can understand it in the N LA bank robbing scenario, but in most cases do they just rely on the shotgun? (like I do)

    Thanks

  48. Al Eakin Says:

    Mas, Dorner’s reprehensible actions did indeed start a ‘war’ between himself and area LE; but that in no way ‘set the stage’ for some of them to open fire on an unidentified vehicle of a different make and model than they were alerted to, simply because it was the same color and weaving down the road, and peppering nearby houses and vehicles in the process. That was the result of a decision to prioritize a chance of ‘getting their man’ over long-established rules of engagement, and appropriate concern for public safety. By failing to address that impropriety completely, you whitewashed those who made that choice. The fact that the cops were extra-pissed at Dorner neither justifies their disregard for public welfare, and the fact that they were sworn officers should subject them to a higher standard of conduct, not a lower one.

  49. Al Eakin Says:

    *neither justifies nor mitigates*

  50. Mas Says:

    Al, do you and others really believe that officers simultaneously panicked and opened fire on unarmed women for no reason? 40 years in the business have taught me to look past the headlines and wait until all side’s perspectives come out. That’s what I’m doing here, and I think it would be a good idea for all of us.

  51. Lauren Neher Says:

    Mas, yes we believe that police officers acted, for whatever reason, incredibly inappropriately and unprofessionally, TWICE, firing on innocent civilians. I can’t and won’t blame Dorner, they are paid professionals who acted anything but. And now it seems they killed him deliberately too. So much for innocent until proven guilty. And the mad dog Dorner tied up the two cleaning ladies who found where he was hiding. He stole a man’s truck, stating that he didn’t want to hurt him. Some mad dog, if he was really such a madman he would have killed all those people. He acted more responsibly in not harming those civilians than the LAPD did in shooting indiscriminately, without warning at two vehicles. And now he’s conveniently dead, with tapes of LAPD yelling to burn the place down. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Now we’ll never know, will we?

    http://www.policeone.com/standoff/articles/6119022-Audio-Police-yell-burn-it-down-raiding-Dorners-hideaway/

  52. Mas Says:

    Lauren, first time posters such as yourself are always welcome here, though they often come with agendas.

    Are you seriously implying that that Dorner was harmless because three of the victims he kidnapped/carjacked at gunpoint WEREN’T murdered?

    Are you suggesting that it’s murder to kill a barricaded cop-killer, heavily armed, before he kills more police officers?

    And why is it you say “So much for innocent until proen guilty” for Dorner, yet already find guilty the cops in the mistaken identity incidents, without knowing what they saw or believed from their perspective?

  53. Lauren Neher Says:

    I’m saying there is some seriously fishy stuff going on here. And the LAPD is right in the middle of it. I’m saying that when the police are yelling “burn it down!” that sure sounds like premeditation. I’m saying it’s ridiculous so called professional police officers fired on civilians, without warning, because their vehicle was “the same color as Dorners”, and not even the same make. I’m saying you are really defending those police officers, without knowing the facts? Because the facts as we see it so far are pretty damning. Yes, cops should be held to higher standards. Opening fire on the wrong vehicles, without warning, is unprofessional and frankly ridiculous.

  54. Lauren Neher Says:

    I stated so much for innocent until proven guilty because if he’s dead so is the case. I’m not saying Dorner was harmless. I’m saying he acted much more professionally and humanely than those police officers did. What did Dorner have to lose by killing those people? Nothing. He ever left the guy whose truck he stole with his cell phone. Since when is it proper police procedure to open fire, without warning, on an undetermined target? Even their shooting was unprofessional. 40 some rounds and no one killed? (t

  55. Lauren Neher Says:

    Thank god for that, by the way. Their unprofessional shooting saved the innocent lives of their victims, while putting innocent lives at risk from stray gunfire. It’s interesting to me your default is to defend them. Because this is very damning, what we do know. I’ve been following you and your writing for years, and hold you in the highest regard. I understand the police have hard, thankless jobs that can cost them their lives. I spent 20 years in the Navy, was an expert rifle and pistol shot, and was trained for security work. I’m not sure how you can justify shooting innocent civilians without warning.

  56. Al Eakin Says:

    Mas,

    Let me reiterate here that I have enormous respect for you as an author, trainer, shooter, and LEO, and I’m gratified that you responded to my comment.

    To answer your question, speaking only for myself: I believe that some officers assigned to protective duty overreacted to a potential threat, and preemptively fired upon misidentified vehicles, in violation of typical domestic LE rules of engagement (I’ll admit to not knowing the specific policies in those jurisdictions, since I avoid Kalifornia).

    It is true that I commented sooner than I generally consider wise, but I did so in response to your allusion to a “tragic” shooting. Perhaps, when all is revealed, I will have to recant my position; unfortunately, it is unlikely that all will be revealed to me. Out of respect for you, I offer the following wager: if you are eventually able to present an official finding that the Toyota Tacoma shooting was performed in full compliance with relevant department policy, I’ll commit to attending LFI-II at full price; if you are not, you’ll slot me in for free. Whaddaya say? :-)

  57. Mas Says:

    Lauren, I’m sorry, but stealing by threat of death without actually murdering is not my idea of “humane,” just less barbaric. Is Dorner’s murder of the innocent daughter of a policeman who had tried to help him, and her fiance, “professional and humane” in your view?

    I think we’ve all agree that Dorner’s actions set in motion the chain of events that led to the mistaken identity shooting. Lauren and Al, if you would go back one more time and READ WHAT I WROTE, I never said the shooting was justifiable. What I did say, in response to commentary here, is that until we know what those cops observed and perceived, we don’t yet have the tools to determine whether their actions were reasonable or prudent, even though later learned to be mistaken, in the heat of the moment in which they fired.

  58. Mike Says:

    No Mas, we are Not ‘in agreement.’

    Those police endangered innocent people out of incompetence! If they were guarding anyone or place else they would Still be incompetent!

    What about Jose in Tucson? You did nothing but back the police in that situation, how tough thier job is, and that we need to wait for the investigations/ final verdicts yadda yadda yaddda…

    What has come out? Not too much! It was a bad shooting and then investigations were sparse or nonexistant. and of course the police were ‘Justified’! Thats the usual verdict when you investigate yourself!

    And people wonder why the Police are not as respected as they used to be.

  59. Al Eakin Says:

    Mas,

    I gather from your response that you are politely demurring from accepting my wager.

    As for reading what you wrote, I’ll quote it here:

    “Dorner’s actions set the stage for a tragic mistaken identity shooting subsequently by police.”

    Or, factoring in connotation and implication:

    “tragic” — unfortunate, but not reasonably avoidable

    So, I’d still like to know what we could reasonably expect to discover about this shooting that would render it “reasonable and prudent” to open fire on a slowly receding vehicle, carrying unidentified occupants, without positive identification of said vehicle (make/model/license plate)?

  60. Mas Says:

    Al, your wager was whether the shooting of the wrong people would be ruled to be within policy. That’s an obvious non sequitur.

    What did the officers perceive in the moments before they fired? Did anything happen in the vehicle which could be perceived as a “furtive movement,” for example? We simply don’t know.

    Al, if you were in a situation where you shot the wrong people, I’d want to hear your side of it before cheering the lynch mob on. I’m simply offering the same with the officers in this case.

  61. Lauren Neher Says:

    If Dorner’s actions “set in action that chain of events”, what will be the excuse next time officers open fire on innocent civilians? Without warning? I know Dorner was a dangerous fugitive, that does not excuse the police from opening fire, blindly, without even a warning. That is the policeman’s job, to do a dangerous job to the best of their ability, and if they are unable or unwilling to do that job properly, perhaps they need a new line of work.

  62. Mas Says:

    Lauren, you are either missing or evading the point. You don’t judge until you have the facts. Until we hear from the officers what they perceived and why they acted as they did, we are not equipped to pass judgment on their actions.

  63. Patrick Says:

    This old story Mas round 2011. I know not Las Angles police depamrnet many thing in bring concerns felt over what happen with Las Angles police deparment.

    L.A. County deputies’ shootings of unarmed people raise concerns

    Almost half of all people shot at by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies after they reached for their waistbands turned out to be unarmed, according to a study released Thursday analyzing six years of shooting data.

    “Waistband shootings” are particularly controversial because the justification for the shootings can conceivably be fabricated after the fact, according to the county monitor’s report. The monitor was careful to point out that the report wasn’t making the case deputies were being dishonest, simply that the spike in those shootings left the department vulnerable to criticism.

    Merrick Bobb, special counsel to the county Board of Supervisors, also found a rise in shootings in which deputies didn’t see an actual gun before firing. In those cases, the person may have had a weapon on them, but never brandished it.

    Those shootings spiked by 50% last year, according to the report. Last year also had the highest proportion of people shot by deputies who turned out to be unarmed altogether.

    The Sheriff’s Department already requires its patrol deputies to do scenario-based shooting training every two years. According to the report, though, almost a third of deputies who shot at people before seeing an actual gun failed to meet that training requirement.

    According to the report, the number of officer-involved shootings generally correlates with the criminal homicide rate. But in the last two years, as Los Angeles County law enforcement officials have boasted falling homicide rates, the number of shootings involving sheriff’s deputies has gone up.

    In one case, deputies came across a narcotics suspect sitting in his car outside his house. When the 35-year-old saw the deputies, he appeared to reach under his seat. One of the deputies thought he saw a gun, covered by a piece of cloth. The man then sat up, holding the object to his chest, prompting the deputy to shoot him in his torso. The man was killed but no drugs or weapons were found, only a pair of jeans. The county eventually paid out $750,000 to the victim’s family.

    The analysis also found that 61% of those shot at by deputies were Latino, 29% black and 10% white. Even compared to Sheriff’s Department arrest rates, Latinos and blacks are overrepresented.

    In shootings in which deputies shot at a person before seeing an actual gun, all but two of the people were black or Latino.

    The report expressed “deep concerns” specifically with the sheriff’s Century Station, one of the rougher swaths of the department’s jurisdiction, spanning Lynwood and unincorporated areas of Florence, Firestone, Walnut Park, Willowbrook and Athens Park.

    Over the last 15 years, that station’s deputies have fired their guns the most, almost twice as much as the next closest station. More than a quarter of sheriff’s deputies who have been involved in multiple shootings work at Century, according to the report, even though the station only represents 8% of the department’s sworn patrol.

    Sheriff Lee Baca just returned from a trip to Israel on Thursday and needs to review the report before the department gives its response, according to a spokesman.

    Among the report’s other findings:

    – Deputies firing their guns off duty are more likely to be fresh out of the academy. More than half of off-duty shootings involved deputies with less than three years on the job.

    – Deputies shooting at animals spiked recently, with 62 last year, more than double the number of several years before.

    – All deputies involved in multiple shootings in recent years were men.

  64. Mike Says:

    Mas said “Lauren, you are either missing or evading the point. You don’t judge until you have the facts. Until we hear from the officers what they perceived and why they acted as they did, we are not equipped to pass judgment on their actions.”

    But then hypocritically blames and condems Dorner.

    Got it, you are protecting your Paychecks…

  65. Mas Says:

    Mike, I guess you don’t get it either.

    We DID hear from both sides in the Dorner matter.

    We heard Dorner’s side from…DORNER.

    Did you READ his sick manifesto? Where he made it clear that he was going to murder the families of people he disliked? Do you remember that his first victims were the helpless daughter of a brother officer who had tried to help him, but in Dorner’s view didn’t help him enough, so his daughter and her equally innocent fiance had be murdered?

    For God’s Sake, Mike: critical commentary remains welcome here, but it would be nice if you did a little research and knew what the hell you were talking about.

  66. Drake Says:

    Published June 10, 2012
    LA County fatal police shootings rise by 70%
    By The Associated PressAssociated Press
    Posted: 06/10/2012 05:33:34 PM PDTJune 11, 2012 12:53 AM GMTUpdated: 06/10/2012 06:03:01 PM PDT

    LOS ANGELES – The number of suspects killed by police in Los Angeles County has risen nearly 70 percent in 2011 over the previous year.

    The Los Angeles Times reports Sunday that 54 people were killed by law enforcement in 2011 countywide. In about two-thirds of the cases, the person was armed with a gun, knife or other weapon. In 12 cases, the person was unarmed.

    Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck says the majority of shootings are legitimate responses to serious threats. He says police have become more adept at responding quickly to violent situations.

    Fatal police shootings this year, however, have fallen back to 2010 levels.

    The increase in police killings come at a time when murder rates have fallen to historic lows – 612 homicides were recorded countywide last year.

  67. Mike Says:

    Mas;

    Which version of his ‘manifesto’ are you referring to? It was War to him, reasonable or not, but we Both know the ‘truth’ is printed by the Victor. What about when he tried to come out and they fired upon him forcing him back into the Flames? Oh, your right, it hasn’t been ‘Police Approved’ information yet. Just like they Didn’t have a reasonable suspicion that tear gas ‘burners’ might start a fire in a dry old wood house, My it hasn’t Ever happened before! You still haven’t said anything about the Bad Jose shooting.

    Mas, you are a Paid Schill, stick to reviewing Guns and training cops to piddle thier pants, You have NO Credibility when you blindly kneel down and swallow your masters Coc… lets just say Money.

    On another note, it’s nice of our Gov to show thier true feelings by purchasing Targets with armed old ladies and children on them, giving them a Better idea of who they are really fighting, but thats OK too Isn’t it Mas?

    Can you even Imagine the world of hurt somebody would go through if they had police/government officials as Range Targets??

    That’ll do Schill, That’ll do…

  68. Mas Says:

    Wow, Mike, you’ve got some problems. Sounds to me like a really bad Kool-Aid overdose. It has also severely impacted your ability to research your position.

    Review of this blog would show my commentary on the guy you call “Bad Jose” long ago. You know, the suspect who pointed a stolen AR15 at police who had announced a lawful entry to perform lawful warrant service? One of the most heavily scrutinized police line of duty shootings in Arizona history? That one?

    Let’s see some proof of your assertion that Dorner attempted to surrender.

    The type of “non-stereotypical target imagery” you’re worried about has been in use since at least the early/mid 1970s. You’re behind the curve there, too. Hell, you can’t even spell “shill.”

    Spew all you want, Mike. You won’t have credibility until you mix a little research in with your venom, and start getting your facts straight.

  69. Kimberley Says:

    Thanκs for finаlly writing about > Μassad Аyoob

  70. Mike Says:

    We all have some problem or another; Mine is that I was confronted by a shill whose opinion I respected only to find out that person is nothing more than a common Mouthpiece for the Gov. Defending an income at the expense of your ethics…

    Where are Your sources? Your Bibliographys?? I haven’t seen one yet! Well, nothing more than a slight reference.

    Misspelled or not, You know what you are. ;-) Yea, you do!

  71. Mas Says:

    No, Mike, your problem is that you don’t want to research facts that might shoot down your preconceived prejudices.

Leave a Reply

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.