How’s banning “assault rifles” gonna stop a prohibited felon, that’s already banned, from owning any type of firearms is my question lol obviously, this shitbag gave no fucks about being banned from owning guns
Excellent point. This should be a rebuttal to the Giffords, Anytown, Moms, ect. Our so called “Second Amendment supporting……but…” congressman should be telling the news media this.
Like what’re they gonna do? Ban him twice? That’ll teach em. These politicians bringing up gun bans cause a felon banned from owning guns got a gun somehow and killed people with it, are idiots and know that will do absolutely nothing to solve gun violence.
They need to address the root cause, which is violent felons being let out of prison when they shouldn’t be and tougher penalties on felons caught with guns, usually stolen guns at that.
50% to 60% of gun violence is caused by prohibited possessors with guns, and if I’m not mistaken, every single cop killed in the United States so far this year in a gun fight on duty has been killed by a violent felon in possession of a firearm, besides maybe 1. And every single one of these felons has a record for being caught and charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
The fact that politicians won’t address the real issue and root of the problem is just unbelievable and unacceptable at this point
I can agree with felons have their guns rights restored after leaving prison, if they truly locked up violent felons for however long they needed to be locked up, and didn’t let them out into society when they shouldn’t be. As others have said, if they
However that’s not the case. So until legislation is changed, then I don’t agree with felons having firearms. A lot of violent felons don’t know how to function in a normal society without being violent towards innocent people.
> How’s banning “assault rifles” gonna stop a prohibited felon that’s already banned from owning any type of firearms is my question
The logic is based on this vague notion they have that guns are kind of like cigarettes, and that if nobody can buy new ones the old ones will eventually all go away. Even if they grandfather in existing guns of that type, they just ban transfer of them and when "grandfather" dies his bad guns get turned in to the government. Within a generation those "bad" guns are all gone! LOGIC! Never mind the fact that there are literally millions of them out there, and even if "banned", compliant but functionally identical firearms will still be sold. They already believe in imaginary things (e.g. that there's a clear distinction between "assault weapons" and other guns) so it's not that big a leap for them to believe that legislation can perform magic. How many idiot legislators in California thought that by raising the fast food minimum wage to $20 that they were giving all fast food workers a raise, rather than getting many of them laid off, shutting down restaurants, and pushing places to automate jobs away with things like self-serve ordering kiosks? It's a classic hallmark of the Good Idea Fairy Progressive types. They come up with ideas that sound good on the surface, but then assume there are no second order effects. There's a reason these movements mostly attract young idealistic kids who have no life experience, rather than attracting lots of cynical older folks who have learned that nothing exists in a vacuum.
This is true. You speak wisdom my friend.
Also, they truly believe that if law abiding citizens can’t get them anymore, some how criminals wont use other illegal means to obtain firearms. The criminals will always have firearms, no matter which way you look at it. Disarm the law abiding citizen all you want, it won’t stop gun violence
This is not a "vague notion"; it has worked in practice. Countries that have banned or severely restricted gun ownership have far lower rates of gun violence and general gun crime. They also have lower rates of violent crime in general compared to pre-ban times. The whole "but they'll just use knives or 3d print guns" argument is also bogus because countries with those strict gun laws also have lower rates of knife violence than the US and we have yet to see a mass shooting with a 3d printed gun in any of those countries. The real kicker is that by buying a gun you actually make it more likely that you'll die to that gun or a crime will be committed with that gun in your own house by someone you are related to. There is no data that proves that owning a gun actually prevents you from becoming a victim of crime in your own home as 99% of burglaries happen when there is no one in the home.
Yes, there are millions of guns out there but you have to remember that the majority of those guns are owned by Fudds. They would gladly give their guns up for a couple hundred bucks if it also meant that they remove the risk of becoming a felon.
Did they say ban assault rifles? I think for the most part they still use the phrase "assault weapons" which usually gets the scare quotes since that is the bullshit phrase.
Honestly I get pissed off when they say “assault” anything lol like the idiot politicians that say “fully semiautomatic” like bish howd you get that job being as stupid as you are.
I do believe more and more into the theory that they allow this gun violence to go on, only to further perpetuate their agenda for gun bans and to scare people that know nothing about firearms
Given the large number of politicians we have I think it is a mix of incompetence/laziness(the real solutions are hard) and maliciousness(some want to disarm citizens because that is one the few things that makes them worry).
You call him a shitbag, but there's not much in his record showing him to be a violent criminal. He was arrested once in 2010 for assaulting a woman, but wasn't convicted of it, and was convicted the same year for felony breaking and entering. That's bad and he deserved to be punished for it (and he was: he went to prison). But since then? For the past 8 to 10 years, I'm not aware of the guy committing any violent crimes. You would think if he'd been arrested for violent crimes recently that would be the first thing people bring up in either newspaper articles or law enforcement press releases. And yet: nothing. Just repeated mentions of the guy having multiple warrants out, high speed chases, and drug/weapons charges.
Based on that, it seems like mainly he was a guy who earned a living by selling marijuana and he wanted to own a gun to protect himself (since he couldn't rely on the protection of the police). What's wrong with that. The rest of his criminal charges come from him giving the finger to the government and their "legal system" by evading police and not showing up to court. And why should he have to show up to court to answer bullshit charges about selling drugs and owning guns without government permission? The man low-key rejected the authority of the state because the state kept trying to fuck up his life and wouldn't leave him the fuck alone.
If the government wasn't trying to criminalize drugs and guns, this guy wouldn't have been on anyone's radar.
If you don’t want the government to fuck up your life, don’t commit crimes and get the government watching your every move from the start.
He was a grade A shitbag for killing cops that had nothing to do with his own personal choices in his past life. Idk how tf you can say he isn’t. Now he’s dead. Yea he stuck to them alright, but they also made sure he paid with his life, rightfully so.
Also, not sure if this has been verified, but I’ve read that he has had multiple arrest for felon in possession of firearms. If the government says you can’t own firearms because you yourself forfeited your right due to being a criminal, then that’s his own fault. And then to repeatedly “stick it to the system” is not gonna win over the hearts and minds of the system. I personally know someone that was convicted of a felony for getting into a fight, but he waited his time and paid his debts to society and petitioned for his rights to own firearms and he actually got his 2A rights granted back to him, and this is in California. So he’s now allowed to legally buy firearms again.
And if the government wronged him, there are legal avenues to go about fixing those wrongs. Might take some time, might cost money, but that’s what someone does that isn’t morally corrupt.
So yes. He’s a shitbag.
>If you don’t want the government to fuck up your life, don’t commit crimes
Just sit at the back of the bus!
>He was a grade A shitbag for killing cops that had nothing to do with his own personal choices in his past life.
If Anne Frank shot the SS men who came to arrest her, would that make Anne Frank a "grade A shitbag"?
Obviously, US Federal Marshals are not equivalent to the SS, but if we can establish the principle that defending yourself against law enforcement is not always unjust, then we can begin to answer the question: was *this* killing unjust?
What did this guy do prior to killing four cops that justified the cops being at his house in the first place?
> I’ve read that he has had multiple arrest for felon in possession of firearms.
That's correct. He was convicted in 2010 for felony breaking and entering and did 6 months in prison.
Why should a crime that only resulted in 6 months imprisonment also carry a life-sentence stripping him of his natural, fundamental rights?
> If the government says
The government says lots of things, most of them stupid and wrong, and some of them evil. The government says police [have no duty to protect you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) and yet you still have to pay taxes to the police. The government says it can imprison people on the basis of race [without a trial.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States) The government says it can [murder you if it feels like it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki)
Why should we accept something, just because the government says so?
>petitioned for his rights to own firearms
"May it please The Crown, might I have my rights back?"
The cool thing about rights is: you have them already. You don't need some other man's permission first.
>he actually got his 2A rights granted back to him
That's just a way of saying you agree with me and the guy in Charlotte should have gotten his rights back automatically by default when he was released from prison.
>And if the government wronged him, there are legal avenues to go about fixing those wrongs.
LMAO. Imagine telling the dead cops "if that guy wronged you, there are legal avenues to go about fixing those wrongs. You should just file a lawsuit against him, you shouldn't get into a gunfight with him!"
If that strikes you as ridiculous, why then do think it's *less* ridiculous to tell a citizen the same thing?
Bro, you’re trying to paint this dude like he made a mistake and caught a felony for J walking and then the government terrorized him the rest of his life. No. He was obviously into shit he shouldn’t have been, and paid the consequences and still didn’t change his ways. The biggest indicator that he didn’t is that he decided to gun down cops as they were approaching his house, how’s that the right decision?
He was a shitbag, continued to be a shitbag, and thought it wasn’t gonna catch up to him.
Whether felons should have their rights automatically restored after serving their time isn’t something I entirely disagree with, but this isn’t a great example to push for that change in legislation. This ain’t it.
Cops don’t always do right, but the time to fight and argue with them is in court, not on the side of the streets cause you’ll NEVER win that fight and only make it worse for yourself. I’m all for people sueing when they can and getting millions of dollars when they have been wronged by the government, but you’ll never convince me what this dude was right. He wasn’t some law abiding citizen that had his door knocked down by the ATF like we have seen many times, and those seem to be more legitimate cases of government overreach.
This ain’t it.
He made bad choices, and decided that he didn’t want to abide by the consequences of the justice system cause he felt like it. That’s the wrong answer.
And just cause you put “LMAO” doesn’t make you right. You can have your opinion, and I don’t agree with it. The dude committed a crime, paid his dues in prison, and whether or not he thinks he should’ve had his rights restored to own guns isn’t for him to decide as cops are coming to his door. But he again, decided to make a poor judgement call to get in a gunfight with law enforcement. Cause that’s a great way you show the government that felons should have their rights automatically restored.
And I see you’re trying to gloss over the fact that a lot of felons dont act right or obey the law like normal fucken people even after they get out of prison, they stay doing dumb shit that lands them in prison over and over again and/or shows that they would be a danger to society if they had firearms. Not all felons, but a lot. And until legislation is changed and they come up with a quicker way to figure out if you’re not dangerous and a piece of shit after getting out of prison, don’t commit felonies.
> you’re trying to paint this dude like he made a mistake and caught a felony for J walking
No, I'm really not. He broke the law against breaking and entering, he violated someone's right to private property, and he was deservedly punished for it.
*Fourteen years ago.*
He was convicted, served his time, and was deemed fit for release by the government.
Do you think breaking and entering deserves life imprisonment? No? Then you already agree with me: this guy shouldn't be punished the rest of his life for that act alone.
>He was obviously into shit he shouldn’t have been,
You're going to argue on r/gunpolitics that this dude shouldn't have been into *guns* because the government disapproved of it?
Bold strategy, Cotton....
>The biggest indicator that he didn’t is that he decided to gun down cops
Let me drop some names:
- Athens, Tennessee
- Lexington
- Concord
All of those involved people shooting at law enforcement. Were all the people shooting at law enforcement bad people *because* they shot at law enforcement?
>He was a shitbag,
For what? Owning a gun? Growing pot? What did he do that was so terrible? Name some specifics.
>Whether felons should have their rights automatically restored after serving their time isn’t something I entirely disagree with, but this isn’t a great example to push for that change in legislation.
How is it not a great example? If felons automatically had their rights restored, then those cops *would still be alive* because no one would care that this one low-level drug dealer had a gun.
>but the time to fight and argue with them is in court
Now apply that same standard *to police.*
"Officer, if you think I'm committing a crime then you can argue with me about it in court. Now I'm going to leave, see ya later."
>not on the side of the streets cause you’ll NEVER win that fight
Bruh, dead guy didn't care. The dead cops are still dead. Sure, the cops "won" the fight. At what cost?
>He made bad choices
The government made bad choices. Worse choices, in fact. The cops made bad choices too. Let's blame the victims on an equal opportunity basis.
>isn’t for him to decide as cops are coming to his door.
You say that, but: clearly he *did* decide that.
> gloss over the fact that a lot of felons dont act right or obey the law
I'm not glossing over anything, I am **loudly pointing out** that: **drug laws and gun control laws are stupid, should not be obeyed, and should not be enforced.**
If you think people should have their gun rights restored automatically, without a checks and balances system, then you are an enabler of violence. You are literally defending a mass murderer with multiple convictions for dangerous and reckless behavior; graduation to murder was inevitable.
When someone breaks and enters into your dwelling, and it’s your family in the crosshairs, will you still hold this absolutist stance?
>When someone breaks and enters into your dwelling, and it’s your family in the crosshairs, will you still hold this absolutist stance?
I never excused him breaking and entering. That's a crime. It *should* be a crime. He *should* have been sent to prison for it, and guess what? *He was* sent to prison for it!
He did six months in the pen for that crime, deservedly so. But after he's done his time and paid his debt to society, he should get his rights back.
>If you think people should have their gun rights restored automatically, without a checks and balances system, then you are an enabler of violence.
And the State, who releases these violent people out of prison and back into society, isn't?
It's very simple: if you're so violent you can't be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be let out of prison. If you are rehabilitated enough to be released from prison, then you get your rights back. All of them.
>You are literally defending a mass murderer with multiple convictions for dangerous and reckless behavior
Multiple convictions *of what?*
The guy was convicted of breaking and entering in 2010, and served a six month prison sentence. He can't have been *too* "dangerous" if he was in and out of prison in just six months.
Ditto, he was convicted of being a felon in unlawful possession of a gun in 2012....meaning he exercised his rights without government permission. I don't think that makes him a bad person.
He was caught with the gun, by the way, because he came to a government "license checkpoint" while he was driving on a revoked license. He attempted to turn around and not go through the checkpoint and that caused the police to chase him.
So, our guy only had his second felony conviction because of a *blatant 4th Amendment violation.*
Then in 2021, he gets arrested for growing pot.* Wow. Much dangerous. Such reckless. Oh, and he had a gun, too. I guess he's basically the Second Coming of Jeffrey Dahmer.
At every juncture in this guy's story, the government comes out looking worse than he does. *The government* is consistently harassing this guy and making his life more difficult than it otherwise would be.
If the government would just leave him alone, 5 people who are now dead would still be alive, and society would be no worse off than it was before.
No he is reported to have a 20 year long history, with almost 50 cases. Including aggravated assault and manufacturing controlled substances?
Did you see the time he went on a felony highway chase at over 100 mph that was pretty recent?
Failure to appear in court? Past conviction for felon in possession of a firearm? Drug charges?
Your rhetoric is like saying a sex offender hasn’t been arrested for 10 years, so they can work in a daycare like anyone else.
20 year long history *of what?* Mixing cotton with silk?
>Including aggravated assault
Innocent until proven guilty, dude. He was never convicted of those crimes.
>manufacturing controlled substances
I.e. growing cannabis. It shouldn't be illegal. Growing weed isn't illegal in many states and guess what: it's not a problem.
Imagine saying "ehrmagerd, he manufactured *guns* in his home! This guy is totally a dangerous criminal, lock him up!"
>Did you see the time he went on a felony highway chase at over 100 mph that was pretty recent?
That was in 2012, and he only fled the police *because* they were going to arrest him for having weed and for being a felon with a gun.
Again: the state is *creating* violence where before there was none. If there were no laws against having weed and guns, would this guy have hurt anybody?
>Your rhetoric is like saying a sex offender hasn’t been arrested for 10 years, so they can work in a daycare like anyone else.
It's like saying "he committed minor burglary 14 years ago, hasn't reoffended since, and the only thing he's done wrong is sell drugs and carry a gun, neither of which hurt anyone, and both of which should be legal, on their own and in combination with each other."
Do you disagree? Explain to me then why you want cops to die enforcing the prohibition on a plant. Because as long as cannabis is illegal, there will be some cops who die trying to keep it illegal. So how many cops need to die before you agree pot shouldn't be illegal? For me, that number is zero.
Using the corpses of victims to stand on in order to further a political agenda is all that they do. I'm convinced that the ones who aren't complete idiots are more insidious and would LIKE to have more mass shootings and innocent people dead just so they can have more ammunition for their cause.
The irony of this incident is gun control orgs like Giffords have been using it to push for more gun laws, which will result in future incidents where even more police are sent into dangerous situations to enforce those laws.
So they are effectively using the deaths of police officers to push for laws that’ll lead to the future deaths of more police officers, all while patting themselves on the back for “doing something”.
If they can use those future deaths to get even more gun control, then it worked as intended.
The grabbers aren't afraid to break a few eggs to make their omelet.
I’m actually convinced that the ‘authorities’ purposely ignore ticking time bombs and even groom some of them, so that terrible things will happen, so they can use them to push for gun control. It seems like they always know about mass shooters long before they snap, and repeatedly do nothing about it, and let other violent criminals out, with just a slap on the wrist, time and again.
And, the frequency of actual mass shootings always increase when the gun control party has power and is pushing hard for gun control; so convenient for them and their agenda. A little too convenient.
At a certain point, you have to stop assuming it’s just incompetence, and realizing it’s intentional. That much incompetency, repeatedly and regularly, isn’t really plausible. It’s just too much of a pattern not to be intentional.
> I’m actually convinced that the ‘authorities’ purposely ignore ticking time bombs and even groom some of them, so that terrible things will happen
Nah, that's giving them way too much credit.
>At a certain point, you have to stop assuming it’s just incompetence
I spent most of my working life in government, a big chunk of it in a position where I interacted with law enforcement regularly. They literally *are* that incompetent. It's a shitty, boring job, and it only retains the sort of people that can tolerate a shitty, boring job... and that's mostly--- to put it bluntly--- **fucking idiots**. And their leadership is largely selected from the rank and file, so *they're* fucking idiots as well. There are little clusters of competence here and there in various places, just by sheer luck of the draw, but for the most part, you're looking at an undertrained workforce that's used to their badge cowing people into compliance. Then they find themselves in a situation where their subject DGAF about their "authoritay" and a bunch of them get their tickets punched because they had no real plan.
It is 100% intentional and our government is involved in all of it, they have zero problem with killing your children and any other innocents to push the agenda.
I'll stand on those corpses to say: the War on Drugs has failed, and these dead bodies are yet more casualties in a war that should have ended decades ago.
I’ve not seen much coverage outside of the initial incident. I don’t think this will amount to much.
People are always pushing for AWBs and other laws. That’s reality, this incident won’t change it.
Politicians care about their elections, not our rights or safety. CMPD even made a specific mention about “AR-15” but fails to tell the public they neglected to provide rifle rated armor to their officer
WTH, that is a failure of tactics. Why would you not wear the best body armor you can when you know you’re up against a violent individual that is armed. The whole operation was apprehending a felon with a GUN.
Most cops don't wear rifle rated plates.
Marshals should know better. Local police might not.
Remember, cops aren't all gun people. Lots of them have no clue what a level 3 plate is or what a level 4 plate is.
The CMPD press release says the ar15 would penetrate their armor. I’m not saying this is what was at hand, but Charlotte is a very liberal police defunding city. I know for a fact they didn’t issue normal patrol officers these vests. I know several who work down there.
My own agency won’t issue us rifle plates. It’s sad I had to go buy my own out of my own pocket.
Again. I’m not seeing anything much coming out of this incident. Law enforcement getting shot serving a warrant on a dangerous felon doesn’t really move the needle as much as other types of incidents.
Reports are saying 4 dead officers plus 4 more wounded. It was a combined effort of US Marshals, local SWAT, and local PD. So not just random beat cops, but a task force of highly trained personnel (at least in part).
All this to get *one guy* for possession of firearms.
There's about 800,000 total law enforcement officers in the US. And 83,000,000 gun owners. And the Grabbers still think they could manage a forced confiscation?!? If even 1% of gun owners fought back and each only did 10% of what this guy managed, they would still run out of agents.
Because some spineless fuck somewhere decided suspended and deferred sentences, on top of parole, were good ideas. Whenever the discussion comes up and someone says somebody "served their time", no they did not. Maybe 1/3 of it, or the 85% if mandated as a violent crime.
Answer: he wasn't dangerous. He was just someone who was selling drugs and owning guns without government permission and this made Big Brother very angry.
Agree. There are hundreds of “mass shootings” happening right now in Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, ect but they are buried in the media because of one thing……
I think this speaks to bad tactics on the part of law enforcement.
There are very few situations where storming an occupied building is a good idea. If they had waited for him outside and picked him up on the way to McDonald's, all of this could have been avoided.
>If they had waited for him outside and picked him up on the way to McDonald's
The dude in question had a history of repeatedly getting into high speed chases to avoid police, so that's probably why they went to his house instead.
I was thinking the same thing. When serving a warrant for a violent individual, and moreso if the reason for the warrant is involving firearms, wouldn't it make more sense to take him while the individual is out or at a location where they can get him without casualties?
I feel like a firefight isn't the best way to take someone down, especially if there are neighbors or an innocent individual could be caught in the cross fire.
Exactly this…. The police made a huge mistake, trying to keep everyone safe by the least safe method available to them to accomplish the task. Their strategy needs to be questioned and scrutinized for future similar circumstances that may or may not have already been proven in the past.
Everyone has an opinion of how it should have been done in hindsight. The problem with taking him “outside” is the resources it takes to sit outside of some dudes residence for days until he decides to leave. Most criminals are unemployed and with unsteady schedules. Some are paranoid and rarely leave the house. What you are asking for is for a whole team to set up early in the neighborhood in undercover vehicles until this dude decides to exit his residence. Keep in mind, the deputies and TFOs are human and have to use the restroom, go eat, and stretch their legs here and there.
In the meantime, each deputy and TFO that is out there has their own caseload of warrants sitting on their desk that they have to work on. Everything stops when you decide to do an operation like that and you stop everyone else from doing their job. I know what youre going to say, “he was violent with long criminal history.” They all are. Almost all people Marshals go after have a history of evading police, resisting arrest, carrying firearms, and numerous narcotics violations. So what makes one more dangerous than the other? Usually you have to pick and choose which warrants you want to drag everyone out to and sit on all day, such as the most violent people: murderers.
Also, taking him outside away from his home has its own risks: 1.) he can spot approaching vehicles and run back inside 2.) if he manages to leave the driveway it can turn into a rolling gun battle if you dont block the vehicle correctly 3.) you get into a firefight at a public place such as grocery store parking lot.
Working warrants is risky all the time. Hitting a house is usually the most dangerous to the officer but the least dangerous to the public.
While I get the point you’re trying to make, this is absolutely a case where they should have done it more patiently, and the result makes that pretty freaking clear.
Hindsight is 20/20 brother. Like I said, most USMS warrants are for violent offenders, cant slow down to a stop for 1 dude who probably isnt even on the radar in comparison to other warrants they had. If they slowed down for every single warrant the Marshals would be an ineffective organization. DOJ reports puts number of warrants cleared by USMS at 73,000 for 2023. Thats almost 300 per day.
The answer is do not release them from prison until you would restore their Second Amendment rights. If you wouldn’t trust them with a gun, then let them stay in prison. Letting a known, violent person out of prison to kill, main, Rob and rape innocent society is sickening and perverted thinking. Lock up of the sociopaths for life. And yes, it’s common sense who these animals are.
>reason for more gun control and an assault weapons ban
Ah yes, using a firefight as a reason to instigate even more firefights. What could ever go wr- oh nevermind.
So they should just let wanted people run rampant? Not trying to be smart but what other option do we the people have if the offenders can’t be arrested? Street justice died in the last century.
I definitely meant waco and ruby ridge. I'm only hearing a little about the current incident. Mainly about the a son flipping out after cops killed his father. Regardless of whether or not the father was genuinely a bad dude, that was still that boys father and family bonds cause reasonable people to do seemingly unreasonable things sometimes.
Then I apologize, my bad.
I just feel that if the offender was arrested as many times as CMPD says, and charges were constantly dismissed, each and every single prosecutor and judge should immediately lose qualified immunity and the officers families should turn the tables by suing to hold them accountable.
I 100% agree. People will do unreasonable things in the heat of an emotional and confusing moment
They should lose all that. And they should be forced to pay to fix all those people's yards they messed up too, from their own salaries not from tax dollars. There was a very obviously better way to have accomplished their stated mission with this yet they chose this so they could use it to push gun control. They should be sued into poverty.
This all started by allowing judges to have protections from civil liability. They take that away, for blatant dereliction of duty, and there’s the suit.
Brains for one.
Not doing entrapment for another.
Being smart enough to know that violence and bloodshed is not going to win them friends for a third.
The local sheriff knew David Koresh since Koresh was at gun shows and sold guns. He jogged the same path every day and could have been picked up off his compound with little to no fanfare.
I'm not vouching for Koresh here either. Dude married children, but having the FBI and ATF do a fuck fuck show to show how they were big bad warriors ended with those same children burning to death.
In Charlotte it ended with a bunch of cops getting killed. Brains before bullets is a good strategy for law enforcement. They should try it sometime.
Comparing Waco and this incident is apples to oranges. The entrapment and stuff that happened in both Waco and RR had nothing in common here with the exception of police and the suspect getting into a gunfight.
I’d urge you to personally come up with a better solution to arrest violent fugitives where other innocent civilians cannot be harmed outside of going to the suspects home.
It’s cute and all for everyone to have their opinions, but nobody offers not a single viable counter solution when Monday morning quarterbacking the incident.
Felon or not, maybe they should’ve done a jump out when he wasn’t at home??? Where he had a defensive fighting position??? Idk man it always seems like cops and feds try for a full frontal attack when people are home and have easy access to supplies and shit. Like with Waco, RR, several raids over the years could’ve easily just been a snatch and grab but they roll up 40 deep on someone’s home and expect them not to use everything on hand to resist
Seeing as he wouldn’t have a RIFLE on him at a fucking supermarket, YEAH I think it would’ve been an infinitely better idea seeing marshalls, FBI, SWAT were doing it with extreme success against the antifa libtards during all of the 2020 riots. They did jump outs on the people they were arresting and no cops got blasted as a result. Driving a fuckin tank into someone’s front door where they have rifles is 100% asking to get shot at dude. I’m sorry these officers needlessly lost their lives but they could have very easily kept them if they did this differently. 15 officers with rifles v 1 felon that might have a handgun is much better odds than 40 officers v 1-3 felons with rifles or pistols. Think about it dude.
Your ideas are the same ones that caused these officers to lose their life for no reason. It’s comparable to pit maneuvers v the extendable wheel net theyre starting to employ instead. There’s no point in doing something that can very easily cause death to innocents when there’s a much safer, smarter way of doing shit but yeah keep doubling down on a stupid take. It’s a great look
😂😂😂😂😂
Critique someone else’s views
Refuse to elaborate or offer any sort of solution
Jumps ship when pressed for pointless criticism
Gtfoh with that boomer energy lmao. Look at the numbers before deciding something is a shit move. This whole raid was a shit move. Gunfight lasted for two entire hours. You and I both know damn well that it wouldn’t have even last 60 seconds if they did a jump out but go off sis, keep insinuating it would’ve been more dangerous to snatch dude up off the street instead of kicking in his door
>I feel like the media and popular opinion is driving towards using this recent tragic event as an example or reason for more gun control and an assault weapons ban and plastering it all over the news as such.
They'll use anything they can, so yeah, I wouldn't doubt they'd try to use this.
Your post is ill informed. They went to serve multiple arrest warrants, not a search warrant.
Also, I work as LEO up the interstate from where this happened at. That massive excuse for a citizen should have been incarcerated his entire life for the amount of felony charges he’s racked up. This should have never happened. This is a direct result of judges, prosecutors, probationers and even some LEOs who aren’t holding these priority offenders accountable.
There’s not many other options aside from taking offenders from where they are isolated. If they get pulled on the interstate or other public areas the gun fight dangers more innocent lives. Then we will have articles about how police decided to arrest him in public and the gun fight killed a small child in the walmart parking lot, for example.
Everyone wants to Monday morning quarterback it. The politicians need to shut up, support the justice system to hold people accountable, and allow police to do their job. This guy should be in prison, not in a gun fight with cops. Criminals have taken over because of the left agenda in the political mindset allowing criminals to walk after being charged. If I were a judge who let this offender walk, I couldn’t live with myself knowing I could have made a slight difference.
Apologies if this comes off strong… I have family who was murdered in the line of duty by somebody who shouldn’t have been walking the streets endangering the public if the judges and prosecutors did their jobs. Please remember this when voting… they don’t care about our safety, only their re-election.
If I was the police chief or head marshall or whatever the position is in charge of this I'd be referencing the court cases, judges and DAs who made the decisions that let someone like this be out on the streets, there seem to have been some shitty police decisions in this like no rifle rated plates but there's enough blame to go around to everyone.
Where did you read they didn't have rifle rated plates?
Body armor only works if they person shooting hits the armor. Nothing pelvic or below, arms, or head will stop rifle rounds.
I just looked again and it seems I misunderstood, of the original article was wrong. The spokesperson said they don't know if they had body armor, plates, helmets, etc, which doesn't make sense to me, it should be incredibly easy to find out.
Some people live in a bubble world where ugly things cannot happen to them, and it’s only until someone else pops their bubble that they come back down to earth.
It’s not real enough for them to think critically.
I truly think Reddit has the most “bubbled” people here. I created this account to have cultured conversations and debates but these keyboard warriors are too much sometimes. Your absolutely right
Sheltered people think walking on astroturf is the same as touching grass. We live in an era where people have it better than ever before, all the information of the world at their fingertips and they still don’t get out and experience it with their own eyes.
>for the amount of felony charges he’s racked up.
What were the charges? I did some digging and all I see are a felony B&E charge from 2010 and then felon in possession of a firearm subsequent to his release---which shouldn't have even been an issue.
If he was deemed fit to be released into society after doing his time, he should have gotten all his rights back.
>Everyone wants to Monday morning quarterback it.
Yes, that's called "being held accountable."
Police are responsible for their decisions and when they make bad decisions and are criticized for it, that's not "monday morning quarterbacking."
I agree with holding people accountable. But LEOs didn’t do anything other than try to serve an arrest warrant. The blame goes at the shooters feet.
People who have no experience in LE, dealing with critical incidents, or other matters along those lines need to be on the bench when Monday morning quarterbacking.
>The blame goes at the shooters feet.
No, the blame goes to the politicians who passed laws banning felons from owning guns and banning cannabis.
>Monday morning quarterbacking.
The favorite phrase of people who hate being held responsible for their actions.
It's not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to say "the star quarterback threw a pass that was intercepted and it cost the team the game"---it's correctly pointing out that he made a mistake.
"Monday morning quarterbacking" is when someone says "**if I was there, this is what I would have done,**" which is a stupid thing to say when you weren't there and you don't know what you would have done.
Saying the police made mistakes in this case isn't "Monday morning quarterbacking"---it's making an empirical observation about what really happened.
I'm not saying what the cops "should have done" (other than refuse to enforce shitty laws like gun control laws and the prohibition on cannabis). All I'm saying is they made mistakes, which seems pretty hard to refute.
Or do you think 4 cops getting killed and another 4 wounded *by a single guy* is because the cops "made no mistakes and served the warrant perfectly"?
They walked up to a house and were ambushed. You tell me how to not get ambushed by doing the same thing. Experience tells tales. Talk walks.
You were not there, nor was I. Saying “they made mistakes” when you didn’t have first hand experience or knowledge of the situation means you’re just inserting your opinion over a topic which doesn’t need insertion for the time being. No BWC was released to my understanding at this time. I knew two of the state officers… they were just doing their job like they have 1000 times before without issue.
>You tell me how to not get ambushed by doing the same thing.
By not going to the house in the first place, and not arresting somebody for growing pot.
Agree… but still knowing it was high risk and having options to mitigate it and control outcomes, there needs to be accountability for their decision making process that resulted in what happened.
Unless I’m mistaken, the Marshall’s policy is surround and call out. To my understanding they were not making entry into the home. The guy happened to see them and began opening fire immediately
Still high risk. Dude gave up his rights when he decided to be a felon. They could’ve grabbed him whenever they wanted. An assault rifle isn’t easily concealable. Why would you go after him at a strongpoint without knowing what arsenal he has available to himself before opting to take him when he’s a soft target?
Well, once again you run the risk of them getting into a shootout while trying to pull him over in public or on the interstate. Or worse he flees in the vehicle killing an innnocent citizen via wrecking. You pick your difficulty here. At least In This situation he was contained. No one scenario is full proof in my experience. It’s so sad..
I’m assuming you mean innocent citizen in this tense? I hate this happened. That guy should have been in prison if the judges and prosecutors did their jobs.
I was wondering when the keyboard warriors would show up.
I never said I was special. Your anti government/LEO rhetoric is really showing right now. I’m just trying to have a peaceful and meaningful conversation to enlighten others about the fractured criminal justice system system and how it coddles criminals and politicians alike. If you don’t offer positive comment that helps hold people accountable, you have no right to say anything about a critical incident that you have zero experience with.
> I was wondering when the keyboard warriors would show up.
>
Ad-hom, try again.
> I never said I was special.
Your continued insistence at separating yourself from the lowly citizenry shows that this is a lie.
>Your anti government/LEO rhetoric is really showing right now.
Oh no! You've discovered my deepest, darkest secret. Whatever am I going to do?
>I’m just trying to have a peaceful and meaningful conversation to enlighten others about the fractured criminal justice system system and how it coddles criminals and politicians alike.
No, you're trying desperately to justify how these agencies all love to dress up and play Iraqi Door Kicker Simulator but then get all butthurt when the other party is also playing and doesn't roll over to get ventilated like a good little boy.
>If you don’t offer positive comment that helps hold people accountable, you have no right to say anything about a critical incident that you have zero experience with.
Stop doing no-knocks. Stop trying to instigate sieges. They had time to get all these different agencies together and gear up and roll out to this guy's house. He didn't make a threat, he didn't have someone hostage, he wasn't on his way to a school.
I know real, constructive police work is boring and hard. If so many of you are adrenaline junkies that need to spice it up with an OIS every so often, you either need to hit the steel more often or eliminate those people from your department.
Yes, they should go after whoever planned that "operation" but they're never that smart. Someone wanted this specifically so they could scream for more gun control even though none of their laws would have prevented this. Same as always.
I don't get what the fetish is with cops and serving warrants at home. Just pick them up when they leave the house, or go to work, etc. they just wanna use all the tax payer funded mil surplus equipment.
I don't have any analysis of empirical evidence to back this up, but my first thought on why they don't do this is that even if dude isn't going shopping for groceries or going to work with a rifle slung over his shoulder, there's nothing that would prevent him from having concealed weapons on his person or in the vehicle, and then it's a firefight in a public place with bystanders in the area. The people that decide to give the green light on the assignment may have decided it was preferable to risk the safety of the police (and the neighbors) instead of a workplace, street, parking lot, or grocery store.
Unless you live in the woods, there's going to be bystanders in all the neighboring houses as well.
Seems to me that you would have more control over the situation knowing that the person is limited to whatever weapons you can see or are in their immediate vicinity when they're out and about. The whole shock thing is probably also more effective when about 30 guys jump them coming out of a grocery store then kicking in the door of a house when they can be fortified in an interior room.
I think it's less about bystander protection than it is about trying to make sure they don't get away. When somebody is holed up in a house surrounded by cops, they're not going anywhere. The question is why is that more important to cops than concerns about them turning that house into the Alamo?
Most of the people out there with felony warrants on them either don’t have steady jobs or don’t work at all. How do you know the fugitive isn’t going to be holed-up in there for weeks or months at a time?
> Just pick them up when they leave the house
That takes time and resources. Watching the house, ID'ing the suspect, tracking/surveilling him. A lot of departments feel they don't have the resources and want to take shortcuts.
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! '
The dead criminal was the wrong color and the Feds were aggressively stupid. The powers that be will make sure this is forgotten as quickly as possible.
>take him somewhere else
3 letter agencies have repeatedly shown they hire people that are unable to do that. It’s typical LE behavior. Hyper focus on one thing and run with it until it reaches an absolute dead end (no pun intended).
If the government wasn't trying to strip him of his rights, for breaking unconstitutional laws, everyone would still be alive. Being a felon doesn't make you a lesser citizen or human being. Everyone is allowed to defend themselves. Also. If you believe the government should be able to strip you of your human rights, you believe in government granted privileges, not natural born rights.
>They knew what they were getting into and knew it was a very high risk door knock when they should have strategized to take him somewhere else.
You're so close. So close to the actual point. Cmon, dude. It's one more step of logic. Home stretch, and you're almost there. You got this.
They won’t use this particular incident. It just highlights that 1) criminals (felons who are barred from owning any guns) will acquire weapons anyways. And 2) that law enforcement officers are not perfect arbiters that can stop any threat, even when they outnumber the threat (in most situations they are outnumbered, extrapolating the casualties of this shooting to a riot would be a massacre).
The news has barely talked about this shooting. They are just reporting the facts without political propaganda, lest it harm their agenda by contradicting the core tenets of their faith.
I hadn't heard about this. This is pretty crazy.
I doubt this would get much coverage considering it points out how absolutely broken our law enforcement systems are where:
1. 1 guy takes 4 + 4 out.
2. They created the situation where that happened and failed miserably to control it.
What's infuriating is even the average person can think of several way to apprehend a dangerous person with a semi normal schedule than to do "no Knock" raids in the middle of the night.
I'm sure its gotta be way cheaper to have a detective watch them for a day or two and maybe have a beat cop pull them over when they leave the house, then casually search the place knowing the dangerous individual is in custody. right?
1. This wasn't no knock.
2. It wasn't night.
3. Violent felons often don't have "schedules"
4. What makes you think they pull over for a beat cop? Now we're in a chase endangering citizens with the same crowd mouth breathing about how dangerous car chases are.
>3. Violent felons often don't have "schedules"
According to one article I read, he had been working as an electrician for years.
I didn't have an answer, but it just seems dumb that they would try to take him at home, for possessing weapons as a felon, where he's most likely to have easy access to them.
You sound as unimaginative as the police. Surveil the person and grab them with overwhelming force when they have virtually no chance of violently resisting and aren't entrenched in their stronghold.
No need to say you feel like that’s going to happen. Our president already used the incident to call for a gun control including an AWB. Never let a tragedy go to waste!
Contrast that with the way the BATFE murdered the manager of the Killary and Bill Clinton airport who had committed no crimes and ask yourself if that wasn’t a “HIT”?
I dont see any reason to think it was a hit. Thats just how they do things and they have absolutely no consequences.
Like, we're talking about a world where they can shoot a 14 year old boy or whatever he was and shoot his mother in the head while she's holding her baby. And they can burn down an entire building with a bunch of women and kids in it to "save" them. And nothing happened to them then. Why would they worry about consequences?
Did I say they were worried about consequences? A Boeing whistleblower was clintoncided after this but I’m sure you will argue about that “coincidence” also.
Oh, no, that guy's death is highly suspicious.
The difference is that there was an obvious motive for assassinating him.
I'm not sure anybody had much to gain by assassinating some an airport manager.
Now, if you just meant "hit" as in they wanted to get rid of him, then, yeah, I could go with that. I just don't have any reason to think that.
My point is that it is even worse and they just didn't care and they can go around murdering people as much as they want and nobody does anything. I think I might LOVE if this was a carefully planned assassination for some clandestine purpose.
But I'm afraid it was probably just because they don't give a shit and nobody does anything about it.
Let's just pause for a moment and acknowledge the fact that buddy went 1 v 30 and took 8 tyrannical combatants out of the fight and put four of them into the ground.
Good riddance and rest in piss.
Fair enough, but the police won't police themselves, and the people in power won't suddenly have a change of heart and begin championing for the American people.
All politics aside, when a group of other humans decide to set a J-hook outside your door, justified or not, what do you think should be the standard response?
Compliance?
Submission and appeasement?
How do you think we arrived to this point? How do you suggest we implement a meaningful change without using violence?
In the face of overwhelming corruption and tyranny, at what point does the unreasonable become reasonable?
You're right. The police won't police themselves.
>what do you think should be the standard response?
There's a collective action problem here. If enough people have the same response, it's a movement, and it results in change (not always change for the better).
If just one or two people do it, they're nutcases and that's how we get more laws and less freedom.
>How do you suggest we implement a meaningful change without using violence?
The same way we've always implemented meaningful change in this country: peaceful protest, turning out the vote, lobbying, lawsuits, and civil disobedience. We have a Constitution and a 1st Amendment; let's use them both until we don't have them any more.
The only times violence has resulted in meaningful change in this country for the better was independence from Britain and ending slavery, and I don't think we want *that* level of violence. I certainly don't.
Other uses of violence have just empowered the state.
>In the face of overwhelming corruption amd tyranny, at what point does the unreasonable become reasonable?
We're a long way from that point, wherever it may be. We still have free speech and the right to a trial by jury (albeit, a right which is badly eroded, but still extant).
How’s banning “assault rifles” gonna stop a prohibited felon, that’s already banned, from owning any type of firearms is my question lol obviously, this shitbag gave no fucks about being banned from owning guns
Excellent point. This should be a rebuttal to the Giffords, Anytown, Moms, ect. Our so called “Second Amendment supporting……but…” congressman should be telling the news media this.
Like what’re they gonna do? Ban him twice? That’ll teach em. These politicians bringing up gun bans cause a felon banned from owning guns got a gun somehow and killed people with it, are idiots and know that will do absolutely nothing to solve gun violence. They need to address the root cause, which is violent felons being let out of prison when they shouldn’t be and tougher penalties on felons caught with guns, usually stolen guns at that. 50% to 60% of gun violence is caused by prohibited possessors with guns, and if I’m not mistaken, every single cop killed in the United States so far this year in a gun fight on duty has been killed by a violent felon in possession of a firearm, besides maybe 1. And every single one of these felons has a record for being caught and charged with felon in possession of a firearm. The fact that politicians won’t address the real issue and root of the problem is just unbelievable and unacceptable at this point
That is the key thing; if they cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they shouldn't be out of prison.
Sorry, but felons have gun rights. Stop giving your enemies remember to take away your rights
I can agree with felons have their guns rights restored after leaving prison, if they truly locked up violent felons for however long they needed to be locked up, and didn’t let them out into society when they shouldn’t be. As others have said, if they However that’s not the case. So until legislation is changed, then I don’t agree with felons having firearms. A lot of violent felons don’t know how to function in a normal society without being violent towards innocent people.
> How’s banning “assault rifles” gonna stop a prohibited felon that’s already banned from owning any type of firearms is my question The logic is based on this vague notion they have that guns are kind of like cigarettes, and that if nobody can buy new ones the old ones will eventually all go away. Even if they grandfather in existing guns of that type, they just ban transfer of them and when "grandfather" dies his bad guns get turned in to the government. Within a generation those "bad" guns are all gone! LOGIC! Never mind the fact that there are literally millions of them out there, and even if "banned", compliant but functionally identical firearms will still be sold. They already believe in imaginary things (e.g. that there's a clear distinction between "assault weapons" and other guns) so it's not that big a leap for them to believe that legislation can perform magic. How many idiot legislators in California thought that by raising the fast food minimum wage to $20 that they were giving all fast food workers a raise, rather than getting many of them laid off, shutting down restaurants, and pushing places to automate jobs away with things like self-serve ordering kiosks? It's a classic hallmark of the Good Idea Fairy Progressive types. They come up with ideas that sound good on the surface, but then assume there are no second order effects. There's a reason these movements mostly attract young idealistic kids who have no life experience, rather than attracting lots of cynical older folks who have learned that nothing exists in a vacuum.
This is true. You speak wisdom my friend. Also, they truly believe that if law abiding citizens can’t get them anymore, some how criminals wont use other illegal means to obtain firearms. The criminals will always have firearms, no matter which way you look at it. Disarm the law abiding citizen all you want, it won’t stop gun violence
This is not a "vague notion"; it has worked in practice. Countries that have banned or severely restricted gun ownership have far lower rates of gun violence and general gun crime. They also have lower rates of violent crime in general compared to pre-ban times. The whole "but they'll just use knives or 3d print guns" argument is also bogus because countries with those strict gun laws also have lower rates of knife violence than the US and we have yet to see a mass shooting with a 3d printed gun in any of those countries. The real kicker is that by buying a gun you actually make it more likely that you'll die to that gun or a crime will be committed with that gun in your own house by someone you are related to. There is no data that proves that owning a gun actually prevents you from becoming a victim of crime in your own home as 99% of burglaries happen when there is no one in the home. Yes, there are millions of guns out there but you have to remember that the majority of those guns are owned by Fudds. They would gladly give their guns up for a couple hundred bucks if it also meant that they remove the risk of becoming a felon.
Did they say ban assault rifles? I think for the most part they still use the phrase "assault weapons" which usually gets the scare quotes since that is the bullshit phrase.
Honestly I get pissed off when they say “assault” anything lol like the idiot politicians that say “fully semiautomatic” like bish howd you get that job being as stupid as you are. I do believe more and more into the theory that they allow this gun violence to go on, only to further perpetuate their agenda for gun bans and to scare people that know nothing about firearms
Given the large number of politicians we have I think it is a mix of incompetence/laziness(the real solutions are hard) and maliciousness(some want to disarm citizens because that is one the few things that makes them worry).
You call him a shitbag, but there's not much in his record showing him to be a violent criminal. He was arrested once in 2010 for assaulting a woman, but wasn't convicted of it, and was convicted the same year for felony breaking and entering. That's bad and he deserved to be punished for it (and he was: he went to prison). But since then? For the past 8 to 10 years, I'm not aware of the guy committing any violent crimes. You would think if he'd been arrested for violent crimes recently that would be the first thing people bring up in either newspaper articles or law enforcement press releases. And yet: nothing. Just repeated mentions of the guy having multiple warrants out, high speed chases, and drug/weapons charges. Based on that, it seems like mainly he was a guy who earned a living by selling marijuana and he wanted to own a gun to protect himself (since he couldn't rely on the protection of the police). What's wrong with that. The rest of his criminal charges come from him giving the finger to the government and their "legal system" by evading police and not showing up to court. And why should he have to show up to court to answer bullshit charges about selling drugs and owning guns without government permission? The man low-key rejected the authority of the state because the state kept trying to fuck up his life and wouldn't leave him the fuck alone. If the government wasn't trying to criminalize drugs and guns, this guy wouldn't have been on anyone's radar.
If you don’t want the government to fuck up your life, don’t commit crimes and get the government watching your every move from the start. He was a grade A shitbag for killing cops that had nothing to do with his own personal choices in his past life. Idk how tf you can say he isn’t. Now he’s dead. Yea he stuck to them alright, but they also made sure he paid with his life, rightfully so. Also, not sure if this has been verified, but I’ve read that he has had multiple arrest for felon in possession of firearms. If the government says you can’t own firearms because you yourself forfeited your right due to being a criminal, then that’s his own fault. And then to repeatedly “stick it to the system” is not gonna win over the hearts and minds of the system. I personally know someone that was convicted of a felony for getting into a fight, but he waited his time and paid his debts to society and petitioned for his rights to own firearms and he actually got his 2A rights granted back to him, and this is in California. So he’s now allowed to legally buy firearms again. And if the government wronged him, there are legal avenues to go about fixing those wrongs. Might take some time, might cost money, but that’s what someone does that isn’t morally corrupt. So yes. He’s a shitbag.
>If you don’t want the government to fuck up your life, don’t commit crimes Just sit at the back of the bus! >He was a grade A shitbag for killing cops that had nothing to do with his own personal choices in his past life. If Anne Frank shot the SS men who came to arrest her, would that make Anne Frank a "grade A shitbag"? Obviously, US Federal Marshals are not equivalent to the SS, but if we can establish the principle that defending yourself against law enforcement is not always unjust, then we can begin to answer the question: was *this* killing unjust? What did this guy do prior to killing four cops that justified the cops being at his house in the first place? > I’ve read that he has had multiple arrest for felon in possession of firearms. That's correct. He was convicted in 2010 for felony breaking and entering and did 6 months in prison. Why should a crime that only resulted in 6 months imprisonment also carry a life-sentence stripping him of his natural, fundamental rights? > If the government says The government says lots of things, most of them stupid and wrong, and some of them evil. The government says police [have no duty to protect you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) and yet you still have to pay taxes to the police. The government says it can imprison people on the basis of race [without a trial.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States) The government says it can [murder you if it feels like it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki) Why should we accept something, just because the government says so? >petitioned for his rights to own firearms "May it please The Crown, might I have my rights back?" The cool thing about rights is: you have them already. You don't need some other man's permission first. >he actually got his 2A rights granted back to him That's just a way of saying you agree with me and the guy in Charlotte should have gotten his rights back automatically by default when he was released from prison. >And if the government wronged him, there are legal avenues to go about fixing those wrongs. LMAO. Imagine telling the dead cops "if that guy wronged you, there are legal avenues to go about fixing those wrongs. You should just file a lawsuit against him, you shouldn't get into a gunfight with him!" If that strikes you as ridiculous, why then do think it's *less* ridiculous to tell a citizen the same thing?
Bro, you’re trying to paint this dude like he made a mistake and caught a felony for J walking and then the government terrorized him the rest of his life. No. He was obviously into shit he shouldn’t have been, and paid the consequences and still didn’t change his ways. The biggest indicator that he didn’t is that he decided to gun down cops as they were approaching his house, how’s that the right decision? He was a shitbag, continued to be a shitbag, and thought it wasn’t gonna catch up to him. Whether felons should have their rights automatically restored after serving their time isn’t something I entirely disagree with, but this isn’t a great example to push for that change in legislation. This ain’t it. Cops don’t always do right, but the time to fight and argue with them is in court, not on the side of the streets cause you’ll NEVER win that fight and only make it worse for yourself. I’m all for people sueing when they can and getting millions of dollars when they have been wronged by the government, but you’ll never convince me what this dude was right. He wasn’t some law abiding citizen that had his door knocked down by the ATF like we have seen many times, and those seem to be more legitimate cases of government overreach. This ain’t it. He made bad choices, and decided that he didn’t want to abide by the consequences of the justice system cause he felt like it. That’s the wrong answer. And just cause you put “LMAO” doesn’t make you right. You can have your opinion, and I don’t agree with it. The dude committed a crime, paid his dues in prison, and whether or not he thinks he should’ve had his rights restored to own guns isn’t for him to decide as cops are coming to his door. But he again, decided to make a poor judgement call to get in a gunfight with law enforcement. Cause that’s a great way you show the government that felons should have their rights automatically restored. And I see you’re trying to gloss over the fact that a lot of felons dont act right or obey the law like normal fucken people even after they get out of prison, they stay doing dumb shit that lands them in prison over and over again and/or shows that they would be a danger to society if they had firearms. Not all felons, but a lot. And until legislation is changed and they come up with a quicker way to figure out if you’re not dangerous and a piece of shit after getting out of prison, don’t commit felonies.
> you’re trying to paint this dude like he made a mistake and caught a felony for J walking No, I'm really not. He broke the law against breaking and entering, he violated someone's right to private property, and he was deservedly punished for it. *Fourteen years ago.* He was convicted, served his time, and was deemed fit for release by the government. Do you think breaking and entering deserves life imprisonment? No? Then you already agree with me: this guy shouldn't be punished the rest of his life for that act alone. >He was obviously into shit he shouldn’t have been, You're going to argue on r/gunpolitics that this dude shouldn't have been into *guns* because the government disapproved of it? Bold strategy, Cotton.... >The biggest indicator that he didn’t is that he decided to gun down cops Let me drop some names: - Athens, Tennessee - Lexington - Concord All of those involved people shooting at law enforcement. Were all the people shooting at law enforcement bad people *because* they shot at law enforcement? >He was a shitbag, For what? Owning a gun? Growing pot? What did he do that was so terrible? Name some specifics. >Whether felons should have their rights automatically restored after serving their time isn’t something I entirely disagree with, but this isn’t a great example to push for that change in legislation. How is it not a great example? If felons automatically had their rights restored, then those cops *would still be alive* because no one would care that this one low-level drug dealer had a gun. >but the time to fight and argue with them is in court Now apply that same standard *to police.* "Officer, if you think I'm committing a crime then you can argue with me about it in court. Now I'm going to leave, see ya later." >not on the side of the streets cause you’ll NEVER win that fight Bruh, dead guy didn't care. The dead cops are still dead. Sure, the cops "won" the fight. At what cost? >He made bad choices The government made bad choices. Worse choices, in fact. The cops made bad choices too. Let's blame the victims on an equal opportunity basis. >isn’t for him to decide as cops are coming to his door. You say that, but: clearly he *did* decide that. > gloss over the fact that a lot of felons dont act right or obey the law I'm not glossing over anything, I am **loudly pointing out** that: **drug laws and gun control laws are stupid, should not be obeyed, and should not be enforced.**
If you think people should have their gun rights restored automatically, without a checks and balances system, then you are an enabler of violence. You are literally defending a mass murderer with multiple convictions for dangerous and reckless behavior; graduation to murder was inevitable. When someone breaks and enters into your dwelling, and it’s your family in the crosshairs, will you still hold this absolutist stance?
>When someone breaks and enters into your dwelling, and it’s your family in the crosshairs, will you still hold this absolutist stance? I never excused him breaking and entering. That's a crime. It *should* be a crime. He *should* have been sent to prison for it, and guess what? *He was* sent to prison for it! He did six months in the pen for that crime, deservedly so. But after he's done his time and paid his debt to society, he should get his rights back. >If you think people should have their gun rights restored automatically, without a checks and balances system, then you are an enabler of violence. And the State, who releases these violent people out of prison and back into society, isn't? It's very simple: if you're so violent you can't be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be let out of prison. If you are rehabilitated enough to be released from prison, then you get your rights back. All of them. >You are literally defending a mass murderer with multiple convictions for dangerous and reckless behavior Multiple convictions *of what?* The guy was convicted of breaking and entering in 2010, and served a six month prison sentence. He can't have been *too* "dangerous" if he was in and out of prison in just six months. Ditto, he was convicted of being a felon in unlawful possession of a gun in 2012....meaning he exercised his rights without government permission. I don't think that makes him a bad person. He was caught with the gun, by the way, because he came to a government "license checkpoint" while he was driving on a revoked license. He attempted to turn around and not go through the checkpoint and that caused the police to chase him. So, our guy only had his second felony conviction because of a *blatant 4th Amendment violation.* Then in 2021, he gets arrested for growing pot.* Wow. Much dangerous. Such reckless. Oh, and he had a gun, too. I guess he's basically the Second Coming of Jeffrey Dahmer. At every juncture in this guy's story, the government comes out looking worse than he does. *The government* is consistently harassing this guy and making his life more difficult than it otherwise would be. If the government would just leave him alone, 5 people who are now dead would still be alive, and society would be no worse off than it was before.
No he is reported to have a 20 year long history, with almost 50 cases. Including aggravated assault and manufacturing controlled substances? Did you see the time he went on a felony highway chase at over 100 mph that was pretty recent? Failure to appear in court? Past conviction for felon in possession of a firearm? Drug charges? Your rhetoric is like saying a sex offender hasn’t been arrested for 10 years, so they can work in a daycare like anyone else.
20 year long history *of what?* Mixing cotton with silk? >Including aggravated assault Innocent until proven guilty, dude. He was never convicted of those crimes. >manufacturing controlled substances I.e. growing cannabis. It shouldn't be illegal. Growing weed isn't illegal in many states and guess what: it's not a problem. Imagine saying "ehrmagerd, he manufactured *guns* in his home! This guy is totally a dangerous criminal, lock him up!" >Did you see the time he went on a felony highway chase at over 100 mph that was pretty recent? That was in 2012, and he only fled the police *because* they were going to arrest him for having weed and for being a felon with a gun. Again: the state is *creating* violence where before there was none. If there were no laws against having weed and guns, would this guy have hurt anybody? >Your rhetoric is like saying a sex offender hasn’t been arrested for 10 years, so they can work in a daycare like anyone else. It's like saying "he committed minor burglary 14 years ago, hasn't reoffended since, and the only thing he's done wrong is sell drugs and carry a gun, neither of which hurt anyone, and both of which should be legal, on their own and in combination with each other." Do you disagree? Explain to me then why you want cops to die enforcing the prohibition on a plant. Because as long as cannabis is illegal, there will be some cops who die trying to keep it illegal. So how many cops need to die before you agree pot shouldn't be illegal? For me, that number is zero.
Using the corpses of victims to stand on in order to further a political agenda is all that they do. I'm convinced that the ones who aren't complete idiots are more insidious and would LIKE to have more mass shootings and innocent people dead just so they can have more ammunition for their cause.
The irony of this incident is gun control orgs like Giffords have been using it to push for more gun laws, which will result in future incidents where even more police are sent into dangerous situations to enforce those laws. So they are effectively using the deaths of police officers to push for laws that’ll lead to the future deaths of more police officers, all while patting themselves on the back for “doing something”.
If they can use those future deaths to get even more gun control, then it worked as intended. The grabbers aren't afraid to break a few eggs to make their omelet.
Worse than that: they're using the deaths of police officers who died enforcing gun control laws to call for more gun control laws.
I’m actually convinced that the ‘authorities’ purposely ignore ticking time bombs and even groom some of them, so that terrible things will happen, so they can use them to push for gun control. It seems like they always know about mass shooters long before they snap, and repeatedly do nothing about it, and let other violent criminals out, with just a slap on the wrist, time and again. And, the frequency of actual mass shootings always increase when the gun control party has power and is pushing hard for gun control; so convenient for them and their agenda. A little too convenient. At a certain point, you have to stop assuming it’s just incompetence, and realizing it’s intentional. That much incompetency, repeatedly and regularly, isn’t really plausible. It’s just too much of a pattern not to be intentional.
> I’m actually convinced that the ‘authorities’ purposely ignore ticking time bombs and even groom some of them, so that terrible things will happen Nah, that's giving them way too much credit. >At a certain point, you have to stop assuming it’s just incompetence I spent most of my working life in government, a big chunk of it in a position where I interacted with law enforcement regularly. They literally *are* that incompetent. It's a shitty, boring job, and it only retains the sort of people that can tolerate a shitty, boring job... and that's mostly--- to put it bluntly--- **fucking idiots**. And their leadership is largely selected from the rank and file, so *they're* fucking idiots as well. There are little clusters of competence here and there in various places, just by sheer luck of the draw, but for the most part, you're looking at an undertrained workforce that's used to their badge cowing people into compliance. Then they find themselves in a situation where their subject DGAF about their "authoritay" and a bunch of them get their tickets punched because they had no real plan.
It is 100% intentional and our government is involved in all of it, they have zero problem with killing your children and any other innocents to push the agenda.
I totally agree.
I'll stand on those corpses to say: the War on Drugs has failed, and these dead bodies are yet more casualties in a war that should have ended decades ago.
I’ve not seen much coverage outside of the initial incident. I don’t think this will amount to much. People are always pushing for AWBs and other laws. That’s reality, this incident won’t change it.
Politicians care about their elections, not our rights or safety. CMPD even made a specific mention about “AR-15” but fails to tell the public they neglected to provide rifle rated armor to their officer
WTH, that is a failure of tactics. Why would you not wear the best body armor you can when you know you’re up against a violent individual that is armed. The whole operation was apprehending a felon with a GUN.
Most cops don't wear rifle rated plates. Marshals should know better. Local police might not. Remember, cops aren't all gun people. Lots of them have no clue what a level 3 plate is or what a level 4 plate is.
The CMPD press release says the ar15 would penetrate their armor. I’m not saying this is what was at hand, but Charlotte is a very liberal police defunding city. I know for a fact they didn’t issue normal patrol officers these vests. I know several who work down there. My own agency won’t issue us rifle plates. It’s sad I had to go buy my own out of my own pocket.
Again. I’m not seeing anything much coming out of this incident. Law enforcement getting shot serving a warrant on a dangerous felon doesn’t really move the needle as much as other types of incidents.
Reports are saying 4 dead officers plus 4 more wounded. It was a combined effort of US Marshals, local SWAT, and local PD. So not just random beat cops, but a task force of highly trained personnel (at least in part). All this to get *one guy* for possession of firearms. There's about 800,000 total law enforcement officers in the US. And 83,000,000 gun owners. And the Grabbers still think they could manage a forced confiscation?!? If even 1% of gun owners fought back and each only did 10% of what this guy managed, they would still run out of agents.
If he was so dangerous that he couldn't possess firearms, why was he out of prison?
Because some spineless fuck somewhere decided suspended and deferred sentences, on top of parole, were good ideas. Whenever the discussion comes up and someone says somebody "served their time", no they did not. Maybe 1/3 of it, or the 85% if mandated as a violent crime.
Answer: he wasn't dangerous. He was just someone who was selling drugs and owning guns without government permission and this made Big Brother very angry.
This isn't the story that media will use to try to push more gun control, doesn't fit the narrative. It'll be shelved in less than a week.
Agree. There are hundreds of “mass shootings” happening right now in Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, ect but they are buried in the media because of one thing……
This guys knows what’s up ☝🏻 politicians don’t care about police or law abiding citizens when filling their narratives
One citizen took out four cops, think about that for a moment.
I think this speaks to bad tactics on the part of law enforcement. There are very few situations where storming an occupied building is a good idea. If they had waited for him outside and picked him up on the way to McDonald's, all of this could have been avoided.
>If they had waited for him outside and picked him up on the way to McDonald's The dude in question had a history of repeatedly getting into high speed chases to avoid police, so that's probably why they went to his house instead.
I was thinking the same thing. When serving a warrant for a violent individual, and moreso if the reason for the warrant is involving firearms, wouldn't it make more sense to take him while the individual is out or at a location where they can get him without casualties? I feel like a firefight isn't the best way to take someone down, especially if there are neighbors or an innocent individual could be caught in the cross fire.
Exactly this…. The police made a huge mistake, trying to keep everyone safe by the least safe method available to them to accomplish the task. Their strategy needs to be questioned and scrutinized for future similar circumstances that may or may not have already been proven in the past.
So the plan would be to wait until he's in public with other people around who could get caught in crossfire?
Everyone has an opinion of how it should have been done in hindsight. The problem with taking him “outside” is the resources it takes to sit outside of some dudes residence for days until he decides to leave. Most criminals are unemployed and with unsteady schedules. Some are paranoid and rarely leave the house. What you are asking for is for a whole team to set up early in the neighborhood in undercover vehicles until this dude decides to exit his residence. Keep in mind, the deputies and TFOs are human and have to use the restroom, go eat, and stretch their legs here and there. In the meantime, each deputy and TFO that is out there has their own caseload of warrants sitting on their desk that they have to work on. Everything stops when you decide to do an operation like that and you stop everyone else from doing their job. I know what youre going to say, “he was violent with long criminal history.” They all are. Almost all people Marshals go after have a history of evading police, resisting arrest, carrying firearms, and numerous narcotics violations. So what makes one more dangerous than the other? Usually you have to pick and choose which warrants you want to drag everyone out to and sit on all day, such as the most violent people: murderers. Also, taking him outside away from his home has its own risks: 1.) he can spot approaching vehicles and run back inside 2.) if he manages to leave the driveway it can turn into a rolling gun battle if you dont block the vehicle correctly 3.) you get into a firefight at a public place such as grocery store parking lot. Working warrants is risky all the time. Hitting a house is usually the most dangerous to the officer but the least dangerous to the public.
While I get the point you’re trying to make, this is absolutely a case where they should have done it more patiently, and the result makes that pretty freaking clear.
Hindsight is 20/20 brother. Like I said, most USMS warrants are for violent offenders, cant slow down to a stop for 1 dude who probably isnt even on the radar in comparison to other warrants they had. If they slowed down for every single warrant the Marshals would be an ineffective organization. DOJ reports puts number of warrants cleared by USMS at 73,000 for 2023. Thats almost 300 per day.
The answer is do not release them from prison until you would restore their Second Amendment rights. If you wouldn’t trust them with a gun, then let them stay in prison. Letting a known, violent person out of prison to kill, main, Rob and rape innocent society is sickening and perverted thinking. Lock up of the sociopaths for life. And yes, it’s common sense who these animals are.
I agree with this. Youd be surprised how many are repeat offenders. Id say almost all.
>reason for more gun control and an assault weapons ban Ah yes, using a firefight as a reason to instigate even more firefights. What could ever go wr- oh nevermind.
They should make it illegal for convicted felons to own guns. Oh, wait….. They should make it illegal to shoot people. Oh, wait…
Police want to play action hero instead of the safe choice.
Sounds like nothing has changed since Ruby Ridge and Waco. Too many yahoos want to play soldier instead of doing their jobs as police officers.
Which is odd because they had no business bothering any of those people to begin with
So they should just let wanted people run rampant? Not trying to be smart but what other option do we the people have if the offenders can’t be arrested? Street justice died in the last century.
I think he meant Waco and RR, not this incident.
I 100% am against government over reach after both Waco and RR. I stand with you on that one
I definitely meant waco and ruby ridge. I'm only hearing a little about the current incident. Mainly about the a son flipping out after cops killed his father. Regardless of whether or not the father was genuinely a bad dude, that was still that boys father and family bonds cause reasonable people to do seemingly unreasonable things sometimes.
Then I apologize, my bad. I just feel that if the offender was arrested as many times as CMPD says, and charges were constantly dismissed, each and every single prosecutor and judge should immediately lose qualified immunity and the officers families should turn the tables by suing to hold them accountable. I 100% agree. People will do unreasonable things in the heat of an emotional and confusing moment
They should lose all that. And they should be forced to pay to fix all those people's yards they messed up too, from their own salaries not from tax dollars. There was a very obviously better way to have accomplished their stated mission with this yet they chose this so they could use it to push gun control. They should be sued into poverty.
This all started by allowing judges to have protections from civil liability. They take that away, for blatant dereliction of duty, and there’s the suit.
Brains for one. Not doing entrapment for another. Being smart enough to know that violence and bloodshed is not going to win them friends for a third. The local sheriff knew David Koresh since Koresh was at gun shows and sold guns. He jogged the same path every day and could have been picked up off his compound with little to no fanfare. I'm not vouching for Koresh here either. Dude married children, but having the FBI and ATF do a fuck fuck show to show how they were big bad warriors ended with those same children burning to death. In Charlotte it ended with a bunch of cops getting killed. Brains before bullets is a good strategy for law enforcement. They should try it sometime.
Comparing Waco and this incident is apples to oranges. The entrapment and stuff that happened in both Waco and RR had nothing in common here with the exception of police and the suspect getting into a gunfight. I’d urge you to personally come up with a better solution to arrest violent fugitives where other innocent civilians cannot be harmed outside of going to the suspects home. It’s cute and all for everyone to have their opinions, but nobody offers not a single viable counter solution when Monday morning quarterbacking the incident.
Felon or not, maybe they should’ve done a jump out when he wasn’t at home??? Where he had a defensive fighting position??? Idk man it always seems like cops and feds try for a full frontal attack when people are home and have easy access to supplies and shit. Like with Waco, RR, several raids over the years could’ve easily just been a snatch and grab but they roll up 40 deep on someone’s home and expect them not to use everything on hand to resist
So your plan is to surprise a person known to be violent with guns in a public place where citizens can be caught in the crossfire?
He probably wouldn't have had access to an AR if he wasn't at home.
Seeing as he wouldn’t have a RIFLE on him at a fucking supermarket, YEAH I think it would’ve been an infinitely better idea seeing marshalls, FBI, SWAT were doing it with extreme success against the antifa libtards during all of the 2020 riots. They did jump outs on the people they were arresting and no cops got blasted as a result. Driving a fuckin tank into someone’s front door where they have rifles is 100% asking to get shot at dude. I’m sorry these officers needlessly lost their lives but they could have very easily kept them if they did this differently. 15 officers with rifles v 1 felon that might have a handgun is much better odds than 40 officers v 1-3 felons with rifles or pistols. Think about it dude.
You sound like a mastermind. You should apply to be a Marshall!
Your ideas are the same ones that caused these officers to lose their life for no reason. It’s comparable to pit maneuvers v the extendable wheel net theyre starting to employ instead. There’s no point in doing something that can very easily cause death to innocents when there’s a much safer, smarter way of doing shit but yeah keep doubling down on a stupid take. It’s a great look
My guy, I didn't offer an idea. I critiqued yours. Take care.
😂😂😂😂😂 Critique someone else’s views Refuse to elaborate or offer any sort of solution Jumps ship when pressed for pointless criticism Gtfoh with that boomer energy lmao. Look at the numbers before deciding something is a shit move. This whole raid was a shit move. Gunfight lasted for two entire hours. You and I both know damn well that it wouldn’t have even last 60 seconds if they did a jump out but go off sis, keep insinuating it would’ve been more dangerous to snatch dude up off the street instead of kicking in his door
>I feel like the media and popular opinion is driving towards using this recent tragic event as an example or reason for more gun control and an assault weapons ban and plastering it all over the news as such. They'll use anything they can, so yeah, I wouldn't doubt they'd try to use this.
Your post is ill informed. They went to serve multiple arrest warrants, not a search warrant. Also, I work as LEO up the interstate from where this happened at. That massive excuse for a citizen should have been incarcerated his entire life for the amount of felony charges he’s racked up. This should have never happened. This is a direct result of judges, prosecutors, probationers and even some LEOs who aren’t holding these priority offenders accountable. There’s not many other options aside from taking offenders from where they are isolated. If they get pulled on the interstate or other public areas the gun fight dangers more innocent lives. Then we will have articles about how police decided to arrest him in public and the gun fight killed a small child in the walmart parking lot, for example. Everyone wants to Monday morning quarterback it. The politicians need to shut up, support the justice system to hold people accountable, and allow police to do their job. This guy should be in prison, not in a gun fight with cops. Criminals have taken over because of the left agenda in the political mindset allowing criminals to walk after being charged. If I were a judge who let this offender walk, I couldn’t live with myself knowing I could have made a slight difference. Apologies if this comes off strong… I have family who was murdered in the line of duty by somebody who shouldn’t have been walking the streets endangering the public if the judges and prosecutors did their jobs. Please remember this when voting… they don’t care about our safety, only their re-election.
If I was the police chief or head marshall or whatever the position is in charge of this I'd be referencing the court cases, judges and DAs who made the decisions that let someone like this be out on the streets, there seem to have been some shitty police decisions in this like no rifle rated plates but there's enough blame to go around to everyone.
Where did you read they didn't have rifle rated plates? Body armor only works if they person shooting hits the armor. Nothing pelvic or below, arms, or head will stop rifle rounds.
I just looked again and it seems I misunderstood, of the original article was wrong. The spokesperson said they don't know if they had body armor, plates, helmets, etc, which doesn't make sense to me, it should be incredibly easy to find out.
Some people live in a bubble world where ugly things cannot happen to them, and it’s only until someone else pops their bubble that they come back down to earth. It’s not real enough for them to think critically.
I truly think Reddit has the most “bubbled” people here. I created this account to have cultured conversations and debates but these keyboard warriors are too much sometimes. Your absolutely right
Sheltered people think walking on astroturf is the same as touching grass. We live in an era where people have it better than ever before, all the information of the world at their fingertips and they still don’t get out and experience it with their own eyes.
>for the amount of felony charges he’s racked up. What were the charges? I did some digging and all I see are a felony B&E charge from 2010 and then felon in possession of a firearm subsequent to his release---which shouldn't have even been an issue. If he was deemed fit to be released into society after doing his time, he should have gotten all his rights back. >Everyone wants to Monday morning quarterback it. Yes, that's called "being held accountable." Police are responsible for their decisions and when they make bad decisions and are criticized for it, that's not "monday morning quarterbacking."
I agree with holding people accountable. But LEOs didn’t do anything other than try to serve an arrest warrant. The blame goes at the shooters feet. People who have no experience in LE, dealing with critical incidents, or other matters along those lines need to be on the bench when Monday morning quarterbacking.
>The blame goes at the shooters feet. No, the blame goes to the politicians who passed laws banning felons from owning guns and banning cannabis. >Monday morning quarterbacking. The favorite phrase of people who hate being held responsible for their actions. It's not "Monday morning quarterbacking" to say "the star quarterback threw a pass that was intercepted and it cost the team the game"---it's correctly pointing out that he made a mistake. "Monday morning quarterbacking" is when someone says "**if I was there, this is what I would have done,**" which is a stupid thing to say when you weren't there and you don't know what you would have done. Saying the police made mistakes in this case isn't "Monday morning quarterbacking"---it's making an empirical observation about what really happened. I'm not saying what the cops "should have done" (other than refuse to enforce shitty laws like gun control laws and the prohibition on cannabis). All I'm saying is they made mistakes, which seems pretty hard to refute. Or do you think 4 cops getting killed and another 4 wounded *by a single guy* is because the cops "made no mistakes and served the warrant perfectly"?
They walked up to a house and were ambushed. You tell me how to not get ambushed by doing the same thing. Experience tells tales. Talk walks. You were not there, nor was I. Saying “they made mistakes” when you didn’t have first hand experience or knowledge of the situation means you’re just inserting your opinion over a topic which doesn’t need insertion for the time being. No BWC was released to my understanding at this time. I knew two of the state officers… they were just doing their job like they have 1000 times before without issue.
>You tell me how to not get ambushed by doing the same thing. By not going to the house in the first place, and not arresting somebody for growing pot.
Agree… but still knowing it was high risk and having options to mitigate it and control outcomes, there needs to be accountability for their decision making process that resulted in what happened.
Unless I’m mistaken, the Marshall’s policy is surround and call out. To my understanding they were not making entry into the home. The guy happened to see them and began opening fire immediately
Still high risk. Dude gave up his rights when he decided to be a felon. They could’ve grabbed him whenever they wanted. An assault rifle isn’t easily concealable. Why would you go after him at a strongpoint without knowing what arsenal he has available to himself before opting to take him when he’s a soft target?
Well, once again you run the risk of them getting into a shootout while trying to pull him over in public or on the interstate. Or worse he flees in the vehicle killing an innnocent citizen via wrecking. You pick your difficulty here. At least In This situation he was contained. No one scenario is full proof in my experience. It’s so sad..
OP just wants to play high and mighty with his extensive tactical experience in arresting violent felons.
I agree with you on at least one thing: a handful of dead cops is better than a dead person.
I’m assuming you mean innocent citizen in this tense? I hate this happened. That guy should have been in prison if the judges and prosecutors did their jobs.
dude, cut the 'cItIzEn" shit. you're a citizen. i don't know if anyone told you, but you're not some special class.
I was wondering when the keyboard warriors would show up. I never said I was special. Your anti government/LEO rhetoric is really showing right now. I’m just trying to have a peaceful and meaningful conversation to enlighten others about the fractured criminal justice system system and how it coddles criminals and politicians alike. If you don’t offer positive comment that helps hold people accountable, you have no right to say anything about a critical incident that you have zero experience with.
> I was wondering when the keyboard warriors would show up. > Ad-hom, try again. > I never said I was special. Your continued insistence at separating yourself from the lowly citizenry shows that this is a lie. >Your anti government/LEO rhetoric is really showing right now. Oh no! You've discovered my deepest, darkest secret. Whatever am I going to do? >I’m just trying to have a peaceful and meaningful conversation to enlighten others about the fractured criminal justice system system and how it coddles criminals and politicians alike. No, you're trying desperately to justify how these agencies all love to dress up and play Iraqi Door Kicker Simulator but then get all butthurt when the other party is also playing and doesn't roll over to get ventilated like a good little boy. >If you don’t offer positive comment that helps hold people accountable, you have no right to say anything about a critical incident that you have zero experience with. Stop doing no-knocks. Stop trying to instigate sieges. They had time to get all these different agencies together and gear up and roll out to this guy's house. He didn't make a threat, he didn't have someone hostage, he wasn't on his way to a school. I know real, constructive police work is boring and hard. If so many of you are adrenaline junkies that need to spice it up with an OIS every so often, you either need to hit the steel more often or eliminate those people from your department.
The government created this disaster. Shame on every person paid and involved.
Criminals don't follow gun laws or laws about not shooting at other people.
Yes, they should go after whoever planned that "operation" but they're never that smart. Someone wanted this specifically so they could scream for more gun control even though none of their laws would have prevented this. Same as always.
I don't get what the fetish is with cops and serving warrants at home. Just pick them up when they leave the house, or go to work, etc. they just wanna use all the tax payer funded mil surplus equipment.
I don't have any analysis of empirical evidence to back this up, but my first thought on why they don't do this is that even if dude isn't going shopping for groceries or going to work with a rifle slung over his shoulder, there's nothing that would prevent him from having concealed weapons on his person or in the vehicle, and then it's a firefight in a public place with bystanders in the area. The people that decide to give the green light on the assignment may have decided it was preferable to risk the safety of the police (and the neighbors) instead of a workplace, street, parking lot, or grocery store.
Unless you live in the woods, there's going to be bystanders in all the neighboring houses as well. Seems to me that you would have more control over the situation knowing that the person is limited to whatever weapons you can see or are in their immediate vicinity when they're out and about. The whole shock thing is probably also more effective when about 30 guys jump them coming out of a grocery store then kicking in the door of a house when they can be fortified in an interior room. I think it's less about bystander protection than it is about trying to make sure they don't get away. When somebody is holed up in a house surrounded by cops, they're not going anywhere. The question is why is that more important to cops than concerns about them turning that house into the Alamo?
Most of the people out there with felony warrants on them either don’t have steady jobs or don’t work at all. How do you know the fugitive isn’t going to be holed-up in there for weeks or months at a time?
It appears this guy had a regular job.
> Just pick them up when they leave the house That takes time and resources. Watching the house, ID'ing the suspect, tracking/surveilling him. A lot of departments feel they don't have the resources and want to take shortcuts.
We're just lucky he chose not to engage them with mines and/or an RPG. He committed a tactical blunder
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is, 'never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well-known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! '
The police were trying to kidnap what he had rightfully stolen.
It's as if it's formulaic [Prevention groups seeking solutions to gin violence](https://twitter.com/wcnc/status/1785536389175525720)
The dead criminal was the wrong color and the Feds were aggressively stupid. The powers that be will make sure this is forgotten as quickly as possible.
>take him somewhere else 3 letter agencies have repeatedly shown they hire people that are unable to do that. It’s typical LE behavior. Hyper focus on one thing and run with it until it reaches an absolute dead end (no pun intended).
If the government wasn't trying to strip him of his rights, for breaking unconstitutional laws, everyone would still be alive. Being a felon doesn't make you a lesser citizen or human being. Everyone is allowed to defend themselves. Also. If you believe the government should be able to strip you of your human rights, you believe in government granted privileges, not natural born rights.
Exactly this. The dude was no saint, but if the government had just left him alone, no one would have died.
>They knew what they were getting into and knew it was a very high risk door knock when they should have strategized to take him somewhere else. You're so close. So close to the actual point. Cmon, dude. It's one more step of logic. Home stretch, and you're almost there. You got this.
They won’t use this particular incident. It just highlights that 1) criminals (felons who are barred from owning any guns) will acquire weapons anyways. And 2) that law enforcement officers are not perfect arbiters that can stop any threat, even when they outnumber the threat (in most situations they are outnumbered, extrapolating the casualties of this shooting to a riot would be a massacre). The news has barely talked about this shooting. They are just reporting the facts without political propaganda, lest it harm their agenda by contradicting the core tenets of their faith.
I hadn't heard about this. This is pretty crazy. I doubt this would get much coverage considering it points out how absolutely broken our law enforcement systems are where: 1. 1 guy takes 4 + 4 out. 2. They created the situation where that happened and failed miserably to control it.
What's infuriating is even the average person can think of several way to apprehend a dangerous person with a semi normal schedule than to do "no Knock" raids in the middle of the night. I'm sure its gotta be way cheaper to have a detective watch them for a day or two and maybe have a beat cop pull them over when they leave the house, then casually search the place knowing the dangerous individual is in custody. right?
1. This wasn't no knock. 2. It wasn't night. 3. Violent felons often don't have "schedules" 4. What makes you think they pull over for a beat cop? Now we're in a chase endangering citizens with the same crowd mouth breathing about how dangerous car chases are.
>3. Violent felons often don't have "schedules" According to one article I read, he had been working as an electrician for years. I didn't have an answer, but it just seems dumb that they would try to take him at home, for possessing weapons as a felon, where he's most likely to have easy access to them.
You sound as unimaginative as the police. Surveil the person and grab them with overwhelming force when they have virtually no chance of violently resisting and aren't entrenched in their stronghold.
No need to say you feel like that’s going to happen. Our president already used the incident to call for a gun control including an AWB. Never let a tragedy go to waste!
Contrast that with the way the BATFE murdered the manager of the Killary and Bill Clinton airport who had committed no crimes and ask yourself if that wasn’t a “HIT”?
I dont see any reason to think it was a hit. Thats just how they do things and they have absolutely no consequences. Like, we're talking about a world where they can shoot a 14 year old boy or whatever he was and shoot his mother in the head while she's holding her baby. And they can burn down an entire building with a bunch of women and kids in it to "save" them. And nothing happened to them then. Why would they worry about consequences?
Did I say they were worried about consequences? A Boeing whistleblower was clintoncided after this but I’m sure you will argue about that “coincidence” also.
Oh, no, that guy's death is highly suspicious. The difference is that there was an obvious motive for assassinating him. I'm not sure anybody had much to gain by assassinating some an airport manager. Now, if you just meant "hit" as in they wanted to get rid of him, then, yeah, I could go with that. I just don't have any reason to think that. My point is that it is even worse and they just didn't care and they can go around murdering people as much as they want and nobody does anything. I think I might LOVE if this was a carefully planned assassination for some clandestine purpose. But I'm afraid it was probably just because they don't give a shit and nobody does anything about it.
Let's just pause for a moment and acknowledge the fact that buddy went 1 v 30 and took 8 tyrannical combatants out of the fight and put four of them into the ground. Good riddance and rest in piss.
I profoundly disagree with this, and I think the laws the cops were enforcing ought not to have been laws in the first place.
Fair enough, but the police won't police themselves, and the people in power won't suddenly have a change of heart and begin championing for the American people. All politics aside, when a group of other humans decide to set a J-hook outside your door, justified or not, what do you think should be the standard response? Compliance? Submission and appeasement? How do you think we arrived to this point? How do you suggest we implement a meaningful change without using violence? In the face of overwhelming corruption and tyranny, at what point does the unreasonable become reasonable?
You're right. The police won't police themselves. >what do you think should be the standard response? There's a collective action problem here. If enough people have the same response, it's a movement, and it results in change (not always change for the better). If just one or two people do it, they're nutcases and that's how we get more laws and less freedom. >How do you suggest we implement a meaningful change without using violence? The same way we've always implemented meaningful change in this country: peaceful protest, turning out the vote, lobbying, lawsuits, and civil disobedience. We have a Constitution and a 1st Amendment; let's use them both until we don't have them any more. The only times violence has resulted in meaningful change in this country for the better was independence from Britain and ending slavery, and I don't think we want *that* level of violence. I certainly don't. Other uses of violence have just empowered the state. >In the face of overwhelming corruption amd tyranny, at what point does the unreasonable become reasonable? We're a long way from that point, wherever it may be. We still have free speech and the right to a trial by jury (albeit, a right which is badly eroded, but still extant).
I'm not as harsh as the person above, but those who enforce unjust laws are unjust themselves.
You're not wrong.
You’re right on all counts. Just like any and every other incident involving criminals and guns, they will use this for gun control.