Lock and Load! (fwd)
Chris Gattman
Last night at about 2:30 am my grandmother heard a noise outside. The
family house is out past Troutdale in the middle of farm land, surrounded
by overgrown nursery stock, and the nearest neighbor is several hundred
yards away and completely out of view.
Coyotes and deer are common but she wanted to make sure when it sounded
like something was crawling up the outside wall under her bedroom window.
She opened the curtain to look out and saw a hand on the windowsill, where
somebody was obviously trying to pull himself up. He either climbed the
small stack of wood or was standing on somebody's shoulders, since it's
about 10 feet up to her window.
Grandma's 76, alert as ever and generally fearless. She pounded on the
glass and yelled that they better get the hell out of there. My uncle
and my father were downstairs watching TV and heard her yelling, and so
while she called the police they broke out her shotguns and circled the
house.
The Multnomah County police were there in nothing flat. They didn't find
anything, and she insisted that although she felt stupid, she wasn't
crazy. They said she wasn't crazy at all because somebody nearby had
reported what they thought was either a prowler or a large wild animal
snooping around their house earlier that evening.
That's creepy shit.
Grandma's like something out of the Crocodile Hunter, though. If that
dude would have tried to come through the window, he'd have been a goner.
(Just got off the phone with her. She has no interest in handguns 'cause
she's plenty comfortable with her shotguns around the house.)
Chris Gattman
Don Homuth
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Chris Gattman wrote:
about his Grandma:
> (Just got off the phone with her. She has no interest in handguns 'cause
> she's plenty comfortable with her shotguns around the house.)
Your grandma is Deeply Clueful about home defense, it would seem.
A rare and unusual attribute these days.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>> (Just got off the phone with her. She has no interest in handguns 'cause
>> she's plenty comfortable with her shotguns around the house.)
>
>Your grandma is Deeply Clueful about home defense, it would seem.
>
>A rare and unusual attribute these days.
A shotgun is good for a fortified position, such as when on can lock
oneself in the bedroom, and shoot only if invaded. A handgun is
considered by experts to be superior for going through a house with a
potential intruder, such as to rescue or protect children.
--
Bennet K. Langlotz
ne...@langlotz.com
Chris Gattman
>
> A shotgun is good for a fortified position, such as when on can lock
> oneself in the bedroom, and shoot only if invaded. A handgun is
> considered by experts to be superior for going through a house with a
> potential intruder, such as to rescue or protect children.
Makes sense to me.
Chris Gattman
Bill Shatzer
> Makes sense to me.
Kinda depends on who is on the other side of the wall or door.
Loaded with no. 4 shot or smaller and at reasonable range, a shotgun won't
penetrate drywall or a hollow core bedroom door - at least not with lethal
force.
A handgun, in any reasonable caliber, is a different story.
If yer shooting at folks outside the kids' bedroom with a handgun, you
better hit him square and not miss - 'cause misses are quite likely to
penetrate the wall/door and do lethal damage to whatever is on the
otherside. Hopefully, it won't be any of the kids.
Peace and justice,
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>She opened the curtain to look out and saw a hand on the windowsill, where
>somebody was obviously trying to pull himself up. He either climbed the
>small stack of wood or was standing on somebody's shoulders, since it's
>about 10 feet up to her window.
Hmm. Wonder if it's the same person (or persons) involved in
accessing single women's places through open second floor windows down
in Sellwood?
jrw
Bennet K. Langlotz
>If yer shooting at folks outside the kids' bedroom with a handgun, you
>better hit him square and not miss - 'cause misses are quite likely to
>penetrate the wall/door and do lethal damage to whatever is on the
>otherside. Hopefully, it won't be any of the kids.
Duh.
ou812
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100062...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
> > > A shotgun is good for a fortified position, such as when on can lock
> > > oneself in the bedroom, and shoot only if invaded. A handgun is
> > > considered by experts to be superior for going through a house with a
> > > potential intruder, such as to rescue or protect children.
>
> > Makes sense to me.
>
> Kinda depends on who is on the other side of the wall or door.
>
> Loaded with no. 4 shot or smaller and at reasonable range, a shotgun won't
> penetrate drywall or a hollow core bedroom door - at least not with lethal
> force.
>
> A handgun, in any reasonable caliber, is a different story.
Wrong again. I've shot 45's inside a house on a regular basis, without
blowing holes through anything. Heck, in the old days one of the classes
at P.C.C demonstrated pistols being shot in the room.
If you'd get over the idea that you think you know what your doin
enough to tell people that do, you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much.
>
> If yer shooting at folks outside the kids' bedroom with a handgun, you
> better hit him square and not miss -
What, you think we're as crappy as the portland police?
A friend of mine, falling down drunk, hit a guy 2 out of 3.
(The guy had threatened to burn his building) That's several
magnitudes improvement of ppd's marksmanship.
Ric@
>Wrong again. I've shot 45's inside a house on a regular basis, without
>blowing holes through anything. Heck, in the old days one of the classes
>at P.C.C demonstrated pistols being shot in the room.
Wrong. Hangun rounds in .45ACP and 9mm (JHP) regularly travel
completely through multiple walls and in many cases go in the front of
the house and exit the back of the house. How many shooting crime
scenes have you been to?
>What, you think we're as crappy as the portland police?
>A friend of mine, falling down drunk, hit a guy 2 out of 3.
>(The guy had threatened to burn his building) That's several
>magnitudes improvement of ppd's marksmanship.
What was the hit percentage of the PPB last year? Bet you don't know.
It's also a hell of a lot different getting good hits when you're
*reacting* to a threat than when you are initiating the lethal
force...one reason armed citizens and off duty cops get more hits than
uniformed officers. This would also be true for your falling down
drunk armed friend who decided to shoot the arsonist.
Darrell Fuhriman
> They can't block traffic without a parade permit[...]
I *knew* it! It took you nearly two months, but I knew you were
going to say that.
Darrell
Pete Wirfs
...therefore you think everyone should have a handgun?
Pete
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:53:57 GMT, ne...@langlotz.com (Bennet K.
Langlotz) wrote:
>A shotgun is good for a fortified position, such as when on can lock
>oneself in the bedroom, and shoot only if invaded. A handgun is
>considered by experts to be superior for going through a house with a
>potential intruder, such as to rescue or protect children.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>I'm less concerned with PPD's crappy marksmanship as with the idea that
>Kroeker loves to violate folks first amendment rights to gather peacably
Those aren't unlimited rights. They can't block traffic without a
parade permit, nor the other illegal shenanigans they did.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Wrong. Hangun rounds in .45ACP and 9mm (JHP) regularly travel
>completely through multiple walls and in many cases go in the front of
>the house and exit the back of the house.
And how do those rounds intended for personal defense, with their
expanding shapes tend to fare? Perhaps you should educate those who
seek to protect themselves with good safe ammo advice, instead of
suggesting that a handgun can't be a suitable urban home defense
weapon.
ou812
"Ric@" <r...@dsl-only.net> wrote in message
news:9c0els0kod6tmb26s...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 12:19:01 -0700, "ou812" <tal...@dcl.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Wrong again. I've shot 45's inside a house on a regular basis, without
> >blowing holes through anything. Heck, in the old days one of the classes
> >at P.C.C demonstrated pistols being shot in the room.
>
> completely through multiple walls and in many cases go in the front of
> scenes have you been to?
I didn't say that they don't, I said that I've done it, and they didn't.
Reguardless of whether I've been to shooting crime scenes or not,
a 45acp round can, and has been used inside a residence, with NO
damage whatsoever, aside from the mouse...:)
Just because somebody else has done something somewhat similar
doesn't mean I can't do what I've already done.
>
> >What, you think we're as crappy as the portland police?
> >A friend of mine, falling down drunk, hit a guy 2 out of 3.
> >(The guy had threatened to burn his building) That's several
> >magnitudes improvement of ppd's marksmanship.
>
> What was the hit percentage of the PPB last year? Bet you don't know.
Reguardless of whether I know it off the top of my head of not for last
year,
there's been many years it's a whole lot less than 50%.
>
> It's also a hell of a lot different getting good hits when you're
> *reacting* to a threat than when you are initiating the lethal
> force...one reason armed citizens and off duty cops get more hits than
> uniformed officers. This would also be true for your falling down
> drunk armed friend who decided to shoot the arsonist.
Maybe, maybe not.
ou812
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:m1o5j8...@127.0.0.1...
> I'm less concerned with PPD's crappy marksmanship as with the idea that
> Kroeker loves to violate folks first amendment rights to gather peacably
> and sending the cops out on intimidation/harassment duty.
> Baloo
I'm with ya on that one, but it's hardly
anything new in portland.
Chris Gattman
> ne...@langlotz.com (Bennet K. Langlotz) writes:
>
> > They can't block traffic without a parade permit[...]
Well, they can't LEGALLY block traffic without a permit. The Cascadia
Forest Alliance blocked the road to Warner Creek for over a year without
one.
-gatt
Chris Gattman
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Whats your point?
>...therefore you think everyone should have a handgun?
No. I think everyone should have the opportunity to own a handgun,
and to learn of effective self defense procedures.
(And what in tarnation made you think I advocated what you say?!)
Ric@
Langlotz) wrote:
>"Ric@" <r...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
>
>>Wrong. Hangun rounds in .45ACP and 9mm (JHP) regularly travel
>>completely through multiple walls and in many cases go in the front of
>>the house and exit the back of the house.
>And how do those rounds intended for personal defense, with their
>expanding shapes tend to fare? Perhaps you should educate those who
>seek to protect themselves with good safe ammo advice, instead of
>suggesting that a handgun can't be a suitable urban home defense
>weapon.
What we've found is that hollowpoint ammunition (JHP) often clogs with
material like sheetrock or heavy clothing and essentially becomes ball
ammo. It takes hydrostatic force to create expansion in hollowpoint
ammo, so if it clogs with material it will not expand and will then
overpenetrate.
I did not intend to suggest that a handgun can't be a suitable urban
home defense weapon, but when someone argues that pistol ammo
(specifically, .45ACP ammo) won't penetrate walls I feel obligated to
point out the error.
Ric@
>I didn't say that they don't, I said that I've done it, and they didn't.
>Reguardless of whether I've been to shooting crime scenes or not,
>a 45acp round can, and has been used inside a residence, with NO
>damage whatsoever, aside from the mouse...:)
>Just because somebody else has done something somewhat similar
>doesn't mean I can't do what I've already done.
I agree completely. Your original statement implied (to me) that .45
rounds would not penetrate walls, which is incorrect. You are correct
in that .45 rounds as well as other pistol calibers sometimes *don't*
penetrate walls. It has been my experience that in the vast majority
of cases handgun ammo, hollowpoint or not, will over penetrate when it
comes to walls/houses.
>Reguardless of whether I know it off the top of my head of not for last
>year,
>there's been many years it's a whole lot less than 50%.
What I don't like is the blanket attack on the officers in the PPB.
Every shooting is situational, and even straight statistics don't take
into account covering fire situations.
For example, you might include the rounds the Sgt. fired in the
shooting in which Ofc. Waibel was killed. He was providing covering
fire so that the two wounded officers (1 dead) could be extracted. His
hit percentage was very low because he was shooting back through the
wall that they were taking fire from (in which he hit the suspect in
the spine). Another Sgt. took a round at point blank range from the
driver of a stolen pickup, and returned fire with one round as he fell
to the ground, striking the door frame. When an Ofc. was shot in the
neck several months back his partner pinned the suspect down with
cover fire so he could be extracted. All of these situations bring
down the "hit percentage" of the PPB.
In contrast, here are some other PPB shootings: Barbur Transit
Center...2 rounds, 2 hits. NW 23rd/Marshal....1 round, 1 hit. SW
6th/Burnside...2 rounds, 2 hits. NW Broadway/Burnside...1 round, 1
hit. NW 31/Vaughn 5 rounds, 4 hits.
Making a blanket attack on the whole department is just falling victim
to media sensationalism.
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Bennet K. Langlotz wrote:
> "Ric@" <r...@dsl-only.net> wrote:
> >Wrong. Hangun rounds in .45ACP and 9mm (JHP) regularly travel
> >completely through multiple walls and in many cases go in the front of
> >the house and exit the back of the house.
> And how do those rounds intended for personal defense, with their
> expanding shapes tend to fare? Perhaps you should educate those who
> seek to protect themselves with good safe ammo advice, instead of
> suggesting that a handgun can't be a suitable urban home defense
> weapon.
"Safe ammo"? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?
Ammo that's "safe", Bennett, ain't likely to be much good at
all for "suitable urban home defense".
I think the universe of potential choices runs from most dangerous to less
dangerous but never approaches "safe" - unless yer considering a Super
Soaker for "suitable urban home defense".
Peace and justice,
Bennet K. Langlotz
>"Safe ammo"? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?
>
>Ammo that's "safe", Bennett, ain't likely to be much good at
>all for "suitable urban home defense".
>
>I think the universe of potential choices runs from most dangerous to less
>dangerous but never approaches "safe" - unless yer considering a Super
>Soaker for "suitable urban home defense".
If you believe this idiocy, you would believe that a hobbled Yugo that
can't get over 5 mph is a "safe" car.
Bill Shatzer
> Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote:
This leap of (il)logic leaves me speechless.
But, then, most of yours do.
Peace and justice,
ou812
>
> What I don't like is the blanket attack on the officers in the PPB.
Well yer in for a lot of it.
How about the 37 or so shots at the unarmed female crazy in downtown?
How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
These are both examples of how screwed up ppb is.
Further, I know through personal expierience that portland cops
lie, regularly. Recently Bennet aludded to this, and Shatzer fired up
his wind mill about it. Bennet didn't endeavor to take tha issue on,
but I will.
Here's a link for
starters.http://www.apbnews.com/cjprofessionals/behindthebadge/2000/06/27/in
tegrity0627_01.html
In my opinion, the corrupt agency model fits portland to a T,
and has for about 80 years.
>
> Making a blanket attack on the whole department is just falling victim
> to media sensationalism.
No it is not, and your sniveling the above line is only to try to obstruct
the
truth just as in the past. Damn funny you and that cretin (ppo)Hurlman(that
should
be serving time for felony animal abuse) are both mouthing the same line.
Looks like it's comin from propaganda centreal to me....:)
Bill Shatzer
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
> "Ric@" <r...@dsl-only.net> wrote in message
> news:uv0glskjm2cc69aq8...@4ax.com...
> > What I don't like is the blanket attack on the officers in the PPB.
> Well yer in for a lot of it.
> How about the 37 or so shots at the unarmed female crazy in downtown?
> How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
> These are both examples of how screwed up ppb is.
Why would you ever suppose that the PORTLAND Police Bureau might be
involved with anyone in a GRESHAM Fred Meyer?
There's someone screwed up around here, TT, but I don't think it is the
Portland Police Bureau. Just how did ya' do with geography in school?
Peace and justice,
Bennet K. Langlotz
>Further, I know through personal expierience that portland cops
>lie, regularly. Recently Bennet aludded to this, and Shatzer fired up
>his wind mill about it. Bennet didn't endeavor to take tha issue on,
>but I will.
I can comment from personal experience only on the Portland traffic
cops testilying.
ou812
> home defense weapon, but when someone argues that pistol ammo
> (specifically, .45ACP ammo) won't penetrate walls I feel obligated to
> point out the error.
I feel obligated to point out the error here. 45 ACP can penetrate walls,
and it cannot. It depends on the type of
ammo, and the type of wall. I've seen a .38 pistol used
no more than 10 feet from a wall, without even marring the paint. Further,
there were approximately 20 people in the room at the time, and we were all
amused!:) I might also add that it was in a classroom at Portland Commmunity
College, before it was illegal.
The point being that to declare that declare that 45acp
ammo WILL penetrate walls in all, or even most cases
without specifiying either the ammo or the wall, is flat false. There are a
HUGE variety of different loadings
available for the 45, and to include all them in one statement just ain't
gonna fly. Even without that, one can
load their own ...
Ric@
>Well yer in for a lot of it.
>
>How about the 37 or so shots at the unarmed female crazy in downtown?
December 6th, 1990. Ten years ago. I would bet you don't know the
details of that shooting, but it sure made for good headlines.
>How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
>
>These are both examples of how screwed up ppb is.
That was a *Gresham* officer (who did the right thing, but at least
criticize the correct agency). Screwed up or not, that is *not* an
example of PPB because it wasn't a PPB officer. Sigh.
>No it is not, and your sniveling the above line is only to try to obstruct
>the
>truth just as in the past.
Sort of like you coming up with two examples of what you saw as bad
shoots...one 10 years old and one from a totally different agency?
>Damn funny you and that cretin (ppo)Hurlman(that
>should be serving time for felony animal abuse) are both mouthing the same line.
Funny, the owners of the dog disagree with you...they're the ones that
took cash in exchange for "justice".
>Looks like it's comin from propaganda centreal to me....:)
Ditto.
Chris Gattman
>
> > What I don't like is the blanket attack on the officers in the PPB.
>
Thumbprint of an uneducated anti-cop, anti-gun paranoid.
Which "unarmed female crazy"? And, besides. Cop-haters will never admit
it, but if you cut through the soft-hearted feel-good crap and stop to
think about it, after the first two or three rounds, what difference does
it make if you shoot them one more time or back over them with a Tri-Met
bus? They're dead.
If your position requires you to MAKE SURE THEY'RE DEAD AND NOT SUFFERING
OR STILL CAPABLE OF PULLING THE TRIGGER, then you continue firing until
you're sure that's the case. Once you've pulled the trigger at all,
you're committed to making sure the target is neutralized and out of
anybody's potential misery.
I remember watching public access TV and seeing these freaks wigging out
about the CALIBER of ammunition the police used. Like, hollow-points were
somehow more inhumane than standard rounds. The old saying goes, if you
have to kill something, do it quickly.
> How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
Ever seen a knife wound? A person can close and attack with a knife from
20 feet in, like, three seconds. That's faster than the average person
can pull a gun, a can of pepper spray, a stungun, whatever. That's why
carrying pepper spray in a purse is useless and why dogs are the best
defensive weapon.
But, if a gun is what you have, a gun is what you better use if somebody
comes at you with a knife.
I got an uncle living with my folks who was stabbed in the back and right
arm over a dozen times with a 12" blade before anybody had any idea what
was happening to him. It's amazing that he lived. Now he's an invalid
because of severed nerves in his arm and the severe pain.
>
> Further, I know through personal expierience that portland cops
> lie, regularly. Recently Bennet aludded to this, and Shatzer fired up
At least a couple sell marijuana. Which I'm not against unless you're
IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, by the way. Then there was that whole overtime scam.
Yeah...we definately have some shady people in the PPD. My grandfather,
who raised me, was a retired Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff Captain and
when Bush came to town several years ago and he listened to it on the
police radio, his reaction was "I'd have fired all of those people."
He told me to work for the county or the state police, period, if I ever
decided to go into law enforcement. Even veteran county deputies shake
their head at Portland police behavior.
But it has nothing to do with how many times they shoot somebody they've
already decided to kill.
-=gatt
> his wind mill about it. Bennet didn't endeavor to take tha issue on,
> but I will.
>
> Here's a link for
> starters.http://www.apbnews.com/cjprofessionals/behindthebadge/2000/06/27/in
> tegrity0627_01.html
> In my opinion, the corrupt agency model fits portland to a T,
> and has for about 80 years.
> >
> > Making a blanket attack on the whole department is just falling victim
> > to media sensationalism.
>
> No it is not, and your sniveling the above line is only to try to obstruct
> the
> truth just as in the past. Damn funny you and that cretin (ppo)Hurlman(that
> should
> be serving time for felony animal abuse) are both mouthing the same line.
> Looks like it's comin from propaganda centreal to me....:)
>
>
>
>
Chris Gattman
Chris Gattman
> I can comment from personal experience only on the Portland traffic
> cops testilying.
Ditto. I heard a Portland police officer change her story in the middle
of her testimony, and everybody else in the room did too, but the kid that
had the ticket was found guilty.
During my girlfriend's court appearance, the same cop put words into her
mouth that she NEVER said. (Girlfriend has a CDL, not even so much as
a parking ticket or a verbal warning, no accident record, and she's driven
for ten years including longhaul for Schneider Trucking.)
Basically, the cop lied in court TWICE. Afterward, she came out in the
hallway and wished my girlfriend "Good luck." Good luck with WHAT?!
Chris Gattman
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com...
> > "Ric@" <r...@dsl-only.net> wrote in message
> > news:uv0glskjm2cc69aq8...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > What I don't like is the blanket attack on the officers in the PPB.
> >
> > How about the 37 or so shots at the unarmed female crazy in downtown?
>
> Thumbprint of an uneducated anti-cop, anti-gun paranoid.
Well, ya don't have to read very far in this thread to see where I claim to
be able to use a 45 indoors, without damaging anything other than a mouse.
If I were an "anti-gun" paranoid, would I be using a 45 for a mouse trap ??
Try some actual thinking and actual observation instead of spitting up
whatever your prefered preference is. Does the term objectivity ring a
bell???
>
> Which "unarmed female crazy"?
I don't remember her name, but IIRC there were 37 shots fired,
with something like 16 or 19 of them hitting her.
And, besides. Cop-haters will never admit
> it, but if you cut through the soft-hearted feel-good crap and stop to
> think about it, after the first two or three rounds, what difference does
> it make if you shoot them one more time or back over them with a Tri-Met
> bus? They're dead.
Well it makes a difference because for one they shouldn't have shot her at
all, and
two, because 37 bullets flying down 5th avenue puts a whole lot of people in
danger
that should never have begun.
>
> If your position requires you to MAKE SURE THEY'RE DEAD AND NOT SUFFERING
> OR STILL CAPABLE OF PULLING THE TRIGGER,
Which would only apply if they were armed, which she wasn't, as
specified in the foregoing text.
then you continue firing until
> you're sure that's the case.
And that to you equals 37??:) Or even 16 if that's what it was??
Once you've pulled the trigger at all,
> you're committed to making sure the target is neutralized and out of
> anybody's potential misery.
The target was never any potential threat to anybody, the only danger to
anybody was the cops.
>
> I remember watching public access TV and seeing these freaks wigging out
> about the CALIBER of ammunition the police used.
Well, maybe it's lost on you, but the caliber of a gun one chooses can tell
you a lot about the owner. Different calibers have different
characteristics,
and perform better for some tasks than others. If one knows what a gun owner
was planning to use a gun for, one can make a correlation as to how much if
at the owner thinks or knows his weapon. To give you an example, if knew a
cop was going to work downtown, and he decided to carry a 44 mag., I'd
say he's an absolute idiot and get him off the force. The same would apply
if
he decided to carry some puny little 22. The caliber is relevant.
Like, hollow-points were
> somehow more inhumane than standard rounds. The old saying goes, if you
> have to kill something, do it quickly.
>
> > How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
>
> Ever seen a knife wound?
Matter of fact I had one once.
A person can close and attack with a knife from
> 20 feet in, like, three seconds.
SO?? You tellin me that a cop is sposed to be so slow they can't
handle that?? 3 seconds is a LONG time...
That's faster than the average person
> can pull a gun, a can of pepper spray, a stungun, whatever.
Most reactons take around 7 tenths of a second.
That's why
> carrying pepper spray in a purse is useless and why dogs are the best
> defensive weapon.
I'm not going to argue the dog, but just because somebody has a knife is
no reason to mess your drawers. I've been 6 knife fights, and so far have
only one little scar that I'm not even sure exists anymore. Several of
which(unarmed)
I took the knife away from them. Wht can't cops do that?? Why couldn't they
go get a broom and knock it away from her??
>
> But, if a gun is what you have, a gun is what you better use if somebody
> comes at you with a knife.
What do you do when you don't have a gun?? I suggest that that knife
can only be in one place at one time, and it's your job to make damn sure
to it neve gets anywhere important. It can be done, I've done it.
>
> I got an uncle living with my folks who was stabbed in the back and right
> arm over a dozen times with a 12" blade before anybody had any idea what
> was happening to him. It's amazing that he lived. Now he's an invalid
> because of severed nerves in his arm and the severe pain.
Sorry to hear that, but that's a considerably different situation than
a mentally disturbed gal not advancing, just waving the knife to get
people to leave her alone.
> >
> > Further, I know through personal expierience that portland cops
> > lie, regularly. Recently Bennet aludded to this, and Shatzer fired up
>
> At least a couple sell marijuana.
YEP!:)
Which I'm not against unless you're
> IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, by the way. Then there was that whole overtime scam.
You know what they say, if the government wants to live by the law, they're
going to have to set a lot better example.:)
>
> Yeah...we definately have some shady people in the PPD. My grandfather,
> who raised me, was a retired Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff Captain and
> when Bush came to town several years ago and he listened to it on the
> police radio, his reaction was "I'd have fired all of those people."
Sounds like a good guy, unfortuantely everytime a guy like him gets in there
they're let know in no uncertain terms you don't rat on rats. They fear
their
own saftey.
>
> He told me to work for the county or the state police, period, if I ever
> decided to go into law enforcement.
I'd probably go along with that, at least at one time.
Course now we've got one of the big liars from the ppb for
sherriff, so I expect the same level.
Even veteran county deputies shake
> their head at Portland police behavior.
I thiink a lot of them quit when portland took over.
>
> But it has nothing to do with how many times they shoot somebody they've
> already decided to kill.
Other than to prove that anybody that insists on continually pumping lead
into something that's dead, exposing others to overspray is mentally
defective
and should be recycled.
Bill Shatzer
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
-snips-
> Once you've pulled the trigger at all,
> > you're committed to making sure the target is neutralized and out of
> > anybody's potential misery.
> The target was never any potential threat to anybody, the only danger to
> anybody was the cops.
Vas you der, charlie?
If not, I'd think your speculations about the potential threat are just
that, "speculation".
Peace and justice,
Ric@
>> Which "unarmed female crazy"?
>
>I don't remember her name, but IIRC there were 37 shots fired,
>with something like 16 or 19 of them hitting her.
The fact you claimed she was not armed showed that you just pulled it
out of your butt as an example. :-)
>Well it makes a difference because for one they shouldn't have shot her at
>all, and
>two, because 37 bullets flying down 5th avenue puts a whole lot of people in
>danger
>that should never have begun.
They weren't flying down 5th Av., they were going through the glass
she was leaning against into a closed bank building ("indian style"
and pointing a gun at the approaching officers).
>Which would only apply if they were armed, which she wasn't, as
>specified in the foregoing text.
Oh, but she was...it just makes you feel better to think that she
wasn't.
>And that to you equals 37??:) Or even 16 if that's what it was??
Real shootings are not like hollywood, with people flying backward and
blood exploding from wounds. It's quite common to get hits and not
know it. The facts of this case are that her seated position resulted
in her not changing position at all while the shots were being fired,
and the gun was still pointed at them.
>The target was never any potential threat to anybody, the only danger to
>anybody was the cops.
I believe that at the moment she pulled the gun in a successful effort
to force the officers to kill her, since she could not bring herself
to do it, the officers would disagree with your analysis of the
presence of danger.
>> I remember watching public access TV and seeing these freaks wigging out
>> about the CALIBER of ammunition the police used.
>
>Well, maybe it's lost on you, but the caliber of a gun one chooses can tell
>you a lot about the owner.
Even when, at the time, officers were limited to .38, 9mm, and .45ACP?
Nothing magically superior or extra evil when comparing those
calibers.
> A person can close and attack with a knife from
>> 20 feet in, like, three seconds.
>
>SO?? You tellin me that a cop is sposed to be so slow they can't
>handle that?? 3 seconds is a LONG time...
>
> That's faster than the average person
>> can pull a gun, a can of pepper spray, a stungun, whatever.
>
>Most reactons take around 7 tenths of a second.
It is a court recognized fact that a person can cover 21 feet before
the average officer can draw and fire 1 round...that's not even
factoring in that the *1 round* fired may not be effective.
>Sorry to hear that, but that's a considerably different situation than
>a mentally disturbed gal not advancing, just waving the knife to get
>people to leave her alone.
Here we go again with lack of facts. She was pepper sprayed, which had
little effect, then she charged at the officer.
>> At least a couple sell marijuana.
>
>YEP!:)
Then turn them in.
> Even veteran county deputies shake
>> their head at Portland police behavior.
The head shaking goes both ways...county deputies have a severe lack
of training.
What's funny is how hard they are constantly fighting to get lateral
transfers to Portland. Portland had taken large groups of MCSO
deputies over the years.
>I thiink a lot of them quit when portland took over.
Nope...they joined PPB.
Russell Senior
Ric> They weren't flying down 5th Av., they were going through the
Ric> glass she was leaning against into a closed bank building
Ric> ("indian style" and pointing a gun at the approaching officers).
I recall that the `gun' turned out to be a pellet gun or something
similarly lethal. Or am I misremembering?
Anyway, I think an arms race and a first-strike policy is the wrong
solution.
--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
sen...@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''
John Lienhart
Chris Gattman wrote:
The police need some help here. I recall getting a ticket several years ago
and after the policman writes it out, he said "Have a nice day." as he was
leaving.
Yeah, thanks.
Chris Gattman
> > >
> >
> > Thumbprint of an uneducated anti-cop, anti-gun paranoid.
>
> Well, ya don't have to read very far in this thread to see where I claim to
> be able to use a 45 indoors, without damaging anything other than a mouse.
You're claiming that a .45 round can be stopped by a common one-ounce
mouse without damaging anything else behind it...
One way to accomplish this would be to hold the bullet between your
fingers, pull it apart, empty the powder and throw the slug at the rodent.
So, I guess it's possible. You don't have to remove the powder,
really. Other than that...uh...
> If I were an "anti-gun" paranoid, would I be using a 45 for a mouse trap ??
Please, for the love of God, don't use your .45 for a mouse trap in my
apartment complex, okay?
> Try some actual thinking and actual observation instead of spitting up
> whatever your prefered preference is. Does the term objectivity ring a
You're telling me that you HUNT MICE---in your house with a .45 CALIBER
HANDGUN, and you're telling ME to try some actual thinking? How about a
BB gun for chrissake?! Why don't you use an AK-47 or a 12-gauge?
Oh...that might damage something.
> > Which "unarmed female crazy"?
>
> I don't remember her name, but IIRC there were 37 shots fired,
> with something like 16 or 19 of them hitting her.
Think of all the mice they couldn't have killed. So, send 'em back to
handgun training.
> Well it makes a difference because for one they shouldn't have shot her at
> all, and
How is it that you can say whether they should have shot her at all when
you can't even remember her name or other details of the incident? Were
you there? When was this alleged incident?
> two, because 37 bullets flying down 5th avenue puts a whole lot of people in
> danger that should never have begun.
But you said yourself that you can fire a handgun in a ROOM without any
danger, so...
...was anybody hurt? Are you telling me that 37 bullets flew down 5th
Avenue and not one person or thing was damaged? If so, what was damaged?
If not, how would that be possible?
> > If your position requires you to MAKE SURE THEY'RE DEAD AND NOT SUFFERING
> > OR STILL CAPABLE OF PULLING THE TRIGGER,
>
> Which would only apply if they were armed, which she wasn't, as
And you know this because?
> then you continue firing until
> > you're sure that's the case.
>
> And that to you equals 37??:) Or even 16 if that's what it was??
Yes. Case in point: The last time I heard of a shooting in this case was
in around 1994 when a man wrote a suicide note, and had a gun, and was
sitting in a corner recess of a building. He said he was going to get
the cops to shoot him, and so he pointed the gun at the police officers.
They shot him 33 times, meaning that had to RELOAD to shoot him. The
reason? He was sitting, in a supported position, so that so much as a
finger spasm or a final burst of resolve could have caused him to fire his
weapon outward into the cops or the city behind them. They continued to
fire until they knew damned good and well that it would be completely
impossible for this person to try to make one last stand, or accidently
fire. The problem is, prone or sitting targets are still prone and
sitting after you shoot them, especially if they're supported, and it
ain't like the movies where the guy goes flying backward in the middle of
the street and is obviously dead. A shot person can live and move around
for HOURS, and if the individual is still pretty much in the same position
as he was when you shoot him, he's still as much of a threat. Moreso,
actually, because he's just been shot and is very likely in an extremely
unhappy and unstable mood.
I'm sure the results were pretty gross, but the point remains.
Everybody freaked out and called it brutality, unnecessary force,
degrading, whatever. Nevermind that this guy said he was going to force
the police to kill him by pointing a weapon at them and potentially taking
their life.
A really good cop might have simply shot the man's hand or arm, or the
weapon or something, but we don't pay the city Really Good Cop wages...we
hire Adequate Cops, and that's generally what we get. Barely. Most of the
time.
> The target was never any potential threat to anybody, the only danger to
> anybody was the cops.
And you know this because?
> Well, maybe it's lost on you, but the caliber of a gun one chooses can tell
> you a lot about the owner.
Yeah, no shit. For example, a guy who uses a half-inch bullet to shoot a
one-inch mouse and claims that nothing else in the room will get
damaged...well...that says ALL SORTS OF THINGS about the owner, doesn't
it?
> at the owner thinks or knows his weapon. To give you an example, if knew a
> cop was going to work downtown, and he decided to carry a 44 mag., I'd
> say he's an absolute idiot and get him off the force. The same would apply
To give you an example, if I knew a guy was going to kill a mouse inside a
room and decided to carry a .45 caliber M-1911 service-issue combat
handgun...
> > > How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
> >
> > Ever seen a knife wound?
>
> Matter of fact I had one once.
I mean, have you ever seen a 14-inch long groin-to-navel excavation that
loosens somebody's bowels and intestines through the front of their shirt
before the blade pierces the diaphram and the heart?
Learned some groovy shit in the Marine Corps, like how to split somebody
open like a pinata with a Ka-Bar or the butt of a rifle (bat, stick,
shovel, entrenching tool, whatever) and in one quick, fluid half-second
motion. I guarantee you your mouse-killer won't do that.
> A person can close and attack with a knife from
> > 20 feet in, like, three seconds.
>
> SO?? You tellin me that a cop is sposed to be so slow they can't
> handle that?? 3 seconds is a LONG time...
One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three. I just killed
you. Did you recognize the threat? Did you assume a defensive posture,
draw, aim and fire your weapon?
If you did, perhaps you just did the same thing you're accusing the cop of
doing, which is defending himself.
If you didn't, if you hesitated, if you had something in your contact lens
and were blinking, or your super-kung-fu-ninja-jujitsu defense training
didn't instantly and reflexively put you in a position to keep my blade
from touching your skin, I just eviscerated you or pulled an OJ through
your throat. One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three.
Knives in close quarters DEADLIER THAN HANDGUNS and any weapons
instructor civilian, law enforcement or military will tell you that.
(Having been instructed by at least one of each, I can tell you that too.)
Ask any of the combat vets in here.
> That's faster than the average person
> > can pull a gun, a can of pepper spray, a stungun, whatever.
>
> Most reactons take around 7 tenths of a second.
Are you on crack, making shit up, or am I missing something here? You're
asserting that you've used mice as backstops with no collateral damage,
that Portland Police came all the way out to EAST GRESHAM to kill
somebody, that some lady who you can't remember the details of was killed
by Portland police for no reason, that they fired 37 rounds up the 5th
Avenue and NOBODY was hit, an that it takes 7 tenths of a second to react,
assume a defensive position and have a weapon ready to defend yourself.
And, furthermore...
> no reason to mess your drawers. I've been 6 knife fights, and so far have
> only one little scar that I'm not even sure exists anymore. Several of
> which(unarmed)
> I took the knife away from them. Wht can't cops do that?? Why couldn't they
> go get a broom and knock it away from her??
'Cause they're not superkungfu ninja jujitsu artists with lightning-quick
reflexes and half a dozen knife fight victories like you, Grasshoppa.
Maybe if we ALL found our way into a half a dozen knife fights, unarmed,
and got away from them all to go kill mice in our apartments with
.45-caliber handguns, we could all do that. But, in the meantime, we
don't pay cops to shoot mice with combat firearms and then simply disarm
would-be knife murderers without any weapon at all, so how would they
know?
> Sorry to hear that, but that's a considerably different situation than
> a mentally disturbed gal not advancing, just waving the knife to get
> people to leave her alone.
When did this happen? What was her name? Who was the officer that shot
her.
The man that stabbed my uncle is Neil Favro and it happened on June 2,
1982 at the Buzzard's Roost tavern on 82nd and Foster.
-gatt
ou812
> >
> >I don't remember her name, but IIRC there were 37 shots fired,
> >with something like 16 or 19 of them hitting her.
>
> out of your butt as an example. :-)
I know you think that's funny, but the IIRC pretty much states that I'm not
dead sure of it, but far from your concoction "pulled it out of your butt".
>
> >Well it makes a difference because for one they shouldn't have shot her
at
> >all, and
> >two, because 37 bullets flying down 5th avenue puts a whole lot of people
in
> >danger
> >that should never have begun.
>
> They weren't flying down 5th Av., they were going through the glass
> she was leaning against into a closed bank building ("indian style"
> and pointing a gun at the approaching officers).
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to have a source with more believability than you
to
accept that. Your position that 37 bullets whizzzing around downtown is safe
is more than a little far fetched.
>
> >Which would only apply if they were armed, which she wasn't, as
> >specified in the foregoing text.
>
> Oh, but she was...it just makes you feel better to think that she
> wasn't.
I don't think she was, and your opinion isn't going to make me think
any different. IIRC, she may have had a pellet gun or squirt gun or
something,
but essentially unarmed.
>
> >And that to you equals 37??:) Or even 16 if that's what it was??
>
> Real shootings are not like hollywood, with people flying backward and
> blood exploding from wounds.
There you go with your unfounded assumptions again. Where's your data
to come to the conclusion that I don't know what real shootings are like?
Matter of fact, I've had the portland goon squad threaten to show me
first hand more than once.
It's quite common to get hits and not
> know it. The facts of this case are that her seated position resulted
> in her not changing position at all while the shots were being fired,
> and the gun was still pointed at them.
Hehhe! That's good! Had a while to come up with a good story didn't ya??
I've gotta admit, that's a better tale than many of the ones ppb comes up
with.
If one's gonna lie, at least they ought to know what's possible.
>
> >The target was never any potential threat to anybody, the only danger to
> >anybody was the cops.
>
> I believe that at the moment she pulled the gun in a successful effort
> to force the officers to kill her,
She didn't force anybody to do anything, it's only your mind that would like
to think so.
since she could not bring herself
> to do it, the officers would disagree with your analysis of the
> presence of danger.
I don't mind if they disagree, I just want THEM to pay when they're
wrong, not me, or taxpayers. I gotta think even they would be able to
get a little more reality based under those conditions.
>
> >> I remember watching public access TV and seeing these freaks wigging
out
> >> about the CALIBER of ammunition the police used.
> >
> >Well, maybe it's lost on you, but the caliber of a gun one chooses can
tell
> >you a lot about the owner.
>
> Even when, at the time, officers were limited to .38, 9mm, and .45ACP?
> Nothing magically superior or extra evil when comparing those
> calibers.
I don't know what they may have been limited to, I was responding to
kvetching about calibre, which was what that argument was about.
That seems like a reasonable limitation to me if they aren't capable of
figuiring out themselves, which begs another question....:)
> > A person can close and attack with a knife from
> >> 20 feet in, like, three seconds.
> >
> >SO?? You tellin me that a cop is sposed to be so slow they can't
> >handle that?? 3 seconds is a LONG time...
> >
> > That's faster than the average person
> >> can pull a gun, a can of pepper spray, a stungun, whatever.
> >
> >Most reactons take around 7 tenths of a second.
>
> It is a court recognized fact that a person can cover 21 feet before
> the average officer can draw and fire 1 round...
Would you bet your life on it?? I know one thing, if I figured
cops were that slow I wouldn't worry much about getting shot.
>that's not even
> factoring in that the *1 round* fired may not be effective.
>
> >Sorry to hear that, but that's a considerably different situation than
> >a mentally disturbed gal not advancing, just waving the knife to get
> >people to leave her alone.
>
> Here we go again with lack of facts. She was pepper sprayed, which had
> little effect, then she charged at the officer.
I don't think she did, that's just the usual story cops are programmed
to repeat. I watched a guy get killed in front of the White House,
(it was nationally televised) and the cops said he charged them too,
all he did was turn his head, his body hadn't even moved.
I think that's an example of cops lying, and I'm pretty sure that's
the case in the gresham incident also.
>
> >> At least a couple sell marijuana.
> >
> >YEP!:)
>
> Then turn them in.
To who??:)
(That's been tried by the way)
>
> > Even veteran county deputies shake
> >> their head at Portland police behavior.
>
> The head shaking goes both ways...county deputies have a severe lack
> of training.
>
> What's funny is how hard they are constantly fighting to get lateral
> transfers to Portland.
What's so funny about that?? Did you read the Justice dept. report
I linked at all??? It's pretty obvious when theres a gang of criminals
they begin to understand that if they buck the system their personal
saftey is compromised. Between that and paying more I really don't
think your point has much relevance.
Portland had taken large groups of MCSO
> deputies over the years.
>
> >I thiink a lot of them quit when portland took over.
>
> Nope...they joined PPB.
One did.
Chris Gattman
> >Well it makes a difference because for one they shouldn't have shot her at
> >all, and
> >two, because 37 bullets flying down 5th avenue puts a whole lot of people in
> >danger
> >that should never have begun.
>
> she was leaning against into a closed bank building ("indian style"
> and pointing a gun at the approaching officers).
This is the case to which I referred in my most recent response. (In
agreement with you.) I couldn't remember if it was a man or a woman, but,
lookie here...at least somebody else has heard of the incident and that
the person was sitting and WAS ARMED with a gun.>
> Real shootings are not like hollywood, with people flying backward and
> blood exploding from wounds. It's quite common to get hits and not
> know it. The facts of this case are that her seated position resulted
> in her not changing position at all while the shots were being fired,
> and the gun was still pointed at them.
Yep.
> It is a court recognized fact that a person can cover 21 feet before
> the average officer can draw and fire 1 round...that's not even
> factoring in that the *1 round* fired may not be effective.
Yep. They show knife wound photos to drive this point home. If a stabber
comes at you from close range and you shoot, and you don't knock him flat
with the first round or two, he can hack you wide open in the blink of an
eye and then deal with this own problems.
> Here we go again with lack of facts. She was pepper sprayed, which had
> little effect, then she charged at the officer.
>
> >> At least a couple sell marijuana.
> >
> >YEP!:)
>
> Then turn them in.
I'm the one that brought that up, and without going into too many details,
it wasn't the kind of situation where you asked what the officer's name
might be. (I wasn't involved in buying it, selling it, or using it, by
the way, and wouldn't hesitate to tell you if I had been.)
> > Even veteran county deputies shake
> >> their head at Portland police behavior.
>
> The head shaking goes both ways...county deputies have a severe lack
> of training.
The MCDS office is--or, WAS--considered one of the best outfits in the
United States for years on end, which is why they were sent to Moscow to
train police over there. I've seen some pretty inept ones, to be sure.
When my grandfather took over the weapons instruction program for the MC
sheriff's office, he said that there were guys showing up for duty who
didn't even have the proper ammunition for their firearms. So, it goes up
and down.
> What's funny is how hard they are constantly fighting to get lateral
> transfers to Portland. Portland had taken large groups of MCSO
> deputies over the years.
From what I understand from a relative who works there, the MCSO is
basically broke. The deputies don't necessarily WANT to go to Portland,
but it may be a simple matter of job security.
-Chris
Chris Gattman
Chris Gattman
>
> Anyway, I think an arms race and a first-strike policy is the wrong
> solution.
So, as I understand it, you're saying folks should wait to be shot before
reacting?
Sorry, man. I refuse to be the first person killed in a gunfight.
Chris Gattman
Chris Gattman
> >
> > They weren't flying down 5th Av., they were going through the glass
> > she was leaning against into a closed bank building ("indian style"
> > and pointing a gun at the approaching officers).
>
> Sorry, but I'm gonna have to have a source with more believability
> than you to accept that. Your position that 37 bullets whizzzing
> around downtown is safe is more than a little far fetched.
This, coming from a guy who claims he has a .7th of a second response
time, has been in six knife fights, usually unarmed, and escaped with only
a scratch, but who can safely plink a mouse with a .45-caliber hand cannon
in a room with no further collateral damage to anything else there,
despite the fact that the slug probably weighs more than the mouse
itself...
...uh...
I hope your credit rating is better than your credibility right about now.
So, please explain WHY you've been in six knife fights, and I'll remind
you that this dude above, whom I don't know and don't remember having
spoken with about this subject before, and I happened to come up with
essentially the same details of the same story on the same day, totally
without knowledge of the other person's details.
> > Real shootings are not like hollywood, with people flying backward and
> > blood exploding from wounds.
>
> There you go with your unfounded assumptions again. Where's your data
> to come to the conclusion that I don't know what real shootings are like?
> Matter of fact, I've had the portland goon squad threaten to show me
> first hand more than once.
Wow...so you've been in six knife fights unarmed, you shoot mice with a
.45-caliber handgun, and the police have threatened to shoot you more than
once. You really get around. But, here's the next question:
What makes you think that a cop threatening to kill you in ANY WAY equated
to knowing what happens to a person when he's shot?
> > know it. The facts of this case are that her seated position resulted
> > in her not changing position at all while the shots were being fired,
> > and the gun was still pointed at them.
>
> Hehhe! That's good! Had a while to come up with a good story didn't ya??
Funny, there, grasshoppa. That's the same story that *I* came up with.
Same incident. Now, YOU'RE the one that needs to come up with some
supporting evidence, because if any of us on the newsgroup finds the case
> > I believe that at the moment she pulled the gun in a successful effort
> > to force the officers to kill her,
>
> She didn't force anybody to do anything, it's only your mind that would like
> to think so.
Must be a group halluncination, then, 'cause my mind was telling me the
same thing.
> > It is a court recognized fact that a person can cover 21 feet before
> > the average officer can draw and fire 1 round...
>
> Would you bet your life on it?? I know one thing, if I figured
Sounds like you wouldn't. The cops didn't either. So, what's the problem?
> I think that's an example of cops lying, and I'm pretty sure that's
> the case in the gresham incident also.
Ah. You're pretty sure. That answers everything.
Chris Gattman
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com...
> > > >
> > > > How about the 37 or so shots at the unarmed female crazy in
downtown?
> > >
> > > Thumbprint of an uneducated anti-cop, anti-gun paranoid.
> >
> > Well, ya don't have to read very far in this thread to see where I claim
to
> > be able to use a 45 indoors, without damaging anything other than a
mouse.
>
> You're claiming that a .45 round can be stopped by a common one-ounce
> mouse without damaging anything else behind it...
That's what happened. I didn't beleive it either, even took the rug up and
checked!:)
> > If I were an "anti-gun" paranoid, would I be using a 45 for a mouse trap
??
>
> Please, for the love of God, don't use your .45 for a mouse trap in my
> apartment complex, okay?
You don't seem to want to address your last point, about me being an
anti-gun nut...
>
> > Try some actual thinking and actual observation instead of spitting up
> > whatever your prefered preference is. Does the term objectivity ring a
>
> You're telling me that you HUNT MICE---in your house with a .45 CALIBER
> HANDGUN, and you're telling ME to try some actual thinking? How about a
> BB gun for chrissake?! Why don't you use an AK-47 or a 12-gauge?
> Oh...that might damage something.
That's kinda the point, yer all foamin at the mouth cause you think you know
enough about what I did to know more about it than I do, when I've done it
and you haven't. It's exactly that type attitude exhibited by the unknowing
that results in the disrespect you see here.
>
> > Well it makes a difference because for one they shouldn't have shot her
at
> > all, and
>
> How is it that you can say whether they should have shot her at all when
> you can't even remember her name or other details of the incident?
You expect me to remember the names of everybody ppb screws over or kills
unnecessarilly?? No way. It's was just another wrongful police killing, no
big
deal here. you want names, Nathan Thomas.
Were
> you there?
no.
> When was this alleged incident?
I don't remember exactly, seems as if it was just before the year ppb went
on their
killing rampage, about 3-4 years ago. They got about 15-20 that year IIRC.
> > two, because 37 bullets flying down 5th avenue puts a whole lot of
people in
> > danger that should never have begun.
>
> But you said yourself that you can fire a handgun in a ROOM without any
> danger, so...
That's right, a room, with a rug in it, on a wooden floor, on top of hard
dirt, on a fenced 1 acre
property with nobody but me there. No hard surfaces, no ricochets. Now, if
yer gonna try and convince
me that the predominate surfaces downtown are such that bullets won't
ricochet, ya got
a lot of work ahead of ya.
>
> ...was anybody hurt?
She was killed.
Are you telling me that 37 bullets flew down 5th
> Avenue and not one person or thing was damaged?
No.
> > > If your position requires you to MAKE SURE THEY'RE DEAD AND NOT
SUFFERING
> > > OR STILL CAPABLE OF PULLING THE TRIGGER,
> >
> > Which would only apply if they were armed, which she wasn't, as
>
> And you know this because?
I'm going by the Oregonain's account of it.
>
> > then you continue firing until
> > > you're sure that's the case.
> >
> > And that to you equals 37??:) Or even 16 if that's what it was??
>
OK, I read your story, here's mine. An old retired fahrt is settin in the
neighborhood
bar, and a couple guys come in and rob it. He jumps up and gets his pistol
out of
his rig and shoots at the tire as the guys are taking off. He misses the
tire, and the
bulet ricochets off the road, across the four lane street, bounces off the
hotel sign
10-15 feet up, and comes to a rest nest to the pool under a lawn chair.
After
going through the new brides throat and killing her. Sorry, but my patience
for nerds
firing around stuff like that is limited, reguardless of what gang their in.
> > The target was never any potential threat to anybody, the only danger to
> > anybody was the cops.
>
> And you know this because?
Oregonian article made that plain.
>
> > Well, maybe it's lost on you, but the caliber of a gun one chooses can
tell
> > you a lot about the owner.
>
> Yeah, no shit. For example, a guy who uses a half-inch bullet to shoot a
> one-inch mouse and claims that nothing else in the room will get
> damaged...well...that says ALL SORTS OF THINGS about the owner, doesn't
> it?
NO, I claimed it DIDN'T get hurt, as in past tense. It's not a question of
won't,
it's already happened, so your conjecture about it is nothing more than an
example
of reading problems.
> To give you an example, if I knew a guy was going to kill a mouse inside a
> room and decided to carry a .45 caliber M-1911 service-issue combat
> handgun...
You think I told anybody before I did it?? That wouldn't have been very
smart,
it was 3 blocks from a police station, and it was illegal to fire within the
city.
But they hadn't a prayer of figuiring out what went on.
By the way your assumption about why I had a 45, or that it was any
particular
model is without basis, again.
>
> I mean, have you ever seen a 14-inch long groin-to-navel excavation that
> loosens somebody's bowels and intestines through the front of their shirt
> before the blade pierces the diaphram and the heart?
Nope.
>
> One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three. I just killed
> you. Did you recognize the threat? Did you assume a defensive posture,
> draw, aim and fire your weapon?
Your assumption that I would choose to attempt to draw aim and fire my
weapon
is baseless. I've been in situations where doing such would have been highly
inappropiate, and probably deadly. In that instance, it was much easier to
kick the rifle out his hands.
>
> If you did, perhaps you just did the same thing you're accusing the cop of
> doing, which is defending himself.
I'm not opposed to defending oneself, just being an idiot in the process.
>
> Knives in close quarters DEADLIER THAN HANDGUNS and any weapons
> instructor civilian, law enforcement or military will tell you that.
> (Having been instructed by at least one of each, I can tell you that too.)
Well, that's part of the game, don't ever let it get to close quarters.
>
> Ask any of the combat vets in here.
>
> > That's faster than the average person
> > > can pull a gun, a can of pepper spray, a stungun, whatever.
> >
> > Most reactons take around 7 tenths of a second.
>
> Are you on crack, making shit up, or am I missing something here?
Yer missing a few, and definitely inventing some.
> You're
> asserting that you've used mice as backstops with no collateral damage,
Yep.
> that Portland Police came all the way out to EAST GRESHAM to kill
> somebody,
I don't know which police group it was, may have been several for all I
know,
all i know is what the news said about it.
that some lady who you can't remember the details of was killed
> by Portland police for no reason,
Yep.
that they fired 37 rounds up the 5th
> Avenue and NOBODY was hit,
No, she was killed, and as said earlier she was hit something like 16-19
times.
> > no reason to mess your drawers. I've been 6 knife fights, and so far
have
> > only one little scar that I'm not even sure exists anymore. Several of
> > which(unarmed)
>
> > I took the knife away from them. Wht can't cops do that?? Why couldn't
they
> > go get a broom and knock it away from her??
>
> 'Cause they're not superkungfu ninja jujitsu artists with lightning-quick
> reflexes and half a dozen knife fight victories like you, Grasshoppa.
Neither am I.
>
> Maybe if we ALL found our way into a half a dozen knife fights, unarmed,
> and got away from them all to go kill mice in our apartments
So now your imagination has got this occuring in apartment huh. Why don't
you make it a 4 story one, on the top floor while your at it. And you think
I'm nutz.
with
> .45-caliber handguns, we could all do that. But, in the meantime, we
> don't pay cops to shoot mice with combat firearms and then simply disarm
> would-be knife murderers without any weapon at all, so how would they
> know?
I guess I don't think it takes a whole lotta sense. I didn't have any
special
training to do any of the things mentioned here so far.
> > Sorry to hear that, but that's a considerably different situation than
> > a mentally disturbed gal not advancing, just waving the knife to get
> > people to leave her alone.
>
> When did this happen?
It's been a few years now.
What was her name?
don't know.
Who was the officer that shot
> her.
don't know.
>
> The man that stabbed my uncle is Neil Favro and it happened on June 2,
> 1982 at the Buzzard's Roost tavern on 82nd and Foster.
I hadn't heard about that one. I was goin by there the other day, and
noticed
the name's changed. Is that a result of the deal with you uncle??
Bye the way, if a human can supposedly cover 21' in the time it takes a cop
to draw and fire his gun, How many mice ya figuire a cop could get???:)
I'll give ya a clue, it's a whole lot harder hittin a mouse, they're a whole
lot faster...:)
Yes, it took me awhile, and NO, I never missed. Just had to go fer awhile
til I got
good enough to fire...:)
Chris Gattman
> > But you said yourself that you can fire a handgun in a ROOM without any
> > danger, so...
First you wrote:
> That's right, a room, with a rug in it, on a wooden floor, on top of
> hard dirt, on a fenced 1 acre property with nobody but me there. No
> hard surfaces, no ricochets.
>
> Now, if yer gonna try and convince me that the predominate surfaces
> downtown are such that bullets won't ricochet, ya got
> a lot of work ahead of ya.
Read that again, because, then you wrote, the the SAME POST:
> You think I told anybody before I did it?? That wouldn't have been
> very smart, it was 3 blocks from a police station, and it was illegal
> to fire within the city.
So, let me see if I'm getting this straight:
Your one-acre fenced house with nobody there and no hard surfaces for
which the bullet to ricochet off of was within a city and three blocks
from a police department. And, you're telling accusing ME of trying to
convince YOU that there are no predominant surfaces downtown that would
cause ricochet...
And, so you fired a .45 into a mouse, in the middle of a city, and you've
been in six knife fights and you've won them all, usually unarmed, and...
> > I mean, have you ever seen a 14-inch long groin-to-navel excavation that
> > loosens somebody's bowels and intestines through the front of their shirt
> > before the blade pierces the diaphram and the heart?
>
> Nope.
Clearly, then, you have no basis on which to understand why a cop would
open fire on a person with a knife who is within a one-second closing
distance of ANYBODY they might choose to stab.
> > One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three. I just killed
> > you. Did you recognize the threat? Did you assume a defensive posture,
> > draw, aim and fire your weapon?
>
> Your assumption that I would choose to attempt to draw aim and fire my
> weapon
> is baseless. I've been in situations where doing such would have been highly
> inappropiate, and probably deadly. In that instance, it was much easier to
> kick the rifle out his hands.
Ah...so now it's rifles and not knives. We were talking about knives
here, not rifles. The running total now is that you've killed a mouse in
a house in the middle of a city with a .45 and nothing else was damaged,
that you've been in six knife fights that you won, generally unarmed, and
you've also been attacked at close quarters by a man with a rifle who,
apparently, didn't have the brains to just shoot your ass. Either that,
or your lightning-quick Grasshoppa reflexes are faster than his trigger
finger.
> > If you did, perhaps you just did the same thing you're accusing the cop of
> > doing, which is defending himself.
>
> I'm not opposed to defending oneself, just being an idiot in the process.
The cop lived. I don't see a problem with that.
> > Knives in close quarters DEADLIER THAN HANDGUNS and any weapons
> > instructor civilian, law enforcement or military will tell you that.
> > (Having been instructed by at least one of each, I can tell you that too.)
>
> Well, that's part of the game, don't ever let it get to close quarters.
Apparently you got close enough to them in "the game" to disarm a
rifleman.
> > You're
> > asserting that you've used mice as backstops with no collateral damage,
>
> Yep.
Okay. I just wanted to hear you acknowledge that. I feel better knowing
that I can shoot a .45-cal handgun at a mouse and it won't even penetrate
enough to go hit anything behind it.
What, then, is your problem with the police shooting 37 rounds up the
street? Harmless bullets and all.
> > that Portland Police came all the way out to EAST GRESHAM to kill
> > somebody,
>
> I don't know which police group it was, may have been several for all I
> know, all i know is what the news said about it.
Ah. So, now you're not even sure if it was the Portland Police at all,
even while the PPD is the target of your argument.
> Yep.
>
> that they fired 37 rounds up the 5th
> > Avenue and NOBODY was hit,
>
> No, she was killed, and as said earlier she was hit something like 16-19
> times.
And NOBODY ELSE was hurt. Of course, you've already acknowledged that
it's safe to fire high-caliber handguns within the city limits, so I don't
see what your problem is here.
> > Maybe if we ALL found our way into a half a dozen knife fights, unarmed,
> > and got away from them all to go kill mice in our apartments
>
> So now your imagination has got this occuring in apartment huh. Why don't
No...I said "OUR" apartments. Not "YOUR" apartment. Don't start dodging
on me here. I said maybe if we ALL found our way...in OUR apartments.
> with
> > .45-caliber handguns, we could all do that. But, in the meantime, we
> > don't pay cops to shoot mice with combat firearms and then simply disarm
> > would-be knife murderers without any weapon at all, so how would they
> > know?
>
> I guess I don't think it takes a whole lotta sense. I didn't have any
> special training to do any of the things mentioned here so far.
I'm sure they don't offer classes at killing mice with .45 cals down at
the range.
> > > Sorry to hear that, but that's a considerably different situation than
> > > a mentally disturbed gal not advancing, just waving the knife to get
> > > people to leave her alone.
> >
> > When did this happen?
>
> It's been a few years now.
Ah. Thanks for being specific. Elvis came out of a UFO once. Saw it in
the newspaper. It's been a few years now. IIRC.
> What was her name?
>
> don't know.
>
> Who was the officer that shot
> > her.
>
> don't know.
Don't know much, do you? It turns out you don't even actually know if it
was the Portland Police or not way out there in Gresham.
> > The man that stabbed my uncle is Neil Favro and it happened on June 2,
> > 1982 at the Buzzard's Roost tavern on 82nd and Foster.
>
> I hadn't heard about that one. I was goin by there the other day, and
> noticed the name's changed. Is that a result of the deal with you uncle??
You'll also notice that the Sanctuary on 122nd and Glisan closed, as did
the Red Baron at the Troutdale Airport, all of which lost a lawsuit
because witnesses said they knowingly served Favro while he was visibly
intoxicated, immediately before he went on his little stabbing spree.
Seems he'd gotten into a lot of other trouble that night too.
Yeah. That's a result of my uncle. The 'Roost was held liable by the
insurance company or somebody because it happened on their premises, even
though he was just coming through the door when it happened and they
hadn't served him yet.
That was, of course, one of only many problems surrounding the 'Roost,
including a couple of incidents where women were found in the dumpster and
one was found crawling naked and bleeding to death into the parking lot
because she'd just been stabbed. My dad was there for that one. So, ol'
Buzz had plenty of other problems besides Favro, but it's a bummer because
he was friends with both my dad and my uncle.
Chris Gattman
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com...
>
> > > But you said yourself that you can fire a handgun in a ROOM without
any
> > > danger, so...
You're quoting yourself there.
>
> First you wrote:
No, this is the last thing I wrote.
Oh boy, such logic. There are many ways of dealing with a knife, for one,
the cops
batons are usually longer than most knives, thereby giving the cops an an
advantage.
Believe it or not, the answerr to all situations is NOT always pull your gun
and shoot.
> > I'm not opposed to defending oneself, just being an idiot in the
process.
>
> The cop lived. I don't see a problem with that.
>
> > > Knives in close quarters DEADLIER THAN HANDGUNS and any weapons
> > > instructor civilian, law enforcement or military will tell you that.
> > > (Having been instructed by at least one of each, I can tell you that
too.)
> >
> > Well, that's part of the game, don't ever let it get to close quarters.
>
> Apparently you got close enough to them in "the game" to disarm a
> rifleman.
Ya ever knocked on somebody's door?? If the door opens and there's a rifle
there,
ya knock it aside, not reach for your pistol.
>
> > > You're
> > > asserting that you've used mice as backstops with no collateral
damage,
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Okay. I just wanted to hear you acknowledge that. I feel better knowing
> that I can shoot a .45-cal handgun at a mouse and it won't even penetrate
> enough to go hit anything behind it.
I didn't say you could, I said I did. From what I've seen I doubt you could.
>
> What, then, is your problem with the police shooting 37 rounds up the
> street? Harmless bullets and all.
Some are, some aren't. I doubt the cops bullets were harmless.
>
> And NOBODY ELSE was hurt. Of course, you've already acknowledged that
> it's safe to fire high-caliber handguns within the city limits, so I don't
> see what your problem is here.
No, I acknowledged no such thing, I acknowledged that I could, have, and it
was
safe. That's a far stretch from anybody can.
>
> > > Maybe if we ALL found our way into a half a dozen knife fights,
unarmed,
> > > and got away from them all to go kill mice in our apartments
> >
> > So now your imagination has got this occuring in apartment huh. Why
don't
>
> No...I said "OUR" apartments. Not "YOUR" apartment. Don't start dodging
> on me here. I said maybe if we ALL found our way...in OUR apartments.
> > with
> > > .45-caliber handguns, we could all do that.
Anybody that would even think of trying something like that in an apartment
hasn't a clue.
>
> Don't know much, do you? It turns out you don't even actually know if it
> was the Portland Police or not way out there in Gresham.
Well it's hardly uncommon ya know. I know a couple of instances where
several
different agencies, most distinctly out of their jurisdiction, have appeared
to reak destruction.
One, had had california in vancouver, another had ppb on the far side of
happy valley.
> > > The man that stabbed my uncle is Neil Favro and it happened on June 2,
> > > 1982 at the Buzzard's Roost tavern on 82nd and Foster.
> >
> > I hadn't heard about that one. I was goin by there the other day, and
> > noticed the name's changed. Is that a result of the deal with you
uncle??
>
> You'll also notice that the Sanctuary on 122nd and Glisan closed, as did
> the Red Baron at the Troutdale Airport, all of which lost a lawsuit
> because witnesses said they knowingly served Favro while he was visibly
> intoxicated, immediately before he went on his little stabbing spree.
> Seems he'd gotten into a lot of other trouble that night too.
>
> Yeah. That's a result of my uncle. The 'Roost was held liable by the
> insurance company or somebody because it happened on their premises, even
> though he was just coming through the door when it happened and they
> hadn't served him yet.
>
> That was, of course, one of only many problems surrounding the 'Roost,
> including a couple of incidents where women were found in the dumpster and
> one was found crawling naked and bleeding to death into the parking lot
> because she'd just been stabbed. My dad was there for that one. So, ol'
> Buzz had plenty of other problems besides Favro, but it's a bummer because
> he was friends with both my dad and my uncle.
Seems to me I do dimly remember something like that at the roost. There was
one at one of the joints on portland hwy(viewpoint??) where some gal ended
up dead in a garbage can IIRC. Something about that kind of thing kinda
turns
my stomach, don't even like bein in the neighborhood where that kind of crap
washes.
One of the problems with ppb being what they are, is that in instances
like what
your dad was up to that night, I'd have probably been willing to give him a
hand.
But as it is, I ain't helpin no ppb people period.
Actually, I witnessed the kid that got run over awhile back. I had to yack
with
ppb for 4 hours to get it thorough their heads straight. I saw the guy(yes,
I know his name,
it's Roland Moore) trying to get away, and got his license#. When the cops
showed up
they said their computer was down and couldn't get anything on him. It was
all i could
do to keep from saying take me Kinko's, I'll get it for ya.:)(yes, I know
the guy that put
the info on the net) Anyhow, the upshot is that the da's threatened ME 4
times
in the process of that trial, always canceling at the last minute. Well, I
don't see anything
anymore. Fortunately, haven't seen anybody get launched into the street and
run over
lately. But there have been some things, nothing much, hit and run's,
thievery and the like.
And just to feed yer dementia a little more, awhile back I caught a kid
rifling cars,
he pulls one off those little electric gizmos out and sparked it a few
times, and figuires
I'm gonna run. He learned
how to run that night, and no, I didn't tell anybody. Wasn't much different
than a knife,
if he can't touch me with it he can't hurt me with it.
Chris Gattman
>
> Oh boy, such logic. There are many ways of dealing with a knife, for
> one, the cops batons are usually longer than most knives, thereby
> giving the cops an an advantage.
When somebody assaults you with a deadly weapon, you're not in any way
obligated to sort through your arsenal to determine which weapon would be
the least offensive.
I've seen stab wounds...not piddly-ass scratches that may or may not be
around any more, but real ones...both in the flesh and in photo, and I
guarantee you that if somebody comes after me with a knife, I'm not going
to waste any time doing everything in my power to kill that person.
Sorry if you don't see the logic in that. I'm not interested in "the
game"--as you call it--and if the person doesn't want to get shot, all
they have to do is not wield a knife at somebody. It's pretty simple.
> Believe it or not, the answerr to all situations is NOT always pull your gun
> and shoot.
Who said it was?
BTW, if I came at you with my Ka-Bar, you better whup out some pretty
damned good Jackie Chan ninja-kungfu Grasshoppa shit, run like hell, or
shoot my ass, which would be the best answer to that situation. You're
not going to take the blade away from me one way or another without
bleeding a lot.
And if somebody pulls a knife on me, I'm not going to fight them, I'm
going to run like hell or, if my job involves protecting people from that
knife, I'm going to pull out the gun and shoot. I'm not gonna get hacked
up trying to reason with some psychotic bitch in a parking lot who's
stupid enough to point a weapon at me.
> > > Well, that's part of the game, don't ever let it get to close quarters.
> >
> > Apparently you got close enough to them in "the game" to disarm a
> > rifleman.
>
> Ya ever knocked on somebody's door?? If the door opens and there's a rifle
> there, ya knock it aside, not reach for your pistol.
One thing you could do is leave. Seems pretty clear that the person
didn't want you messing with them. Let's see...six knife fights, some
illegal indoor rodent-killing with a .45 in the middle of a city, and now
you've got people pulling weapons on you when you show up at their door.
Paints an interesting mental picture of you, I'll tell you that much.
> > Okay. I just wanted to hear you acknowledge that. I feel better knowing
> > that I can shoot a .45-cal handgun at a mouse and it won't even penetrate
> > enough to go hit anything behind it.
>
> I didn't say you could, I said I did. From what I've seen I doubt you could.
You haven't seen anything from me to challenge my shooting skills one way
or the other. I shot competitively in the Marine Corps in 1988 and
1998, though.
> > And NOBODY ELSE was hurt. Of course, you've already acknowledged that
> > it's safe to fire high-caliber handguns within the city limits, so I don't
> > see what your problem is here.
>
> No, I acknowledged no such thing, I acknowledged that I could, have, and it
> was safe. That's a far stretch from anybody can.
Ah...your bullets must be magical then. Where does one find such
mystical ammunition? Or are you just some sort of Annie Oakley?
> > No...I said "OUR" apartments. Not "YOUR" apartment. Don't start dodging
> > on me here. I said maybe if we ALL found our way...in OUR apartments.
> > > with
> > > > .45-caliber handguns, we could all do that.
>
> Anybody that would even think of trying something like that in an apartment
> hasn't a clue.
Well, you know, anybody who'd think of trying something like shooting a
mouse with a .45-cal in the middle of a city doesn't really have much
ground on which to judge, know what I mean? ;>
> Seems to me I do dimly remember something like that at the roost.
> There was one at one of the joints on portland hwy(viewpoint??) where
> some gal ended up dead in a garbage can IIRC. Something about that
> kind of thing kinda turns my stomach, don't even like bein in the
> neighborhood where that kind of crap washes.
No argument there. Used to be a really freaky part of town down by Tom
Peterson's. White trash crankheads with nothing better to do. My dad was
witness at the 82nd and Foster intersection when a guy mowed down a lady
with a shopping cart crossing the street out of pure malice. That was
about ten or twelve years ago. Not sure if it's still so crazy down
there anymore.
> anymore. Fortunately, haven't seen anybody get launched into the
> street and run over lately. But there have been some things, nothing
> much, hit and run's, thievery and the like.
I had a really good Portland Police story which is too long and bizarre to
tell. Short version is, some black dude is whacking on a guy in a
Mercedes with a baseball bat and me and this redneck-looking guy run over
to help and we both about get killed by a police that comes up the wrong
way. They toss the guy to the ground and give him hell before they
realize it's HIS car he's whacking on, and the guy in the car is some dude
who just stole a delivery van and sunk it in the 5th Street fountain. He
was hiding.
Wouldn't come out of the car, so the police woman pepper sprayed him.
Accidentally fired it backward into her own face, then totally wigged out
and just nuked the guy with it, filling up the car, spraying the poor
bastard that owned it who was lying on the ground, and just about
everybody else around.
Me and Bubba backed away. We figured we were ALL about to die.
After a bit one of the cops was standing there and I told them I saw what
happened, including the van wreck.
The only problem was, I was covered in blood.
It was Friday the 13th and I'd been covering a death metal show at
Satyricon, and at the end of the show the singer had hucked a jug of fake
blood at the ceiling, splashing everybody with it. Figured I'd washed it
all off, but apparently not.
Don't ever talk to cops when you're covered in blood. Finally the lady
calmed down and I told her "Oh...you know...Friday the 13th. I was at the
Satyricon." She just nodded, like "Oh...that explains everything. No
problem."
Weird ass part of town. I love it.
> how to run that night, and no, I didn't tell anybody. Wasn't much different
> than a knife,
> if he can't touch me with it he can't hurt me with it.
So what do you do if I come at you with a 12" Marine combat knife held in
my right hand, close to my ribs, pointed at you, and my left hand is in a
fist in a basic karate position?
Untrained attackers take the "Psycho" knife-in-the-forwardmost-hand stance
which is easy to block. A trained attacker will use his left hand like a
cat uses its tail, to draw your attention from the blade. Basically, by
repeated punching, jabs to the eye, or just fake-out movements. The
minute the victim take his attention to the hand that's attacking him
repeatedly, and NOT the knife, the knife comes forward in a quick,
straight lunge. Emphasis on quick. If you deflect, but not instantly, it
misses your gut but makes a huge gash in your side. If you grab at the
knife arm, the attacker's left hand fingers go directly into your
eyeballs.
What would a six-time knife-combat veteran do in such a case?
Chris Gattman
Ric@
>There you go with your unfounded assumptions again. Where's your data
>to come to the conclusion that I don't know what real shootings are like?
>Matter of fact, I've had the portland goon squad threaten to show me
>first hand more than once.
Which has nothing to do with your mysterious knowledge of what
shootings are like, but goes a long way toward clearing up why you
feel the need to push the "anti-PPB" agenda. Had quite a bit of
contact, have ya? Guess the discussion is pointless at this point. :-)
<bunch of "if i plug my ears I don't have to face facts" baloney
snipped>
>To who??:)
>(That's been tried by the way)
You mean like the Benge case?
>> Nope...they joined PPB.
>
>One did.
LOL. Where did you come up with "one"? If you're just gonna pull
numbers out of nowhere there's no use talking about it...point is you
don't know what you're talking about.
Cya.
Ric@
wrote:
>Yeah, no shit. For example, a guy who uses a half-inch bullet to shoot a
>one-inch mouse and claims that nothing else in the room will get
>damaged...well...that says ALL SORTS OF THINGS about the owner, doesn't
>it?
LOL. Good post overall, and this was golden. :-)
Russell Senior
Russell> Anyway, I think an arms race and a first-strike policy is the
Russell> wrong solution.
Chris> So, as I understand it, you're saying folks should wait to be
Chris> shot before reacting?
I am saying that an expectation that *anyone* is going to be shot
means you have already made grave errors. I am saying that you need
to work on not making those errors. Part of not getting shot involves
not getting shot at. Part of not getting shot at involves not
provoking the shot.
Chris> Sorry, man. I refuse to be the first person killed in a
Chris> gunfight.
You evidently fantasize about being *involved* in a gunfight. I
don't. Nor do I think anyone wants to kill me. I certainly don't
want to kill anyone.
Ric@
wrote:
>I recall that the `gun' turned out to be a pellet gun or something
>similarly lethal. Or am I misremembering?
That's correct...of course it's hard to tell that when it's pointed at
you and you have a split second to wonder if you're about to die.
Russell Senior
>> I recall that the `gun' turned out to be a pellet gun or something
>> similarly lethal. Or am I misremembering?
Ric> That's correct...of course it's hard to tell that when it's
Ric> pointed at you and you have a split second to wonder if you're
Ric> about to die.
Yes. They were undoubtedly wearing body armour, but a lucky shot
could have been fatal had she actually possessed a lethal weapon. One
wonders if perhaps, taking another step backward in the analysis, it
was possible to avoid the situation where you had to make that snap
decision.
Other circumstances where I have similar doubts are the circumstances
where a police officer shoots someone `trying to run them over', as I
have seen reported several times in the last 5 years or so. It seems
like it would be more prudent just to step out of the way and worry
about apprehending the suspect later when you've got something more
substantial to protect you. Trying to get them to stop with your
body, and then shooting them if they don't, just seems unnecessarily
confrontational and, ultimately deadly, for what seems insufficient
cause.
Chris Gattman
> Chris> So, as I understand it, you're saying folks should wait to be
> Chris> shot before reacting?
>
> I am saying that an expectation that *anyone* is going to be shot
> means you have already made grave errors. I am saying that you need
> to work on not making those errors. Part of not getting shot involves
> not getting shot at. Part of not getting shot at involves not
> provoking the shot.
Okay, Russell, I get what you're saying and I partly agree. It's
certainly not ALWAYS the case, though. To say that my uncle shouldn't
have been in the tavern where he was stabbed because it's a bad part of
town, or a convenience store clerk shouldn't have been working graveyard
when she was shot, or things like that, is where I'd have to draw the line
there. But, if you're saying that a lot of people are shot because they
ALLOW themselves to do things that might accelerate a bad
situation--bravado, provokation, etc--then I agree.
>
> Chris> Sorry, man. I refuse to be the first person killed in a
> Chris> gunfight.
>
> You evidently fantasize about being *involved* in a gunfight. I
No, I definately don't. Your perception is inaccurate.
-gatt
Chris Gattman
Chris Gattman
> Other circumstances where I have similar doubts are the circumstances
> where a police officer shoots someone `trying to run them over', as I
> have seen reported several times in the last 5 years or so. It seems
> like it would be more prudent just to step out of the way and worry
My grandfather (I just inherited his service revolver) taught the weapons
school for the MHSO in the '60s and '70s out at Kelly Butte our wherever
that was.
His trick was to bring out an old junker, confiscated auto or runnable
wreck and start the engine. Then, he start it up and let it run, and
shoot the engine with a .357 Magnum. One time, he said, the entire
engine block dropped out of an Impala.
The point of the demonstration was that you don't need to shoot the driver
or a small target like the tires to stop a moving vehicle anymore than he
was expected to shoot the pilot in order to shoot down German planes in
WWII. If you can get a good shot at the snout of the car, with a
sufficient sidearm you can take out the radiator, fan and all sorts of
critical components of the engine and then just follow it until it dies.
No need to try to hit the driver in the moving vehicle.
'Course, there's a reason why they put him in charge.
-gatt
Chris Gattman
ou812
"Russell Senior" <sen...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:864s6dj...@coulee.tdb.com...
> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Gattman <ga...@teleport.com> writes:
>
> Russell> Anyway, I think an arms race and a first-strike policy is the
> Russell> wrong solution.
>
> Chris> shot before reacting?
>
> I am saying that an expectation that *anyone* is going to be shot
> means you have already made grave errors.
Exactly.
> I am saying that you need
> to work on not making those errors.
Yep.
Part of not getting shot involves
> not getting shot at. Part of not getting shot at involves not
> provoking the shot.
There ya go.
>
> Chris> Sorry, man. I refuse to be the first person killed in a
> Chris> gunfight.
Yeah, well my point is acting like you know things you don't,
and trying to act the tough guy at any excuse increases your
likelyhood of getting shot a lot more than it's worth.
ou812
> >similarly lethal. Or am I misremembering?
>
> you and you have a split second to wonder if you're about to die.
It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract them, a
third could rush them, nobody dies.
But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
Chris Gattman
> > That's correct...of course it's hard to tell that when it's pointed at
> > you and you have a split second to wonder if you're about to die.
>
> It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract them, a
> third could rush them, nobody dies.
> But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
Why take a risk getting maimed or killed and leaving your family to grieve
and mourn because some DUMBSHIT lacks the COMMON SENSE to put their
freakin' knife, squirt gun, BB-gun, handgun, whatever, down, when the
police tell them to.
It's real simple democracy at work. We, as a majority, tolerate it. IT,
in this case, is the quite simple notion that when a police officer tells
you to put your weapon on the ground, you do it.
The guy that raised me drew his weapon hundreds and hundreds of times over
his 20 years of police service and never had to shoot anybody. I asked
him about this, and he told me it was simple matter of saying "PUT IT DOWN
OR I WILL SHOOT YOU."
And if they don't, well...they better be deaf or have some other valid
excuse. They didn't pay him enough for him to die in the line of duty and
I have no sympathy for anybody who can't follow the simple instructions of
a law enforcement officer who has a gun drawn and pointed at them.
Sorry. She had a gun, she pointed it at the cop, she deserved what she
got. If the woman in Gresham had a knife and didn't put it down when our
public safety officials told her to put it down, she deserved what she
got.
Some people have been shot who DIDN'T have weapons on them. Those people
did not deserve to be killed. Those are different cases, and different
officers, however, and should be addressed in their own context.
Chris Gattman
ou812
> >to come to the conclusion that I don't know what real shootings are like?
> >Matter of fact, I've had the portland goon squad threaten to show me
> >first hand more than once.
>
> shootings are like,
Which is not the subject, and none of your buisness
unless I decide to make it so. You've failed to answer
for you unsupported claim.
but goes a long way toward clearing up why you
> feel the need to push the "anti-PPB" agenda.
Only if one is willing to create grandiose erroneous conclusions out of thin
air as your proving yourself quite adept at.
Had quite a bit of
> contact, have ya?
Yep, I know how screwed up through some first hand expierience,
amongst other things. Now if you follow the usual propaganda,
you'll say that cops are always right, and anybody that's ever had
direct expierience is wrong, just ask one.
There's only one small problem, your crew doesn't have
any convictions to stand on.
> Guess the discussion is pointless at this point. :-)
From what I've seen from you, I'd suspect so.
>
> <bunch of "if i plug my ears I don't have to face facts" baloney
> snipped>
Sure ya don't wanna say that I need rogaine too, like some of
your cohorts??
>
> >To who??:)
> >(That's been tried by the way)
>
> You mean like the Benge case?
>
No, it was tried on a case that never got to be a case.
> >> Nope...they joined PPB.
> >
> >One did.
>
> LOL. Where did you come up with "one"?
That's how many I'm personally familiar with that did.
It's pretty easy to prove too. The former Sherrif, does
NOT work for ppb.
If you're just gonna pull
> numbers out of nowhere there's no use talking about it
No, I stated a fact, as I know it, there may be more, but there
damn sure isn't less. YOU on the other hand seem to prefer
scatalogical assumptions.
...point is you
> don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Cya.
Yeah, well I see your point, you can put your hat back on now.
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com...
>
> >
> > one, the cops batons are usually longer than most knives, thereby
> > giving the cops an an advantage.
>
> When somebody assaults you with a deadly weapon, you're not in any way
> obligated to sort through your arsenal to determine which weapon would be
> the least offensive.
Well, obviously YOU think that's time to draw and kill, I don't. Some of the
knife
fight's I've been in the only reason the jerk had the knife was because they
wanted to
be bad, knew they couldn't fight, so got a knife. Hadn't a clue what to do
with it.
You obviously would have killed them. I got pissed that the stupid jerk was
dumb enough to pull a knife on me and kicked the crap out him.
>
> I've seen stab wounds...not piddly-ass scratches that may or may not be
> around any more, but real ones...both in the flesh and in photo, and I
> guarantee you that if somebody comes after me with a knife, I'm not going
> to waste any time doing everything in my power to kill that person.
Well some of us are going to assess the situation first, and make the
best decision from there. If I were as light headed as you, 6 people would
be dead that aren't.
>
> Sorry if you don't see the logic in that. I'm not interested in "the
> game"--as you call it--and if the person doesn't want to get shot, all
> they have to do is not wield a knife at somebody. It's pretty simple.
Well, you sound like a good case waiting to happen. Several people over the
years
have learned the mistake of such stupid behavior without dying for it, but
obviously that's beyond your capability.
>
> > Believe it or not, the answerr to all situations is NOT always pull your
gun
> > and shoot.
>
> Who said it was?
Everything you've said indicates thats the way you operate, you know you
think
you can get the courts to buy you killing anybody coming at you from at
least 21'
away.(Which is absolutely ridicoulous) You think you've got a right to kill
anybody that pulls a knife on you, reguardless of anything else.
It's like it's the only trained reaction you have, it's your answer to
nearly every
situation.
>
> BTW, if I came at you with my Ka-Bar, you better whup out some pretty
> damned good Jackie Chan ninja-kungfu Grasshoppa shit, run like hell, or
> shoot my ass, which would be the best answer to that situation. You're
> not going to take the blade away from me one way or another without
> bleeding a lot.
Thank you, if that's not evidence of mental problems few things are.
>
> And if somebody pulls a knife on me, I'm not going to fight them, I'm
> going to run like hell or, if my job involves protecting people from that
> knife, I'm going to pull out the gun and shoot. I'm not gonna get hacked
> up trying to reason with some psychotic bitch in a parking lot who's
> stupid enough to point a weapon at me.
You're starting to sound more psychotic than she.
>
> > > > Well, that's part of the game, don't ever let it get to close
quarters.
> > >
> > > Apparently you got close enough to them in "the game" to disarm a
> > > rifleman.
> >
> > Ya ever knocked on somebody's door?? If the door opens and there's a
rifle
> > there, ya knock it aside, not reach for your pistol.
>
> One thing you could do is leave.
Only if your given the chance, and it didn't look like I would be.
Seems pretty clear that the person
> didn't want you messing with them. Let's see...six knife fights, some
> illegal indoor rodent-killing with a .45 in the middle of a city, and now
> you've got people pulling weapons on you when you show up at their door.
>
> Paints an interesting mental picture of you, I'll tell you that much.
Why don't you expound some more?? I'm curious just how much bs you can
generate on what little you know.
Let's see, so far we have you accusing me of
1. Being and avid anti-gun nut.
2. Lying.
3. Accused me of being nuts because I don't share your simplistic
ideas.
All the while YOU can't figuire out how I did what I've done and want ME to
tell
you how I did it. Of course you being a claimed Marine weapons expert and
can't
figuire it out, and having to ask me makes me a nut.
Ya, sure. I'll give ya a hint, it ain't magic, everyting neccessary has
been around
for years, and all the technology is probably older than you are.
>
> > > Okay. I just wanted to hear you acknowledge that. I feel better
knowing
> > > that I can shoot a .45-cal handgun at a mouse and it won't even
penetrate
> > > enough to go hit anything behind it.
> >
> > I didn't say you could, I said I did. From what I've seen I doubt you
could.
>
> You haven't seen anything from me to challenge my shooting skills one way
> or the other. I shot competitively in the Marine Corps in 1988 and
> 1998, though.
I've seen you inability to reason and logic. There's a little more to it
than just
gun mechanics.
> > > And NOBODY ELSE was hurt. Of course, you've already acknowledged
that
> > > it's safe to fire high-caliber handguns within the city limits, so I
don't
> > > see what your problem is here.
> >
> > No, I acknowledged no such thing, I acknowledged that I could, have, and
it
> > was safe. That's a far stretch from anybody can.
>
> Ah...your bullets must be magical then. Where does one find such
> mystical ammunition? Or are you just some sort of Annie Oakley?
By pulling their head out where it can get some air, using some reason
and logic, and thinking for once.
It ain't no magic, only ignorance on your part. And as long as you continue
to
jump to the unsubstantiated conclusions and invent various vaporware
theories,
that's the way it's gonna stay.
> Well, you know, anybody who'd think of trying something like shooting a
> mouse with a .45-cal in the middle of a city doesn't really have much
> ground on which to judge, know what I mean? ;>
There you go again, just rearrange the non-existant facts to suit your
purpose.
Just exactly where is it that you came by the knowledge that led you to
conclude that it was in the middle of a city???
You don't have it, again. Another of your superflous imaginings.
When you get to the point that you can act rationally, you opinion may be
worth
considering, I suspect it won't be soon.
>
> So what do you do if I come at you with a 12" Marine combat knife held in
> my right hand, close to my ribs, pointed at you, and my left hand is in a
> fist in a basic karate position?
Try it and see.
>
> Untrained attackers take the "Psycho" knife-in-the-forwardmost-hand stance
> which is easy to block. A trained attacker will use his left hand like a
> cat uses its tail, to draw your attention from the blade. Basically, by
> repeated punching, jabs to the eye, or just fake-out movements. The
> minute the victim take his attention to the hand that's attacking him
> repeatedly, and NOT the knife, the knife comes forward in a quick,
> straight lunge. Emphasis on quick. If you deflect, but not instantly, it
> misses your gut but makes a huge gash in your side. If you grab at the
> knife arm, the attacker's left hand fingers go directly into your
> eyeballs.
>
> What would a six-time knife-combat veteran do in such a case?
From the way you've been carrying on, not tell you.
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com...
> > >
> > > you and you have a split second to wonder if you're about to die.
> >
> > It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract
them, a
> > third could rush them, nobody dies.
> > But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
>
> Why take a risk getting maimed or killed and leaving your family to grieve
> and mourn because some DUMBSHIT lacks the COMMON SENSE to put their
> freakin' knife, squirt gun, BB-gun, handgun, whatever, down, when the
> police tell them to.
Well that's the first problem right there, the police thinking they can tell
them to.
>
> It's real simple democracy at work. We, as a majority, tolerate it. IT,
> in this case, is the quite simple notion that when a police officer tells
> you to put your weapon on the ground, you do it.
That is an oregon state law, one I doubt has seem a whole lot of review
by the feds. Further, for you information this country is a republic, and
any
democracy comes after that. I rather suspect that it made it to the supreme
court,
this notion that cops have any authority or jurisdiction to order a citizen
to do anything
without arresting them first would be alleviated.
>
> The guy that raised me drew his weapon hundreds and hundreds of times over
> his 20 years of police service and never had to shoot anybody. I asked
> him about this, and he told me it was simple matter of saying "PUT IT DOWN
> OR I WILL SHOOT YOU."
So basically what you're saying is never allow a cop in the area unless you
have a gun on him??
>
> And if they don't, well...they better be deaf or have some other valid
> excuse.
I really don't much care what you think of it, but I had one of the portland
bozos
with your mentality come fairly close to killing me, and no I didn't listen
to her
crap because I had more important things to take care of at the moment. Ya
see,
she, like you has no brain, and see's some little thing and coujures up all
kind
of wild fantacy. I don't know what she theought, but I was on fire, and she
sez
"freeze". To myself I'm goin screw you, I ain't gonna stand here and burn,
and
proceeded to swat the fire out. Didn't really much care if she shot, I
wasn't
gonna burn either way. When it was all over she saw the inside of my jacket,
and where my shirt had burned, and it was like "oh wow, he didn't lie, I was
wrong"
Amazing ain't it.
They didn't pay him enough for him to die in the line of duty and
> I have no sympathy for anybody who can't follow the simple instructions of
> a law enforcement officer who has a gun drawn and pointed at them.
Then how about for a law enforcement officer hanging by his feet upside down
with his pistol, waving in the air, with his intended victim administering
to him??
If you insist on acting like an idiot, people are gonna lay for you, and you
nor
anybody else can avoid it. I'd suggest wising up.
>
> Sorry. She had a gun, she pointed it at the cop, she deserved what she
> got.
I hope you live long enough to see the fruits of that opinion.
> If the woman in Gresham had a knife and didn't put it down when our
> public safety officials told her to put it down, she deserved what she
> got.
OK, we see the tape recorder is on, it's all repeats from here on in...
>
> Some people have been shot who DIDN'T have weapons on them. Those people
> did not deserve to be killed. Those are different cases, and different
> officers, however, and should be addressed in their own context.
>
>
> Chris Gattman
You're contradicting yourself, earlier you said anybody that didn't jump to
some
cops whim deserved to get killed, now it's just armed ones.
Yes, I've had protland cops threaten to kill me both ways,
more often unarmed though, of course with their badges hidden...
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
-snips-
> It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract them, a
> third could rush them, nobody dies.
'Cept, of course, maybe the fellow doing the distracting - or the fellow
doing the rushing. Which role are you volunteering for?
You've been watching -way- too many movies, TT.
> But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
Can you show me one police or sheriff's department which teaches the
"somebody distract 'em, somebody rush 'em" technique when confronted with
someone armed with a deadly weapon? Doesn't happen. THAT would be the
"bozo approach"!
Maybe they should jest make like the Lone Ranger and jest shoot the gun
outa their hand? Or, like Lash LaRue, we could just arm cops with
bullwhips and with one quick snap of the lash, they could flick the gun
from their hand?
Sheesh!
Peace and justice,
Chris Gattman
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:07:56 -0700, "ou812" <tal...@dcl.com> wrote:
> >
> > >to come to the conclusion that I don't know what real shootings are like?
> > >Matter of fact, I've had the portland goon squad threaten to show me
> > >first hand more than once.
> >
> > shootings are like,
>
> Which is not the subject, and none of your buisness
> unless I decide to make it so. You've failed to answer
> for you unsupported claim.
Hey, you brought it up. He just called you on it. Sounds like you're
failing to answer for yet another unsupported claim yourself.
> but goes a long way toward clearing up why you
> > feel the need to push the "anti-PPB" agenda.
>
> Only if one is willing to create grandiose erroneous conclusions out of thin
> air as your proving yourself quite adept at.
Interesting, coming from you. Our entire discussion so far has been
based on vague memories by you of incidents you can't quite identify such
that we can look them up, that have a habit of bending one way or another
to suit your argument.
> > >To who??:)
> > >(That's been tried by the way)
> >
> > You mean like the Benge case?
>
> No, it was tried on a case that never got to be a case.
Ah...isn't that just perfect? How come this doesn't surprise me? Let me
guess. It's none of our business unless you choose to make it so.
> > >One did.
> >
> > LOL. Where did you come up with "one"?
>
> That's how many I'm personally familiar with that did.
> It's pretty easy to prove too. The former Sherrif, does
That'd be a switch. What's his name? He's a public official so he should
have no problem with his name being offered.
Chris Gattman
Chris Gattman
> "Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com...
> > >
> > > Oh boy, such logic. There are many ways of dealing with a knife, for
> > > one, the cops batons are usually longer than most knives, thereby
> > > giving the cops an an advantage.
> >
> > When somebody assaults you with a deadly weapon, you're not in any way
> > obligated to sort through your arsenal to determine which weapon would be
> > the least offensive.
>
> Well, obviously YOU think that's time to draw and kill, I don't. Some
> of the knife fight's I've been in the only reason the jerk had the
> knife was because they wanted to be bad, knew they couldn't fight, so
> got a knife. Hadn't a clue what to do with it.
In that situation, if I was armed, I'd have shot him. That's his problem.
He should have known better than to pull a deadly weapon on me. (If it
was a Swiss Army Knife or something that might be different.)
Look, I have no interest in standing around psychoanalyzing some guy to
figure out why he's threatening to kill me with a knife, and I have no
desire to risk death or crippling wounds like those my uncle has, just
because some guy wants to be bad.
Consequences. You pull a knife or a gun on somebody and you suffer the
consequences, tough shit. If I'm in any way empowered to stop it, he'll
never do it again.
> You obviously would have killed them. I got pissed that the stupid jerk was
> dumb enough to pull a knife on me and kicked the crap out him.
He probably went out and got a better knife, nursed his wounds, practiced
up his skills a little and, next time he'll make sure he doesn't lose.
Smart thinking, dude.
> Well some of us are going to assess the situation first, and make the
> best decision from there. If I were as light headed as you, 6 people would
> be dead that aren't.
*shrug* If they threaten somebody's life, they deserve what they get if
I choose to defend myself. People should expect that in advance before
they do stupid shit like pulling knives. Mama always told me not to pull
a knife on somebody because there was always somebody that would know how
to use it better than you and might know how to take it from you.
She was right. I'm one of those guys, thanks to Uncle Sam, and if you
pull a knife on me and I have a choice, I'll kill you. I see absolutely
no weakness in that. If you threaten a grizzly bear and you give him a
chance, he'll kill you. Threaten a lion...same thing. That's the law of
the jungle.
> > Sorry if you don't see the logic in that. I'm not interested in "the
> > game"--as you call it--and if the person doesn't want to get shot, all
> > they have to do is not wield a knife at somebody. It's pretty simple.
>
> Well, you sound like a good case waiting to happen. Several people
> over the years have learned the mistake of such stupid behavior
> without dying for it, but obviously that's beyond your capability.
I have no interest in whether they live or die. I'm not walking around on
this planet to educate people who have such disregard for me that they
threaten to kill me. What are you, Jesus?
> > Who said it was?
>
> Everything you've said indicates thats the way you operate, you know you
> think you can get the courts to buy you killing anybody coming at you from at
> least 21'
I'd certainly wait until they got a little closer.
> away.(Which is absolutely ridicoulous) You think you've got a right to kill
> anybody that pulls a knife on you, reguardless of anything else.
I've asked the cops and the courts, and, yes, I have been granted that
right. You can't shoot somebody who's unarmed or armed with anything
less than a deadly weapon.
> It's like it's the only trained reaction you have, it's your answer to
> nearly every situation.
Ensures my survival. Got a problem with that? Shouldn't you be out
shooting mice?
> > BTW, if I came at you with my Ka-Bar, you better whup out some pretty
> > damned good Jackie Chan ninja-kungfu Grasshoppa shit, run like hell, or
> > shoot my ass, which would be the best answer to that situation. You're
> > not going to take the blade away from me one way or another without
> > bleeding a lot.
>
> Thank you, if that's not evidence of mental problems few things are.
...coming from a guy that's found his way into six knife fights and shoots
mice with a .45 that must make you a first class idgit.
> > And if somebody pulls a knife on me, I'm not going to fight them, I'm
> > going to run like hell or, if my job involves protecting people from that
> > knife, I'm going to pull out the gun and shoot. I'm not gonna get hacked
> > up trying to reason with some psychotic bitch in a parking lot who's
> > stupid enough to point a weapon at me.
>
> You're starting to sound more psychotic than she.
You're starting to sound like a completely delusional asshole who'd
descending into personal attacks now. I can play that way. After all, I
don't believe a goddam thing you've said yet, about being in knife fights,
the cops, the cases, the mice. Basically, you're a freakin' third-rate
liar and a loser. None of that ever happened to you and everybody here
knows it.
> Why don't you expound some more?? I'm curious just how much bs you can
> generate on what little you know.
> Let's see, so far we have you accusing me of
> 1. Being and avid anti-gun nut.
> 2. Lying.
> 3. Accused me of being nuts because I don't share your simplistic
Yes, that is correct. You're a liar, and you're nuts. I've already
retracted the anti-gun part, but evidently you can't read.
> you how I did it. Of course you being a claimed Marine weapons expert and
> can't figuire it out, and having to ask me makes me a nut.
Didn't claim to be an expert. I shot on a regional Marine Corps rifle
team from late 1987 to 1989 and had miscellaneous formal and informal
training at Quantico, Virginia, (Marine Corps Combat Development Education
Center) and that's about it. And I didn't HAVE to ask you. I asked you
how YOU'D react, grasshoppa...you being the urban combat vet and all.
As far as you, I'm calling you an unrepentant and pathological liar.
> There you go again, just rearrange the non-existant facts to suit your
> purpose.
> Just exactly where is it that you came by the knowledge that led you to
> conclude that it was in the middle of a city???
You told me, crackhead, that it was a house in a fenced, one-acre yard
three blocks from the city police department and that it was illegal to
fire the weapon in the city limits. Now, if you challenge me again, I'm
going to reforward your original post to the newsgroup to REMIND everybody
that you're a liar. You keep changing your story. I keep them all to
compare.
> You don't have it, again. Another of your superflous imaginings.
No...I'm just keeping a close record of your imaginings, actually.
> > my right hand, close to my ribs, pointed at you, and my left hand is in a
> > fist in a basic karate position?
>
> Try it and see.
And you call me "psycho." You're a joke.
> > What would a six-time knife-combat veteran do in such a case?
>
> From the way you've been carrying on, not tell you.
You have no idea, do you? I already know the answer, so don't worry
about it.
Idiot.
Chris Gattman
Chris Gattman
> >
> > Why take a risk getting maimed or killed and leaving your family to grieve
> > and mourn because some DUMBSHIT lacks the COMMON SENSE to put their
> > freakin' knife, squirt gun, BB-gun, handgun, whatever, down, when the
> > police tell them to.
>
> Well that's the first problem right there, the police thinking they can tell
> them to.
We as a society have granted the police that right.
Give it up, liar. You're wasting my time, you have no credibility and,
well, let's just say you're not as good at is as Bill Clinton.
> > It's real simple democracy at work. We, as a majority, tolerate it. IT,
> > in this case, is the quite simple notion that when a police officer tells
> > you to put your weapon on the ground, you do it.
>
> That is an oregon state law, one I doubt has seem a whole lot of review
> by the feds. Further, for you information this country is a republic, and
So be it.
> > The guy that raised me drew his weapon hundreds and hundreds of times over
> > his 20 years of police service and never had to shoot anybody. I asked
> > him about this, and he told me it was simple matter of saying "PUT IT DOWN
> > OR I WILL SHOOT YOU."
>
> So basically what you're saying is never allow a cop in the area unless you
> have a gun on him??
Are you on crack? You're reasoning skills are ridiculous. He never had to
fire his weapon because he was in all cases capable of convincing them
that if they did not put down the weapon, he would, in fact, kill them.
Screw this. I have people to talk to.
> of wild fantacy. I don't know what she theought, but I was on fire, and she
> sez "freeze".
Running total:
You've shot a mouse with a .45 three blocks from a city police deparment
but it wasn't in the city, and the mass of the mouse absorbed all of the
impact of the bullet such that nothing else in the house was damaged.
You've been in six knife fights, unarmed in most, and you have only a
barely-noticeably scratch to prove it.
You've taked a gun away from somebody at point blank when you knocked on
their door and they drew a rifle on you.
You've had police draw weapons and threaten to kill you on more than one
occasion.
Now, of course, we discover that cop threatened to kill you and YOU WERE
ON FIRE.
> Then how about for a law enforcement officer hanging by his feet upside down
> with his pistol, waving in the air, with his intended victim administering
> to him??
Oh, I'm sure Elvis was there as a witness.
> Yes, I've had protland cops threaten to kill me both ways,
> more often unarmed though, of course with their badges hidden...
Ah, yeah. They hid the badges so you couldn't see them when you were on
fire and they wanted to shoot you.
Sorry...I have no further interest in entertaining your imagination and I
have work to do and a magazine to publish. It's been, uh, amusing.
-gatt
Larry Caldwell
100...@user2.teleport.com>, ga...@teleport.com writes:
> Give it up, liar. You're wasting my time, you have no credibility and,
> well, let's just say you're not as good at is as Bill Clinton.
Whoever you are talking to, I evidently killfiled them so long ago I
don't even recognize who it is. From my computer it looks like you are
having an argument with thin air.
Come to think of it, maybe you are arguing with hot air.
If a loser or loon is entertaining enough, I let them live. Otherwise I
just let my computer do the knockin'. There are too many informative,
interesting, well written articles on Usenet to let some whacko waste my
time.
-- Larry
ou812
> Interesting, coming from you. Our entire discussion so far has been
> based on vague memories
They aren't vague at all, and you are attempting to put your
own lie in to it by saying so..
> by you of incidents you can't quite identify
NO, it's nort that I can't identify them, it's that I WON'T
identify them.
such
> that we can look them up,
And that's WHY I won't identify them, you can rest assured
you won't get enough to look up.
that have a habit of bending one way or another
> to suit your argument.
My arguments aren't the ones that are changing,
as will be pretty well illustrated shortly.
>
> > > >To who??:)
> > > >(That's been tried by the way)
> > >
> > > You mean like the Benge case?
> >
> > No, it was tried on a case that never got to be a case.
>
> Ah...isn't that just perfect? How come this doesn't surprise me? Let me
> guess. It's none of our business unless you choose to make it so.
I'm not interested in taking on another subject with you.
I'm going to show you for what you are on this one,
and do other things.
>
> > > >One did.
> > >
> > > LOL. Where did you come up with "one"?
> >
> > That's how many I'm personally familiar with that did.
> > It's pretty easy to prove too. The former Sherrif, does
>
> That'd be a switch. What's his name? He's a public official so he should
> have no problem with his name being offered.
What difference does it make what his name is?
He's the guy that was sherriff for years, and was some sort of a relative
of the gal that got shot in the leathers station in Gresham.
ou812
>
> He probably went out and got a better knife, nursed his wounds, practiced
> up his skills a little and, next time he'll make sure he doesn't lose.
>
> Smart thinking, dude.
No, that's just another one of your pull it out of your butt surmissions,
you have no way of knowing what he did or did not do, and I refuse
to come anywhere near a thought process that polluted.
>
> > Well some of us are going to assess the situation first, and make the
> > best decision from there. If I were as light headed as you, 6 people
would
> > be dead that aren't.
>
> *shrug* If they threaten somebody's life,
That's the point, they didn't physically threaten me, they never had the
ability to do that, all they did was intend to, that's far from being able
to.
they deserve what they get if
> I choose to defend myself.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO???? What, now you all of a sudden now gonna actually
think about something before you do it??? You whole point so far has
excuses for NOT thinking, just reacting to anything you can fabricate one of
your
mental constructs together to squeak in under the courts perusal.
People should expect that in advance before
> they do stupid shit like pulling knives. Mama always told me not to pull
> a knife on somebody because there was always somebody that would know how
> to use it better than you and might know how to take it from you.
>
> She was right. I'm one of those guys, thanks to Uncle Sam, and if you
> pull a knife on me and I have a choice, I'll kill you. I see absolutely
> no weakness in that.
We ain't lookin for "weakness", we're lookin for IQ. Yuh see, not everybody
made it that far in their education, and they don't know any better.
This whole discussion started over a psycho in a store with a knife.
I maintain she could have been disarmed very easily, which you've now
said even you can do. There was no need to kill her, the only reason she's
dead
is because the people at the scene thought(lack of it actually) like YOU do.
If you threaten a grizzly bear and you give him a
> chance, he'll kill you. Threaten a lion...same thing. That's the law of
> the jungle.
Well then I guess maybe you deserve to be treated like an animal then.
>
> > > Sorry if you don't see the logic in that. I'm not interested in "the
> > > game"--as you call it--and if the person doesn't want to get shot, all
> > > they have to do is not wield a knife at somebody. It's pretty
simple.
> >
> > Well, you sound like a good case waiting to happen. Several people
> > over the years have learned the mistake of such stupid behavior
> > without dying for it, but obviously that's beyond your capability.
>
> I have no interest in whether they live or die. I'm not walking around on
> this planet to educate people who have such disregard for me that they
> threaten to kill me. What are you, Jesus?
I'm not the one that's advocating going around snuffing people, you are.
>
> > > Who said it was?
> >
> > Everything you've said indicates thats the way you operate, you know you
> > think you can get the courts to buy you killing anybody coming at you
from at
> > least 21'
>
> I'd certainly wait until they got a little closer.
OH, now the story changes when the evidence of idiocy starts stacking up.
>
> > away.(Which is absolutely ridicoulous) You think you've got a right to
kill
> > anybody that pulls a knife on you, reguardless of anything else.
>
> I've asked the cops and the courts, and, yes, I have been granted that
> right. You can't shoot somebody who's unarmed or armed with anything
> less than a deadly weapon.
Well that may be, but it seems to me that there are entirely to many cops
that have used that loophole to kill to feed their ego, and get by with it.
There needs to be some evidencial standard to prove that those that use
the old "fear of my life" saw have some rational grounds upon which
to base that claim.
>
> > It's like it's the only trained reaction you have, it's your answer to
> > nearly every situation.
>
> Ensures my survival. Got a problem with that? Shouldn't you be out
> shooting mice?
That really bothers you doesn't it!:) That I'm good enough to do something
you
can't figuire out. In your mind that makes me a nut and a liar.
Got news for ya, soon as I get through showing up all therest of your
inconsistencies, fabrications and lies, I'm going to tell everybody here how
to do it, and it's so obvious most will know it can be done without having
to try.
But, keep guessing, yer fun to watch squirm.
>
> You're starting to sound like a completely delusional asshole who'd
> descending into personal attacks now. I can play that way. After all, I
> don't believe a goddam thing you've said yet, about being in knife fights,
> the cops, the cases, the mice. Basically, you're a freakin' third-rate
> liar and a loser. None of that ever happened to you and everybody here
> knows it.
Is that right. Nice to see another one of your examples of pulling crap out
of yer butt
with nothing to base it upon.
We'll see.
>
> Yes, that is correct. You're a liar, and you're nuts. I've already
> retracted the anti-gun part, but evidently you can't read.
Is that right. Just exactly WHERE did yo do that??
>
> > you how I did it. Of course you being a claimed Marine weapons expert
and
> > can't figuire it out, and having to ask me makes me a nut.
>
> Didn't claim to be an expert. I shot on a regional Marine Corps rifle
> team from late 1987 to 1989 and had miscellaneous formal and informal
> training at Quantico, Virginia, (Marine Corps Combat Development Education
> Center) and that's about it. And I didn't HAVE to ask you. I asked you
> how YOU'D react, grasshoppa...you being the urban combat vet and all.
Your attempts to change the subject to your "gassshoppa" construct,
or to get me to tell what I'd do in a situation irrelevant to the topic here
are not under discussion. Your problem is you can't figuire how
to do what I've done, and all this superflous bluster is nothing more than
a smoke screen.
>
> As far as you, I'm calling you an unrepentant and pathological liar.
Good, there are peole here that know better than that.
>
> > There you go again, just rearrange the non-existant facts to suit your
> > purpose.
> > Just exactly where is it that you came by the knowledge that led you to
> > conclude that it was in the middle of a city???
>
> You told me, crackhead, that it was a house in a fenced, one-acre yard
> three blocks from the city police department and that it was illegal to
> fire the weapon in the city limits.
None of which makes it downtown. Just about ANY of the ppb offices
on the eastside one could be 3 blocks from, and not be downtown.
I didn't tell you anyhing of the kind, you think your so smart your
assumption came through as fact to you.
Now, if you challenge me again, I'm
> going to reforward your original post to the newsgroup to REMIND everybody
> that you're a liar.
PLEASE DO! Yer gonna find yer story don't hold water...:)
You keep changing your story. I keep them all to
> compare.
Well start proving your wrong then.
>
> > You don't have it, again. Another of your superflous imaginings.
>
> No...I'm just keeping a close record of your imaginings, actually.
Get them out. Anybody got any bets on what his excuse for not
coming up with them will be??:) Close records are your worst enemy.
>
> > > my right hand, close to my ribs, pointed at you, and my left hand is
in a
> > > fist in a basic karate position?
> >
> > Try it and see.
>
> And you call me "psycho." You're a joke.
>
> > > What would a six-time knife-combat veteran do in such a case?
> >
> > From the way you've been carrying on, not tell you.
>
> You have no idea, do you?
Whether I do or not, why would I tell you??
I already know the answer, so don't worry
> about it.
I'm sure you think you do.
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100063...@user2.teleport.com...
>
> > >
grieve
> > > and mourn because some DUMBSHIT lacks the COMMON SENSE to put their
> > > freakin' knife, squirt gun, BB-gun, handgun, whatever, down, when the
> > > police tell them to.
> >
> > Well that's the first problem right there, the police thinking they can
tell
> > them to.
>
> We as a society have granted the police that right.
OH, just exactly when did that happen??
>
> Give it up, liar. You're wasting my time, you have no credibility and,
> well, let's just say you're not as good at is as Bill Clinton.
>
> > > It's real simple democracy at work. We, as a majority, tolerate it.
IT,
> > > in this case, is the quite simple notion that when a police officer
tells
> > > you to put your weapon on the ground, you do it.
> >
> > That is an oregon state law, one I doubt has seem a whole lot of review
> > by the feds. Further, for you information this country is a republic,
and
>
>
> So be it.
Glad you agree, part of being in a free country is being free, and unless
one is under arrest,
nobody has authority to ORDER anybody to do anything.
>
> > > The guy that raised me drew his weapon hundreds and hundreds of times
over
> > > his 20 years of police service and never had to shoot anybody. I
asked
> > > him about this, and he told me it was simple matter of saying "PUT IT
DOWN
> > > OR I WILL SHOOT YOU."
> >
> > So basically what you're saying is never allow a cop in the area unless
you
> > have a gun on him??
>
> Are you on crack? You're reasoning skills are ridiculous.
No, just much better thought out than your assumptions.
He never had to
> fire his weapon because he was in all cases capable of convincing them
> that if they did not put down the weapon, he would, in fact, kill them.
You know how long it would take to rid a guy of that notion??
>
> Screw this. I have people to talk to.
>
> > of wild fantacy. I don't know what she theought, but I was on fire, and
she
> > sez "freeze".
>
> Running total:
>
> You've shot a mouse with a .45 three blocks from a city police deparment
> but it wasn't in the city,
No, it was in the city, but it was not downtown. Not a hard concept to
grasp,
if you work on it you may be able to get your mind around it.
and the mass of the mouse absorbed all of the
> impact of the bullet such that nothing else in the house was damaged.
That's another one of your surmissions, I said nothing was damaged,
very little correlation to your above statement.
>
> You've been in six knife fights, unarmed in most, and you have only a
> barely-noticeably scratch to prove it.
>
> You've taked a gun away from somebody at point blank when you knocked on
> their door and they drew a rifle on you.
>
> You've had police draw weapons and threaten to kill you on more than one
> occasion.
>
> Now, of course, we discover that cop threatened to kill you and YOU WERE
> ON FIRE.
>
> > Then how about for a law enforcement officer hanging by his feet upside
down
> > with his pistol, waving in the air, with his intended victim
administering
> > to him??
>
> Oh, I'm sure Elvis was there as a witness.
Actually, this was an example of what could happen if somebody
were to serious about teaching cops respect. Far as I know of it hasn't yet.
It would be easy though...:)
>
> > Yes, I've had protland cops threaten to kill me both ways,
> > more often unarmed though, of course with their badges hidden...
>
> Ah, yeah. They hid the badges so you couldn't see them when you were on
> fire and they wanted to shoot you.
Different incidents. It was 2 guys that refused to identify themselves and
hid their badges.
>
> Sorry...I have no further interest in entertaining your imagination and I
> have work to do and a magazine to publish. It's been, uh, amusing.
>
> -gatt
I'm pretty tired of you extremel.y narrow mindlessness too.
Bye the way, to shoot mice with a 45 all one needs is something
real simple, been around for years. It's called "snakeload". It's
basically like birdshot, but on a smaller scale.
Nearly nobdoy's fast enough to draw on a mouse, so ya get
a breadsack with crumbs still in it, lay it on floor perpendicular to your
line of sight. Lay on couch with pistol aimed and ready at breadsack.
When mouse crawls into sack and starts eating, fire. Oh, when I did this
there was about 3 carpets on the floor. Bag will have manny tiny little
holes in
it, but will be essentially intact. Pick up bag with mouse in it, place in
garbage.
No muss, no fuss, everything's nice and clean, and no holes in rug that I
could
ever find. Actually I could never even find any trace of the shot, and I
looked.
The carpet showed no trace that I could see.
So there ya go, it can be done, real easy, with not much skill.
Looks like all the self aggrandizing experts and their uninformed
conclusions
were wrong doesn't it.
Imagine that.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<lar...@teleport.com> wrote:
snip
>Whoever you are talking to, I evidently killfiled them so long ago I
>don't even recognize who it is. From my computer it looks like you are
>having an argument with thin air.
It's Talltom O'Connor. Hasn't been around for a while. If I recall
correctly, he's bailed out of the Libertarian Party.
>Come to think of it, maybe you are arguing with hot air.
Basically, yes.
jrw
ou812
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100062...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
>
> -snips-
>
> > It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract
them, a
> > third could rush them, nobody dies.
>
> 'Cept, of course, maybe the fellow doing the distracting - or the fellow
> doing the rushing. Which role are you volunteering for?
>
> You've been watching -way- too many movies, TT.
>
> > But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
>
> Can you show me one police or sheriff's department which teaches the
> "somebody distract 'em, somebody rush 'em" technique when confronted with
> someone armed with a deadly weapon? Doesn't happen. THAT would be the
> "bozo approach"!
It worked for the guys that killed the guy in front of the white house, and
no, I don't know, or care, which particular agency it was.
Bill Shatzer
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, ou812 wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100062...@compass.oregonvos.net...
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
> > -snips-
> > > It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract
> > > them, a third could rush them, nobody dies.
^^^^^^ ^^^^
-snips-
> > > But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
> > Can you show me one police or sheriff's department which teaches the
> > "somebody distract 'em, somebody rush 'em" technique when confronted with
> > someone armed with a deadly weapon? Doesn't happen. THAT would be the
> > "bozo approach"!
> It worked for the guys that killed the guy in front of the white house,
^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
Sheesh, TT. Do you find it THAT difficult to keep two coherent thoughts
in your mind at one time?
Whatever tactics they used, quite obviously -somebody- died. And the
outcome was -exactly- the same as the outcome in Portland.
Somebody has a bozo approach here, TT, but it doesn't seem to be the
Portland Police. Alas, yer cluelessness seems both acute -and- chronic.
> and no, I don't know, or care, which particular agency it was.
The Park Police, actually. And they certainly didn't use yer "somebody
distract 'em, somebody rush 'em" "tactics".
In the White House incident, the police ordered the guy to drop the knife.
He didn't. They shot him. He died.
In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop the gun.
She didn't. They shot her. She died.
I'm unable to ascertain a distinction in either tactics or outcome between
the two situations.
Peace and justice,
Russell Senior
Bill> In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop
Bill> the gun. She didn't. They shot her. She died.
Did they order her to drop the gun? I now only half remember the
newspaper account. I had the impression that the police were
surprised and didn't feel like they had time for a verbal warning, but
I may be mistaken.
Bill Shatzer
On 4 Jul 2000, Russell Senior wrote:
> Bill> In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop
> Bill> the gun. She didn't. They shot her. She died.
> Did they order her to drop the gun? I now only half remember the
> newspaper account. I had the impression that the police were
> surprised and didn't feel like they had time for a verbal warning, but
> I may be mistaken.
That doesn't correspond with my recollection. But, alas, the Oregonian
archieves don't go back that far so I'm unable to obtain any confirmation
one way or another.
Peace and justice,
ou812
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, ou812 wrote:
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100062...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
> > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
>
> > > -snips-
>
> > > > It is possible to take cover you know. Somebody else could distract
> > > > them, a third could rush them, nobody dies.
> ^^^^^^ ^^^^
> -snips-
>
> > > > But I guess ppb is addicted to the bozo approach.
>
> > > Can you show me one police or sheriff's department which teaches the
> > > "somebody distract 'em, somebody rush 'em" technique when confronted
with
> > > someone armed with a deadly weapon? Doesn't happen. THAT would be
the
> > > "bozo approach"!
>
> > It worked for the guys that killed the guy in front of the white house,
> ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
>
> Whatever tactics they used, quite obviously -somebody- died. And the
> outcome was -exactly- the same as the outcome in Portland.
>
Well you're the one that proposed that that tactic, or technique(whichever
your
calling it this second) would be a bozo approach, yet when it's illustrated
that your
wrong about that too, you resort to saying the results were the same.
Ignoring
your previous point, and the fact that it didn't take 37 shots to do in the
guy in front
of the white house, which made it safer for others in the area.
Thanks for proving you're full of unsubstantiated bluster.
> Somebody has a bozo approach here, TT, but it doesn't seem to be the
> Portland Police. Alas, yer cluelessness seems both acute -and- chronic.
That's it, rave on about irrelevant junk when you're wrong and you know it.
>
> > and no, I don't know, or care, which particular agency it was.
>
> The Park Police, actually. And they certainly didn't use yer "somebody
> distract 'em, somebody rush 'em" "tactics".
Did you see it?? What evidence do you have to prove that idea??
Normal people I wouldn't have to ask for proof of something this trivial,
but you've demnostrated your level of deception to strongly not to.
>
> In the White House incident, the police ordered the guy to drop the knife.
> He didn't. They shot him.
Once or twice.
> He died.
And it's higly questionable that he should have. If the cop hadn't
insisted on provoking him it probably wouldn't have happened.
There's considerable more to it than, but that's your usual style,
omit anything that would show you being wrong.
>
> In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop the gun.
> She didn't. They shot her.
yeah, 37 times
She died.
And considering ppb and your record for honesty, I'm more than a little
sceptical that the situation couldn't have been avoided.
>
> I'm unable to ascertain a distinction in either tactics or outcome between
> the two situations.
And you call me nuts.:)
Chris Gattman
> > > It worked for the guys that killed the guy in front of the white house,
> > ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
> (brainless drivel snipped)
> >
> > Whatever tactics they used, quite obviously -somebody- died. And the
> > outcome was -exactly- the same as the outcome in Portland.
>
> Well you're the one that proposed that that tactic, or
> technique(whichever your calling it this second) would be a bozo
> approach, yet when it's illustrated that your wrong about that too,
I guess you think it's been "illustrated."
> Thanks for proving you're full of unsubstantiated bluster.
Saying 'pot, kettle, black' would trivialize and understate the amount of
unsubstantiated bull you've shat all over this thread, Mr.
I-got-in-six-knife-fights-shot-a-mouse-with-a-.45-and-caused-no-damage-had-
-cops-tell-me-to-freeze-when-I-was-on-fire-disarmed-guys-with-rifles-and
-other-hilarious-bullshit-ad-nauseum.
> Did you see it?? What evidence do you have to prove that idea??
Did you see the police shoot the woman in Portland 37 times or the lady
with the knife in Gresham? Once again, "pot calling the kettle black"
trivializes your hypocracy and general nonsense.
> And it's higly questionable that he should have. If the cop hadn't
> insisted on provoking him it probably wouldn't have happened.
Hehe. Too bad for him. He shouldn't have violated Federal laws or opened
fire on government institutions.
> > In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop the gun.
> > She didn't. They shot her.
>
> yeah, 37 times
So? A mere mouse will stop a .45 bullet, according to testimony by
yourself.
> And considering ppb and your record for honesty, I'm more than a
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Shouldn't you be out disarming knifers or
getting harrassed by cops while you're on fire, Grasshoppa?
> And you call me nuts.:)
No, *I* called you nuts.
I can't take you seriously or buy anything you have to say, though, so I'm
pretty much done with this thread.
-gatt
Chris Gattman
ou812
>
> Saying 'pot, kettle, black' would trivialize and understate the amount of
> unsubstantiated bull you've shat all over this thread, Mr.
>
I-got-in-six-knife-fights-shot-a-mouse-with-a-.45-and-caused-no-damage-had-
> -cops-tell-me-to-freeze-when-I-was-on-fire-disarmed-guys-with-rifles-and
> -other-hilarious-bullshit-ad-nauseum.
Whether you believe anything or not has little to do with whether it
occured.
>
> > Did you see it?? What evidence do you have to prove that idea??
>
> Did you see the police shoot the woman in Portland 37 times or the lady
> with the knife in Gresham?
No, but I read about it, and shatzers surmission here isn't supported by
what i personally saw on tv. He suggests something other than what I saw,
and I believe I need to test his knowledge.
Once again, "pot calling the kettle black"
> trivializes your hypocracy and general nonsense.
Yeah, right, like you ignoring posts that make it clear you've been
all wet all along, and then saying yer gonna take yer toys and go home.
>
> > And it's higly questionable that he should have. If the cop hadn't
> > insisted on provoking him it probably wouldn't have happened.
>
> Hehe. Too bad for him. He shouldn't have violated Federal laws or opened
> fire on government institutions.
Typical. That's the level of your thought process. He didn't "fire" on
anything,
or violate any federal laws. But YOU, in your grand high pubahism, think
it's fine to kill him, without knowing anything about what happened.
That's been your problem all along, you come to conclusions based on zero
fact,
and your preference.
>
> > > In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop the gun.
> > > She didn't. They shot her.
> >
> > yeah, 37 times
>
> So? A mere mouse will stop a .45 bullet, according to testimony by
> yourself.
>
> > And considering ppb and your record for honesty, I'm more than a
>
> BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Shouldn't you be out disarming knifers or
> getting harrassed by cops while you're on fire, Grasshoppa?
The day when I'm interested in your opinion of what you think
I should be doing, I'll ask. Hold your breath in the meantime.
>
>
> > And you call me nuts.:)
>
> No, *I* called you nuts.
>
> I can't take you seriously or buy anything you have to say, though, so I'm
> pretty much done with this thread.
>
> -gatt
That's it little boy, take your toys and go home.
Bill Shatzer
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, ou812 wrote:
-snipped for brevity-
> Did you see it??
Did you?
> What evidence do you have to prove that idea??
See below.
> Normal people I wouldn't have to ask for proof of something this trivial,
TT, I'm afraid I've some considerable difficulty in accepting -your-
definition of "normal".
> but you've demnostrated your level of deception to strongly not to.
Oh, well, here it is then.
"Even though the officers outnumbered Corniel, rushing him was not
an option, experts said. Officers are not expected to risk being
slashed to avoid using deadly force on an uncooperative suspect,
they said."
Entire article follows:
By Ruben Castaneda and Wendy Melillo
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 22, 1994 ; Page C01
The man shot by a U.S. Park Police officer Tuesday in front of the White
House died last night while his family was on its way from California to visit
him.
The death of Marcelino Corniel, 33, transfers jurisdiction for the
investigation of the shooting from the U.S. Park Police to the homicide
branch of the D.C. police department. Corniel, who had a long police record
in California, was shot after brandishing a knife at officers.
Corniel was pronounced dead at 9 p.m. at George Washington
University hospital despite two operations to repair damage from a
gunshot wound to the chest and another to his leg.
A widely publicized videotape of the end of the incident showed
Corniel standing still immediately before he was shot, raising
questions about whether less violent means could have been used to
subdue him. Park police, however, defended the shooting as
justified, saying he could have injured police or bystanders in a split
second.
Some of the protesters and homeless people who stay in Lafayette
Square said that the confrontation may have resulted from tense
relations between them and one Park Police officer.
Corniel allegedly chased that officer, Stephen J. O'Neill, from the
square to the sidewalk in front of the executive mansion while
wielding a large knife with a serrated blade, ignoring the officer's
orders to drop the weapon, according to papers filed in federal
court yesterday.
The brief chase ended about 9 a.m., when Corniel faced off with
four law enforcement officers who trained their handguns on him. In front
of dozens of tourists and other pedestrians, the officers again ordered
Corniel at least twice to drop the weapon, witnesses said.
Corniel, who had the knife taped or strapped to his left hand, did
not follow the orders. A second Park Police officer shot Corniel once in
the chest and once in the right leg.
Park Police officials will not release the name of the officer who shot
Corniel because authorities have received threats against his life,
said Park Police Lt. Phillip Cholak.
The officer who fired did so in fear for his life, said Maj. Robert H.
Hines, who appeared on morning television talk shows Tuesday to
defend the shooting. Investigators said Corniel was only six to 12
feet from officers when one of them fired.
It was the fourth violent incident on or near the White House
grounds since September. Investigators said there was no indication
Corniel wanted to invade the White House grounds. President Clinton
was working in the Oval Office on the opposite side of the White
House at the time.
About 6:30 a.m. Tuesday, O'Neill was making his rounds in the
square when he saw Corniel, according to an affidavit by FBI agent
Scott M. Salter. O'Neill recognized Corniel as one of the regulars in
the square, remembering him because Corniel's face and neck were
badly scarred from burns.
O'Neill simply acknowledged Corniel, who was described as sitting
on some blankets, and continued his rounds, the affidavit said.
-snips-
In his home state of California, Corniel was a gang member with a
record for using knives to commit violence, according to court
records and law enforcement officials in that state.
In Wednesday's editions of the Torrance, Calif., Daily Breeze, Los
AngelesCounty sheriff's detectives were quoted as saying that Corniel
joined the La Loma gang in Carson and was nicknamed "Horse."
Corniel was first involved in a gang dispute in May 1984, when he
was arrested in an attack on a 21-year-old man who was stabbed in
the head, arms and right side of the body, the paper said. Corniel
pleaded guilty and was placed on probation. His probation officer
said in a report that, "He does not seem particularly impressed by
the seriousness of the offense."
Corniel was arrested in 1985 in an armed robbery in Santa Monica.
In 1986, he was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon in
Compton. He was sentenced in May 1986 to five years for the two
counts of armed robbery and to three years for the assault charge,
and served both terms concurrently. He was released in
May 1991.
A year later, Corniel was arrested in Carson, Calif., for allegedly
violating curfew in the Los Angeles riots. He pleaded no contest.
Corniel's 12-year-old son offered a different perspective in an
interview with CNN yesterday, saying his dad was a "good person"
who was depressed about his disfigurement and reaction to it.
"When sombeody was in that sort of situation, they'd feel the same
way if they got rejected from society," Marcelino Ronald Corniel
said. "Nobody wanted to see him or even look at him." He said two
of three fingers on his father's hand were fused by the car accident.
There was no reason to believe the Park Police or uniformed Secret
Service officers who confronted Corniel knew about his police
record, officials said. What they knew was they were facing a man
who had chased a Park Police officer with a knife and had ignored
commands to drop his weapon.
Authorities on the use of force by the police said it is impossible to
tell from the videotape whether the shooting was justified. The
situation was complicated, they said, by the fact that Corniel had
already demonstrated aggression and ignored orders to drop the
knife, and by the nearby presence of numerous bystanders and the
short distance between Corniel and the officers.
"If the officer hadn't shot, and this guy had turned and run into a
crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager
of the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
departments in the proper use of force.
If the officers facing Corniel were within 10 feet, as investigators
and witnesses said, Corniel could have attacked and slashed an
officer within a second, McCarthy said.
Park Police policy on the use of deadly force says officers are
authorized to fire their weapons to protect themselves or others
from what is reasonably believed to be a serious threat of death or
serious injury.
The Park Police and Secret Service officers who confronted Corniel
each had a handgun and a baton. None of the officers carries
nonlethal weapons designed to stun a suspect as some departments
do.
Even though the officers outnumbered Corniel, rushing him was not
an option, experts said. Officers are not expected to risk being
slashed to avoid using deadly force on an uncooperative suspect,
they said.
Despite increased security concerns, President Clinton went jogging
yesterday but in a less public area than usual.
Staff writers Scott Bowles, DeNeen L. Brown, Nell Henderson and
Toni Locy contributed to this report.
(c)1994 Washington Post
Bill Shatzer
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, ou812 wrote:
-snipped for brevity-
> > In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop the gun.
> > She didn't. They shot her.
> yeah, 37 times
Well, maybe they were using the same .45 bullets that you do. You know,
the ones which were stopped by stopped cold by your mouse?
When yer using half ounce bullets which won't penetrate a one-ounce mouse,
it's gonna take an awful -lot- of 'em on a 130 lb or so human.
-snips-
> and you call me nuts:)
Never. I think I prefer, "reality challenged".
Peace and justice,
Russell Senior
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> writes:
WP> "If the officer hadn't shot, and this guy had turned and run into
WP> a crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
WP> they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager of
WP> the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
WP> departments in the proper use of force.
Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint? Was there anything that
suggested that the `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable
alternative to shooting him? It is awfully easy to *imagine*
justifications for shooting someone. I guess I'd prefer if the bar
was set a little higher.
Bill Shatzer
On 5 Jul 2000, Russell Senior wrote:
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> writes:
> WP> "If the officer hadn't shot, and this guy had turned and run into
> WP> a crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
> WP> they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager of
> WP> the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
> WP> departments in the proper use of force.
> Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint?
Well, um sure. Waiting until -after- he gutted someone would not seem to
be the preferred option.
> Was there anything that
> suggested that the `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable
> alternative to shooting him?
Well, he HAD just chased a Park Police officer nearly a block waving a
large serrated knife and failed to respond to two orders to "drop the
knife!"
Which would lead reasonable minds to believe that he did, in fact,
represent a clear and present danger.
> It is awfully easy to *imagine*
> justifications for shooting someone. I guess I'd prefer if the bar
> was set a little higher.
Chasing a police officer a block with a large knife and refusing to drop
the knife after at least two orders to do so would seem sufficient
justification. Certainly, if someone chased -me- with a knife, I'd feel
justified in shooting him even without going through the "drop the knife!"
routine.
Jest ain't quite sure were you -would- set the bar in these types of
situations. Certainly, if I would be justified in using deadly force, a
police officer would be as well? I, after all, always retain the
option of running like hell. Police officers don't have that alternative.
Peace and justice,
Russell Senior
WP> "If the officer hadn't shot, and this guy had turned and run into
WP> a crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
WP> they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager of
WP> the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
WP> departments in the proper use of force.
Russell> Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint?
Bill> Well, um sure. Waiting until -after- he gutted someone would not
Bill> seem to be the preferred option.
I'd settle for demonstrating an intent to gut someone. Otherwise,
where do you draw the line? I've got a pocket knife. I *might* go on
a whittling rampage. How can you be sure I won't? Wouldn't it be
safest just to shoot me now?
Russell> Was there anything that suggested that the
Russell> `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable alternative to
Russell> shooting him?
Bill> Well, he HAD just chased a Park Police officer nearly a block
Bill> waving a large serrated knife and failed to respond to two
Bill> orders to "drop the knife!"
Bill> Which would lead reasonable minds to believe that he did, in
Bill> fact, represent a clear and present danger.
The article indicates that he was no longer chasing at the time of the
shooting. The prior threat was no longer `present' and so wasn't
especially relevant. It seems he was shot for failing to drop the
knife, not for attacking anyone.
Russell> It is awfully easy to *imagine* justifications for shooting
Russell> someone. I guess I'd prefer if the bar was set a little
Russell> higher.
Bill> Chasing a police officer a block with a large knife and refusing
Bill> to drop the knife after at least two orders to do so would seem
Bill> sufficient justification. Certainly, if someone chased -me-
Bill> with a knife, I'd feel justified in shooting him even without
Bill> going through the "drop the knife!" routine.
Maybe he couldn't drop the knife. The article indicates the knife was
strapped or taped to his hand.
Bill> Jest ain't quite sure were you -would- set the bar in these
Bill> types of situations. Certainly, if I would be justified in
Bill> using deadly force, a police officer would be as well? I, after
Bill> all, always retain the option of running like hell. Police
Bill> officers don't have that alternative.
My point is that there is no foundation to suggest a danger to the
crowd, and so the suggestion in the quote I responded to seems to me
to be a disingenuous invitation for the public to stop thinking about
the situation. He didn't chase the crowd, according to the article.
If he had made a lunge towards one of the park police, then that would
be sufficient justification to my mind. Another option might have
been to give the guy some room and let him cool off a little. We
don't know why he chased the park police with a knife. I suspect he
had a reason which to him seemed rational at the time. It would be
interesting to know what he was saying during this event. The article
doesn't say, so we are left with a corpse and one side of the story.
What I am concerned about is whether there is an `open season' on
mentally ill people. Current police methods seem crude and brutal.
ou812
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100070...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> -snipped for brevity-
>
> > > In the Portland incident, the police ordered the lady to drop the gun.
> > > She didn't. They shot her.
>
> > yeah, 37 times
>
> Well, maybe they were using the same .45 bullets that you do. You know,
> the ones which were stopped by stopped cold by your mouse?
I doubt it.
>
> When yer using half ounce bullets which won't penetrate a one-ounce mouse,
> it's gonna take an awful -lot- of 'em on a 130 lb or so human.
There you go again, more of you usual figuiring you know something when you
don't.
I never said my load never penetrated the mouse, that's your concoction.
Further
how is it that you claim to know the weight of the shot I used??
ou812
"Russell Senior" <sen...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:86k8ezn...@coulee.tdb.com...
>
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> writes:
>
> WP> a crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
> WP> they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager of
> WP> the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
> WP> departments in the proper use of force.
>
> Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint? Was there anything that
> suggested that the `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable
> alternative to shooting him? It is awfully easy to *imagine*
> justifications for shooting someone. I guess I'd prefer if the bar
> was set a little higher.
Boy, I'll second that. That's the problem with this crowd,
they "imagine" like they're on acid, and then try to pawn of they're
imaginings as fact.
ou812
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100070...@compass.oregonvos.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint?
>
> be the preferred option.
But, as par usual, those ARE NOT the ONLY two options. To consider more
realistic options would
impinge on state and police authority(rightfully so),
and folks like bill and cops couldn't stand to think they
might have to live by the constitution like all the rest of us.
>
> > Was there anything that
> > suggested that the `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable
> > alternative to shooting him?
>
> Well, he HAD just chased a Park Police officer nearly a block waving a
> large serrated knife and failed to respond to two orders to "drop the
> knife!"
>
> Which would lead reasonable minds to believe that he did, in fact,
> represent a clear and present danger.
Not if the cop had no legal authority to order him to do anything, and he
had provoked the original confrontation.
Only reasonably empty minds would jump to such ridicoulous conclusions..
>
> > It is awfully easy to *imagine*
> > justifications for shooting someone. I guess I'd prefer if the bar
> > was set a little higher.
>
> Chasing a police officer a block with a large knife and refusing to drop
> the knife after at least two orders to do so would seem sufficient
> justification.
Not necessarilly.
Certainly, if someone chased -me- with a knife, I'd feel
> justified in shooting him even without going through the "drop the knife!"
> routine.
In your case, I'd have to ask "what did you just screw them out of?" Is it
your position that anything that can be done to somebody doesn't justify
defense??
I'd suggest "you're under arrest".
>
> Jest ain't quite sure were you -would- set the bar in these types of
> situations. Certainly, if I would be justified in using deadly force,
I'ts not clear at all that you would, especially knowing you...
a
> police officer would be as well?
There's all kinds of historical evidence to the contrary.
I, after all, always retain the
> option of running like hell. Police officers don't have >that
alternative.
Yes they do.
Chris Gattman
> > When yer using half ounce bullets which won't penetrate a one-ounce mouse,
> > it's gonna take an awful -lot- of 'em on a 130 lb or so human.
>
> There you go again, more of you usual figuiring you know something
> when you don't. I never said my load never penetrated the mouse,
> that's your concoction. Further how is it that you claim to know the
EXHIBIT A:
[gatt]:
>> You're claiming that a .45 round can be stopped by a common one-ounce
>> mouse without damaging anything else behind it...
[OU812]:
>That's what happened. I didn't beleive it either, even took the rug up
>and checked!:)
One way or another, you're a liar. You probably didn't have sexual
relations with the mouse either.
-gatt
Chris Gattman
ou812
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> writes:
>
I think it was more for having the audacity to challenge the status quo, and
defend against what he thought was a robbery attempt at the time the cop
roused him from sleep.(yes, cops in dc rob people) Supposedly that's why he
had the knife taped to his hand, so when someone tried to rob him during his
sleep
to have it handy and ready for defense.
>
> My point is that there is no foundation to suggest a danger to the
> crowd, and so the suggestion in the quote I responded to seems to me
> to be a disingenuous invitation for the public to stop thinking about
> the situation. He didn't chase the crowd, according to the article.
> If he had made a lunge towards one of the park police, then that would
> be sufficient justification to my mind.
Possibly mine to, depending on conditions.
Another option might have
> been to give the guy some room and let him cool off a >little.
Yep, clearing the public back for awhile would have been
a better alternative. Of course sending somebody in there that wasn't a cop
and could talk to the guy probably would have been a much more worthwhile
move.
We
> don't know why he chased the park police with a knife. I suspect he
> had a reason which to him seemed rational at the time.
The cop woke him up, not very politely either as I remember it.
>It would be
> interesting to know what he was saying during this >event.
That's kinda the point, he didn't get a chance to say much.
The article
> doesn't say, so we are left with a corpse and one side >of the story.
There were lots of story's at the time, this one obviously
is the one from the ministry of love.
>
> What I am concerned about is whether there is an `open season' on
> mentally ill people. Current police methods seem crude >and brutal.
That's the problem, they're crude and brutal, mentally ill
or otherwise. You do bring up a good point though,
are cops mentally ill??
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100070...@user2.teleport.com...
>
> EXHIBIT A:
>
> [gatt]:
> >> You're claiming that a .45 round can be stopped by a common one-ounce
> >> mouse without damaging anything else behind it...
>
> [OU812]:
> >That's what happened. I didn't beleive it either, even took the rug up
> >and checked!:)
I think you've been playin games with where your quotes come from,
but don't care enough to prove it.
As I remember it I claimed i stopped the mouse, not necessarilly the shot.
Thought you were gonna take your toys and go home??
Chris Gattman
> > >That's what happened. I didn't beleive it either, even took the rug up
> > >and checked!:)
>
> I think you've been playin games with where your quotes come from,
> but don't care enough to prove it.
You're a freakin' liar and you know it. Deja News will prove that to
anybody who is interested, but I'm going to re-post your original message.
You don't "care enough to prove it" because you CANNOT, and that is an
outright challenge, as is the statement that you are a liar, and a poor
one at that.
> As I remember it I claimed i stopped the mouse, not necessarilly the shot.
Can't remember exactly what you claimed, eh? The issue shouldn't be about
what you claimed, but about what happened. Seeing as it DID NOT HAPPEN,
all you're left with is trying to keep your claims straight. That's easy
enough to do. I saved all your posts.
> Thought you were gonna take your toys and go home??
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Chris Gattman
David J. Loftus
<79kllskln35e6a3tn...@4ax.com>
<xaQ65.1314$493.2...@nntp1.onemain.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.10.100062...@user2.teleport.com>:
Organization:
In alt.culture.oregon Chris Gattman <ga...@teleport.com> wrote:
: Why take a risk getting maimed or killed and leaving your family to grieve
: and mourn because some DUMBSHIT lacks the COMMON SENSE to put their
: freakin' knife, squirt gun, BB-gun, handgun, whatever, down, when the
: police tell them to.
: It's real simple democracy at work. We, as a majority, tolerate it. IT,
: in this case, is the quite simple notion that when a police officer tells
: you to put your weapon on the ground, you do it.
: The guy that raised me drew his weapon hundreds and hundreds of times over
: his 20 years of police service and never had to shoot anybody. I asked
: him about this, and he told me it was simple matter of saying "PUT IT DOWN
: OR I WILL SHOOT YOU."
: And if they don't, well...they better be deaf or have some other valid
: excuse. They didn't pay him enough for him to die in the line of duty and
: I have no sympathy for anybody who can't follow the simple instructions of
: a law enforcement officer who has a gun drawn and pointed at them.
: Sorry. She had a gun, she pointed it at the cop, she deserved what she
: got. If the woman in Gresham had a knife and didn't put it down when our
: public safety officials told her to put it down, she deserved what she
: got.
I don't think anyone "deserves" to die when they haven't done anything
yet.
Don't police officers ever receive training in how to disable a
threatening person -- shoot to wound -- rather than trying to kill with a
single short or a barrage?
David Loftus
Chris Gattman
> : The guy that raised me drew his weapon hundreds and hundreds of times over
> : his 20 years of police service and never had to shoot anybody. I asked
> : him about this, and he told me it was simple matter of saying "PUT IT DOWN
> : OR I WILL SHOOT YOU."
> : got. If the woman in Gresham had a knife and didn't put it down when our
> : public safety officials told her to put it down, she deserved what she
> : got.
>
> I don't think anyone "deserves" to die when they haven't done anything
> yet.
Intentionally brandishing a deadly weapon in defiance of civil law
enforcement is "doing something" in most people's book.
> Don't police officers ever receive training in how to disable a
> threatening person -- shoot to wound -- rather than trying to kill with a
> single short or a barrage?
I'm not sure I've ever heard of anybody being taught to "shoot to wound"
although if opposed with weapons such as a knife, that might be a viable
option (as opposed to shooting somebody with a gun, who can kill even if
they're mortally wounded.)
Chris Gattman
Ric@
>> EXHIBIT A:
>>
>> [gatt]:
>> >> You're claiming that a .45 round can be stopped by a common one-ounce
>> >> mouse without damaging anything else behind it...
>>
>> [OU812]:
>> >That's what happened. I didn't beleive it either, even took the rug up
>> >and checked!:)
>
>I think you've been playin games with where your quotes come from,
>but don't care enough to prove it.
That's exactly what you wrote...feel free to prove it to yourself with
Deja News. Just can't keep your lies straight, eh?
Bill Shatzer
On 6 Jul 2000, Russell Senior wrote:
> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Shatzer <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> writes:
> WP> "If the officer hadn't shot, and this guy had turned and run into
> WP> a crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
> WP> they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager of
> WP> the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
> WP> departments in the proper use of force.
> Russell> Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint?
> Bill> Well, um sure. Waiting until -after- he gutted someone would not
> Bill> seem to be the preferred option.
> I'd settle for demonstrating an intent to gut someone.
Chasing a Park Police officer, while waiving a large serrated knife, from
Lafayette Park to across the street to the sidewalk in front of the White
House doesn't raise in your mind at least a reasonable suspicion that he
might be intent upon doing harm to someone?
> Otherwise,
> where do you draw the line? I've got a pocket knife. I *might* go on
> a whittling rampage. How can you be sure I won't? Wouldn't it be
> safest just to shoot me now?
Probably would be safest. However, your pocket knife scenario has no
particular relevance to the Washington DC incident.
> Russell> Was there anything that suggested that the
> Russell> `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable alternative to
> Russell> shooting him?
C'mon Russell. If the newsreport is accurate, he had certainly exhibited
behaviors sufficient to form a reasonable belief that he intended serious
bodily harm (or worse) to SOMEONE.
> Bill> Well, he HAD just chased a Park Police officer nearly a block
> Bill> waving a large serrated knife and failed to respond to two
> Bill> orders to "drop the knife!"
> Bill> Which would lead reasonable minds to believe that he did, in
> Bill> fact, represent a clear and present danger.
> The article indicates that he was no longer chasing at the time of the
> shooting. The prior threat was no longer `present' and so wasn't
> especially relevant.
So when the gunman stops shooting to reload, the "threat" is no longer
present?
> It seems he was shot for failing to drop the
> knife, not for attacking anyone.
I'd think the chasing and the failure to drop kinda form a seamless series
of events. YMMV.
-snips-
> Bill> Chasing a police officer a block with a large knife and refusing
> Bill> to drop the knife after at least two orders to do so would seem
> Bill> sufficient justification. Certainly, if someone chased -me-
> Bill> with a knife, I'd feel justified in shooting him even without
> Bill> going through the "drop the knife!" routine.
> Maybe he couldn't drop the knife. The article indicates the knife was
> strapped or taped to his hand.
Yep. In which case, it was a dumb thing for him to do. It was especially
dumb to be chasing police officers with a knife taped to his hand.
Sometimes there's just no accounting for dumb folks. Think of it as
darwinism in action - weeding out the dumb, the crazy, and the too stupid
to live.
> Bill> Jest ain't quite sure were you -would- set the bar in these
> Bill> types of situations. Certainly, if I would be justified in
> Bill> using deadly force, a police officer would be as well? I, after
> Bill> all, always retain the option of running like hell. Police
> Bill> officers don't have that alternative.
> My point is that there is no foundation to suggest a danger to the
> crowd, and so the suggestion in the quote I responded to seems to me
> to be a disingenuous invitation for the public to stop thinking about
> the situation. He didn't chase the crowd, according to the article.
> If he had made a lunge towards one of the park police, then that would
> be sufficient justification to my mind.
C'mon again! The article says 6 to 10 feet - a distance which can be
covered in a fraction of a second. Once he "made a lunge" for the crowd,
he's IN the crowd and shooting is no longer an option - too much risk of
plugging an innocent bystander.
> Another option might have
> been to give the guy some room and let him cool off a little.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Hindsight and monday morning quarterbacking is a
loser's game. In this case, no one got hurt but the bad guy. An entirely
acceptable outcome, given the other possible alternatives.
> We
> don't know why he chased the park police with a knife. I suspect he
> had a reason which to him seemed rational at the time.
Excuse me Russell, but chasing a cop with a knife would NEVER have a
rational reason. If his "reasons" seemed rational to him, he was
obviously looney-toons and a CAPD to just about anyone in the immediate
vicinity.
> It would be
> interesting to know what he was saying during this event. The article
> doesn't say, so we are left with a corpse and one side of the story.
Well, there -were- LOTS of civilian witnesses.
> What I am concerned about is whether there is an `open season' on
> mentally ill people.
Well, there certainly is (and should be) open season on mentally ill
people who display a propensity for committing serious harm (or worse) on
other folks.
> Current police methods seem crude and brutal.
Yer welcome to come up with better - especially one which does not
significantly increase the danger to either police officers or the public
at large - 'specially the ones who -aren't- waiving knives.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, ou812 wrote:
-snips-
> Another option might have
> > been to give the guy some room and let him cool off a >little.
> Yep, clearing the public back for awhile would have been
> a better alternative.
But, you claim the cops have no right to "order' anybody to do anything.
How would the public be "cleared back' without ordering them to do so?
We should order peaceable innocent folks around but refrain from ordering
a knife-wielder to "drop the knife"?
What's wrong with this picture?
> Of course sending somebody in there that wasn't a cop
> and could talk to the guy probably would have been a much more worthwhile
> move.
Gee, TT, should they just have looked around in the crowd and asked for
volunteers?
The knife and the danger was -there-. Right then. Yer hypothetical
"somebody who wasn't a cop" was some distance and some time away.
But, howcum you didn't adopt this tactic in the six knife fights you've
claimed to have participated in? Howcum the knife fight? Why not jest
have somebody who wasn't you talk to the guy?
Sheesh!
> The cop woke him up, not very politely either as I remember it.
"Impolite waking up"? That's sure cause for talking off after someone
with a knife!
What did you do to provoke those six knife fights, anyway? Spill their
beer?
Sigh!
peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
On 6 Jul 2000, David J. Loftus wrote:
-snips-
> Don't police officers ever receive training in how to disable a
> threatening person -- shoot to wound -- rather than trying to kill with a
> single short or a barrage?
Absolutely not. A firearm is, after all, deadly force by definition.
-IF- police officers are authorized to use deadly force, they are trained
to use such force until the threat is eliminated - which means the target
is well and truly down.
Unfortunately, the quickest and surest way to put the target down is shots
to the torso - which are also the likeliest to prove fatal.
Shooting to "wound" doesn't put the target down nor eliminate the threat.
A "wounded" individual can still do a great deal of harm. And only the
Lone Ranger can shoot the weapon out of their hands.
Peace and justice,
Russell Senior
WP> "If the officer hadn't shot, and this guy had turned and run into
WP> a crowd and stabbed people as he went, the criticism would be that
WP> they should have shot him," said Ron McCarthy, a former manager of
WP> the Center for Advanced Police Studies, who instructs police
WP> departments in the proper use of force.
Russell> Isn't that, effectively, prior restraint?
Bill> Well, um sure. Waiting until -after- he gutted someone would not
Bill> seem to be the preferred option.
Russell> I'd settle for demonstrating an intent to gut someone.
Bill> Chasing a Park Police officer, while waiving a large serrated
Bill> knife, from Lafayette Park to across the street to the sidewalk
Bill> in front of the White House doesn't raise in your mind at least
Bill> a reasonable suspicion that he might be intent upon doing harm
Bill> to someone?
Russell> Otherwise, where do you draw the line? I've got a pocket
Russell> knife. I *might* go on a whittling rampage. How can you be
Russell> sure I won't? Wouldn't it be safest just to shoot me now?
Bill> Probably would be safest. However, your pocket knife scenario
Bill> has no particular relevance to the Washington DC incident.
It is highly relevant to my point. The paragraph I quoted from the
article implied that it was justified to shoot the guy because it was
safest. My point is that is *isn't* safest if you are concerned with
the safety of *everyone* including the mentally ill guy with the knife
taped to his hand.
Russell> Was there anything that suggested that the
Russell> `stabbing-the-crowd' scenario was the probable alternative to
Russell> shooting him?
Bill> C'mon Russell. If the newsreport is accurate, he had certainly
Bill> exhibited behaviors sufficient to form a reasonable belief that
Bill> he intended serious bodily harm (or worse) to SOMEONE.
He might have just been angry and running after the guy and happened
to have a knife taped to his hand. That would be another `reasonable
belief' that fits the reported facts. It is possible that he did have
murderous intent, however, nothing in the article makes that case
convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Note that I am not saying that the shooting was unjustified, just that
the article doesn't contain sufficient evidence for me to conclude
that it *was* justified. I am a little surprised that it does for
you.
Bill> Well, he HAD just chased a Park Police officer nearly a block
Bill> waving a large serrated knife and failed to respond to two
Bill> orders to "drop the knife!"
Bill> Which would lead reasonable minds to believe that he did, in
Bill> fact, represent a clear and present danger.
Russell> The article indicates that he was no longer chasing at the
Russell> time of the shooting. The prior threat was no longer
Russell> `present' and so wasn't especially relevant.
Bill> So when the gunman stops shooting to reload, the "threat" is no
Bill> longer present?
And how is *that* relevant? Did the man stop to reload his serrated
bread knife?
I'd say his demeanor *is* highly relevant. If I was in a murderous
rage, I don't think I would have stopped chasing the guy. So why did
he?
Russell> It seems he was shot for failing to drop the knife, not for
Russell> attacking anyone.
Bill> I'd think the chasing and the failure to drop kinda form a
Bill> seamless series of events. YMMV.
My mileage does vary.
[snips]
Russell> Maybe he couldn't drop the knife. The article indicates the
Russell> knife was strapped or taped to his hand.
Bill> Yep. In which case, it was a dumb thing for him to do. It was
Bill> especially dumb to be chasing police officers with a knife taped
Bill> to his hand.
Bill> Sometimes there's just no accounting for dumb folks. Think of
Bill> it as darwinism in action - weeding out the dumb, the crazy, and
Bill> the too stupid to live.
I prefer to think that we human beings are capable of deeper analysis
than that. Maybe I am wrong, but I prefer to continue believing that,
even in spite of the evidence, because to stop would be too depressing.
Bill> Jest ain't quite sure were you -would- set the bar in these
Bill> types of situations. Certainly, if I would be justified in
Bill> using deadly force, a police officer would be as well? I, after
Bill> all, always retain the option of running like hell. Police
Bill> officers don't have that alternative.
Russell> My point is that there is no foundation to suggest a danger
Russell> to the crowd, and so the suggestion in the quote I responded
Russell> to seems to me to be a disingenuous invitation for the public
Russell> to stop thinking about the situation. He didn't chase the
Russell> crowd, according to the article. If he had made a lunge
Russell> towards one of the park police, then that would be sufficient
Russell> justification to my mind.
Bill> C'mon again! The article says 6 to 10 feet - a distance which
Bill> can be covered in a fraction of a second. Once he "made a
Bill> lunge" for the crowd, he's IN the crowd and shooting is no
Bill> longer an option - too much risk of plugging an innocent
Bill> bystander.
Four park police were surrounding him and all four were aiming their
guns at him. He wouldn't have covered 2 feet of the distance before
at least one of them dropped the hammer. The laws of physics, in
particular inertia and acceleration's second-order derivative with
respect to time, are working in favor of the police in this instance.
I suppose a stationary target is easier to hit, but a stationary
target isn't really as much of a threat either. If 6 to 12 feet was
an insufficient buffer, it was within the power of the police to
increase that distance.
Russell> Another option might have been to give the guy some room and
Russell> let him cool off a little.
Bill> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Hindsight and monday morning
Bill> quarterbacking is a loser's game. [...]
It's not monday morning quarterbacking to analyze events. The loser
is the guy in the morgue, whether he really deserved to be or not.
The other loser is our society if we fail to consider the
justification for taking someones life. Maybe the next crazy person
to be `safely' gunned down is your father or your wife.
Bill> [...] In this case, no one got hurt but the bad guy. An
Bill> entirely acceptable outcome, given the other possible
Bill> alternatives.
Ah, I see. You've already convicted him. Your conclusion lacks
sufficient foundation, in my opinion.
Russell> We don't know why he chased the park police with a knife. I
Russell> suspect he had a reason which to him seemed rational at the
Russell> time.
Bill> Excuse me Russell, but chasing a cop with a knife would NEVER
Bill> have a rational reason. If his "reasons" seemed rational to
Bill> him, he was obviously looney-toons and a CAPD to just about
Bill> anyone in the immediate vicinity.
Your use of the word `obviously' is a giveaway for your scanty
analysis of the partial facts in evidence, and your excuse for
collapsing to the one scenario that makes the outcome justified in
your mind. There are other scenarios that also fit the facts.
Russell> It would be interesting to know what he was saying during
Russell> this event. The article doesn't say, so we are left with a
Russell> corpse and one side of the story.
Bill> Well, there -were- LOTS of civilian witnesses.
Those civilian witnesses didn't appear to have provided much
substantive information about the man's motives in the story, though
what information they did provide was exculpatory.
Russell> What I am concerned about is whether there is an `open
Russell> season' on mentally ill people.
Bill> Well, there certainly is (and should be) open season on mentally
Bill> ill people who display a propensity for committing serious harm
Bill> (or worse) on other folks.
I disagree. I think such mentally ill people should be apprehended
humanely, when possible, and cared for humanely.
To say that it wasn't possible in this case, end-of-story, just
invites the next inevitable episode with a similar lack of
preparedness.
Russell> Current police methods seem crude and brutal.
Bill> Yer welcome to come up with better - especially one which does
Bill> not significantly increase the danger to either police officers
Bill> or the public at large - 'specially the ones who -aren't-
Bill> waiving knives.
I already have. Paraphrasing: de-escalate if possible.
Daniel Hansen
I cant believe the NRA would try to break into your grandmas house, those
bastards, oh wait granny had the guns?!?! im confused which side does the
NRA support? Cause Bill and Al say its the bad guys but Charles and Wayne
say its grannys.
Chris Gattman
Well, the bad guys would have found out the answer themselves if they'd
tried to come any further through the window. Granny first started
shooting to put food on the table back in the depression when she was
about 13, and she's got a ferocious nest-defense instinct.
Too bad Charles and Wayne are representing her plight, but I don't think
she gives a rat's ass what people have to say about it.
Grandma's raising a 15-year-old grandson who just completed his hunter's
safety course, handgun safety course, rifle range qualification and
handgun quals for the MCDS Explorer program. My question is, did Al or
Bill ever take a weapons safety course or are they just shooting their
mouths off in blissful ignorance. Not sure about Al, but we damned well
KNOW Bill didn't learn weapons handling and safety in the military.
-gatt
Chris Gattman
Daniel Hansen
chaotic depression era and built safe stable neighborhoods and
establishments just to have the whiney 60s kids try to tear it all down.
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100071...@user2.teleport.com...
Chris Gattman
> I Love Depression-WW2-era folks they are great Americans, they came from the
> chaotic depression era and built safe stable neighborhoods and
> establishments just to have the whiney 60s kids try to tear it all down.
Well said!
-gatt
>
> "Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100071...@user2.teleport.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Daniel Hansen wrote:
> >
> > I cant believe the NRA would try to break into your grandmas house, those
> > bastards, oh wait granny had the guns?!?! im confused which side does the
> > NRA support? Cause Bill and Al say its the bad guys but Charles and Wayne
> > say its grannys.
>
> Well, the bad guys would have found out the answer themselves if they'd
> tried to come any further through the window. Granny first started
> shooting to put food on the table back in the depression when she was
> about 13, and she's got a ferocious nest-defense instinct.
>
> Too bad Charles and Wayne are representing her plight, but I don't think
> she gives a rat's ass what people have to say about it.
>
> Grandma's raising a 15-year-old grandson who just completed his hunter's
> safety course, handgun safety course, rifle range qualification and
> handgun quals for the MCDS Explorer program. My question is, did Al or
> Bill ever take a weapons safety course or are they just shooting their
> mouths off in blissful ignorance. Not sure about Al, but we damned well
> KNOW Bill didn't learn weapons handling and safety in the military.
>
> -gatt
>
>
> Chris Gattman
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chris Gattman
ou812
"Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, ou812 wrote:
>
> > "Ric@" <r...@dsl-only.net> wrote in message
> > news:uv0glskjm2cc69aq8...@4ax.com...
>
> > > What I don't like is the blanket attack on the officers in the PPB.
>
> > Well yer in for a lot of it.
>
> > How about the 37 or so shots at the unarmed female crazy in downtown?
> > How about the gal with a knife in gresham fred meyer?
>
> > These are both examples of how screwed up ppb is.
>
> Why would you ever suppose that the PORTLAND Police Bureau might be
> involved with anyone in a GRESHAM Fred Meyer?
Because Vera Katz signed a interagency agreement that permits agency's
to assist one another across departmental lines.
>
> There's someone screwed up around here, TT, but I don't think it is the
> Portland Police Bureau. Just how did ya' do with geography in school?
Yer right, there's somebody screwed up here, maybe you can explain how
as a portland hearings officer you don't know that, and why you tossed
geography into the question despite it being irrelevant.
I think yer not as dumb as yer trying to appear, and threw the geography
garbage in because you thought it would serve to establlish you as credible,
even though you know it's wrong.
Quite aq lack of integrity ya got there.
Chris Gattman
> "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Why would you ever suppose that the PORTLAND Police Bureau might be
> > involved with anyone in a GRESHAM Fred Meyer?
>
> Because Vera Katz signed a interagency agreement that permits agency's
> to assist one another across departmental lines.
Wow, man. You didn't tell me that when I brought it up. You said
something like "Maybe it wasn't the PPD. I don't remember." I have the
actual text here somewhere if you'd like a revisitation of your standard
bullshit.
> Quite aq lack of integrity ya got there.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
You're accusing Shatzer of having a lack of integrity?
Shouldn't you be judo chopping knifers and shooting rats and getting
assaulted by cops while you're on fire and stuff, Pinocchio?
ou812
"Chris Gattman" <ga...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100071...@user2.teleport.com...
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Why would you ever suppose that the PORTLAND Police Bureau might be
> > > involved with anyone in a GRESHAM Fred Meyer?
> >
> > Because Vera Katz signed a interagency agreement that permits agency's
> > to assist one another across departmental lines.
>
> Wow, man. You didn't tell me that when I brought it up. You said
> something like "Maybe it wasn't the PPD. I don't
> remember."
That's true. Just because I now mention the agreement does not change that i
don't know(or care) which gang
did the deed.
I have the
> actual text here somewhere if you'd like a revisitation of your standard
> bullshit.
Post it all you want, they're not mutually exclusive, all you'll end up
doing is proving cluelessness.
Chris Gattman
> > Wow, man. You didn't tell me that when I brought it up. You said
> > something like "Maybe it wasn't the PPD. I don't
> > remember."
>
> That's true. Just because I now mention the agreement does not change that i
> don't know(or care) which gang
> did the deed.
In other words, you're clueless.
> > I have the
> > actual text here somewhere if you'd like a revisitation of your standard
> > bullshit.
>
> Post it all you want, they're not mutually exclusive, all you'll end up
> doing is proving cluelessness.
Well, yes. Your cluelessness, in fact, but that won't be necessary as you
just summed it up nicely above.
Have a nice weekend. Don't hurt yourself.
-gatt
Bill Shatzer
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, ou812 wrote:
> "Bill Shatzer" <bsha...@OregonVOS.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SUN.3.96.100062...@compass.oregonvos.net...
> > > These are both examples of how screwed up ppb is.
> > Why would you ever suppose that the PORTLAND Police Bureau might be
> > involved with anyone in a GRESHAM Fred Meyer?
> Because Vera Katz signed a interagency agreement that permits agency's
> to assist one another across departmental lines.
Agreement or not, there were no Portland police present in that Gresham
Fred Meyer.
> > There's someone screwed up around here, TT, but I don't think it is the
> > Portland Police Bureau. Just how did ya' do with geography in school?
> Yer right, there's somebody screwed up here, maybe you can explain how
> as a portland hearings officer you don't know that, and why you tossed
> geography into the question despite it being irrelevant.
Um, Portland Police police Portland and Gresham Police police Gresham, tt.
It ain't a difficult concept to grasp.
> I think yer not as dumb as yer trying to appear, and threw the geography
> garbage in because you thought it would serve to establlish you as credible,
> even though you know it's wrong.
Wrong? Portland IS Gresham and Gresham is Portland? A somewhat novel
concept and if that's what you think, it doesn't take much effort to
appear a whole bunch smarter than that.
> Quite aq lack of integrity ya got there.
Whatever. Integrity would seem to involve, at the least, not condemning
the Portland Police Bureau for the actions of the Gresham Police
Department. Not that the Gresham cops did anything which should subject
them to condemnation but it was -just- the Gresham cops involved and what
ever blame or credit might attach is theirs alone.
I'm kinda wondering when yer gonna use the recent incident in Philadelphia
as another reason to attack the Portland cops. After all, the uniforms
are the same color.
Peace and justice,