Off-duty officer shoots 2 in lot after Angels game

Originally posted by KEMIK
Bottom line...guy out with his family gets attacked.

No, that is NOT the bottom line.

The bottom line is that had this been a regular guy, he would be in jail. Since he is a LEO, he goes free. That is the bottom line.

reply to post by Nutter


Read the above post.

By the way, Ben Niceknowinya, you type fast.

This is self defense. The fact that he's an off duty officer is really irrelevant.
He could've have been a civilian, with a registered handgun, at the ballgame, with his family. No difference.!

There is a huge difference.

1. A normal person is not allowed to carry a weapon into a ballgame.

2. A normal person would be in jail for reckless endangerment to the other people around him.

I do agree with you guys about family protection though. I just feel this was an extreme. Unless it comes out that the "thugs" were continously attacking him and he had NO OTHER choice in the matter.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


Twist, and turn. This is obviously going nowhere fast.

I would just like to insert my 2 cents here;
1st, to the Law enforcement officers that post on not only this thread but on ATS in general, thank you for serving and protecting the lawful citizens in your communities. You guys get a bad rap and are constantly all grouped together when something bad happens and it's wrong.

As far as this incident goes, I hope we can all get the entire truth from the situation but from reading the article I say good for that officer for protecting his family.

Originally posted by badw0lf
And By all accounts, you would NOT make a decent law enforcer.

Why are people so much ignoring the facts.

Its akin to a surgeon saying "This guy smoked ciggys for 45 years, Bah, Let him die."

YOU DON'T GET THAT OPTION, IF YOU ARE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO UPHOLD A CONCEPT.

In uniform or not, you don't get to shoot people because they throw crap at you. You get to grab them by the scruff of their neck, take them to an on duty officer, lodge a complaint and claim citizens arrest at MOST.

Do not give law more power then it already thinks it has... for christs sake...

I didn't say that I would want to be an Officer, anyways.

It seems that YOU don't get the point. Just because it was an off-duty Police Officer you believe that it changes the facts. It doesn't, because anyone who wanted to protect their family would have done the SAME thing. Forget that for a moment that he was an Officer, he was a man with a family. When you have a family you love and appreciate you will go out of your way to make sure they aren't threatened.

SOME people think you can be a super hero and subdue multiple assailants using bare hands, problem being, YOUR FAMILY COULD BE USED AS COLLATERAL. If YOU were put in the same situation you are telling me you would attempt to wrestle people attacking you and your family and somehow be able to restrain MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS with force alone, then proceed to FIND an on duty Police officer ALL AT ONCE?

Get real and wake up, we most certainly live in a dangerous world where said assailants could and WOULD use your family to their advantage.

But NOT if it was my family.

[edit on 6/25/2009 by FadeToBlack]

Originally posted by Nutter

This is self defense. The fact that he's an off duty officer is really irrelevant.
He could've have been a civilian, with a registered handgun, at the ballgame, with his family. No difference.!

There is a huge difference.

1. A normal person is not allowed to carry a weapon into a ballgame.

2. A normal person would be in jail for reckless endangerment to the other people around him.

I do agree with you guys about family protection though. I just feel this was an extreme. Unless it comes out that the "thugs" were continously attacking him and he had NO OTHER choice in the matter.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

Look. Before you post, reconsider what you are saying.

Wrong. If you are *valid* issued CCW license (or permit) you are allowed to carry a handgun.

Restrictions?

Any person who has a conviction for any misdemeanor listed in Penal Code section 12021(c)(1) or for any felony, or is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, or has been held involuntarily as a danger to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 8103 is prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing firearms. Various other prohibitions exist for mental conditions, domestic restraining/protective orders, conditions of probation, and offenses committed as a juvenile.

Here's a link with more info on CCW permits (or):

Dedicated to helping all residents of California who have the legal right to own or possess a gun pursue their right to obtain a CCW license.

www.calccw.com...

This is all information that was readily available to you in a 5 minute search.
And how exactly is the fact that he was an off-duty officer relevant again?
That's what I thought....

Like drilling a hole in water.

All I'm saying is look at the facts more carefully before making a rational decision.
*ahem* and posting.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]

I have a question for you all.

Would your tune change had this man been a "gang-banger" instead of a cop?

Same situation all around except for that one thing. Seriously ask yourself the answer to that question.

Originally posted by Ben Niceknowinya
All I'm saying is look at the facts more carefully before making a decision.
*ahem* and posting.

I could ask you the same. *Ahem*, I guess you missed that even a lawfull gun tottler can't bring their firearm to a baseball game? *Ahem*.

Nutter,

Let me ask you this. If he was not part of ANY law enforcement agency, federal, state, local...would you have the same opinion? Or are your ideas misconstrued by his employment?

Originally posted by KEMIK
Let me ask you this. If he was not part of ANY law enforcement agency, federal, state, local...would you have the same opinion? Or are your ideas misconstrued by his employment?

I don't care about his employment. He could be a pig farmer (no pun intended) for all I care.

The point is that he fired his weapon in a crowded parking lot 3 times and only hit the men twice.

What if your child was the third? Would you feel he did the right thing?

Also. Now who's playing the "what if" game?

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Nutter

This is self defense. The fact that he's an off duty officer is really irrelevant.
He could've have been a civilian, with a registered handgun, at the ballgame, with his family. No difference.!

There is a huge difference.

1. A normal person is not allowed to carry a weapon into a ballgame.

2. A normal person would be in jail for reckless endangerment to the other people around him.

I do agree with you guys about family protection though. I just feel this was an extreme. Unless it comes out that the "thugs" were continously attacking him and he had NO OTHER choice in the matter.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

[edit on 25-6-2009 by Nutter]

Apparently I missed something.

Originally posted by guppy
reply to post by alyosha1981

 

I sure hope you and you family are never attacked. You would probably curl up in a ball and let the attack happen. Even if it meant the rest of your family is next after you.

I'm laughing at your attempt to bring this quote to the table as any kind of productive contribution to this thread, your supposed to attack the topic not the poster so I'll let this one slide in the hopes that you might realize that you know nothing about me and could not possibly draw any conclusions of that nature from my posts alone.

Please attempt to stay on topic here if you would like to discus your pretentious opinion feel free to U2U me.

reply to post by Nutter


Your approach is really sad at this point.
You ARE stretching. and this IS going no where fast, isn't it?

You asked:
I have a question for you all.
Would your tune change had this man been a "gang-banger" instead of a cop? Same situation all around except for that one thing. Seriously ask yourself the answer to that question.

First off, you need to ask YOURSELF the question, would a gang-banger have a *valid* permit to carry a concealed weapon?
To answer your question..It wouldn't matter if it was a civilian, a cop, a gang banger, a pregnant woman, a person in a weelchair, an aging grandmother. FACTS are what they are.
In this case, a person is being attacked, in a hostile environment, while he was with wife & kids, attempting to call for help.
Therefore, according to evidence presented so far, yes.
I justify it 100% as a self-defense reaction.
I'm thinking if I was in a courtroom, & I was the judge, I would even sentence these men to prison after they "get well."
Does that answer your question.

As for carrying your weapon in a ball game:

Except in extremely limited circumstances, you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid CCW license. CCW permits are issued only by a county sheriff to residents of the county, or by the head of a city police department to residents of that city.

Read.

Where is concealed carry allowed by the license?

Unless limited by a 12050(b) restriction on the license, a license is valid in the entire state.

Penal Code 171b public meetings
Penal Code 171c State Capitol and related areas
Penal Code 171d Governor's mansion and Legislator's residences
Penal Code 626.9(l) School zones (K-12 and college/university)

Federal and local laws may limit concealed carry even for licensed individuals. Airport sterile areas and United States military installations are two examples.

interesting in the city of San Francisco: ""San Francisco bans possession of firearms "upon public premises selling or serving alcoholic beverages" (San Francisco Municipal Code SEC. 3603).""

Application of the law:

It is apparent from the published information on the numbers of licenses that the CCW law is applied differently in different parts of the State. One observation: cities and counties with populations greater than approximately 300,000 tend to issue many fewer licenses, in absolute numbers and by population, than smaller jurisdictions.

wiki.calgunsfoundation.org...(CCW)


Application info required for CCW:

Penal Code 12051 (a) (1) The standard application form for licenses described in paragraph (3) shall require information from the applicant including, but not limited to,

the name, occupation, residence and business address of the applicant,
his or her age, height, weight, color of eyes and hair, and
reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon.
Applications for licenses shall be filed in writing, and signed by the applicant. Any license issued upon the application shall set forth the licensee's name, occupation, residence and business address, his or her age, height, weight, color of eyes and hair, the reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon, and shall, in addition, contain

a description of the weapon or weapons authorized to be carried,
giving the name of the manufacturer, the serial number, and the caliber.
The license issued to the licensee may be laminated.

12052. (a) The fingerprints of each applicant shall be taken... There is a fee for fingerprint processing, and the fee varies by location.

source: wiki.calgunsfoundation.org...(CCW)


Have a nice day.








[edit on 25-6-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]

I'm totally with nutter on this point.

It seems the braindead amongst us, love a shooting and wouldn't give a damn if somebody else HAD been hit because 'the punks deserved it'

Sorry guys but your pro-gun rants are disturbing and childish.

grow some balls and deal with it like a man.

Originally posted by samhouston1886
reply to post by alyosha1981

 

I dont know what happened, I dont think you know either but everyone seems eager to blame the Cop.

There are people out there that will kill you for fun, if someone attacks me and my family in public I will stop the threat and I am sure this is what happened, some scumbags bit off more than they could chew and were rewarded with some lead.

Until more details come out I think we should not rush to judgment.

This is America and when faced with danger we should not expected to turn tail and run away, it may turn out that this Cops actions saved someones life down the road.

Sorry if you feel me to be judgmental, the bottom line here has been established in other posts, "normal" law bidding" are not allowed to carry in the stadium, while I know it's common for off duty officers to do so the question remains, did he have other options? I think the answer yes.

Had the shooter been somebody other then a cop, I firmly believe the publicity would show that individual in a negative light. Police often use that badge as a giant shield figuratively speaking, and remember just because one holds this position does not place them outside the confines of the law.

To note, you guys deal with the mess out on the streets, I deal with what you bring in, two different worlds and even I know the officer was wrong, use of force is pretty exacting beast, on or off duty.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Sorry guys but your pro-gun rants are disturbing and childish.

Tell that to all the dead people stabbed to death in YOUR country who ARENT allowed to carry and defend themselves.

grow some balls and deal with it like a man.

Yeah cause I'm sure your billy bad ass and if 2 grown men smack YOU on the head with a bottle or other object your ninja skills would take care of them just like a chuck norris movie. ATS is FILLED with people who have NO IDEA about reality except the reality they make up in their heads. EXPERIANCE it before you open your mouths please...

[edit on 6/25/2009 by rcwj75]

reply to post by mr-lizard



Makes you want to reconsider cracking some1 in the head with a bottle, doesn't it.?

Now you know.

That infact there are people with CCW licenses/permits not only in California, but other states.

And this is nothing about growing balls, and acting like a man.

The only cowardice I see is two men attacking a man while attending a ball game with his family.

As far as the name calling, and insults. You're more than happy to send me a U2U message, and leave others out of this. Nothing like tooting your own horn, hu?
I'll personally teach you or any other coward a thing or two about how to behave towards other people.
In my case. I'm a golden glove boxer. I don't need any guns.

reply to post by rcwj75


Give me a break. If people started carrying guns around to deal with knife crime then we'd have .... *drum roll* Gun crime.

It's like buying a lion to deal with an angry dog.

Oh and what makes you think i have had no life experience?

Does getting battered by seven lads count? What about disarming a man with a knife who tried to attack a woman at a party?
What about having your head smashed against a wall by a man messed up on drugs?
What about defending myself against five lads who tried to rob my shop?

If those guys would have had knives or guns then i'd have been screwed...

But at NO point did i ever want a gun to deal with any of the above situations?

Don't judge me because you have NO idea who i am or what i've been through.

The reason you guys carry guns, is because your criminals carry guns and your cops carry guns.

If you are too stupid to see that, then i'm afraid i can do nothing to alter your silly little perception of the world.

Go grow a pair.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by rcwj75

 

If you are too stupid to see that, then i'm afraid i can do nothing to alter your silly little perception of the world.

Go grow a pair.

I don't doubt your encounters, but is it necessary to attack people personally? It's one thing to have a debate, and disagree.