Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: SPD Chief Diaz Against Legal Gun Owners It Seems

  1. #1
    Regular Member redboneshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    101

    SPD Chief Diaz Against Legal Gun Owners It Seems

    "What has to change in our society is this belief that when you're out and carrying a gun, it's a good thing, it's an OK thing," said Seattle Police Chief John Diaz.

    That kind of says it all. More from website here: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/P...162975876.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    He does raise a good point. Disarming police officers will tend to reduce gun violence. After all, we have to change beliefs about carrying guns being good, right?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kelso, Washington, USA
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    He does raise a good point. Disarming police officers will tend to reduce gun violence. After all, we have to change beliefs about carrying guns being good, right?
    I had a similar thought myself. If THAT works so good, why not disarm your own officers, so that way no gun violence is permitted from BOTH sides.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    +1, lead by example Chief Diaz.

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    "This is something that we have to change, that mindset, as far as the acceptable use of a weapon to handle a minor issue. That needs to change," Diaz said.
    This statement I have no issue with, as I see the vast majority of shootings are not self defense related and the ones that are I do not feel fall into this statement.

    "What has to change in our society is this belief that when you're out and carrying a gun, it's a good thing, it's an OK thing," said Seattle Police Chief John Diaz.
    Yes legally carrying a handgun for protection is a good thing and a okay thing and if more did this there would likely be less stupidity when it comes to protecting yourself and families.
    Last edited by BigDave; 07-19-2012 at 08:21 PM. Reason: added second quote....
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    An open question to Councilman Bruce Harrell, Mayor Mike McGinn and Chief John Diaz

    I am a staunch supporter of the U.S. and Washington State constitutions. Some very brave and heroic Washington sons and daughters (many of them from Seattle) have died defending them. What I cannot understand then, gentlemen, is why are you so dead-set opposed to them?

    Chief, carrying a gun is a "good thing" and an "ok thing!" It is, in fact, a constitutionally guaranteed rights thing. As much of a right as your right to say that you believe they are not. Inarguably, your opposition to them and my support of them doesn't mean that we don't agree that resorting to use of firearms is a wrong solution for handling minor issues. We do. So, please quit conflating the lawful carrying of guns and tragic unlawful results caused by some who abuse them into an ipso facto relationship. That relationship simply does not exist. Your recent statements implying a cause-and-effect relationship to that end sound very much like trying to teach a dog to sing. Please don't do that. It makes you look foolish ... and it irritates the dog.

    Each of you swore an oath to uphold and defend these very constitutions when you took office. I'm pretty sure that U.S. Const. Amend. II and WA Const. Art. I, § 24 haven't been repealed, so, why are you now holding out that the fundamental rights protected by these solemn documents are, somehow, something evil? Just what is it that you have against my constitutions? Tell me, please. But, please, please, don't persist in attempting to erode their protections. Your children, your children's children, and your children's children's children someday may well pay a very tragic and exacting price as a result of your efforts.

    Clearly, your very public comments and actions aimed at eviscerating my constitutions are intended to be, and are, made in terrorem populi. Shame on you!
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    An open question to Councilman Bruce Harrell, Mayor Mike McGinn and Chief John Diaz

    I am a staunch supporter of the U.S. and Washington State constitutions. Some very brave and heroic Washington sons and daughters (many of them from Seattle) have died defending them. What I cannot understand then, gentlemen, is why are you so dead-set opposed to them?

    Chief, carrying a gun is a "good thing" and an "ok thing!" It is, in fact, a constitutionally guaranteed rights thing. As much of a right as your right to say that you believe they are not. Inarguably, your opposition to them and my support of them doesn't mean that we don't agree that resorting to use of firearms is a wrong solution for handling minor issues. We do. So, please quit conflating the lawful carrying of guns and tragic unlawful results caused by some who abuse them into an ipso facto relationship. That relationship simply does not exist. Your recent statements implying a cause-and-effect relationship to that end sound very much like trying to teach a dog to sing. Please don't do that. It makes you look foolish ... and it irritates the dog.

    Each of you swore an oath to uphold and defend these very constitutions when you took office. I'm pretty sure that U.S. Const. Amend. II and WA Const. Art. I, § 24 haven't been repealed, so, why are you now holding out that the fundamental rights protected by these solemn documents are, somehow, something evil? Just what is it that you have against my constitutions? Tell me, please. But, please, please, don't persist in attempting to erode their protections. Your children, your children's children, and your children's children's children someday may well pay a very tragic and exacting price as a result of your efforts.

    Clearly, your very public comments and actions aimed at eviscerating my constitutions are intended to be, and are, made in terrorem populi. Shame on you!
    Good post. It is what can expect from government thugs who do everything they can to water down our constitutionally protected fundamental rights. And not just our right to bear arms. I'll bet you he'll look you straight in the eye and tell you he believes in those rights, too. Heard that from cops while they were violating my rights at that moment. No wonder Officer Bundy no longer works for the Sheriff's department and works for Blaine PD instead.....I doubt that's a promotion.

    Chief Diaz is a moron. The cops in Seattle lobby for more and more tax money every year they murder and harass citizens without impunity, but somehow its the guns fault? They don't even go into bad neighbor hoods unless "necessary" and not without back up....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Chief, carrying a gun is a "good thing" and an "ok thing!" It is, in fact, a constitutionally guaranteed rights thing. As much of a right as your right to say that you believe they are not. Inarguably, your opposition to them and my support of them doesn't mean that we don't agree that resorting to use of firearms is a wrong solution for handling minor issues. We do. So, please quit conflating the lawful carrying of guns and tragic unlawful results caused by some who abuse them into an ipso facto relationship. That relationship simply does not exist. Your recent statements implying a cause-and-effect relationship to that end sound very much like trying to teach a dog to sing. Please don't do that. It makes you look foolish ... and it irritates the dog.
    If the lawful carry of guns IS the same thing as abusing guns, and carrying a gun constitutes RAS that a crime has been or is about to be committed, with no other considerations of circumstances...well, police carry guns too, don't they? If having a gun is RAS of a crime, then police officers are in the same boat.

    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    ach of you swore an oath to uphold and defend these very constitutions when you took office.
    Why should we hold an oathbreaker in anything but the deepest contempt? Why should such a person be trusted with cleaning up dog crap, let alone something that requires greater integrity than that?

  9. #9
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    You might want to see everything that was said on the topic yesterday.

    http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos...asp?ID=2401226

    click on the spd update on recent shootings and it will take right to that segment of the meeting. Look for it in small print to the right of the video screen.
    Last edited by jsanchez; 07-19-2012 at 10:42 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    He does raise a good point. Disarming police officers will tend to reduce gun violence. After all, we have to change beliefs about carrying guns being good, right?
    I remember when in Tijuana, about 1993-94,the policia were so out of control, the government took all their firearms away and re-armed them with................believe it or not,
    SLIONGSHOTS AND STEEL BALLS.
    Last edited by Trigger Dr; 07-20-2012 at 03:00 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    You might want to see everything that was said on the topic yesterday.

    http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos...asp?ID=2401226

    click on the spd update on recent shootings and it will take right to that segment of the meeting. Look for it in small print to the right of the video screen.
    Thanks for the link. I went there and observed the recording of the committee and paid particularly close attention to Chief Diaz.

    I now add the following as a post script to my previous open question:

    I analyzed the basis of the chief's comments regarding his representations that we need to make a "change in our culture" in how we view the possession and use of firearms. While the chief's comments were lucid and are well designed to appeal to the emotions of his listeners, he failed to substantiate his argument. Or, in the terms of formal logic, his conclusion is not supported by his premises.

    As the premise for his argument, the chief cited to the following as examples of how our views on certain things have changed "due to public health perspectives." Before addressing each of them, even a minimalist review of these changes show that they occurred, not because of public health perspectives, but rather because our society endorsed them for purely economic reasons, to wit: society was more often than not forced to bear the financial brunt of the negative results sought to be minimized by the changes in the laws.

    His list and my observations:
    1. Our attitudes about DUI's have changed from society tolerating it to zero tolerance. I submit that he misstates society's "former" attitude for the simple reason that DUI has looong been illegal and offenders have looong been prosecuted for it.
    2. Our attitudes toward smoking have changed. I agree. They have, and for the better.
    3. Our attitudes toward seatbelts have changed. I agree. They have, and for the better.
    4. Our attitudes toward bicycle helmets have changed. I agree. They have, and for the better.
    5. After Columbine, kids attitudes toward reporting others who may have indicated that others may be subjected to violence. I agree.

    In each of these, the financial burden placed upon society as a whole for injuries suffered by others prior to the institution of the laws enacted that targeted protection for them has been mitigated substantially.

    But, the chief's arguments are red herrings. And they are such for very simple reasons:
    1. No one has a constitutional right to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
    2. No one has a constitutional right to smoke.
    3. No one has a constitutional right not to wear a seatbelt.
    4. No one has a constitutional right not to wear a bicycle helmet.
    5. No one has a constitutional right to advocate violence to the extent that it creates a clear and present danger to others.

    However, we do have fundamental constitutional rights to keep and bear arms under both the U.S. and Washington constitutions. And that, Chief, is the profound difference. You, apparently, advocate the dispensing of those rights. And while you have an absolute right to maintain personal convictions to that end, you do not have the right in your official capacity as Chief of Police to condemn and attempt to subvert these rights. No, sir. You have a sworn duty to uphold and defend them. Something, it appears, you have forgotten.
    Last edited by rapgood; 07-20-2012 at 06:13 PM.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Onalaska WA
    Posts
    225
    One thing I noticed in the video, was the number of empty seats in the room. Are these meetings closed to the public? Or, is there just the apparent lack of individuals participating in the way their city is run?
    Be safe, be prepared, and carry on!

    Alle Ihre Basisstation jetzt zu uns gehören

  13. #13
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    I remember when in Tijuana, about 1993-94,the policia were so out of control, the government took all their firearms away and re-armed them with................believe it or not,
    SLIONGSHOTS AND STEEL BALLS.
    I just know there's a joke about issuing steel balls to those without them somewhere in there, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by WOD View Post
    One thing I noticed in the video, was the number of empty seats in the room. Are these meetings closed to the public? Or, is there just the apparent lack of individuals participating in the way their city is run?
    Bingo, why attend a boring meeting when you can hang with your hipster homies at Starbucks.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •