Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: LAPD believes only police should have the right to protect their bodies with body armor

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    From: TheNixleTeam@emails.nixle.com
    Date: December 24, 2009 12:xx:xx PM PST
    To: xxxxxxx
    Subject: Notification from the LAPD Headquarters

    Hi xxxxxx

    Community Message has been issued by the LAPD Headquarters.

    Thursday December 24, 2009 12:xx PM PST


    On February 29, 1997, the calm of the morning in North Hollywood was shattered by the sounds of automatic gunfire

    The following letter was sent to the The Honorable Edmond G. Brown Jr. of the CA Office of the Attorney from Chief Charlie Beck:

    On February 29, 1997, the calm of the morning in North Hollywood was shattered by the sounds of automatic gunfire as two heavily-armed and armored men left a bank they had just robbed. Plans for a quick getaway were thwarted by responding Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers. Over the next 44-minutes, brave men and women of the LAPD engaged Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu in a ferocious gun battle that eventually left ten police officers and five people injured. It also led to the deaths of the two bank robbers.

    The two bank robbers were no strangers to violence, having robbed several other banks prior to their attempt in North Hollywood. Besides carrying fully automatic rifles with ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, they were also wearing military grade body armor. The carnage on the streets of North Hollywood that day was a wake-up call then and a reminder today of the dangers of allowing convicted violent felons to have access to body armor.

    The law prohibiting convicted felons from wearing or possessing body armor was passed by the California State Legislature in 1998 as a measure to protect police officers and those in our communities from violent felons who are increasingly using high-powered firearms. The need for this law is evermore present today.

    In 2008, in the City of Los Angeles, four LAPD officers came under unprovoked gunfire attack. In 2009, that number doubled with eight LAPD officers being randomly fired upon. Over the past year alone, there have been seven incidents of officers being fired upon. The increasing number of assaults with deadly weapons against our frontline public safety defenders is a clear indication that we cannot give violent felons the upper hand.

    AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY – AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER www.LAPDOnline.org www.joinLAPD.com


    Last week’s Second District Court of Appeals to overturn the 1998 law gives violent criminals the upper hand. There is an absolute need for a ban on these types of body armor for anyone other than law enforcement personnel or law enforcement related personnel. I urge you to immediately appeal the Second District Court of Appeals decision. The men and women defending public safety across the state and the people of California deserve no less.

    If you would like to discuss this matter further, or have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Public Information Director, Ms. Mary Grady at (213) 486-5900.

    Very truly yours,
    CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police

    For full details, go to http://local.nixle.com/alert/635979/

    Contact Information:

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    Well, you can't carry a loaded gun w/o a permit in CA soit makes sense you shouldn't have body armor either. The only people who need body armor are cops because no one else ever gets shot.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    public employees should not be using their employment situation to further their political ends.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Here is a link to a news article explaining the Court of Appeals decision: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5869498.story

    I see it was a ban on "violent felons." I don't know if that really means all felons or just the violent ones.

    Anyway, I know here in North Carolina, it is only illegal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime. Well, that's fine with me. Us LAC's won't be committing any crimes.

    Anyway, I remember that shootout very well going down in L.A. I even remember the old cop show "High Incident" (apparently the perps in the real life shoot out were called the High Incident Bandits) created their last episode as their own retelling of this event. I don't mind the officers carrying high-powered rifles, in fact, they should. If they had that and perhaps some decent optics, that firefight would have last far shorter than it actually did whether or not the perpetrators had body armor or not.

    Here in North Carolina, several of the stage agencies, NC SBI (State Bureau of Investigation), Highway Patrol, and ALE (Alcohol Law Enforcement) carry patrol rifles. Even some of the police and sheriff's departments authorize their officers to carry a patrol rifle if it meets their specifications and the officer can qualify with it.

    I don't have body armor, but that is because it is expensive. I have looked and priced and wouldn't mind having one if SHTF down the road.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    public employees should not be using their employment situation to further their political ends.
    ding, ding, ding....Bingo!!!!
    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)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    The more crime, the bigger police department budgets become. A self fulfilling prophecy for empire building control freaks who want to lord over a disarmed citizenry. They don't care about us, they only care about growing and extending their own power and maintaining exclusivity of it.

    This is particularly true in liberal jurisdictions where armed criminals roam free while we are legislated into cowering in fear, unarmed, at the whim and fancy of violent felons. We, the lawful, are reduced to nothing more than pawns in liberal utopias where thugs own the streets, knowing we have no way to push back on them and cops love out of control crime, driving ever expanding budgets for them and their fraternity.

    I am so glad I left California for the USA. Here in northern Nevada everyone carries legally, and I never feel worried for my safety.

    I do hope one day Calguns and others fighting the good fight pushes back on the liberals who insist on lording over citizens, I eagerly await the day when I can travel in the state in which I was born and be able to carry the tools necessary to protect myself from the rotten fruits of decades of utterly failed liberal social engineering.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Which is why I was sort of hoping the Thune ammendment would pass.

    I don't necessarily agree with the idea of trumping state authority on certain issues.

    But at least that law was aimed at protecting some freedom and rights instead of the steady erosion most other laws accomplish.

    I would have loved to be able to have my CPL recognized in states like Hawaii, and California.
    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
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    If states have to take each other's ID cards, drivers licenses and have to observe marriages performed in other states, they should have to recognize concealed carry permits as well.

    LIberal counties in California hand out concealed carry permits in return for bribes (Sheriff reelection campaign fund) or if you're famous (Sean Penn) even if you have a history of violence as he does which technically disqualifies the applicant. At the very least they should be forced under the guise of equal protection to be forced to "shall issue" to those who are not objectively disqualified, the subjectivity should be removed from the process, it facilitates statewide (in liberal jurisdictions) corruption and a denial of rights. Conservative counties in California are already essentially shall issue and sheriffs in those counties don't run the CCW application process like a shakedown racket or old boys club. The county sheriffs in liberal jurisdictions should not look upon concealed carry permit applicants as an ATM for their reelection campaign fund.

    Most people in California simply carry concealed without a permit. I know for a fact my now deceased grandfather did for well over 50 years without incident.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    wayneco wrote:
    If states have to take each other's ID cards, drivers licenses and have to observe marriages performed in other states, they should have to recognize concealed carry permits as well.

    LIberal counties in California hand out concealed carry permits in return for bribes or if you're famous. At the very least they should be forced under the guise of equal protection to be forced to shall issue. The county sheriff should not look upon concealed carry permit applicants as an ATM for their reelection campaign fund.

    Most people in California simply carry concealed without a permit. I know for a fact my now deceased grandfather did for well over 50 years without incident.
    I would agree. Except for a few differences. We pay federal taxes when we buy gasoline that is supposed to help our interstate highways. As of yet I cannot make a connection with how the current system is set up where the Fed. has the authority to force states to accept Concealed permits.

    Especially since we have our states and Feds current belief that the 2nd ammendment only applies to the federal government, which is a total perversion of our constitution.What part ofinalienable rights do they not understand?

    Also concealed carry is "the priveledge" while open carry is traditionally the "right".
    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)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    How do you explain states accepting each other's marriage licenses then?

    That has nothing to do with federal highway funds.

    Incorporation is going to be a bitch for those who have grown accustomed to lording over us and wholesale infringing on our 2nd A rights. I hope these dark days will one day be past us.

    I only really came to understand how screwed up and invasive California's gun laws were when I moved to Nevada 10 years ago and compared their 200 pages of gun laws to Nevada's few (about 10) pages and that was the moment I truly became a 2A rights activist.

    If more native Californians who own guns were educated as to the level of infringement they suffer they might all become activists. One of the best ways to do that is to compare and contrast that with the comparative lack of gun laws in adjoining free states like Nevada.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    wayneco wrote:
    How do you explain states accepting each other's marriage licenses then?
    Good point!

    I don't believe state or Federal government has any business with the religous institution of mairrage.

    I myself am looking forward to incorporation. But believe our government already have in the works back door gun control by other methods.
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    You shouldn't be allowed to have body armor because that makes it harder to kill you when the time comes. Bottom line.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    You shouldn't be allowed to have body armor because that makes it harder to kill you when the time comes. Bottom line.
    Pretty much.
    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)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Remember kids, the general public is composed entirely of violent felons.


  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    I see the perfect police chief was chosen by Mayor Villar. One that will get as many law-abiding citizens maimed and killed as possible.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I really P.O.ed an LEO one time who was telling me everyone is guiltyandsomething it's just a matter of catching them. So asked him what he was doing and who was going to catch him.
    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)

  17. #17
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    here in North Carolina, it is only legal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime.
    Yikes. That is a weird law. :shock:



  18. #18
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    Well, you can't carry a loaded gun w/o a permit in CA soit makes sense you shouldn't have body armor either. The only people who need body armor are cops because no one else ever gets shot.
    The reason you can't carry a loaded gun is because the racist wanted to stop the Black Panthers, who used to carry loaded shotguns.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  19. #19
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    wayneco wrote:
    How do you explain states accepting each other's marriage licenses then?
    They don't always.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    tekshogun wrote:
    *here in North Carolina, it is only legal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime.
    Yikes. That is a weird law. :shock:

    *
    Whoa, I get a little dyslexic when posting on these forums.

    Sorry about that...

    [quote]tekshogun wrote:
    here in North Carolina, it is only illegal to possess or wear body armor in the commission of a crime.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    "We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    "We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."
    Or the more succinct version: ****.

  23. #23
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Deanimator wrote:
    "We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."
    Or the more succinct version: ****.
    Indeed. I am shocked the gov't could be so oxymoronic. ##Insert fake shocked emoticon here##
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    I have two important things to add which I think are relevant:

    1) Federal law prohibits felons from possessing body armor unless required by an employer. See 18 U.S.C. section 931 "Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons"

    2) The body armor used by the bank robbers in the North Hollywood incident was homemade. This is one of those fine details that isn't always reported. It is mentioned here: http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/cr...-appeal-urged/


    If CA catches a felon with body armor, all this law does it allow them to drop yet another charge on him because his ownership of the armor is already illegal at the federal level.

    I don't believe in making it a crime to use body armor in the commission of a crime. I have difficulty seeing how any crime becomes more serious merely based on the fact that the perpetrator is wearing body armor.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    This crap about how only LEOs should be allowed to have body armor would be like the Fire Department saying that only Firefighters should be allowed to own fire extinguishers since it is'nt the average citizen's job to fight fires. Both body armor and fire extiguishers are safety devices.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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