• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Good shooting of one bad man, good arrest of another

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Good shooting of one bad man, good arrest of another

"Clemmons deserved to die. He was a poster child for everything that is bad about the justice system, and everything wrong (and wrong-headed) about the gun control agenda. Clemmons used a .38 Special revolver and carried a stolen 9mm semiautomatic pistol when he opened fire at the Forza coffee shop in Parkland, a couple of blocks south of Highway 512. He left both of those guns at the scene; the revolver with six empty cartridge cases in the cylinder (it was the primary murder weapon in Parkland) and the semi-auto with one round expended."



http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m4d7-Good-shooting-of-one-bad-man-good-arrest-of-another

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/y9vowvn
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

BTW Dave, another good article. I agree, the anti's probably will use the fact Wilson had a CPL. We need to put out a request that all firearm owners start showing a little more responsibility these days, (I know, we shouldnt have to mention it or remind gun owners to be responsible). With all the attention firearms are getting, they dont need any angry dumbass's helping the anti's.

From now on, all slayings shall need to be done with wooden post's from Brady Campaigner protest signs.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Two things:

I believe that the Yakima man is NOW a former CPL holder (or soon to be).

The .38 Spl? Where did it come from? I continue to hear that the 9mm was stolen, but the .38?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
Two things:

I believe that the Yakima man is NOW a former CPL holder (or soon to be).

The .38 Spl? Where did it come from? I continue to hear that the 9mm was stolen, but the .38?

To my knowledge, he still has the CPL but probably won't for long since he's under indictment.



It still isn't clear to me where the .38 Special came from in the Lakewood thing. I'll check back with the police Thursday and see if something new has been revealed.
 

SpyderTattoo

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,015
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

Why shouldn't the police face the same system that any of us would have to face?

I expect the police to be held to an even higher standard than "non-police" citizens.

How would it feel if the police never had to face the court system for any of their actions, especially a shooting? I guarantee that the rest of us would be pretty upset if police didn't have to go through due process like any of us would.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
imported post

SpyderTattoo wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

Why shouldn't the police face the same system that any of us would have to face?

I expect the police to be held to an even higher standard than "non-police" citizens.

How would it feel if the police never had to face the court system for any of their actions, especially a shooting? I guarantee that the rest of us would be pretty upset if police didn't have to go through due process like any of us would.
+1, I agree.

The system is there to uphold a level of accountability. We cant just accept the emotional relief of the outcome and throw the system out the window because it may not be expedient or popular this time. This is as system that was put there ultimately as a level of protection for you and me.

Consistency in the law in good or bad is suppose to be one of the major factors that makes it legitimate, and not just a side show for the masses.

The system isn't perfect, but it works more often than it doesn't. Try not to bash the system when its working in your ultimate favor.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

SpyderTattoo wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

Why shouldn't the police face the same system that any of us would have to face?

I expect the police to be held to an even higher standard than "non-police" citizens.

How would it feel if the police never had to face the court system for any of their actions, especially a shooting? I guarantee that the rest of us would be pretty upset if police didn't have to go through due process like any of us would.
Under normal circumstances I agree 100%. The officer shot a known killer, who had an officers stolen handgun on him. Given the circumstances, thats what makes it a waste of time, esp using justification as a reason.
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

As long as I have been a member on this forum, I have read the complaints about the"judge, jury and executioner" mentality of police. For the most part this has been put down by those of us that support the police, recognizing that there is the rogue cop that shows up on occassion.

Now I see this same thing being advocated as the way to deal with the criminal element. Try to remember, Clemmons still had the same rights to a trial and protection of the law that you and I enjoy. Granted, he was scum in my book, but he still had those rights.

It was very appropriate that the officer was held to account for his actions and to be found justified or not justified as the evidence would dictate.
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
imported post

But unlike Wilson, who left messages for the senator that openly suggested she should be killed, rational law-abiding gun owners – who haven’t harmed anybody – would never dream of using a .38-caliber pistol, or any other kind of firearm, on Sen. Murray. They have a far more powerful weapon at their disposal, one that has already cut short the career of many a politician, and for which no background check or waiting period is required, and every American citizen has one. It’s called a ballot.

Sorry, but if this were the case, we would have decent people in office instead of corrupt criminals and communists.
]
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

As long as I have been a member on this forum, I have read the complaints about the"judge, jury and executioner" mentality of police. For the most part this has been put down by those of us that support the police, recognizing that there is the rogue cop that shows up on occassion.

Now I see this same thing being advocated as the way to deal with the criminal element. Try to remember, Clemmons still had the same rights to a trial and protection of the law that you and I enjoy. Granted, he was scum in my book, but he still had those rights.

It was very appropriate that the officer was held to account for his actions and to be found justified or not justified as the evidence would dictate.
I disagree, he gave those rights up when he was fidgeting to pull the gun out of his pocket. He could have however retained those rights by not advancing on the officer and putting his hands up as requested. He made the decision not to have his day in court. The point I am getting at is "how, given the circumstances, would the shooting not have been justified". How about I answer my own question. It would have been worth questioning justification had Clemmons not been armed when he was shot. I am not a judge, a cop, or have I ever been on a jury. I dont need to be any of the afore mentioned to knowthe shooting was justified,given the evidence and circumstances.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

amzbrady wrote:
Trigger Dr wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
Senseless waste of taxpayers money. I cant believe they put the officer on trial to determine if the shooting was justified. I see stupidity at its finest.

As long as I have been a member on this forum, I have read the complaints about the"judge, jury and executioner" mentality of police. For the most part this has been put down by those of us that support the police, recognizing that there is the rogue cop that shows up on occassion.

Now I see this same thing being advocated as the way to deal with the criminal element. Try to remember, Clemmons still had the same rights to a trial and protection of the law that you and I enjoy. Granted, he was scum in my book, but he still had those rights.

It was very appropriate that the officer was held to account for his actions and to be found justified or not justified as the evidence would dictate.
I disagree, he gave those rights up when he was fidgeting to pull the gun out of his pocket. He could have however retained those rights by not advancing on the officer and putting his hands up as requested. He made the decision not to have his day in court. The point I am getting at is "how, given the circumstances, would the shooting not have been justified". How about I answer my own question. It would have been worth questioning justification had Clemmons not been armed when he was shot. I am not a judge, a cop, or have I ever been on a jury. I dont need to be any of the afore mentioned to knowthe shooting was justified,given the evidence and circumstances.


This was a matter of transparency and politics in a very high profile matter. There were several points of fact that were confirmed in the hearing. Without transparency, even where to some it is blatently obvious, corruption is allowed. I am not sure if the facts that were confirmed by the jury in this hearing can be used against the family who aided Clemmons, but if they can then they should all be getting ready for a long time in Walla Walla.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

sirpuma wrote:
But unlike Wilson, who left messages for the senator that openly suggested she should be killed, rational law-abiding gun owners – who haven’t harmed anybody – would never dream of using a .38-caliber pistol, or any other kind of firearm, on Sen. Murray. They have a far more powerful weapon at their disposal, one that has already cut short the career of many a politician, and for which no background check or waiting period is required, and every American citizen has one. It’s called a ballot.

Sorry, but if this were the case, we would have decent people in office instead of corrupt criminals and communists.
]


Well, it IS the case, like it or not.
You simply have the disadvantage of not being able to get enough like-minded people off their fat asses to vote.
They would much rather sit back and complain about, well, "corrupt criminals and communist" now in government

The challenge is to get these people to vote. Then they wouldn't have anything to complain about.

In any event, it's bad form to leave voice mails that suggest you are going to kill a politician. It's illegal, too.

;)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

This guy who did the threats :banghead::banghead::banghead:way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
This guy who did the threats :banghead::banghead::banghead:way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?

No.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
This guy who did the threats :banghead::banghead::banghead:way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?

No.


Explain, Or do you believe the 2A was written for hunting and self defense?

Because from my understanding 2A was about removing tyranny.

What was that quote from Thomas Jefferson? .......blood of tyrants.....?

Not that I am advocating violence, or condoning this physcho's actions.

But is the fear of an armed republic that is supposed to stop outrageous actions by our politicians.

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

Here's some more recent ones..

[*]HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
  • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)
Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here. By simply saying no makes me believe you don't understand what the 2A was for.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
This guy who did the threats :banghead::banghead::banghead:way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?

No.


Explain, Or do you believe the 2A was written for hunting and self defense?

Because from my understanding 2A was about removing tyranny.

What was that quote from Thomas Jefferson? .......blood of tyrants.....?

Not that I am advocating violence, or condoning this physcho's actions.

But is the fear of an armed republic that is supposed to stop outrageous actions by our politicians.

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

Here's some more recent ones..


[*]HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
  • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)
Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here. By simply saying no makes me believe you don't understand what the 2A was for.
I answered a question about whether the 2A is an "implied threat of violence" against politicians.
I don't have to explain that at all. What part of "no" don't you understand?

It is an "insurance policy" against tyranny, but it is not an "implied threat of violence" against politicians.

Besides, one look at the way Congress has conducted itself over the years is all one needs to conclude they don't take it as an implied threat of violence.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
This guy who did the threats :banghead::banghead::banghead:way to give the tyrannical folks more ammo for taking away our rights.

But on a side note? Isn't the 2A already an implied threat of violence against politicians?

No.


Explain, Or do you believe the 2A was written for hunting and self defense?

Because from my understanding 2A was about removing tyranny.

What was that quote from Thomas Jefferson? .......blood of tyrants.....?

Not that I am advocating violence, or condoning this physcho's actions.

But is the fear of an armed republic that is supposed to stop outrageous actions by our politicians.

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

Here's some more recent ones..



[*]HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
  • "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)
Don't be afraidto take a stand Dave all opinions are welcomed here. By simply saying no makes me believe you don't understand what the 2A was for.
I answered a question about whether the 2A is an "implied threat of violence" against politicians. I don't have to explain that at all. What part of "no" don't you understand?

It is an "insurance policy" against tyranny, but it is not an "implied threat of violence" against politicians.

Besides, one look at the way Congress has conducted itself over the years is all one needs to conclude they don't take it as an implied threat of violence.
And how is it an "insurance policy", by being an implied threat of violence if they mess up, right? Why do you always have to be condencending ass?
What part of explain yourself did you not understand? Jeez Dave what click counts down?

Yes the modern congress doesn'tseem threatened byit, but that does not change what it was written for now does it? HMMMMM? Again explain how it is an insurance policy if not an implied threat of violence?
 
Top