• 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.

Seattle case shows why criminals don't open carry

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...pulled-a-handgun-on-officers-witness-reports/

Officers saw a man with a holstered handgun and recognized him as Taylor, a “convicted violent felon” prohibited by law from possessing a handgun, the statement said.
When idiots tell you that OC is dangerous remind them with cases like these that criminals don't open carry because police would recognize them.

Most violent crime is committed by repeat criminals. Recidivism is off the charts and the vast majority of criminals are already known to police.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Maybe time to loosen the tin-foil hat.

A convicted violent felon (rape, robbery, and assault), still on supervised release, ends up shot dead by police. An empty holster is on the felon's belt, with a (presumably) matching gun nearby. Also found on his person was a distribution amount of crack cocaine (some 48, 8-balls). Sounds like a guy who doesn't want to get arrested.

Cops say felon refused orders and reached for a gun before they shot him.

Unless the cops involved have a record of excessive force, this isn't a tough one to give a benefit of the doubt to the cops on.

And those with ready comprehension would have noticed that violent felon was standing outside the car when cops approached him:

Article said:
While Taylor stood at the passenger door of the Taurus, a marked patrol vehicle with its emergency lights activated pulled up facing the Taurus as an arrest team approached the car, according to police.
If the best the family and friends have is that violent felon is black while cops are white, I dismiss them as racists.

And that all said, the OP is correct. Convicted felons have a very good reason not to advertise they are in possession of a firearm. Whatever we may think of lifetime loss of RKBA, that is the current law of the land and an easy conviction back to jail for violation.

Charles
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
IIRC, Way back when people first started carrying concealed, there was a perception that only criminals and other ne'er do wells would carry concealed and therefor the average honest citizen who wished to carry so needed a special investigation and licensing before being allowed to do so.

As felons are prohibited from carrying, the ability of someone to carry openly would seem a good indicator that they had the confidence to not consider themselves as either criminals or felons.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I think I may actually understand his point. At an earlier time in our history, even a felon deserved the ability to preserve his life by being armed (I'm pretty sure no one even blinked an eye when a movie showed two guys being released from prison and being given back their six-shooters.) It's only the proliferation of law enforcement to a daily or even hourly event that has allowed society to transfer this responsibility to others.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,589
Location
here nc
mate, et al., please forgive the reading err of the previous link it was an unintentional oversight and i have removed my incorrect post

that stated...here is another news report, sorry but the OPs cite w/ST's headline 'witness says she saw gun...' then in the article it states...'she couldn't get a good look from her position in the police car...' eh who ya going believe...
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...omplied-with-police-commands-before-his-death

quote
Two plainclothes officers confronted Taylor, yelling at him, "Get down on the ground!" and "Hands up!" They approach him, rifles drawn, as he stands at the passenger side of the car. He puts his hands up for a split second, then ducks down. The department has been highly selective with the information it has released so far.


The SPD says Taylor ignored police commands. But after repeatedly viewing the dashcam video, two of the former officers said it shows Taylor complying with officer directives. A third former officer said those commands may have been contradictory and confusing.


Richard Lichten, a former Los Angeles-area cop who has testified as a police practices expert, focused on the content of the commands themselves. "If one officer says get your hands up, and another says get on the ground, who do you believe?... That can be confusing."


I also spoke to a police officer who just retired from the King County Sheriff's department after more than two decades on the force. He spoke on condition of anonymity. "From what I saw, he was told to get down, and he was getting down. And while he was down, I don't know what prompted them to shoot... He's getting down. But we can't tell if he's getting all the way on the ground."


"He was obeying commands," the former officer said. "And it looks like the other officer was going in to take control of him, when the officer with the rifle began to shoot."


Here's something we do know: One of the officers who fired at Taylor is Michael Spaulding.
And there are two things we know about Spaulding. He killed an agitated, mentally ill man named Jack Sun Keewatinawin in 2013, after slipping and falling, arguing he had no choice but to defend himself.


The following year, Spaulding signed his name to desperate lawsuit, filed by almost ten percent of the police force, to block Department of Justice-mandated use-of-force reforms.

unquote

now, list time i checked plainclothes badge carriers normally do not have a rifle at hand...

again sorry for the previous post where i misread the article...i think the gun on the floor of passenger seat and the 'driver's comments' might have lead me to believe the victim was in the passenger seat not standing outside against the passenger door.

ipse

added...call me impressed these particular LEs involved have eidetic memory
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,589
Location
here nc
I think I may actually understand his point. At an earlier time in our history, even a felon deserved the ability to preserve his life by being armed (I'm pretty sure no one even blinked an eye when a movie showed two guys being released from prison and being given back their six-shooters.) It's only the proliferation of law enforcement to a daily or even hourly event that has allowed society to transfer this responsibility to others.
well said...

ipse
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Felons with guns? I don't see that as a crime. A bad guy can kill just as easily with a hammer.
That doesn't make a pile of chicken scratch difference - it is a crime.
I think I may actually understand his point. At an earlier time in our history, even a felon deserved the ability to preserve his life by being armed (I'm pretty sure no one even blinked an eye when a movie showed two guys being released from prison and being given back their six-shooters.) It's only the proliferation of law enforcement to a daily or even hourly event that has allowed society to transfer this responsibility to others.
Then we need to change the law. Until then it is a crime.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Then we need to change the law. Until then it is a crime.
+1.

I'm of the firm opinion that a man trusted to walk the streets unsupervised must have his rights respected...all of them.

If a man can't be trusted with his rights, he shouldn't be trusted to be released from prison.

I expect that if this view were to ever be enacted into law, we'd have a fair number of criminals spending a lot longer behind bars. When society realized they couldn't find false comfort in honor system rules against having guns, or in forcing sexual offenders to register on some list or not being able to live too close to a school (cause kids don't walk between the schools and their homes or otherwise hang out anywhere other than school), society might decide that some crimes/criminals need longer sentences, additional counseling/programs, and more careful scrutiny to make sure there isn't an on-going threat to society. And then once released, maybe ex-cons would actually have an easier time (re-)integrating into society if they didn't have to carry around a lifetime list of scarlet letters.

However, until that happens, a convicted violent felon with 4 dozen doses of crack cocaine and a gun in his possession is making pretty clear that he has zero intention of living by the rules of society. We don't get to pick and choose which duly enacted laws we will obey if we wish to lay claim to being law-abiding member of society. We can work within the system to change laws we don't like. But when we violate laws we become criminals. And previously convicted violent criminals who demonstrate an unwillingness to live by the laws of society do not garner much sympathy or benefit of the doubt from me.

I'm with the cops on this unless/until significant evidence to the contrary comes to light.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
mate, et al., please forgive the reading err of the previous link it was an unintentional oversight and i have removed my incorrect post
What? You've removed a post that contains errors? After all the times you've had the gall to read others the riot act for doing something similar?

I'm not even going to attempt to mimic your style of chastising others for such conduct as you pronounce shame and disappointment at them for trying to hide something. I'm just going to call rank hypocrisy.

And for the record, I see nothing wrong with deleting a post that is in error.

I see a lot wrong with your selective sanctimoniousness about who gets to do that without it being some kind of sin.

Charles
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
669
Location
Mercer Island
If a man can't be trusted with his rights, he shouldn't be trusted to be released from prison.

I expect that if this view were to ever be enacted into law, we'd have a fair number of criminals spending a lot longer behind bar

I agree. Even the New York Times admitted a study they did showed at one point 90% of murders they looked at over a time period across the US were committed by prior violent felons. The FBI in 2006 reported that 67% of murders were by prior violent felons.

We could virtually eliminate murder and gun crime by locking up violent felons for long periods of time.

I also dislike the idea of having different classes of "freedom" for people walking the street. If they are too dangerous to own a gun due to prior behavior then keep them locked away from society!
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,589
Location
here nc
What? You've removed a post that contains errors? After all the times you've had the gall to read others the riot act for doing something similar?

I'm not even going to attempt to mimic your style of chastising others for such conduct as you pronounce shame and disappointment at them for trying to hide something. I'm just going to call rank hypocrisy.

And for the record, I see nothing wrong with deleting a post that is in error.

I see a lot wrong with your selective sanctimoniousness about who gets to do that without it being some kind of sin.

Charles
for the record, my post's entire premise was based on MY erroneous belief where the gentleman was in the event that cost him his life by being shot by a plainsclothed LE carrying a rifle, all the while some experts say after review of video, the victim was attempting to comply with the contradictory commands.

the gall is when poster(s) go back and change their post w/o showing what was changed/delete/added material then pretend it was that way from the beginning ~ something i believe you have recent experience doing...

i have, to the best of my recollection, not chastised anybody for deleting a post with erroneous information.

as for calling "hypocrisy" what ever...you have the gall to chastise me then make a blanket statement...'you know i seen nothing wrong with deleting a post that is in error'

watch out throwing stones there, mate...

ipse
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,589
Location
here nc
I agree. Even the New York Times admitted a study they did showed at one point 90% of murders they looked at over a time period across the US were committed by prior violent felons. The FBI in 2006 reported that 67% of murders were by prior violent felons.

We could virtually eliminate murder and gun crime by locking up violent felons for long periods of time.

I also dislike the idea of having different classes of "freedom" for people walking the street. If they are too dangerous to own a gun due to prior behavior then keep them locked away from society!
ya know i am peeking between the words, lifting the post up to check under it for the cite in case it slide off into my monitor...

ipse
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
ya know i am peeking between the words, lifting the post up to check under it for the cite in case it slide off into my monitor...
ya know it is possible to ask for citation in a polite and civil manner.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
ya know i am peeking between the words, lifting the post up to check under it for the cite in case it slide off into my monitor...
That interwebz search thing you like so much:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

Ten yeas old and not quite the numbers that Alpine claimed. But the over-arching point he made--"We could virtually eliminate murder and gun crime by locking up violent felons for long periods of time."--has some merit from what numbers are officially available at the first result from the search engines. Maybe something has changed dramatically in the last decade. But I doubt it.


Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest
record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a
felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of
those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest
record.

Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active
criminal justice status at the time of their arrest.
This included 18% on probation, 12% on release
pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on
parole.

A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior
conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior
felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction
for a violent felony.



Nor should these numbers surprise any thinking person. While gun grabbers ho like to claim that murders are "heat of the moment" things between previously loving family members, sensible folks realize that most criminals have to kind of work up to taking any person's life. Maybe get emboldened a bit. The first few robberies go fine, and then someone resists.

And when we call out violent felonies (as opposed to technical violations of some complex financial reporting rule), we are (almost always) talking about people who inflicted some harm on some other person. These are not political prisoners, but actual criminals who harmed or tried to harm some other person. Murder, rape, muggings, home invasions, assaults, and car jackings are not minor or accident conduct. No matter how much some bleeding heart idiots may want to defend violent criminals by calling their conduct "grabby a**", these are real crimes. Real penalties are warranted, and tend to have the side benefit of preventing future crimes by said criminals against innocent society for as long as said violent criminals are incarcerated.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,589
Location
here nc
I agree. Even the New York Times admitted a study they did showed at one point 90% of murders they looked at over a time period across the US were committed by prior violent felons. The FBI in 2006 reported that 67% of murders were by prior violent felons.


We could virtually eliminate murder and gun crime by locking up violent felons for long periods of time.


I also dislike the idea of having different classes of "freedom" for people walking the street. If they are too dangerous to own a gun due to prior behavior then keep them locked away from society!


ya know it is possible to ask for citation or link without sounding --moderated comment--
That interwebz search thing you like so much:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

snipped...interesting but irrelevant...

Charles
mate, please review alpine's post where he stated a NEW YORK TIMES study...

then you chide me for asking for a cite...

then you proudly and with great bravado step up with great modesty with a cite which leads to:

quote
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

unquote.

then with this erroneous cite, which doesn't mention any type or point to any NY Times study whatsoever, launch into a lengthy tirade stating Alpine was right tho his stats were olde and incorrect.

not sure which is more laughable, you having the audacity to call me a 'trolling ****** bag' or your lengthy tirade using the wrong cite and saying the op's premise is correct. but please hold on and i will get back to ya on that point ok...

ipse

--moderated comment--
 
Last edited by a moderator:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
then you chide me for asking for a cite...
Nope. I called you out for the needlessly provocative d-bag manner in which you asked for the cite.

While this is a "family friendly" forum, I was under the assumption that most all participants were adults with a concomitant reading comprehension level.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,589
Location
here nc
Nope. I called you out for the needlessly provocative d-bag manner in which you asked for the cite.

While this is a "family friendly" forum, I was under the assumption that most all participants were adults with a concomitant reading comprehension level.
so you couldn't locate the NY Times study either huh...

ipse

apparently profoundly
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
so you couldn't locate the NY Times study either huh...
Made no attempt to look for it. The first link on my search was an authoritative cite that readily confirmed the general thesis of the post (that most violent crime is committed by those with a prior record for violent crime) and one of his numbers (67%). Whether another study shows that 90% of murderers in some local like NYC had a prior record, compared to the 67% in the federal gov study seems to be nit-picky, especially when both numbers were cited.

Which leads me to ask what your intent was in asking for the citation? Is there something material you don't believe? Do you just want to prove another poster is wrong on some non-material point? Do you just want to bog down discussion with needless demands for a citation? There are legit reasons to ask for a cite, and then there are entirely irrelevant, unproductive demands just because you think you are entitled.

And in any event, why the constant need to express yourself in the fashion you do? Do you read your posts? Do you hear how they sound? Or are you completely tone deaf?

What is wrong with simply typing, "Can you please provide a link to the NYT's study?" At least the first time.
 
Top