"No Guts to Jail the Nuts": Man Wanted in Connection to Killings of 4 Police Officers Sunday in Tacoma Washington

He has a wife? And young relatives who actually place trust in him? I really shouldn't be surprised, yet somehow I am.

As to the anti-gun legislation, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the usual suspects just push for more, not less, as a result of this. As you said, they don't even think once.

Posted by Julie at November 29, 2009 8:17 PM

I was living in Maryland and working for a Member of Congress. Our office had to deal with the victim's of Willie Horton and the aftermath. When the democrats screamed racist over the ad, the people in the state were livid. No one seemed to actually care what the man had done. Fortunately, unlike Dukakis, who furloughed a man serving a life sentence without patrole for murder, Maryland threw the book at Horton for rape, robbery and assault and he is serving his sentence there for the rest of his life. They refused to send him back to Dukakis, they didn't trust him. "On October 20, Horton was sentenced in Maryland to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing judge, Vincent J. Femia, refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying, "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again.""[Wiki]

When I read this post of yours, all I could think of is the Seattle Times must be Washington's democrat spin machine, all that is lacking is the cry of racism, and Huckabee is now Dukakis. Good grief. It is like being in a time machine.

Let's hope that the good people of Washington take control and do what the very angry people of Maryland did when they catch this scumbag.

Posted by Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 29, 2009 8:54 PM

Ummm -- can you explain again how flooding society with thousands of handguns -- which is apparently what you gun nuts want -- is supposed to make me feel _safer_?

In all likliehood, the killer in this case was a felon who was barred from owning a gun, and his weapon was probably one obtained through burglary or some other means from a law-abiding individual who kept it for "protection." NRA fanatics say that the more law-abiding folks who have guns, the better. But common sense says it will result in more guns being obtained by guys like this -- via burglary, illegal sales and other means -- in order to harm us!

Finally, this horrendous tragedy flies in the face of the illogic that says, "Giving everybody a gun will make us safer." Hey, these officers _had_ guns and were trained to use them. How safe did packing a weapon make them?

The sad fact is, while carrying a weapon may undoubtably make some people feel strong and macho, it very rarely provides protection, because the bad do-ers are usually smart enough to factor that possibility into their plans, and use the element of surprise to pre-empt protective use of guns.

While NRA fanatics can point to anecdotal evidence supporting protective value of gun ownership, is it vastly outweighed by the harmful role individual handgun ownership plays in accidents, domestic and impulsive violence, and "leakage" of guns from the law-abiding to the law-breaking elements of society.

If you want to stay safe, be careful where you go and who you associate with, have a big dog at home, and keep your wits about you. Don't be fooled by thinking a gun is the answer.

Posted by Juan Hernandez at November 29, 2009 10:25 PM

Except didn't all manner of violent crimes, including gun crimes, explode in the UK for example, a dozen years after Dunblane. WAy not get the point

Posted by narciso at November 29, 2009 10:34 PM

Yes, let's take all the guns away from law abiding people and make sure the only ones with guns are the criminals and a government fast becoming totalitarian. Nah, I don't think so.

Posted by Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 29, 2009 11:25 PM

In college, many years ago, I did a research paper about bail bonds in US criminal courts. The normal practice was that the accused put up 10% and the bondsman put up 90%.

That seems to be what happened with Clemmons. He paid the bondsman $15,000 and the bondman posted bail for $150,000.

The catch then, and I suspect now, is the bondsman does not actually put up $150,000. He just guarantees the amount to the court. The bondsman now has $15,000 in his pocket and the accused is free.

When an accused flees that sounds like very bad news for the bondsman. For he must give the court $150,000. Ouch.

But wait! Normally the bondsman still doesn't pay. He explains to the judge that he did his best, that scoundrel just ran away. Gee, where ever might he be? Boo hoo, boo hoo.

The judge, who encounters bondsmen hundreds of times a year and likes to keep relations pleasant around ye ole courthouse, waives payment of all or substantially all of the bond. Everyone is happy.

Posted by K at November 29, 2009 11:29 PM

Mike Huckabee's political career is down the old flusher. I will also not be surprised if this man never makes it to trial. I hope that the Brotherhood between policeman is still strong where this man NEVER makes it to trial.

Posted by Cilla Mitchell, Galveston,Texas at November 30, 2009 3:39 AM

I can tell Juan what good guns can do in the hands of ordinary citizens. Just read one of the many websites that chronicle the endless, day after day take-downs of criminals by decent ARMED people.

In the case of this blasphemous excuse for a man, as soon as word came that he was loose in the area, all the adults should have defended themselves and sequestered the children with dogs alert AND GUNS AT THE READY. If he had tried to harm them or take refuge in their neighborhoods, he'd already be dead or in police custody.

That is why almost all citizens should be armed.

Posted by AskMom at November 30, 2009 3:44 AM

Problem is, if this is the guy and he ends up in prison, he will be royalty. I worked for DOC for 2 yrs and murder is #1 in the pecking order. Cop killing puts you over the top.
May even erase his chomo beef. Hope not, that's the wild horse with this idiot. If they vamp him in the joint for the chomo beefs, then he's done.. Gee, can only hope..

Or maybe he could go raise puppies with Juan??
Just saying..

You should be more worried about falling from a ladder..

[Source: National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 53, Number 5 (October 2004)]

(1) Motor Vehicles
(2) Falls
(3) Drowning (Nontransport)
(4) Fires & Flames
(5) Poisoning, Solids & Liquids
(6) Medical Misadventures
(7) Firearms
(8) Natural & Environmental
(9) Water Transport
(10) Machinery, Cutting & Piercing

Falls include both falling to another level -- as in falling from stairs, ladders & windows -- or same level falls such as slipping, tripping & stumbling.

Posted by DanO at November 30, 2009 3:45 AM

Didn't the dems get exactly what they wanted here? Four dead racist WHITEY cops, more anti-gun propaganda, and, hopefully, one dead martyr who brought more hope of nothingness to the black community.

Posted by JD at November 30, 2009 4:33 AM

This is certainly an outrage and no one does outrage better than you. Shocking to know Mike commuted this depraved criminal's sentence. Still this will be nothing compared to what happens when KSM walks on a Miranda technicality in the upcoming Global Trial Zoo in Manhattan.

Today's IBD has an editorial on another black-is-white-white-is-black outrage: three Navy SEALs face court-martial---COURT-MARTIAL---for allegedly punching (giving a fat lip to) a terrorist captured and accused of hanging four Americans' charred bodies who worked for Blackwater from a bridge in Fallujah.

Self-flaggelation of the American left lives and rules today. Meanwhile, lock and load...

Posted by Webutante at November 30, 2009 5:02 AM

"..."leakage" of guns from the law-abiding to the law-breaking elements of society."

Yeah, Juan, that's right: it's all our fault. Here, idiot, let me explain something: the definition of a criminal is someone who _breaks_ the law. You can make any law you want, but the bottom line is that criminals _break_ the law; it's what they do. (You go to Starbuck's to dispense overpriced coffee, they break the law.) What you're saying in reality is that criminals should be able to have guns but law abiding citizens should give up on protecting themselves. When the Chicago suburb of Winnetka banned guns, they had a rash of armed burglaries because the bad guys knew no one was armed. It may interest you to discover that knowing they'll meet no resistance inspires some criminals to new heights. Let's all give up our 2nd amendment rights and let any nut who wants to terrorize us, or rob us, or gang rape us, have a go.

What a prat.

Posted by ahem at November 30, 2009 6:20 AM

Juan Hernandez,

Nice display of the same old tired leftard "talking points" about guns.

Go to Europe and see the fruits of your airy-fairy Utopian ideals at work. The criminals have guns and aren't afraid to use them because they know that "law abiding" citizens have all been disarmed. That "big dog" you tell everyone to get will gladly take a peanut butter sandwich from the criminals who are about to break into your house and if it doesn't it gets a bullet in the head.

No thanks, hun. You can stay and cower behind your burglar bars, "big dog", alarm systems and your hopes that the police will arrive in time to keep you alive.

You know it is funny but I can sleep at night with my windows open when it is nice out because where I live we have a thing called the "Castle Law". It is a law that states that citizens have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property and the citizens here are not afraid to use it. Where I live we grab out 1911's then call 911 so the cops can come and pick up the garbage. Criminals know this so they go looking for easier targets, like the section of town that is populated with liberals who have "big dogs" just like you.

Posted by Nahanni at November 30, 2009 8:29 AM

Just for all the "gun nuts*" out there (which means those who are obsessed with guns, and it's not what you think), the man who shot the police officers broke the law by even being in possession of a gun, but you see how the law deterred him.

*Most conservatives are concerned for the police officers and their families right now, but liberals only see a talking point.

Posted by StephenB at November 30, 2009 10:26 AM

DanO, at least when I climb a ladder I am most likely accomplishing something useful, like cleaning my gutters or painting the window trim. Sorry, carrying a handgun in nearly all instances has no such practical value for your typical citizen (I would make an exception for those whose job it is to enforce the law. Although, as seen in the tragedy that sparked this thread, carrying a gun is no panacea for them either).

Now, if you were to take the role of handguns, acquired by non-criminals like yourself, in _non-accidental_ deaths (murder, manslaughter, suicide, etc.), you'd see the scope of the problem. In the cases of murder and manslaughter, the problem is that guns acquired by law-abiders, often do not stay in the hands of such people.

How about we allow personal ownership of handguns but make the owner responsible for any end-use his or her gun is put to? So if your house is burglarized and your .357 stolen, and that gun is later used for a murder, you go to jail? I'd like to see that.

Sorry to see, ahem and Nahanni, that you're so thoroughly full of crap and have bought the NRA line hook, line and sinker. While cases of self-defense w/ handguns are played up on gun-nut Web sites to no end, their frequency is miniscule compared to accidental and non-defensive homicides that result from easily available handguns.

Posted by Juan Hernandez at November 30, 2009 10:32 AM

Huckleberry seems like the same kind of Baptist as Jimmah Carter ,reading all the wrong messages from Scripture about matters both foreign and domestic. Instead of dropping the hammer on evil doers we must understand them and show we're better than them.
See you around Huck.We need leaders who have a pair like Mrs. Palin.

Posted by bill at November 30, 2009 10:34 AM

"make the owner responsible for any end-use his or her gun is put to? So if your house is burglarized and your .357 stolen, and that gun is later used for a murder, you go to jail? I'd like to see that."

You'd like to see it? I'm sure you would from the cozy statelined womb of your happy little world.

Let's extend that to automobiles too Juan since automobiles kill more people than guns. How about if your automobile is stolen and runs somebody down you go to jail along with the real thief and killer?

Sounds fair to me.

I hope that in your happy world you never, ever come into a situation where a gun would have saved you.

But if it does happen please know that one of your very last thoughts will be, "Shit. Too late to shop now."

Posted by vanderleun at November 30, 2009 10:55 AM

Vanderleun, if I live in a "cozy statelined womb" you live in a ridiculous Dirty Harry fantasy that your handgun is keeping you safe when in fact its the huge quantities of such guns, available all around us, that are making you unsafe. And the first step to stemming that tide is to impose reasonable restrictions on handgun acquisition and ownership (restrictions that the gun nut lobby always opposes).

Only in a fantasy world would the murder of 4 cops by a nut who was able to get a handgun be used as an argument in favor of easy gun ownership...

Posted by Juan Hernandez at November 30, 2009 11:47 AM

>>>>> How about if your automobile is stolen and runs somebody down you go to jail along with the real thief and killer?

Good question. The answer is, probably not, because it would be extraordinarily difficult to secure a car. They're too big to fit in a lockable safe, not everyone has a garage, and due to their intended use -- transportation -- they are inherently left unattended in public places.

I can support some kind of legal penalty for leaving keys in a car and making it easier to steal, though.

Posted by Juan Hernandez at November 30, 2009 11:57 AM

I stumbled across this message board on Google while looking for news about the Tacoma police murders.

I have to admit this conversation has given me some chuckles.

So how does relying on "burglar bars, 'big dogs' and alarm systems" amount to "cowering"? Your choice of words shows you are talking from your emotions rather than your brain, and your emotions have been stirred up by a few too many cowboy movies.

In contrast to staying safe via a dog, bars, alarm etc., does having a big gun in the nightstand somehow make you more tough and manly? Oooh, I'm impressed.

Hmm, I live in North Tacoma, and it's true, this is where a lot of liberals live.

Funny, a lot of the right-wingers and gun enthusiasts that I know live in Lakewood and South Tacoma. They seem to have a lot more murders and other gun crime in those areas...

Posted by Dave. Keller at November 30, 2009 12:04 PM

Post your address so people who need more can know where you live.

Posted by vanderleun at November 30, 2009 12:57 PM

I am a seasoned citizen with a bad back. I could neither defend myself or run away if faced with a criminal. Although I own a couple of rifles, inherited from my Uncle and Grandfather, I keep three other types of "weapons" close at hand. A can of red pepper, a 5-cell flashlight, and a claw hammer. When I travel alone in my car, I always have the red pepper and the flashlight under my seat (a cop told me that the claw hammer would be considered a concealed weapon). I don't have burglar bars, I'd hate that, can't even stand to visit someone who lives in a gated community without feeling like the bars of a jail cell are closing on me, I do have a 90 lb. dog plus two other smaller ones.

My Mother, until her death at age 94, kept an aluminum baseball bat under her mattress, the red pepper and one of those little souvenir bats with 3 nails driven part way in at the end near by. After she died, I discovered that she also had a small handgun. There was a note in her journal that my Grandfather gave it to her to protect herself and me after my Dad died in 1958. I never knew that there was a gun in the house when I was growing up or after.

Posted by Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 30, 2009 2:04 PM

Also, when I was in high school, a Junior, we were all expected to take the NRA Gun Safety course and Beginner's Shooter course. It lasted the whole semester. Every Saturday afternoon and Wednesday night, we'd meet for a 2 hour class, held at the gun range which was buried in the 3rd level basement under the elementary school. I don't remember too much about the course, except that when we got to shooting from the prone position, the skeezy instructor got down right next to me and tried to cop a feel. Of course, back then, we didn't ever report such things.

Posted by Sara (Pal2Pal) at November 30, 2009 2:23 PM

Vanderleun, is that some kind of veiled threat? Not all gun nuts are clinically whacko, but you're proving yourself to be...

You going to respond to my argument, or what?

Posted by Dave Keller at November 30, 2009 5:07 PM

I support gun rights. More and more, though, I feel like I have to distance myself from the "pro gun" crowd.

How does the 2nd Amendment, written before the existence of semiautomatic firearms, get twisted to mean that anyone except a felon should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a Glock 9?

Give me a shotgun or rifle to defend my house. If I have to sign a registry to guy it, big fr***in deal, that's less rigamarole than it takes to legally drive a car. This type of gun should be sufficient to meet the needs of a "well-armed militia."

Any firearm more powerful or concealable than that should be harder to get -- I'm talking background checks, waiting periods and limits per household.

If a seller violates the rule, bam, a year in jail, no exceptions. "Tough on crime" goes for everybody.

Posted by William Parker at November 30, 2009 5:15 PM

Hey StephenB, you say, "*Most conservatives are concerned for the police officers and their families right now, but liberals only see a talking point."

Do you not see that this blog post itself started the conversation on gun control with the "talking points" in the last paragraph?

So I guess this is a liberal blog?

Read before you post, moron...

Posted by Juan Hernandez at November 30, 2009 5:18 PM

The second amendment isn't about types of firearms.

It's about men bearing arms - FREE men.

If you missed that point in history class....

... it just means you got the education the system wanted you to have.

I carry a Glock or Springfield everywhere I go except for work. Strangely, I don't think the pistol ever keeps me safe.

Paying attention to my surroundings while I go about my lawful pursuits seems to have done most of the heavy lifting so far.

But if I ever need a pistol, I won't have to debate my inner Juan and then get on a waiting list somewhere.

Freedom is just another word for responsibility. Some people willfully forget that by law and jurisprudence, the government is under no obligation - NONE - to protect individuals. Not cops, not FBI, not the military. You are on your own hook in the last extreme.

And that is exactly as it should be.

For free men, at least.

Posted by TmjUtah at November 30, 2009 6:01 PM

I agree with William Parker, above.

There are many instances where I give up a fraction of my "liberty" (convenience, is more like it) in order to support the safety of everyone.

I took prescription painkillers prior to back surgery. I knew I needed them, could have handled buying them off the shelf and following the directions on the package.

Am I bitching about having to go to the doctor and get a prescription? Do I feel that I'm somehow losing my "liberty"?

Hell no, because I realize there are a lot of people out there who CAN'T handle such a system, and having unlimited availability would result in more addicts, more car wrecks, etc. I'd rather that everyone have to get a prescription for the drugs.

Same for guns. Come up with a system that makes reasonably powerful defensive arms available, but put some safeguards in place. Licensing and mandatory training would be a good start.

Most of the pro-gun groups such as the NRA oppose anything like that.

Posted by Hector Martin at November 30, 2009 6:06 PM

No, Keller, it is not a veiled threat. And no, I'm not going to respond to what you think passes for an "argument." I don't converse with parrots.

Posted by vanderleun at November 30, 2009 7:37 PM

>> The second amendment isn't about types of firearms. It's about men bearing arms - FREE men.

Well, yeah, the 2nd Amendment is about the broad principle. The law codifies it and does get into the details of what kind of firearms are allowed and with what restrictions. It draws the line.

Maybe you don't believe any line should be drawn. That makes you an absolutist. Are you in favor of fully automatic weapons being as easy to get legally as a .22?

Right now, the line is drawn such that fully automatic weapons are difficult to get, while semi-automatic, easily concealable handguns, along with .22s, hunting rifles and shotguns, are very easy to get in most places.

We should redraw that line to be more restrictive with the handguns, but leave it about where it is with respect to rifles and shotguns

Posted by William Parker at November 30, 2009 9:21 PM

Vanderleun says:

"I'm not going to respond to what you think passes for an 'argument.' I don't converse with parrots."

I admit, I am a parrot, and I admit that my brain (such as it is) has been totally colonized. It happened during a long weekend spent underneath Andrew Sullivan enjoying his sweet talk.

I'm trying to do better and to think for myself, but it is hard given my special needs and current medication.

Posted by Juan Hernandez at November 30, 2009 11:19 PM

Juan Hernandez says:

"I admit, I am a parrot"

Ah, then I can converse with you, and tell you about all the times my gun has saved me. For instances yesterday, from the uniformed man who came onto my porch. He purported to be delivering the mail, but I know that ruse! I'm sure he had his black helicopter parked just around the corner and out of sight. Good thing I blasted the sucker -- his type should stick to the "liberal" neighborhoods where they don't know the true meaning of FREEDOM.

Posted by Vamderleun at December 1, 2009 10:06 AM

[Please engage CAPS LOCKS BEFORE drooling. Thank you.]

Posted by Vanderleun at December 2, 2009 9:40 AM

In this instance, the irritated diaphragm "Refers" pain
to the right shoulder. Some of the specialties these professionals enter are:.
This large Yale trial is reaffirmation that anyone with a family history be evaluated.

Posted by ultrasound technician salary 2013 at February 2, 2014 12:03 AM