Courthouse News Service — You have to read this entire account. Jaw dropping.
A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer’s partner saying, “That’s all right. Don’t worry about it. I got your back. … We clear?” The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting…
The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and “drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writhing in pain.”
Found by Keith Ray.
#13, krazy kop kar kook,
Obviously you didn’t read the link in Ah_Yeah’s post (#6). It has the transcript of the 911 call.
You also make several other comments that are not based in fact, but supposition. Tony was on the phone talking to the 911 operator when he was shot. The phone picked up that conversation and the subsequent shooting. There was no screaming or a warning by the police.
an excerpt from the follow up article posted by #11
“If Brian would have known there was a homeowner in there, he probably would have hesitated,” Gannon said, “but if he had hesitated, and it was the (suspect), the outcome could have been tragic.”
I’m pretty sure if you ask the homeowner, the outcome was most definitely “tragic”!
I get so pissed at how Law Enforcement is always so quick hold the public accountable for our illegal actions, but they never have the same level of accountability for themselves.
Effing, hypocrites!!!
Ok, here are some answers!
All of these papers and articles are well researched professional papers or articles which gives the LIE to gun control.
I know this is a lot to understand, but that’s what it takes to not be a sheeple brainwashed into pushing someone else’s agenda of control and manipulation.
Now I don’t expect any of the gun control crowd to read any of this. It’s better to remain ignorant. (With the exception of bobbo. Very much to his credit he will at least review the material with an open mind.)
The first set of articles exposes the lies of the gun control cadre, while the second set of articles gives the reason for gun control. (Hint, it’s not about saving lives, it’s about the power to control you. Can’t let you commoners get uppity!)
1) Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso
2) Read this and tell me again how safe England is. Also, look at the timeline and compare to the enactment of their gun control laws.
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece#
3) Self-Defense: The Equalizer
http://davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/SelfDefense-Equalizer.pdf
4) HUMAN RIGHTS AND GUN CONFISCATION
http://davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Human-Rights-and-Gun-Confiscation.pdf
And for the last half (sans spam filter)
Not to mention Gun Control is racist. Keep dem minorities in ther’ place!
A) http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
B) http://blackmanwithagun.com/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=140019513&sec_id=140000845
C) http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/15/the-klans-favorite-law
A) http://firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
I just watched a movie Righteous Kill with De Niro and Pacino that has a nice documentary of real life police brutality and cover-ups.
Very eye opening.
#21, Ah _Yea,
I’m not surprised, you are pulling out the discredited hack pieces again. When you have no other ammunition, just keep telling the same lies.
Gary Mauser has been so discredited. His claims that Canada has a higher violent crime rate than the US is because the US only included aggrevated assault and higher while Canada includes ALL types of assault; sexual, simple, battery, etc. He claimed the Canadian Medical Association Journal is NOT a serious, professional journal. He claimed the Dutch Study picked which countries could participate when the truth is ALL countries were invited, Israel chose not to participate. The list goes on.
Really, the Times of London? Another News Corp. outlet that panders to rabid gun thumpers.
Self Defense, the Great Equalizer, Come on. Suggesting that “Communist Dictatorships” caused so much violence belittles the crimes against humanity by right wing regimes in South Africa, Spain, Portgugal, Germany, Turkey, the Philipines, and elsewhere over the past 110 years.
In short, let me explain why these are poor arguments. They are all printed in biased forums. Not one has been peer reviewed and the reviews I found for “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide” were not in agreement.
If you want to show us some peer reviewed studies then please do. Mere opinion doesn’t cut it.
# 25 Both right wing and left wing extremist governments cause people to disappear. Dictator ships of all forms normally cause people to disappear sometimes in large numbers.
They also want to disarm the public because they know that some members of the public will use those arms on them or their enforcers given the opportunity.
Such governments may have good government as a goal but never forget that their first goal is to obtain and retain power at any cost to those that may disagree with them.
Anyone who spends any time trying to defend any of these organizations is suspect as a pro-dictator enemy of self determination and civil liberties for others at least in my view.
Typical crazy Fusion again.
Just because you say it, doesn’t mean you’re right.
I showed academic papers, you give back nothing and think you settled your argument.
Ok, show me where Mauser has been discredited. Provide a link to a credible source.
The you discredit the UK Times. How about providing some evidence that the article is without merit? Until then, you again give nothing.
And again on the self defense article. It doesn’t surprise me that you couldn’t understand the paper, although deowll understood it perfectly. Does that mean deowll is much, much smarter than you?
Then you said “They are all printed in biased forums. Not one has been peer reviewed”.
Prove it. Show that these papers were not peer reviewed. (I’ll give you a hint. Your biased opinions would not allow that the white papers were peer reviewed and were found correct. My links were to reprints.)
All you do is illustrate my point that there are crazy people out there who want, indeed crave, being sheeple.
And what about the history of gun control and racism?
Again deowll is miles ahead of you.
@ #8:
Sure, we could emigrate there but by then Europe will be a series of Islamic republics. ‘Dhimmis’ will need to be packing then.
A daily occurrence in India: http://virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=355
Well I’ll just about bet that the cops will get off. Because it’s too vital to the State to preserve its police force, no matter what f*cked up state they’re in. And save the taxpayers a lot of money, in a court. I suspect that cops are more and more, amping up their bodies on steroids. To meet some physical fitness requirement. Or simply to “out muscle” the competition, and get better paid. Only this leads to the steroid rage effect. And a tendency to gun down anything and anyone, in a high tension situation. And I suspect various govt. agencies are aware of this problem. But are covering it up, because they’re too desperate to get and keep anyone willing to be policemen, that they’re overlooking this abuse. Are they even testing for steroid use by cops?
Guess which was worse, the crazy intruder or the cops?
The cops. Why? Because at least the crazy intruder, although armed, didn’t try to kill someone right off.
If the crazy intruder doesn’t get you, just wait for the police.
So if we go with Idiot Fusions Great Leap Forward and turn in all our guns, then the only thing we can be assured of is we become the victim, one way or the other.
#30–Ah Yea==its very manipulative of you to give me a compliment that I read with an open mind and then provide a dump truck of links.
Napoleon is quoted as the way to have a heroic army is to give out medals. The men then feel they have to earn them. Not bad for a Corsican.
Anyway, I think you have posted similarly in the past. Its been a little too soon, but close enough. I will copy and paste your reference to off line and go thru each one.
I honor the work you did in digging up the links.
I wonder though, is it “facts” or “ideaology” that control the issue?
Ah Yea: if it were proven that strongly enforced gun laws reduced the number of people killed each year==would you be for or against such laws?
Ah Yea–I take it back. I read the first 3 linked arguments. Boring old stuff as commented below. Not interesting enough to finish the list unless you’d like to highlight the insight of 1or2 especially well written articles?
xxxxxxxxx
1) Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso ((((This is by “Mauser” ((did his family manufacture the famous Mauser Rifle?)) who Fusion said was biased. It says people who want to kill will find a weapon to do so. Shows Russia with No Guns with higher kill rate, while Switzerland with more guns has lower rates. Article says it is sociology and culture that determines murder and suicide rate, not guns. Tell that to the innocent passerby in Article #2 who got shot at a distance by accident. That doesn’t happen with knives.)))
2) Read this and tell me again how safe England is. Also, look at the timeline and compare to the enactment of their gun control laws.
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece# (((Article is about gun crime increasing four fold in England.—still says “Internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns.” I fail to see how this is relevant except confirming that guns kill people.)))
3) Self-Defense: The Equalizer
http://davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/SelfDefense-Equalizer.pdf (((If you outlaw guns, then only criminals will have guns.))))
#27, Ah _Yea,
I showed academic papers, you give back nothing and think you settled your argument.
Sorry, you didn’t. You merely linked to some biased, non-academic papers. Opinion does not count as scholarly work.
Point to one article pointing to a correlation between safety and gun ownership that has been peer reviewed. Then we can discuss it.
#27, Ah Yea,
Show that these papers were not peer reviewed. (I’ll give you a hint. Your biased opinions would not allow that the white papers were peer reviewed and were found correct. My links were to reprints.)
If they were peer reviewed they would cite the original copy right holder, which would be a peer reviewed journal. That applies even to reprints.
Try this one.
http://tinyurl.com/ydjc67m
It is from a peer reviewed journal.
Just a couple quick responses.
First, and only because it’s typical Fusion laughable stupidity.
So the Berkeley Electronic Press isn’t peer reviewed? I’m laughing at your willing ignorance! Could you even conceive of the notion that Mauser didn’t want to copyright his work and published it for peer review through Berkeley Press?
And then you produce a paper by Martin Killias, written in 1996 counterpointing an article written by Mauser in 1995, when the article I cited was written in 2006!!
I’m still laughing!!
#35, Ah Yea,
And then you produce a paper by Martin Killias, written in 1996 counterpointing an article written by Mauser in 1995, when the article I cited was written in 2006!!
Mauser based much of his subsequent papers on his 1995 conclusions. That includes your cite. Or didn’t you read your own reference? Again, he has been discredited for those theories. Of course, that will never stop you from posting them again.
While Berkley Press might be “peer reviewed”, it does not meet the same standards as other, more qualified and higher quality journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Electronic_Press#Peer_review_process
QUESTIONs:
1)If guns make their owners safer, then why does the US have one of the highest “homicide by firearm” rates in the world and the highest from among western, industrialized countries?
2) Why are you or someone in your household more likely to die from a firearm than if there is no gun in the house?
3) Why did none of your “cited articles” point out those facts?
Now to respond to bobbo. Someone who thinks about his response, and has my respect.
The point of the UK article is:
a) the UK, with it’s superbly draconian gun laws has a gun crime rate nearly equal that of the US, and
b) gun crime skyrocketed AFTER these draconian gun laws were put in place. As you said, “If you outlaw guns, then only criminals will have guns.” England is proof positive.
Now onto the first link. It’s a shame that you missed the point of the article, although I applaud you for actually having looked it over. You didn’t disappoint, in a good way.
Unfortunately you didn’t grasp the conclusion of the article and responded with “That doesn’t happen with knives.”
This does. http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm
Bobbo, as much as I respect you, you need to step off the “Increased gun ownership increases gun murder” and onto “Increased gun ownership REDUCES OVERALL murder.”
http://www.nowandfutures.com/…/GunsStopCrime_GunsSaveLivesfact_sheet.pdf
I also noticed that no one is refuting the racist origins of gun control, nor is anyone refuting that the ongoing gun control legislation targets minorities.