Officer involved shooting near Phoenix gun shop
PHOENIX – A robbery at a gun shop in Phoenix led to an officer involved shooting early Monday.
Officers and a SWAT team were searching for one suspect in the area of 19th Avenue and Camelback Road shortly after 6 a.m. while two others had been detained.
One suspect may have been shot in the hand. No officers were hurt.
Traffic was stopped between Camelback and Missouri roads on 19th Avenue for a couple of hours but have since been re-opened.
As of 7 a.m. police had conducted the residential search and all side streets were re-opened.
The residential area search on 19th Ave. (OIS) is complete, side streets are open. Clearing the gun store and adjacent buildings now.
— Phoenix Police (@phoenixpolice) March 3, 2014
The light rail was also affected, with passengers being asked to get off and a bus will take them to the next station.
By 8 a.m. it was back to running on normal schedule.
Jim Cross, Reporter
Well, THIS got my blood pumping this morning! This was the gun store where I used to hang out (and allegedly ‘worked’ part-time) a few years back! And I saw the headline and the location and freaked out!
Of course, reporters are not lawyers. Or cops, or even have a clue about most things, apparently (excluding Biff, of course!).
You see, it was an attempted BURGLARY of a closed store, NOT a robbery! No store personnel were present. It was dark out, before breakfast Monday morning! The store opens @ 10:00 A.M. I’m guessing crack reporter Mr. Cross doesn’t understand that robbery and burglary are NOT synonymous!
wirecutter spells it out. In spades!
Not OWNER. Not LEGAL RESIDENT. Occupant. You know, like all that junk mail you throw away pro-forma says on it.
A further observation from wirecutter personally…
I got news for you – if you even let a cop enter your house he can search it “for his own safety”. I found that out when my psycho ex tried to cut me and I called the cops to get it documented – 7 or 8 cops showed up (it must’ve been a slow night) and they immediately opened every door in the house looking for ‘assailants’, checking closets, behind furniture, even told me to open my safe which I refused to do. The final straw came when one of them opened a small box on the end table and I told them all they did NOT have my permission to go through my personal effects and to hit the porch, we’ll do the paperwork out there ‘for their own fucking safety’. Surprisingly they complied and everybody calmed down including myself. Hell, I even offered them all a cold beer.
But yeah, never let a cop into your house willingly. Besides, they can always say you consented to a search and it’s your word against theirs.
NOW comes the kicker! The vanguard of the dissenters against this decision is (wait for it)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg
Personally, I’d bet I’d agree more often with wirecutter than Justice Ginsburg on most things.
While specifically aimed at Tucson’s gun ordinances, it would apply statewide:
HB 2517, approved Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee, would change all that.
It says any individual or organization whose membership is “adversely affected” by a law they believe is illegal can sue. Challengers who win are entitled to legal fees and damages up to $100,000.
The legislation also says the court can assess a civil penalty of up to $500,000 against any elected or appointed government official if a judge determines the violation of state pre-emption laws was “knowing and willful.”
And to make sure that resonates with city officials, HB 2517 forbids the city from reimbursing the council member or employee for that penalty. It even says the official has to bear his or her own legal fees.
Of course, while the committee has passed it, there’s still a long road to travel before the Governor signs it into law.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
This certainly has ramifications for gun holders in “may issue” states such as NY and NJ. (BOTH STORIES
stolen courtesy of Alphecca)
With regard to both stories, it’s about f’n time!
h/t Jeff Soyer
Matt, a former blogger, occasional commenter and friend commented thus on a recent post of mine regarding the apparent wanton killing of a pinned suspect by ‘the authorities’.
I asked why such a thing could occur. His answer – because they can.
This is the crux of why I’m a libertarian, and not a left-wing socialist type. The Left seems to hold to the idea of the Philosopher King. Someone placed in charge by the gods to rule over us lesser folk, with wisdom and compassion. Even though many of them decry gods.
But, they forget kings are people. Human beings. Fallible, and with feet of clay. This is also why the
gun people control folks keep trying to tweak the system.
“If there is just one more law…” Yeah, right.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely? You bet!
I recall a story I heard some years ago about a local small business. The business had been burgled, and the sole proprietor diligently reported records of the missing property and damages to his insurance company and the authorities. They never caught the burglars. He received his insurance settlement and all was right with the world.
Except, because of all the damage, he mis-reported something that he thought stolen, and had been paid for it. And he tried to make things square with the insurance company and the police.
But, the insurance company filed a lawsuit against him, and made certain he was charged with filing a false police report!
The end result was he lost his business, his property, and was forced to pay a large fine.
As he stood in the back of the business behind the tape, watching ‘the authorities’ confiscate his remaining property, he asked one of the agents gleefully loading it up on government trucks, “Why are you doing this to me?”
His answer. “Because we can.”
I have a healthy distrust of government. I know many government employees who feel the same. It’s inherent in the system to accrue power.
And not give it back.
. . . at least in Oregon
The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of a man found guilty of illegally carrying a concealed weapon after he argued the campsite where he pitched his tent for the week was his home and provided an exception to the state’s concealed weapon law.
Talk about Stand Your Ground!
(h/t Alphecca, Southern Rockies Nature Blog)
A chemist for the state of Massachusetts, Annie Dookhan, pleaded guilty on Friday to falsifying tens of thousands of drug arrest investigations. WBUR has collected its stories on Dookhan into a website called Bad Chemistry, an investigation which they say calls into doubt 40,323 cases she was personally involved in and 190,000 cases the lab worked on. The lab is now closed.
Gee, ya think there will be legal repercussions here?
“The ripple effects of the potentially bogus testing are staggering for the criminal justice system and for the defendants. As authorities review the cases involved, they’re also considering cases where defendants received stiffer sentences because of previous offenses. Or cases where defendants risked or lost jobs, public housing, custody of their children, or deportation.
“District attorneys have set up ‘war rooms’ in their offices just so staffers can research and match the cases in which Dookhan tested the drug evidence. They’ve hired retired judges to preside over to review each case and decide whether to release those incarcerated and/or hold new trials.”
Research shows that the problem reaches far beyond a few states. According to a study published last year in Criminal Justice Ethics, the American system by and large perverts the incentives of the people working in it, such that everyone, from police, to prosecutors, and, apparently, even the lab scientists, are more motivated to get a guilty verdict rather than to ascertain real guilt or innocence.
This is a short ways from a story I’ve covered before: civil forfeiture, in which police legally steal money from people under the argument that anyone carrying that much cash must be involved with drugs. That’s not from a conviction by jury, but simply by seizing assets in a traffic stop or at an arrest. Nationally, several police departments and prosecutors’ offices brag about cars and boats they got this way. But it’s not just civil forfeiture on steroids and it’s not just Massachusetts; only eight states have laws that bar the use of forfeiture proceeds for the benefit of the seizing police department, and of the other 42 states, 16 give at least 50 percent of seized assets to law enforcement, and in 26 states, it is 100 percent. By creating a system which rewards its police for seizing property and that funds state crime labs by convictions, is it really such a wonder that someone like Annie Dookhan would do what she did to ensure that her lab got as many convictions as possible? (The Silicon Graybeard)
And how about all the civil litigation against The State resulting from this public malfeasance?
A close friend is always harping about the cronyism resulting from the privatization of prisons in our State. The essence being we need government to keep everything on the up-and-up.
One of the periodicals mentioned in the above article is Criminal Justice Ethics.
Doesn’t anyone take an oath and honor it, anymore?
Well, at long last, the Zimmerman trial is set to begin in Florida. You remember? The White guy who killed an innocent Black youth for the crime of being Black?
That’s what the press told you, more or less.
Of course, none of us were there. And, isn’t Justice alleged to be racially blind in this country? That is, unless the press takes the tack that the
assailant victim was subjected to racial profiling.
Now it has come out that the defendant previously fought for racial justice causes.
Hardly a bigot.
And, this gem from Glenn Reynolds:
IF THE PRESS WERE PUSHING A ZIMMERMAN-VICTIMOLOGY STORY, would they be saying more about how a black/Hispanic male is being tried by a jury of (mostly white) women? Zimmerman, remember, is 1/4 black,making him blacker than Homer Plessy.
Regardless of the facts and evidence, it’ll be interesting to see if racial justice for Mr. Zimmerman is served.
If you don’t know Homer Plessy, here’s a link…
But not before they tell you you do!
Yep. We live in the bizzaro world...
h/t The Reluctant Paladin
The Ultimate Answer to Kings said he hadn’t heard about this. Me either.
That guy who got busted in New York earlier in the month for the heinous crime of carrying two too many rounds of ammo? The DA quietly but promptly dropped the charges. And his reasoning in doing so was quite, er, reasonable. For a DA.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse under the law and this is still a crime but this guy has absolutely no criminal history and is not a danger to society,” Czajka said Friday.
Of course he also tried to steer clear of the political ramifications, using the case to pimp for more money for his department. Presumably if Czajka had the massive army of prosecutors he wants, Gregory Dean would suddenly have found himself declared a terrible danger to society. But hey! Whatever works. It was still a good decision.
Last time I checked, ignorance of the law IS an excuse (or at least a mitigating factor) in the Free State of Arizona. Of course, having two more rounds of ammunition than the average bear isn’t a crime, here.
(From John Lott)
How just a few new Senators can make such a big difference in how the Senate operates. These Senators are focusing on how these bills will hurt “citizens’ right to self-defense.” A filibuster might give these Senators a real chance to educate people about exactly how these laws will cause harm. From The Hill newspaper:
Carney said a filibuster would be “unfortunate” and would send the wrong message to the families of gun violence victims.
“I don’t think you need to tell the families of those who have lost their children to gun violence that bills like this may be filibustered. I don’t think that would be welcome news,” Carney said.
GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), and Ted Cruz (Texas) threatened to filibuster the bill in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that argued it was an infringement of Second Amendment rights. The bill would expand background checks and penalties on straw purchases of firearms.
The senators pledged to “oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”
“The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens’ right to self-defense. It speaks to history’s lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history’s warning about the oppression of a government that tries,” they wrote. . . .
Considering the proclivities of the current administration to enforce ex-post-facto legislation, if this does pass, it would be interesting to see prosecution of all the Fast and Furious BATFE folks, as well as Mark Kelly for straw purchases. With the increased penalties, of course.
After all, no one is above the law, right?