Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL

Steve wrote:

> "Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>>"Steve" > wrote in message
>>news:azt9h.247852$FQ1.6568@attbi_s71...
>>
>>>"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" > wrote in
>>>message ...
>>>
>>>>"Steve" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>> I'd like to see your cite for what kind of weapon she had, because I've
>>>>read several stories, and they don't mention it.
>>>
>>>Again, multiple media reports have said handgun. Furthermore, if she had
>>>used a rifle, there would have been a host of "assault rifle" claims and
>>>the guy in the vest would have been seriously wounded if not killed.
>>>Detectives do not normally wear ceramic armor on raids and the soft vests
>>>are not particularly effective against rifle rounds.
>>
>> All gross speculation without a scrap of cite.
>
>
> That rifle rounds penetrate soft vests? You claim to be knowledgeable about
> weapons and require a citation for that?
> That the media calls every long gun an assault rifle? Read the NYT. LAT, or
> any other major paper.
>
>
>>>As for my combat shooting record...some competition & some actual with
>>>the usual assortment of trophies, ribbons, medals, and scars.
>>
>> A flat out lie.
>
>
> Seeing as how we have never met, that seems a brash assumption on your part.
>
>
>>>The preponderance of the reports, including the early ones citing the
>>>police stated that the shooting started AFTER they breached the door.
>>>*IF* that was the case, the police were lucky that only 3 were wounded.
>>
>> This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>>
>> At any rate, all reports that I've read state they identified themselves,
>>had to break down the door, were fired on, and returned fire.
>
>
> Which disagrees with the police statement earlier in this thread which
> states she fired as they approached the house.
>
>
>> Anyone who knows anything about shooting, which does not include you,
>>knows that if those cops made a tactical entry into the house, they could
>>have easily killed the 92 year old after her first shot.
>
>
> If you have ever trained in a fun house, you would not make that statement.
> Also note that the reports indicated it was detectives doing the entry, not
> SWAT. They are a good deal less tactical...
>
>
>>The simple fact that she had -time- to shoot three officers bids two
>>conclusions:
>>
>> 1) Either the 92 year old woman was a highly trained, and I mean
>>national class competitor, combat pistol shot, or:
>>
>> 2) They stood and shouted at her to stop firing before being forced to
>>defend themselves.
>
>
> So you are asserting that the officers talked to her while she shot their
> colleagues? That strains credulity, even for you.
>
>
>> Maybe she just shot them through the wall, or her closed bedroom door,
>>who knows.
>
>
> More baseless speculation on your part
>
>
> The real facts will never be known. The cops will not admit anything that
> looks like bad procedure. The risk of liability is just too high.
> Hopefully amongst themselves they will discuss how they ****ed up and how
> not to repeat it again, for their safety and the civilians.
>
>
>

Don't ever call a LEO if you need help. Preach your bull****.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Top > wrote in :

>> Ask people in the UK how they feel about the cameras that record them
>> when they drop a piece of paper on the sidewalk. They are, after all,
>> much more civilized on that side of the pond.

> If they are that civilized,why do they need cameras everywhere?
>
> I just read a post on rec.guns from a UK citizen accosted in the
> subway;grabbed by the lapel in preparation for an assault,he kneed the guy
> and kicked him,and fears the police will be coming for HIM.

He should be considering that self defense appears to have been
criminalized in the UK.

As far as I can tell cameras are put in for getting as many normal everyday
reasonable people into the criminal system as possible. Much like setting
speed limits absurdly low are for. It's to make criminals out of normal
people. Meanwhile the real criminals, such as that mugger have nothing to
fear from the cameras. The cameras make things safer for them. Instead of
worrying about a cop in the crowd, the cop is miles away in an office and
might not even be watching. By the time a cop gets there, he'll be long
gone.

In article >, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article >, Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote:
>>>>>>> Let's make sure the grandkids didn't have a meth lab in the garage
>>>>>>> first-
>>>>>> Maybe the government could start with your home?
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't lock doors where I live.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they came to the door, I'd offer coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't even drink coffee.
>>>>
>>>> The true police state cheer leader. Maybe they can put a camera and
>>>> microphone in every room of your house too.... put a GPS tracking system
>>>> on your vehicles... you're all for it, right... you're not doing anything
>>>> wrong so it's ok in your mind for the government to watch, monitor, log,
>>>> track, search?
>>>
>>> Holy cow guy. You think they have time for that? I'd be all for it
>>> for a reason though, sex offender, drug dealer, suspected terrorist, etc.
>>
>> You only look at what you want to look at when you want to look at it.
>> The point is to record everything and then pull it up when desired.
>
>
> In certain public places, sure. Banks, airports, etc. Even the solviets didn't
> monitor everyone's home.

They used the tattle-tale method. Which has already been attempted in the
USA in the last few years.

>> You outline the first step of the slope that eventually gets cameras into
>> everyone's homes.
>
> I think you are being a bit paranoid.

The contents of the patriot act, military commissions act, and the john
warner defense act would have been considered paranoid delusions just 7
years ago.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:23:31 GMT, pieface > wrote:

>
>Don't ever call a LEO if you need help. Preach your bull****.

In all honesty, when I need help I call my Glock.

By any rational look at it, cops simply CAN NOT 'always be
there', nor can they PREVENT whatever situation it is that calls for
one. This is not their fault, it is just simple logistics.

So, when my neighbor threatens to "bash my head in with a
baseball bat", the cop that shows up 20 minutes later says there's
nothing he can do, I can go down and file a complaint with the
magistrate in the morning. Then he left. Luckily, my Glock was ready
willing and able to give me all the security I needed, both during
that 20 minutes, and after it. I guess they were too busy dealing
with 'real crime' somewhere else.

In the meantime, when my identity is stolen, it takes over a
week to get them to even return my phone call, at which point they
explain that they're too busy to deal with it. I guess they were too
busy dealing with 'real crime' somewhere else.

However, they DO have time to sit down at the corner hiding in
someones driveway with their lights out, eyeballing inspection
stickers and registration tags of everyone who drives in or out of the
neighborhood ( apparently it takes 3 cars full of them to do this,
complete with a K-9 ), or to see who's going 5 MPH over the limit.

Wow - THAT sure makes me feel safer !!!!!!

Not.

Sorry, dude. No offense, but that's reality.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:57:45 -0800, "J. Bartley"
> wrote:

>Her family will sue and they will win. I guarantee it. And you're a
>cowardly little weasel. Maybe they'll blow your grandma away next.

If he has nothing to hide he should have no problem with gram getting
blown up a little.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:50:51 -0500, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> wrote:

>> Maybe the government could start with your home?
>
> Sure.
>
> We don't lock doors where I live.
>
> If they came to the door, I'd offer coffee.

You wouldn't have a chance, you would be too busy trying to stop the
bleeding.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:50:51 -0500, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick"
> wrote:
> See, what I -am-, is a "survivalist" type, or something close to it, and
>you are a "sheeple".

You are why newbies should be banned from Usenet.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:47:43 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Top wrote:
>
>
>> If you deal drugs that is not far from murder. You know the effect,
>> what the difference between dealing drugs and poisining someone?
>
>Why is dealing drugs like murder? Most of the criminal problems
>associated with drug dealing are due to it's illegal status. The
>most popular drug in the country is alcohol. It is responsible
>for more violence, more crime, more accidents, more violence,
>more health, social, work, financial and family problems that
>all illegal drugs combined.
>
>A Gestapo style raid on the residence of an old lady for a little
>bit of pot? Get real.
>It is time to get rid of the no knock search warrants except in
>the most serious cases. They should require a thorough
>investigation of the owner or lessee of the property.
>
>Too many innocent people have died as a result of no knock search
>warrants.

How about requiring the assholes, I mean cops, to ensure the person
they want is home first.

Better yet, no more ****ing Wacos, make them take the people down in
the street where we all can see, and where there is less chance of it
being the wrong house. This concept of waiting until the person
returns home, and them burning them, is a bit extreme even for regimes
like China and Iran.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:06:04 -0800, Miriam Cohen
> wrote:

>> Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her dead
>> for defending her own home.
>
>You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you?

Self defense. They were gun wielding assholes who were attacking her
home. She had the right to shoot first given the number of assholes
she had to defend herself against.

The only crime here is that she did not get a chance to kill those
mother ****ers families before she bought it.

DTJ wrote:
> >
> >A Gestapo style raid on the residence of an old lady for a little
> >bit of pot? Get real.
> >It is time to get rid of the no knock search warrants except in
> >the most serious cases. They should require a thorough
> >investigation of the owner or lessee of the property.
> >
> >Too many innocent people have died as a result of no knock search
> >warrants.
>
> How about requiring the assholes, I mean cops, to ensure the person
> they want is home first.


They had enough interest in the place to get a no knock warrant.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the person they
suspect of dealing to be there to be out of the question.


> Better yet, no more ****ing Wacos,

I don't know about that. The idea of armed religious wackos
scares me more than the out of cntrol cops.