I’m sure that all of you have seen the video of the LA homeowner who was trying to enter his home when armed robbers attempted to force him to allow their entry into his home at gunpoint. The homeowner produced his legally carried CCW and got in a gunfight with them, driving them off and protecting his family.
“I guess they decided to try to come at me and come in the house but I have a five-month-old baby and a wife and a nanny in the house and that wasn’t going to happen,” the man said.
One of the cleanest self defense shootings you will see. The guy was defending his family from would be home invaders that wanted to enter his home where his wife and 5 year old daughter were sleeping.
That can’t be allowed in the fucked up failed state of California. No, the city of Los Angeles has revoked his concealed weapons permit because, according to them, he was rude to the arriving police officers.
What really happened was that he was openly critical of the poor response and sloppy police work of the LAPD on local and national news channels.
During a local news interview, he had blasted the LAPD for ‘sloppy police work’, including their negligence in picking up casings scattered near his home as evidence because they missed a bunch of them and left them behind.
Tyrants can’t stand to be called out and criticized, as we talked about yesterday. I would also point out that this is yet another example of police being worse than useless. They didn’t prevent the crime, they didn’t respond to the crime in time to shalt the crime in progress, and when they DID arrive, they didn’t even do a good job of investigating the crime.
The only thing that they DID do was abuse their power.
I’m on the verge of siding with the “defund the police” crowd.
15 Comments
SiG · November 18, 2023 at 7:42 am
Just in case what I’m seeing is different from what you’re seeing, clicking on the post title to see and leave comments doesn’t work. I had to click on the time since the post was put up to get to this page.
Rob · November 18, 2023 at 10:36 am
Government’s most important purpose is to provide for the protection of its citizens.
From failed DA’s to no bail to early release and not only poor policing but in many cases criminal actions by police who only protect criminals from us, we’re now seeing us fast become a failed nation.
Now add in half of the military aged males from the third world being assisted to walk across the border by our own government and you can see our demise approaching over the horizon.
azfloyd · November 18, 2023 at 2:47 pm
The Supreme Court case Castle Rock vs Gonzalez,545 U.S. 748 (2005), says the state does not have duty to protect you. AS far as I am concerned, the day this decision was decided, the federal government lost all legitimacy,
Divemedic · November 18, 2023 at 3:19 pm
The problem is that I understand the thinking behind Castle Rock, and I agree with it. The government can’t and doesn’t have the ability to protect everyone from every possible harm that can come to them through criminal activity. I agree. The government can’t be your nanny bodyguard. You are responsible for your own protection.
If things were otherwise, every person in the nation would be able to demand that a Secret Service detail be assigned to them. The police have a duty to the public at large, not to any individual.
However, it has been expanded to excuse absolute malfeasance on the part of government officials, so that a person calling to say “There is a man with a machete kicking in my door” means that the cops don’t have to even TRY to take action. Even worse, the government has simultaneously made sure that individuals CAN’T protect themselves because of weapons and self defense laws.
AZFloyd · November 18, 2023 at 5:03 pm
I agree the state cant be everywhere all the time. Castle Rock stands for that they don’t even have to try. I disagree with the analysis that it was “expanded.” As a former prosecutor, the holding from the day it came down to tell citizens to go pound sand.
The terms of the social contract was that I give up my power (read: ability) to exercise violence in consideration for the State at least making n attempt to try to keep the peace (as opposed to enFORCEing the law, aka revenue generation). This case obviates the social contract. If the State is unwilling to even make an effort to keep an eye on a creep that had an order of protection and the survivors are told to pound sand because reasons, then it has no legitimacy. It is a legitimate question for a jury to answer whether the state made anyt attempt to stop the children from being murdered.
This, coupled with defacto unlimited immunity, further delegitimizes the State.
And when you add the cherry on top of punishing people the happen to exercise their right to self defense, who can argue that either the State of California or the Feds have any legitimacy?
Having said that. I do have sympathy for the Derek Chauvins who was protecting the public from a drugged up lunatic, What are the 12 or 14 cops that are not sociopaths supposed to do?
Thanks for posting my comment.
Divemedic · November 18, 2023 at 5:22 pm
I can see that. Still, as I said, I understand the reasoning. I just think that, no matter how or when it came to be, Castle Rock granted far too much leeway to the state.
D · November 18, 2023 at 11:25 am
> No, the city of Los Angeles has revoked his concealed weapons permit because, according to them, he was rude to the arriving police officers.
That was his first problem. He got a permit.
Former libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik said it best:
“I don’t have a concealed carry permit. Won’t get one, don’t want one, don’t need one, don’t need permission from anybody…”
Listen for ~60 seconds or so.
https://youtu.be/wp-48d_jSb4?list=FLopS8sjdoVuQ4dQxBAzOh5g&t=15129
Divemedic · November 18, 2023 at 12:03 pm
While I agree with you that no one SHOULD need such a permit, that isn’t reality.
D · November 19, 2023 at 5:27 pm
And it will never *be* reality if people keep caving to government overreach.
Exactly what are they going to do if 320,000,000 people start ignoring their bullshit?
Anonymous · November 20, 2023 at 11:22 am
Government-approved mainstream media installs government-supporting memes into your head faster than you can remove them. That’s why freedom keeps losing ground. Thus reporting mentioning “legally carried CCW”, as if demands the nationalistic socialists make have any moral standing at all.
> Exactly what are they going to do if 320,000,000 people start ignoring their bullshit?
Or more accurately, 3% stop ignoring the 75% who won’t do anything more than vote, snitch, and surrender taxes? Start a mass movement to remove the license plates from your car.
Aesop · November 18, 2023 at 12:30 pm
I lived in L.A. for 40 years.
Defunding their current crop of badged assclowns would improve policing in the city, measurably.
I’m pretty sure part of their training materials in locker rooms is an anatomical chart of their hands, and their asses, so they could use one to find the other, and I’m also pretty sure the initial pass rate on that annual re-cert is in the mid-50th percentile, and dropping with each academy class.
The ones selected for serial remediation after flunking that exam more than five times in a row are fast-tracked to supervisory positions.
That they nonetheless manage to catch some fraction of criminals at all is testimony to the unfathomable stupidity level of crooks in their jurisdiction.
That most of the crooks get off or get away tells you that as bad as those cops are, they’re still orders of magnitude more competent than the district attorney’s office.
It’s like watching blind retards wrestling crippled pigs.
The Final War · November 18, 2023 at 2:18 pm
Permissions aren’t rights and if you can’t say NO then you aren’t free.
Disable cams if you know there are going to be good commies made.
lynn · November 18, 2023 at 9:06 pm
This is just another violation of the Second Amendment.
Art · November 22, 2023 at 2:40 am
This was not a ‘clean shooting’ and he was, when he fired, not defending anything. The only rational conclusion is that he was seeking retribution and punishment. Once the person turned their back and ran away he, and his family, were no longer under imminent threat of ‘grievous bodily harm’ and the threat of home invasion had passed. Given that by the time he fired the person was running away he, legally, should not have fired at all.
Use of deadly force is only legal when you are preventing ‘grievous bodily harm or death’ or to stop a violent crime. The second those conditions are gone the option of using deadly force also goes away. You don’t get to shoot fleeing suspects. No matter how much hate and fear might be in your heart, no matter how jazzed you might be on adrenaline, and no matter how firmly you believe you would be doing society a favor taking out a criminal.
Generally most police know that such legal nuances are tough to pull off in the heat of the moment and they are often inclined to overlook a parting shot even if it is a clear violation of the law controlling use of deadly force.
From the tone of comments I take it people think shooting a suspect running away and no longer an immediate threat is fine. Your mind; your judgment. But that is not what the law says. I also take it he had something to say. I guess he figured CIS-whereever is a documentary. Likely the police see no reason to waste time collecting shell casings.They pretty much know all the particulars. Like, how many shots were fired, what gun was used, and who was squeezing the trigger. Avoiding the waste of time and money seems like a good thing.
I take it the shooter was not convinced and the LEO was annoyed enough to second guess his natural inclination to give him the benefit of the doubt. And do it in writing. Once the question is asked, and DA involved, revoking his concealed carry permit is probably automatic. Wouldn’t do to have a person under investigation packing heat.
There is also the subtle weirdness of the video.The attack seems odd. The approach too risky for most street criminals working alone. The draw too well timed and practiced. Lacking that half second of time it takes to figure out what is going on. The retreat too immediate and quick. Lacking that same delay that, to my way of thinking, would be expected. Like the whole thing was scripted. Too much like what you see in a movie. Normal events don’t usually work that way. The shots were delayed. The sight picture was better a fraction earlier. Was he making sure he didn’t hit anyone? Hard to say. If this was a stunt it wouldn’t be a one-off. Lots of guys want to play the hero.
Perhaps this vague weirdness is what has the law asking questions. Time will tell. Someone will talk and a potential home invader will be implicated or a poorly acted stunt revealed.
Divemedic · November 22, 2023 at 9:16 am
I would argue that, when you are being attacked by a firearm wielding assailant on your own property, it doesn’t matter that they have their backs to you when you shoot them. They have a firearm that is being used to threaten your life, they are in range, therefore they are still a threat. Merely running from you at that point is not enough to indicate that they are no longer a threat, absent some other clear expression that they are no longer going to return fire. Perhaps they aren’t disengaging, perhaps they are merely seeking cover from which to return fire.
As to revoking his CCW, they didn’t do it in the wake of the shooting, they did it in response to his criticism of the police. The act of “annoying the police” as you say is not proper for denying someone his or her rights. Whether you agree with his opinion or not, he has the legal right to express it without fear of government retribution. Your assertion that the mere presence of an investigation without criminal charges even being filed is grounds for revoking a CCW is ludicrous.
The lack of charges brings us to the next point: the fact that you find the crime itself to be “weird” is immaterial.
Comments are closed.