Handgun used to kill

C

Cancel8

Canceled
"One moment, they were just talking, the young police officer in the patrol car who had rolled up alongside the even younger pedestrian.

It was a low-key give-and-take, question-and-answer exchange Friday afternoon, not hostile or confrontational.

That changed in an instant, when the pedestrian pulled a handgun out from his baggy clothing, stepped back and fired three shots into the officer, who never had a chance.

Patrolman Christopher Matlosz slumped behind the wheel of his police cruiser, mortally wounded, his gun still in its holster. The gunman ran away, touching off a massive manhunt by land and air, with authorities vowing he would soon be caught and punished.

No arrests had been made as of late Saturday morning, but authorities said they had completed a painstaking house-to-house search in the area of the shooting overnight.

This investigation is going in a different direction now," said Capt. Thomas Hayes of the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, declining to elaborate.

He said more than 100 local, county, state and federal officers were involved in the search for the suspect.

Officers were struggling with their emotions, grieving for their slain colleague while trying to remain focused on the task of catching his killer. Several officers at police headquarters worked deep into the night, their eyes red from crying, even as they coordinated strategy.

"Everyone is remaining professional," Hayes said. "This really is an intense investigation."

A Facebook tribute page created to honor Matlosz had more than 1,000 followers by early Saturday afternoon. Some had changed their profile pictures to the Lakewood police crest adorned with a blue and black line, and some bore Matlosz's badge number: 317.

Ocean County Prosecutor Marlene Lynch Ford said several drive-by shootings had previously occurred in the neighborhood where Matlosz was killed. She called the shooting "an execution-style killing."

The 27-year-old Matlosz had just transferred off the midnight shift a week ago. He was engaged to be married next year, and his fiancee rushed to the hospital where he died less than an hour after being shot.

"This is a terrible tragedy, and our hearts and prayers go out to Officer Matlosz's family, friends, fellow officers and the entire New Jersey law enforcement community," Gov. Chris Christie said. "While the facts are still being gathered, we support the Lakewood police and Ocean County Prosecutor's Office in their work to bring swift justice to whomever is responsible."

Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex), called the officer's death "a tragic loss for all New Jerseyans."

Alluding to the shooting spree in Arizona that killed six people and grievously wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Oliver said, "His passing is a senseless loss in what's been a sad week for our nation, but we must remember Officer Matlosz's commitment to justice and public service. He was an example to us all."

Within hours of the shooting, individual police officers began circulating the name and photo of a 19-year-old man who they claimed in e-mails and Internet postings was the suspect in the case. But a spokesman for the prosecutor's office would not confirm that the person named in the online postings was the suspect for whom authorities were looking.

The suspect was described as a black male in his early 20s or late teens, 5-foot-6 or 5-foot-7, stockily built with sunken eyes and puffy cheeks. He was wearing a black hoodie and dark jeans slung so low that gray boxer shorts were visible, according to a witness account to police.

Matlosz was conducting "a routine stop" of the suspect, chatting with him for a few minutes, Ford said, leading authorities to believe the two may have been acquainted with each other before the shooting.

"This was an encounter that was between the officer and the person, not hostile," she said. "The individual stepped back and suddenly pulled out a handgun and shot the officer."

While the suspect fled on foot, a neighbor called 911 just after 4 p.m. to report an officer down. Matlosz was rushed to Jersey Shore University Medical Center, where he died in the trauma unit. He is survived by his mother and a brother.

"Every year we lose police officers in this country and so many of their losses are just like this one: routine, nonviolent situations" that suddenly turn deadly, Ford said. "Now it hits home. This is the risk every officer takes when he put on the badge."

The State Policeman's Benevolent Association is offering a $40,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the suspect.

The reward continued to grow Saturday, with the Cape May County borough of Avalon contributing $1,000 to the fund and urging every police department in the state to do likewise.

"It is very important for all communities in the state to contribute to a special reward fund that leads to the arrest and conviction of the coward who took Officer Matlosz's life for no reason," Avalon Mayor Martin Pagliughi said.

Lakewood is an ethnically diverse community of 60,000 residents located 54 miles east of Philadelphia and 47 miles south of New York.

Matlosz joined the department Aug. 14, 2006, and lived in nearby Manchester Township, according to Lakewood Police Chief Robert Lawson.

"Chris was one of our most popular officers," the chief said. "You might say he was the best of us. He was very dedicated to his job. I have a lot of accolades about him from the public."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/15/massive-manhunt-man-shot-nj-cop-death/
 
"We don't yet know the Arizona shooter's motives or if he was inspired by heated political rhetoric. What I do believe, though, is that reasonable gun control laws that meet U.S. Supreme Court decisions would have saved many of the dead or injured.

The shooter legally purchased a semiautomatic pistol with a magazine of at least 20 rounds. Twenty people were shot before he was stopped. Had he carried a 6-shot revolver, 14 victims probably would have been spared.

Why should the average American have the right to own and carry a weapon that was designed for and should only be in the hands of the police or military?

Congress let the ban on assault weapons expire. Police departments across the country call these weapons "cop killers" and are adamantly opposed to their availability to the general public.

This happens because the National Rifle Association, one of the nation's most powerful lobbies, pressures members of Congress and state legislatures to block or rescind even the most reasonable gun control laws.

And it's not just right-wing Republicans who support the NRA. New York Democrats such as Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (when in the House) and former U.S. Rep. Scott Murphy were rated highly by the NRA. Murphy's successor, Republican Chris Gibson, supports gun owners' rights.

Want to end this madness?

Get angry and let your member of Congress and state legislator know you want reasonable gun control laws."

http://www.timesunion.com/default/a...uld-have-saved-lives-958087.php#ixzz1B8eYGuOX
 
"When Jared Loughner walked into the Tucson gun store where authorities allege he put down his money for a Glock 19 in November, the store owner sent a request to run Loughner's name through the FBI's database of criminals, fugitives, illegal immigrants and mentally ill to see if Loughner was among them.

Loughner had had several run-ins with police for possessing drugs and had been told to leave his community college for erratic behavior. But the arrests never became convictions, and his behavior was never evaluated by state mental health professionals. So like 10 million others across the U.S. last year, Loughner passed and got his gun.

Despite the outcome, it's not people like Jared Loughner — people who may have questionable but not criminal backgrounds — that have gun control advocates worried. It's the database itself, which is only as good as the records that states put into it.

Several studies and experts say those records are often incomplete or missing.

"The [background check system] is gigantically better than nothing, and it is helping to keep people who are not supposed to have guns from getting guns," said Matt Bennett, spokesman of the nonprofit group Third Way, formerly known as Americans for Gun Safety. "But it has very significant holes that are problematic."

'That's Not Very Reliable'

The database is a 13-year-old system called NICS — the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It pulls records from not only state and local police, but also dozens of other agencies, including the U.S. Park Police, campus police and the U.S. Border Patrol. Except for a few additional restrictions in some states, as long as you're 21 and not in it, you can buy a handgun. If you're 18, you can buy a long gun.

But according to the FBI and a 2005 study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a significant problem is the number of states that are slow or fail entirely to update the final outcome of court cases. For example, the database may include the arrest record of someone charged with murder, but it may not know whether that person was convicted if the state court did not provide that information.

"If there's an open warrant for someone's arrest, the database is usually correct," said Robert McCrie, professor of security management at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "Where it is not correct is in the disposition of cases — if the charges are later dismissed or the case is continued. That's not very reliable, and that's a problem."

"Many counties and states don't see it as their duty to put substantial information into the system," McCrie said.

Digging Through Records — With A Time Limit

McCrie and other experts say that leaves it up to database researchers to figure out what happened. In some states, researchers have to track the information down at the specific courthouse where the trial occurred, calling a busy clerk's office to ask someone to manually pull the file. Some records are in storage in warehouses or basements.

And according to the law, the researcher has only three days to do it. If the FBI cannot determine whether someone is permitted to buy a gun in three days, in most states the dealer is allowed to proceed with the sale. It's called a "default proceed."

In 2005, the latest figures available, the Justice Department determined that more than 3,000 people walked out of a gun store with a firearm that they should not have been able to buy, because records later revealed they were felons or otherwise prohibited from owning a gun.

At that point, it's up to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives to get the gun back.

"Imagine you're law enforcement and you're sent to retrieve the firearm from the felon who bought it or the domestic violence offender," said Becca Knox, director of research for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Not exactly the situation we want to put our law enforcement officers in."

Some of the biggest challenges for the database, experts say, are domestic violence and drug cases, which often have inconclusive ends. Defendants are sometimes given a year or two to attend treatment, complete community service or enter therapy before a court decides whether a conviction will stand. An arrest is not enough to prohibit someone from buying a gun.

According to the Justice Department, some states are still entering those records manually. In states where records are fully automated, a clerk in a courtroom can punch the information into the database. Other states pass a handwritten piece of paper from one office to the next before it gets entered — a delay that can be costly for victims of domestic violence who have requested immediate restraining orders.

"You can see there's uneven performance," Knox said. "The database is an incredible step forward, but we still have to figure out where the administrative and financial roadblocks are."

In 2009, the FBI ran 10.8 million background checks on potential gun buyers. About 150,000 people were rejected. Most had felony or domestic violence convictions, or a restraining order, on their records. Less than 2 percent were rejected because of a mental illness."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/15/132942261/experts-gun-background-checks-have-big-gaps
 
..."Arizona’s top two legislators say they don’t foresee any rollback of gun rights in the wake of last week’s shooting rampage in Tucson in which six died. Fourteen others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., were wounded.

In fact, Senate President Russell Pearce said, he favors expanding gun rights in the state as a way of providing people with even more self-protection ability.

“Guns save lives,” Pearce said in an interview Thursday in Phoenix. “Had there been an armed citizen there prepared to take action, lives could have been saved.”

Pearce, a former sheriff’s deputy who was wounded in the line of duty, re-emphasized his point several times, saying later in the interview: “If I had been there and been armed, there would have been an immediate response, and lives would have been saved.”

He did not note that Joe Zamudio, one of the bystanders who helped subdue gunman Jared Lee Loughner at the scene of the shooting, was armed at the time. He nearly shot the wrong man--a fellow bystander who had wrestled away Loughner's gun--but chose not to draw his weapon for fear he would be mistaken for a second gunman.

House Speaker Kirk Adams said in a separate interview the same day that state support for the right to bear arms will stand.

“Arizona is a state that has long valued 2nd Amendment rights,” Adams said. “The 2nd Amendment in Arizona is very well protected and is valued both by the citizenry and by elected officials. I don’t ever see that situation changing.”

At the same time, Adams said, he wants to take time reviewing all gun-related legislation in the House before allowing it to move forward.

“We need to be careful in how Arizona is perceived by the country and the rest of the world,” he said. “This tragedy that occurred I don’t believe is reflective of Arizona’s gun laws at this point.”

Adams said review of gun-related bills will include considering the circumstances in Saturday’s shooting, in which a young man used a gun and an extended ammunition clip that were both obtained legally.

“There will be no divorcing the tragedy from discussion of gun legislation,” he said.

Giffords remained in critical condition at University Medical Center in Tucson, recovering from a bullet wound to the head. The shooting left U.S. District Judge John Roll, one member of Giffords’ staff, a 9-year-old girl and three senior citizens dead. Two other members of Giffords’ staff and several constituents who had come to meet her at a “Congress on your Corner” event were wounded.

Loughner, 22, of Tucson, has been charged in federal court with murder and attempted murder. Authorities have cited rambling and sometimes incoherent postings on the Internet by Loughner as signs of mental instability.

A teacher and fellow students at Pima Community College described Loughner’s behavior at times as strange. At one point, he was told he could not continue classes at Pima until he brought documentation showing he was receiving mental health treatment, several news media outlets have reported.

Senate President Pearce said he favors proposed legislation that would lift gun bans on college campuses in the state, thus allowing faculty members to carry guns at will and students to do the same after obtaining permits.

He rejected arguments that numerous citizens carrying guns could create dangerous scenarios, instead saying it would bring an increased level of safety as they take charge of their own security.

“We have to take personal responsibility, so our obligation is to protect me, to protect you, to protect our families,” Pearce said. “You can’t rob America of that.”


http://www.azpm.org/news/story/2011/1/14/145-pearce-guns-save-lives/
 
aids-and-fail-aids-and-fail-troll-trolling-demotivational-poster-1219407038.jpg
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtWrGtHCzNo&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Don's Guns owner takes aim at state law[/ame]
 
it should be very telling where the citizen ranks in priority of the government when police just show up to draw chalklines and take reports over a civilian death, but draw manhunts and dragnets with house to house searches when one of the 'only ones' is killed.

stfu and get on your knees
 
"An AK-47 with five 30-round clips ($375).

A Bushmaster, like the one the Beltway snipers used, complete with bipod ($1,300).

A Barrett .50-caliber rifle with scope, accurate at one mile ($3,200).

What do these guns have in common? They've been banned in a number of states and cities. And they were recently for sale in Hampton Roads, offered up to anyone -- no questions asked.

Advertisements for these guns and hundreds of others appeared in one of the latest editions of the weekly Tidewater Trading Post. The ads, a staple of such publications, are placed by individuals.

It's all legal. Although federal law requires licensed gun dealers to screen buyers for criminal records, mental health history and more, those rules don't apply to private sellers. States oversee them, and in Virginia, private sellers aren't even asked to check a buyer's ID.

In 40 other states, the rules are pretty much the same. With no paper trail to follow, no one knows exactly how many firearms are sold among private citizens. A survey for the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that private deals make up around 40 percent of all gun sales. That would suggest that last year in Virginia, more than 150,000 firearms changed hands with no checks at all.

Few worry about guns sold between relatives and friends. But when the deal involves strangers, "that's the frightening thing," said Michael Moore, head of the Norfolk office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

It's a felony to knowingly sell a gun to a person who isn't legally supposed to have it, but how does a seller know anything about a buyer found through an ad?

Moore recalls "an old man in Chesapeake" who took out an ad to sell a Smith & Wesson 500 -- one of the most powerful handguns on the market. A woman showed up to buy it.

"She told him she was a hunter," Moore said, "and he thought, 'Well, she doesn't look like it, but OK.' He had her write a note that said, 'I'm not a felon.' "

It wasn't long before the handgun turned up in New York, where it was sold on the street to an undercover officer.

"Scary," Moore said.

Others agree, especially after last year's shooting at Virginia Tech. Seung-Hui Cho bought one of his weapons online and the other from a gun shop, but the magnitude of the tragedy turned the spotlight on all of Virginia's gun purchase laws. A panel appointed by Gov. Tim Kaine zeroed in on private sales and advised the state to start requiring background checks for them as well.

It's a tall order: Only two states, California and Rhode Island, require checks for all private sales. Firearms are steeped in tradition and fiercely guarded by those who own them. To some, the right to buy and sell as they see fit is sacred.

Besides, privacy laws prevent everyday people from prying too deeply into personal information. Databases available to licensed gun dealers are off-limits to the public.

Gun-show 'loophole'

So gun-control advocates picked what they thought was an easier target: gun shows.

Some 65 shows take place every year in Virginia, drawing thousands of buyers. Most vendors are licensed gun dealers who do background checks with every transaction, but private sellers also are welcome.

People walk in with guns to sell, and collectors rent tables to exhibit their wares. Because neither is technically "engaged in the business" -- the legal threshold for needing a license neither is obliged to screen buyers.

At a gun show at Norfolk's Scope last fall, Merlin Scales stood surrounded by tables loaded with weapons. A licensed dealer from the western part of the state, Scales tilted his head toward a nearby collector's display and rolled his eyes.

"See that guy over there?" Scales said. "He's at every show. And he sells some of the same guns I do, only he charges more. Now why do you think some people are willing to pay more at his table than mine? Because he doesn't have to run them through a background check."

Virginia State Police estimate that unlicensed sellers supply up to 35 percent of the firearms sold at shows.

"Look," said Col. Steven Flaherty, head of the state police, "we know that Cho didn't use a gun show to get his weapons, but he certainly demonstrated what one person can do if they get a gun they're not supposed to have."

Campaigns have been waged for years to plug the so-called "gun-show loophole." In a poll conducted in January by Christopher Newport University, 68 percent of Virginians said they wanted state leaders to make the gun-show legislation a top priority. The governor, Virginia Tech victims, gun-control groups and law enforcement officers backed two bills that would require background checks for every sale at the shows.

Both bills died in committee, with politicians generally sticking to party lines: Republicans voted against more gun control, Democrats voted for it.

"It seemed like basically a no-brainer," said Del. Chuck Caputo, D-Fairfax County, who sponsored the House bill. "We had an opportunity to take one small step, and we missed the boat."

Sens. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, and Roscoe Reynolds, D-Henry County, were the swing votes on the panel that voted 9-6 to kill the Senate version of the bill. After the vote, they gave their reasons.

"I didn't think it was going to be successful. It was confusing," Edwards said.

"I had to vote the way I thought was right for the people I represent," Reynolds said.

Troubling transactions

Jim Caton, a retired machinist from Virginia Beach, is an unlicensed seller. His specialty is old guns. He buys from friends, auctions and estate sales and says he sells at two or three shows a year. In a two-day show, Caton said, he's lucky to sell 20 guns.

Caton doesn't want a dealer's license. Sales records have to be kept for 20 years, and other requirements are a "pain in the butt." He said he doesn't think small-time sellers like him cause problems.

"I use my discretion," he said. "Most people who come to the shows, you see them a lot. You know who's 'right' and who's 'wrong.' I don't have to, but I ask everybody to see their driver's license, and if they're not 'right,' they usually move on at that point."

But Caton acknowledges he sees gun show transactions that bother him.

"At every show, there are guys who come and stand outside and offer money to people bringing their guns in. Half a dozen guys, maybe more. They buy anything they think they can make a buck on, then resell it on the street. I don't trust them."

Odds are those parking-lot buyers are criminals themselves or will wind up selling the guns to criminals, said Flaherty, of the state police.

Critical mass attracts that type to gun shows: Having all those firearms in one place is simply more convenient than shopping in the classifieds, he said.

The bad guys even exploit the licensed dealers. Ringleaders wait in a car while buyers with clean criminal records submit to background checks inside the show. Then they walk out with the guns and hand them over in exchange for drugs or money.

The ATF tries to keep a watchful eye, said Moore, of the bureau's Norfolk office, "but there's never enough manpower."

With 5,000 shows in the country every year and only 2,200 agents, the bureau conducts surveillance at just 2 percent of events.

An operation in Richmond landed the agency in hot water and made national news.

Between 2002 and 2005, the bureau traced 400 crime guns back to licensed dealers from Richmond-area gun shows. Agents descended on a handful of shows in the region, intent on taking a harder look at buyers.

The tactics prompted complaints from two show promoters. The agency was accused of bullying, profiling women and blacks, threatening lawful gun buyers, and trampling on the Second Amendment.

Congress held hearings in February 2006. The agency was ordered to rein in some of its methods.

"There's always been a misconception about us," Moore said. "People think we want to take the guns away from everyone. We only want to get the guns away from the people who shouldn't have them."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/152970
 
Mojo said:
It isn't? When have you "won" in an exchange with me?
Click to expand...

When have we HAD an exchange? The idea of an "exchange" would imply that we have both expressed our opinions or beliefs. In our contact on this board you have only posted questions and links. There has been no exchange.
 
WinterBorn said:
When have we HAD an exchange? The idea of an "exchange" would imply that we have both expressed our opinions or beliefs. In our contact on this board you have only posted questions and links. There has been no exchange.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, perhaps.

I have enjoyed my time here.

I ask questions to gain insight, to clarify points, and to challenge assumptions.

I post links to items that discuss current events and solicit feedback.

Are you saying that is impermissible?
 
Mojo said:
In your opinion, perhaps.

I have enjoyed my time here.

I ask questions to gain insight, to clarify points, and to challenge assumptions.

I post links to items that discuss current events and solicit feedback.

Are you saying that is impermissible?
Click to expand...

That is not what I have said at all. The problem is that you ask questions to gain insight and clarify points. But you refuse to answer questions which would give others that same insight and clarity of points. Is that what you intended to do?
 
WinterBorn said:
That is not what I have said at all. The problem is that you ask questions to gain insight and clarify points. But you refuse to answer questions which would give others that same insight and clarity of points. Is that what you intended to do?
Click to expand...

No.

If my style offends you, may I suggest you refrain from reading my coments?
 
Mojo said:
No.

If my style offends you, may I suggest you refrain from reading my coments?
Click to expand...

Did I say I was offended? I merely asked if gaining insights for yourself, while offering none, was what you intended to do.
 
WinterBorn said:
Did I say I was offended? I merely asked if gaining insights for yourself, while offering none, was what you intended to do.
Click to expand...

This is what you said.

WinterBorn said:
That is not what I have said at all. The problem is that you ask questions to gain insight and clarify points. But you refuse to answer questions which would give others that same insight and clarity of points. Is that what you intended to do?
Click to expand...

By describing my penchant for asking "questions to gain insight and clarify points" as "The problem", I interpreted a negative connotation.

Was I incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top