Quantcast

Guns don't kill people...

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Virginia Police Say Gunman Was Targeting Them
By MARIA NEWMAN

The police in Fairfax, Va., said today that the teenager who opened fire outside one of their police stations on Monday, killing one detective and injuring two others, had recently been arrested on carjacking charges and was on a mission to hurt police officers.

The young man, identified as Michael W. Kennedy, 18, of nearby Centreville, Va., was heavily armed when he entered the parking lot of the Sully District Police Station in western Fairfax and began firing, the police said today.

He died in the exchange of gunfire with the police, law enforcement officials said at a televised news briefing this morning.

"He was very determined and he was intently targeting police officers when he went to that police station and he opened fire on police officers," saidMaj. Bob Callahan, commander of the Police Department's criminal investigations bureau. "I don't think there was any hesitation yesterday of what his intent was."

The detective who died in the gunfire, Vicky O. Armel, 40, was a nine-year veteran of the department whose husband is also a detective. It was the first fatal shooting of a Fairfax officer in the line of duty in the department's history.

Another officer, whose name has not yet been released, was also shot and was reported in critical condition today after undergoing surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital, officials said. The third officer was treated for minor injuries.

"I ask your forbearance," Police Chief David Rohrer said, his voice breaking. "This is a very difficult investigation for us. It's a complex investigation."

Major Callahan said the gunman, who had at least five pistols, an AK-47 rifle and a high-powered hunting rifle and two handguns, fired at least 70 rounds, but the department is still trying to determine how many shots the officers fired back at him.

According to police accounts, the harrowing episode on Monday began at about 3:30 p.m., when Mr. Kennedy entered the parking lot after driving to the station in a stolen vehicle.

He crouched between two vehicles and began firing, the police said, and three officers who were there at the time began firing back. Others soon joined them.

Major Callahan said the gunman seemed to be firing indiscriminately.

"It looks to us that he was just looking in that parking lot for as many victims as he could find," he said.

Major Callahan said that in the exchange of gunfire, a driver in a passing car was also hit. "He suffered a minor injury, probably from glass breakage," he said.

Even after Mr. Kennedy was shot, the police closed off the area to traffic as they tried to determine if there were other shooters involved in the rampage. Helicopters flew overhead and nearby schools were locked down.

"We are very confident at this point that it was a lone gunman," Chief Rohrer said today. "This action was not an incident for the public to be concerned about. He was targeting police officers at the Sully station."

As the investigation continues, Major Callahan said investigators are interested in talking with Mr. Kennedy's parents but have been unable to reach them.

"We would ask you to ask them to please contact us," he told reporters. "We feel confident that they're aware of what happened and we need to talk to them."

Mr. Kennedy was arrested by the Fairfax police on April 18 on a warrant issued in Montgomery County, Md., where he was charged in connection with a carjacking. According to The Washington Post, Mr. Kennedy was released from the Montgomery jail about two weeks ago after posting a $33,000 bond.

Major Callahan said at the news conference today that the department had not yet determined if Detective Armel knew Mr. Kennedy. But he said that Mr. Kennedy had had "prior communications" with the station before Monday, possibly meaning that he might have made threats before.

"We're trying to determine is she had had some contact with him. We don't know at this time," he said.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Fertilizer would have been much more effective then guns. You dont hear people whining about chicken ****.
 
Oct 7, 2005
181
0
Bozeman MT
sanjuro said:
I noticed none of the usual 2nd Amendment monkeys have anything to say...
That's because we work until five or six. It's simple really, the difference between this f-ing guy and I..... "law abiding citizen." I'm sure you've heard that phrase before. Do you REALLY think this dingleberry wouldn't have had access to guns with more gun laws??? I HONESTLY don't. Needless to say, we won't have to worry about him doing this again, and that's enforcement. Sad to hear about the officers though. RIP
 

mr_dove

Monkey
Jan 18, 2002
179
0
Denver, CO
Guns are good. If wackos can't get guns then they'll build bombs, which is surprisingly easy, and bombs will kill a WHOLE lot more people not to mention blowing them up while the bad guy sits accross the street and watches in safety.

A bad guy recently attacked a local law firm with molotov cocktails. He was old and slow though so he got caught and nobody got hurt.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
when three year olds can pull a trigger and kill someone -- without intent or even concept of thier actions -- yes, guns do kill.

That said, I'm not interested in a gun-free society unless it means absolutely zero guns in existence, even for the military. So, that won't happen.
 

noname

Monkey
Feb 19, 2006
544
0
outer limits
LordOpie said:
when three year olds can pull a trigger and kill someone -- without intent or even concept of thier actions -- yes, guns do kill.

That said, I'm not interested in a gun-free society unless it means absolutely zero guns in existence, even for the military. So, that won't happen.
:stupid:
My heart goes out to the fallen officer, but I still don't believe that it should effect the 2nd amendment.
Gun ownership is a right.
"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
What I don't understand is the selective defense of the Consitution by the far right...

The Second Amendment is antiquated and should be eliminated by another amendment. But the US is full of morons. So it will never happen. Damn.
 

noname

Monkey
Feb 19, 2006
544
0
outer limits
blue said:
What I don't understand is the selective defense of the Consitution by the far right...

The Second Amendment is antiquated and should be eliminated by another amendment. But the US is full of morons. So it will never happen. Damn.
just like that first one huh? Antiquated.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,919
2,886
Pōneke
noname said:
Why would that be? It's not like I'm going anywhere.
Because, with any luck the Republicans are going to get their asses handed to them in the mid-terms. Bush will have less power and the world will be a safer place.
 

noname

Monkey
Feb 19, 2006
544
0
outer limits
Changleen said:
Because, with any luck the Republicans are going to get their asses handed to them in the mid-terms. Bush will have less power and the world will be a safer place.
I'm hoping more for gridlock. Just enough on each side that all they can do is bicker all day and get nothing done. The less they do the better.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
noname said:
I'm hoping more for gridlock. Just enough on each side that all they can do is bicker all day and get nothing done. The less they do the better.
Agreed. We would be in better shape if the country had been run by monkeys in comas for the last 6 years.

What's the opposite of the Midas touch? The one where everything you touch turns to ****?
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,335
15
in da shed, mon, in da shed
blue said:
What I don't understand is the selective defense of the Consitution by the far right...

The Second Amendment is antiquated and should be eliminated by another amendment. But the US is full of morons. So it will never happen. Damn.
Are you a member of the "far right"? Ironically, you appear to be selectively picking and choosing which amendments you like with your very next sentance!?!

I am unable to contradict your third sentance as you present an ironclad case with both it and the fourth.
 

gemini123

Chimp
May 7, 2006
2
0
Berkeley
bullet control seems like the right thing. Everyone has the right to own a gun, but if the bullets cost 500 bucks each, your gonna have to be dedicated.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
bigdrop05 said:
Everyone will be safe after 2006 !!!
Oh how is that? Are the millions of people Bush managed to piss off and demonize just going to simply evaporate?

I don't think so. The USA will be thanking BUSH for years of militant anti US sentiment the world over.
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
How ironic that some folks say "the world hates the US because of Bush."

Let's go over what extremist Muslims hate about the US, and why our very existance is an offense to their God:

- Free (immoral) speech
- Woman freely expose their bodies
- Women have the right to vote and equal rights
- Acceptance of homosexuality
- Low or no morals across the board (in their opinion)
- Etc....


Now, if the US were truly controlled by Bush and the extreme religious right, theoretically we wouldn't have any of the above "freedoms" and extremist Muslims wouldn't have much of an issue with the US. But in fact the far right doesn't have much influence at all and the country is exceedingly liberal - thus greatly increasing ill will toward the US from extremist Muslims.

So let's cut the BS and tell it how it is. I think Bush is a bumbling idiot too, and I'm atheist, and I have gay friends, and my long-term girlfriend is black. So don't give me any crap about being a closed-minded white guy just because many of my opinions conflict with popular left-wing views, thank you very much.

Are there a lot of counties that hate Bush and the US? Yep, plenty. But they hated the US long before Bush took a stand, and unless the US aligns it's "morals" with those countries that's never going to change.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
I'm not gonna disagree, sure plenty of the world hated the US to begin with. But it was fermenting under the surface.

With Bush being completely incompetent, he has managed to piss off the REST of the world. He has invaded a sovereign country without provocation or cause and is now threatening another (possibly with cause). He throws people in a prison, on an island, off of US soil, without due process simply for their religious beliefs or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He has, practically, the entire world's Muslim population up in arms and ready to attack the US. He certainly didn't make things any better and he really did make things worse. He has pissed off numerous allies to boot.

No one can truthfully say that this adminsitration is the root of all the anti US sentiment...it has been going on forever. No one likes a bully though, and this administration has turned the lone superpower into the worlds most well armed bully.

Some people are just never going to get along, that's a given. Some people have screwed up beliefs, that's also a given. Dubya hasn't only caused strife abroad though, he has even managed to piss off about 70% of his own pupulation who think he is doing a miserable job. He is now taking away some of the very rights the US populace seem to hold dear (privacy in your own homes for example). He dropped the ball, big time.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Transcend said:
I'm not gonna disagree, sure plenty of the world hated the US to begin with. But it was fermenting under the surface.
That doesn't even take into account the unprecendented goodwill the US had on September 12, 2001.

Pissing that away as fast as Bush did is a monumental achievement.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Whilst the Islamic world may disapprove of the moral values of the West it is the fact that we keep attempting to force our desires and morality on them that really causes problems. Prior to the US getting involved in the Middle East they were seen as a beacon of fairness and justice (unlike the Europeans).

So it is down to aggressive, imperialist actions that the US is hated by so many.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,919
2,886
Pōneke
1000-Oaks said:
How ironic that some folks say "the world hates the US because of Bush."

Let's go over what extremist Muslims hate about the US, and why our very existance is an offense to their God:

- Free (immoral) speech
- Woman freely expose their bodies
- Women have the right to vote and equal rights
- Acceptance of homosexuality
- Low or no morals across the board (in their opinion)
- Etc....


Now, if the US were truly controlled by Bush and the extreme religious right, theoretically we wouldn't have any of the above "freedoms" and extremist Muslims wouldn't have much of an issue with the US. But in fact the far right doesn't have much influence at all and the country is exceedingly liberal - thus greatly increasing ill will toward the US from extremist Muslims.

So let's cut the BS and tell it how it is. I think Bush is a bumbling idiot too, and I'm atheist, and I have gay friends, and my long-term girlfriend is black. So don't give me any crap about being a closed-minded white guy just because many of my opinions conflict with popular left-wing views, thank you very much.
OK Fine.

Are there a lot of counties that hate Bush and the US? Yep, plenty. But they hated the US long before Bush took a stand, and unless the US aligns it's "morals" with those countries that's never going to change.
Sorry, you're wrong, and seem to be seriously underestimating the negative impact Bush has had on your reputation.
 
Oct 7, 2005
181
0
Bozeman MT
Silver said:
That doesn't even take into account the unprecendented goodwill the US had on September 12, 2001.

Pissing that away as fast as Bush did is a monumental achievement.
That's comedy! California and New Orleans will prove to be on the same course.
 

uneasy_rider

Chimp
May 12, 2006
8
0
Changleen said:
I remember when that was funny... I must be getting old.

In this context it wasn't meant to be funny. Its just a simple fact.

cars don't kill people, the drunk dumbasses behind the wheel do.
 

The Amish

Dumber than N8
Feb 22, 2005
645
0
fluff said:
Whilst the Islamic world may disapprove of the moral values of the West it is the fact that we keep attempting to force our desires and morality on them that really causes problems. Prior to the US getting involved in the Middle East they were seen as a beacon of fairness and justice (unlike the Europeans).

So it is down to aggressive, imperialist actions that the US is hated by so many.
If by fairness and justice you mean burying people up to their necks in sand and then stoning them to death, then you are correct
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
The Amish said:
If by fairness and justice you mean burying people up to their necks in sand and then stoning them to death, then you are correct
Eh? Does your post relate to mine in any way other than you used a couple of the same words?
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
Changleen said:
OK Fine.

Sorry, you're wrong, and seem to be seriously underestimating the negative impact Bush has had on your reputation.

So we agree that extremist Muslims hate the US because of most of our "liberal" tendancies. So logically, if the US hadn't become so liberal over the last forty years, we wouldn't have this massive conflict and Bush wouldn't have had any reason to go into other countries. So it still isn't Bush; it's still our culture that's the cause of the problem.

So rather than whine about Bush, what are we doing about our offensive immorality? Nothing. And groups like the ACLU are fighting to make it even worse.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
1000-Oaks said:
So we agree that extremist Muslims hate the US because of most of our "liberal" tendancies.
That's really an abusurdly reductionist argument for an issue that's a wee bit more complicated...