Pizzagate gunman killed

[Jimmy Higgins]

I had assumed Welch was suffering from mental illness. But if he was, wouldn't his guns have been taken?

Not necessarily. There was a case 15 years ago in Portlandia, where Keton Otis, a mentally ill man was pulled over and started shooting at police. Even though one cop was wounded before Otis was shot back by police, the usual suspects are still blaming the police.

If you are going to smear the victim, do it with correct spelling of the name right and no factual omissions. According to your link, Mr Keaton Otis was racially profiled and attacked by the police before he opened fire.

Your article does not establish anything racial about the situation. He was profiled as "gangster", not "black".

It is not my article, and how does s black man look like a gangster?

Dressed like Frank Nitty.

And saying he was attacked by the police before he opened fire is technically true but quite misleading. The "attack" was the cop trying to pull him from his car, to which he responded by pulling out a gun and starting shooting.

Are under the impression it is normal for police to pull citizens out of cars for failing to signal a turn?

Certainly not. But pulling out a gun during an altercation with the police is usually a bad idea.

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen.

Ah, the “bad guy deserved to die” argument,

Naw. LP is simply among the millions and millions of Americans who think that a person killed by the police by default deserved to die.

 

[Patooka]

The guy had a gun. There's not much room for your magic spell.

You believe that. Doesn't make it so. More importantly, your response doesn't address a single fucking thing I posted.

 

[laughing dog]

I had assumed Welch was suffering from mental illness. But if he was, wouldn't his guns have been taken?

Not necessarily. There was a case 15 years ago in Portlandia, where Keton Otis, a mentally ill man was pulled over and started shooting at police. Even though one cop was wounded before Otis was shot back by police, the usual suspects are still blaming the police.

If you are going to smear the victim, do it with correct spelling of the name right and no factual omissions. According to your link, Mr Keaton Otis was racially profiled and attacked by the police before he opened fire.

Your article does not establish anything racial about the situation. He was profiled as "gangster", not "black".

It is not my article, and how does s black man look like a gangster?

Dressed like Frank Nitty.

And saying he was attacked by the police before he opened fire is technically true but quite misleading. The "attack" was the cop trying to pull him from his car, to which he responded by pulling out a gun and starting shooting.

Are under the impression it is normal for police to pull citizens out of cars for failing to signal a turn?

Certainly not. But pulling out a gun during an altercation with the police is usually a bad idea.

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen.

Ah, the “bad guy deserved to die” argument,

Naw. LP is simply among the millions and millions of Americans who think that a person killed by the police by default deserved to die.

In my response, I was not defending Mr. Otis - you pull a gun on the police and they will shoot you. I was pointing out that Derec's description was misleading. Mr. Otis was provoked by the police because there is no rational reason to think that a traffic stop should result in the police trying to pull someone out of car, and then a shooting even if someone "resembles a gangster".

 

[laughing dog]

The guy had a gun. There's not much room for your magic spell.

You believe that. Doesn't make it so. More importantly, your response doesn't address a single fucking thing I posted.

You sound surprised. Why?

 

[bilby]

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen. a constitutionally protected act

FTFY.

US law may be crazy, but it's clear on the question of whether private citizens have a constitutional right to go armed.

It is unacceptable for police to single out citizens for rough treatment on the basis that those citizens are exercising their constitutional rights, even if they are doing so in a way most people would consider stupid or suspicious.

Either Americans have the right to bear arms, or they don't.

If they can be justifiably detained by the police for doing so, then they don't.

 

[TomC]

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen. a constitutionally protected act

FTFY.

US law may be crazy, but it's clear on the question of whether private citizens have a constitutional right to go armed.

It is unacceptable for police to single out citizens for rough treatment on the basis that those citizens are exercising their constitutional rights, even if they are doing so in a way most people would consider stupid or suspicious.

Either Americans have the right to bear arms, or they don't.

If they can be justifiably detained by the police for doing so, then they don't.

I can't tell if you are being snarky about the 2nd Amendment nuts or just being pitifully naive.
Tom

 

[TomC]

"He entered the restaurant armed, and as customers fled the scene, Welch shot at a locked closet inside. After realizing there were no children held captive in the pizzeria, Welch peacefully surrendered. No one was injured."

Here is a quote from the article linked in the OP. I cannot believe for a second that Welch had license to own a gun, much less carry in public. He's also a mentally challenged criminal, who attacked a restaurant with a gun. I don't believe for one second that his behavior in the car wasn't the reason for the cops believing that Welch was a lethal danger to them and possibly everyone else involved.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I had assumed Welch was suffering from mental illness. But if he was, wouldn't his guns have been taken?

Not necessarily. There was a case 15 years ago in Portlandia, where Keton Otis, a mentally ill man was pulled over and started shooting at police. Even though one cop was wounded before Otis was shot back by police, the usual suspects are still blaming the police.

If you are going to smear the victim, do it with correct spelling of the name right and no factual omissions. According to your link, Mr Keaton Otis was racially profiled and attacked by the police before he opened fire.

Your article does not establish anything racial about the situation. He was profiled as "gangster", not "black".

It is not my article, and how does s black man look like a gangster?

You're assuming racism, black = gangster. That's not what the article said, though.

And while you aren't the one that provided the link you're using it for support so I'm pointing out that you should look at what it actually says.

And saying he was attacked by the police before he opened fire is technically true but quite misleading. The "attack" was the cop trying to pull him from his car, to which he responded by pulling out a gun and starting shooting.

Are under the impression it is normal for police to pull citizens out of cars for failing to signal a turn?

And once again you fail to recognize there can be a sequence of events. No, the police are not going to pull you out of your car for failing to signal a turn. But they are going to do something if you fail to comply with the normal procedures of a traffic stop. To find someone non-cooperative being pulled from their car is not surprising. You normally sign your ticket and go on your way--but that is actually a very simplified own-recognizance bail system. If you refuse to sign the ticket you'll be arrested.

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen.

Ah, the “bad guy deserved to die” argument,

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that portraying him as innocent is wrong. This is no upstanding citizen that fell victim to capricious police.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen. a constitutionally protected act

FTFY.

US law may be crazy, but it's clear on the question of whether private citizens have a constitutional right to go armed.

It is unacceptable for police to single out citizens for rough treatment on the basis that those citizens are exercising their constitutional rights, even if they are doing so in a way most people would consider stupid or suspicious.

Either Americans have the right to bear arms, or they don't.

If they can be justifiably detained by the police for doing so, then they don't.

You're focusing on the wrong part.

It's not "have a gun" that I'm pointing out, but rather the "in a liquor bag".

And you most certainly should not pull it out when confronted by the police. Doing so is basically suicide.

 

[laughing dog]

I had assumed Welch was suffering from mental illness. But if he was, wouldn't his guns have been taken?

Not necessarily. There was a case 15 years ago in Portlandia, where Keton Otis, a mentally ill man was pulled over and started shooting at police. Even though one cop was wounded before Otis was shot back by police, the usual suspects are still blaming the police.

If you are going to smear the victim, do it with correct spelling of the name right and no factual omissions. According to your link, Mr Keaton Otis was racially profiled and attacked by the police before he opened fire.

Your article does not establish anything racial about the situation. He was profiled as "gangster", not "black".

It is not my article, and how does s black man look like a gangster?

You're assuming racism, black = gangster. That's not what the article said, though.

The article said the police said he looked like a gangster. So answer the question.

And while you aren't the one that provided the link you're using it for support so I'm pointing out that you should look at what it actually says.

I did. Stop making stuff up.

And saying he was attacked by the police before he opened fire is technically true but quite misleading. The "attack" was the cop trying to pull him from his car, to which he responded by pulling out a gun and starting shooting.

Are under the impression it is normal for police to pull citizens out of cars for failing to signal a turn?

And once again you fail to recognize there can be a sequence of events. No, the police are not going to pull you out of your car for failing to signal a turn. But they are going to do something if you fail to comply with the normal procedures of a traffic stop. To find someone non-cooperative being pulled from their car is not surprising. You normally sign your ticket and go on your way--but that is actually a very simplified own-recognizance bail system. If you refuse to sign the ticket you'll be arrested.

Stop inventing explanations. Provide evidence about this real situation.

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen.

Ah, the “bad guy deserved to die” argument,

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that portraying him as innocent is wrong. This is no upstanding citizen that fell victim to capricious police.

There you go again with the bad guy deserved die. No one is portraying him is innocent, so stop making stuff up.

 

[TomC]

The article said the police said he looked like a gangster. So answer the question.

The article doesn't say he" looked like". He was profiled, which is different. He was riding in a car owned by someone with an outstanding arrest warrant.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The article said the police said he looked like a gangster. So answer the question.

The article doesn't say he" looked like". He was profiled, which is different. He was riding in a car owned by someone with an outstanding arrest warrant.
Tom

From the 1st paragraph of the article

Otis was driving his mother's silver Toyota Corolla on May 12, 2010, when Portland officers stopped him near the Lloyd Center because he failed to signal a turn -- and because they thought the 25-year-old African American man looked and drove "like a gangster."

So, yes, the police did say he looked like a gangster (and drove like one). I agree - it surely sounds like he was profiled. But I am trying to get one of our resident defenders of police action to explain how does one "look like a gangster", let alone drive like one.

 

[ZiprHead]

The article said the police said he looked like a gangster. So answer the question.

The article doesn't say he" looked like". He was profiled, which is different. He was riding in a car owned by someone with an outstanding arrest warrant.
Tom

From the 1st paragraph of the article

Otis was driving his mother's silver Toyota Corolla on May 12, 2010, when Portland officers stopped him near the Lloyd Center because he failed to signal a turn -- and because they thought the 25-year-old African American man looked and drove "like a gangster."

So, yes, the police did say he looked like a gangster (and drove like one). I agree - it surely sounds like he was profiled. But I am trying to get one of our resident defenders of police action to explain how does one "look like a gangster", let alone drive like one.

"Diggin' the scene with the gangster lean."

I assume seat well reclined and right arm well over the armrest.

In the 1970's.

 

[TomC]

So, yes, the police did say he looked like a gangster (and drove like one). I agree - it surely sounds like he was profiled. But I am trying to get one of our resident defenders of police action to explain how does one "look like a gangster", let alone drive like one.

Sorry, I got confused. I was talking about the OP. Not a 15 year old episode from Oregon.
Tom

 

[Derec]

And if you have a gun in a liquor bag in your car it is very unlikely that you are an upstanding citizen. a constitutionally protected act

FTFY.
US law may be crazy, but it's clear on the question of whether private citizens have a constitutional right to go armed.

Private citizens do not have the constitutional right to shoot at police officers. Or even to pull firearms at police officers.
Depending on the jurisdiction there may be different laws governing how guns may be carried and transported. The 2nd Amendment is not a carte blanche for any kind of behavior regarding guns.

It is unacceptable for police to single out citizens for rough treatment on the basis that those citizens are exercising their constitutional rights, even if they are doing so in a way most people would consider stupid or suspicious.

He wasn't singled out because he had a gun in a cognac bag, but because of his behavior.

Either Americans have the right to bear arms, or they don't.

It's not a binary choice. There are restrictions to any right, including the right to bear arms.
For example, the Oregon law reads.

ORS 166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms
(1)Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260 (Persons not affected by ORS 166.250), 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain felons), 166.273 (Relief from firearm prohibitions related to mental health), 166.274 (Relief from prohibition against possessing or receiving firearm), 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license), 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) or 166.410 (Manufacture, importation or sale of firearms) to 166.470 (Limitations and conditions for sales of firearms), a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
(a)Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;
(b)Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle; or
(c)Possesses a firearm and:
(A)Is under 18 years of age;
(B)Intentionally left blank —Ed.
(i)While a minor, was found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for having committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence, as defined in ORS 166.470 (Limitations and conditions for sales of firearms); and
(ii)Was discharged from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court within four years prior to being charged under this section;
(C)Has been convicted of a felony;
(D)Was committed to the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 426.130 (Court determination of mental illness);
(E)Was found to be a person with mental illness and subject to an order under ORS 426.130 (Court determination of mental illness) that the person be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm as a result of that mental illness;
(F)Is presently subject to an order under ORS 426.133 (Assisted outpatient treatment) prohibiting the person from purchasing or possessing a firearm;
(G)Has been found guilty except for insanity under ORS 161.295 (Effect of qualifying mental disorder) of a felony; or
(H)The possession of the firearm by the person is prohibited under ORS 166.255 (Possession of firearm or ammunition by certain persons prohibited).
(2)This section does not prohibit:
(a)A minor, who is not otherwise prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section, from possessing a firearm:
(A)Other than a handgun, if the firearm was transferred to the minor by the minor’s parent or guardian or by another person with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian; or
(B)Temporarily for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose; or
(b)Any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides in or is temporarily sojourning within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by ORS 166.270 (Possession of weapons by certain felons) and subsection (1) of this section, from owning, possessing or keeping within the person’s place of residence or place of business any handgun, and no permit or license to purchase, own, possess or keep any such firearm at the person’s place of residence or place of business is required of any such citizen. As used in this subsection, “residence” includes a recreational vessel or recreational vehicle while used, for whatever period of time, as residential quarters.
(3)Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.
(4)Intentionally left blank —Ed.
(a)Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, a handgun is readily accessible within the meaning of this section if the handgun is within the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
(b)If a vehicle, other than a vehicle described in paragraph (c) of this subsection, has no storage location that is outside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
(A)The handgun is stored in a closed and locked glove compartment, center console or other container; and
(B)The key is not inserted into the lock, if the glove compartment, center console or other container unlocks with a key.
(c)If the vehicle is a motorcycle, an all-terrain vehicle or a snowmobile, a handgun is not readily accessible within the meaning of this section if:
(A)The handgun is in a locked container within or affixed to the vehicle; or
(B)The handgun is equipped with a trigger lock or other locking mechanism that prevents the discharge of the firearm.
(5)Unlawful possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [Amended by 1979 c.779 §4; 1985 c.543 §3; 1989 c.839 §13; 1993 c.732 §1; 1993 c.735 §12; 1999 c.1040 §1; 2001 c.666 §§33,45; 2003 c.614 §8; 2009 c.499 §1; 2009 c.595 §112; 2009 c.826 §§8a,11a; 2011 c.662 §§1,2; 2013 c.360 §§6,7; 2015 c.50 §§12,13; 2015 c.201 §3; 2015 c.497 §§3,4]

That law has not been found unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment to the COTUS, so you are wrong with your assertion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The article said the police said he looked like a gangster. So answer the question.

The article doesn't say he" looked like". He was profiled, which is different. He was riding in a car owned by someone with an outstanding arrest warrant.
Tom

From the 1st paragraph of the article

Otis was driving his mother's silver Toyota Corolla on May 12, 2010, when Portland officers stopped him near the Lloyd Center because he failed to signal a turn -- and because they thought the 25-year-old African American man looked and drove "like a gangster."

So, yes, the police did say he looked like a gangster (and drove like one). I agree - it surely sounds like he was profiled. But I am trying to get one of our resident defenders of police action to explain how does one "look like a gangster", let alone drive like one.

I'm no good at reading people, I won't pretend to be able to recognize "looks like a gangster". But just because you're pretending "black" = "looks like a gangster" we have no evidence of this. And you're ignoring the fact that the owner of the car had a warrant.

 

[laughing dog]

The article said the police said he looked like a gangster. So answer the question.

The article doesn't say he" looked like". He was profiled, which is different. He was riding in a car owned by someone with an outstanding arrest warrant.
Tom

From the 1st paragraph of the article

Otis was driving his mother's silver Toyota Corolla on May 12, 2010, when Portland officers stopped him near the Lloyd Center because he failed to signal a turn -- and because they thought the 25-year-old African American man looked and drove "like a gangster."

So, yes, the police did say he looked like a gangster (and drove like one). I agree - it surely sounds like he was profiled. But I am trying to get one of our resident defenders of police action to explain how does one "look like a gangster", let alone drive like one.

I'm no good at reading people, I won't pretend to be able to recognize "looks like a gangster". But just because you're pretending "black" = "looks like a gangster" we have no evidence of this. And you're ignoring the fact that the owner of the car had a warrant.

I’m not pretending anything. You cannot explain how someone driving a car “looks like a gangster” which is part of police explanation for the stop. Mr Otis is black. It is a reasonable conclusion he was profiled.