WEATHER »
An unidentified man is arrested after brandishing a gun on De La Vina Street

Paul Wellman

An unidentified man is arrested after brandishing a gun on De La Vina Street


Man with Gun Arrested on De La Vina Street

Brief Standoff Ends with Suspect in Custody


Originally published 1:27 p.m., February 18, 2014
Updated 5:30 p.m., February 18, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

Santa Barbara police arrested an armed man Tuesday after neighbors reported him walking around his De La Vina Street property with a semi-automatic handgun. Details surrounding the incident remain unclear, but witnesses say the man had been in a dispute with a neighbor about a dog.

Police order the man to show his hands and get on his knees
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman

Police order the man to show his hands and get on his knees

Responding officers in cruisers and on motorcycles descended on the scene in the 1100 block of De La Vina — right around the corner from The Santa Barbara Independent‘s office — shortly before noon. Two officers, both with guns drawn, momentarily hid out of view behind a palm tree and a hedge until the suspect emerged from the apartment building. The officers ordered the man to show them his hands. He briefly complied, but then dropped his hands and became argumentative. Officers again ordered him to comply with their orders and threatened to shoot. The man raised his hands, but continued to express confusion over why was being confronted.

Back-up arrives shortly after the call went out
Click to enlarge photo

Paul Wellman

Back-up arrives shortly after the call went out

Less than a minute later, officers armed with assault rifles accompanied by additional car and motorcycle units arrived at the scene. The suspect — who’s name has not been released — was eventually handcuffed and placed in an awaiting cruiser.

Neighbors said the man has a history of acting aggressively and threatening people with his gun. Police said Tuesday’s incident is under investigation.

[UPDATE, 5:30 p.m.]: Police spokesperson Sgt. Riley Harwood has issued a public statement about today’s incident. He said that the suspect, 41-year-old Phillip Cummings, was arrested for possession of a loaded firearm in public and booked in County Jail. His bail is set at $35,000.

Handgun confiscated from Cummings
Click to enlarge photo

SBPD

Handgun confiscated from Cummings

Just before noon, Harwood said, officers responded to a call of “a man brandishing a handgun” in the 1100 block of De La Vina Street. “The suspect was contacted at his apartment at that location and taken into custody,” Harwood said. “Cummings had a loaded 9mm handgun tucked into the rear of his waistband.”

Harwood said that just before the call, Cummings was walking his dog when he saw his neighbor’s dog off-leash in a shared driveway next to their apartments. Believing the neighbor’s dog to be dangerous, Cummings took his dog home and returned with “a loaded 9mm semiautomatic pistol from his residence,” Harwood said. Cummings then reportedly confronted the neighbor’s dog, yelling “Get back!” and “Get behind the fence!” while pointing the gun at it. Cummings then returned home as neighbors notified the police.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

"walking around his property with a gun". This could be considered a crime only in california. And cars and motorcycle units, oh my! All based on hearsay. Hmmmm.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Walking around my property with my gun (Holstered), compared to walking around my property with my gun drawn and pointing it at people are two different things entirely. Neither were stated in this piece, so until then only speculation.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nice purple hummer and ugg boots! no work today, huh bro?

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Trydat. Also, was the gun loaded?

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Considering this incident took place here in California, with all its ignorant anti-gun frenzy, I don't give this article high marks for responsible journalism.

A few points:

(1) "brandishing" (in the photo caption, so perhaps not Tyler Hayden's fault): as there's no objective definition of this word, in my opinion it has no business being in a news article, unless it's part of an exact quote or legal text. Tyler: Did any eyewitness claim he was *pointing* his firearm at any person or any person's pet, or not?

(2) "semi-automatic": when modifying "handgun", creates my favorite SB Indy phrase. As most handguns since the 1890s have been "semi-automatic," does this adjective in this context serve any useful purpose, or is it only being used to inflame the uninformed gun-phobic who wouldn't know a BB gun from a 50-caliber machine gun (but certainly know that large black guns are the most scary, because they get their views on firearms from corrupt and hypocritical politicians such as Dianne Feinstein, the local wannabes gunning for her job some day, and local TV news' "if it bleeds, it leads" programming priorities).

(3) "…the man had been in a dispute with a neighbor about a dog…": yesterday? two years ago? As the article only indicates "brandishing": was that particular neighbor or his or her dog within range of this citizen's handgun at the time, or is this just gossip from neighbors who are scared nearly witless by a law-abiding citizen who chooses to own a firearm, but not scared of the platoon of heavily-armed cops who show up, despite the fact that (though perhaps less so in Santa Barbara than national statistics indicate), an innocent civilian is eight times more likely to be murdered by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.

(4) "Two officers, both with guns drawn, momentarily hid out of view behind a palm tree and a hedge *until the suspect emerged from the apartment building*."

Really? Well then, it would seem this citizen was inside his home when all the excitement started to happen. Was he "brandishing" while he was inside as well?

(5) "Neighbors said the man has a history of…threatening people with his gun."

Is that not a crime? If he's been charged, could that not have quickly been confirmed for this article? If he's never been charged, does the gossip above contribute anything meaningful to this news article?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tyler: will there be a follow-up to this article, or are we to be left with:

An "armed man," who was rumored to have, sometime in the past, been in a dispute with some neighbor somewhere regarding a dog (most unusual ;-) ), was seen holding a handgun on his property — and not just any handgun, a particularly scary "semi-automatic" handgun. Luckily, though a bunch of very heavily armed cops showed up, they didn't shoot anyone's dog, and the apparently dangerous man was hauled away.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Brandishing"

California Penal Code

Section 417

(a) (1) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days.

(2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows:

(A) If the violation occurs in a public place and the firearm is a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months and not more than one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(B) In all cases other than that set forth in subparagraph (A), a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months.

(b) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any loaded firearm in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who, in any manner, unlawfully uses any loaded firearm in any fight or quarrel upon the grounds of any day care center, as defined in Section 1596.76 of the Health and Safety Code, or any facility where programs, including day care programs or recreational programs, are being conducted for persons under 18 years of age, including programs conducted by a nonprofit organization, during the hours in which the center or facility is open for use, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months, nor more than one year.

(c) Every person who, in the immediate presence of a peace officer, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, and who knows, or reasonably should know, by the officer's uniformed appearance or other action of identification by the officer, that he or she is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and that peace officer is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than nine months and not to exceed one year, or in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

continued:

(d) Except where a different penalty applies, every person who violates this section when the other person is in the process of cleaning up graffiti or vandalism is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than three months nor more than one year.

(e) As used in this section, "peace officer" means any person designated as a peace officer pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.

(f) As used in this section, "public place" means any of the following:

(1) A public place in an incorporated city.

(2) A public street in an incorporated city.

(3) A public street in an unincorporated area.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like the guy needs a 5150.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hope the owner of the unleashed dog got hauled in too.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only victim here is the gun owner.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ban stupid people.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder of he's related to Burton Cummings? (From the music group The Guess Who) He somewhat resembles him.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the update to this article, posted 4 hours and 3 minutes after the original article:

Except for significant stories with effects or possible effects such that time is of the essence, I'd rather see an article four hours later that actually informs, than waste even a minute or two reading an article that doesn't inform.

For example, posted at 5:16 pm, fourteen minutes prior to the update to this article:

'Man Accused of Threatening Neighbor’s Dog with Gun'
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/man_a...
Noozhawk

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What kind of a human mind when faced with prospect of a dog on the loose in the neighborhood would:
a) React with fear,
b) Retrieve a firearm from within one's home and then return to the danger zone where the dreaded dog may be lurking, and
c) Charge about the neighborhood like a man unhinged?
The answer is, a mentally ill mind. The next question is, why do we allow mentally ill people to own firearms in this Country just to maintain fidelity to holy 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Perhaps we, as a Country, are all out of our collective minds.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article is sound. The incident is strange. Unless there is video of the man brandishing or the "suspect" was so stupid that he admitted to the "crime", then he should get it dropped to "disturbing the peace" and it ultimately getting dropped without any further time in jail. This charge appears to be absolutely ridiculous. Unless they found a meth lab in this guy's house, there was no reason for A) the arrest and B) the arrest. It was on his property for f**k sake. At the very least, the key word here is CURTILAGE: "It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where "intimate home activities" take place. It is an important legal concept in certain jurisdictions for the understanding of search and seizure, conveyancing of real property, burglary, trespass, and land use planning"

The "suspect" hopefully used his right to remain silent, and his right to a criminal attorney and then a pro-bono civil attorney. If this arrest was made in poor judgement, then I would start with suing the owner of the dog in question, then personally suing the arresting officer (after getting a dollar estimate his home), the sergeant on scene, and the city of Santa Barbara. I would then hire a PR person that is close with the NRA. This guy could be on Fox News by Monday talking about how our police force has become overly militant. I would argue the police were reactionaries and that they trespassed without strong probably cause.

Of course, I wasn't there. The guy could be a total POS with a history of brandishing. And as I have a lot of friends in the force and most of the SBPD are college educated, I would say that there was a pretty damn good reason to arrest this guy. There are definitely better ways to handle situations with dogs, especially noting that he himself is a dog owner. Shame on him for making this gun debate worse for the good, responsible gun owners. IN SB, there is always an alternative to pulling a gat.

vonG (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In other words, he's a git with a gat.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 3:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding vonG's comment, I only take serious exception to the first sentence ("The article is sound.").

No offense to the writer, especially as I suspect this is not typical, but in my opinion this is one of the most fact-free news articles I've encountered in fourteen years of reading the Independent, certainly at least regarding some of the most important details of the incident: what occurred prior to the arrival of the SBPD. Regarding the "update," posted four hours later: updates to online articles are properly used to continue reporting on continuing events such as, for instance, an hours long hostage situation or a days long wildfire. The update here is simply a bandaid slapped over a fact-deficient article.

I suspect the Independent would not have similarly rushed an article regarding a "fender-bender" motor vehicle accident in front of a day care facility, in which no one was killed or injured, even though, in that case also, the results *might* have been worse (such as, if one of the vehicles had been travelling 90 degrees to its actual direction of travel, and at 100 miles per hour rather than five miles per hour, and had crashed through the all plate glass front of the facility during its hours of operation).

One must go to Noozhawk for a succinct and factual account of this incident and, not that I'm suggesting that a simple news report of the incident should include a legal analysis, note that even Noozhawk's version…

'Man Accused of Threatening Neighbor’s Dog with Gun'
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/man_a...

…*might* include one key error, while prompting some unanswered questions.

Note paragraphs 4 and 5:

"Cummings quickly took his dog home and retrieved a loaded 9-mm semiautomatic pistol from his residence. He returned outside and confronted his neighbor’s dog, yelling at it to 'get back' and to 'get behind the fence' while pointing his gun at it.

"Cummings then returned home, and was taken into custody without incident a short time later when he came to his door, Harwood said."

(1) Regarding the first clause in the second paragraph above: is this correct, or was Cummings already "home"; i.e. where exactly was he standing at the time, and was that area legally part of his (apartment) home?

(2) Pointing his firearm at the dog might seem excessive, especially considering he deliberately returned back outside from the assumed safety from the perceived danger — yet was the dog at the time he pointed his firearm at it in what must legally be considered part of his home, and therefore did he have the legal right (regardless of the propriety of doing so) to return to that part of his home with his loaded firearm, and thus is the arrest legal?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MINOR CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS COMMENT

re: "…even Noozhawk's version……*might* include one key error…"

Assuming Noozhawk's attribution (not an exact quote) of the clause in question ( "Cummings then returned home...") to Sargeant Harwood is correct, *if it is an error*, it would be an SBPD error, not a Noozhawk error.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dogs don't understand handguns. If threatened by a dangerous dog, a stick is much more effective.

blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Eckermann,

Please tells us what your "Utopia" looks like and how you plan to deal with preceived or actual Bad Actors.

Adolf Hitler had a Utopia of a Pure Aryan Race and his bad actors were Jews, Gypsies and others. Stalin had a Workers Utopia and everyone else had to be purged. Mao had another Utopia and more had to be purged. Jim Jones had a religious Utopia and they all had to die. Islamists have another Utopia and more had to die.

Does your Utopia include elimination of the 1st Amendment so American Groups that have idealogies different from you can be suppressed? What parts of the Press are to be suppressed?

Does you Utopia include the elimination of the 4th Amendment so all American electronic communication must be monitored, so bad actors cannot use it? Oh wait that is already being done.

Please tell us what Amendments and Civil Liberties make the cut in your Utopia?

Maybe the Constitution just needs to be repealed and a purge take place.

Long live the Eckermann Utopia - NOT.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What moron brings a gun to a dogfight?
Oh, that one.

Draxor (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh, oh. Godwin's Law.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding Eckermann's comment at February 18, 2014 at 8:52 p.m., specifically:

"What kind of a human mind when faced with prospect of a dog on the loose in the neighborhood would:

"a) React with fear,

"b) Retrieve a firearm from within one's home and then return to the danger zone where the dreaded dog may be lurking, and

"c) Charge about the neighborhood like a man unhinged?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding (a), I did a quick page search just to insure I didn't miss it, and there's no mention of "fear" in the article — but even if there was, in this context this would be nothing more than someone's opinion.

In addition, Cummings actions noted in (b) seem incompatible with Eckermann's pointless conjecture in (a); i.e. if one wanted to speculate regarding Cummings' emotions at the time, anger would seem to make more sense than fear (though perhaps not as helpful to him legally).

Regarding (c), setting aside the similarly useless and baseless characterization, "like a man unhinged," there is no indication that Cummings left his property with his firearm, much less "charged about the neighborhood."

I also find it interesting that Eckermann, again without knowing the facts and with no indication in either this article or the Noozhawk article of the size or demeanor of the dog, while deeming the human "a man unhinged," characterizes the dog simply as "a dog on the loose."

Without knowing the facts, one could just as unreasonably advance the conjecture that every time Cummings entered or exited his vehicle in the past six months he was forced to deal with a vicious, snarling 120 pound animal — possibly within the outdoor area that legally must be considered part of his home.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, How Green is My Vallley, I never recommended any utopia in my post and I don't and will never find a need to do so. I live in my utopia every day. I have not a single complaint. Life is sweet and I could not imagine it being any better than it is. And John Tieber, just to let you know, I have lived to a ripe old age and have resided in many places all over the U.S. and the World, even in places that had very high crime rates. My father was an avid outdoorsman and I grew up with guns and learned to handle them at a very young age. However, regardless of my experience with guns and having lived in places where it was more common to be a victim of crime than not, I have never felt it necessary to resort to a gun for my personal safety. In fact, in all the times that I have been in danger in my life, my first instinct was to seek a safe escape not engage in confrontation. Consequently, I have never been injured by criminal violence and have never been arrested by the police in lo these many years of living on this crazy planet. I consider a person who was safely in his house who then retrieves a firearm and exits the safety of his house to confront some perceived danger as both fearful and unhinged. But that is just my opinion.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the comments on this article really took a quantum jump into lunacy. bravo, where's my popcorn?

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eckermann wrote:
"I consider a person who was safely in his house who then retrieves a firearm and exits the safety of his house to confront *some perceived danger*..."

You've clearly missed the point as, not knowing all the facts, you again repeat your assumption of "some perceived danger."

And what about your baseless charge that Cummings "charge[d] about the neighborhood like a man unhinged?" when there is no indication he left his own property?

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

given the location, the use of a firearm would only be justified if there was an immediate mortal threat with no other option (closing the front door and ignoring the off leash dog). firing a handgun on DLV seems massively inappropriate with an unreasonably high risk for collateral damage. i don't think a dog understands the whole "brandishing a firearm" thing either... pretty poor judgement displayed by the defendant. sure, defend your "right" to own a gun but this guy ain't your poster child. maybe it'll launch his celebrity career though? george zimmerman 2.0 right here.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm in complete agreement with StockiestCastle's first and second sentences (though, regarding the second, note that a firearm was not fired).

I've also indicated agreement, more than once, with "…pretty poor judgement displayed by the defendant…" Note the final paragraph of my comment at February 19, 2014 at 8:30 a.m.:

"(2) Pointing his firearm at the dog might seem excessive, especially considering he deliberately returned back outside from the assumed safety from the perceived danger — yet was the dog at the time he pointed his firearm at it in what must legally be considered part of his home, and therefore did he have the legal right (regardless of the propriety of doing so) to return to that part of his home with his loaded firearm, and thus is the arrest legal?"

I'm also in agreement with those who point out that a dog doesn't understand brandishing a firearm, though I suspect Cummings might have done so, at least in part, to influence the dog's owner, especially if (though we don't know) he'd had numerous encounters with this unleashed dog in which he felt at risk of harm.

StockiestCastle doesn't indicate but, in the event that "…sure, defend your "right" to own a gun..." is directed to me, and setting aside the "poster child" attempt to disparage the issues here:

I'm not defending the right to own a gun (and wonder why StockiestCastle encloses "right" in quotes); rather, among other things:

(1) I'm suggesting the Independent practice better journalism, especially regarding issues involving firearms, as anti-gun phobia, disinformation, and hypocrisy is so prevalent in this community.

(2) I'm defending the rule of law; i.e. based on the facts that we know at this time, though Cummings' actions might be ill-advised, there is no indication he "charge[d] about the neighborhood like a man unhinged," and his arrest *might* be unlawful.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lawdy (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

not taking any stabs at you in particular JT. i just find the whole situation a little strange, i'm also in no disagreement that the indy's journalism wasn't quite up to par with the gravity of the situation (something as serious as the potential discharge of a handgun in a densely populated residential neighborhood is no laughing matter). i know the firearm wasn't discharged but in my opinion that's the next logical step to retrieving and brandishing it. at the stage in which this story was reported, i can only surmise that without police intervention it was quite possible someone could have been killed. i think regardless of the letter of the law, as members of a community it's important to understand that handguns and their use (or misuse) come with incredibly grave consequences. i don't care if it's "legal" or a "right," the last thing we need is irresponsible people presenting their handguns at any legal opportunity. i'll happily change my opinion when new evidence is reported that the use of a firearm in any capacity was justified.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

owning a gun and itching to use one at the first legal opportunity are two completely different things though they fall under the same "right" to firearm ownership.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Ekermann,

"I consider a person who was safely in his house who then retrieves a firearm and exits the safety of his house to confront some perceived danger as both fearful and unhinged."

I totally agree and so does the applicable Laws on this subject.

At February 18, 2014 at 6:24 p.m., I stated the guy needs a 5150, that would be a Mental Health Hold for 72 hours but, I see no reason because we have bad actors that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should be thrown in the trash.

You want to throw out the 2nd Amendment and I was asking what other Amendments do you consider "not worthy" of your Utopian Dream or is only the 2nd?

You are aware the Constitution was modeled after Natural Law?

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

StockiestCastle:

Especially considering the restrictions in California (can you imagine constitutional open carry here? — the sheeple would go nuts), I can't imagine how there could be a scenario in which someone "presenting his or her handgun at any legal opportunity" could possibly be considered to be irresponsible.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cant blame the cops for SWAT Teaming this unknown character with a gun.
We do take exception however if the DA if he politically grandstands in this ultra-left berg

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yup yup I can't imagine how people presenting their his or hand gun at any "legal opportunity" could be considered irresponsible or dangerous to publlic safety. You gun fans would be funny if the results of your bizzare ideas were not so tragic.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JT writes about "California, with all its ignorant anti-gun frenzy" but most of his and many others demonstrate the opposite: a 'California, with all its ignorant pro-gun frenzy'...

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The dog problem in SB is out of control. It doesn't surprise me that more people don't become ballistic at the non-stop barking and rude behavior of dog owners. The Douglass preserve is disgusting and the City needs to do something about it. It smells like dog waste and bags of waste are left everywhere.

Someone needs to put a limit on the number of dogs allowed in a city this size.

People who own dogs are generally jerks !

sbresident2 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel_Greenspan wrote:
"Yup yup I can't imagine how people presenting their [sic] his or hand gun at any "legal opportunity" could be considered irresponsible or dangerous to publlic safety."

With all due respect (excepting the "yup, yup"), Herschel, that *might* be because you're among those who've been:

(1) bamboozled by the establishment media which — for reasons that should be evident to anyone aware that 90% of it is now controlled by six transnational corporations [ http://ftmdaily.com/global-issues/cor... ] — works tirelessly to trick the citizenry into believing there there is a gun crime epidemic.

or

(2) scared nearly witless by lies and propaganda disseminated by corrupt and hypocritical blue gang (D) politicians, such as Dianne Feinstein [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=... ], and those who emulate them, such as Hannah-Beth Jackson [ http://www.independent.com/news/2013/... ], by attempting to demonize eight million law-abiding California firearms owners, at least 99.9% of whom have never fired a gun at anyone and likely never will

or 

(3) influenced by misguided (or worse) local groups, such as Coalition Against Gun Violence (CAGV), that:

(a) obey blue gang (D) messaging instructing them to play on emotions ("Always focus on emotional arguments, not statistics.") [ http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribu... ],

(b) peddle the nonsense that there is a gun-violence epidemic, despite an abundance of government statistics to the contrary [ http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/u... ], as well as numerous studies by well-regarded sources, among them the Pew Research Center [ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell... ] and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy [ http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/2... ], and

(c) blame inanimate objects for crime, rather than criminals, and target law-abiding citizens by promoting follies such as gun buybacks [ http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/... ], "common-sense" background checks [ http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.c... ], "high-capacity" magazine restrictions, bans on  "assault weapons" (i.e. modern rifles with black PLASTIC stocks) [ http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-c... ], asinine gun-free zones [ http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q-ajjhcu9G8... ] , etc.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Besides the fact that one can't really blame the SBPD for wanting to dress up in all that military gear the feds keep giving away [ https://www.aclu.org/militarization ] (though I hope we won't be seeing an announcement that, like increasing numbers of local law enforcement agencies, SBPD SWAT team members will be going to Israel to be trained, in order to return and treat US citizens as Israel treats Palestinians), I agree with both nuffalready's sentences at February 19, 2014 at 5:56 p.m. , though I wonder:

(1) In addition to the commotion, if any particular SBPD announcement to Cummings convinced him to leave his home (possibly an error on his part), and

(2) How this might have played out, had he refused to leave his apartment or unlock the door.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Per Eckermann's comment about guns: I would take the point Eckermann made by going to the next step and asking "why do we let mentally ill people run loose among the general population?" Yes, Eckermann's point about not letting mentally ill people have access to guns is well-taken, but whether it's the aggressive panhandler in downtown S.B., the nut who goes into a theater and shoots the place up, or the person who slashes their roommate's throat in the middle of the night because the voices in their head told them their roommate was going to destroy the world, there are way too many people who are mentally ill/violent (and let's be clear, many manisfestations of mental illness do not include violent behavior) roaming the streets because our society either refuses to spend the money to (humanely) house them, or civil rights advocates think it is wrong to commit someone against their will.

The issue is not guns, the issue is that there are too many violent people who do not obey laws running loose.

As for Sbresident2's comment, I take the same approach as in my guns comment which is to say that dogs are not the problem, but that we live in a society where simply common courtesy is on life support. Observe the aggressive driving habits of so many people, bratty kids out of control in public places, and the general gutter culture of the entertainment industry and it's no surprise dogs have become such an issue.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, is an armed society a polite society ?

sbresident2 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have but one thing to say to all of you, and this is it!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/a7068741bd...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sbresident2 wrote:
"So, is an armed society a polite society?"

Besides Robert Heinlein, whom you may be quoting [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pol... ], and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy research (linked at my previous comment), I suspect both George Washington and Thomas Paine, though they didn't use the word "polite," might answer yes.

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.

"Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

In addition, and regarding, from the George Washington quote, "…more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands…," some may be interested in the defensive gun use statistics [ http://www.noozhawk.com/article/randy... ], published in:

The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
Northwestern University School of Law
(Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995)

(Link above goes directly to a comment I posted at Randy Alcorn's piece at Noozhawk one month ago today, that begins:

"Jean also fails to acknowledge the fact that gun ownership by 80-100 million law-abiding US citizens — including 8 million law-abiding Californians — saves FAR MORE lives than it harms….")

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So, is an armed society a polite society ? "

-sbresident2 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 7:23 p.m. -

Politeness is very important in any society. This issue was dealt with on a monthly basis by the now-defunct (at least in hard copy) publication National Lampoon, which featured a cartoon called "Politenessman". If you, are anyone you know, suffers from rudeness, you should view the two links I have so generously provided below. Even if you are a polite one, you will find these springs of wisdom to be inspirational. Thank you.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/31/5036...

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ltqKpPPUDJI/RjM...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would also admonish you about your use of the word "dog". In this country, we refer to them as "Canine-Americans". ("Sbresident" infers you may only be temporarily lodging in Santa Barbara, and may be visiting for another land, but in either case we welcome you here and hope your stay is an enjoyable one as you sift through the maze of a seemingly-contradicting series of social trends)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2014 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Armed doofus with a fear of other dogs other than his and a chip on his shoulder, that's what I get out of this.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2014 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for all the info JT. i wish our politicians would use facts/research for something other than reinforcing their position on emotionally charged issues. clearly the problem lies within the scope of mental illness and societal influences on "gun culture." it's just way easier to blame guns than the people who misuse them i guess. i'd be curious to see if anyone's researched the frequency that california gun owners are victimized due to the laws regarding "safe storage transportation" of firearms in the state. that said, the pro-gun lobby is anchored just as deep in emotional and fear based rhetoric as the uninformed dems on the other side of the issue.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2014 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The neighbor's dog was a pitbull that had attacked his previous dog. He was just trying to defend his new two month old puppy. What would you have done?

witness1 (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2014 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Called animal control or the SBPD.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2014 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, I would have gone back inside and let the police deal with it IF it truly was a dangerous dog.

discoboy (anonymous profile)
February 25, 2014 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vaud and the Villains

This 19 piece 1930s New Orleans orchestra and cabaret will ... Read More