Page 2 of 21
Posted on February 19 at 7:01 p.m.
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.
On Man with Gun Arrested on De La Vina Street
Posted on February 19 at 6:58 p.m.
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.
(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
(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.
Posted on February 19 at 5:34 p.m.
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.
Posted on February 19 at 3:52 p.m.
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.
Posted on February 19 at 2:43 p.m.
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?
Posted on February 19 at 1:18 p.m.
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.
Posted on February 19 at 9:48 a.m.
A comment I came across yesterday:
"As difficult as the drought is for California, it’s wonderful to know that President Obama cares and is helping out…
"On Saturday, Obama played at the Sunnylands estate, built by the late billionaire Walter Annenberg...
"The following day he golfed at billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison’s 19-hole Porcupine Creek.
"On Presidents’ Day, Obama hit the links at Sunnylands once again.
"The 124 golf courses in the Coachella Valley consume roughly 17 percent of all water there, and one quarter of the water pumped out of the region’s at-risk groundwater aquifer, according to the Coachella Valley Water District."
On Presidential Plumbing
Posted on February 19 at 8:55 a.m.
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.
Posted on February 19 at 8:30 a.m.
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?
Posted on February 18 at 7:48 p.m.
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
Cellist Yo-Yo Ma returns for a special recital with longtime ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month