3 Pittsburgh Police Officers Murdered

[Ice]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/06/...hot/index.html

The chief said Sciullo was the first to approach the home, and was shot in the head as he entered the doorway. When Mayhle tried to help his fellow officer, he also was shot in the head. Kelly arrived at the scene and was shot before he could aid the other two officers, Harper said.

Harper said the suspect fired from a bedroom window, shooting at an armored vehicle carrying a SWAT team -- preventing those officers and medics from reaching the wounded policemen.

Two other officers, Timothy McManaway and Brian Jones, were injured. McManaway was shot in the hand and Jones, who was trying to secure the rear of the house, broke his leg trying to get over a fence, Harper said.

Autopsies showed that Kelly died of gunshot wounds to the trunk and lower extremities, Sciullo died from gunshot wounds to the head and trunk, and Mayhle was shot in the head, the complaint said.

"We have never had to lose three officers in the line of duty on one call," Harper, the police chief, said. "They have paid the ultimate sacrifice."
advertisement

Authorities believe Poplawski, wearing a bullet-proof vest, aimed more than 100 rounds at police, using an AK-47, Harper said Saturday.

Police had responded to calls from the home two or three times previously, Harper said

This Strikes a bit close to home because I use to live in Pittsburgh and perceived it to be a very safe city. RIP.

Can anyone explain to me why one should be able to own a bullet proof vest and AK-47? Leave the constitution aside please.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.

EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?

[Strike For The South]

Because One tragedy does not amount to much.

AKs are collectors items here in the states, body armor doesn't have many practical uses but I fail to see why it should be abolished.

ACIN: Your argument holds no water one can't chop an officer with a knife. As the officer would shoot him

[Lemur]

It's kinda hard to "leave the Constitution aside," what with it being the binding document of our nation. Also worth noting that body armor would have done little to help the first two victims, since Richard Poplawski went for headshots.

I'm more interested in the fact that this murderous idiot was drinking deep from the paranoia fountains on several fronts, not least of which was the wingnutter conspiracy theories. The only person responsible for the crimes of Richard Poplawski is Richard Poplawski, but the far right should be aware of what kind of tinder they're scraping a flint over.

"The federal government, mainstream media, and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of -- if not completely controlled by -- Zionist interest," the post declares. "An economic collapse of the financial system is inevitable, bringing with it some degree of civil unrest if not outright balkanization of the continental US, civil/revolutionary/racial war . . . This collapse is likely engineered by the elite Jewish powers that be in order to make for a power and asset grab." [...]

Mr. Pitcavage today said Mr. Poplawski's comments bear out a growing concern by extremist-watchers in the wake of the election of President Barack Obama.

"We've been concerned about the possibility of an upsurge in right-wing extremist violence due to two possibilities: the vitriolic reaction of the extreme right to the election of Barack Obama and the severe economic recession that the country is in," he said.

Note that today Congresswoman and insane person Michelle Bachman declared on the radio that Obama's administration intends to herd our young people into re-education camps. You can't go selling this sort of crazy on a national level and not expect some fringe lunatics to, you know, act on it.

[Ice]

Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.

EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?

Oh get off your high horse already. Notice how i said Ak 47 and Kevlar vest. Did I say all guns? No I did not.

[Ice]

It's kinda hard to "leave the Constitution aside," what with it being the binding document of our nation. Also worth noting that body armor would have done little to help the first two victims, since Richard Poplawski went for headshots.

When I said "leaving the constiution aside" I simply meant do not turn this into a legal battle. Look at it from a logical perspective. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment isn't logical, but I don't want this thread to spiral into that kind of debate.

I also wasn't referring to the police when I said body armor. I meant the shooter.

Edit:

AKs are collectors items here in the states, body armor doesn't have many practical uses but I fail to see why it should be abolished.

Body armor (for civilian use) should be abolished because I fail to see it's practical use other than gearing up to rob a bank or take on the police. You don't have time to put on body armor when someone is trying to rob your house, nor does anyone (most I asusme) wear it on a regular basis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh get off your high horse already. Notice how i said Ak 47 and Kevlar vest. Did I say all guns? No I did not.

How about you stop pretending to be naive about what you tried to do with this post. You posted a deadly and tragic shooting and asked why do we allow such guns and armor to be allowed, to get pissed over this turning into another gun control debate is idiotic. Thats like posting a story about a stupid 13 year old having 6 abortions asking why she is allowed to do such a thing and then getting pissed when it turns into a giant abortion debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: Yeah, go ahead and flag me mods, I don't care at this point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When I said "leaving the constiution aside" I simply meant do not turn this into a legal battle. Look at it from a logical perspective. I'm not saying the 2nd amendment isn't logical, but I don't want this thread to spiral into that kind of debate.

From the description I don't see that the ak-47 was an issue over a regular gun. It says they were shot in the head at close range.

Body armor (for civilian use) should be abolished because I fail to see it's practical use other than gearing up to rob a bank or take on the police. You don't have time to put on body armor when someone is trying to rob your house, nor does anyone (most I asusme) wear it on a regular basis.

The questions here are "how long does it take to put body armor on" and "how hard is it to make"?

I don't know a lot about it but I can't imagine it takes long to put on or is particularly hard to make. They made a vest out of bathroom tiles on mythbusters that stopped a 9mm.

[Strike For The South]

Body armor (for civilian use) should be abolished because I fail to see it's practical use other than gearing up to rob a bank or take on the police. You don't have time to put on body armor when someone is trying to rob your house, nor does anyone (most I asusme) wear it on a regular basis.

If you work in a bad part of town perhaps?

[Ice]

How about you stop pretending to be naive about what you tried to do with this post. You posted a deadly and tragic shooting and asked why do we allow such guns and armor to be allowed, to get pissed over this turning into another gun control debate is idiotic. Thats like posting a story about a stupid 13 year old having 6 abortions asking why she is allowed to do such a thing and then getting pissed when it turns into a giant abortion debate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: Yeah, go ahead and flag me mods, I don't care at this point.

I'm not going to flag the mods... not sure where you got that idea.

I'm not trying to be naive at all. For the record, I do approve of gun ownership, just on a very restricted basis. I do not believe anyone needs/should be allowed to own an Ak47.

From the description I don't see that the ak-47 was an issue over a regular gun. It says they were shot in the head at close range.

I was more directed toward the fact that he was able to suppress police long enough for the officers to die, although I do admit I'm not sure how much help would have done. We will never know. Would a lower caliber weapon done less damage?

he questions here are "how long does it take to put body armor on" and "how hard is it to make"?

I don't know a lot about it but I can't imagine it takes long to put on or is particularly hard to make. They made a vest out of bathroom tiles on mythbusters that stopped a 9mm

I've just never heard of anyone using body armor for home defense. I very well could be wrong, but that is the impression I have.

[Ice]

If you work in a bad part of town perhaps?

Point taken, but I've known plenty of people to work in dangerous/crappy parts of town where my home is around Detroit. Not one of them wore body armor. You would probably wear it a for a few days, and realize how much of a pain in the ass it would be and how it probably wouldn't save your life if push came to shove.

Edit:

You probably shouldn't be working there if you need to wear body armor to work.

[Strike For The South]

Point taken, but I've known plenty of people to work in dangerous/crappy parts of town where my home is around Detroit. Not one of them wore body armor. You would probably wear it a for a few days, and realize how much of a pain in the ass it would be and how it probably wouldn't save your life if push came to shove.

Some body armor is quite light and movement friendly. The expensive kind but still

[Lemur]

Actually, body armor is restricted on a State-by-State basis. Some States ban it for civilian use outright, others just make it a felony to commit a crime while wearing the stuff (if this seems pointless to you, consider how a DA can heap up the charges on a defendant; throwing in another violation makes it that much worse for the criminal).

Body armor is not protected under the Second Amendment, and nobody has made a serious argument that it is.

That said, I did a long article for a now-defunct publication on the subject of body armor, and most of their clients had genuine needs. Businessmen traveling to dangerous areas, for example, or public figures with multiple stalkers. One guy even told me about selling a Spectra-lined coat to a woman who was afraid of her ex-husband, who mad threatened to shoot her on more than one occasion.

I don't see how you could have hoped to avoid this turning into a gun control thread, what with your premise. Seems kinda ... naive ...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not going to flag the mods... not sure where you got that idea.

I'm not trying to be naive at all. For the record, I do approve of gun ownership, just on a very restricted basis. I do not believe anyone needs/should be allowed to own an Ak47.

I was talking to the mods not you. I just don't understand the concept of approving gun ownership then restricting what and how much the public can buy when the criminals themselves don't follow the gun laws and buy them illegally on the black market, which are usually untraceable. The only people you are preventing getting guns are the law abiding citizens.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Some body armor is quite light and movement friendly. The expensive kind but still

I saw somewhere a company that made Kevlar lined suits and coats for men and women, which had various degrees of protection depending on how much you shelled out for the higher end products. Is that what you are talking about?

[Ice]

I was talking to the mods not you. I just don't understand the concept of approving gun ownership then restricting what and how much the public can buy when the criminals themselves don't follow the gun laws and buy them illegally on the black market, which are usually untraceable. The only people you are preventing getting guns are the law abiding citizens.

I never liked that argument. I would venture to guess that most people don't exactly know where to go to buy an Ak off the black market

I don't see how you could have hoped to avoid this turning into a gun control thread, what with your premise. Seems kinda ... naive ...

That was the point of the thread. To clarify, I do not want a legal battle. This is why I asked to exclude the Constitution from decision. A logical debate about gun control is fine though.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor. Reasons such as "I need the armor when the entire country collapses and descends into total anarchy" should not be a good reason to purchase armor.

[Lemur]

Trust me, Kevlar is old-school. All the Secret Service guys had moved on to Spectra Shield when I did the article, and that was back in the nineties. Who knows what they're using now.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor.

Well, as any cop or lawyer can tell you, the law is a blunt instrument, famously bad at discerning intent. If we could draw up all of our laws to apply only to people with bad motives and crazy running around in their heads, we wouldn't need many laws at all.

For example, many states allow you to purchase suppressed ("silenced") weapons, but only if you can convince your local law enforcement that you have a need. This has been inefficient at best, and generally means that people related to the local sheriff are allowed to buy suppressed weapons and nobody else can. But that's as close as the law has gotten to your "only have it if you can demonstrate a need" idea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I never liked that argument. I would venture to guess that most people don't exactly know where to go to buy an Ak off the black market



That was the point of the thread. To clarify, I do not want a legal battle. This is why I asked to exclude the Constitution from decision. A logical debate about gun control is fine though.

For the specific situations in which mentioned, I would have no problem allowing those people to wear body armor. Perhaps I believe it should be more closely regulated. You should need a legitimate reason for purchasing armor. Reasons such as "I need the armor when the entire country collapses and descends into total anarchy" should not be a good reason to purchase armor.

Law abiding citizens don't, criminals do. Again, criminals are different from the average person, it is their life to to buy these weapons and commit crimes with them. It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

EDIT:
Also who has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

Half of the consumer products people buy nowadays are backed up with as little reasoning as buying some body armor.

[Ice]

Law abiding citizens don't, criminals do. Again, criminals are different from the average person, it is their life to to buy these weapons and commit crimes with them. It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

What's stopping otherwise law abiding citizens from using these weapons incorrectly in either a crime of passion or in a premeditated manner?

Also who has the right to tell us what we can and cannot buy?

The government already does this to many things. Unless you are in favor of absolutely no government intervention, this argument does not hold weight.

Half of the consumer products people buy nowadays are backed up with as little reasoning as buying some body armor.

I agree, but so what? An easy bake oven does not equate to body armor.

[Ice]

Trust me, Kevlar is old-school. All the Secret Service guys had moved on to Spectra Shield when I did the article, and that was back in the nineties. Who knows what they're using now.

Well, as any cop or lawyer can tell you, the law is a blunt instrument, famously bad at discerning intent. If we could draw up all of our laws to apply only to people with bad motives and crazy running around in their heads, we wouldn't need many laws at all.

For example, many states allow you to purchase suppressed ("silenced") weapons, but only if you can convince your local law enforcement that you have a need. This has been inefficient at best, and generally means that people related to the local sheriff are allowed to buy suppressed weapons and nobody else can. But that's as close as the law has gotten to your "only have it if you can demonstrate a need" idea.

That just sounds down right corrupt. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to apply for body armor for the reasons of visiting a dangerous part of the world or having a crazy ex spouse.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What's stopping otherwise law abiding citizens from using these weapons incorrectly in either a crime of passion or in a premeditated manner?

Nothing, but that is something that is simply out of our control. Those who preemptively strive at a criminal career will not frequent a gun shop, but an emotional man or woman will, yes, however this is simply human nature and cannot be prevented unless we get the power to read peoples minds such as in that movie "Minority Report". What is to stop law abiding citizens from using anything as a weapon? Nothing, it is one of the many prices we pay for the ability of enjoying the freedom we do of living life however we want, with as many guns as we want to feel safe.




The government already does this to many things. Unless you are in favor of absolutely no government intervention, this argument does not hold weight.
For the most part, I really am in favor of less gov. intervention in most subjects. What we can buy with our money, what we can do and put in our bodies are really no places for the gov. to be putting in its input.



I agree, but so what? An easy bake oven does not equate to body armor.
Well, the logic is still the same. There is no reason to own body armor, it should not be allowed to be purchased. There is no reason to buy that new version of Margaritaville with salt dispenser, it should not be allowed to be purchased. You can't target body armor for not having a reason to be purchased while ignoring the fact that 90% of purchases nowadays have no reason.

123

[Xiahou]

Actually, body armor is restricted on a State-by-State basis. Some States ban it for civilian use outright, others just make it a felony to commit a crime while wearing the stuff (if this seems pointless to you, consider how a DA can heap up the charges on a defendant; throwing in another violation makes it that much worse for the criminal).

It still sounds pointless. I can just imagine some guy getting ready to go out and shoot up a bank... "Let's see, where's my body armor- oh wait, better leave it, that'd be a felony to wear while robbing a bank."

To the OP...
People always try to use isolated, statistically insignificant emotional appeals to tell everyone else what they "need" or don't "need". It's a poor basis for decision making.

[Lemur]

I can just imagine some guy getting ready to go out and shoot up a bank... "Let's see, where's my body armor- oh wait, better leave it, that'd be a felony to wear while robbing a bank."

You're looking at it purely as prevention, which it is not. Talk to any DA or public prosecutor, and they'll explain the benefit of being able to pile up the charges on a violent criminal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're looking at it purely as prevention, which it is not. Talk to any DA or public prosecutor, and they'll explain the benefit of being able to pile up the charges on a violent criminal.

I can see how that would be useful, but it seems like it would be a bad thing in general. If they wish to increase the penalty for robbing a bank then they should do so directly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Okay, first point; I very much doubt this was an AK-47. An AK-47 is a fully-automatic assault rifle. These cost tens of thousands of dollars in the US and require all sort of legal hoops to jump through.

It is much more probable that it was simply a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 and so very similar to the great deal of semi-automatic weapons.

This Strikes a bit close to home because I use to live in Pittsburgh and perceived it to be a very safe city. RIP.

Can anyone explain to me why one should be able to own a bullet proof vest and AK-47? Leave the constitution aside please.

Well I'll get to the reason behind the Constitution; we should be able to own these weapons in order to have the ability to effectively overthrow a tyrannical government. Or, in short, so we can kill those enforcing oppression on us.

Now, since this was likely a semi-auto rifle, does that mean you are complaining against people having real, fully auto AK-47s, which is a negligible issue, or against people having any semi-auto weapon?

I'm more interested in the fact that this murderous idiot was drinking deep from the paranoia fountains on several fronts, not least of which was the wingnutter conspiracy theories.

Indeed. The first few articles I read made a big deal out of how he feared Obama's gun laws. This is somewhat reassuring...at least, in that gun enthusiasts aren't whackos. I mean, any real gun rights person would know that this is the absolute worst thing you could do to advance gun rights.

For example, many states allow you to purchase suppressed ("silenced") weapons, but only if you can convince your local law enforcement that you have a need.

In WA we can buy them after jumping through the federal hoops, but we can never legally use them.

That just sounds down right corrupt. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to apply for body armor for the reasons of visiting a dangerous part of the world or having a crazy ex spouse.

And how would your plan not lead to more corruption? Sheriffs having discretion in handing out concealed weapon licenses also leads to corruption.

And I don't see any reason to ban body armor. One whacko should not dictate policy for everyone.

CR

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well I'll get to the reason behind the Constitution; we should be able to own these weapons in order to have the ability to effectively overthrow a tyrannical government. Or, in short, so we can kill those enforcing oppression on us.

Now, since this was likely a semi-auto rifle, does that mean you are complaining against people having real, fully auto AK-47s, which is a negligible issue, or against people having any semi-auto weapon

We don't need AK-47 Rabbit. I live in the Pittsburgh region and watched it on the news when it was happening. I'm all for guns and that.... I used Shotguns and .22's and even shot a pistol (with blanks of course).... But I am NOT for AK-47 or those style of guns.


Besides, if the Government is coming after us, it not going to matter what we got, unless we got RPG's and that !

[Xiahou]

One whacko should not dictate policy for everyone.

That sums it all up, really.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We don't need AK-47 Rabbit. I live in the Pittsburgh region and watched it on the news when it was happening. I'm all for guns and that....

No, you're not.

I used Shotguns and .22's and even shot a pistol (with blanks of course).... But I am NOT for AK-47 or those style of guns.

Do you mean real, fully automatic AK-47s, or merely semi-automatic rifles? There's no logical reasoning for this, because the main difference between the two types of guns you mentioned is emotional in this debate. AKs are the target of gun bans because they look scary. You can't be partially for a right. On a practical level, what do you think the gun banners will go after when they've banned semi-auto rifles?

Besides, if the Government is coming after us, it not going to matter what we got, unless we got RPG's and that !

I'm sorry, but there's no reasoning behind that.

Can anyone explain to me why one should be able to own a bullet proof vest and AK-47? Leave the constitution aside please.

Given how marijuana use has surely contributed to more than three deaths, why should we not institute New York Rockefeller laws across the nation?

CR

[ajaxfetish]

It is the life of an English teacher to teach others the difference between your and you're yet from what I have seen I would venture to guess that the average Internet user does not seem to know this. (Especially on bigger forums then the org)

I'm sorry, but I can't help myself. It should be "Especially on bigger forums than the org)."

Ajax

[Husar]

Link.

Deserves it's own topic though, pretty sad, especially since I don't really see any good reason for it, the police weren't even out to get him, he called them himself because he thought the government was out to get him?! I mean it's fine if you think the new world order is coming to get you but in that case you should not call the new world order and make them come to you, that's just nuts...

Can someone please explain to me why some people think guns are the worst problem ever in a society and must start questioning whether or not we should have the right to own something because the media likes to play only negative eye catching stories.

Perhaps, if you can explain why you should have the right to own something that has the primary purpose of killing people?
Don't say because it's in the constitution, had I made that constitution, it might not be in there.

EDIT: If the police officers had been chopped to death would you be asking why anyone should own knives?

How many police officers are chopped to death and how many are shot to death?
Let's just say there's a reason the military doesn't use only knives even though they are considerably cheaper.