Lovelle Mixon: Oakland Police Shooter Kills 4 Cops

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lovelle Mixon, 26, was pulled over by two motorcycle officers in Oakland, California Saturday afternoon for a routine traffic stop at 1:08 p.m. Mixon, driving a 1995 Buick, who police later discovered was wanted on a no-bail warrant for violating parole on an assault with a deadly weapon charge, opened fire on Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, who died of his injuries on Saturday. Sgt. John Hege, 41, who has been in grave condition at Highland Hospital, died at noon on Sunday according to CNN. Mixon then fled into a nearly multi-unit apartment complex. SWAT officers stormed the building and exchanged gunfire with the assailant, who was brandishing an assault rifle. Mixon killed Sgt. Ervin Romans, 43, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai, 35, and slightly wounded an unidentified officer, who was treated for a minor bullet graze to the head and released from an area hospital.

The suspect, Lovelle Mixon, was killed in the gun battle. He had an extensive criminal history, according to police officials who held a news conference Saturday afternoon (see video below).

http://www.bittenandbound.com/2009/03/22/l...s-photos-video/

[Heracles 417]

About time someone acknowledged this disgraceful this tragedy. What is even more of a disgrace is the reality that a police officer is killed every 57 hours in Oakland.

What do you propose to fix this mess? I am sure you don't agree with any of the measures we would and could use overseas. God forbid you infringe someones right. Their life is a different story of course. Apparently collateral damage as long as we don't step on an individuals right to roam freely. Because that is apparently bad bad bad.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[Peikko 1,575]

Why is it 'about time'? It's a tragedy, but I didn't realize that we were obligated to post anything in OT, let alone things that you personally rate as more tragic than other things.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He shot and killed two SWAT members using an assault rifle. Those guys are heavily armored. Why do gun advocates want assault rifles to be legal? Makes no sense.

[Peikko 1,575]

About time someone acknowledged this disgraceful this tragedy. What is even more of a disgrace is the reality that a police officer is killed every 57 hours in Oakland.

What do you propose to fix this mess? I am sure you don't agree with any of the measures we would and could use overseas. God forbid you infringe someones right. Their life is a different story of course. Apparently collateral damage as long as we don't step on an individuals right to roam freely. Because that is apparently bad bad bad.

Completely and utterly wrong. Were do you get your information?

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't start on the 'rights' issues again BY. Everyone is entitled to be treated fairly, even people living in predominantly black or 'hispanic' communities.

[Heracles 417]

Why is it 'about time'? It's a tragedy, but I didn't realize that we were obligated to post anything in OT, let alone things that you personally rate as more tragic than other things.

Every heard of MSNBC? Oh I forgot you don't read US media. You only comment on it.

"We lose officers about every 57 hours in this country," said Chuck Canterbury, president of the national Fraternal Order of Police. "But seldom do you have one of this magnitude."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29817606/?GT1=43001

Don't start on the 'rights' issues again BY. Everyone is entitled to be treated fairly, even people living in predominantly black or 'hispanic' communities.

What about these officers right to be alive? Or their families right to have a husband or a father or a brother or a child? Or should that be on the back burner in your opinion?

I am sure this sort of stuff happened all of the time in the UK.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why is it 'about time'? It's a tragedy, but I didn't realize that we were obligated to post anything in OT, let alone things that you personally rate as more tragic than other things.

Every heard of MSNBC? Oh I forgot you don't read US media. You only comment on it.

"We lose officers about every 57 hours in this country," said Chuck Canterbury, president of the national Fraternal Order of Police. "But seldom do you have one of this magnitude."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29817606/?GT1=43001

Sparky, your pseudo science is amusing. You said in Oakland.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He shot and killed two SWAT members using an assault rifle. Those guys are heavily armored. Why do gun advocates want assault rifles to be legal? Makes no sense.

Weren't they outlawed in CA for a time - after a bank robbery some years ago in which the robbers outgunned the police?

About time someone acknowledged this disgraceful this tragedy. What is even more of a disgrace is the reality that a police officer is killed every 57 hours in Oakland.

What do you propose to fix this mess? I am sure you don't agree with any of the measures we would and could use overseas. God forbid you infringe someones right. Their life is a different story of course. Apparently collateral damage as long as we don't step on an individuals right to roam freely. Because that is apparently bad bad bad.

Jesus BY, not this tripe again.

What do *you* propose to fix this? How about walking your own walk before injecting your idiotic BS into yet another thread?

[almaty 19]

i thought they were still outlawed in calif..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sparky, your pseudo science is amusing. You said in Oakland.

Its not pseudo science. Its just wrong.

[Heracles 417]

Sparky, your pseudo science is amusing. You said in Oakland.

So is that better? We should't be losing an officer in the entire country every 57 hours. But I am sure in this warped liberal mind there is some sort of justification or social issue to blame. Oh I forgot the gun is to blame.

Face it. It's called culture. Was the killer Philippino, Greek, Polish, Irish, Russian, Japanese, Australian, Chinese nope. Certain cultures in this country use violence as a way of life.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Legal Glitch Allows Assault Weapons in California

Gun guys always tell us that it's useless to pass laws against crime because criminals don't obey the law, but now we find out that in California, some "law-abiding gun owners" aren't bothering to obey the spirit of the law at all, if not the letter. While the national assault rifle ban lapsed in 2004 (thanks to the NRA's bully lobbying), California has retained an assault rifle ban. But not a ban on assault rifle parts, apparently, which means some gun owners in Cali are ordering parts, and supposedly doing it legally.

Frames of more than 30,000 AR- and AK-series guns have entered California, according to estimates from some gun advocates, and can be purchased from many weapons dealers in the state and online.

Assault weapons were banned across the country in 1994 and continue to be illegal in California, even though the federal ban expired in 2004. State legislation passed in 2000 expanded the definition of banned assault weapons to include any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine if it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor or grenade launcher; and any semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine if it also can accept a flash suppressor, forward hand grip or silencer. But nothing banned assault-weapon receivers - essentially the frame of a gun.

That created a gray area that many gun owners say is confusing. Gun owners who purchase off-list receivers - so called because they are not on the list of guns banned by the state - are not in violation of the law as long as they don't add the illegal components to the guns, said Randy Rossi, director of the Firearms Division of the attorney general's office. But they could be prosecuted by local courts that consider the weapons to be in violation of the ban, Rossi said.

The San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office and the Stockton Police Department both have said owners of off-list receivers are not breaking the law as long as they don't add illegal features as specified in the assault-weapon ban.

Receivers that technically could be built into assault weapons are legal in the state. Anti-gun groups fear that such receivers easily could be used to build weapons like the ones legislators banned. True assault weapons, such as fully automatic Uzis and AK47s, can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds.

It's not that confusing, guys. California outlawed assault weapons because they wanted to protect their citizens from the violence those weapons enable. Ordering the frames of those weapons is exactly what we said above: while it doesn't violate the letter of the law, it violates the spirit of it. If the only use of these frames is to create assault weapons that are outlawed by the law, then there's no reason to have them around either.

The receivers were first discovered by firearms agents at a Northern California gun show in November. Since then, lawyers for Attorney General Bill Lockyer have been studying legal options and expect to decide this week what to recommend to the Legislature.

"It's an uncertain legal situation," Merrilees said, adding that victims' rights groups have not pressured the state to update the law. "The only legitimate problem right now is confusion among gun owners about what is legal and what isn't legal."

Doesn't seem real uncertain to us. If the frames are only (note we said only) used to make these assault weapons, then they should fall under the same law the weapons themselves do.

Then again, you might wonder who actually thinks assault weapons are necessary in California. Wonder no more.

Despite the quandary, gun owners are using the quirk in the law to their advantage, stocking up on the guns in anticipation of an eventual ban. Mike, a 21-year-old Stockton man who declined to give his last name for fear of being robbed, said he has two guns on AR15 receivers at home and recently ordered two more AK47 receivers from an out-of-state manufacturer.

"This is the cream of the crop," Mike said, adding that he uses the rifles to hunt squirrels and the occasional boar with his friends.

He uses AK-47s to hunt squirrels?!? We didn't realize there were squirrels in California that went around wearing body armor. And why is "Mike" so afraid he'll be robbed? The guy's got two AR-15s at home and two AK-47s on the way-- he shouldn't be afraid of anything!

This is nothing more than a loophole which should be formally closed. These assault weapons don't belong on American streets at all, whether they be in California or anywhere else. Mike will have to find some other way to deal with those combat-trained squirrels of his.

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=939

[Heracles 417]

Sparky, your pseudo science is amusing. You said in Oakland.

Its not pseudo science. Its just wrong.

Watch set again. Private azz comes to a thread and starts attacking from the get go. The thread will now go downhill, again, as you continue to attack rather than form your own opinion.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i thought they were still outlawed in calif..

Probably - I'm not up to date on it.

I'm trying to remember the case - it happened in the mid 90s I think. Bunch of guys with assault rifles, body-armour and several thousand rounds, held off the police for a number of hours.

Sparky, your pseudo science is amusing. You said in Oakland.

Its not pseudo science. Its just wrong.

Watch set again. Private azz comes to a thread and start attacking. The thread will now go downhill, again, as you continue to attack rather than form your own opinion.

The thread was already heading downhill BY, the moment you entered it with your affected outrage and silly blame game about how we're too concerned about "rights".