Lovelle Mixon: Oakland Police Shooter Kills 4 Cops

[anitacastillo 0]

keep in mind there is a difference between COUNTY and COUNTRY

lots of counties make up a state, lots of states make up a country.

Yeah I noticed that mistake. Nonetheless

UK: 1 every 4,735 hours

US: 1 every 57 hours

US has 5 times the population of the UK.

UK has 8 times the population density.

Glad you admitted your (twice) misreading mistake.

Your attacks on my city, Oakland, are unfounded. Have you ever visited/lived here? How do you assume its a ghetto?

While this tragedy was occurring - less than 8 miles from my home - I was in another part of town having lunch and going to a movie with a good friend. Just like every city/town I have ever visited, Oakland has good parts and bad parts. And unfortunately illegal guns are possible to obtain.

I'm not sure if you are jaded by living so close to DC (which I just read has the highest rate (3%) of HIV in the US) and therefore making racist remarks. Oakland is a city with problems - but I love the diversity of our city and the SF Bay Area.

Please pray for the officer's families and our community!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

So ... doesn't this read that Mixon was already a convicted felon (violating parole) and was already prohibited by law from owning / possessing a firearm. Guess the law worked in preventing this paroled individual from possessing a firearm. So ... let's make more laws to forbid a convicted felon ... and wanted person (parole violation) from possessing firearms.

When all the facts come out and we find out how he obtained the assault weapon from someone who bought the parts legally, then what will you say? Banning assault rifles will not stop all from obtaining them, but it will make it much more difficult to obtain them.

obtained how?

Legal Glitch Allows Assault Weapons in California

so you were not referencing him getting these parts from someone who'd legally obtained the parts, gotcha.

[natty bumppo 297]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

[Peikko 1,575]

You still don't get it BY, one is simply deaths in the line of duty, the other is deaths that are as a result of violent assault during the line of duty. It is not possible to draw any conclusions based on two different sets of data.

You really ought to give up. BY consistently demonstrates that nothing short of a uranium tank shell will penetrate that thick skull of his:

Give up? Why would BY do that? After all, he is the lone voice of reason facing off against the tyranny of the librul conspiracy bully boys.

I don't get how anyone feels they are 'ganged up on' during message board conversations. That's another of these paranoia theories that I am simply don't get. This is a message board, everyone is free, within the rules of the TOS to state their opinion. Sometimes opinions go one way, sometimes another. It is what it is.

[Heracles 417]

You still don't get it BY, one is simply deaths in the line of duty, the other is deaths that are as a result of violent assault during the line of duty. It is not possible to draw any conclusions based on two different sets of data.

140 officers killed in the US in 2008

183 officers killed in the US in 2007

http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2008/12/31/3...ty-in-2008.aspx

------------

37 officers killed in the United Kingdom over 20 years.

------------

63 killed in California alone 1992-2001

http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/homicide/hm01/pok.pdf

------------

California:

Area: 163,696 sq mi

Population: 36,756,666

Pop density: 234.4/sq m

United Kingdom

Area: 94,526

Population: 60,975,000

Pop Density: 637/sq mi

[Peikko 1,575]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

They don't take unnecessary risks and are highly trained. I am not sure, are you suggesting that these SWAT members were somehow less capable than usual? Would it really hurt anything to admit that the fire power of one of his weapons was greater than was normally encountered in such situations?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

Its possible sure. Its also possible that the fact that the guy had an assault rifle (as opposed to a .38 revolver) allowed him to hold out longer.

[Peikko 1,575]

You still don't get it BY, one is simply deaths in the line of duty, the other is deaths that are as a result of violent assault during the line of duty. It is not possible to draw any conclusions based on two different sets of data.

140 officers killed in the US in 2008

183 officers killed in the US in 2007

http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2008/12/31/3...ty-in-2008.aspx

------------

37 officers killed in the United Kingdom over 20 years.

------------

63 killed in California alone 1992-2001

http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/homicide/hm01/pok.pdf

------------

California:

Area: 163,696 sq mi

Population: 36,756,666

Pop density: 234.4/sq m

United Kingdom

Area: 94,526

Population: 60,975,000

Pop Density: 637/sq mi

OK, you have produced a new set of data. What is the point you are trying to illustrate with this new set of statistics?

[Heracles 417]

Give up? Why would BY do that? After all, he is the lone voice of reason facing off against the tyranny of the librul conspiracy bully boys.

I don't get how anyone feels they are 'ganged up on' during message board conversations. That's another of these paranoia theories that I am simply don't get. This is a message board, everyone is free, within the rules of the TOS to state their opinion. Sometimes opinions go one way, sometimes another. It is what it is.

So this is not an example of this is it either? One of many differences between you and your buddies to myself is that I am not going to run off and report.

Time and time again you and your buddies opinions are based on your view of the poster. Be it me Marc, VW posting etc. The outcome is always the same.

As always, the stats posted are wrong or irrelevant while your opinions are correct and logical. The only reason I waste my time with you guys is that I have both the time and money to do so. Working from home. So catching you out again as I did last week is fun.

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

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.

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?

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".

I commented on your opinion. Deal with it

You really are an idiot.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[natty bumppo 297]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

They don't take unnecessary risks and are highly trained. I am not sure, are you suggesting that these SWAT members were somehow less capable than usual? Would it really hurt anything to admit that the fire power of one of his weapons was greater than was normally encountered in such situations?

What ... the swat team is not trained to go against someone with a firearm? or a lone wacko with a semi? maybe they weren't expecting a second firearm to appear and rushed into things. who knows at this point.

still waiting for you to give a clear definition for "certain types of firearms" features that are bad as any firearm can be used to "gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them". doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a person with any loaded firearm with intent to maim will hold a swat team off for a while.

[natty bumppo 297]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

Its possible sure. Its also possible that the fact that the guy had an assault rifle (as opposed to a .38 revolver) allowed him to hold out longer.

.38 vs .223 vs 7.62x39 vs .243 vs .22 vs 9mm vs .45acp, vs .308 vs etc etc ... any will ruin someones day.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Peikko 1,575]

Give up? Why would BY do that? After all, he is the lone voice of reason facing off against the tyranny of the librul conspiracy bully boys.

I don't get how anyone feels they are 'ganged up on' during message board conversations. That's another of these paranoia theories that I am simply don't get. This is a message board, everyone is free, within the rules of the TOS to state their opinion. Sometimes opinions go one way, sometimes another. It is what it is.

So this is not an example of this is it either? One of many differences between you and your buddies to myself is that I am not going to run off and report.

Time and time again you and your buddies opinions are based on your view of the poster. Be it me Marc, VW posting etc. The outcome is always the same.

As always, the stats posted are wrong or irrelevant while your opinions are correct and logical. The only reason I waste my time with you guys is that I have both the time and money to do so. Working from home. So catching you out again as I did last week is fun.

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

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.

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?

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".

I commented on your opinion. Deal with it

You really are an idiot.

You are wrong, there is no conspiracy. Your evidence is like your statistics.

[Peikko 1,575]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

They don't take unnecessary risks and are highly trained. I am not sure, are you suggesting that these SWAT members were somehow less capable than usual? Would it really hurt anything to admit that the fire power of one of his weapons was greater than was normally encountered in such situations?

What ... the swat team is not trained to go against someone with a firearm? or a lone wacko with a semi? maybe they weren't expecting a second firearm to appear and rushed into things. who knows at this point.

still waiting for you to give a clear definition for "certain types of firearms" features that are bad as any firearm can be used to "gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them". doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a person with any loaded firearm with intent to maim will hold a swat team off for a while.

This was a very unusual outcome what ever way you look at it. One officer killed is bad enough, but 4? Something about this situation did not pan out in the normal way. I don't know what that something is, or even if there are a series of somethings. However, it's not ridiculous to assume that something about the weaponry the perpetrator was using contributed to how this situation played out.

Of course, no one here has said that other factors could not be involved, we simply do not know, but to deny that it is a possibility seems, well strange and illogical to me.

[Heracles 417]

.38 vs .223 (7.62x39) vs .243 vs .22 vs 9mm vs .45acp, vs .308 vs etc etc ... any will ruin someones day.

What does the caliber or riffle have to do with it though. I know a lot of people who own such weapons yet don't go murdering cops. Let alone for simply being pulled over.

The facts in this case is that this 27 year old was a convicted felon. This wasn't some guy off the street who went postal. The guns were most likely obtained in the black market anyway. Something legislation cannot stop being so close to Mexico and since having such an open border policy. Even a total gun ban would not have prevented this.

You are wrong, there is no conspiracy. Your evidence is like your statistics.

Yeah something you will discredit and deny no mater what it is. Basically, for the sole reason that I posted it. As is the case with many other posters you and your small group of buddies dislike.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for the rest, as your line or reasoning is based on such faulty analysis of data, I really can't see any point continuing down any of the paths you suggest.

There isn't any outrage against any firearms that I can tell. FP is quite sensibly wondering whether it makes sense to allow certain types of firearms to be within the public realm because it seems likely that the loss of life was made worse by his being more heavily armed than is usual.

certain types? define based on more than cosmetic descriptions.

Presumably the sort of firearms that allow a person to gun down 2 police officers then hold off a SWAT team and gun down two of them.

Excepting the possibility that the guy is some sort of master of the bullet-ballet to rival a character in John Woo movie - it might be reasonably surmised that the technology the guy had access to had something to do with his "success"

That is my point. The first deaths can be attributed to the surprise factor, but against a SWAT team?

a swat team is "perfect" and people don't make mistakes? expose themselves unnecessarily? the perp had zero to lose ... he knew the game was over... and basically his last option was suicide by cop.

Its possible sure. Its also possible that the fact that the guy had an assault rifle (as opposed to a .38 revolver) allowed him to hold out longer.

.38 vs .223 vs 7.62x39 vs .243 vs .22 vs 9mm vs .45acp, vs .308 vs etc etc ... any will ruin someones day.

What would you go to war with?