This new Blog covers some of the pertinent issues regarding the E.P.D. police killing of 22 year old Thomas McClain in their posting today that is worth sharing here: "GUN OR NO GUN, THAT’S NOT "REALLY" THE ISSUE." [Emphasis mine.]
REALLY? What IS the "issue" then?
Occasionally, these people produce something worthwhile and pertinent, unfortunately they use these occasions to demonstrate the true gutless nature of their deceptive hypocrisy. Sadly these credulous wannabe standard bearers for law and justice, and moral civic good puke out with this closing statement of their position - their issue:
In summary this family was minding their own business, committing no crimes, and on their private property. Tommy McClain then is gunned down by the EPD.
The bottom line here is there is no justification for the use of deadly force in this incident. This is a textbook wrongful death case. We hope the Federal Government takes a hard look at this civil rights violation. [Emphasis mine.]"Wrongful death?" No justification? Then this is murder plain and simple. The E.P.D. knows who shot and killed that boy and the officers should be fired and indicted, if not in jail. These cops broke or violated the law and are criminals. If the police chief refuses to act, then he should be summarily fired too. You want these trigger-happy cops back on the streets of Eureka? If the Tuluwaa Crybabies cannot state these simple truths, then they participate in the pending coverup and whitewash the outrage. "We hope the Federal Government takes a hard look at this civil rights violation" is pure sick bullshit from people that are just as paranoid as the E.P.D. and their bosses.
Here is the rest of their post:
Eureka Police Chief Andy Mills did confirm that “there was a gun recovered. I don’t want to get into where exactly the gun was until I can prove that forensically to my satisfaction…..”
For the purposes of discussion and debate for this blog post we are going to assume that the Police recovered a gun.
The point of fact number 1 is that Tommy McClain was on his property and he was 100% within his rights to be in possession of a gun.
Number 2 the police were not responding to reports of a crime. They were in the area for completely unrelated reasons. So no crime was committed by Tommy or anyone else at that residence.
Number 3 so far as reported, NO request or command to “drop the weapon” was made.
Number 4 the family reports that had been celebrating a birthday and consumed alcohol. Again you can be as drunk as you want at your own home, that’s perfectly legal.
What's described here is plain and simple murder. No one needs to be "patient" and "wait for the facts" to know that. The people of Eureka should understand, refuse uphold and enforce accountability to the law and ultimately it is the people of Eureka that will pay the price. These cops will just keep on killing innocent people. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? See what I mean, read the comments with care, they'll make you sick.
[UPDATE on Comments]
The reason why cops have carte blanche immunity in this country and in Humboldt County - Simpleminded people that think and act like Fred. Here is his comment on this TE posting. The simple fact that someone legally has a gun in his or her hand does NOT, nor should it constitute a reasonable threat to a police officer or anyone else. Cops do not legally have the right to kill people because they "feel" threatened or that "their lives are in danger." If so, then they are killing people based upon what they are feeling and thinking and not on what the person is actually doing - their lawless criminal behavior, in this case, literally threatening their lives. The simple possession of a weapon, gun in this case, in your hand, in your belt or holster or standing against the door jam or lying on a table does NOT constitute a de facto threat to anyone, only in the unstable minds of paranoid scared crapless, trigger-happy police officers. Which is exactly what society gets when you do not enforce the law. It's been my experience that they feel threatened and can get really hostile when you simply ask them a question they do not want to answer. Such a reality neutralizes or negates the legal rights of law abiding citizens to posses weapons for any reason, let alone for their legal right to self-defense without putting their lives and family's lives in mortal danger. It was the police officers acting upon their worthless, misguided "beliefs" that has judged them - as it has Fred.
[UPDATE on Comments]
The reason why cops have carte blanche immunity in this country and in Humboldt County - Simpleminded people that think and act like Fred. Here is his comment on this TE posting. The simple fact that someone legally has a gun in his or her hand does NOT, nor should it constitute a reasonable threat to a police officer or anyone else. Cops do not legally have the right to kill people because they "feel" threatened or that "their lives are in danger." If so, then they are killing people based upon what they are feeling and thinking and not on what the person is actually doing - their lawless criminal behavior, in this case, literally threatening their lives. The simple possession of a weapon, gun in this case, in your hand, in your belt or holster or standing against the door jam or lying on a table does NOT constitute a de facto threat to anyone, only in the unstable minds of paranoid scared crapless, trigger-happy police officers. Which is exactly what society gets when you do not enforce the law. It's been my experience that they feel threatened and can get really hostile when you simply ask them a question they do not want to answer. Such a reality neutralizes or negates the legal rights of law abiding citizens to posses weapons for any reason, let alone for their legal right to self-defense without putting their lives and family's lives in mortal danger. It was the police officers acting upon their worthless, misguided "beliefs" that has judged them - as it has Fred.
OPJ wrote, “Obviously the dropped gun isn’t registered to the victim so the victim becomes a felon for carrying an unregistered gun and the shooting becomes justified.”
I believe that’s irrelevant in this instance. The only thing that matters is whether the officers had justification to fire at the guy. They had no idea who owned the gun. A handgun laying on the ground or on a table some feet away wouldn’t qualify as justification, imo, no matter who owned the gun.
Even if the gun turned out to be stolen, it wouldn’t justify a shooting in and of itself.
The point of contention should be, and is, whether he had a gun in his had(sp), or whether the officers had reason to believe he had a gun in his hand, thus feeling their lives were in danger. [Emphasis mine]
--Joe
