« | »

Man Kills 3 Cops – Feared Obama Gun Ban

From the (suddenly interested in motive) Associated Press:

Police official: 3 officers killed in Pa. shooting

PITTSBURGH – A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

Three officers were killed, said a police official at the scene who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Police spokeswoman Diane Richard would only say that at least five officers were wounded, but wouldn’t give any other details.

The man who fired at the officers was arrested after a several-hour standoff. One witness reported hearing hundreds of shots…

Police did not immediately release the gunman’s identity, but his friends at the scene described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns.

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said the gunman feared "the Obama gun ban that’s on the way" and "didn’t like our rights being infringed upon." Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said he feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn’t violently against Obama." …

Obviously, we hold no brief for cop killers of any stripe.

But compare this article with the Associated Press reports about the mass murdered in Binghamton, New York.

Despite reports that Mr. Yoong hated the United States and felt degraded here, the AP has so far reported that there is no known motive for his killing spree.

Meanwhile, in this case, the motive is even described before we get into the details of the crime. Even before we know the killer’s name.

Why is that?

(Thanks to Franco for the heads up.)

  Update!

The Associated Press has, a day later, begun to hint at Mr. Yoong’s motives.

Police: Binghamton victims had multiple gunshots

By WILLIAM KATES

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. (AP) — The police chief of Binghamton, N.Y., says most of the 13 victims at an immigrant center had multiple gunshot wounds.

Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said Saturday that people who knew Jiverly Wong were not surprised by his actions at the American Civic Association.

He says that until last month Wong was taking classes at the center, which helps immigrants assimilate.

He says the gunman felt people were making fun of him for his poor English language skills.

The chief says Wong wore body armor during the attack, indicating he was prepared for a confrontation with police.

Though they are still soft-pedaling it, compared to the perpetrator in the earlier story.

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, April 4th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

35 Responses to “Man Kills 3 Cops – Feared Obama Gun Ban”

  1. bill says:

    Domestic disturbance … gun ban lets go shoot some cops. hmmm makes as much sense as the usual APObama story, doesn’t it.

    Surprised he wasn’t part of the illegal Mexican gun runners to boot. MAybe they thought that might look out of place.

  2. catie says:

    It’s just a matter of time, perhaps 2 years at the most? It’s coming folks and I’m not sure there is anything we can do about it.

    • DoctorRock says:

      It’ll be their funeral (figuratively speaking of course), and they know it. We’ve only got eighteen months to the midterm election, and Bill Clinton has always blamed the NRA for the Republican takeover in ’94. Those of us who’ve been watching the gun grabbers since ’68 can tell you that they’ve always used atrocities like these to push for a bill they just happened to have handy. “Not wasting a crisis” is nothing new to the Dems. But they’ve been gun shy since ’94. IMHO they’re just playing to their base.

  3. aze_216 says:

    Hillary Clinton mentioned renewing the assault weapon ban during an interview in Mexico w/ Greta v.s. from Fox news. I guess she’s still upset that she lost the election. After all – isn’t her job now to do serious and important international things? – like pushing toy buttons to magically restart diplomacy with her new “smart” powers?

    • JohnMG says:

      Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? Right!!

      You go, Hillary. This is just the type of event you and Obama have been hoping for.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Never mind the fact that the Dems are killing more people with their agenda than guns in the foreseeable future!!
      At least until Americans get good and fed up with them and their Nazi tactics.

  4. curvyred says:

    I also think the local media in Pittsburgh is presenting “information” that really hasn’t been proven and is more political ranting from the obviously liberally-biased media.

    This is what the police chief said:

    “Police chief Nate Harper says the motive for Saturday’s shooting isn’t clear. ”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/pittsburgh_shooting

    “How Did This Start?”

    “Police said four officers were called to 1016 Fairfield St. for a domestic call at about 7 a.m. Harper said the suspect’s mother was in the basement of the home and is the one who initially called police.”

    Not that I am condoning his actions, beleive I am not! – But it doesn’t seem to me like he actively went out and sought the police as targets.

    http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19094064/detail.html

  5. crosspatch says:

    “He says the gunman felt people were making fun of him for his poor English language skills. ”

    Well … I suppose that is why North Korea has built a missile. Someone has been watching too much Team America and got a little upset at the portrayal of English skills. It all makes sense now.

  6. pinandpuller says:

    Matt Damon!!!!!!

  7. bobbys says:

    Im sure as soon as they give his name it will have a big R in front of it!!!!

  8. canary says:

    Aside the domestic disturbance issue: One of his friends gave a different issue, that the gunman had been upset about being laid off from his job at a glass factory earlier this year.

    The media has totally spun this, to a gun control issue. Millions and Millions of America are concerned about Obama’s stand on his goal to stop manufacturing of guns in the U.S. All the more residents need protection in their neighborhoods.
    It can save lives rather than waiting on police. It could have saved the lives of these police officers instead of neighbors ducking bullets for hours.

  9. proreason says:

    In 5 short paragraphs the story attibutes the violence 5 separate times to the man’s fear of losing his guns.

    Yet not a single piece of evidence for that motivation is provided.

    And if that were his motivation, why were the police answering a call for “domestic disturbance”. Are we supposed to believe that he was having a rowdy argument with friends or neighbors about his gun rights, and he took the opportunity at the arrival of police to murder three of them?

    If so, it must be the only time since the invention of firearms for something like that to occur.

    Nine times out of ten, when an officer is shot, it is because a criminal is fighting for his freedom, hates authority, or is simply a violent and enraged person.

    But in this case, we are told 5 TIMES that it is for a motive that has never before even been identified, ever.

    And they call themselves “journalists”.

  10. jerusamus says:

    I personally am waiting for the day the media all stands back and says,My God, What Did We Do!

    • DW says:

      Nice thought, but I suspect they’d all have to be sitting on horses, hands bound, and with nooses around their necks before that’ll ever happen.

    • JohnMG says:

      That’s an even nicer thought, DW. ;-}

    • Euryale says:

      Almost all urinalists are Manhattan Martini Marionettes – in addition to being shivering, yapping, floor-wetting Chihuahua’s.

  11. canary says:

    AP: “The shooting occurred just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001. The officers were the first Pittsburgh city officers to die in the line of duty in 18 years.”..

    “According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 133 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2008, a 27 percent decrease from year before and the lowest annual total since 1960.”..

    The above quotes from AP may imply that prehaps the Bush’s administration has kept things safer for at least law enforcement.
    Obama comes into office, with all his violent talk of executives strapped with suicide explosives, and all Obama’s “I’m angry” statements, and then threatening U.S. citizens with “pitchforks!!!!” Acorn breaking into homes, stalking and protesting at people’s private homes. Yes, Obama’s doom, lowering the moral of America; telling countries America was bad, is bad, things worse than every in U.S. history, and all his African-Americans and minorities will have it worse that white folkes, yes, worse than ever in history (don’t forget his words at a racist meeting after election, with the Black Democratics.)

    It’s beyond me, where the Associated Press, came up with this following statement, prehaps from one of the many sneaky lies Obama told or said to get elected. It certainly was not his original agenda.
    .
    “Obama has said he respects Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms, but that he favors “common sense” gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he would approve some curbs on assault and concealed weapons.”

    for the update:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/pittsburgh_shooting

    By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI and DAN NEPHIN, Associated Press Writers Ramit Plushnick-masti And Dan Nephin, Associated Press Writers – PITTSBURG update on Gunman who killed 3 police-officers

    According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 133 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2008, a 27 percent decrease from year before and the lowest annual total since 1960.

  12. mrfocus says:

    SG monitor this:

    Mr. Perkovic and other former classmates said they were surprised by this morning’s events. Mr. Perkovic said Mr. Poplawski was opposed to “Zionist propaganda” and was fearful that his right to own weapons would be taken away but he wasn’t a member of an organized group or militia.

    here

  13. mrfocus says:

    dennis roddey of the pg is spreading the “right wing” narrrative. heard interviewed on the fred honsberger show. dishing for the am ap

  14. seanrobins says:

    You didn’t get the true flavor of the guman’s “friend” from the AP article. I saw his interview on local tv: In addition to the “gun ban” comment, the friend also mentioned the “jewish” lobby, as well as the things “they” don’t want you to know about.

  15. ptat says:

    Yeah,yeah, but don’t forget if guns were totally banned these guys would not have been able to kill anyone, you see? There is just no way a criminal, deviant or general law breaker could get a gun, you see, so there would be no killing ever again. Well, maybe with a bow and arrow, but those could be banned, too. Well, maybe with a knife, but those could be banned, too. Well, may be with a rock, car, bare hands, piano wire,etc. I know, it’s simple–the Obama administration and Congress could pass laws making murder illegal. That should do it….

  16. wardmama4 says:

    Uh everyone is ignoring the obvious -‘domestic’ violence (there is nothing domestic about beating the crap out of a spouse) calls are the most dangerous calls there are. Police are usually very cautious in these calls, simply because they are the most dangerous calls. But I digress.

    Shame on the AP – for peddling crap in a blanket as reality, for down-playing the obvious for an agenda and more importantly for lying in service to The One ™.

    What part of shall not be infringed do the Klownposse in DC and The One ™ not understand.

    Ptat – love that last part yeah – Congress could pass laws making murder illegal. That should do it. – LMAO

  17. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    I’d still rather live in a society with an armed citizenry. Despite the fact that a few whack jobs might go off the deep end and start shooting, as opposed to living in a society where no one has the means to resist an oppressive government.

  18. Barbie says:

    Commie Obommie and his cadre of syncophants in mainstream media are just waiting for ‘their’ perfect storm of gun violence, illegal immigrants, and disgruntled, angry ‘white guy.’ If this scenario ever occurs, they will joyfully use it as their pretext to ‘save the day’ and ‘Americans’ by imposing gun control, and censure or ban conservative talk radio (for hate speech).

    Not wanting to waste a crisis (or tragedy, I’m sure), Obama and Axelrod’s disappointment the other day must have been palpable – the mass murderer in Binghamton was an immigrant himself One could see Chuck Schumer working up to gun control hysteria.

    Obama is more than happy to rape the Constitution.

  19. proreason says:

    “Commie Obommie and his cadre of syncophants in mainstream media are just waiting for ‘their’ perfect storm of gun violence, illegal immigrants, and disgruntled, angry ‘white guy.’”

    Barbie hits it on the head.

    NOTHING you see from the administration, which includes the propaganda arm, the MSM, is without purpose.

  20. David says:

    Obama, the great negotiator, probably already has a great plan ready to go. You see he can still allow you to keep your guns as long as you become a member of the “civil peace corps”. He has already said he would provide the guns.

  21. andrewsvan says:

    Here we go again. The media will latch on to every shooting story and over play the coverage (like when Clinton was in office) giving the perception that gun violence is rampant, and thus giving the gun grabbing libs the excuse to further restrict our rights. You know if SportsCenter replayed every UConn basket and good defensive plays and interspersed a couple of Michigan State baskets and good plays you would think UConn won by 60 points. That is how the media will cover shootings and thus enable the politicians to further the gun ban agenda.

  22. Franco says:

    Now today, the New York Times, of all things, admits that the gunman was not exactly your typical defender of the Second Amendment:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05pittsburgh.html?hpw

    “Neighbors said Mr. Poplawski had been kicked out of North Catholic High School and then was dishonorably discharged from the Marines three years ago, and had worked a series of short-term jobs in recent years.
    But no one could explain why he did what he did on Saturday.
    “I’d like to understand why,” Deputy Chief Donaldson said. “It’s senseless.” ”

    Not a whiff of the Chosen One’s name appears in the article.
    But the AP was the first one to get the story out, so let’s guess which version ran in the morning papers today, nationwide???

    • decius says:

      So, according to his neighbors, he wasn’t even allowed to own a firearm, having been convicted of a federal felony. -National Firearms Act of 1934

      EDIT: The 2010 AP story linked below clarifies that he had an “Entry Level Separation” from the Marine Corps. That is entirely different from a “dishonorable” discharge, and does not result in a felony conviction. The same story, however, restates the AK-47 claim, a firearm I find it unlikely he could afford.

      That makes me wonder: Who identified the firearms? The article lists “AK-47 rifle, a .22 long rifle and a pistol”. If the police gave the press this list, why didn’t they describe the caliber of the pistol? If anyone else provided the list, then why should I trust their ability to identify firearms? I doubt that anyone with the employment history indicated would own any object worth as much as a pre-1981 “Title 2” firearm.

      As well, if the police fired any significant number of shots, they should have killed him. I might believe that he fired enough shots for witnesses to have counted hundreds, but even really cheap 7.62x39mm rounds cost over $10 for a box of 20. I doubt he ever spent $50 on ammunition for his illegal firearms.

      I wonder if we will ever get the truth about this story.

  23. caligirl9 says:

    This quote was in the SF Chron:

    The mother told police her son had been stockpiling guns and ammunition “because he believed that as a result of economic collapse, the police were no longer able to protect society,” the affidavit said.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/04/national/a062341D13.DTL

    A bit of a new spin …

  24. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    Unlike most multiple shootings, especially those involving police, the suspect lived and will face trial. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court. Does he have a valid case for self-defense and was his fears for loss of freedoms, or life justified? I’m sure his lawyer will probably plead not guilty by mental defect, but it would be interesting if he gets a hot-shot defense attorney and a sympathetic jury.

  25. pdsand says:

    We are told we need legal abortions because people will go black market and get back alley abortions, resulting in the deaths of the law breakers. So basically all moral convictions and beliefs have to go on the back burner to keep those who would break the law from placing themselves in danger.

    Why then, do we have to go ahead and ban guns at all costs. Why shouldn’t we take a lesson from a story like this, and let people keep their guns to prevent the loss of life that would almost certainly flow forth from citizens holing up and shooting it out with police who came to collect guns by force? I suspect the people whose lives would be lost aren’t the right kind of people, and they can just die for all the democrats care.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »