When BB guns are illegal, only criminals will have BB guns

Let's tackle some more thoughts from Gwen's point of view. She writes:

4/14/2010: Anchorage man’s brandishing of gun leads to his death

April 14, 2010 - Leave a Response

I’m fairly confident that when this guy bought this handgun, he did so because he wanted to be “safer”. Boy, was he wrong, just like all the other gun owners in our country. Guns do not make you safer.

Categorized in Guns
Tags: Alaska, Anchorage, Crime, Death, Firearms, Guns, Handguns, Hunter, NRA, Palin, Pistol, Republican, RickRydell

4/15/2010: Anchorage man killed holding his handgun

April 17, 2010 - One Response

It’s neat that this man could get a firearm so the police (well regulated militia) could then kill him. Yay guns!

Categorized in Guns
Tags: Alaska, Anchorage, Crime, Death, Firearms, Guns, Handguns, NRA, Palin, Pistol, Republican, RickRydell

Here's the lead from the ADN article:

Anchorage police shot and killed an armed man emerging from his home after an hour-long standoff in Midtown early Wednesday morning.

The man, 48-year-old Joseph Gannon, was declared dead at the scene. He died on his doorstep after threatening police with a handgun, Anchorage police said.

We've already addressed issues about the nature of the militia and the fact that the police are best described as a "select" militia (although they may also be well-regulated). The main problem with Gwen's comments are... that the guy didn't have a firearm. He actually was wielding a realistic-looking airgun.

A man shot and killed by police Wednesday in a Midtown hostage standoff was carrying an air pistol manufactured to look like a popular semi-automatic handgun, a police spokesman said Saturday.

Oops! There actually wasn't only a firearm involved at all! This was a BB gun. So, what is the solution? To ban everything that looks even remotely threatening? Oh wait, that is the plan. Copy.

APD Actions and Search & Seizure

I saw a lot of comments on the ADN stories that basically said, "The cops didn't have a warrant, they should be crucified for shooting someone who was just exerting their rights against warrantless searches." I think this line of reasoning is rather flawed.

From a legal point of view, the fourth amendment has been watered down a fair amount. In this case, there are all sorts of justifications for the police to try and enter the building. For example, the guy appeared to be in the midst of committing a felony (holding his mother hostage), so an arrest and search incident to arrest would most likely be legit. Additionally, "exigent circumstances" doctrine allows officers to immediately enter if necessary to save lives (including their own).

From a practical point of view, once the SWAT team shows up the time to negotiate about constitutional niceties is over. The only thing you can do then is (1) be taken out or (2) find a way to surrender yourself peacefully. The only thing to do in that scenario is to call the media, ensure they're watching, then tell the police hostage negotiator, "Hey, in 60 seconds I will be lying face down in the foyer with my hands above my head, and my firearms will be unloaded and secured in another room. I do not grant permission for a search, but do what you're going to do." If it turns out that your rights were violated, sue the department after the fact.

I think it is clear that this was a disturbed person who wanted to die. This was "suicide by cop," plain and simple. While it is a tragedy, and it would have been preferable for the police to use non-lethal force, I don't fault them at all for responding with lethal force to deal with an apparently imminent threat. It appears that they acted appropriately in this situation.