Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 17, 2014

Three gang members robbed a bank and took hostages in Stockton, California, leading police on an hour-long gun battle and car chase that ended with two robbers and a hostage dead. The only surviving robber told police he used that hostage, a female bank customer, as a shield during the final shootout with police. The robbers struck 14 of the 50 pursuing police cars with bullets from their AK-47-type assault rifles and had a huge amount of ammunition. The robbers were members of the Nortenos street gang.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Asked why police fired on the robbers even though they still had one of three hostages -- the other two jumped or fell from the moving vehicle -- police spokesman Joseph Silva responded, "There was a fear for safety, not only for our officers, but also for the community. ... The suspects had mass amounts of ammunition, either taped to or strapped to their bodies. The gunfire on our officers was relentless."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Maybe this is harder than it sounds by why not just follow them with a helicopter and have the police shadow them from a further distance to avoid all the unnecessary gunfire?

#1 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-17 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

SULLY from what I can gather the robbers were HEVILY armed and had not only proven they were willing to kill hostages, and cops, but shoot at anything that moved as they tried to escape.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-17 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

My questions are (not explicit in the article):

While exchanging gunfire with the suspects in moving vehicles, did the cops shoot "stray" bullets that:
- wounded or killed all/some of the hostages? All three were shot, one dead
- hit cars and homes (some probably occupied)?

Do the public just have to suck up the "collateral damage" while police engage the bad guys? Remember when the LAPD shot the two ladies delivering newspapers driving a pickup truck in a case of mistaken identity (Christopher Dorner). Just collateral damage, people.

This is what gun control gets you, liberals. A police state where only the cops and criminals can defend themselves, the cops act with impunity, the criminals by defintion ignore gun control laws, and you are left HELPLESS...

#3 | Posted by babyhuey at 2014-07-17 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"SULLY from what I can gather the robbers were HEVILY armed and had not only proven they were willing to kill hostages, and cops, but shoot at anything that moved as they tried to escape.
#2 | Posted by Tor"

You didn't answer his question.

#4 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-17 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I thought the Nortenos were mostly a prison gang, and not so much a street gang. But I could be wrong. And yes, by reputation, you have to be uber violent to gain respect within that particulat social fraternity.

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-17 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

the reason this happened in the first place was that the cops thought they themselves were gang members and the gang members thought they themselves were cops...

#6 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-07-17 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the options were:

1. Chase them and hope they did not kill innocent people.
2. Kill innocent people yourself.

Is anyone here a rocket scientist? This decision is very very difficult.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-17 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let us not forget who is responsible for everything that happened, a pack of gangsters committing an armed robbery, willing to shoot it out with armed police. There was not any concern about collateral damages on the part of these thieves. Let me wager that these individuals were not even legally in the United States. It will be found out that these people had already commuted crimes in Mexico if any were over the age of 25. Securing the border, or at least getting some control would seem like an expedient thing to do, but I digress, what government?. Are we a nation or a legitimate power if we can't control who has access to live here. In my state one third of the prison population are from south of the border. They aren't there for minor beefs with the law. The word for illegal among the Mexican families here is "mahado". They are scared, they fear a clamp down from the Feds or a general backlash from the public, especially from us "palos". Hell, I like my neighbors, but I don't see this getting better before it gets a lot worse. We cannot continue doing what we are doing now. The worse thing is the administration seems to be closing their eyes and wishing this all away.

#8 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-07-17 06:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the options were:
1. Chase them and hope they did not kill innocent people.
2. Kill innocent people yourself.
Is anyone here a rocket scientist? This decision is very very difficult.

#7 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

These are options that are available after monday morning coaching. Not sure what the correct response could have been.

Sully brings up an interesting point, but suppose they splitup, went into ...??? Shot people there, took more hostages? The outcome is beyond comprehension. Suppose they put it on TV, and the gang could get more members involved??

Given its gang affiliation, I beleive the best case is to handle it now, as this is a known situation. Not let it go around Stockon..... with unknown consequences.....

I am not a future teller, but all things considered (gang, weapons etc) this might be the best case scenario. But reserve judgement on more investigation.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-17 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once the vehicle was disabled, perhaps the police could have sat it out. But according to reports the gang members kept shooting.....

Do we risk random gun fire? Did they know there was a hostage??

I don't know, but seems like the Police were left with lots of questions and only a short time to make these decisions. Seems like training is important here, and SoP.....

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-17 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nortenos were mostly a prison gang,
#5 | POSTED BY MODER8

Work release.. all part of Obama's and the DoJ's efforts to reduce sentencing for drug offenders...... JK :P
www.justice.gov

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-17 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

These are options that are available after monday morning coaching. Not sure what the correct response could have been.
....

#9 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2014-07-17 06:48 PM | FLAG:

Yeah. It would be nice if there were some professionals there who could have thought about saving those people. Maybe people they could hire and train to protect and serve? I don't know. It's a crazy idea.

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-17 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The worse thing is the administration seems to be closing their eyes and wishing this all away."

Well, that' what your favorite talking point provider tells you anyway.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-17 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks, Obama!

#14 | Posted by censored at 2014-07-17 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Sure it is easy to Monday morning quarterback. But this seems to happen too much where the police are willing to fire away wily-nily even if the public at large are now put at risk. Too many times innocent people and hostages are being shot by cops.

Either police have a first policy of protecting and serving the public, or a policy of ensuring that their first priority is bringing cops coming home at night. There are too many TV shows that BS us.

Remember in NYC a few years ago where the cops got into a circle shootout on a crowded street near the Empire State Building because they were after some drug perp. The public was put at big risk. Serving the public means willing to sacrifice for the public. It doesn't work both ways.

If police view the need to protect themselves first and the public second as number one priority, then they are no longer considered "Public Safety" in my view. When the public recognizes this subtle but important change in mission, they will demand that their budget be pared, so the public can use the savings to protect and arm themselves.

#15 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-17 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#8 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2014-07-17 06:19 PM | FLAG:

Don't forget all the potheads that fund them; believing the idiot lies their dealer tells them that it coems from Jamaica or the dealer's own basement.

#16 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-07-17 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

So the options were:
1. Chase them and hope they did not kill innocent people.
2. Kill innocent people yourself.
Is anyone here a rocket scientist? This decision is very very difficult.
#7 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

The coach lost the game because any idiot coulda seen that Hail Mary pass would have failed. They should have tried a running play at 4th and 28!

#17 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-07-17 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

It would be nice if there were some professionals there who could have thought about saving those people. Maybe people they could hire and train to protect and serve? I don't know. It's a crazy idea.
#12 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Do you know if more could have died? Been held hostage? Did they know there was a hostage?

There are alot of facts you don't have, yet seem to hold guilty, and in a quite disrespectful tone, those that put there lives on the line, for us.

"But this seems to happen too much where the police are willing to fire away wily-nily even if the public at large are now put at risk." - Robson

Fire wily-nily??? Did you watch the video?? Did you read the report??

"Remember in NYC a few years ago....... " - Robson

A few years ago?? Thats all you got?? Now police are running amok.... please get a sense of perspective.

If police view the need to protect themselves first and the public second as number one priority, then they are no longer considered "Public Safety" in my view. - Robson

If they took that view of protect themselves first, they wouldn't respond.......

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-17 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry MONTECORE I don't know enough to say more.

#19 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-17 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is what gun control gets you, liberals. A police state where only the cops and criminals can defend themselves, the cops act with impunity, the criminals by defintion ignore gun control laws, and you are left HELPLESS...

#3 | Posted by babyhuey

No this is what the LACK of gun control gets you. Bank robbers with AK47s that cops have to respond to with massive force.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-17 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

No this is what the LACK of gun control gets you. Bank robbers with AK47s that cops have to respond to with massive force.

Posted by SpeakSoftly

OH the usual stupid BS....ya think more laws will help? We hope more citizens are disarmed.
-Thugs

#21 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-07-17 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they took that view of protect themselves first, they wouldn't respond.......

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-17 07:13 PM |

You mean like the poor slob in Florida that had his bed fall into a 50 ft sinkhole, and the first responders said it's too dangerous for us to go down and rescue him. This represents one more notch in the trend philosophy of protect us, and "not you" response of "first responders".

#22 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-17 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

OH the usual stupid BS....ya think more laws will help? We hope more citizens are disarmed.
-Thugs

#21 | Posted by Greatamerican

You think a thug could do the same damage with a 5 round hunting rifle as a 30 round AK47?

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-17 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

.... Pecking Order of Importance

**** Hey the Cops were just Protecting the BANKS and their (insured) LOOT...what did you expect!

#24 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2014-07-17 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There are alot of facts you don't have, yet seem to hold guilty, and in a quite disrespectful tone, those that put there lives on the line, for us.
.....

#18 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2014-07-17 07:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

RWingers never know anything about anything until they know everything. It's either complete dunderhead stupidity or all knowing superiority.

Yes. I have no respect for policy of killing everyone immediately. That is a pretty crappy deal for hostages.

#25 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-07-17 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

No this is what the LACK of gun control gets you.

CA has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US. Peruse those, I bet you'll find many these gang members violated. I also bet that you think just one more law would have prevented this crime.

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-17 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reports now sound like they were even randomly shooting at houses.

'They not only hit homes and cars on busy streets with their bullets, but they also lost police at one point and used the opportunity to attack rather than escape, Jones said. Rather than pressing the pedal to the floor, putting distance between them and the dozens of officers tracking them, they stopped to set up an ambush, he said.
"They briefly lost officers and then stopped off of the roadway off-ramp and turned and had their weapons aimed at the officers who were soon to make the turn looking for them," he said.'

www.cnn.com

#27 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-17 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I also bet that you think just one more law would have prevented this crime.

#26 | Posted by et_al

YUP. Gun laws like canada's would have.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-17 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gun laws like canada's[sic] would have.

What does Canada have that CA does not?

#29 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-17 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

" I bet you'll find many these gang members violated. I also bet that you think just one more law would have prevented this crime."

I bet that you think you made an intelligent point with your idiotic post. I bet you actually think you are a real thinker. Hilarious!

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-17 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

What does Canada have that CA does not?

#29 | Posted by et_al

The inability for gang members to get assault weapons.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-17 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

What does Canada have that CA does not?

Less people. Heck, California has a greater population than the entire Canadian country.

#32 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-07-17 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"What does Canada have that CA does not?"

Colder/longer winters, and more uniform demographics.

#33 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-17 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

The inability for gang members to get assault weapons.

That's sufficiently vague and non-responsive that you can dance around for a while and never commit. It also demonstrates your ignorance of CA gun laws, specifically regarding your comments about assault weapons and magazines among others probably applicable hear. But don't let that stop you.

#34 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-17 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's sufficiently vague and non-responsive that you can dance around for a while and never commit. It also demonstrates your ignorance of CA gun laws, specifically regarding your comments about assault weapons and magazines among others probably applicable hear. But don't let that stop you.

#34 | Posted by et_al

What's vague about it? Canada's gun laws make guns hard to get and assault weapons near impossible. If we followed their example we'd have less incidents like this one.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-17 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

I bet you actually think you are a real thinker.

Enough of a thinker to not speak about law from ignorance. Enough of a thinker to know that acquisition of land through a war for independence is not theft. Of course, that leaves you behind on both counts.

#36 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-17 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Canada's gun laws make guns hard to get and assault weapons near impossible."

Not really true. Guns are pretty easy to get, just really hard to take to the mall with you when you go to get the mail and some groceries.

#37 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-17 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's vague about it?

Typical of discussion with gun control absolutists, a lack of specifics, here what gun laws CA lacks that would have prevented this crime.

Canada's gun laws make guns hard to get and assault weapons near impossible.

That is an example. CA prohibits unregistered assault weapons. It also prohibits magazines over ten rounds, unless grandfathered as of the year 2000. It also prohibits all weapons purchases except through licensed dealers. It also prohibits felons possessing arms (that has not been verified but given these guys belong to a prison gang, see Moder8 above) it's a fair assumption the prohibition applies. CA also law prohibits various other actions reported taken by these persons. Do you honestly think these gang members complied with CA gun laws? Nevertheless, on your one point, compare Canadian law where "private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under a licence[sic]." www.gunpolicy.org You might want to make other specific comparisons before spouting more generalities. I doubt you will.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-18 12:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Because criminals always follow the letter and spirit of the law and would never illegally acquire a gun to commit a crime....

#39 | Posted by aescal at 2014-07-18 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

The prison gang is the Mexican Mafia (in spite of its name, pretty much strictly an American prison gang) or La Eme (the LA Dodgers tatoos you see often identify the owner of La Eme). The street gangs Surenos, MS13 and Florencia 13 are affiliated with La Eme, and all use the number 13 to identify that affiliation. The Nortenos use the number 12, and are generally opposed to Surenos. Surenos are generally from Southern CA (LA area) and the Nortenos are traditionally from Northern CA.

It's so easy to Monday Morning QB this type of fast moving, evolving situation. Hostage situations suck, and you always have to be prepared for the death of some or all of the hostages. Beslan, Munich, Kenyan mall anybody? Even in the Entebbe rescue, maybe the most impressive of all time, four hostages died.

In this case, there was great potential for other collateral damage/death to other motorists, pedestrians, people taking shelter in their homes. This was an unusual situation, because it was a rolling hostage taking. The fact that it was rolling, and could not be contained, I believe made it necessary that the police move and try to end this crisis as quickly as possible.

When a hostage situation is contained, the police can slow things down, try to get a dialog going, and try to wait out the hostage takers, etc. That was not the situation here.

#40 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2014-07-18 03:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Also, has anybody noticed the incredible increase in the use of Assault type Weapons during the commission of high profile? Bush opened a Pandora's box when he refused to renew the Assault Weapons ban. It seems like more than half of the high profile mass shootings over the past few years have been done with an AR.

#41 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2014-07-18 03:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"What does Canada have that CA does not?"

Universal health care? Oops, wrong thread!

#42 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-07-18 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

"These are options that are available after monday morning coaching. Not sure what the correct response could have been."

Not really. Police departments have debated the merits of high speed chases for years and years. And in this situation, as they are driving through city streets with these nutjobs firing everywhere, it has to occur to them "this is very dangerous not only for us but for the public". I'm not saying I know that doing things differently would have worked better. I'm just wondering if there is a better way to handle something like this.

"Sully brings up an interesting point, but suppose they splitup, went into ...??? Shot people there, took more hostages? The outcome is beyond comprehension. Suppose they put it on TV, and the gang could get more members involved??"

The scumbags splitting up is probably the reason why they don't hang back and let it run its course. Eventually they are going to stop the car and make a run for it and most likely they scatter when they do. My thinking was that if the cops on the ground are hanging back at a distance that won't draw gunfire, they could swarm the area if the vehicle stops. If the cops are hanging back maybe they change direction less often too, making it easier to clear the area ahead of them and set up a roadblock. I'm not saying I know for sure. Just thinking that running gunfight through city streets can't be the ideal solution.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-18 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

No this is what the LACK of gun control gets you. Bank robbers with AK47s that cops have to respond to with massive force.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

WOW! More gun laws for the criminals to break? YOU REALLY THOUGHT THAT ONE THROUGH.

#44 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-18 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is an example. CA prohibits unregistered assault weapons. It also prohibits magazines over ten rounds, unless grandfathered as of the year 2000. It also prohibits all weapons purchases except through licensed dealers. It also prohibits felons possessing arms (that has not been verified but given these guys belong to a prison gang, see Moder8 above) it's a fair assumption the prohibition applies. CA also law prohibits various other actions reported taken by these persons. Do you honestly think these gang members complied with CA gun laws? Nevertheless, on your one point, compare Canadian law where "private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under a licence[sic]." www.gunpolicy.org You might want to make other specific comparisons before spouting more generalities. I doubt you will.

#38 | Posted by et_al

Right. And those canadian licenses are hard to get. Nothing like the USA. Furthermore it doesn't matter what CA gun laws are when arizona and nevada are next door. The entire country has to commit to making non-hunting weapons harder to get.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-18 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

This occurred in Stockton.

Enough said...

#46 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-07-18 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

this is a clear message being sent to future hostages: "sorry you were in the wrong place at the wrong time."

#47 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-18 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45

Your argument proven incorrect, you deflect, "they're harder to get." Yet, it's pretty much a given that no matter the law criminals will not comply so no additional law would prevent this crime.

You're left with "get rid of the guns," a utopian dream that ain't happenin'.

#48 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-18 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is what gun control gets you, liberals.

I love how to the Second Amendment crowd, everything that happens with a gun is taken as evidence we need less control of guns.

You'd think a rolling shootout that went on for miles through California would suggest that guns are a little too easy to get.

But, no. It means we need more! Why didn't that mommy open carry an AR-15 into that bank? Damn California and its insane laws.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-18 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Sorry MONTECORE I don't know enough to say more.
#19 | Posted by Tor"

When has that EVER stopped someone here before?

Note: You just gained tons of respect.

#50 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-07-18 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love how to the Second Amendment crowd, everything that happens with a gun is taken as evidence we need less control of guns.

Seeing as what they did and the guns they had were already illegal, maybe what we need to worry about is enforcing the laws we have, not taking more guns away and leaving the law-abiding even further outgunned.

That's the point about where I (just me, I guess) stand. Passing more gun laws? Why? We're already down to restricting the ones that look scarier than others but function just the same.

Here's an idea! We're already arguing about the validity of police in multiple other threads on this forum - how about they stop worrying about harmless plants that make people lazy of all horrible things, and start tracking illegal guns, instead of "illegal" plants. How about we start fighting the gangs that commit most gun crimes, instead of the law-abiding citizens who might want to legally be able to protect themselves from that type of thug, rather than be a splat on the pavement when cops finally get there?

Just my take. I'm against more gun control. It's not because I want more violence on the street. I'm not some kind of monster. It's because we have enough. What we have is an enforcement problem.

#51 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-07-18 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love how to the Second Amendment crowd, everything that happens with a gun is taken as evidence we need less control of guns.

I love how to the anti-Second Amendment crowd, every criminal act with a gun is taken as evidence we need more control of the law abiding rather than effective control of the law breaker.

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-19 02:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort