Gunmen attack policeman and family

[Dr.Dudd]

Gunmen attack policeman and family
Friday, 15 May 2009
The Police High Command is probing an incident in which gunmen invaded the home of a policeman on Thursday night and tried to kill him and members of his family in Spanish Town, St. Catherine.

It is reported that shortly after eight o'clock on Thursday night, the policeman who is attached to the Organised Crime Unit was at home in the St. Johns Road area, when a man dressed in police uniform entered his yard.

The intruder shouted that he was a "policeman" however, the legitimate cop realised what was happening and pulled his licensed firearm.

This triggered an exchange of gunfire between the two.

Sources say that a group of heavily armed men who were hiding outside fired at the policeman who engaged them in a fierce gun battle.

The men however escaped.

The policeman, his wife and three children who survived the attack were later removed from the location by members of the police force.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

His having a gun, and using it, probably saved his life. But clearly this was not enough to deter the would-be murderers/robbers in the first place. I see he belongs to the organized crime unit; wonder if that has something to do with the attack at his home. Glad he and his family are safe.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His having a gun, and using it, probably saved his life. But clearly this was not enough to deter the would-be murderers/robbers in the first place.</div></div>.... you have missed the point from all the reasoning about armed citizens.
The protection comes not from knowing which well trained citizens is armed but from not knowing which well trained citizen is not armed.
Remind me of the now reworked quotation:

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">&quot;The Five Boxes of Liberty.&quot;* They are:</span><ul style="list-style-type: disc">[*]The Moving Box—right of association, in particular territorially via migration[*]The Soap Box—right of free speech[*]The Ballot Box—right to a voice in your government[*]The Jury Box—right to a trial by jury of your peers[*]The Ammunition Box—right to threaten or use appropriate violence in self-defense[/list]

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His having a gun, and using it, probably saved his life. But clearly this was not enough to deter the would-be murderers/robbers in the first place. I see he belongs to the organized crime unit; wonder if that has something to do with the attack at his home. Glad he and his family are safe. </div></div> You still don't get it. Itis not about having the legal gun. It is about haing you and yoyr neighbors having it. You they would hav eattacked him in a grouop of police officers? and it is not because they are police officers eitheer. It is all about the high percentage of citizens that do not have guns. It is not about a few people having guns,If you were reading what I have been writing all these years onn the topic, you would get the whole principle.
It is about having enough legal guns in thecommuityies that the criminal know he os moee likely to meet resistance than not. So he met resistance herre, but we want deterrence, not defence. as long as only a minority has guns theyose with the guns will always have to defend themselves against criminals.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.... you have missed the point from all the reasoning about armed citizens.
The protection comes not from knowing which well trained citizens is armed but from not knowing which well trained citizen is not armed.</div></div>

Well, apparently I've missed the &quot;reasoning.&quot;

Presumably, a criminal, or group of criminals, would think twice about entering someone's home, for instance, if there was the chance that the occupant was armed, properly trained in the use of the firearm, and therefore able to defend himself, family and property. In the case above, the criminals did not - it seems to me - randomly select a house to attack. They attacked someone most likely to be armed, and trained in the use of firearm. And in this case, the policeman opened fire on them, fought them off, and he and his family are alive today. Their knowing that the possibility exists that they may face gunfire from the policeman didn't seem to deter them in the first place. They made the determination that they could succeed anyway based on the nature of the possibly armed target. I don't presume to understand criminal minds, but criminals generally do seem to make calculations, and why they won't attack, say, Up Park Camp, for example (Dr Dudd asked about this some time ago). Here, they would be met by overwhelming force, unless, of course they had an arsenal the equivalent of, or larger than, Up Park Camp.

I'm not in any way suggesting that deterrence, or its lack thereof, is the vantage point from which to view the question of gun ownership. But I hear 'deterrence' advanced as an argument as to why citizens should be armed. Citizens have the right to defend themselves and property and therefore it follows logically that they have the appropriate means to do so. Citizens of all socio-economic status who pass a stringent background check should be allowed to own a firearm. Obviously this also means that some people - regardless of socio-economic status - won't be allowed to <span style="text-decoration: underline">legally</span> bear arms. The right to bear arms is not absolute. And people who feel threatened but are unable to legally own a firearm will go the illegal route.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. You seem to argue from the assumption that I'm for the disarming of citizens, or having few citizens as possible owning firearms. Never said that. I've said that not all citizens who want a gun may or should get one, and this is not based on class or socio-economic status. I've said that it is the right of citizens to defend themselves and property from criminals with the appropriate means, which may include legally held firearms. Again, this is for those who qualify. I'm just not persuaded by the 'deterrence' argument.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. You seem to argue from the assumption that I'm for the disarming of citizens, or having few citizens as possible owning firearms. Never said that. I've said that not all citizens who want a gun may or should get one, and this is not based on class or socio-economic status. I've said that it is the right of citizens to defend themselves and property from criminals with the appropriate means, which may include legally held firearms. Again, this is for those who qualify. I'm just not persuaded by the 'deterrence' argument. </div></div> So you don't get it that if most people have legal guns criminals are less likely to try to disarm those with guns?
If you getthat. you don't get it thatif criminals are less likely to try to disarm the peo9ple with guns due to the fearof facing guns from the neoghbors? If criminals becomes afraid of using guns against equally armed when outnumbered by armed citizens thee crime rate will be teduced? What power the army would have had then when they are called out?
They certainly don;t shoot to kill onsight? theydon't arrestt wholesale. the fact is if thearmy was put out ther without guns they would be victims too. Anmy unarmed citizen will be potential voctim until the state of affairs is changed.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's clear you don't understand what I'm saying. You seem to argue from the assumption that I'm for the disarming of citizens, or having few citizens as possible owning firearms. Never said that. I've said that not all citizens who want a gun may or should get one, and this is not based on class or socio-economic status. I've said that it is the right of citizens to defend themselves and property from criminals with the appropriate means, which may include legally held firearms. Again, this is for those who qualify. I'm just not persuaded by the 'deterrence' argument. </div></div> So you don't get it that if most people have legal guns criminals are less likely to try to disarm those with guns?
If you getthat. you don't get it thatif criminals are less likely to try to disarm the peo9ple with guns due to the fearof facing guns from the neoghbors? If criminals becomes afraid of using guns against equally armed when outnumbered by armed citizens thee crime rate will be teduced? What power the army would have had then when they are called out?
They certainly don;t shoot to kill onsight? theydon't arrestt wholesale. the fact is if thearmy was put out ther without guns they would be victims too. Anmy unarmed citizen will be potential voctim until the state of affairs is changed. </div></div>


Everything I know tells me that criminals will do anything they think they can get away with. Certain acts of criminality entail planning and calculation. They make calculations based on the likelihood of success. Of course, those calculations can be wrong, and often times - not all - they prove fatal. If criminals feel they can go after a person, or even a group of persons, and get away with it, they will do it. They may even take into consideration the possible resistance they may face from 'neighbors'. Why do you assume that the criminal or group of criminals won't try to commit their crime without detection by those in the surroundings? And why do you assume that 'neighbors' will automatically come to the defense of another neighbor, or try to apprehend the criminal - presumably after the crime is already committed? You're assuming that everyone in the 'neighborhood' shares the same view as to what constitutes each's self-interest. Trust me, if a group of criminals believe they can attack a police station so they can get the guns inside (assuming there is a stockpile of weapons there) and if they believe they can succeed, with planning and calculation, they will do it, and the possibility of coming under heavy gunfire would have been taken into consideration.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the concentration of guns in the hands of a few citizens. I'm for seriously addressing the root causes of criminality, not just arming more citizens. And it may help if you take the time to read carefully what I'm saying, because I don't think you do that.

[neutral]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So you don't get it that if most people have legal guns criminals are less likely to try to disarm those with guns?
If you getthat. you don't get it thatif criminals are less likely to try to disarm the peo9ple with guns due to the fearof facing guns from the neoghbors? If criminals becomes afraid of using guns against equally armed when outnumbered by armed citizens thee crime rate will be teduced? What power the army would have had then when they are called out?
They certainly don;t shoot to kill onsight? theydon't arrestt wholesale. the fact is if thearmy was put out ther without guns they would be victims too. Anmy unarmed citizen will be potential voctim until the state of affairs is changed. </div></div>

I know you`ve been advocating the rights of citizens to bear arms for quite some time now,and I`ll respond the way I`ve always done,that in my opinion it`s not only criminals that would be shot by gun owners,the gun would play a part in all kinds of domestic disputes,issues of &quot;respect&quot;,and general settling of scores.

In short,most Jamaicans wouldnt be able to own and keep a gun responsibly,the temperance doesnt exist where using a gun would be a last resort,..it would be the first option in any dispute.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So you don't get it that if most people have legal guns criminals are less likely to try to disarm those with guns?
If you getthat. you don't get it thatif criminals are less likely to try to disarm the peo9ple with guns due to the fearof facing guns from the neoghbors? If criminals becomes afraid of using guns against equally armed when outnumbered by armed citizens thee crime rate will be teduced? What power the army would have had then when they are called out?
They certainly don;t shoot to kill onsight? theydon't arrestt wholesale. the fact is if thearmy was put out ther without guns they would be victims too. Anmy unarmed citizen will be potential voctim until the state of affairs is changed. </div></div> Automobuiles kill more people thn guns around the world on a daily basis, would you say that guns sho7ld be more available to people around the world than automobiles?
Or would you say that less automobiles should be available, to reduce the incidence of the death?

So every thing is misused, even charuity. That does not justify the supression of them. It si simply illogical to propose that simply because some perso will misuse legal guns we should sit back and complain while wastingmoney on larger and larger security bills and still get deeper and deeper in the mire of murder run amock.
I know you`ve been advocating the rights of citizens to bear arms for quite some time now,and I`ll respond the way I`ve always done,that in my opinion it`s not only criminals that would be shot by gun owners,the gun would play a part in all kinds of domestic disputes,issues of &quot;respect&quot;,and general settling of scores.

In short,most Jamaicans wouldnt be able to own and keep a gun responsibly,the temperance doesnt exist where using a gun would be a last resort,..it would be the first option in any dispute. </div></div>

[britisha]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

Gotcha Neutral!!

Saawtah like &quot;shoot first and ask kwestians latah&quot;.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: britisha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gotcha Neutral!!

Saawtah like &quot;shoot first and ask kwestians latah&quot;. </div></div> those will solve their own problem. Since it will get rid of some who can't learn civility. all ocieties goes through that period, wherethe hot heads kill off each other,and the ones that are able to pas on ciovilized way of living survives. This is whatlead to people livingin different neighborhoods at
. some wuill change their behavior drastically. sko it is not as simple as that. humanbeings canadopt.

..
seriusly though..... Just like how people will change their behavior at the point of a gun,they will also change their behavior on re realization that the neighbor has a gun aan is willing to use uit as some resort. . . People arecapable of responding to different dangers. those with the abillity will be need in the country, those without will be missed.

i don't see much of the murder by citizens as I see a new very civil country,e people can send our children anywher and they return safely. as it use to be.

[britisha]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: britisha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gotcha Neutral!!

Saawtah like &quot;shoot first and ask kwestians latah&quot;. </div></div> those will solve their own problem. Since it will get rid of some who can't learn civility.</div></div>


Ah Doc, now to suit your theme re guns for all Jamaicans. yuh switch now to &quot;those who cannot learn civility?&quot; Noh yuh keep harping that poor folks who resort to criminality do so out of dire economic hardship?<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

all ocieties goes through that period, wherethe hot heads kill off each other,and the ones that are able to pas on ciovilized way of living survives. This is whatlead to people livingin different neighborhoods at
. some wuill change their behavior drastically. sko it is not as simple as that. humanbeings canadopt.</div></div>

Come aawn, is high time you match your subject wid di verb...*cho** Yuh lucky that I cannot wade through this to really hannastan what yuh juss seh,....for Laawd knows...which societies &quot;GO&quot; through what period?

&quot;Civilisation&quot; is an indicator of survival? What is &quot;civilisation?&quot;..it is better if you speak of &quot;civility&quot; but &quot;civilisation?&quot; Where are the &quot;civilised countries?..Would you call the dwellers in the Amazon &quot;jungles&quot; civilised?

Are you aware that there are societies far removed from the Europe and the Americas who are more homogenous/kind/caring/compassionate with each other and they still wear only sackcloth for clothes and still eat with their fingers?...but *I digress..<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
..
seriusly though..... Just like how people will change their behavior at the point of a gun,they will also change their behavior on re realization that the neighbor has a gun aan is willing to use uit as some resort. . . People arecapable of responding to different dangers. those with the abillity will be need in the country, those without will be missed.</div></div>

What are *YOU* talking about? Change what behaviour at the &quot;point of a gun?&quot; Why should people change their behaviour because they hear that their neighbour has a gun, unless it is to move away, for the neighbour is a known mad man?

Have you heard of shootouts? When criminals challenge law enforcement to duels, much less armed citizens? This makes NO sense what you are saying !!!<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

i don't see much of the murder by citizens as I see a new very civil country,e people can send our children anywher and they return safely. as it use to be. </div></div>

Yuh know Doc, I think you had made more plausible arguments to back your position, but this? Just what did you mean to say? Clarify please, for I think you are falling asleep at your keyboard...for this?? Murder by citizen? Citizen as in &quot;not criminals?&quot; Isn't murder by anyone a crime? Duh!!

You keep harping on civility....death rates and crime stats are not the only indicators of &quot;civility&quot;...or non-civility for that matter.. <span style="font-weight: bold"> There is/will be NO society without criminals, with or without guns</span>...While some posit that criminals are made, many also posit that some are &quot;BORN&quot;...refuse to adapt to society's MORES/RULES, for they perceive themselves to be immune to/above such laws/rules....ie sick.

With all that, I am beginning to believe that having a gun for protection/peace of mind will help some, but to say reduce the murder rate..it might be a little too late...

I can bet you if you present these arguments before any Comission contemplating arming citizens, they would laugh you to scorn...sorrie Doc..

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well, apparently I've missed the &quot;reasoning.&quot;

Presumably, a criminal, or group of criminals, would think twice about entering someone's home, for instance, if there was the chance that the occupant was armed, properly trained in the use of the firearm, and therefore able to defend himself, family and property. In the case above, the criminals did not - it seems to me - randomly select a house to attack. </div></div>...and you missed it again.

The purpose of arming Jamaicans is not for the one expert firearm holder to be able to protect is life and property but for the citizens of the Country to collectively act as a deterrent to all but the most intent-on-taking-another’s-life-and-property.

Meaning you are not going to stop a dedicated killer from executing is victim, you are not going to stop a man from killing his wife with his licensed firearm or vice-versa. You are not going to stop corrupt individuals with licensed firearms to have falling out which may or may not result in the taking of a life or two.
What you are going to stop is the strong having power over the weak as expressed in the form of many illegal weapons, in the hands of gangs/individuals intent on having them. To illustrate my point I will give some examples:

Years ago when a few of us who had escaped the madness got calls from the Corner, it was generally a request to send arms to aid in the efforts. It moved to a request for money to purchase the machines, and then it gradually tapered off to requests for money to purchase ammunition for the machines.
It is obvious what is taking place, the man/ooman in Jamaica who wants a firestick can get it at will, however they do need a regular supply of ammunition since they are not purchasing guns just to shine it up and put it forward under their mattress, the guns are being employed in whatever manner.

The man/ooamn who is unwilling to break the law does not have weapon, does not have protection and does not have security unless he/she can pay good money for it.
You must ask yourself why are the law-breakers in Jamaica not killing more cops? The reason in my opinion is four fold:

#1 many of the cops are deeply involved in the killings

#2 any man, ooman or even child can get a firestick if he or she will be willing to break the laws.

#3 the cops have force of arms, public opinion and the force of law on their side.

#4 the need for arms is almost satisfied, so there is absolutely no need for all but the certifiable crazy to risk killing a cop for his weapon.

There is also other evidence that demonstrates the utility of a well armed, well trained and in this instance ruthless citizenry as a deterrent.
Political killings in where gangs aligned to the rival parties are almost equally strong but certainly equally armed are almost zero <span style="font-style: italic">(you can check it out for yourself and I am prepared to give more information)</span>, it tells you something each side is mutually assured that any aggression by ether side will be met in force.
Not so for Intra-Gang ribaldry, where obviously a pecking order ensues and if you are marked for death there is virtually nothing you can do to stop it, armed or not...which is precisely the circumstances I mentioned at the top of this post.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Gunmen attack policeman and family

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">The purpose of arming Jamaicans is not for the one expert firearm holder to be able to protect is life and property but for the citizens of the Country to collectively act as a deterrent </span>to all but the most intent-on-taking-another’s-life-and-property.</div></div>

I'm not convinced of this. See my response below to Doc on this point.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everything I know tells me that criminals will do anything they think they can get away with. Certain acts of criminality entail planning and calculation. They make calculations based on the likelihood of success. Of course, those calculations can be wrong, and often times - not all - they prove fatal. If criminals feel they can go after a person, or even a group of persons, and get away with it, they will do it. They may even take into consideration the possible resistance they may face from 'neighbors'. Why do you assume that the criminal or group of criminals won't try to commit their crime without detection by those in the surroundings? And why do you assume that 'neighbors' will automatically come to the defense of another neighbor, or try to apprehend the criminal - presumably after the crime is already committed? You're assuming that everyone in the 'neighborhood' shares the same view as to what constitutes each's self-interest. Trust me, if a group of criminals believe they can attack a police station so they can get the guns inside (assuming there is a stockpile of weapons there) and if they believe they can succeed, with planning and calculation, they will do it, and the possibility of coming under heavy gunfire would have been taken into consideration.</div></div>

Of course, with more people being armed, the criminal may not know who is armed and who isn't, but this won't be enough to deter him - again, we're talking about calculation. If he/they think(s) he/they can succeed, he/they will do it. 'Self-preservation' is taken into account. I don't pretend to be have any expertise on the criminal mind, but that's how it seems to me. In other posts, I stated my views on gun ownership.