Man held for allegedly shooting at undercover cop

[ellisonz]

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, January 21, 2012

An Oakland man has been arrested on suspicion of firing shots at an undercover San Leandro police detective conducting a drug investigation.

Matthew Hong Nguyen, 25, was arrested Thursday in Pinole and is being held without bail at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin on suspicion of attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic rifle and a weapons enhancement.

The incident happened Wednesday night after plainclothes officers had taken up positions near Anza Way and Aloha Drive to conduct surveillance. At about 9:20 p.m., a detective sergeant spotted a suspicious Acura and began following it, police Lt. Jeff Tudor said.

Nguyen allegedly made a U-turn and drove toward the sergeant on the 300 block of Aloha. Before the sergeant could identify himself, the suspect rolled down the window and shot at least six rounds from 6 feet away as he passed the unmarked police car, authorities said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/20/BADL1MS7J4.DTL#ixzz1k9rxzbXZ

Close call...you gotta wonder what this guy was thinking, and why we so loosely regulate firearms...

[Straw Man]

1. "Criminal Engages in Criminal Behavior" -- stop the presses!

What was he thinking? Probably something like this: "I'm a drug-dealing thug, and there's a car following me. It's either some other drug-dealing thug looking to rip me off, or a cop looking to bust me. Either way, I'm going to shoot." Actually, since undercover cops tend to drive unmarked cars, it's more likely that he thought the former.

He was probably also thinking how hard it was to fire a long gun at a moving target while driving. If he had hit his intended target, it would have been purely by chance.

[ellisonz]

3. With his trusty semi-automatic rifle...

Good thing there are more of them than ever out there!

[Straw Man]

5. He got six shots off.

He could have done that with a revolver.

[ellisonz]

7. He didn't though...

...he used a semi-automatic rifle. Just goes to show that, as I've been told many times now, that it's the most popular rifle in America today, will find its way into criminal hands. No one wants to take away your hunting rifle or competition shooting gun, but this gun craze will get out of hand. I'm sure I'll now be told that we're safer than ever; tell that to the citizens of the Bay Area and to this police sergeant.

[PavePusher]

15. Semi-auto's ARE hunting and competition rifles.

Your ignorance is easily cureable... but you have to want the cure. Like the blind men and the elephant, all you have to do is... open your eyes.

[ellisonz]

22. My eyes are wide open, thank you very much. n/t

[X_Digger]

33. Well peel them back a little longer..

.. before they snap shut..

Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns in competition

Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns used in hunting

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. His ignorance is willfull and can only be cured by some intellectual integrity

However his continual emotional vs rational approach to these issues makes it a forlorn hope

[ellisonz]

42. Ahh...where would be we be without the emotion-less.

Probably still rationalizing slavery and Indian removal...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Emotions like racism and hatred do not lead to good government

There is a different between being rational and rationalizing otherwise unsupportable positions, something you seem to excel at.

[ellisonz]

44. All the guns we can make and hand out because the free market commands...

...is an unsupportable position. There are more guns than people in this country. That is madness. Tyranny of the armed and violent over the unarmed and peaceful.

[liberal_biker]

47. Hand out?

Damn - where do you live? I have to pay for mine...


Oh - btw - take away the guns from the law abiding, and you'll REALLY see what happens when the armed and violent are in charge.

[ellisonz]

49. Would you care to elaborate...

...on "Oh - btw - take away the guns from the law abiding, and you'll REALLY see what happens when the armed and violent are in charge."

[liberal_biker]

50. Sure...

If you remove guns from the law abiding, criminals will of course still have them. Now, you have a law abiding public which is not armed and a criminal class which is. How much of an increase in crime do you think you're going to see?

Violent people are just that - violent. Criminals also are just that - criminals. Thinking that someone who is either violent, criminal or both is magically going to become a good person just because the non-violent, non-criminals have had their weapons taken away is foolish and naive.

[Simo 1939_1940]

52. The amusing thing about this "debate" is that

if people who are pro-restriction were compelled to demonstrate the courage of their convictions by flying a large, conspicuous flag with the "no-guns" logo above their dwellings we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Straw Man]

16. You totally missed the point.

He didn't though...

...he used a semi-automatic rifle.

Yes. To do what he could have done with a humble revolver. Why aren't you calling for banning those? Or are you? Be honest, now.

Just goes to show that, as I've been told many times now, that it's the most popular rifle in America today, will find its way into criminal hands.

Since I don't want to be accused of Grammar Nazism, I won't ask you to parse that. I will hazard a guess that you mean that guns that find their way into criminal hands should be banned or restricted. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that this category includes every type of firearm ever manufactured. In which case, this assertion

No one wants to take away your hunting rifle or competition shooting gun ...

takes on an air of disingenuity and insincerity.

I'm sure I'll now be told that we're safer than ever; tell that to the citizens of the Bay Area and to this police sergeant.

Expect also to be told that any one incident does not constitute a crisis and necessitate a public policy reaction.

[SteveW]

17. Yet for some reason the thug still chooses handguns most often...

I note in your statement:

"No one wants to take away your hunting rifle or competition shooting gun, but this gun craze will get out of hand."

While the first portion is demonstrably false (think Chas. Krauthammer, DiFi and others), I am struck by your exclusion of self-defense (as opposed to hunting and shooting sports). Why is this?

NOTE: The "gun craze" has been with us for a long time. There is no serious scholarship which suggests that civilian ownership of firearms is a recent or even post Civil War phenomenon. Civilian ownership of firearms has been widespread since colonial times.

[Glassunion]

2. Please explain how California "loosely" regulates firearms.

And how those "loose" regulations contributed to this crime.

[ellisonz]

4. I don't think individual state laws...

...have much to do with the spread of arms to criminals on the Mainland. Buy a semi-automatic rifle in Utah, sell if illegally in California, who's stopping you?

[Glassunion]

6. You do realize that the majority of crime guns

in CA, originate in CA.

[ellisonz]

8. That's a real comfort. n/t

[Glassunion]

10. Which brings us back to my question.

Please explain how California "loosely" regulates firearms and how those "loose" regulations contributed to this crime.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. You ask the impossible from someone who posts on emotion not reason

[ellisonz]

20. An argument used often...

...by the powerful against the weak.

Would you deny the validity of the senses? Ever read any Montaigne?

[PavePusher]

24. How you 'feel' about something means nothing when it goes against empirical evidence.

Fact do make one powerful. Lack of them makes you weak.

I suggest you strengthen yourself.... with facts.

[ellisonz]

25. I suggest you explore your humanity...

...which is undoubtedly based in the senses and not an in the abstraction of empiricism.

Your empiricism empowers criminals; it is stupidity at its highest level.

&feature=fvst

You cannot escape your humanity; there is always a question of ethics.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. I suspect we will happily remain a band of unevolved brutes...

...incapable of comprehending the deep moral harm caused by widespread gun ownership.

[Straw Man]

37. Say what?

I suggest you explore your humanity...

...which is undoubtedly based in the senses and not an in the abstraction of empiricism.

Um... Sensory experience is the basis of empiricism. Perhaps you meant "based in the emotions."

Your empiricism empowers criminals; it is stupidity at its highest level.

Would you care to explain that one? We're talking about public policy here. What's your recommendation? Just change stuff until you feel better?

"Don't confuse me with the facts."

--Representative Earl Landgrebe during the Watergate hearings.

[ileus]

13. loose = citizens are allowed to own/buy actual death spewers.

[ellisonz]

19. Your question is based on a false premise. n/t

[Glassunion]

26. Then so are your statements in the OP.

Close call...you gotta wonder what this guy was thinking, and why we so loosely regulate firearms...

[ellisonz]

27. As a national policy...

...which is far more important to the overall picture than disparate individual state policies.

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#

[Glassunion]

28. So you know where this gun originated from

and how it came into the hands of this individual?

Please then explain specifically how this firearm was loosely regulated and how it contributed to this crime.

Remember: you started the op with the comments, I'm just asking you to explain them.

[ellisonz]

29. I know the possibilities...

...and none of them reflect highly on the notion that we have effective gun control.

[Glassunion]

34. I believe we have more than effective gun control.

Where we fall down is enforcement.

Thousands of people every year are not prosecuted for straw purchasing, felons in possession, minors in possession, etc... Etc...

The shit's already illegal, out DAs rarely go after the crime.

[ellisonz]

38. Sounds like you think we need to raise more revenue...

...to process these court cases.

[Glassunion]

39. We need to raise revenue to not drop charges?

[ellisonz]

40. Takes prosecutors and judges to move those cases through...

...the Court system is pretty backed-up. Plus California for a fact has no more space in its prisons. I don't know about the other states. I don't know why the general public should pay for the outlandish policies endorsed by the gun lobby, seems to be a legal fee on gun sales couldn't hurt.

[Glassunion]

45. Your not making sense.

Where is the "tax" that pays for the existing prosecution of criminals?

The US has declared a war on drugs that costs about $40 billion a year. What exactly are we taxing to pay for that? So far we are only 23 days into the year. We have spent over $2 billion dollars and have arrested over 100,000 people for drug violations. We have incarcerated over 700 people on drug violations as well. Who is paying for the prosecutors and judges to investigate, prosecute and hear those cases?

Should we tax prescription medication to pay for those who abuse it? Why should the general public pay for the outlandish policies endorsed by the pharmaceutical lobby? Those on medications know that they are buying a controlled substance, and should bare the financial burden for prosecuting and imprisoning those who steal and distribute these controlled substances.

Where is the "tax" for prosecuting and incarcerating murder, rape, assault, arson, robbery, burglary, illegal drug distribution/possession, grand larceny, etc...

[ellisonz]

46. Funny...

...how gun owners don't want to take responsibility for gun crime. It has to be everything but the guns causing it...

[liberal_biker]

48. Why should I take responsibility for a crime I didn't commit?

Just because a criminal uses a gun and I own guns does not make me responsible. After all, criminals eat food and breathe air - does that mean anyone who does those things shares responsibility for a criminals actions?

A gun is an object - nothing more. It does nothing on its own. A human being must pick it up, load it, and operate it for anything to happen.

Blaming a gun for crime is like blaming the car for drunk driving.

[Glassunion]

51. Funny...

...how home owners don't want to take responsibility for burglary. It has to be everything but the homes causing it...

Funny...
...how knife owners don't want to take responsibility for knife crime. It has to be everything but the knives causing it...

Funny...
...how car owners don't want to take responsibility for car thefts. It has to be everything but the cars causing it...

Funny...
...how penis owners don't want to take responsibility for sexual assaults. It has to be everything but the penis causing it...

Funny...
...how pharmaceutical patients don't want to take responsibility for controlled substance crime. It has to be everything but the pharmaceuticals causing it...

Funny...
...how lighter owners don't want to take responsibility for arson. It has to be everything but the lighters causing it...



Take a hard look at your own words.
"It has to be everything but the guns causing it..." No. It does not have to be "everything but the guns". But it has never, ever, been the gun that has caused anything.

A gun, in all of human history, has never... ever... caused anything to happen. Ever. Neither has a knife, a set of car keys, a towel, a pen, a laser or a nuclear weapon. All of the causes were humans doing something with these items, it is never the item itself. You show me how a gun causes the crime and I would be amazed.

[ellisonz]

53. Except...

...we say that a door or window left open can make a home a more likely target for burglars.

Except
....we ban the carrying of butterfly knives in some states because we judge them to be criminal implements.

Except...
...we say that if you leave your car unlocked, window down, or fail to use a security device you're more likely to be subject to theft.

Except...
...we teach ethics to our children, hold marches, and encourage safety steps to reduce sexual assaults.

Except...
...we make pharmaceutical companies go to create lengths to prove the efficacy and safety of drugs before allowing them to be described.

Except...
...we go to great lengths to encourage fire preparedness and prevention techniques to try to stop and better fight fires.



Take a hard look at the society you live in. No man is an island...

If guns are rampant, gun crime is more likely. There's no way to get around that statement without distortion. This whole idea that human beings are somehow separated from their conditions is the biggest load of crap perpetuated by the captains of industry. I'm glad to see you're Plato's man in a cave - go outside the cave and see the forms

[gejohnston]

54. but how about crime in general

but that does not follow that violent crime regardless of weapon does down.
They are not rampant in the US for the most part. Of course they are more rampant in Vermont and Wyoming than in USVI and DC. Which is safer?

[Glassunion]

55. You missed the point completely.

...we say that a door or window left open can make a home a more likely target for burglars. A door or window left open by humans. The house itself did not cause burglary.

Except
....we ban the carrying of butterfly knives in some states because we judge them to be criminal implements. The knife carried by a human does not cause knife crime.

Except...
...we say that if you leave your car unlocked, window down, or fail to use a security device you're more likely to be subject to theft. Again, the open window, unlocked car, etc was left in that state by a human, the car itself does not cause car theft.

Except...
...we teach ethics to our children, hold marches, and encourage safety steps to reduce sexual assaults. You teach humans, humans hold marchs and we encourage safety in humans. The penis itself does not cause the crime.

Except...
...we make pharmaceutical companies go to create lengths to prove the efficacy and safety of drugs before allowing them to be described. These are again all human activities, the pharmaceuticals themselves are not causing the crimes.

Except...
...we go to great lengths to encourage fire preparedness and prevention techniques to try to stop and better fight fires. It's not the lighter or matches causing the fires, again it is the human.

Guns do not, nor have they ever caused anything what so ever. A gun has never caused a murder, a gun has never won a pistol competition. The one and only common denominator in all of these scenarios is the human. Plain and simple.

Take a hard look at the society you live in. No man is an island... I never said it did, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

If guns are rampant, gun crime is more likely. If guns were rampant, I'd say that you have a point, however...


There's no way to get around that statement without distortion. This whole idea that human beings are somehow separated from their conditions is the biggest load of crap perpetuated by the captains of industry. I'm glad to see you're Plato's man in a cave - go outside the cave and see the forms

[ellisonz]

56. "The one and only common denominator in all of these scenarios is the human."

"The gun made it easier" - liberal biker

[Glassunion]

57. So?

The gun makes self defense easier.

[ellisonz]

59. Aren't we constantly told the gun is a tool?

It is part of the form. This continuity of the human being with his environment is the topic with which we are concerned when we consider meaning. The truth is that we cannot separate ourselves from the material world. All of this noble conception about how objects can't possibly be responsible for anything is nonsense. The ancient Greeks would have laughed in your face if you told them the sword wasn't responsible for anything, that it was simply a tool and all that mattered was the intention of the user. It's a question of fate.

[X_Digger]

61. Ahh, waxing philosophical, the new wharrgarble..

17th century Massachusetts Bay Colony Puritans would have laughed in your face if you'd said that objects don't have their own intentions and thoughts.

Stupidity doesn't appreciate in value with age.

[ellisonz]

62. "Stupidity doesn't appreciate in value with age."

= "Ahh, waxing philosophical, the new wharrgarble.."

[Glassunion]

63. Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.

Ancient Greeks also wiped their ass with a stone. What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

[rrneck]

64. Spontaneous free association video clip.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrBI8uCKi2lI&v=rBI8uCKi2lI&gl=US

[gejohnston]

58. although at close quarters

a machete would be even easier. A bomb is the easiest.

[ellisonz]

60. You spend too much time...

...fantasizing about violence.

[gejohnston]

65. Actually I don't

not so sure about you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. re: "I don't think individual state laws have much to do with the spread of arms to criminals..."

I don't think anyone does. There aren't any laws requiring the arming of criminals. What are you trying to say?

[ellisonz]

21. Federal law is much more important...

...since laws among the states are inconsistent. We need to strengthen our Federal laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. re: "Federal law is much more important..."

Typical anti-thinking...

Hmmmm. How do I answer this?


BU!_!_S**T!


Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Well, I'm sure you have.





Ever read the 10th amendment?

[ellisonz]

31. heh...

...I stopped reading at the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Oh my!

Absent that day???



You're missing some good ones then.

Feel free to keep... ing.

[ileus]

9. Drugs the #1threat to freedom...another gun victimized

By a scumbag asshat druggie with zero respect for my firearm freedoms.

[SteveW]

18. Respectfully, it is the War On Drugs which is #1 threat to freedom. nt

[aikoaiko]

14. Clearly this shows that police don't need to be armed since the undercover detective...

...couldn't stop the criminal from shooting with his/her weapon.

[montanto]

41. Innocent until proven guilty. We still do that, right?