Ceasefire WA rewards police chief who lost Glock

[DRZinn]

The fact that the chief was not at fault does not change the fact that the chief was irresponsible.

 

[Optical Serenity]

While I've never seen an LEO leave a firearm irresponsibly somewhere, I have many times seen and taken a report where someone had their firearm stolen for being negligent.

 

[Jammer Six]

He campaigns to remove firearms from people like me and yet I hold myself to a higher standard than he does.

That's his RIGHT.

It has nothing to do with the crime.

Separate them, and I'll help you hang him. But not for excercising his rights, (just like you and I do) and not for being a victim.

Personally, I say we hang him for his decisions during the Pioneer Square melee.

The fact that the chief was not at fault does not change the fact that the chief was irresponsible.

Locking a firearm in a car is perfectly responsible, not to mention that those two statements are mutually exclusive.

It pleases me to hear someone admit he wasn't at fault.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That's his RIGHT.

Yes, just like it is our right to show up at his events and explain how the chief has been less helpful than most gunowners in preventing firearms from falling into the hands of criminals.

 

[Euclidean]

I think the inference that it's his fault his property was stolen is indeed ridiculous. I have to store firearms in a vehicle all the time to comply with Texas laws. If somebody jimmies my locked door open, locates the hidden safe container, cuts it open with an oxyacetylene torch without damanging the contents or otherwise bypasses the mechanism, and manages to do all this undetected in public in broad daylight, they're just a darn good criminal and they're better at stealing things than I am at locking things up.

Heck an entry tool, a cinder block, or a set of lockpicks and a plasma cutter would let someone get at every gun I own if they were determined enough. We can't make our guns secure enough. The safes that I and many others use are not really all that secure when faced with a professional safecracker or just a common cutting torch. I'm not even allowed to bolt my safe to my floor. We can't all afford secret rooms with reinforced walls and vault doors in our houses. Heck I can't even afford a house.

There's a lot of good reasons to despise this official, but let's not pull a Feinstein and start grasping at straws and what ifs and deliberately warping perceptions of a simple matter.

 

[Old Dog]

Gee, somewhere I lost track of this thread's original intent ... Guys, up here, pretty much everyone involved with gun issues understands that the chief is a hypocrite. No, he's not a "gun guy." Nor -- and I've heard this from folks within that particular agency -- is he particularly respected by the rank-and-file members of the department.

Fact is, COP of a department such as SPD is a political appointment. Hence, political statements frequently emanate from the mouth of the appointee. Are you surprised?

Why does everyone get so spun up about a politician saying things that we expect politicians to say? Can the zebra change his stripes to spots? Why does the dog li-- , ah, no won't go there ... Fact is, many law enforcement administrators become allies of anti-gun groups. We know this. There are better ways to deal with this than constantly preaching to the choir and reminding them of what page the next hymn's on ...

So is the purpose of the thread to continue bashing the chief for doing something that many of us are forced to do (not that it's right that I may have to leave a gun in my car, of course), or is it to further glory in the "expose" of another weaselly head LEO?

 

[hammer4nc]

Let's all repeat after old dog: (and operation cease fire)... everyone must refrain from criticizing hypocritcal, incompetent, gun-grabbing, political prostitutes, IF they happen to be a member of a police department. The issue of "cop bashing" eclipses all others, for the purpose of discussion.

Must defend the indefensible (if it wears a badge)...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So how many of you here would be supportive of a gunowner who left his loaded firearm on the hood of his car and it was stolen? If we criticized him for it would it be blaming the victim?

What about if it was left in an unlocked car? A locked car but in plain view? Obviously there is a line there that people have to draw. I don't like leaving my firearms in a locked car. I don't think it is a secure form of storage and I don't do it unless I don't have any other options.

I certainly don't leave them in my car when I could just as easily take them inside my own home and I don't buy guns on the premise that this one will be cheap if it gets stolen. I consider those last two practices irresponsibile.

I also think it is irresponsible for the chief of police of any major city to be driving around in his city car with no more security than a car door lock or window. I haven't been to Seattle in a while but I bet that shotguns aren't just left in the back seat of cop cars. I bet they are in a locked rack.

So is the purpose of the thread to continue bashing the chief for doing something that many of us are forced to do (not that it's right that I may have to leave a gun in my car, of course), or is it to further glory in the "expose" of another weaselly head LEO?

If many of us are driving around in unmarked Crown Vics then I would say BOTH. For the rest of us who have a bit less visibility, I don't think it is a good practice but that is the way the laws are written. Now if the chief's city car was just as plain as mine and he was going into a place where he was prohibited by law from carrying then he has my every sympathy for this single incident; but he is still a hypocrite.

 

[Jeff]

I don't recall saying the chief is at fault for the crime. What I did say is that he is negligent for leaving a loaded firearm in a public place. As Bartholomew pointed out, comlying with the minimum standards for legality of "keeping a gun" would not necessarily remove one from acting irresponsibly.

I don't see why it is morally or objectively wrong to point out that the police chief is a hypocrite for doing what little he did to prevent a serious crime. If one goes on public record espousing opinions that posit gun control, because one feels that illegal gun crime is serious, then one better do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of illegal possessors, especially if one is the police chief-- who has been sworn to SERVE AND PROTECT.

Keeping an unattended loaded Glock in a public place hardly fits the description of to serve and protect.

 

[BedPimp]

It seem to me that an argument could be made that if the chief of police cannot safely keep a gun, how could a normal ordinary person be expected to? If I wanted to pass gun control legislation, that's what I would be saying.

Now, for the car being locked and the gun not being visible. Is he going to say he didn't lock his car? Or that he left the gun on the seat? Probably not. He holds a political position and politicians are not known for their honesty.

I don't believe a Crown Vic is on the California list of approved safety devices. If the gun was taken here, and used by a child, or used to hurt a child, he could be up on criminal charges.

Todd
Who frequently leaves gun locks on unloaded guns if they are in a locked container in his locked vehicle.

 

[Old Dog]

hammer4NC, where in any of my posts do you understand me to be defending the chief or telling you that we should not criticize someone for stupidity simply because he/she wears a badge?

Take your filter off, bud. This:

The issue of "cop bashing" eclipses all others, for the purpose of discussion.

has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

If you slow down, read a bit more carefully, perhaps you may be able to discern that I am simply pointing out that it's ridiculous to continue the same ol' refrain ... I don't continue cursing and criticizing the coyotes in my neighborhood for the offense of being coyotes and behaving like coyotes ... I expect that, and I simply deal with them as coyotes.

The reality is that COP is a political position. Expecting these folks to behave in a neutral, apolitical manner is not realistic. Expecting them to exercise common sense is not realistic.

Should the chief be setting an example? Of course. Was he negligent? I submit that's debatable. But many of you seem to be operating under the presumption that the guns police officers carry should be regarded by them as sacred objects and cared for accordingly. In reality, though, for many cops (especially the admin weenies), the gun is just a tool, like their flashlights (or, in the case of the brass, their Blackberries and Palm Pilots).

Personally, I resent law enforcement officials who pander to any political movement, but especially to the anti-gun crowd. However, I know that (at least where I live), these folks do not necessarily represent the majority of the personnel in their agencies, nor does the populace around here automatically jump onboard a concept just because the COP makes a statement which the media reports ... Even though it rains a fair amount up here, it doesn't follow that our brains are soggy.

 

[Jammer Six]

We're not defending the Chief.

We live here. I live in Seattle. I'll be first in line to hang the Chief.

But I'll stop you from hanging the victim.

Bartholemew, you won't be here. The idea that you will be is pretty amusing.

There is no parrallel between leaving a weapon on the hood of a car, and leaving it locked in that car, out of sight. One is legal, the other isn't. One is moral, the other isn't.

If you don't see the difference, I pity you.

Why on earth do you people think you need this issue to hang Chief Kerlikowske?

The guy is begging to be hung for his command decisions during crisis! This is the guy who ordered the rank and file, who were deployed in full riot gear, to retreat and leave a citizen to get beat to death during the Pioneer Square riot. Cowardice is a real reason, and way, way sufficient.

Wouldn't you rather hang him for the good reasons, with residents of Seattle lining up behind you?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It was taken from a car. A locked car. It was not in plain view. It was, therefore, in complete compliance with all Washington law.

I will have to go back and read the original reports to see if the information was even reported. I see nothing in this thread so far that has mentioned any documentation that (a) the car was locked, or (b) that the pistol was not in plain sight. Heck, this man is the chief of police. He probably operates under the falacious assumption that nobody would ever think of messin' with a police car. He may well have left the doors unlocked and the pistol right on the seat.

Ah, from the link to the KOMO News article:

Seattle Police won't say how the thief broke into the car or how the gun was stored.

The article goes on to say that the gun "... was secured in the car," said Seattle Police spokesman Sean Whitcomb. "It wouldn't have been available to anyone just wandering by." But spokesman Whitcomb was offering the typical knee-jerk denial, since by his own admission, "I don't have exact details as to where the gun was in the car, ..." (Reality check, Whitcomb. If you don't know where it was, how can you state with such certainty that it would not have been available to anyone walking by?)

Obviously, someone in the Seattle PD knew the details, because the chief must have told someone, but they would not release the information. Which suggests to my conspiracy theory-prone mind that there's something potentially embarrassing which they wished to keep from the public.

 

[Jammer Six]

Well, okay, Hawkmoon, but to me, the article that I cited earlier in this thread is pretty clear.

To wit:

• How the chief secured the gun in the vehicle, except to say he had not left it in plain view.

• How the car was broken into, except to say the car was locked.

• Whether the chief had secured the pistol with a trigger lock or other safety device, although Whitcomb said he assumes the gun was loaded.

End quote.

The source the article cites is Department spokesman Sean Whitcomb.

I'm curious what "original reports" you have access to that the official spokesman for SPD was unaware of.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

From the article linked by Jammer Six:

Department spokesman Sean Whitcomb said he did not know whether Kerlikowske was carrying another gun at the time of the theft or what the chief was doing while his car was parked downtown.

Whitcomb said he also did not know:

• How the chief secured the gun in the vehicle, except to say he had not left it in plain view.

• How the car was broken into, except to say the car was locked.

• Whether the chief had secured the pistol with a trigger lock or other safety device, although Whitcomb said he assumes the gun was loaded.

I'm curious what "original reports" you have access to that the official spokesman for SPD was unaware of.

I have no access to any original reports. I stated that I was taking information from the article in the KOMO-TV web site. They cited the same department spokesperson, Mr. Whitcomb. Basically, it sounds like the chief got out of town and left Mr. Whitcomb with a lack of concrete information. Beyond that, given that we have no official word on how the vehicle was broken into or how the weapon was secured, I am not willing to accept the assurance of a department spokesperson that the vehicle was locked, that the weapon was out of sight, or that the weapon was secured. After the fact, of course, the chief would SAY all those things, but that doesn't make them true. Doesn't it seem just the least bit odd that nothing else was stolen from the vehicle? If the vehicle was locked and the gun secured or hidden out of sight, a crook would have had to either jimmy the lock or just smash a window to gain entry. Crooks don't waste a lot of time going through a car when they break in -- the time when they are in the vehicle looking around is the time when they are most vulnerable to being caught off-guard. Typically, they grab whatever article(s) of value are RIGHT THERE, and amscray.

This suggests to me that the reason Whitcomb didn't know how the weapon was secured is that ... it wasn't. I'm guessing (and I understand fully that I am "guessing," so don't even bother to tell me I can't do that) that the gun was NOT hidden or secured, but left in a visible spot in the car. I also believe that the chief may possibly have been less than 100 percent forthcoming regarding the exact details of whether or not the vehicle was locked, and how the weapon was secured within the vehicle.

You go right ahead and believe whatever you wish.

 

[Jammer Six]

I'm sorry, did you just say that you're not willing to accept the word of the official spokesman, but that we have no official word?