Gunmen Kills Three Pittsburgh Police Officers

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://kdka.com/local/officers.shot.Stanton.2.975820.html



Gunmen Kills Three Pittsburgh Police OfficersPITTSBURGH (KDKA/AP) ―



A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said.

Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

Three officers were killed.

Police planned to release more details at a 3 p.m. news conference Saturday.

Poplawski was arrested after a several-hour standoff.

One witness reported hearing hundreds of shots.

The shootings occurred just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot March 21 in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

Poplawski's friends at the scene described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns.

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said he feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama."

Perkovic, a 22-year-old who said he was Poplawski's best friend, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, "Eddie, I am going to die today. ... Tell your family I love them and I love you."

Perkovic said: "I heard gunshots and he hung up. ... He sounded like he was in pain, like he got shot."

Vire, 23, said Poplawski once had an Internet talk show but that it wasn't successful.

Vire said his friend had an AK-47 rifle and several powerful handguns, including a .357 Magnum.

Another friend, Joe DiMarco, said Poplawski had been laid off from his job at a glass factory earlier this year.

DiMarco said he didn't know the name of the company, but knew Poplawski had been upset about losing his job.

The officers were called to the home in the Stanton Heights neighborhood at about 7 a.m.

Tom Moffitt, 51, a city firefighter who lives two blocks away, said he heard about the shooting on his scanner and came to the scene, where he heard "hundreds, just hundreds of shots. And not just once - several times."

Rob Gift, 45, who lives a block away, said he heard rapid gunfire as he was letting his dog out.

He said the neighborhood of well-kept single-family houses and manicured lawns is home to many police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other city workers.

"It's just a very quiet neighborhood," Gift said.



I wonder where this guy got the idea that Obama was going to ban guns. Seems to me that some people are being led to believe that crap like, 'Obama is going to take your guns', is actually going to happen.


This has been a bad couple of weeks for law enforcement.

[Clandestino]

3 less police officers to powertrip

[LnGrrrR]

Do they still have the chair in PA? This fucker should get life without parole, at least.

[BonnerDynasty]

They should torture this man until he has no life left in him.

Instead, the taxpayers get to wipe his ass for years.

[BonnerDynasty]

I wonder where this guy got the idea that Obama was going to ban guns. Seems to me that some people are being led to believe that crap like, 'Obama is going to take your guns', is actually going to happen.


This has been a bad couple of weeks for law enforcement.

You need to understand how the government plays its game. They will not outright ban guns because they will start a revolution and most of the milt./LEO will not side with the whigs.

Look how the government and media are using Mexico to push for the "assault" weapons ban instead of just saying "we want to take your "AW" away. It is easy to see their agenda.

Instead, they will make it very expensive to own and operate firearms...as they have already began to do.

[DarkReign]

You need to understand how the government plays its game. They will not outright ban guns because they will start a revolution and most of the milt./LEO will not side with the whigs.

Look how the government and media are using Mexico to push for the "assault" weapons ban instead of just saying "we want to take your "AW" away. It is easy to see their agenda.

Instead, they will make it very expensive to own and operate firearms...as they have already began to do.

Pretty well summed up. It was mentioned in some thread awhile ago, something I didnt actually believe to be true, that the military would not side with the government in the event of revolution.

I thought that an odd conclusion to draw. I actually think the military would side with the government, for no other reason than financing. This government spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

IF there was a successful rebellion, do you think that sort of spending would continue under the new government?

I dont. Thus, the military paradox.

[LnGrrrR]

Pretty well summed up. It was mentioned in some thread awhile ago, something I didnt actually believe to be true, that the military would not side with the government in the event of revolution.

I thought that an odd conclusion to draw. I actually think the military would side with the government, for no other reason than financing. This government spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

IF there was a successful rebellion, do you think that sort of spending would continue under the new government?

I dont. Thus, the military paradox.

The military is not some one-minded monolithic entity, though. There's different services, different departments, different squadrons/platoons, etc etc.

In the event of a revolution, most of the military, yes, would probably side with the government. But what if the revolution were due to the President seizing power in a deliberate, unconstitutional way? There's a decent/good chance the military would side with the revolution.

Look at Abu Ghraib. Some lawyers defended the process, others did not. Militaries can teach some morals, but they don't have a monopoly/control over all of them. :)

[DarkReign]

The military is not some one-minded monolithic entity, though. There's different services, different departments, different squadrons/platoons, etc etc.

In the event of a revolution, most of the military, yes, would probably side with the government. But what if the revolution were due to the President seizing power in a deliberate, unconstitutional way? There's a decent/good chance the military would side with the revolution.

Look at Abu Ghraib. Some lawyers defended the process, others did not. Militaries can teach some morals, but they don't have a monopoly/control over all of them. :)

Hmmm, I think we're taking this off track, but its an interesting turn (for me, anyway)...

This is going to require some assumptions and guidelines.

1) This scenario is the realization of right-wing propaganda nearly wholesale. That our left-leaning government will quickly/slowly aquire more and more control over resource, production, wages, healthcare, yada yada. To the point where the personal priveleges and freedoms our forefathers enjoyed cease to exist. Right to bear arms, to smoke, to drink, what you eat, how much you get paid, right to quit your job, right to deny healthcare, right to privacy, search and seizure, privilege of driving, not to be excessively taxed (yes, more than you are now) and any other measures you can realistically think of.

2) The President/Congress has not usurped the Constitution in any legal way. They/He may have completely violated the spirit of the Constitution, but the methods used were step-by-step lawful at least to the extent that the Supreme Court deemed not to overturn.

With those two conditions considered, the global "War on Terror" (still hate that phrase), the financing and jobs associated with military spending, not to mention the incredible power a military commander wields, nor the insurmountable "political debt" that would be owed the military by the government if successful, I just cant see a scenario where the military would side with the rebels.

Outside the proverbial General with a social conscience scenario, anyway (unlikely doesnt begin to convey the remote chances this even exists, by my guess anyway).

[hope4dopes]

Hmmm, I think we're taking this off track, but its an interesting turn (for me, anyway)...

This is going to require some assumptions and guidelines.

1) This scenario is the realization of right-wing propaganda nearly wholesale. That our left-leaning government will quickly/slowly aquire more and more control over resource, production, wages, healthcare, yada yada. To the point where the personal priveleges and freedoms our forefathers enjoyed cease to exist. Right to bear arms, to smoke, to drink, what you eat, how much you get paid, right to quit your job, right to deny healthcare, right to privacy, search and seizure, privilege of driving, not to be excessively taxed (yes, more than you are now) and any other measures you can realistically think of.

2) The President/Congress has not usurped the Constitution in any legal way. They/He may have completely violated the spirit of the Constitution, but the methods used were step-by-step lawful at least to the extent that the Supreme Court deemed not to overturn.

With those two conditions considered, the global "War on Terror" (still hate that phrase), the financing and jobs associated with military spending, not to mention the incredible power a military commander wields, nor the insurmountable "political debt" that would be owed the military by the government if successful, I just cant see a scenario where the military would side with the rebels.

Outside the proverbial General with a social conscience scenario, anyway (unlikely doesnt begin to convey the remote chances this even exists, by my guess anyway).

What phrase would you use rather than the war on terror?

I find it hard to believe the military would take up arms against there fellow citizens, It's possible, but I like to think we have a historical tradition or maybe lack of tradition of the military being used as a political tool against the people. But it is troubeling that we have arrived at a point where we've begun to even ask such questions.

[ChumpDumper]

I find it hard to believe the military would take up arms against there fellow citizensYou are seriously ignorant. It has happened before.

The hypotheticals here are cracking me up.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmmm, I think we're taking this off track, but its an interesting turn (for me, anyway)...

Sure, why not? :D



1) This scenario is the realization of right-wing propaganda nearly wholesale. That our left-leaning government will quickly/slowly aquire more and more control over resource, production, wages, healthcare, yada yada. To the point where the personal priveleges and freedoms our forefathers enjoyed cease to exist. Right to bear arms, to smoke, to drink, what you eat, how much you get paid, right to quit your job, right to deny healthcare, right to privacy, search and seizure, privilege of driving, not to be excessively taxed (yes, more than you are now) and any other measures you can realistically think of.

The problem with that view is that people can vote those measures out of office. Look at prohibition. That was, I believe, considered a left-wing move at the time, but the absolute failure of the policy led to that amendment being rescinded.

If for some reason votes don't work, then you'd have the whole revolution/riot thing going on.


2) The President/Congress has not usurped the Constitution in any legal way. They/He may have completely violated the spirit of the Constitution, but the methods used were step-by-step lawful at least to the extent that the Supreme Court deemed not to overturn.

The usual case, I feel. Now, even if something is lawful, doesn't mean people won't rebel.


With those two conditions considered, the global "War on Terror" (still hate that phrase), the financing and jobs associated with military spending, not to mention the incredible power a military commander wields, nor the insurmountable "political debt" that would be owed the military by the government if successful, I just cant see a scenario where the military would side with the rebels.

Outside the proverbial General with a social conscience scenario, anyway (unlikely doesnt begin to convey the remote chances this even exists, by my guess anyway).


If the military were to side with the rebels, who do you think would be placed in a position of power? That's right, the military. Whereas if the military supports the government, then it's just propping up the same old power structure, correct?

The defection of even a FEW military commanders to a rebel faction would automatically make them a vital part of the revolution. I'm sure how you see that could be attractive for generals pissed off with their boss, or unsure of their ability to get to the top in the current power structure.

[LnGrrrR]

What phrase would you use rather than the war on terror?

I find it hard to believe the military would take up arms against there fellow citizens, It's possible, but I like to think we have a historical tradition or maybe lack of tradition of the military being used as a political tool against the people. But it is troubeling that we have arrived at a point where we've begun to even ask such questions.

The war on terror is a stupid name, because you can't go to war with an idea. You can't kill 'terror'.

And if the military were called upon to fire on the citizenry, some would, and some would not. People are still people in the military; we're not cyborgs. We all come with different morals, viewpoints and life experiences. To say that the military would or would not fire on something is pointless; the question is how many of them would fire. (Which can't be known, but you can bet that some of them probably would.)

Look at Abu Ghraib and compare/contrast with the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram experiment. People who are in power, without proper checks and balances or morals, can be led to abuse that power, ESPECIALLY when given a sign of approval (or even the semblance of it) from a higher authority.

So would people fire if given the order? I have no doubt. But some of them would resist as well. And after time to reflect on whatever action they took, I'm sure many would have second thoughts as well.

The human brain is a strange thing, and none of us can predict what we would do in extreme circumstances.

[101A]

I play in a Jazz band; (remember I live in Western PA) - The first cop killed was our Lead Tenor Player's son's best friend.

Tragic, sad deal.

Heard another neighbor interviewed on local news; that guy said that the shooter was ranting about the "Zionists". THAT hasn't made the national news.

[Winehole23]

Sorry for your friend's loss, 101A; I presume that you share it. Hell of a thing.

[PixelPusher]

I play in a Jazz band; (remember I live in Western PA) - The first cop killed was our Lead Tenor Player's son's best friend.

Tragic, sad deal.

My condolences for your friend.


Heard another neighbor interviewed on local news; that guy said that the shooter was ranting about the "Zionists". THAT hasn't made the national news.
Yep, Interweb beats TV News.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/04/richard_poplawski_accused_pitt.php (http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/04/richard_poplawski_accused_pitt.php)

...and I'm guessing Glenn Beck's recent on-a-dime 180 degree turn on the existence of FEMA concentration camps probably had a lot to do with this:


http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/White_Supremacy/poplawski+report.htm?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_the_News

This last comment was a reference to popular right-wing conspiracy theories about Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-constructed prisons and concentration camps for U.S. citizens. Such conspiracy theories had long been staples of the militia movement, but received a reinvigorating shot in the arm following the election of Barack Obama as president. Almost overnight, right-wing conspiracists across the country revived all of their 1990s militia conspiracy theories about the "New World Order," planned gun confiscations, and government plots against the citizenry. Once more, wild speculations about SHTF ("s--t hits the fan") and TEOTWAKI ("the end of the world as we know it") scenarios became rampant.

...and Galileo and NBAdan probably won't like this tidbit:


One of Poplawski's favorite places for such conspiracy theories was the Web site of the right-wing conspiracy radio talk show host Alex Jones. Poplawski visited the site, Infowars, frequently, shared links to it with others, and sometimes even posted to it. One of his frustrations with the site, though, was that it didn't focus enough on the nefarious roles played by Jews in all these conspiracies. "For being such huge players in the endgame," he observed in a March 29, 2009 posting to Infowars, "too many 'infowarriors' are surprisingly unfamiliar with the Zionists." Another time he was more hopeful, noting that "racial awareness is on the rise among the young white population."

[George Gervin's Afro]

The point of my post was to point out how dangerous right wing talk radio can be. Most thinking persons realize that most of these people are full of shit yet we have some crazies who buy into the propoganda. All I hear now on talk radio is how SCARED people are of Obama. They are WORRIED about what Obama is going to do to this country etc... Obama is going to take thier guns away and turn America in a socialist county etc.. blah,blah..until someone takes action..

[hope4dopes]

The point of my post was to point out how dangerous right wing talk radio can be. Most thinking persons realize that most of these people are full of shit yet we have some crazies who buy into the propoganda. All I hear now on talk radio is how SCARED people are of Obama. They are WORRIED about what Obama is going to do to this country etc... Obama is going to take thier guns away and turn America in a socialist county etc.. blah,blah..until someone takes action..

I agree they're terrifying, they must be stopped and there's all these dangerous books lying around that anyone can just pick up and read in this place called a library. So after the dangerous thought are purged, when do we get to burn the books...and of course will be doing it for the good of the people.



condolences to you and your friends family.

[clambake]

why do you hate american libraries?

[hope4dopes]

why do you hate american libraries?

the fucking late fees

[clambake]

the fucking late fees

slow reader, huh?

[hope4dopes]

slow reader, huh? very

[Nbadan]

So would people fire if given the order? I have no doubt. But some of them would resist as well. And after time to reflect on whatever action they took, I'm sure many would have second thoughts as well.

....I think once the Rush/Hannity led fascade of protecting 'public safety' fell, the military would turn...the trouble is, black-water wouldn't....

[DarrinS]

The shooter is obviously a crazy person.


Probably no one would have died had the dispatcher told first responders that this kid was heavily armed (as his mother had informed them in the 911 call).


Pointless.

[florige]

The shooter is obviously a crazy person.


Probably no one would have died had the dispatcher told first responders that this kid was heavily armed (as his mother had informed them in the 911 call).


Pointless.



Yep. Those officers stood no chance whatsoever. You go in thinking you are just going to be removing an upset kid from his parents house and the next thing you know the kid opens up on you. They probably didn't have a chance to draw their weapons.