Re: Groveland man wearing body armor opens fire on CHP and Oakland PD officers

I-580 shootout suspect facing 3rd 'strike'
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/20/BAJJ1EGJSC.DTL

Apparently the guy got hit multiple times and survived because of the body armor. I don't think he was allowed to own a firearm as a parolee, but reports are that he had access to his mother's guns, which she said were a preparation just in case they got "caught up in a revolution". He was also targeting left-wing interests such as the ACLU.

Now - I personally remember the 101 California building shooting in San Francisco in the early 90s. It sounds to me as if he was intent on carrying out something similar, with the addition of body armor.

Quote
y_p_w
He was also targeting left-wing interests such as the ACLU.

This is a misconception of the ACLU that many people have.

Actually, the purpose of the organization is to defend against the erosion of the rights and liberties set forth in the U.S. Constitution, especially those guaranteed by the first ten admendments (the Bill of Rights).

Over the years, right-wing people and groups have painted the ACLU and its members as 'liberal' (hence, left-wing; think, for example, George H. W. Bush during the 1988 presidental election) when it defends freedoms in cases contrary to their agendas. They are suspiciously quiet when it acts on their behalf. (Among others, the ACLU has acted to defend Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and American Nazi groups in addition to their efforts in defending sane, rational people.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2010 08:23PM by szalkowski.

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
y_p_w
He was also targeting left-wing interests such as the ACLU.

This is a misconception of the ACLU that many people have.

Actually, the purpose of the organization is to defend against the erosion of the rights and liberties set forth in the U.S. Constitution, especially those guaranteed by the first ten admendments (the Bill of Rights).

Over the years, right-wing people and groups have painted the ACLU and its members as 'liberal' (hence, left-wing; think, for example, George H. W. Bush during the 1988 presidental election) when it defends freedoms in cases contrary to their agendas. They are suspiciously quiet when it acts on their behalf. (Among others, the ACLU has acted to defend Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and American Nazi groups in addition to their efforts in defending sane, rational people.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history

I'm not an ACLU detractor. I also understand that the ACLU has defended the civil liberties of people who advocated positions that might be contrary to the beliefs of their membership.

However - the public perception is that they are typically left-leaning. I do recall when they've defended the free speech rights of various racists or people who have unpopular positions.

It seems it is typically the right wingers that would act to suppress the actions of the left wingers while the left is typically more laissez-faire thus the perception that the ACLU is so pro left.

---

Old Dude

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
y_p_w
He was also targeting left-wing interests such as the ACLU.

This is a misconception of the ACLU that many people have.

Actually, the purpose of the organization is to defend against the erosion of the rights and liberties set forth in the U.S. Constitution, especially those guaranteed by the first ten admendments (the Bill of Rights).

Over the years, right-wing people and groups have painted the ACLU and its members as 'liberal' (hence, left-wing; think, for example, George H. W. Bush during the 1988 presidental election) when it defends freedoms in cases contrary to their agendas. They are suspiciously quiet when it acts on their behalf. (Among others, the ACLU has acted to defend Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and American Nazi groups in addition to their efforts in defending sane, rational people.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history

I'm not an ACLU detractor. I also understand that the ACLU has defended the civil liberties of people who advocated positions that might be contrary to the beliefs of their membership.

However - the public perception is that they are typically left-leaning. I do recall when they've defended the free speech rights of various racists or people who have unpopular positions.

My post was meant to be informational only with the perhaps forlorn hope of countering the fallacious, politically-driven, prevailing public perception of the organization and its charter. Several other news stories that I saw regarding this incident more explicitly perpetuated this perception by quoting the wacko's mother without bothering to include any sort of counterbalancing text. No criticism of y_p_w, implied or otherwise, was intended by the post.