Fatal Police Shooting in New Brunswick NJ

[mikeb302000]

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110923/NJNEWS/309230052/Prosecutor-details-fatal-shooting-probe-2-New-Brunswick-cops?odyssey=nav">head|My Central Jersey reports on the latest police shooting which resulted in a dead unarmed suspect. To make matters worse, he was running away.

The Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office concluded on Friday that Deloatch, 46, died from a single gunshot wound that pierced his left side and struck his aorta. Deloatch was shot in an alley between two homes on Throop Avenue in New Brunswick at 12:12 a.m. during a foot pursuit involving the two officers. He was was pronounced dead at 12:37 a.m. at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick.

The cops said they chased him down in the alley and a "struggle ensued." Sometimes that "struggle" is the footrace itself and they runner gets shot in the back. Notice how the other description fits that scenario, "a single gunshot wound that pierced his left side and struck his aorta."

Walter Hudson, an activist and founder of the Penns Grove Community Awareness Alliance group, said he marched with the protesters on Thursday and that another protest march on City Hall is planned for Saturday morning.

“We’re calling for justice for the family,” said Hudson, who said he got involved in the issue when a friend who is close to the Deloatch family called him. “It’s quite strange. This was an unarmed man, he had no gun, no outstanding warrants and he ends up shot dead. We’re seeking justice. This is not a black and white issue, it’s a community issue.”

The spokesman for the victim said it's not a racial thing, but let me make a little suggestion here. In Jersey, like in many other places, it's always a racial thing.

It's also a power thing. The guy with the gun kills the guy without one. I find it very difficult to imagine that being a legitimate shooting, and I have a good imagination.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[davepc]

1. Well I guess when you dont have any facts you can invent a fun story

[mikeb302000]

8. no facts ???

one unarmed dead guy, facts enough, don't you think?

[gejohnston]

2. yes you do have a good imagination

sort of. Do you copy and paste this at other sites too? I noticed you do.

Is Italy as fucked up as the UK?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14963811

[ileus]

6. Edged weapons don't hurt your ears so they're fine.

[mikeb302000]

9. now who's makin' shit up? nt

[ileus]

21. Not made up....I said it. They don't hurt ones ears, and I think they're fine.

neither of those are made up.

[PavePusher]

33. Ummm... dissenting evidence....

http://takingdownchuck.blogspot.com/2010/12/week-1-day-7-dolph-lundgren.html

[ileus]

42. Ok so they can hurt your ears....my bad. I stand corrected. :)

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Sometimes the police make a bad shoot.

Even if this was a bad shoot, that is no reason to take my guns, which are LEGALLY owned and LEGALLY carried, away from me. But considering your own criminal past you understand about how the laws you advocate would not stop criminals, don't you?

[mikeb302000]

10. wrong on a couple of counts

1. I don't want to take your guns away from you. Are you so paranoid you can't discuss gun control without reverting back to that NRA mantra?

2. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html">the solution I've outlined would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you doubt it?

[rrneck]

11. Post your solution here and we might discuss it. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Google is so not your friend...as posted below.

And if you think any of us are going to feed your blog or click on blind links from you....

[Iktomiwicasa]

14. I won't click anything linked....

...to your blog. Please, post your "solution" for all to see.

[rl6214]

16. Ahhh, there's you blind link

Knew you just had to slip one in there somewhere.

[spin]

18. If you actually want to discuss a solution post it here ...

I do not click on ANY of your blind links.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. "I don't want to take your guns away from you." Really?

Must have been some other mikeb30200 that said this:


So you're either shitting us, or you've got a problem with someone pretending to be you. Which is it?

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Bullseye. Dead center of the X in the 10 ring. N/T

[X_Digger]

27. edit: nvm, FI covered it. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

37. I refuse to click on your blog.

[gravity556]

69. Why would your solution keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

They ignore gun laws just like you did. And as an unlawful gun owner, where do you get off pontificating about who should and shouldn't have guns? It's kind of like the folks from Enron chastising other businesses about responsible financial planning. Hypocrites declaring from shoddy ivory towers, declaring what the peons should do according to the bossy criminal's whims and wishes.

Zero credibility, dude. Absolutely none.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

7. Where are they now?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

17. Where is this?

[Hoopla Phil]

34. follow this link

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html

[ileus]

5. So you want to take SD guns from the people and LEO's...after that step what?

[SteveM]

23. Behind "gun control" is gun prohibition. Thanks for revealing the OP.

[SteveM]

24. Coming Soon! Ken Burns' "Prohibition," PBS, October 2nd. nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

35. He probably believes he was a typical gun owner and considers his illegal activity

typical of all gun owners. Hence all gun owners are criminal. I see his logic flow, but he starts out with a fallacy, he was NOT a typical gun owner.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

53. Good theory!

I actually suspect something similar regarding another particularly virulent anti.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

55. I suspect he won't be responding

Once he realizes he's been outed

[rl6214]

15. First of all, congrats on having a post with NO blind links to your blog

"let me make a little suggestion here. In Jersey, like in many other places, it's always a racial thing."

YOU are SO full of shit. Good job insulting New Jersey. You made this observation from your Lazyboy in italy?


" I have a good imagination."

Yes you do, as displayed in every one of your posts.

So are you recommending the disarming of cops now?

[petronius]

19. This is not a Guns Forum topic - it should be in GD or the NJ forum

Hope the investigation proceeds honestly to determine what/if police misconduct occured, and if so that the prosecutor and department take the proper actions...

[DWC]

20. When the LEO tells you to stop, STOP.

This person did not and was shot. Sadly the perp died but he brought it on himself.

Failing to comply with legal instructions from LEOs can be deadly. If you don't agree with those instructions, follow them anyway, then take it up with the judge and your attorney.

Semper Fi,

[azureblue]

22. and here is a perfect example of why

gun owners are typecast as raving maniacs. Just look at the responses to the OP - name calling, insults, jumping to conclusions. No civility, little reasoning, deliberate refusal to read the links posted. Questioning the OP's motivation and residence. And only one direct response to the topic. You know what, you do nothing but make yourselves look like blinded reactionaries. I know people that post to this gun list have more sense and intelligence than what is displayed here. Let's see it.

Let me clue you in: Mike b is going to keep posting. Insult him all you want to, it will not stop him nor change his viewpoint. If anything, all you will do is reinforce it. And he going to prove one of two things, either will prove that his viewpoint is right- 1- that gun owners in the US are nuts and incapable of carrying on a rational discussion as adults should, or 2- the type of responses will reinforce Mike and his readers' notion that the US is a gun ridden wild west.

I will respond directly to the OP: Do the police have the right to shoot an unarmed, non combative person? No, they do not. Period. That is the coward's way. The subject may run, but that in itself does not give police the right to kill him. That is what tasers, nets, Mace, bolos, etc are for. The single response to the OP was to "obey the police". OK, I think from a white point of view. But. The dead man is black, and cops have a bad rep of abusing black men, guilty or innocent, rich or poor.


Yep, I am a gun owner (at one time I owned about a dozen -I collected them and enjoyed target shooting with them. Used to duck hunt in Louisiana, but that was before I got tired of it), trained, experienced in ownership and safety, I target shoot regularly, and I a Democrat.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

28. Mike is feeding off DU bandwidth to drive traffic to his blog.

That's why he has all those blind links.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

45. Damn straight. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Represent the "*M*GAF,I*T*PGTATP" vote, do you?

(note: "My guns are fine, it's those peoples' guns that are the problem.")
I'd venture to say you also support reasonable, common-sense gun control laws as well?

I even agree with you on something- Mike is the voice of American expat illegal gun owners, and is quite influential
with those who already agree with him. Amongst those who actually live and vote here- not so much...

[gejohnston]

31. he kind of brings it on himself

As far as the OP goes, I learned not to form opinions based on single newspaper articles. Too many Floridians made the same mistake and now we have Lex Luther for governor.

Let me clue you in: Mike b is going to keep posting. Insult him all you want to, it will not stop him nor change his viewpoint. If anything, all you will do is reinforce it. And he going to prove one of two things, either will prove that his viewpoint is right- 1- that gun owners in the US are nuts and incapable of carrying on a rational discussion as adults should, or 2- the type of responses will reinforce Mike and his readers' notion that the US is a gun ridden wild west.

I know he is going to keep posting.
I don't insult him and it will not change his view.

I think he is proving something entirely different:
that "gun control advocates" have a difficult time separating reality from their own bigotry, and incapable of rational fact based discussions.
the west really was not that wild. The real "wild west" was more like "Little House on the Prairie" (or "Gunsmoke" as being a cop show) than any of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. The cities like New York and Baltimore on the other hand......
The image was created by novelists like Ned Buntline etc romanticizing armed robbers, contract killers, and other FASs in that part of the country. They existed in the tame east too, only they did not have a PR guy.
Real working cowboys (usually called drovers then, then is now, worked their asses off during long unexciting days fixing fences and moving livestock from one pasture to another.

[SteveM]

32. Respectfully, review the OP's posts...

You will see prejudice, animosity, stereotyping and the more prosaic poor argument virtually EVERY TIME he posts. He should not be excused, and he should have his hand called. You will read from others about his blog-flogging (done EVERY TIME); I wish to call attention to the practices and attitudes he brings to bear, practices designed to legitimize hateful attitudes toward gun-owners and others who defend the Second Amendment. I don't think you would consider his views acceptable if one were to substitute a racial minority, a gender, a religion.

I invite you to call the OP's hand each time he practices these and other negative practices; otherwise, his intolerant approach will maintain a thin gilding of "civility" and acceptability. Though I disagree with your description of the responses to the OP's posting, you considered it your duty to act on your views. Fine. Now, respectfully act on what the OP has done and will no doubt continue to do. That is also your duty.

BTW, you may wish to review his OP "Your Typical Arizona Gun Owner," posted about the same time as this OP. Thanks for your consideration.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Mike has a history here. Posters are reacting as they do due to his history. N/T

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

68. funny, isn't it?

You know what, you do nothing but make yourselves look like blinded reactionaries.

Gosh, I wonder why that would be.

Yes, they do a good job of representing their kind, don't they?

[RSillsbee]

36. Speaking of criminal rude toters (who are also tacky)

What happened to all your guns (legal and illegal) when you moved to Rome?

[ileus]

41. the legal or illegal ones?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. A very interesting Venn Diagram.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RweDA7XftZk/TbdFJ0ZGp_I/AAAAAAAAGH4/c0jFThzjGRs/s1600/Mikeb302000+post.jpg



A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.


I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments. And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
___________________________________________________________________________________

You've admitted owning illegal guns, so would you be in list 1, or do you fit into more than one category?

[ileus]

47. he really believes there's only two groups...

Criminals, and soon to be criminals...


and from what I've read he should know...

[GreenStormCloud]

48. He also has his math wrong.

A U B, is the Union of A and B. In other words, the total area of both added.



The overlap of the two is A (intersection) B. I can't make the upsidedown U symbol the is used for "intersection"



It is a common error for people to make.

It is interesting that he consider it illegal for the elderly to own guns, or for the physically incapacitated. I am a senior citizen with a disability so I guess he would consider me doubly illegal. And when I was 22 I dropped my shotgun as I fell but it didn't go off. I guess that makes me triple illegal.

[ileus]

49. and if you sold that shotgun make that quadruply illegal.

super duperly quadruply....and may I ask how you store your firearms? and how did you buy them? and do you drink, or take any meds RX or otherwise? Oh and do you carry in public?


Gosh...you may be a regular doc holiday.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

51. He put elderly people as overlapping into the criminal category?

Thank God I've never visited his site. My computer would probably have shut itself off out of principle and possibly also sued me for emotional distress.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

59. The diagram updated

[Hoopla Phil]

60. LMAO. Now THAT really did make me laugh.

It is accurate though.

[ileus]

65. according to his own words he falls completely into the right circle.

[gravity556]

70. I wanna know how far up his ass he had to reach to gather his "statistics"

Truly, I am. For someone who knows nothing about US gun laws, he sure seems to be sure he knows how to fix them. Except he would end up ensuring that the only people who had access to firearms are people like him who have no qualms about breaking firearms laws. Hooray hypocrisy!

[Atypical Liberal]

56. Once again, pure speculation in lieu of facts.

It's also a power thing. The guy with the gun kills the guy without one. I find it very difficult to imagine that being a legitimate shooting, and I have a good imagination.

Once again, we have pure speculation in lieu of facts.

All we know from the article is that the two police officers claimed to have gotten into a struggle with the fleeing suspect and that the suspect was subsequently shot.

Maybe he was scaling a wall and one of the cops just decided to blow him away, and they are covering for each other?

Or maybe the suspect tried to grab one of the officer's guns and got shot for his trouble?

We just don't know.

Unbridled speculation at its finest.

[ileus]

57. well he does admit he imagines most of his BS.

[Hoopla Phil]

58. Someone seems to have abandoned this post. I guess it got a little too inconvenient

with truth and facts.

[Hoopla Phil]

61. Mike, please come back to this thread you started and answer some question

that have been put to you.

[ileus]

62. Hello? Hello?

[ileus]

63. Is this thing on??? Hello?

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Chirp Chirp Chirp

I guess when you are outed as an admitted criminal your credibility takes quite a hit.

[jmg257]

66. He's out there...I can hear the chattering...