Posted on 03/03/2006 2:42:49 PM PST by MplsSteve
A Duluth man sought on methamphetamine trafficking charges was killed and his 2-year-old son critically wounded in a dramatic shootout with law enforcement officers Wednesday in an airport parking lot in Homer.
Jason Carlo Jacob Anderson, 31, had been living under an alias in Alaska with his girlfriend and their two young children for nearly a year, according to the girlfriend, Cherry Dietzmann.
It sounds like this a-hole opened fire first or made a threatening move.
I only hope the little boy will recover from his injuries.
With the explosion of meth across the US, we're likely to see more of these shoot-outs.
Sorry...forgot the link to the full story:
http://www.startribune.com/467/story/281273.html
And yet the "Looney Libertarians" will argue the war on drugs is a bad thing. Sigh...
Sounds like the idiot authorities didn't listen. They share the blame.
So you're satisfied with the outcome in this situation? Interesting but not surprising. What's a little collateral damage when we're waging the War on Some Drugs.
Please, read the whole story, if its the same one that was posted earlier you will quickly see this common law wife (whatever) is largely to blame for what happened to her son. As for what happened to her criminal "boyfriend" really, who cares? The world is better without him. And I'm no anti-drug warrior.
"She was cooperating [with authorities] because they were supposed to help her, and no one was supposed to get hurt," Murray said. "They were supposed to arrest him and get the kids. ... They knew there were babies in that car, and they still opened fire."
We really should take the word of a chick who let her kids live with a tweaker.
Can you say "spread the blame"?
Unfortunately there's no good way to arrest a screaming maniac who has two kids with him.
Yes, it does, but note the source, a notoriously liberal paper. If the cops fired first, I think the paper would have said so. Since they used the words "gunfire broke out", it makes me think that Anderson fired--or appeared to be preparing to fire--first.
I could be wrong, of course--a clear statement about how it went down would be helpful.
They were warned about the children being present. They could have picked a better time and place to grab him.
Exactly. They could have waited for a better time to execute the grab.
Meth is not a recreational drug.
The actual story will come out, and we will pay no attention to fantasy in the meantime.
Had it been the movies they probably would have.
I wonder why this mother left the babies with this man in the first place. Was Anderson so abusive, mean ,cruel, what/ she couldn't live with him but found no problem leaving her two babies?
Sheesh...then blame the police for what happened.
Now, what happens to these two babies?
There's no "better time" or good way to bust a meth-head. They are completely unpredictable and can go psychotic without warning and with no provocation at all.
I blame the girl for running with this guy and putting her kids in harms' way. She and her enabling aunt are just trying to blame everybody and everything but her own stupid self.
Well, one's in the ICU and according to the girl not expected to live (although she's not what I would call a reliable source). The other was immediately placed in foster care . . . rather than with the girl. That tells you something right there.
Bump to that post~
Nobody seems to mind innocent kids being hurt or killed. Completely justified in their minds.
What's a little collateral damage in the war on drugs?
Please, she is quoted as saying "he was a good dad", but she is also quoted as saying he said "if you leave me I'll kill the kids". SHE left the children with him. Yeah, the cops may have screwed up, a bit, but the blame still lies with the "mom" who is now annoyed her surviving child hasn't been returned to her. LOL, like she should have custody of any child, when this criminal is a man she chose time and time again to be with. You really have to dump the criminal, abusive, criminal guys BEFORE you have two (2!) children with them. OR don't blame the cops when hubby gets your kids killed.
Call me back when the meth dealer has been next door for six months...
That's a hateful thing to say. Never in my mind is it ever justified to intentionality hurt a child. Had this woman that gave life to these two innocent babes protected them as any normal mother would the babies would never been subjected to this particular danger.
Very unlikely given the extent of his injuries.
Textbook strawman argument. You are the master.
The truth hurts. I feel your pain.
I seem to recall quite a few dramatic shootouts during Prohibition.
I seem to remember the charges of a Meth Lab at Mt. Carmel.
BTTT
Since when is a logical fallacy the "truth?" Are you posting from our solar system?
What "fallacy". That the war on drugs killed or injured the children in this incident?
Again, the truth hurts. Fact, not fiction. Truth, not fallacy.
Where are you posting from? I'm a U.S. citizen here in the USA.
You called me a master of the "straw man" arguement. I am a master of the truth.
Ping!
Please name one FReeper who thinks "innocent kids being hurt or killed" is "justified."
there's a toen called Homer? Dohhh!
I'll be the first to use the classic term in this thread
JACK BOOTED THUGS!!!!!!
/Flame away!
Read the thread yourself. How many thought it was a good idea to jump right on the guy and not wait until he was alone, or to wait for a better chance to take him without the kids being in the way? At least several.
They all claim to be "sorry" that the kids got hurt, but if the "proper authorities" would have picked a different time and place, the kids would be OK.
Fact, not fiction. The truth.
Here's a few selected quotes from this thread.
I'm glad this guy is dead. One less scumbag for the rest of us to deal with. (but the kids are hurt or dead because they didn't wait).
It sounds like this a-hole opened fire first or made a threatening move. (but the kids are hurt or dead because they didn't wait).
And yet the "Looney Libertarians" will argue the war on drugs is a bad thing. (but the kids are hurt or dead because they didn't wait).
Then you would be ragging on the marshals for not acting quickly enough to save the kids. (but the kids are hurt or dead because they didn't wait).
Meth is not a recreational drug. (but the kids are hurt or dead because they didn't wait).
Unfortunately there's no good way to arrest a screaming maniac who has two kids with him. (but the kids are hurt or dead because they didn't wait).
Every statement above from this thread justifies what the "proper authorities" did.
But these same people are "sorry" that the kids got hurt or killed, yet happy that their father is dead. Hint, if the father were still alive the kids would still be safe too. Or, if the father was apprehended without the kids being present, the kids would be OK.
Understand now?
They knew there were babies in that car, and they still opened fire. (Here is a very true statement).
I don't know any drug-using friend who has given drugs up.
I'll not be allowing an addict to determine my political future.
Remember - Ruby Ridge?
Suspects can be taken safely. I tried to find the story about how the British police shot out the tires on a couple of those big-time bank robbers recently- but anyway, the police shot out the tires and apprehended the suspects successfully.
Sure they do. Just like FEMA is to blame for Katrina.
Nobody's glad one of the kids got hurt -- but it's unfair to blame it on the police, as the mother and her aunt are doing (with the newpaper's enthusiastic assistance). They were dealing with an impossible situation - nutty girl makes TWO babies with a tweaker and abuser, then runs to the cops and begs for help, leaving her children behind.
The situation developed in an unexpected way - they thought they had a safe way to pick him up alone, but a bunch of high schoolers were in the airport terminal and he brought the kids with him in the car (the oh-so-caring mother gives a surprise to the cops. "He says he has the kids with him? No way! She wouldn't do that!" But she did.) And it's just as likely that he saw them first, got all paranoid, and opened fire. Then adrenaline takes over, all around.
We'll have to wait on a few more facts -- I wouldn't take this crazy woman's word for it if she said the sun rose in the east.
But I think what most folks were saying is that the wrong adults are being blamed . . . the girl and her lousy choice of partner are the problems here.
Who could forget Ruby Ridge?
The feds had to kill the kids in order to save them. Business as usual.
My quotes are direct from the thread. I didn't make anything up, nor did I put words in anyones' mouths.
Go look for yourself.
You're presuming motive from isolated phrases. As I pointed out, the anger is directed not at the children, but at (1) the scumball himself (2) the idiot girlfriend who had two kids with him. The kids were pretty much doomed by the irresponsible actions of their mother.
Consider that since this guy had already beat up the girlfriend, it was possible that he might have injured or killed the kids (especially if she was generally responsible for their care but left them with him. That's when "boyfriends" generally snap and hit the babies -- particularly if the guy happens to be a tweaker and sensitive to loud noises . . . )
Foster care may be the best thing to happen to the little girl -- if this situation had gone on for another six months we might be reading about two kids dead from beatings and asking why the police or DFACS didn't intervene . . .
You miss the real truth and the whole point because you are emotional.
If the cops hadn't gone after the guy when they did, the kids wouldn't have been harmed.
Those who celebrate the demise of the guy anyway should be saying that the cops should have waited. Instead they are happy.
They hurt the kids getting to the dad. How is that right or justified? They should have waited.
They had to hurt the kids to destroy the dad. Or did they? Wasn't it extremely poor judgement on the part of the law? Or, was it OK? You tell me. I already know the right answer.
The general public would prefer to look the other way until things get impossible to ignore -- then they blame whoever's handy without waiting for the facts.
It's easy to sit back and decide how you're going to arrest a completely unpredictable, violent guy . . . when you don't have to do it.
Things went wrong here, it's not entirely clear how - and the kids were caught in the crossfire. You should always plan for unexpected eventualities, but I'm not sure anybody anticipated that this woman would leave two small children with a meth-head. And the police in the parking lot (who probably were not anticipated to be the arresting officers under the original plan) may have already been committed to the contact at that point. And the guy may have initiated the gunfire. We just don't know at this point.
But I'm not going to jump all over the police until we know the facts.
And if I were you, I wouldn't proclaim too loudly that you have "the real truth," particularly when your only source is the Red Star, which is relying almost entirely on the self-serving and self-justifying statements of the neglectful/abusive mom and her enabling auntie.
So, the report is wrong and no kids got hurt? Is that the truth?
And if the cops had waited until no kids were around, the kids would have gotten hurt anyway? The police did absolutely the right thing?
I don't think so.
His alias was John Jacob Hinglesheimerschmidt Carlos Jackal Fred Murtz Peewee herman Munster. No one recognized him!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.