Skip to comments.Santa Cruz sheriff: Killer Shot two Plainclothes Officers at his Doorstep
Posted on 02/27/2013 11:07:52 PM PST by nickcarraway
The gunman who killed two plainclothes Santa Cruz police detectives in cold blood grabbed their guns and took their car, launching a chase that forced three school lockdowns and a nearby shootout with officers that ended his life, authorities revealed Wednesday.
As the city mourned his victims, the blood of 35-year-old Jeremy Peter Goulet -- a trained military police officer who wore body armor and used two of the three guns he possessed to fire at bystanders and firefighters on Tuesday -- still stained a wall where a barrage of gunfire had erupted.
The day after, heartbreaking portraits emerged about the two longtime, dedicated officers slain in the line of duty -- the first ever in the city's history.
In contrast, an even darker, disturbing picture of Goulet rounded into shape, showing a troubling man who set off a series of small alarms but never quite triggered the peals of warning bells that in retrospect seemed needed. Those who knew Goulet described him as "despondent, distraught and destructive." He had been to jail for sex and weapons charges and had vowed to never go back.
"There's no doubt in anybody's mind that those officers stopped an imminent threat to the community and neutralized it," said Santa Cruz County Sheriff Phil Wowak, whose agency is investigating the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
But I thought that firearms couldn’t be defensive? I heard that from the head of the police association in California only a week or so ago. Which is it?
California police chief: The idea that a gun is a defensive weapon is a myth
And it took by my count better than 50 rounds to end this FKs life.
And I thought Santa Cruz was a violence free zone...
You can bet the Democrats, Eric Holder/Janet Napolitano, and their GOP supporters...will use this as a reason to seize weapons from military veterans
Just a taste for LEOS if they try to confiscate weapons from many law abiding citizens.
Will this story get minimized because the murderer was ex police, whom we are scolded are the only people that society can trust with a gun, or will it get played up because it can be used to imply that veterans are dangerous when the military is done using them as mercenaries to raid villages, kill women and children in the dark of night, like Genghis Khan?
Neither. He will be played as a crazy who shouldn't have been allowed to own a weapon, thus justifying an administrative power to decide who is crazy. We just can't leave deprivation of rights up to a court you know... too expensive.
...or the reason arms should be collected...