Annaheim CA Cops Fire on Crowd Crime and Punishment by Robert Farago | Jul 22, 2012 | 72 comments facebook twitter linkedin email comments JOE MATAFOME says: July 22, 2012 at 21:45 And only a couple of stray dogs and a skinny cat were hit!! Reply jwm says: July 22, 2012 at 21:49 not taking sides here. but i sure as hell would not take my grandkids with me to what could become a confrontation with 5-0. rubber bullets and dogs into a crowd which included kids is just wrong. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:26 Doubt it, he grabs the dogs collar and keeps it there. Reply rosignol says: July 23, 2012 at 03:49 I’ve seen a report that the dog got loose, the cops did not deliberately send it into the crowd. Reserving judgment until more info is known, but it looks like someone f’d up pretty badly. Reply Jeff O. says: July 22, 2012 at 21:54 Then one officer unleashes a snarling police dog… Really? It looked more like he tripped and it got away from him. Clearly there are gaps in reporting here, I would think that they’re not just going to start firing beanbags into a crowd for no reason. Obviously an angry crowd formed over a the previous shooting, someone did something stupid (on either or both sides) and then this started. Great reporting. Just the facts…at least enough to make a good story, Ma’am. Reply jwm says: July 22, 2012 at 22:09 it’s true that there could have been off camera provacation that we did not see. but that doesn’t change the fact that they fired into a crowd that had kids. peace officers should never do that. even if they have to give ground. i didn’t see any indication that they were under fire or a life threatening situation of any kind. cops should have enough judgement to know when it’s just better to un ass the place than risk the innocent. Reply Nelson says: July 22, 2012 at 23:47 LOL When your Jeff O’, he beats you because he loves you; I’m sure you’d say the same mindless drivel, if those shot with beanbag rounds, rubber bullets, & other BS ‘less than lethal’ ammo were your wife, daughter, or gay boyfriend. Everyone’s a toughguy, until it happens to them. Everyone’s glad some citizen ‘scum’ got the State’s boot, when it’s not YOUR family… until it is. Keep sucking the State’s cock, and see what kind of world it becomes. Oh wait, there are enough of you that we’re already there: a police state. Mindless SLAVE! Reply James says: July 23, 2012 at 17:41 I had to double- and triple-check the name on that comment; I almost thought I wrote it. It really touches my heart to know I’m not the only one who sees the State and its costumed enforcers as deserving of scorn and much, much worse. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:27 I doubt it, he grabs the dog’s collar and keeps it there on top of that woman. Reply Daniel says: July 23, 2012 at 00:39 The officer is responsible for the dog. If it gets away from him, the officer is responsible for what happens next. Reply Michael Bluth says: July 23, 2012 at 01:00 > I would think that they’re not just going to start firing beanbags into a crowd for no reason. You mean like the time police at U.C. Davis pepper sprayed seated students? Reply Erik says: July 24, 2012 at 03:59 Well if those idiot occupy wal street protesters had followed the lawful orders of police to disperse they wouldn’t have been sprayed. Wanna block a road or walking path, get a protest permit. Reply Mike says: July 23, 2012 at 01:13 The guy who was shot by the cops was known as “Stomper”. Nobody with a nickname like “Stomper” gets the benefit of the doubt. Gang name? The tendency of minorities to IMMEDIATELY throw their support behind any piece of trash who gets shot either by police or armed citizenry(Trayvon Martin, cough No_Limit_Nigga cough) is getting old. Why do they do it? The people they support like this are the same ones who victimize their communities. Hell, Rodney King was a multiple time loser who put numerous peoples’ lives in jeopardy with his drunken speeding away from the cops stunt, and the minorities in LA burned down their neighborhoods over him. WHY? Reply Chris Mallory says: July 23, 2012 at 14:47 I feel the same way about people named “Mike”. No benefit of the doubt, just shoot them in the back while they are running away. Reply Mike says: July 23, 2012 at 15:24 You do realize “Stomper” was a known gang member? matt says: July 23, 2012 at 17:25 Do you have a source for that? And even if he was, it is irrelevant, here in America we have freedom of association. Just because you are in a gang, doesnt mean you are a criminal. Paul says: July 23, 2012 at 17:43 “Just because you are in a gang, doesnt mean you are a criminal.” Do you really believe this? jwm says: July 23, 2012 at 22:27 this ain’t about stomper. he was already dead when the crowd was hit with the ” less than leathal projectiles”, a crowd with women and children in it. i’m old school enough to believe that is just not allowable. as for stomper, he made his choices and a higher authority than me will have to sort that out. Guywithagun says: July 22, 2012 at 21:56 I have never felt more unsafe about our society in general than I do right now after watching that video. There will probably be no consequenses whatsoever for this. Reply DrBiggly says: July 22, 2012 at 22:08 Warning shots are only OK if you’re a law enforcement officer. Except when they’re not. Reply Conrad Walton says: July 22, 2012 at 22:13 “Cops Fire On Crowd” – I was expecting dead bodies, until I realized that it was only rubber bullets. No one was “shot” in the sense of the word normally used on this site. I live near LA, so I’m familiar with some of the people who live here. I’m sure that we’ll find out that it was a reasonable response. Reply Silver says: July 22, 2012 at 22:17 I love the incredulous “women and children” line in the beginning. So it would have been less wrong if they fired into groups of unarmed, innocent men? Reply Tim McNabb says: July 22, 2012 at 22:29 Yes, it would have been less wrong. If you do not understand why, I doubt I could explain it. Reply Silver says: July 22, 2012 at 22:45 I can see the children part of course, but no, I see men and women as deserving equal respect (in the truest sense, not the modern PC hijacking of it). An unwarranted assault by authorities against a man should be viewed as equally unacceptable as one against a woman. A man’s life, happiness, health, and well-being is worth no less than a woman’s. If you don’t understand why, I doubt I could explain it. Reply Michael B. says: July 22, 2012 at 23:49 +1 Scott says: July 23, 2012 at 00:16 +100 Michael B. says: July 22, 2012 at 22:28 Those aren’t beanbags. Those are pepperballs, which are paintballs with pepper spray in them. Beanbag rounds from that distance can kill. I’ll also wait until getting the full story before opining on this since the media doesn’t know what the **** it’s talking about these days and doesn’t care. That being said, it doesn’t look good. Reply Michael B. says: July 22, 2012 at 22:32 http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/22/2906466/police-shooting-in-anaheim-leads.html “The shooting sparked a melee in the neighborhood as some threw rocks and bottles at officers who were securing the scene for investigators to collect evidence. Sgt. Bob Dunn, the department’s spokesman, said that as officers detained an instigator, the crowd advanced on officers so they fired bean bags and pepper balls at them.” Reply Ralph says: July 22, 2012 at 22:34 Thank you, Anahein PD, for confirming once again that the only difference between cops and street gangs is that the former has a union. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:28 And a pension. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:43 Although ironically, being the cowards they are, they don’t like to call themselves a union. And because the police historically have been used to break up strikes and bust unions on countless occasions. The Fraternal Order of Police was founded in 1915… The FOP official history states that the founders decided to not use the term “union” because of “the anti-union sentiment of the time,” but nevertheless acted as a union… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_Order_of_Police#History Reply Mike says: July 23, 2012 at 01:15 What should the response be to having rocks thrown at you? Are the police just supposed to leave, abandoning the citizens of that neighborhood? What if the situation devolved into a riot? Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 01:50 Yes, the citizens wanted to be abandoned. The police were attacking the crowd indiscriminately. If you were involved in a DGU, could you fire indiscriminately in to a crowd, or only at the people who were a threat to you? The police need to be held to the same level of accountability as the rest of us. The situation was what it was because the police extra-judicially executed someone who considered the police to be a threat, and exercised their duty to retreat. If there was a riot, it would have been incited by the police’s presence. Reply Mike says: July 23, 2012 at 02:11 You don’t know that. You don’t know WHAT “Stomper” did, and the entire neighborhood is supposed to be protected by the police. If they left, and the criminal element(rock throwers, etc) decided to turn the situation into a full blown riot, the police had put the entire neighborhood at risk by leaving. The anti-cop rhetoric on this board is a bit ridiculous at times. matt says: July 23, 2012 at 02:49 You don’t know WHAT “Stomper” did Exactly. And in America, you are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. What is known is that the police extra-judicially executed a man who was retreating. If you were involved in a DGU, and shot a unarmed man who was retreating, would you end up in jail? the entire neighborhood is supposed to be protected by the police. No they aren’t. The police have no obligation to protect anyone, as proven by Warren vs. District of Columbia. If they left, and the criminal element(rock throwers, etc) decided to turn the situation into a full blown riot That is a far fetched scenario. The anti-cop rhetoric on this board is a bit ridiculous at times. I am anti-cop, because they are gun grabbing welfare queens who engage in extra judicial executions. BLAMMO says: July 22, 2012 at 22:35 Were they peaceably assembling to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Reply rosignol says: July 23, 2012 at 03:55 I’m pretty sure chucking rocks precludes an assembly from being considered ‘peaceable’, and an aggressive prosecutor might try to charge the rock-chucker with Assault w/deadly weapon. Reply Steve says: July 22, 2012 at 23:06 Can’t tell in most respects from this video if the cops were justified or not. I do see adults with their backs to the cops trying to shield kids. But one way or another K-9 was loosed, with kids in the crowd. THAT was wrong or negligent depending. Offering to buy cellphone vids? Well, that smells too if it’s true. Reply Aharon says: July 22, 2012 at 23:37 Did you guys catch the opening bit by the female news mouth that the police fired into a crowd which included “women and children?!” Would it have been any less wrong or right if it was a crowd of men? Do you think Obama will visit the victims of the police shooting to show solidarity with the people? Reply RKBA says: July 22, 2012 at 23:37 We’re from the Government…. We’re here to help…. Reply Scott says: July 22, 2012 at 23:53 Ok first of peper ball rounds were fired less lethal. Just cause kids were there makes no diffrence to me in this case. Finally looks like the dog got loose and it seems like accident but the officer will probably be in trouble for letting it happen. Now I did not really see what started this whole thing Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:31 Pepper balls can be lethal. There was a woman who was shot in the eye with one at a protest, the round penetrated her skull, and she died as a result of the injuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303#Safety Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:40 “Dunn said the dog accidentally got out of a patrol car.” http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/22/2906466/police-shooting-in-anaheim-leads.html Mr Police Apologeticist, can you please explain to us how a dog accidentally gets out of a patrol car? If your dog accidentally got out of your yard, and mauled someone, would you go to jail? Reply Mr Pierogie says: July 23, 2012 at 08:07 yeah, I think those bean bags were fired accidentally too. to be fair, we don’t have a full picture of what happened just by watching that video, but firing into a crowd like that from close range? not good. not good at all. Reply Erik says: July 24, 2012 at 04:03 No! You’d get the crap sued outta ya… Reply virtualjohn says: July 23, 2012 at 00:06 Holding my comments for hours is about the same as not posting them. Each action effectively keeps me out of any discussion. I don’t think I will bother to comment on, read or recommend your site. I am a gun enthusiast and had hopes for your site. One of the features I found appealing was the give and take discussions. Not being able to participate in those leaves little of worth. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 00:35 The spam filter sucks, if you post more than 2 links, or use works like cun t, coc k, fuc k, etc, it will flag it. Reply Matt in FL says: July 23, 2012 at 01:53 Funny, you seem to be the only one upset about your ability to use words you listed. Somehow the rest of us manage to get along without them just fine. Especially in the case of the first two, I really can’t think of a subject that you’d find on this board where they’d be appropriate to the conversation. Understand, I’m not clutching my pearls at the dirty language, but if you’re reaching so far as to use shocking language just for the sake of being shocking, perhaps you’re reaching too hard. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 02:57 There are other words like ana l. It will also flag words which contain it like ana lyze or coc ky. How is that language shocking? Your on a gun blog, where we are often talking about killing things. Comparatively the subject matter is far more shocking than any language employed. I’ve most often use the word cun t to describe what has happened to me at work, if people ever ask if i’ve seen a dead mutilated body. Like one time I was fixing a computer, and a student next to me accidentaly ripped open a rectum, spilling its contents all over the cun t and stump of a leg of a female cadaver. matt says: July 23, 2012 at 03:06 And if i’m the only one, then why is virtualjohn and Michael B complaining about it too? Matt in FL says: July 23, 2012 at 03:18 I’m willing to bet that virtualjohn and Michael B don’t know why they’re running afoul of the filter, just like I sometimes have no idea. That draws a distinction from your behavior, which seems to be to try to run afoul of it so you’ll have the opportunity to bitch about it. You just proved my point about using the language simply to be shocking, with your “example” of the student next to you, with the less offensive medical term for one part, and the more offensive slang term for another, simply for the joy of defeating the spam filter. If you don’t understand the distinction, you’re being intentionally obtuse. Oh, and I don’t think being cocky runs afoul of the spam filter. Michael B. says: July 23, 2012 at 00:36 Yeah, it really does. I occasionally get an e-mail about an old post I thought went through being approved like a week after I submitted it. What’s the point by then? Reply Matt in FL says: July 23, 2012 at 01:49 Yeah, I really hope the spam filter catches enough “real” bad stuff to make it worth the hassle to the rest of us. I self-edit to try to avoid it, and still have it catch a comment every couple days. Reply Daniel says: July 23, 2012 at 00:38 What in the HELL are onlookers supposed to think??? They see cops shooting at kids! They can’t know for sure that those are bean bags! I’ve never seen cops act like greater bullet magnets than that. Reply ST says: July 23, 2012 at 00:41 Lets leave the anti-cop drivel at home on this one . Police do not deploy that kind of force without reason.Perhaps a bad reason or a misunderstood reason, but police officers don’t fire riot control rounds into a group of ethnic yutes in a liberal paradise like CA without damn convincing provocation. You don’t get a pension if youre in jail on hate crime charges. Add in a media that’s all to quick to edit the truth to fit a pre conceived story ( see ABC and the Zimmerman incident) , and we must critically review any media broadcast for factual content. At this point I would trust Al Jazeera over any domestic news channel, and I have no love for the Islamic news agency either. I would not be surprised in the least to discover the provocation for this involved a gang banging yute starting a fight with officers off camera amidst women and children supporting the crook. Much like in Chicago, in some neighborhoods the gangs and thugs get more respect than the men and women in blue. Until they become a victim of crime, in which case “F**k the popo” isn’t heard as much. In many ways urban liberal “America” really is a foreign country. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 01:05 Police do not deploy that kind of force without reason. Perhaps a bad reason or a misunderstood reason, but police officers don’t fire riot control rounds into a group of ethnic yutes in a liberal paradise like CA without damn convincing provocation They employ force like this without reason all the time, especially in CA. You need to spend some time on you tube. Here is a video from UC Davis, with cops pepper spraying the shit out of some students sitting on the ground, doing nothing wrong. Reply Erik says: July 24, 2012 at 04:08 The chancellor said….. Irrelevant and I promise the chancellor only said that to keep mama and papa sending the tuition checks after they griped that their perfect little angels got OCd the protesters were blocking a public way without a protest permit. They were told to stop, they didn’t. So they got sprayed. The police are there to enforce the law, not sit down and share their feelings with a bunch of moon bats. If the protesters had done everything legally they would not have been bothered Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 01:12 In regards to the UC Davis incident, the chancellor of the university said “My instructions were for no arrests and no police force. I explicitly directed the chief of police that violence should be avoided at all costs.” They were students sitting on the ground in the quad at their university, what did they do wrong? What threat did they pose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 01:26 The police in CA have been known to go as far as drenching q-tips in pepper spray, and swabbing peoples eye balls. Immediately afterwards they then directly pepper sprayed peoples eyes at a distance of only a couple inches. The victims of the police brutality successfully won a law suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundberg_v._County_of_Humboldt California is well known for outrageous police behavior. Even our own California LEO, Accur81, has commented here that he supports extra-judicial executions of suspects and their family members. Reply Bad Matt says: July 23, 2012 at 03:10 Police in CA often carry video recorders secretly to protect themselves against use of force allegations. If those don’t surface here to show a justification, it’s a slam dunk indictment of the cops for me. Who points a shotgun at a bunch of women and kids? They posed no threat at all. And force is not justified just because they were poor mexicans — they have a 1st amendment right too. Reply Matt in FL says: July 23, 2012 at 03:20 @Bad Matt: If your comment doesn’t show up after you hit post, force refresh the page (shift-F5 or shift-click the Reload button), and see if that makes it appear. If it’s still not there, you may have run afoul of the spam filter, which is notoriously prudish. Either way, you’ll know, and you can avoid double-posting. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 03:32 Police in CA often carry video recorders secretly to protect themselves against use of force allegations. Especially at protests. Reply Bad Matt says: July 23, 2012 at 03:11 Police in CA often carry video recorders secretly to protect themselves against use of force allegations. If those don’t surface here to show a justification, it’s a slam dunk indictment of the cops for me. Who points a shotgun at a bunch of women and kids? They posed no threat at all. And force is not justified just because they were poor mexicans. They have a 1st amendment right too. Reply Bad Matt says: July 23, 2012 at 03:11 Police in CA often carry video recorders secretly to protect themselves against use of force allegations. If those don’t surface here to show a justification, it’s a slam dunk indictment of the cops for me. Who points a shotgun at a bunch of women and kids? They posed no threat at all. And force is not justified just because they were poor south of border types. They have a 1st amendment right too. Reply Jay says: July 23, 2012 at 03:28 You think maybe the local media selectively edited this clip to make the cops look bad? Reply Don says: July 23, 2012 at 08:40 Got to call bs on our response here. If the cops raised an eyebrow at an OCer, even if he was trying to bait them into bad behavior or being smarmy or whatever, we’d be calling those involved swine and heros respectively. When a bunch of poor people, latinos, women and children get beaned and bit on camera we are talking about giving the cops the benefit of the doubt. Reply old and scarred says: July 23, 2012 at 10:13 Don’t go to stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things Reply Jfoster says: July 23, 2012 at 10:32 Anaheim only has 1″n” Reply Joseph says: July 23, 2012 at 11:00 As usual there are plenty of bed wetters crying about the police response who have never faced a large angry mob of people. What’s that about walking a mile in my shoes? Especially not knowing if you are going to make it out of there. The old saying is true…Better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Reply matt says: July 23, 2012 at 13:46 All of those angry children! Think of what could happen to a group of LEOs with long guns being attacked by 8 year olds! Oh the horror! Reply Chris Mallory says: July 23, 2012 at 14:54 I am not of low enough character to walk a mile in any cop’s shoes. You are paid to “not make it out of there”. That is why you have bloated salaries and platinum plated pensions. If you don’t want the risk and danger, maybe we should start cutting pay to what you are really worth, minimum wage sounds about right. Reply Joseph says: July 23, 2012 at 11:04 As usual the bed wetters are crying about the police response, but have never faced a large angry mob….and never will. What’s that about walking a mile in my shoes? Especially not knowing if you are going to make it out of there. The old saying is true…Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Reply Write a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.