Category: Cops
- Retired plumber Joe Howard Teague was forced to use his shotgun on intruder
- LA resident tried to make citizen’s arrest and warned robbers he had a gun
- But they kept approaching the 93-year-old, with one wielding a fishing pole
- He said: ‘It was just like somebody comes to a gunfight with a pocketknife’
- A relative noted that Teague not only has tools from his life as a plumber, he’s also a musician as a hobbyist and owns several musical instruments
A 93-year-old man has shot and critically injured a would-be burglar after a gang tried to break into his home in California.
Retired plumber Joe Howard Teague repeatedly warned the attempted robbers that he had a shotgun, but they continued to approach and throw things at him.
Teague told reporters outside his Moreno Valley home yesterday: ‘I approached them to put them under citizen’s arrest.
‘They wouldn’t adhere to that and then one of them came at me with a fishing pole.
‘I kept telling them, I have a shotgun with three shells in it, but I actually only had one. And they kept throwing stuff at me,’ Teague said.
‘It was just like somebody comes to a gunfight with a pocketknife, you know’, ABC reported.
One kicked his door in and entered his home, prompting Teague to call 911 around 12.30pm. He tried to hold them at gunpoint while waiting for police to arrive.
A relative noted that Teague not only has tools from his life as a plumber, he’s also a musician as a hobbyist and owns several musical instruments.
When Riverside County cops showed up, attempted burglar Joseph Ortega, 33, was shot.
+11
View gallery
Senior Joe Teague, 93, said: ‘It was just like somebody comes to a gunfight with a pocketknife’
The Los Angeles area homeowner fended off the gang of would-be burglars using a shotgun
By the time cops showed up at Teague’s home (pictured) Wednesday, one burglar was killed
Officers from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department spoke to Teague for a long time before letting him go
The car the alleged burglar used to get to Teague’s home
Teague was taken in by police and questioned before being let go.
Because of the suspect’s critical condition, the Central Homicide Unit took the case.
Sheriff’s department officials said the shooting appeared to be justified, but added that the investigation is ongoing.
‘Investigators have established that several individuals, including Ortega, were inside Teague’s property when a shooting occurred,’ police said in a statement. ‘Teague was unharmed during the incident. He was questioned at the Moreno Valley Station and later returned home.’
No other arrests have been announced, with the rest of the gang getting away.
As of Friday morning, Ortega was still listed as hospitalized and in critical condition, according to the sheriff’s office.
Because of the suspect’s critical condition, the Central Homicide Unit took the case
Police said they will continue to investigate the potential homicide in Moreno Valley, California
But in-law Oscar Malma said: ‘I don’t think there would be any reason for him to be arrested’
Teague’s in-law Oscar Malma said Teague is often targeted by burglars – and the police response is less than rapid
Malma, who is married to Teague’s granddaughter, said the 93-year-old man was recently widowed
Teague’s in-law Oscar Malma said Teague is often targeted by burglars – and the police response is less than rapid.
He told KABC Los Angeles: ‘He took the law into his own hands.
‘He was tired because every time he calls the police, the police were taking forever to come and assist him.
Malma, who is married to Teague’s granddaughter, said the 93-year-old man was recently widowed.
‘And now this happened in the middle of the night.
‘He was defending his property. That happened inside of his home. So, I don’t think there would be any reason for him to be arrested.’
‘I don’t blame Joe. He’s been working all his life, he’s 93. He’s been working on his life and whatever little things he has, he needs to protect them,’ Malma said.
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history. Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event.
Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.
“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. The California Department of Justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”
On the afternoon of June 27, 2022, DOJ posted updates to the Firearms Dashboard Portal. DOJ was made aware of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal. After DOJ learned of the data exposure, the department took steps to remove the information from public view and shut down the Firearms Dashboard yesterday morning. The dashboard and data were available for less than 24 hours.
In the coming days, the Department will notify those individuals whose data was exposed and provide additional information and resources. California law requires a business or state agency to notify any California resident whose unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person.
DOJ asks that anyone who accessed such information respect the privacy of the individuals involved and not share or disseminate any of the personal information. In addition, possession of or use of personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose may be a crime. (See Cal Penal Code Sec. 530.5.)
We are communicating with law enforcement partners throughout the state. In collaboration, we will provide support to those whose information has been exposed.
In an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice will provide credit monitoring services for individuals whose data was exposed as a result of this incident. DOJ will directly contact individuals who have been impacted by this incident and will provide instructions to sign up for this service.
Any Californian may take the following steps to immediately protect their information related to credit:
- Monitor your credit. One of the best ways to protect yourself from identity theft is to monitor your credit history. To obtain free copies of your credit reports from the three major credit bureaus go to https://www.annualcreditreport.com.
- Consider placing a free credit freeze on your credit report. Identity thieves will not be able to open a new credit account in your name while the freeze is in place. You can place a credit freeze by contacting each of the three major credit bureaus:
-
- Equifax: https://www.equifax.com/personal/credit-report-services/credit-freeze/; 888-766-0008
-
- Experian: https://www.experian.com/freeze/center.html; 888-397-3742
-
- TransUnion: https://www.transunion.com/credit-freeze; 800-680-7289
- Place a fraud alert on your credit report. A fraud alert helps protect you against the possibility of someone opening new credit accounts in your name. A fraud alert lasts 90 days and can be renewed. To post a fraud alert on your credit file, you must contact one of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. Keep in mind that if place a fraud alert with any one of the three major credit reporting agencies, the alert will be automatically added by the other two agencies as well.
- Additional Resources. If you are a victim of identity theft, contact your local police department or sheriff’s office right away. You may also report identity theft and generate a recovery plan using the Federal Trade Commission’s website at identitytheft.gov. For more information and resources visit the Attorney General’s website at oag.ca.gov/idtheft.
Bonnie and Clyde, the names are known in every American home. Most picture two star crossed lovers committing crimes in dust bowl era America. Robbing banks, stealing cars and living wild and free. In reality, Bonnie and Clyde were cold-blooded killers running in a gang of cold-blooded killers. Their gang murdered 13 people and died as violently as they lived. Along the way, they collected quite the arsenal, and today, we are going to take a peek behind the curtain to see what armed the Parker-Barrow gang.
We won’t go over every single firearm in their massive arsenal, but we want to cover some of the more interesting weapons wielded by the gang. They had dozens of guns, but it’s clear which guns they were partial to.
Barrow’s BAR, aka the Scattergun
Where does a two-bit chump like Clyde get a Browning Automatic Rifle? Well, he stole one, well actually, he stole three, from the Missouri National guard. The BAR was a magazine-fed, fully automatic rifle that chambered the .30-06 Springfield cartridge. The BAR provided a ton of firepower, and Barrow loved his gun.
He took a hacksaw to the barrel and stock and trimmed the gun considerably. He cut the barrel back as far as he could and left a pistol grip akin to something you’d see on a sawn-off shotgun. The now smaller weapon allowed Bonnie and Clyde to use the weapon in and out of the vehicle. BARs are big guns, and if you’re a motor-borne bandit, something shorter is more maneuverable.
He called it the scattergun. We might call shotguns scatterguns because of how they disperse shot, but Clyde called it the scattergun because when he pulled it, people scattered. The full-auto .30-06 rifle could rip through the vehicles of the day and took any kind of cover away from law enforcement.
The magazine-fed gun easily outgunned officers armed with revolvers and shotguns. In the Bonnie and Clyde death car, they found three BARs and 100 round loaded BAR magazines.
Bonnie and Clyde and The Whippet Guns
Bonnie’s preferred weapon was supposedly a 20 gauge semi-automatic Remington Model 11. Bonnie was the definition of petite, and the light recoiling semi-auto 20 gauge was likely light and handy for her. A second 12 gauge variant of the same gun was also known to be used by the gang.
Clyde trimmed back the barrel and stock to make the classic sawn-off shotgun we all know and love. He called these Whippet guns. They could be hidden under a coat, and ‘whipped’ out when needed. The semi-auto action and some loads of buckshot made them intimidating weapons. The famed photo of Bonnie pointing a gun at Clyde shows the 20 gauge Remington Model 11.
The Model 11 was an American variant of the Browning Auto 5. This recoil operation shotgun was one of the first successful semi-auto shotguns. This pattern weapon was extremely popular, and it’s not a surprise Bonnie and Clyde ended up with the gun.
The Winchester Model 1901 – A Heavy Hitter
My favorite gun found in possession of Bonnie and Clyde was the Winchester Model 1901. The 1901 succeeded the 1887 as Winchester’s lever-action shotgun of choice. This particular model chambered the mighty ten gauge shotgun cartridge. The Winchester 1901s came to be because 1887s couldn’t utilize the more powerful smokeless powder shotshells.
The Model 1901 did not come in 12 gauge because Winchester didn’t want to compete with their own 12 gauge model 1897. The gun came with a massive 32-inch barrel which, if you’ve followed the theme, was trimmed considerably. Interestingly enough, Clyde wasn’t an idiot. Handling a 12 gauge or 20 gauge Remington Model 11 without a stock is doable.
Handling a ten gauge anything without a stock is a lot tougher. They trimmed the barrel but left the stock in place. This made the weapon controllable and offered some thunderous power. The 1901 wasn’t a popular gun, and only 13,500 were produced, and one ended up with Bonnie and Clyde.
The Handguns of Bonnie and Clyde
While we covered three very interesting long guns, it’s worth noting they had a pile of handguns. In fact, the car they died in held seven M1911 pistols. The famed handgun was in use by the Army at the time and represented a very modern handgun for 1930. It offered faster reloads and more rounds than revolvers.
On top of that, they found a Colt M1903 in their vehicle. This little 32 ACP pistol was a popular gun for lower-profile carry. Compared to the 1911, it was much smaller with a lot less recoil. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was Bonnie’s handgun. She was 4 foot 11 inches tall and weighed 90 pounds. Her hands were likely small, and the M1903 like sat well in her hand.
We know she used a Colt Detective special. This little gun was found taped to Bonnie’s thigh. It was likely hidden under a dress and rather easy to access. The little 38 Colts were rock solid guns and were reliable to a fault.
Finally, the Bonnie and Clyde gang had a Colt Model 1909 Revolver. This 45 Colt revolver offered a modern double-action design with a flip-out cylinder in the proven 45 Colt cartridge. This six-shooter brought the thunder and was a modern design in a classic cartridge.
An Arsenal
It seems like the gang led by Bonnie and Clyde were more attached to firearms than gangs before them or after them. Sure, some guys had their favorites, but Bonnie and Clyde had a car full of guns and ammo. The fact they heavily modified the weapons os extensively showed some insight and some tactical prowess. Id’ love to be able to pick their brains, but unfortunately, Frank Hamer and his crew removed them. All I can do is examine and assume, and I think my assumptions are fair.
AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation.
One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued. State Attorney General Rob Bonta sent out a letter on Friday to law enforcement and government attorneys noting the change and saying that the state’s current “may issue” regime should be able to be converted to a “shall issue” regime with few modifications. So that’s good news, right?
Not so fast. As Eugene Volokh points out at Reason, Bonta pivoted from signaling compliance with the new SCOTUS ruling to identifying another way to deny permits to people with no criminal record. He claims that the ruling will not impact the existing requirement for applicants to be able to demonstrate that they are “of good moral character.” On that basis, the state can start snooping around to see if you hold any unauthorized opinions or are prone to demonstrate “hatred and racism.” And how would they know that? Well, by going through your social media accounts, of course.
Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [Emphasis added.]
As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character. [Emphasis added.]
As Volokh goes on to explain, this entire scheme appears to be completely unconstitutional. It’s a violation of the First Amendment before we even begin to examine how it would hold up under the Second Amendment. The government is not allowed to restrict your actions or suspend your Constitutional rights based on the viewpoints you express, even if they are unpopular with the current regime.
This is an even more critical distinction to make in an era where the government is busy redefining words and appointing people to decide what is or isn’t “misinformation.” If you spoke out against the violence on display during the BLM riots, you’ve already been defined as a “racist.” Based on that alone, the California AG could determine that you are of insufficiently good moral character to be approved for a permit. If you applauded the overturning of Roe v Wade you are no doubt already on a list of “haters” of some sort so you can be similarly denied.
Volokh correctly describes the words “hatred” and “racism” as being “potentially extraordinarily broad and vague terms.” Of course they are. And that’s more true than ever in the current climate as I described above.
The problem is that this clause has been on the books in California for years. Nobody really noticed it, however, because the state government was too busy denying carry permits to people because of their supposed lack of a “good cause.” They didn’t need to bother checking into your “good moral character” because most people never made it that far in the process. And the ruling in Bruen didn’t address this point.
What that means is that if California simply begins denying carry permit applications in massive numbers based on this clause, a challenge will have to be brought against them and the whole process will have to start all over again. The Bruen case had been grinding its way through the courts since 2018 before finally reaching a conclusion last week. If someone has to start over from scratch in California, the state will be able to continue flaunting the Constitutional rights of citizens for years to come.
Three weeks ago, I wrote an article covering my analysis of the Uvalde school shooting. Since then, we’ve learned some more facts about what happened that day. If anything, these facts indicate that the police response was even more dismal than I originally reported. Here are some updated news links and my thoughts about what happened.
The first issue that has been clarified is exactly what happened after the killer crashed his truck and before he made entry into the school. There was confusion about whether or not officers were on scene and if or how they confronted the killer.
It turns out that cops were on scene. They chose not to engage stating they feared missing and hitting children in the area.
Uvalde cop wielding AR-15 failed to take shot to kill gunman
Imagine being given the opportunity to instantly stop an active killer event at an elementary school before anyone got hurt. Then imagine failing to take that opportunity because you don’t trust your own marksmanship abilities.
I wonder if these officers wished they had practiced more or taken a carbine class on their own dime to build their skill set? Probably not, because in police work, failing to act is always preferable to acting and experiencing an unfavorable outcome.
These officers will never be punished for failing to take the shot, but they would be fired, sued and maybe jailed if they shot and accidentally hit a kid.
Which option would you choose given this scenario? I would argue that sometimes you have to take the shot regardless of the backstop. If these officers would have missed, they may have hit a couple kids on the playground. That would be absolutely horrible, but would be a far better result than the massacre that occurred.
But again, these officers will not be disciplined for allowing a murderer to get into an elementary school. They would be fired and sued if they had missed and shot kids on a playground. These are the rules society has set for officers. There’s no expectation that they do anything. They get punished if they screw up. They aren’t given the training to be truly competent with their weapons. It’s easy to see why they made the choices they did.
People have been clamoring for kinder, gentler, less militarized cops for the last 15 years. This is the result. As my friend Darryl Bolke says: “You get the police department you deserve.” When you reward and promote inept cowards, yes-men, and suck-ups because they never used force or screwed up in the field, you get police chiefs like Pete Arredondo.
Absolutely unfit for command and many of your police chiefs are just like him.
Remember, these are the folks you are calling to help you in your worst moments. As I’ve said before, you are on your own. No one is coming to save you.
You’d think that failing to shoot a murderer entering an elementary school would be the worst that one could imagine. But no. The hits keep coming. It turns out that almost everything this police chief said has been a lie.
Uvalde cops ‘didn’t even try to open door of massacre classroom’
The classroom doors couldn’t be locked from the inside. That’s a massive school safety issue. If we want to minimize casualties against an attacker already inside the school, speed is of the essence. All classroom doors should be able to be locked from the inside without a key.
The article above states that killer didn’t have a key. Although it’s possible that the shooter got a key from the teacher and locked it from the outside, the event timeline doesn’t give him much time (less than two minutes) to do that.
That means the door was most likely unlocked.
Timeline from link above
Video shows the police massed in the hallway made ZERO attempts to unlock the door during their 77 minute wait. Unconscionable. If the officers would have checked, they would have indeed found the door unlocked.
Uvalde classroom door unlocked during shooting as officers waited for keys: ‘Abject failure’
“Three minutes after the suspect entered the west building, there was a sufficient number of armed officers wearing body armor to isolate, distract, and neutralize the subject,” he said. “The only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from entering Room 111, and 112, was the on-scene commander, who decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children.”
Law enforcement apologists claim that the police officers inside were waiting for breaching tools, shields, and rifles. Completely untrue. Read the absolutely damning article below.
Officers in Uvalde were ready with guns, shields and tools – but not clear orders
The photo (linked in article above) above was from 12:04. The breach occurred at 12:50. I see five rifles and two shields. According to the article, they had breaching gear as well.
“A Halligan bar — an ax-like forcible-entry tool used by firefighters to get through locked doors — was available. Ballistic shields were arriving on the scene. So was plenty of firepower, including at least two rifles. Some officers were itching to move.”
This is a Halligan tool. It (usually along with a short sledge hammer) is the primary tool used for breaching outward opening doors.
More horrific details are revealed in the link below.
“If there’s kids in there, we need to go in”
“No security footage from inside the school showed police officers attempting to open the doors to classrooms 111 and 112, which were connected by an adjoining door. Arredondo told the Tribune that he tried to open one door and another group of officers tried to open another, but that the door was reinforced and impenetrable. Those attempts were not caught in the footage reviewed by the Tribune. Some law enforcement officials are skeptical that the doors were ever locked.
Within the first minutes of the law enforcement response, an officer said the Halligan (a firefighting tool that is also sometimes spelled hooligan) was on site. It wasn’t brought into the school until an hour after the first officers entered the building. Authorities didn’t use it and instead waited for keys.
Officers had access to four ballistic shields inside the school during the standoff with the gunman, according to a law enforcement transcript. The first arrived 58 minutes before officers stormed the classrooms. The last arrived 30 minutes before.
Multiple Department of Public Safety officers — up to eight, at one point — entered the building at various times while the shooter was holed up. Many quickly left to pursue other duties, including evacuating children, after seeing the number of officers already there. At least one of the officers expressed confusion and frustration about why the officers weren’t breaching the classroom, but was told that no order to do so had been given.
At least some officers on the scene seemed to believe that Arredondo was in charge inside the school, and at times Arredondo seemed to be issuing orders such as directing officers to evacuate students from other classrooms. That contradicts Arredondo’s assertion that he did not believe he was running the law enforcement response. Arredondo’s lawyer, George E. Hyde, said the chief will not elaborate on his interview with the Tribune, given the ongoing investigation.”
The Texas director of public safety stated in the recent hearings:
“We set our profession back a decade,”
I would argue that we set the profession back more than a quarter of a century and this singular event will be the turning point where the general public loses all faith in law enforcement officers across the country. I predict that the profession will never recover and that society will see some very big changes (none of them for the good) in the next few years.
Ex-NYPD cop who fired gun into Atlantic Ocean gets prison
Police Officer David Afanador of the NYPD leaves state court in New York City, Nov. 5, 2014. (AP File Photo) (AP Images)
NEW YORK – A former NYPD officer who twice was accused of brutality is going to prison in connection to an unrelated crime: firing an illegal semiautomatic handgun into the Atlantic Ocean while he was drinking alcohol on a beach on Long Island.
On Thursday, Judge Robert Bogle sentenced David Afanador, 41, of Long Beach, to between 16 months and four years in prison. Afanador had pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal possession of a firearm, a felony, back in March.
On March 21, 2021, Long Beach police officers responding to a call of shots fired near Franklin Boulevard and Ocean Beach Park came upon Afanador and three other people on the beach, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office said. Afanador was holding an open can of hard seltzer and had a 9mm Beretta pistol in a holster and two loaded magazines, police said. Cops found seven spent 9mm shell casings in the sand near him, according to the DA.
Afanador was off-duty and wasn’t authorized to carry a firearm because of a pending criminal case for allegedly putting a Black man in a banned chokehold while responding to a call on the boardwalk at Rockaway Beach, according to the NYPD and the DA. (A Queens grand jury later declined to indict him for that incident, the New York Post reported.)
When the officers asked to see Afanador’s ID, he handed them a driver’s license and his NYPD officer identification card, which was clearly marked “No Firearms,” the DA’s office said.
“This defendant knew he could not legally possess a firearm, but still made the decision to drink with friends on a beach and recklessly fire a loaded gun several times into the ocean,” District Attorney Anne Donnelly said in a statement. “Afanador’s behavior was foolish, dangerous, and illegal. We hope that his sentence sends a message to anyone thinking about illegally discharging a weapon in Nassau County in the name of fun.”
In 2016, Affandor was acquitted of pistol-whipping a teenager during a drug bust. He resigned from the NYPD shortly after his arrest in Long Beach. He had been with the department for more than 16 years.
A woman who was with Afanador at the time of the incident is also facing a felony charge in connection with firing the Beretta into the ocean, the DA’s office said. Her case is pending.
With The Associated Press.