Armed Good Samaritan Rescues Trooper, Kills Gunman & OPEN THREAD

From ABC7.com:

An Arizona trooper trying to help a motorist in a rollover crash was shot in an ambush-style attack by a random suspect, who was then fatally shot by a Good Samaritan driving by.

The trooper with the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) was at a traffic stop when he received a report about a driver whose car was shot at near a median at milepost 81 on Interstate 10, reported ABC15, an ABC affiliate in Arizona.

The trooper left the traffic stop to investigate this call when he came across a rollover crash and saw that a woman had been ejected from the wreckage.

When the trooper began working to block lanes, a suspect came from an unknown direction and “ambushed” him, according to DPS.

The suspect shot him at least once in the chest-shoulder area and fought the trooper to the ground.

A passerby saw the fight unfolding and stopped to render aid to the trooper, who asked for help.

However, the suspect ignored the Good Samaritan’s orders to stop attacking the trooper.

That’s when the passerby went to his car, grabbed a gun and fatally shot the suspect, reported ABC15.

DPS said the injured trooper, who has been with the department for 27 years, was taken to an area hospital, where he was awaiting surgery. He is in stable condition.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Good News: "Clock" Boy's Defamation Suit Bombs in Court
  • Scalia

    National Right to Carry in Works for Congress:

    A Republican lawmaker and member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition has a concealed carry reciprocity measure waiting for introduction to the new Congress.

    U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina, is one of 121 co-sponsors of a languishing House bill to allow the holder of a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state and announced Monday he planned to renew the effort as soon as the new body meets next year.

    “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and I plan to re-introduce legislation in the first days of the 115th Congress to guarantee that,” Hudson said in a message posted to social media. Last month Hudson was one of just six Congressmen listed among the 62 co-chairs of the pro-gun Second Amendment Coalition of advisors to Trump.

    Hudson’s plan would allow the holder of a valid photo ID and concealed handgun permit to carry in any state so long as they are not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. Persons carrying as a non-resident in a state would otherwise be bound by whatever laws of the state they are visiting. This would end the confusing patchwork of reciprocity agreements that are currently in place across the country.

    • pennywit

      Is this law intended to apply to individuals who are in transit across state lines, or would it (for example) give a permanent resident of New Mexico to conceal-carry there if he receives a valide license from California?

      • Scalia

        I don’t believe California issues non-resident gun permits.

        • pennywit

          Well, California is just a state I pulled out of the air. Replace it with any hypothetical state that decides to issue a non-resident gun permit.

          • Scalia

            Yes, anybody with a valid permit and is not prohibited by federal law to possess/carry a firearm should be able to carry firearms in every state.

          • pennywit

            I think I would disagree with you on that. The federal courts have held that states have a degree of latitude when it comes to regulating firearms. If we follow your doctrine, we could see a situation where the laws of the least restrictive state effectively become the law of the land on firearms. Now, if instead you think gun laws ought to be made at the federal level, that’s a different argument … and I’m not sure I’d disagree with you on that.

          • Scalia

            I can see tweaking the law to accommodate state regulations so long as the basic right to carry is not prohibited. For example, California bans open carry and issues concealed carry permits on a “may issue” basis. Many of my friends from California cannot obtain a permit because their county sheriff doesn’t think they need one. Given the 9th Circuit’s upholding of that law, the vast majority of Californians are prohibited from carrying a firearm. That needs to end on constitutional grounds.

            As to state regulations, some states do not have a mandatory fingerprint-based criminal background check (e.g. Alabama). I can see tweaking the law to require standardized criminal background checks so long as the fundamental right is not infringed.

          • pennywit

            The more I think about this, the more I think that if you want to enact a universal concealed-carry rule, you have to go with a federally sponsored and directed regime, rather than reciprocity scheme. Among other things, if you leave it at state level, then there needs to be a mechanism to ensure the databases (honestly, I don’t know what the current state of interstate IT is) are 100 percent updated and 100 percent accurate.

            The nightmare scenario here, IMO, is one in which a domestic abuser is put under a restraining order in a state that doesn’t allow individuals under such an order to legally carry a firearm. So he applies for such a firearm in a state that either a) doesn’t prohibit individuals in that situation from keeping and bearing arms or b) doesn’t have access to the record of the restraining order.

          • yetanotherjohn

            Start with the legal ability to carry a gun in State A. Under this law, I would be able to carry that gun in any state. Using that gun may be subject to different interpretations (e.g. duty to retreat is the law in some states). If I change residency to a different state, I would likely have to qualify for carrying the gun in the new state.
            Now imagine the most open carry of all. Anyone over the age of 18 allowed to carry. (I don’t know of a state with this, but I can certainly imagine it). As a resident of that state I could thus carry anywhere. But as a resident of a different state, I couldn’t point to another states laws and say I want to be under their law.
            As a practical matter there will be issues. In college a friend of mine was pulled over. They notice he didn’t have a state inspection sticker. The state he was from didn’t have a state inspection and thus he couldn’t get one from them. Fortunately for him, he had been in the state for less than 90 days. Under our state law, if you have been here for 90 days, you need to register your car here (and get a state inspection). He explained why he didn’t have an inspection sticker, the officer sent him on his way further explaining the 90 day rule to him. He was going to be here for a couple of semesters, but hadn’t planned to register his car (most students from out of state didn’t). He could do so, but would be violating the law and subject to the law’s penalties.
            Likewise, a student with open carry license going to another state to school, may lose their right to carry after a certain amount of time (e.g. residency in the new state).

          • Scalia

            Missouri is one of several states with “constitutional carry” laws. It is the only one, to my knowledge, that allows permitless carry for 18-year-olds and older:

            In September 2016, another Senate bill coincidentally numbered SB 656 was passed allowing permitless concealed carry by anyone 18 years of age or older who may lawfully own a gun. This bill was also vetoed by Governor Nixon, on June 27, 2016. After the Missouri legislature reconvened for the veto-override session on September 14, 2016, the Senate voted to override the veto with a 24 – 6 vote (23 required) and the House followed through shortly thereafter with a 112 – 41 vote (109 required). The permitless carry provision of the bill went into effect on January 1, 2017.

          • Retired military

            Don’t know of any state that issues non resident permits.

          • Scalia

            Yes, states like Arizona, Florida, Oregon & Washington issue non-resident permits.

        • Ken in Camarillo

          I think the proper resolution of recognizing other states’ carry permits would be a federal law that defines under what conditions a state must recognize the carry permit of another state. Such a law might say that to have mandatory recognition, a state must require gun safety training, a certain type of background check, and maintenance of an appropriate data base related to permitees. This law would/should not define how a state issues carry permits, it would only define the conditions under which another state must recognize a carry permit. The Constitution states that Congress has the power to determine the details of how states must give full faith and credit to the administrative acts of other states.

          • pennywit

            I’m relatively agnostic on the issue of allowing people to carry firearms while they travel between states. But if this kind of law is passed, I think it’s imperative to require that if a person resides in a state, he has to obtain a license for that state if he wants to bear arms there.

          • Scalia

            I’m relatively agnostic on the issue of allowing people to carry firearms while they travel between states.

            Why is that? Why should a person’s right of self-defense stop at the border of another state?

          • pennywit

            Why is that? Why should a person’s right of self-defense stop at the border of another state?

            Because that aspect of gun law hasn’t really come across my radar before, and it doesn’t inspire much passion in me one way or the other. I don’t necessarily line up with one side or the other on it.

          • Scalia

            Are you “agnostic” about a state allowing its citizens to carry firearms? If you believe a state can and should allow its citizens to carry weapons, on what basis would that be denied in another state? To me, the only logical answer is that you consider carrying firearms to be a privilege subject to each state’s regulation and not a right. If the former, your position makes sense. If the latter, it doesn’t.

          • pennywit

            Scalia, how do you feel about buffalo wings? (And, yes, I’m going somewhere with this)

          • Scalia

            I don’t like them.

          • pennywit

            Neither do I. Bu I doubt you feel strongly enough about them to march on Hooters, organize a sit-in, sing anti-buffalo wing songs, and enlist PETA to protest the removal of wings from buffalo’s backs.

            I’m like that with gun rights. I generally support the right to keep and bear arms. But on some of the more specific subissues (like this one), I’m not really passionate enough about it to take a stand one way or the other. It just doesn’t make that much of a difference to me.

            But I am persuadable on it.

          • Scalia

            Since you are “persuadable,” you “support the right to keep and bear arms.” That means you consider keeping and bearing arms to be a right, not a privilege. If it is a right, then your right cannot stop at a state border. I’m not passionate about the Klan’s free speech rights, but since Klansmen have the same First Amendment protections as I, their right to speak cannot be restricted to the state in which they reside. I don’t see how that differs from the exercise of gun rights.

          • That doesn’t answer the question. The question is:

            Why should a person’s right of self-defense stop at the border of another state?

          • Scalia

            This law would/should not define how a state issues carry permits, it would only define the conditions under which another state must recognize a carry permit.

            That would be a little tricky under a state’s “may issue” statute. That grants a sheriff the latitude to deny recognition to a non-resident. If a federal law is to be enacted, local jurisdictions should be required to issue permits if the applicants are in compliance with federal law.

            That said, I think the “federal” law has already been enacted in the form of the Constitution. California’s ban on open carry is unconstitutional on its face, so I’m hoping that the SCOTUS will reverse the 9th Circuit’s awful ruling and either force California to be a “shall issue” state with respect to concealed weapons, or strike down its ban on open carry.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            The law I describe is only to define when state A must recognize a carry permit for a citizen that resides in and has a carry permit issued by state B. It would not define any obligation of a state to issue a carry permit. That issue is separate, and as you point out, some states may be in violation of the Constitution which would be remedied by the normal process of challenging the Constitutionality of their procedures.

            I assume that if a person became a resident of state A, his carry
            permit from state B would become void after some amount of time (similar
            to driver’s license or car registration when you move to a different
            state).

  • Scalia

    Goodbye, Obamacare!:

    WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans took their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, approving a budget blueprint that would allow them to gut the health care law without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.

    The vote was 51 to 48. During the roll call, Democrats staged a highly unusual protest on the Senate floor to express their dismay and anger at the prospect that millions of Americans could lose health insurance coverage.

    One by one, Democrats rose to voice their objections. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington said that Republicans were “stealing health care from Americans.” Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was voting no “because health care should not just be for the healthy and wealthy.”

    The presiding officer, Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, repeatedly banged his gavel and said the Democrats were out of order because “debate is not allowed during a vote.”

    And good riddance!

    • pennywit

      I hope they come up with a viable replacement program before completely repealing Obamacare.

      • Scalia

        Thank you for your contribution, Senator Paul.

      • Vagabond661

        Democrats didn’t worry about stealing from Medicare to fund it and screwing up the whole healthcare process.

        • pennywit

          If Democrats behaved poorly, IMO, then Republicans ought to prove they are better.

          • Scalia

            That song has been sung to Republicans for a very long time, and we’re getting a little weary of it. The Top 40 song now making the rounds is Give Them a Taste of Their Own Medicine.

            Democrats couldn’t care less what our sensibilities, beliefs and convictions are. We’re just knuckle-dragging, racist, homophobic Neanderthals who aren’t worth their time. Maybe if they received some of what they’ve been giving, they’ll have a little more respect. Perhaps if we’re just as ruthless as they have been, they’ll realize what they’ve been doing for so long. I doubt it, but conservatives are being fools if we squander the opportunity we now have.

            I hope Trump’s takedown of CNN is just the opening salvo. Cavuto says it well:
            https://youtu.be/1mBKVCNEW1o

          • pennywit

            I’m trying to look up an old NPR story I heard about game theory. As I recall, somebody studied game theory, and it turned out that one of the winning strategies includes occasionally hitting the “nice” button instead of the “nasty” button. This gives the other player a chance to hit “nice” and create a better mutual outcome. The tit-for-tat strategy turns things negative rather quickly — and permanently — if you strictly apply it.

          • The dhimmocrats have been strictly tit-for-tat and faithless in their promises for as long as I have been following politics (40 years).

            As they have sown, now let them reap.

          • Scalia

            We tried hitting the nice button for a long time. When that happens, Democrats sense weakness and exploit it. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

          • pennywit

            Hm. My impression is the mirror image, in a way. I think the Left has been more aggressive culturally, but I also think the Right has been more aggressive (and more ruthless) in the legislatures.

          • Hank_M

            The Nice button? W tried that along with never fighting back.
            What did that get him?

          • The rule now is “punch back twice as hard.”

            Just wait for those IRS audits of Tides Foundation et al…

          • Hank_M

            And that rule, as I’m sure you know, was brought to us by the Obama White House.

            I hope they’re enjoying it.

          • Time and past time for the dhimmocrats to bring in the harvest of that which they have sown.

          • jim_m

            They have. They are repealing the fraud perpetrated on the people.

            There is no necessity to have a replacement immediately, or frankly, EVER.

          • Retired military

            They have tried and have been kicked in the ass in the MSM because of trying to be the nice guy. THe lesson of the MSM and the last 16 years is this: If you are a republican do what you want regardless of the optics because the MSM is going to beat you over the head and ask you “which is it? do you beat your wife, molest your kids, or both?” No matter what.

          • Vagabond661

            They are replacing it with free market choices vs. Government mandated taxes. Sounds like a good replacement to me.

            Besides, they are repealing the mandate, not cancelling policies. Allowing to sell insurance across state lines like most everything else is a GOOD thing.

          • jim_m

            By repealing 0bamacare they will have proven just that.

  • Scalia

    Trump Disses Buzzfeed and CNN:

    Donald Trump, at his first news conference as president-elect, blasted BuzzFeed on Wednesday for reporting on unverified allegations that Russia put together compromising information on him.

    He also refused to take a question from a CNN reporter.
    Trump called BuzzFeed a “failing pile of garbage,” arguing the online media outlet “will suffer the consequences.” A day earlier, BuzzFeed published a 35-page dossier of unsubstantiated allegations of Russian information-gathering on Trump.

    At the news conference, Trump took CNN to task for “going out of their way to build it up,” then refused to take a question from CNN’s Jim Acosta.

    “Your organization is terrible,” the president-elect told Acosta at the nationally televised news conference at Trump Tower. “I am not going to give you a question, you’re fake news.”

    • Hank_M

      Looks like Presidential News Conferences are going to be must-see TV.
      As for what Trump did, a lot of us have been waiting a long time for something like that to occur.

    • pennywit

      I think Buzzfeed crossed a line. You don’t publish something like that, verbatim, without verifying the facts. If you can’t verify the facts, you shouldn’t publish. Period.

      • Retired military

        Hell they wouldn’t touch the pizzagate scandal against Hillary but they published this. It just shows that it is a political hit piece.

      • jim_m

        It’s not about verifying the facts. Some of the details have been flat out shown to be false. It was clearly and obviously a pack of lies.

        CNN was wrong when they chose ideology over professionalism and reported that the report existed with the tenuous claim that it was as yet unsubstantiated.

        Buzz feed claims that they published the full report so people could make up their minds for themselves. I think a simple run down of the facts as to why it was unsubstantiated and the parts that had been shown to be false would have been appropriate.

        This was an ideologically driven hit piece from the start.

        • Hank_M

          “This was an ideologically driven hit piece from the start.”

          Exactly, and transparently so.

          Buzzfeed took the bullet, so to speak to allow the LSM to be able to “report” about it. God, I’d love to see the emails coordinating this one.

          • jim_m

            Exactly. Everyone is talking about the “unsubstantiated” allegations, but virtually no one is talking about the parts that have been proven to be false. The media is all about the smear but refuses to talk about the mountain of details that show it is false. It’s disgusting.

    • Retired military

      Trump should start calling CNN the cartoon news network at every press conference. I can see it now “I will now take a question from xxxx the representative, notice I didn’t say reporter, from the cartoon news network”
      I would love 4 years (at least) of Trump saying Cartoon news network. CNN wont be able to hang its head anywhere.

      • Scalia

        I really wouldn’t mind it if he called CNN the Cartoon News Network. It would serve them right after the garbage they’ve been spewing all these years.

  • Scalia

    Democrats will rehang painting depicting police officer as a pig:

    Democratic lawmakers plan to rehang a controversial painting on Capitol Hill that angered law enforcement groups with its depiction of police officers as pigs, after Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter personally took down the picture last week.

    A Monday press release from the Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., whose office for months had sponsored the display of the student artwork, announced that Clay and CBC members will “rehang” the piece Tuesday morning in the Cannon Tunnel.

    “The rehanging of this painting for public view represents more than just protecting the rights of a student artist, it is a proud statement in defense of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression to every American,” the statement said, noting it had been “removed without permission or proper authority” by Hunter.

    Hunter, R-Calif., personally unscrewed and removed the painting last Friday, saying he was angered by its depiction of law enforcement officers. He then delivered the painting to Clay’s office.

    “Lacy can put it back up, I guess, if he wants to,” Hunter told FoxNews.com at the time, “but I’m allowed to take it down.”

    The painting, hanging since June, was done by high school student David Pulphus, who had won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.

    The acrylic painting depicts a police officer as a pig in uniform aiming a gun at African-American protesters. Above the scene, two birds — one black, one white — fight, and beside them, an African-American protester holding a scale of justice is crucified.

    Law enforcement groups had strongly objected to the painting’s display on the Capitol complex grounds, with one group calling it “reprehensible, repugnant and repulsive.”

    • Hank_M

      And democrats wonder why their party doesn’t run much of anything any longer.

    • pennywit

      I wonder if Duncan Hunter has heard of Barbra Streisand.

    • jim_m

      The Architect of the Capitol has had it removed as it violates the rules against political controversy in the art that is displayed.

  • Scalia

    New Zealand tax dollars to Clinton Health Access Initiative:

    New Zealand should not have given aid money to an agriculture initiative in Africa because of an association with Hillary Clinton, the Taxpayers’ Union says.

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mfat), through the NZ Aid Programme, has given $7.7 million to a project run by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, and designed to strengthen agricultural production in Rwanda and Ethiopia and reduce childhood malnutrition.

    Annual support of $2.5m and $3m is budgeted if results are favourable – and the programme is going well so far, Mfat says.

    The Clinton Health Access Initiative has been a separate organisation from the Clinton Foundation since 2010.

    However, Jordan Williams, executive director of the Taxpayers’ Union, said recent controversy over the Clinton Foundation meant the aid money was not a good look and “risks even more damage to New Zealand’s ability to wield any influence in the US”.

    “This money comes from the NZ Aid budget [and] should be going to programmes which are the most effective at helping the world’s poor – not sidetracked into political objectives.”

    Former president Bill Clinton established the Clinton Foundation in 2001 and it was at the centre of controversy during the recent US presidential campaign over a potential conflict of interest between it and the state department, where Hillary Clinton was secretary from 2009 to 2013.

    President-elect Donald Trump and other critics of Clinton called for action over “pay for play” allegations.

    AP published an investigation showing more than half of people outside the government who met Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money to the Clinton Foundation.

  • Scalia

    Conservatives are better-looking than liberals:

    Research has found that being attractive influences many things in a person’s life — their salary, their popularity and grades in school, even the prison sentences they receive. So why not their politics?

    A recently published study in the Journal of Public Economics concludes that the attractiveness of a candidate does correlate with their politics. They find that politicians on the right are more good looking in Europe, the United States and Australia.

    The study shows correlation, not causation, but the researchers float a simple economic explanation for why this might happen. Numerous studies have shown that good-looking people are likely to earn more, and that people who earn more are typically more opposed to redistributive policies, like the progressive taxes and welfare programs favored by the left.

    The researchers also offer a more general psychological explanation for the trend: That good-looking people are often treated better than others, and thus see the world as a more just place. Past studies have found that the more attractive people believe themselves to be, the lower their preference for egalitarianism, a value typically associated with the political left.

    Ok, I had to add some levity here.

  • Scalia
  • Scalia

    Video of the day:
    https://youtu.be/_-qtVTsL-FQ

  • Retired military

    I have to admit that the highlights of my days lately have been going to DU and browsing the threads over there. Those folks are delusional and remind me that there are a lot of people out there who are worse off than anyone I personally know.

  • pennywit

    I offer you definitive proof that Republicans are responsible for global warming.

  • pennywit

    The Women’s March folk have put out an official agenda. Seems pretty general to me.

    • Scalia

      The Women’s March on Washington is a women-led movement bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds in our nation’s capital on January 21, 2017, to affirm our shared humanity and pronounce our bold message of resistance and self-determination.

      Yes, a march to bring together all genders that’s called The Women’s March. I guess anybody who raised a hand and said, “Don’t ya think we might need to think about changing the title?” got excommunicated.

      • pennywit

        It’s a march for women, and not a march of women? Yeah? Nah.

        They’ve actually had some issue getting men to sign up for it, apparently. I’m guffawing a little bit at this article about it.

        • Scalia

          Now that was good comedy.

          • pennywit

            My first thought on that is not that men are afraid of being unmasculine; my first thought was that if Mrs. Smith is going to Washington to protest on a school day, Mr. Smith’s proper place is not marching beside her, but to be at home taking care of the kids while she’s away.

          • Scalia

            My first thought is that those people are nuts to not see how ridiculous they sound.

          • pennywit

            They are a little nuts, aren’t they? Among other things, rule of thumb is that when there’s an inauguration or major protest in DC, you head somewhere else for a few days.

          • pennywit

            On the subject of women’s rights and the workplace — I’ve read about a phenomenon creeping up in Wall Street in the last decade or so. Basically, more Wall Street banks have made an effort to recruit women alongside men. And a number of these women succeed on the same terms as their male co-workers — they bust their butts and they work 80-90 hour weeks. They’re able to do this because a lot of them have husbands who don’t work (or work part-time jobs) and stay home and take care of the kids.

            This has led to a couple interesting things. First, apparently, stay-at-home dads raise children differently than stay-at-home moms do. Heavier emphasis on exploring and doing things yourself. Second, there are some objections from feminist groups. The argument there is that neither men nor women should have to sacrifice a fulfilling home life in order to succeed at the office.

          • Scalia

            Well, when they invent the you-can-be-in-two-places-at-once machine, that might make sense.

          • pennywit

            Things are changing. There are moves in some companies to force workers to disconnect at least one weekend a month.

          • How is that 30 hr work week working out in France again?

  • Paul Hooson

    This an open thread, so I’ll discuss some new news from Israel, where Israeli satellites have discovered Russia has moved nuclear capable Iskander ballistic missiles into Syria. This could possibly signal the beginning of a coming dangerous arms race in the region. Russia has also moved this newer class of ballistic missiles to threaten Poland.