-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From: Lucy176 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FW: [CTRL] Fw: The Showdown on Hwy. 78] Frans, This is exactly how police respond to reports of people with guns. Anyone who is unaware of that either has never read the newspaper or tuned in the nightly news, but Nancy has, by report. So why did she THINK she was being pulled over, if not because of the gun? The police responding to such a report do not stroll casually up to someone and say, "Hey -- I got a report that you have a gun, that's a no-no, please give it to me." They USUALLY approach with their weapons ready to use, and demand that the SUSPECT [via report] freeze, then comply with the rules of arrest. Resisting arrest under these circumstances carries its own risks. Especially if you take off and start a "chase," something else that has annoyed regionals sufficiently to get stiffer laws passed regarding this method of resisting arrest passed. Maybe she thinks those laws are also unconstitutional. To carry an unloaded weapon for the purpose of "protection" runs three risks: 1 -- Creating a scene like this one is a NEW wrinkle -- there are in fact plenty of arrests made regarding weapons in vehicles that do not result in this kind of mess. 2 -- Getting shot by an armed party who has a LOADED weapon 3 -- Being relieved of your unloaded weapon by a previously unarmed criminal who can now arm himself as easily as buying and loading ammo. As I stated before, a gun has no USE whatever EXCEPT to kill in defense. The proper weapon for the kind of encounter this woman had is definitely NOT a gun. Mace, which you CAN get a permit to carry and use, will work perfectly well. I know plenty of little old ladies who carry mace. The short end of a baseball bat in the windpipe -- another good defensive weapon you can legally carry in a vehicle. EITHER would be an appropriate weapon to use against anyone opening your car door for you who wasn't your date. My coworker has already demonstrated that even a common ballpoint pen will serve well if you're assaulted. Nancy apparently knew that having a gun in your car is not legal. She "forgot she was in California"? But "couldn't forget more recent stories ..."? Come on! How stupid IS this woman, anyhow? Selective amnesia as well as being dumb enough to carry an unloaded GUN? California is even "worse" than someone who feels DIRECTLY intimidated calling 911 to report someone with a gun. This report didn't say she took it out of her glove compartment for the occasion, so apparently she DRIVES with it on her lap? A TRUCKER PASSING HER AND NOTICING THIS would be as likely to call 911 as anyone else, if it was noticed. TOTAL FALLACY IN THE REPORT: Most hardcore criminals do NOT fear the "armed" citizen [most especially not armed females] because they know all too well that most weapons in the hands of the Janets of the world are NOT loaded and that those that are are LIKELIEST in the hands of someone who will be afraid to pull the trigger. The police, on the other hand, get shot frequently enough responding to calls of domestic violence where NO weapons are reported that they NEVER make the assumption that a weapon is not loaded if one is reported to be in the possession of a suspect. That Nancy pulled over and took off again merely fortified her position as a "suspect". And dumber than most. What was she doing, heading for the Arizona/New Mexico border for a possibly more sympathetic police department? From San Diego, she'd have to stop somewhere for gas, and that would be that. I suppose she thought the cops would just say, "Oh well, this one got a head start, let's call in and say the suspect fled and we felt because she was an elderly woman with no significant trouble with the police we should just let her go"? It did not occur to her that when she got on a highway, police would ask assistance from the Highway Patrol? That the police in other cities along the highway would not be called when she crossed a jurisdictional boundary? That the county police would say "Ho, hum, why should we risk our lives chasing a woman merely reported to have a gun? And probably does, or else why would she be fleeing?" That if it went on long enough, no one would call SWAT? That all those subsequent calls would come from the police, who now had POSITIVE reason to suspect she did indeed have a gun in her car, or else why would she have taken off, would go without a RESPONSE? All she accomplished was to provide ample probable cause to believe she was ARMED and NO REASON WHATEVER to believe she was armed with an UNLOADED weapon. The reason the cops at Rampart were able to get away with their shit for as long as they did was that they were targeting gang members. Gang members are the beloved of no one except fellow members and sometimes [not always] their mothers and wives. The fondest wish of a goodly number of Los Angelenos is that the gangs would kill each other off, all on the same day, and be gone for good. The most common gripe is that they can't aim their guns well enough to accomplish that, the ultimate characture of that gripe spelled out in the movie "Falling Down," when the driveby took down every person on the street EXCEPT DeFens, including the perps via a car collision. [I have been robbed 3 times at gunpint by gang members, but I fortunately missed the driveby shooting at the bus stop where my coworker almost got hit because I worked overtime that night.] But sometimes the caricature is wrong. Two girls about 14 years old were sitting next to me on the bus YESTERDAY, discussing the shooting death of a friend's boyfriend. "It was supposed to be a driveby, he was in the gang." That membership absolved the shooter of blame in their eyes, and the shooter wasn't a cop. AND NO, FRANS, that the shooter from a different gang might be responsible for anything serious never occurred to either girl. They were in fact down on their girlfriend for going with a member of the "wrong" gang. Justifiable homicide, in their book. And yes, kids as young as 13 just kill each other for fun here. What the corrupt cops at Rampart did is worse than what the people they "took off the streets" did, by a long shot. At least there is no report that any were accused of mrdering or attempting to murder a handcuffed victim. Any prosecutor worth the name will seek the death penalty and any jury worthy of the name will see they get it -- FORMALLY, not taking the near 100% chance of being killed in prison route. But back to our stalwart heroine, who believes that unloaded guns are a good thing to carry to protect oneself, especially in a motor vehicle. What DID she expect to accomplish, fleeing arrest, Frans? Because she was NOT engaged in "lawful defiance." She was very clearly RESISTING ARREST, which is not the same thing at all. Maybe she just "wasn't thinking" at all? Just "reacting" to having a known-to-be-loaded gun in the vicinity? Again, if it was a hardcore criminal, her chances would be zip. And not every policeman is a criminal by a LONG shot, Frans. Bravo she has a lawyer to defend her free of charge with rhetoric. Because she has no LAW to stand on against the charges, rhetoric is ALL she's got for defense. She was carring a gun in a motor vehicle, and resisted arrest when a complaint regarding that was filed. If the gun is not registered, that's another violation of LAW. The complainant felt intimidated, that's another charge -- the only one likely to be dropped, actually. What the other 3 felonies might be, who knows? IF SHE DEMANDS A SPEEDY TRIAL, the lawyer may just pull it off! Unless someone stalled in traffic that day sneaks on to the jury, in which case she's a goner. If I were in the defendant's shoes, I would CERTAINLY demand a speedy trial, while the LAPD is under fire for unlawfully reducing gang membership and no one has yet forgotten the lady who was blown away for sitting in a car with a gun in view in her lap, even though those events occurred farther north. That way her paranoia might actually manage to get some of the charges dropped, leaving only unlawful possession of a fiearm and carrying a firearm in vehicle to contend with. But I'll ask again: what possible good comes from having an unloaded gun in your possession ANYWHERE? And what was this woman EXPECTING, in California or any other state except maybe Texas or New Mexico or Arizona? All citizens oughta arm themselves? Maybe. Maybe not. See, Ms. Road Enraged is also a citizen with some notion that her life or property were threatened by Nancy. Right, wrong, indifferent -- she has that notion, follows her, accosts her in her vehicle. She has words with Nancy, and makes an aggressive move, spies a GUN in Nancy's possession. Now: Suppose Ms. Road Enraged, instead of running away, pulled her own LOADED .45 out of her purse and shot our heroine at this point-blank range? Or was the gun in this "victim's" car actually in hand, pointed at "the door" [at that range, just as effective as pointing it at the woman], discouraging such a response, rather than just "there" as a deterrent? See, Ms. Enraged's weapon would have to be in her purse, inaccessible, for that unloaded weapon in Nancy's lap to be a deterrent to use of a LOADED weapon. Because if it was in her pocket instead of her purse, loaded, getting off the first shot would be extremely prudent, under the circumstances, having already committed aggravated assault with some verbal intimidation [maybe] and opening the door. If Ms. Road Enraged was armed with a loaded gun, tit for tat concealing the weapon until the time to "reveal" it was right, our heroine would likely be stone dead or seriously wounded [at which point Ms. Enraged would have crossed the line from citizen to criminal]. Instead, the "evil" police exercised lawful restraint, regardless of firepower brought to bear on the situation. Nancy is still short of sympathy from me for merely illustrating for the millionth time why it is patently stupid to carry an UNloaded gun, ESPECIALLY in a motor vehicle. Yes, I like this one, Frans. Nancy is alive because the police DIDN'T shoot her, even the SWAT cowboys didn't shoot her. Even though she was behaving like your average stupid bank robber doing the highway chase bit. And be real. The reason water had to be brought to stranded motorists on Highway 78 was that a woman carrying a gun in her car refused to own up to the CONSEQUENCES of breaking well-known laws after providing a goodly number of police agencies ample cause to believe she was armed and POSSIBLY dangerous. She started it. She got the media out there taking a chase to a highway, now she's unhappy the "media" "analyzed" her unkindly? Because she was ordered from her car at gunpoint by the police and wouldn't get out of her car when there was only 1 or 2 cops, had to stir up this scene to protect herself? Meanwhile, endangered babes in arms, etc.? What did she expect, Frans? As I mentioned, my dad always had a loaded gun in the glove compartment. He consequently kept the registration for the vehicles he owned on the sun visor. I'll bet when she scared Ms. Enraged off, she put her toy back exactly where she would have to reveal it to show proof of registration and insurance. Certainly she didn't carry it into the burger joint, or THEY would have called 911. Or maybe she just tucked in under her seat or her shawl? Guns are NOT toys. The Nancies of this world persist in treating them like toys. They don't qualify as martyrs to any cause in my book, LEAST of all the right to bear arms in defense of life and property. People like this woman are right up there in my book with the "hunters" who need 80 rounds to kill a deer. Don't ever kid yourself they are not "dangerous." Any number of people MIGHT have suffered a lot worse than dehydration on account of this woman's stupidity and failure to own up to her RESPONSIBILITY for at least 2 laws the same day. What did she EXPECT? She expected to be shot and killed by the police, that is what she expected. There is no way she could possibly believe that she would not be PURSUED! when she fled arrest. Now she's disappointed that something else happened! She expected to be shot and killed by the police, and go down as a victim because even though she had a gun, it wasn't loaded. It didn't go down that way. What a letdown that must be. -------------------- "Fransy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I like this one!! Do you?...:) > F > > -----Original Message----- > From: Conspiracy Theory Research List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of day > Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 3:53 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [CTRL] Fw: The Showdown on Hwy. 78 > > > -Caveat Lector- > > > The Showdown on Hwy. 78 > > (OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE) > > > > July 1, 1999 was a typical day for most Southern Californians. In San > > Diego’s > > North county, 58 year-old Janet Lucero was on the road like thousands of > > > > others. She never had a thought how she could affect the lives of > > thousands > > in just one day. > > > > Road rage is a typical phenomenon especially on the Golden State’s > > crowded > > thoroughfares. Highway 78 (a major connector freeway between Interstates > > 5 > > and 15) was no exception. Janet was in route to a fair when another > > woman > > wanted to go elsewhere. Two drivers wanting to be in the same spot at > > the > > same time. No collision, just frayed nerves. But this would be > > different. > > Whoever Janet Lucero angered decided to follow her into the parking lot > > of a > > Burger King restaurant. This is where the chaos began. > > > > According to both parties, the woman approached Janet’s light blue Honda > > > > Civic once it was parked. Apparently, she had a few harsh words for > > Janet. A > > possible threat? Could she be hostile? Who knows? But in what is known > > as > > “the land of fruits and nuts,” Janet suspected by the woman’s attitude > > that > > this may have been the latter. > > > > Words were exchanged. Then, the woman opened Janet’s door and saw > > something > > on Janet’s lap and then abruptly closed the door in fear the same > > fear > > most criminals have when they notice their potential victim is armed. > > > > In most states, that would have been the end of the story. Janet Lucero > > thought so. But while she went on to order a burger at the restaurant, > > she > > forgot she was in California. The woman who approached her car didn’t. > > She decided to do her “civic” duty and make a call the three digit > > kind. > > Shortly after leaving the restaurant, Janet found flashing lights in her > > > > rear view mirror. > > > > Let’s stop right here for a moment… > > > > Janet Lucero has had problems with police in the past yet, no criminal > > > > record. The worst transgression she ever committed was not having her > > dogs’ > > vaccinations up to date. She also couldn’t forget more recent stories > > that > > are all too familiar to Californians stories about what happens to > > people > > who are found with guns in the car by police. Since many California > > politicians and police feel the constitutional right to keep and bear > > arms > > is the greatest threat to a free state, many of their victims (some > > unarmed) > > are not alive to give their own side of the story. The fact that they > > had a > > gun (or suspected to) is enough reason to be killed without prejudice. > > Janet > > Lucero remembered this as she pulled over (and she did pull over). > > > > Back to the scene… > > > > Janet found herself looking down the barrel of the patrolman’s service > > revolver. Due to the well-publicized, recent behavior of some of > > California’s > > Finest, Janet decided she would not be the next victim. She left the > > scene for good reason, and the chase was on. Another one of those > > infamous > > Golden State chase scenes most Americans find entertaining. But this > > wasn’t > > O.J. This was different. The case of July 1, 1999 captured the attention > > of > > the California Highway Patrol, then the San Diego County sheriff’s > > office, > > then the Escondito Police Department, then all of San Diego County, and > > then > > the nation. > > > > Janet never broke any speed limit laws. But the long chase led to the > > infamous “Standoff on Highway 78” where police finally cornered her. > > There > > were two factors that drew the media attention to this particular > > standoff: > > 1) Thousands of motorists found themselves in stopped on Freeways all > > over > > the North County of San Diego and 2) the lawful defiance of one Janet > > Lucero a woman who refused to be killed. Once stopped, all of San > > Diego > > awaited a violent conclusion to the Standoff. > > > > Four hours in the California heat. Volunteers had to bring water to the > > stranded motorists on Hwy. 78. An infant had to be rushed to the > > hospital. > > The area was in chaos while the SD sheriff’s department had “all hands > > on > > deck” (with live media cameras in tow) as Janet sat peacefully > > refusing to > > get out of her car in fear. > > > > There are those who will say Janet had nothing to fear. But the several > > guns > > trained on her were later joined by SWAT teams dressed like active duty > > Marines returning from Kosovo with weapons to match, ready to blow her > > > > head off even if she had just sneezed. No, nothing to fear. Then, add > > the > > armored vehicle, the low-flying helicopter, then “Lonny, the mechanized > > RoboCop”. Lonny’s task was to peak into Janet’s vehicle to make sure she > > > > wasn’t a threat to the 70 heavily armed, armor plated, helmet wearing > > camouflaged, para-military storm troopers holding weapons that most > > other > > Californians would be jailed or shot for owning. > > > > All this for one 58-year old woman who simply didn’t want to die that > > day. > > > > Janet’s reward for her defiance was to be psychologically diagnosed by > > the > > media before she ever got out of the car. She was a kook, a nut, crazy, > > sick, out of her mind, and most of all dangerous. But the fact that > > Janet’s > > rights may have been violated never became an issue. After all, she had > > a > > gun thus, according to many behind the badges (and the armor, and the > > bigger guns) she has no rights, Bill of Rights be dammed. > > > > Of course, some people begged for the police to simply kill her so they > > can > > get back to their soap operas… > > > > After being assured there was a large enough crowd around to witness her > > > > potential execution, Janet left the vehicle without incident. No shots > > were > > fired. Janet Lucero was booked on eight count (5 felonies) about 7 hours > > > > after her incident with the Roberta Neilsen, the angry motorist with an > > itchy dialing finger. They threw the book at her. Her charges in a > > nutshell: Knowing her rights, and refusal to immediately submit to > > lethal > > force. She is now locked away awaiting trial. > > > > The District Attorney pleaded for no bail since (despite the > > overwhelming > > lethal presence demonstrated to San Diego County) this 58 year-old, 120 > > pound woman wearing shorts is “a threat to public safety”. > > > > Was she justified? Was it legal? Is she insane? Is there more to this > > story? > > These questions will be answered in court. Fortunately, Janet Lucero of > > Ranchitas, California (the woman who refused to be the next victim) will > > be > > alive to tell her side of the story something we suspect the awesome > > power > > of government wasn’t anticipating. > > > > What caused all this? A .38 caliber revolver that was never loaded or > > pointed, and a 58 year-old innocent woman in fear of her own life. > > > > Janet Lucero needs and wants good legal counsel. Someone who believes in > > the > > Second Amendment, and Janet refuses to use taxpayer dollars for her > > legal > > defense. Nancy Lord Johnson has volunteered her legal services in this > > matter. In Nancy’s words, > > > > “Someone has got to put a stop to this!” > > > > Stay tuned... > > > > Nancy's web site can be found at: > > www.nancyjohnson.net > > > > > > > > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting > propagandic > screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters > and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and > outright > frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects > spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL > gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to > readers; > be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and > nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > ======================================================================== > Archives Available at: > http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
