Authorities are investigating whether a gun associated with a Bureau of Land Management employee was used in the fatal shooting of a young woman on a tourist-heavy San Francisco pier, an agency spokesperson said.For his part, Sanchez claims it was all an accident:
"The matter is under investigation, and law enforcement is working to confirm the origin of the weapon," the spokesperson said in a statement.
Sources familiar with the investigation say the gun belonged to a federal agent and may have been stolen recently. It is unclear whether the firearm was a government-issued service weapon or a personally owned gun.
Earlier this week, Sanchez told ABC station KGO-TV in a jailhouse interview that he started wandering on Pier 14 Wednesday, July 1 after taking sleeping pills he found in a dumpster. He said he then picked up a gun that he found and it went off.I believe that. Happens all the time. Just the other day I was talking to a few of my neighbors and they were sharing their tales of found pharmacology. In fact, one guy found a rocket propelled grenade launcher and a stash of Valium in a dumpster just down the road from here. Wait, you don't believe that? It's at least as plausible as the story Sanchez is offering.
So, let's total up the questions:
- Sanchez was in San Francisco, it appears, because it's a "sanctuary city" where our undocumented neighbors can live without fear of dealing with Immigration. Good idea?
- Why would a Bureau of Land Management employee need a government-issued service weapon?
- Sanchez had been deported five times before. The linked story reports that Sanchez had been turned over to the San Francisco Police Department on an outstanding drug warrant, but once that case was adjudicated Sanchez was turned loose, even though ICE had specifically requested that they be notified when the case was over. Is that a wise policy?
10 comments:
Re sanctuary cities: it is very hard to police a community when that community won't talk to you for fear of deportation.
Re armed BLM agents: as a general rule I dislike guns, don't own any, and prefer not to be around them. But the one place where it seemed to me like a good idea to have one was in the back country of Arizona, due to the combination of lethal wildlife, colorful characters who are themselves generally armed to the teeth (and no small number of those are a bit hostile to federal types), and being many miles away from anyone who could render assistance.
Re sanctuary cities: it is very hard to police a community when that community won't talk to you for fear of deportation.
It's not that hard to hold a person already in custody, especially if another agency has requested you do so, and for good reason. I take Mr. Sanchez at his word when he says he came to San Francisco for the specific reason that it is a sanctuary city.
But the one place where it seemed to me like a good idea to have one was in the back country of Arizona, due to the combination of lethal wildlife, colorful characters who are themselves generally armed to the teeth (and no small number of those are a bit hostile to federal types), and being many miles away from anyone who could render assistance.
We'll watch the story and see if any of those reasons are applicable. If the dude turns out to be a desk jockey, it's a different discussion.
"colorful characters who are themselves generally armed to the teeth (and no small number of those are a bit hostile to federal types)
I assume Brian is referring to the colorful characters infiltrating the Arizona border without documents, but often in the company of armed escorts. Or perhaps he means the drug cartels using both sides of the border for staging areas. These are both pretty hostile to "federal types" and may tend to open fire.
Or I suppose he could be making an insulting reference to U.S. citizens of a more libertarian nature, though there's not many instances I can think of where these colorful characters have a "shoot on sight" policy toward the federals.
No, I'm sure I'm just being too sensitive; it's just all the microaggression going around these days, I guess.
My question about the BLM gun is not why they'd want a gun--sorry, but angry cowboys can make his life Hell if he's not armed, and then there are the drug smugglers and such--but what BLM land is anywhere near San Francisco? I can't see any. Why was he armed at a tourist stop there?
And regarding sanctuary cities, it strikes me that if ICE were doing its job--they released 36007 criminals, including those responsible for 193 murders, in 2013 alone--they would be far less of an issue. But that said, I don't think it's an accident that a lot of sanctuary cities (DC, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore) have some of the nastiest crime problems. Hence I would argue that the bigger danger is not that people will not talk for fear of being deported, but rather that people will not talk because the illegal immigrant crime rate is so high.
I'm all for immigration, but those with felony convictions need to have their visas (if any) revoked and should be deported as soon as you serve your sentence. Those who provide sanctuary to violent felons are accessories to the crimes they commit.
I've hunted BLM land, by the way, and the list of colorful characters you'll find is long, from drug and immigrant smugglers to hippies (Burning Man is on BLM land I believe) to cowboys who are overgrazing their allotment--or are not and are thought by the BLM to be overgrazing. So Brian's comment can refer to "angry libertarian types", but would in my experience be by no means limited to that.
By colorful characters I mean all of the above. Including some self-professed tax rebels living off the grid near Redington that I actually met and talked to, whose hobbies included shooting the sides of mountains with AK-47s.
And yes, Crankbait, you're being far too sensitive.
Including some self-professed tax rebels living off the grid near Redington that I actually met and talked to, whose hobbies included shooting the sides of mountains with AK-47s.
I'm guessing the mountains totally had it coming.
Another thought: I understand the federals take a pretty dim view of one of their own losing his/her gun, for whatever reason. I recall that they strongly encourage the agent to keep the gun on their person as much as possible and that cars are very insecure (my own employer's policy is to not leave laptops in cars except as a last resort). So, why was the agent's gun left in a car where it could be stolen? Did the agent encounter a "Guns not permitted on these premises" policy? Was the agent attending an NFL game (the NFL's no-guns, even for off-duty LEOs, policy is currently being challenged in Minnesota court)?
RA, here's a link.
http://www.mercurynews.com/my-town/ci_28452179/blm-investigating-whether-one-its-agents-guns-used
Apparently it's pretty common for LEOs in the federal government to lose their weapons this way. They are allowed to carry in California with some restrictions, but as the article notes, if you've got a lockbox, it will take some doing to get at that gun. I'm guessing that he didn't use one when he didn't want to bother with it for whatever reason.
The story about how the perp used the gun, killed a person, and then calmly lit a cigarette is cringe-worthy, BTW.
Post a Comment