Politcal blather having no basis in reality.

Just spewing the party line, with no regard to the desperate danger from criminals.

Only in California. . .

The typical police chief is often a political hack.

Hey chief, can you be there early when a criminal is present break laws or trying to hurt us? Didn´t think you can.

After I was elected to a county position some years ago, I learned that elected officials did not need to be smart or anything near. They just needed more votes than the other guy. Police chiefs are elected in most communities.

ICBM´s can be considered defensive even though they could kill millions at one stroke.

Criminal intent is the only issue here.

Everything else is mechanics.

What (other than Liberalism) is wrong with these people ?

Emeryville is a liberal town in a liberal county (Alameda) in the liberal Bay Area of CA. What else would he say?

What drivel!

I MAY begin to believe you when you disarm all in your police force and order them to use a"charm" offensive to defend themselves from criminals.

Chief, you are a blithering idiot!

"None of you fellers kin have guns, only us (sniff). ´Cuz we´re special...´n trained and all that (sniff). Did you see the way we kilt that feller in th´ cabin? Yessiree, only cops should have guns, cuz only cops (sniff) has the right to kill folks.
Now leave me alone, my mom´s comin´"

If you really believe that Chief, why don´t you require your men to turn in their guns and from now on depend on their great personality to ward off any criminals???

Sounds just as stupid as your logic, doesn´t it????

Art

THen why do you carry one?

#5, Police Chiefs are appointed by the city government, County Sheriffs on the other hand are elected. Most (at least big-city) police chiefs are [insert series of disparaging adjectives], anti-freedom types. However your remark about elected officials is well taken.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does not matter if a gun is defensive or not, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is very clear. Note the Amendment does not say, we will let the people keep and bear arms to maintain a well regulated Militia. The amendment ends with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Also note this is a right of the people, to allow our RULERS a narrow interpretation of this Amendment is to allow limitations on the remainder of the Bill of Rights.

Okay, Chief....A gun is an offensive weapon that allows people to act according to the Second Amendment by defending themselves. That better, Chief? idiot.

Tell that to the grizzly bear that comes snarling and charging at you next time you go hiking the Alaskan wilderness...

The police chief of Emerygrad, I presume?

knucklehead. OK, an Emeryville resident calls 911. Her house is being broken into. The 911 operator will have someone there, maybe the chief himself, in a mere 10, 15 minutes. She has a gun in her drawer next to her bed, a knife in the kitchen and a baseball bat in the closet. All are potential defensive weapons. Which would be the most effective, there, chief?

I have no concern about "the amount of weapons owned by American citizens." On the contrary, chief, civilian owned firearms give me confidence that bad government that you are a part of won´t do a police state crackdown that you dream about, chief. Come on chief, just admit it, you´d like to go door to door.

How are the two ladies doing that the police shot and wounded because they were in a truck that looked like Dorner´s. What ever happened to the old ´get out of the car with your hands up in plain sight´ warning while hiding behind police vehicles. I guess shoot first and warn later is the new policy.

Then why do police carry guns? I´m offended

Of Course!!

EVERYTHING about California is a myth!

Liar! Tens of thousands of times each year, Americans use firearms to thwart criminal aggression. This Gestapo agent... I mean police chief... is simply a liar.

Come and take them from us, you south end of a north-bound horse.

No #1, the problem is that it´s NOT "only in California"! Law enforcement officers at all levels of government have taken on a SWAT mentality, and it´s gotten very scary. They´re even killing people´s dogs, and frequently. (I´m not talking about vicious male pit bulls either.)

Example: The mayor of a town in Maryland was attacked in his home by a SWAT team after a package that contained marijuana had been left on his front porch by UPS. No one in the local constabulary thought it important enough to simply knock on Hizzoner´s door and ask him about the package (which he hadn´t picked up and which remained on his porch). The SWAT team busted down his door, shot his two golden retrievers, and held the mayor and his family face-down on the floor for hours! (It turns out that there was drug-smuggling operation among some UPS employees.)

No, this is a national problem. California has plenty of self-inflicted problems all right, but trashing California with reckless abandon misses the point: Cops in America are frequently getting completely out of control.

Check out Emeryville´s crime rate http://www.usa.com/emeryville-ca-crime-and-crime-rate.htm

Maybe if the chief actually did his job people would not need guns

A "myth" huh?
Sort of like the police are there to "Serve and Protect"?

The gun is a weapon, or tool, period. The same as a rock, or pair of scissors, or a baseball bat. Whether it is offensive, defensive or purely decorative, is entirely up to the person holding it.

Yes, yes,
Why, oh why,
do the protectors and DEFENDERS
need to carry
any type of weapons
if they are not defensive in nature?

And while we´re at it,
are those tanks you´re getting
from the feds
defensive in nature?

Or, are they
aggressive instruments of war
that have no business
on the peoples streets?

“The aim of Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) that reinforce the total dominance of the State,“ quoted from Wikipedia under Newspeak (Orwell, 1984), “Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. The totalitarian aim of the Party is to prevent any alternative thinking—"thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak—by destroying any vocabulary that expresses such concepts as freedom, free enquiry, individualism, resistance to the authority of the state and so on.“

The Party? Ah, yes: the Party!

To heck with a fence for Mexico, we need one for California.

According to all available research, there are 1-2 million people a year who would strenuously dispute this maroon´s assertion that guns aren´t used in self defense.

I invite the gentleman to break into my house in the middle of the night and see whether my gun defends me or not. If it does not, he has nothing to fear. If that is not to his liking, I invite him to work the night shift in Watts or BellFlower without his gun. After all, he says he is as safe without it as he is with it.

If they´re not defensive weapons, then why do cops carry them? "Offensive weapons?" Don´t the bobbies in the UK make do with billy clubs, now banned over here as "too nasty?"

A lot of you have missed the worst part about his statement. That is when he explains why the police carry them. The police carry guns because a gun is "an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power."

Fine Chief. Give up your gun first. Then move into the worst neighborhood you can find. Take the locks off your house, your car, leave your valuables out where everyone can see them. Announce to world that everything is groovy. Then let us know what happens.

That´s why cops carry them.

Because they´re not defensive weapons.

Yep.

Leftists are stupid as well as dishonest.

FTA: "A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power,” he asserted, explaining to the audience that police officers don’t carry weapons to defend themselves, but to do their job in a “safe and effective manner.”

I think people are conflating stupidity with evil...most liberals think like he does, that the only use for a gun is to dominate or eliminate one´s enemies. That´s why so many liberals own guns even as they advocate disarming everyone else.

Our clown in San Diego isn´t much better.

"Police protection" is a myth.

It stands to reason police in general don`t want the citizens to be armed. It makes their job a whole lot easier. However, my 2nd Amendment right and my universal God given right to protect myself trumps whatever his or anyone else`s `feelings` are regarding citizens rights to keep and bare arms. Who is this officer really looking out for here? He knows full well the criminal element does`nt abide by the law in the first place, and won`t give up their guns, so what is his justification for law abiding citizens to give up ours?

Chief James is being disingenuous at best.

Whether a waepon is offensive or defensive depends upon the intent of the person wielding it.

Ken James should resign.

Period.

No "ifs" "ands" or "buts."

As prior posters have pointed out, he believes armed police are not there to serve the public, but to serve as an instrument of intimidation to ensure submission to the state.

He is exactly the type of character our Founders feared would come to a position of power, and made the effort to ensure that such tyrants could be countered by the right of law-abiding people to speak out against them, and ultimately, oppose with arms.

Well there Police Chief James. If a gun isn´t used for defense. Just what the heck are YOU using them for???? It is either for defending, or offending. What is your story there chief. We would like to know. Because we all k.ow it´s for enforcement right. I kind of look at it that way also. It is to let the other guy that may want to harm me or mine know that I stand ready to enforce to NOT let him harm me or mine. Enough said know go reread Our Constitution. What part of the Right to hold and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON do you not understand?

If that is the case, then cops don´t need guns, do they? Let´s disarm all cops!

Look at him! He looks like an old hippy!!! He is chief in Emeryville (aka E-vil). It is right outside of Berkeley and North Oakland. He is an old hippy communist who is lying to disarm the public and force his tyrant ways on the rest of us. E-ville has crime just as bad as Oakland and there are areas that are worse than many parts of Oakland or Richmond even though it is a tiny city. What a piece of work. Somebody needs to get rid of this old hippy.

So cops only carry to be offensive? We don´t need offensive cops therefore we need to ban cops from carrying. THis would also solve some crazy liberal cop from murdering people.

Oh, and you got that job by being a good cop! Don´t be rediculous...you got the job by politically sucking up. you wouldn´t know what gun is for if it bit your posterior.

How´d this guy ever get out of Chief School?

Then I guess all of our polititians and hollywoods beautiful people need to rid their bodyguards of offensive weapons!

Good grief. Read the article.

This clown actually "explained to the audience" that police officers don´t carry weapons to defend themselves.

Really? Really?

So.. if a bad guy has a gun .. and aims the gun at the police .. their gun is not to be used to defend themselves.

All the police in this little town (the website says in 2009 it had a population of 10,087 ... 1/5th the size of baseball´s Busch Stadium) had better practice making scary faces at and scowling at bad guys.

If I were the defense lawyer for somebody shot by the police, I´d have a field day with that. Gun politics aside, how could he be so stupid?

Police chiefs, for the most part, are nothing more than butt boys for the Mayor and city council. Sheriffs, on the other hand, have to get elected by the public, hence the many differences of opinion between the two groups...

This idiot doesn´t seem to realize that our rights are bestowed on us by our Creator.
Government has NO right to take away our rights as listed in the Bill of Rights.

You know what´s a myth? That the police are there to protect you. There aren´t enough police to protect you, nor would you want that either. Police are there to respond typically after crimes are committed, for crowd control, to break up large parties. They are not there to prevent crime to your person. All you can do is protect yourself. If you are out and about, you can try to run. If you are in your home with no place to run, the only way to protect yourself effectively is with a gun.

You know another myth? That being a police chief requires 1/2 a brain. My best friend is a cop, at his old job the chief rode him constantly, he was not one of his "drinkin´ boys". My friend joined a force in another city. The chief? Lost his job because he had hot tub sex with a dispatcher at a wild party.

So Chief, if you were in mortal danger, and were handed a gun, you would refuse it?

It´s about what we´d expect out of the mouth of someone from a town once characterized as "Emeryville, where the sewer meets the sea."

And get a load of Da Chief´s delusions of grandeur with the four-star rank on his shoulders. George Patton, eat your heart out.

Emeryville isn´t too far from Berkeley. That explains a lot right there.

So if a criminal attacks one of your officers with a knife, the officer cannot use his gun to do what Chief James?

I know what Chief James´ problem is...
Maybe if all the California citizens who own guns join the police union and pay dues, he´d feel different.

Hand guns became the most sought items out side of a shovel for the California gold rush.

These leftist Police Chiefs need to keep their clap traps shut. Do they not realize that by making such assinine statements that they are reinforcing the need for private citizens to have weapons equal to those that these "protect and defend" yukyuks have? The "militarization" of this nation´s cities and counties police forces have done nothing but increase the divide of mistrust between the "public servents" and those served.

This the cop who will go door to door with Obama ´s gun grabbing goons to take your weapons. He is not your friend.
Question. Why do his officers carry guns ?

Emeryville is not known as a particularly leftist city. It is known for its welcoming of businesses, leaving them alone while other cities nearby harass and leech them, and thereby stealing many companies and businesses from these other cities. It´s not known for good government or friendliness to anything other than business.

Leftists are not the only enemies of the second amendment; so are oligarchs.

Emeryville is mostly Black with some Hispanics.

Nuff said sound racists maybe but so what.

Please define racists if you think this is one (comment). 1st time in that area was 1957 last time was 2005 nothing has changed. Crime and filth area. Dangerous.

The idea that a California police chief could think logically is both a myth and a farce!
Please deliver us from such asininity.

´nuff said!!