Undercover cop aims gun at photographer at Oakland protest of police killings

As @longname wrote, holding a firearm sideways causes recoil to swing the gun to the side, rather than up over peoples’ heads. Depending on circumstances, it can be effective for soldiers with automatic weapons, firing on a large group of enemy soldiers. It can also be useful for a soldier firing a rifle with a long, large capacity clip from a prone position on flat ground; if they hold the gun normally, they may have to lift their bodies dangerously high off the ground. I recently read online about the wartime origin of a sideways grip, but I forget where and I can’t seem to find it now.

It makes no sense to hold a handgun that way, unless maybe you are hiding behind a riot shield; aiming and control are made more difficult. Gangstas don’t care about marksmanship anyway, if they even understand the concept, but it is irresponsible, thuggish behavior for a cop, and he should be disciplined and taken off the street until he has been re-educated.

IMO, it is evidence that he was looking for trouble.


Frightened, badly trained, potentially inciting violence, racially profiling, using unnecessary force, threatening execution. Yes.

This guy has all the regular cop behaviours on display.

The only things he didn’t do was gut a dog in front of it’s owner’s kids and indiscriminately kill people near him in the course of his duties. And then arrest the witnesses and delete the recordings on their phones.


I am, of course, disturbed at the notion of an arrest that nobody appears to have any knowledge of or responsibility for (back in the good old days, we called that an ‘enforced disappearance’, very popular in Latin America among our buddies); but this brings up another question:

If inter-agency coordination is so lousy, and some of the undercover operatives so…dubiously professional… how do they avoid incidents of undercover cops getting themselves shot? By the standards of use of lethal force, ‘dude wildly waving a handgun in the middle of a crowd’ is definitely plausible and even verging on justified.


Exactly. If you disagree with the editorial narrative here at BB they will ban you ASAP with the “dragon” they like to hide behind. It’s almost as if boingboing moderators\editors know their views can’t stand up to scrutiny. They’re not big fans of the dialectic here. It’s best just to agree with all their opinions or move on.

Davide, how do you know this person is a new user and not a returning long time reader who has been banned for disagreeing with the powers that be here at BB?


That’s all you’ve got?


What difference does it make? The “new user” is not only disagreeing with the majority view, but has also been shown to simply be factually wrong. Returning user or not, they are being called out for that.


I know trigger discipline. I was echoing the confusion over his undisciplined gangsta style grip.

1 Like

It takes less than that to be villified, Michael Brown has been villified, among other things, for being big.
If they want to villify you, they will.


You will have to enlighten me on who teaches that. If it is side draw holster it doesn’t naturally exit the holster at an angle. I suppose it would with appendix carry, but rotating the arm in one fluid motion I think provides a much more natural point of aim.

The only time I have seen a pistol being turned on it’s side being practical is shooting from odd, unconventional positions.

I shoot USPSA and if this method shaved off a second on a 30 round course, everyone would be using it.


So you’re suggesting he should be banned for disagreeing with the majority opinion or because you allege he is factually wrong? Either way my point still stands. Any group who holds an opinion they are unwilling to defend from scrutiny is suspect in my book. You are entitled to your opinion.

Nope, not even slightly.
I’m saying he IS factually wrong and I’m calling him out on it.
I’m also saying if the mods of the board deem him to have done something to warrant a ban, then he should be banned. It is, after all, their “playground”.
Good on you for putting words in my mouth though, That makes all kinds of arguments much easier to win.


does it matter to you if @W96 is wrong on the facts? so far the account has not been suspended although it certainly seems set up to express one particular point of view and excuse that point of view past the point of absurdity. i think that point is silly and counterfactual but good on @W96 for having the courage to take a stand in favor of police infiltrating legal protests and then waving a gun around and pointing it at unarmed protesters when his cover was blown. it takes a lot of guts to stand up for police misconduct and creating a public danger. is that your stance as well?


That’s precisely the really shitty part of these assholes’ conduct. It’s a protest, not a shootout. You want to assert your control of a situation, why not pull your BADGE and establish yourself as a cop?

I know there may be 2 sides to this story, but it’s telling how quickly these jerkoffs escalated things to the point of armed force.


The news said the cops had already been assaulted before waving the gun. They were highly outnumbered. If that’s true the situation had already escalated.





I think in this situation they are trying to keep protests from turning into riots. At least that’s what they said. Nothing wrong with that. Now , if they are really trying to turn protest into riots there is a huge problem. We know some police departments have been guilty of this in the past but that’s not what this is about. Is it? This is about outnumbered police who claim to have been attacked while trying to protect protesters from those who would incite a riot.

Who is telling the truth? How do you know?

I’ve always thought that the purpose of the canted grip was to cause ejected brass flies high into the air, so it makes a more satisfying tinkling sound when it hits the sidewalk/floor/pavement.


Escalation is a continuum, not a true-or-false state. Pointing a deadly weapon at a crowd is very near the final conclusion of that continuum.