Scientology security kills man with sword

[uniquemand]

Lol. Just goes to show you, some people have far more money than brains. Damn shame. You give me that kind of money, and I'd be joining Dean Kamen and going to school.

 

[Done]

I was trained to shoot by a retired Police Officer, (and a former Spetznas).

Both trained me the same way:

1) don't pull your weapon unless you are going to use it

and

2) if you're going to use it, kill them.

End of story.

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto.

 

[NonScio]

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto.

That answers a question I had...So police are trained that
once they draw thier weapon, they MUST shoot.

I recall the Rodney King tape...a whole bunch of L.A. cops
had their guns drawn on him when they finally stopped him.
They did not, however, shoot him...just proceeded to beat
the hell out of him. Were they derelict or in violation of
police policy for not shooting to kill once they had drawn their
weapons?

Is this "if you draw, always shoot, always shoot to kill"
a newly established standard pplice policy? I asume
it means shoot and kill regardless if the opponent drops
his weapon or otherwise ceases being a threat?
Would a cop be reprimanded if he didn't shoot after
he drew the weapon? Is this policy the result of 9/11?

 

[Tim Skog]

Obviously the statement: "Don't pull your weapon unless you are going to use it," is not true and would not be applicable in all situations. Ergo, the decision to shoot is made before the weapon is drawn.

 

[Done]

<sarcastic paranoia>

Since the CofS is the most despicably evil and nasty thing on the face of Earth, he was probably PDHed by OSA to perform this specific act, thus giving the CofS retroactive justification for AnonOrange's light treatment and to show that the CofS is actually the target of some ill-intentioned individiuals.

Nothing is beyond truly evil people when protecting the only hope this planet has...Right?

</sarcastic paranoia>

This is the most reasonable explanation I've heard so far. The Cof$ is evil, but not stupid. If we are going to be paranoid about this, then let's be sure to tie on our tin foil caps as tightly as possible.

 

[skydog]

In California, a killing is justified if the actor (armed security guard) 1)"reasonably believed" that he (or others) were in "imminent danger" of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; 2) the actor reasonably believed that the use of such force was necessary to defend himself or another; and 3) the actor used no more force than was necessary to defend against the danger.

I am a little concerned that the LA police have apparently made that call this early in the game. California also recognizes the defense of "imperfect self defense" which would reduce a homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter if the actor's belief that the degree of force was unreasonable. There are also situations where the actor would be under a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force.

My humble opinion is that the matter should be referred to a grand jury which, after hearing all the evidence, can determine whether or not to indict the security guard.

 

[alex]

In California, a killing is justified if the actor (armed security guard) 1)"reasonably believed" that he (or others) were in "imminent danger" of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; 2) the actor reasonably believed that the use of such force was necessary to defend himself or another; and 3) the actor used no more force than was necessary to defend against the danger.

I am a little concerned that the LA police have apparently made that call this early in the game. California also recognizes the defense of "imperfect self defense" which would reduce a homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter if the actor's belief that the degree of force was unreasonable. There are also situations where the actor would be under a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force.

My humble opinion is that the matter should be referred to a grand jury which, after hearing all the evidence, can determine whether or not to indict the security guard.

A grand jury is composed of ordinary citizens with no legal training and frequently used by prosecutors to get indictments that have no legal weight later in court.

A grand jury is a citizens panel for investigation, but not a group that is particularly capable of discerning nuanced legalities.

Grand jurys are easily swayed. Better the district attorney have their own investigators do a PROFESSIONAL investigation and file charges normally.

 

[klidov]

That answers a question I had...So police are trained that
once they draw thier weapon, they MUST shoot.

I recall the Rodney King tape...a whole bunch of L.A. cops
had their guns drawn on him when they finally stopped him.
They did not, however, shoot him...just proceeded to beat
the hell out of him. Were they derelict or in violation of
police policy for not shooting to kill once they had drawn their
weapons?

Is this "if you draw, always shoot, always shoot to kill"
a newly established standard pplice policy? I asume
it means shoot and kill regardless if the opponent drops
his weapon or otherwise ceases being a threat?
Would a cop be reprimanded if he didn't shoot after
he drew the weapon? Is this policy the result of 9/11?

My Father retired about 16 years ago from Law Enforcement. He fired his gun once in the line of duty.

In the air. The person stopped.

As to my Uncles & Cousin? I cannot say. They have never discussed it with me. I cannot speak to "policy".

As a civilian, I was taught "shoot to kill". So, if you do not wish to kill someone, do not pull your weapon.

 

[Thrak]

That answers a question I had...So police are trained that
once they draw thier weapon, they MUST shoot.

I recall the Rodney King tape...a whole bunch of L.A. cops
had their guns drawn on him when they finally stopped him.
They did not, however, shoot him...just proceeded to beat
the hell out of him. Were they derelict or in violation of
police policy for not shooting to kill once they had drawn their
weapons?

Is this "if you draw, always shoot, always shoot to kill"
a newly established standard pplice policy? I asume
it means shoot and kill regardless if the opponent drops
his weapon or otherwise ceases being a threat?
Would a cop be reprimanded if he didn't shoot after
he drew the weapon? Is this policy the result of 9/11?

What is so difficult to understand here? And where did you read MUST. I don't think anybody said that. I don't see the point of changing words just to give yourself an argument. I think all you need to do is LOOK at what kinds of things really happen in life and you can kind of figure it out with out the need to imply conspiracy or whatever you are trying to do. Let's say if a cop pulls a gun he has a very high WILLINGNESS to shoot. And if he is a decent cop he probably has a good willingness NOT to shoot. And if there is time and distance maybe things will end without a shot being fired. But at that point it's up to what the guys does as to whether he gets shot or not. Cops don't get an advanced warning that somebody is about to approach them with the intent to harm them. That have to figure it out and react to it in seconds and live with the consequences. I saw in San Fran a homeless guy dead on the street with scissors in his hand after he had tried to attack a cop. And the cop got so freaked out he actually shot himself in the leg in the process. And I saw just last week a picture of a female NY cop who had killed somebody and was on oxygen because of the stress of it. All you have to do is put yourself in that position, and think how you might react if somebody all of the sudden approached you with two swords or a gun and realize you may or may not make the right decision in the time you have. And anybody that carries a gun, military, police or anybody else has to deal with that.

 

[uniquemand]

I was taught this with knife-fighting as well. Stab to kill, or don't pull the weapon. I made the mistake of drawing a knife on a guy one time, when I was about 13, and he was about 17. Then I didn't have the balls to use it, and he, being much bigger and stronger than me, took the knife from me, and proceeded to beat me to the point where I lost consciousness, and my friends ran for police help.

Lesson: don't draw unless you intend to use your weapon, and, don't draw unless you know HOW to use your weapon effectively.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Moar infoz:

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1227587117197250.xml&coll=7


A Scientology center's guard kills an Oregon man
The ex-Florence resident's record includes probation, jail time
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
LORI TOBIAS
The Oregonian Staff

A man shot and killed Sunday in front of a Scientology building in Los Angeles was a Florence resident who was on probation for stalking a Lane County judge. Also, he recently had served time in a Florence jail for threatening a tow truck driver.

A security guard shot Mario Majorski, 48, after Majorski threatened guests and another security guard with samurai swords at the Scientology Celebrity Centre in Hollywood, Los Angeles police said.

Majorski, who had numerous addresses in Los Angeles County and Oregon in the past two decades, was convicted of stalking Lane County Circuit Judge Debra Vogt in June 2007 and sentenced to 24 months' probation in September 2007, said Alex Gardner, Lane County district attorney-elect.

The stalking incident grew out of a landlord-tenant dispute in which the judge ruled against Majorski, Gardner said. Majorski sent the court a threatening letter and later was caught trying to carry a sharpened railroad spike into the courthouse.

"At the time, Mr. Majorski was muttering something about having to take out a judge," Gardner said Monday. "In the context of his earlier threatening letter and outburst in court when he lost, that was interpreted as threatening and stalking behavior to the judge."

Majorski also was arrested Oct. 26 after he threatened a tow truck driver, Doug Bushwar, with an ax handle. Bushwar responded to a call of a vehicle out of gas. When he arrived, Majorski was clearly agitated and ordered Bushwar not to cross the street to his pickup.

"He picked up the hatchet (handle)," Bushwar said Monday. "He used some profanity and said, 'Go get my gas.' And then he goes, 'I told you, now,' and he was shaking the ax at me."

Majorski pleaded guilty Oct. 28 and was released from the Florence jail on Oct. 30. Three days later, police were called after Majorski interrupted a Mormon church service and refused to leave.

The incident is the second high-profile case involving Oregon and Scientology. In 1996, Jairus Chegero Godeka walked into the church's downtown Portland office and shot and wounded four people, including a pregnant receptionist. A police officer persuaded Godeka to surrender.

On Monday, Los Angeles Detective Wendi Berndt told The Associated Press that Majorski had been associated with the Church of Scientology and that security guards were familiar with him. Surveillance tape showed he arrived in a red convertible about noon at the Los Angeles center and approached the guard with a sword in each hand before he was shot.

In Florence, Majorski moved into a ranch-style house on Munsel Lake Road about eight months ago, said neighbor Morry Bernard.

The two exchanged greetings, but then Bernard began finding gifts on his front porch for his four daughters.

"I returned them to him," said Bernard, a single parent. "It came off as kind of perverse." The gifts included a Hannah Montana karaoke machine, stuffed animals and other toys.

Bernard said Majorski told him, " 'I didn't mean anything by it. I'm just trying to be cool.' " But Bernard's daughters and other neighborhood children were afraid of Majorski, Bernard said.

"He'd dance in his front yard wearing devil's horns and all kinds of strange things when the kids were getting on the bus for school. Last week, he came out with 30 or 40 plastic coat hangers all over his arms. I didn't feel threatened or intimidated, but apparently he has an evil streak."

Lori Tobias: [email protected]; 541-265-9394

That's a lot of information that someone digged up! - Hmm.. No mention that Majorski was a scientologist! - Ahh.. In the distant past.. 2004.. long time ago.. That's not important.

I say managed news.. I can even say who managed it.. But I don't have to.

 

[skydog]

I don't have a problem with the DA's office making the call on this. In my state we only have grand juries in certain limited situations so the decision of whether to charge or not is usually made by the prosecutors. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system.

My concern is that an "impartial investigation" is done. In my state if a police officer kills a person, there is a mandated investigation into the circumstances of the killing. This is a public record that anyone can see. The investigations usually take a few months to complete.

For the LA police to glibly opine at the crime scene that this killing was justified is what bothers me the most about this case.

 

[Thrak]

I don't have a problem with the DA's office making the call on this. In my state we only have grand juries in certain limited situations so the decision of whether to charge or not is usually made by the prosecutors. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system.

My concern is that an "impartial investigation" is done. In my state if a police officer kills a person, there is a mandated investigation into the circumstances of the killing. This is a public record that anyone can see. The investigations usually take a few months to complete.

For the LA police to glibly opine at the crime scene that this killing was justified is what bothers me the most about this case.

That's a good point. It should be available for all to see. But I'm sure the church is trying to avoid that as hard as they can. They don't want another Youtube hit.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

What is so difficult to understand here? And where did you read MUST. I don't think anybody said that. I don't see the point of changing words just to give yourself an argument. I think all you need to do is LOOK at what kinds of things really happen in life and you can kind of figure it out with out the need to imply conspiracy or whatever you are trying to do. Let's say if a cop pulls a gun he has a very high WILLINGNESS to shoot. And if he is a decent cop he probably has a good willingness NOT to shoot. And if there is time and distance maybe things will end without a shot being fired. But at that point it's up to what the guys does as to whether he gets shot or not. Cops don't get an advanced warning that somebody is about to approach them with the intent to harm them. That have to figure it out and react to it in seconds and live with the consequences. I saw in San Fran a homeless guy dead on the street with scissors in his hand after he had tried to attack a cop. And the cop got so freaked out he actually shot himself in the leg in the process. And I saw just last week a picture of a female NY cop who had killed somebody and was on oxygen because of the stress of it. All you have to do is put yourself in that position, and think how you might react if somebody all of the sudden approached you with two swords or a gun and realize you may or may not make the right decision in the time you have. And anybody that carries a gun, military, police or anybody else has to deal with that.

Very well said.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Obviously the statement: "Don't pull your weapon unless you are going to use it," is not true and would not be applicable in all situations. Ergo, the decision to shoot is made before the weapon is drawn.

I think it is more like "Don't pull your weapon unless you are prepared to use it." Obviously if a guy surrenders you don't shoot him. I had three secret service guards pull their guns on me once. They didn't shoot. But they certainly were prepared to.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[NonScio]

What is so difficult to understand here? And where did you read MUST. I don't think anybody said that. I don't see the point of changing words just to give yourself an argument. I think all you need to do is LOOK at what kinds of things really happen in life and you can kind of figure it out with out the need to imply conspiracy or whatever you are trying to do. Let's say if a cop pulls a gun he has a very high WILLINGNESS to shoot. And if he is a decent cop he probably has a good willingness NOT to shoot. And if there is time and distance maybe things will end without a shot being fired. But at that point it's up to what the guys does as to whether he gets shot or not. Cops don't get an advanced warning that somebody is about to approach them with the intent to harm them. That have to figure it out and react to it in seconds and live with the consequences. I saw in San Fran a homeless guy dead on the street with scissors in his hand after he had tried to attack a cop. And the cop got so freaked out he actually shot himself in the leg in the process. And I saw just last week a picture of a female NY cop who had killed somebody and was on oxygen because of the stress of it. All you have to do is put yourself in that position, and think how you might react if somebody all of the sudden approached you with two swords or a gun and realize you may or may not make the right decision in the time you have. And anybody that carries a gun, military, police or anybody else has to deal with that.

Yes, I think I jumped to conclusions by assuming the word "must".
That would be a really scary and irrational if cops were actually
required to shoot once they had drawn. I think what those who
have described police policy on the matter mean is that
you must be willing and intending to shoot (if you have to
once you have drawn). Drawing the weapon would mean
that the circumstance gives a strong indication you might have
to use it, not an absolute certainty that you will have to.

 

[TheSneakster]

I was trained to shoot by a retired Police Officer, (and a former Spetznas).

Both trained me the same way:

1) don't pull your weapon unless you are going to use it

and

2) if you're going to use it, kill them.

End of story.

That answers a question I had...So police are trained that
once they draw thier weapon, they MUST shoot.

I recall the Rodney King tape...a whole bunch of L.A. cops
had their guns drawn on him when they finally stopped him.
They did not, however, shoot him...just proceeded to beat
the hell out of him. Were they derelict or in violation of
police policy for not shooting to kill once they had drawn their
weapons?

Is this "if you draw, always shoot, always shoot to kill"
a newly established standard pplice policy? I asume
it means shoot and kill regardless if the opponent drops
his weapon or otherwise ceases being a threat?
Would a cop be reprimanded if he didn't shoot after
he drew the weapon? Is this policy the result of 9/11?

Nonscio:

How do we get from Klidov and Done reporting advice they received during firearms training to such totally absurd and ignorant assertions about LAPD official policy about the use of deadly force ?

There is no such official policy saying "if you draw, you must shoot" in any police department anywhere in the United States nor in any police jurisdiction anywhere in the world to the best of my knowledge.

Everyone:

Before I purchased my semiautomatic pistol, I first purchased and studied an instructional handbook on the basics of California Firearms Law. This handbook cited then current California Law extensively and the following comments are based upon that study:

Unholstering a firearm and taking aim at any person represents a direct threat that deadly force *may* be applied, if the targeted person does not immediately comply with whatever commands an armed officer or private citizen may be issuing to them at that time.

The action of aiming a firearm at a person, whether accompanied by commands or not, constitutes an "Assault with a deadly weapon" in most places, unless there is a lawful reason for doing so: deterring the targeted person from committing a felony. In California, the felony being prevented must be involve direct threat to life or great bodily harm to the armed party or another they are protecting from an immediate and eminent threat.

If the suspect continues upon whatever immediate course of action that the armed officer or citizen is lawfully attempting to prevent after being commanded to cease and desist, they may be lawfully prevented from committing said felony by use of said firearm.

This applies to other deadly weapons, such as any kind of club or blade.

The moment this fellow unsheathed those swords and held them in a threatening manner, he was unlawfully threatening others with deadly force. When he advanced upon that armed guard so armed, he was threatening immediate attack which could result in death or severe bodily harm.

Now allow me to remark upon the tactical situation, which some of the people here are clearly have not considered:

I have stood in the very spot where this man fell. In the posted photos can be seen a walk with low stairs which leads directly to nearby patio area by a fountain where numerous CC Int. public may be found at almost any time, because of the nearby snack counter.

If this perpetrator had chosen to go to a full charge, he could have been upon the unarmed innocent people there in a matter of seconds. If the armed guard had held his fire until this person made it to that area, the guard firing at the perpetrator might have missed and accidentally hit one or more of these innocents whilst trying to shoot the bad guy.

The guard in question was a fully trained L.A.P.D. officer at one time and had been taught not to engage suspects with a firearm without a clear line-of-fire and down-range area except in extremis.

This perpetrator evidenced intent to commit mass murder and mayhem when he headed towards towards that area with drawn swords. He chose to advance upon the armed guards lawfully seeking to prevent him for committing said felony and he died as a result.

There was no law-breaking involved in this death, except the perpetrator's.

It has been said that the real story here is how this former Scientologist came to be there purposing to commit such violent acts and I concur with that point of view.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous.

 

[Done]

Yes, I think I jumped to conclusions by assuming the word "must".
That would be a really scary and irrational if cops were actually
required to shoot once they had drawn. I think what those who
have described police policy on the matter mean is that
you must be willing and intending to shoot (if you have to
once you have drawn). Drawing the weapon would mean
that the circumstance gives a strong indication you might have
to use it, not an absolute certainty that you will have to.

I was not attempting to describe police policy, but instead the laws governing the private use of guns, which apply to this situation.

Under Texas law, you can not draw your weapon because you might need it. You can only draw your weapon if the circumstances also allow you to shoot. Somebody coming at you with a 5 foot sword definitely qualifies. I'm guessing here, but I suspect California law is much the same on this point.

 

[Done]

I don't have a problem with the DA's office making the call on this. In my state we only have grand juries in certain limited situations so the decision of whether to charge or not is usually made by the prosecutors. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system.

My concern is that an "impartial investigation" is done. In my state if a police officer kills a person, there is a mandated investigation into the circumstances of the killing. This is a public record that anyone can see. The investigations usually take a few months to complete.

For the LA police to glibly opine at the crime scene that this killing was justified is what bothers me the most about this case.

Oh please. California is such a weenie state with their "duty to repeat" laws. The man had a 5 foot samurai sword! He needed killin'.

The real story here is, what did the church do the poor SOB?

 

[Ladybird]

Have you guys looked at the crime scene photos and the location of the swords and the location of the body and the fact that the guy did not even close the door to his car and fell 2 feet away from his open door?

Have you read the conflicting accounts that he was known to security, not known to security, attacking the guards, attacking the public, not a scientologist, a long ago scientologist, a recent scientologist, did services at FLAG and CCInt back in 1990, trouble since 2005 (when he was last documented as a scientologist at AOSH) blah, blah blah...

I know and others know and we have all posted for years that all those surveillance cameras that the cult of scientology has all over the streets of LA and Hollywood are watched on a huge bank of live cameras monitered 24/7 by security personel. You are deluded to think a single "hired" armed guard acted on his own in this or any other case.

Can we please start showing some of the cult scripture and past Guardians office and OSA (Office of special Affairs) operations which they are acting on right now?

Why was Rick Moxon out there giving PR bits to the cops when he himself was Mario Majorskis "handler" back in 1993, and Mr. Kendrick Moxon was an unindicted co-conspirator in the "Snow White" case and was an ex-GO himself, and.....OMG...can't you people read????

Look up Michael Meisner or a host of others to see how scientology treats their members.