Texas DPS Trooper Shot to Death During Traffic Stop on Thanksgiving
S uspect arrested after hours long manhunt
B y Lea Wilson - Click2Houston Digital News Editor
Updated: 9:56 PM, November 24, 2017
WALLER COUNTY, Texas - A man suspected of shooting a Texas state trooper to death during a traffic stop on Thanksgiving was apprehended by a K-9 officer and taken into custody Thursday evening, troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety said.
The suspect, identified as 32-year-old Dabrett Black, was on the run from authorities after a alert was issued for his vehicle following the shooting death of Trooper Damon Allen , 41.
Link to read article with photos
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
There are too many guns in this country!
It will take a long time to get that problem under control, but solving this problem has to start sometime. That time passed when 20 kids got killed in Sandy Hook Conn., when we did nothing.
The fear that we will lose our guns if we start to get some control over the firearms in America is ridicules, that fear has been perpetrated by the gun manufactures who have plead to the gutless fear factor that presides in the right wing.
300+ (28 are children) people were killed in an Egyptian Mosque when it was raided by ISIS killers. Are we going to wait until something like that happens here, or are we going to start getting better control over who should be allowed to possess military style firearms, in fact there is no good reason to have that type of weapon available to the general public. (Unless you want to allow some crazy person to shoot you in the ass in a church or a mall)
This bastard killer had an AK style firearm with a 100 round drum ....how crazy is that? Why should any be sold a 100 round drum?
James Holmes had a 100 round drum too. Incredibly, the gun nuts argued against banning them because it jammed on him!
So what's your solution....registration followed by confiscation??
NO! The paranoia you guys have about a losing your guns hangs out like a fools flag!
It is not anything about "confiscation". it is about control. Why, in good reason, should gun merchants need to sell AK style firearms and 100 found clips to ordinary citizens?
The only answer is to make profits. However those profits kill people. All for the satisfaction of fulfilling the weird appetite of weak men to feel better because they own high speed killing weapons.
I own hunting weapons and I do not intend to let the government get their hands on them. But have no use for an AK 47 or a 100 round clip, and I challenge someone to make a sensible argument why it is necessary for any ordinary citizen to own them.
People determined to get high powered firearms don't have to go to gun shops or gun shows, all they have to do is know someone who knows someone who knows a guy that can get anything from the black market or ordinary criminals. How in the world do you "control" them.
Is that supposed to add something to this discussion?
Cute, but how about offering something that addresses the problem of all these uncontrolled guns?
I'm sure you have not heard everything left-wingers have said (about guns), seeing how it is not a position you like to follow.
You know "for a fact" they do not believe in the Second Amendment? Please present us with what "facts" you are referring to.
Easy, put every felon in possession of a firearm to death. Put anyone caught committing a felony with a firearm to death.
/shrug, no big deal.
E.A LOL Brilliant you have just solved More problems in ONE twit then " All the Twits
" before you, well done NO more Deficits NO more Overcrowding Prisons NO more Gun Death :-)
The Second TWIT was a different meaning then the First one :-)
Well, I notice jerry asked for solutions, but has none to offer. Maybe you have some solution to jerry's dilemma?
E.A Jerry likes the " Merry-go-round "
We came to an agreement that soon afterwards was conveniently forgotten " Guns are NOT the problem " and we agreed that " Humans are the Problem " we even went as far as to state that Medical Efforts needed to be made, and then :: 
What happens when they get into the hands of a being that is not so sentient and wants to commit mass murder? Those guns are not so safe, and either are the people that they're being aimed at.
Easy, put every felon in possession of a firearm to death.
Do we do that before or after they commit mass murder?
Put anyone caught committing a felony with a firearm to death..
That will not work. People committing a crime think they will not get caught, so the penalty makes no difference to them.
So, what is important to the anti-gun nuts is to do something. Doesn't matter if it works or not
True, and they will get guns anywhere they can, almost always illegally
Nobody agreed to anything like that.
I said, unstable humans with a gun is the problem. And I said, guns in the hands of an unstable humans are the problem.
Show us exactly where we made that agreement.
I'll tell you what. Apparently this issue is way too complicated for the average gun owner to comprehend, so fuck it, let the killings continue until the gun haters actually get legislation passed that will tie the 2nd into such a knot that it will become very difficult to own a firearm in this country.
I'm going to a thread where I can debate an issue with people that have a working brain.
(what a bunch of assholes)
That is exactly the problem we have to solve. You guys have been using that argument for decades but don't want to discuss any way to make it stop.
So I will repeat, there are too many guns in this country. A country that has more guns than people, has a responsibility to keep those guns under control.
Problem here My friend is you can't have it both ways. You making the statement that it's about uncontrolled guns, and the other side is making the statement that it is about uncontrolled people.
You want to discuss ways to get the guns out of the uncontrolled peoples hands but refuse to unequivocally state that it IS about the nut with a gun.
Not the gun itself......
Ie, your frustrating yourself....
Your still arguing that it is about the gun, not the nut.....
There will never be any progress until that illusion goes away.....
And why does it create such heated animosity?
Cause by making the argument about the gun and how the nut used it, your turning every person who owns a gun into a nut....
The true issue is the nut and how he got and used the gun, we need to keep the focus on the actual problem....
The last nut shouldn't have even had the guns he purchased, and that was a failure of government to properly access and use the existing system in place to prevent his buying guns....
Not about guns themselves....
At a certain time in our past before automatics, having guns in our possession was a check to keep our government from being oppressive.
We are not at a certain time in our past.
We are the longest surviving independent republic in the history of the world, we the people are the government and this government is not going to become oppressive. You do not need an AK 47.
(If you want to play with an AK 47 join the Army)
Not everyone with a gun is a nut.
and clearly the 2nd amendment states (as interpreted by the founders and the Supreme Court) that the citizen needs to be allowed the same weapons that the common footsoldier uses. We are already below that standard.
Most footsoldiers in the world today carry assault rifles of some fashion or another. You know select fire weapons that can fire fully automatically. And those cannot be sold to civilians legally. of course all laws are of prospective application so the existing automatic weapons are still legal but require MASSIVE authorizations to possess and only in those states where it is allowed.
So we are already behind where the Supreme Court says we should be in types of weapons the citizen should be able to possess.
Your argument is only a desire to push us even farther behind that standard.
I see this is a little hard for you. You seem to have this notion people believe guns can shoot people on their own, which is in no way the truth.
We understand the gun is innate and needs a person to make it shoot. We get that. The problem is some of the people that get access to a firearm are not of a stable mind and should not be allowed to possess a firearm.
Compounding the problem is the fact that the USA possesses more guns per capita than any country in the world, more than one for every person (approx 350 million) and we do not seem to be able to accept the responsibility to keep any reasonable control of those guns .....
..... which allows too many of those unstable people, mentioned above, to obtain possession of those firearms .......
..... and innocent people get killed with a formally innate gun.
Do you get it now?
That is the problem, how to keep guns from people that should not have them.
How? I'm not sure, it's a complicated problem and I'm not a legislator and I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a firearm outlet. So, I'll have to leave the problem up to them to write the legislation.
They tried after the Sandy Hook massacre, but the money and power of the NRA caused the bill to be defeated. (the gun manufactures want a very healthy bottom line)
As said above ... we the people own this country. Tell the NRA to fuck off, people are dying and something must be done to stop it.
Please pay attention. I am discussing both;
NUT + GUN = BIG PROBLEM
NUT + NO GUN = SMALL PROBLEM
GUN LOCKED IN CASE = NO PROBLEM
ok your saying that right now, heck you've been saying it for five days now.
My only problem after reading this entire article?
As soon as someone tries to engage you on this, the nut part disappears and the gun becomes the topic.
Over a half dozen times I have seen it in this article.....
You cannot exclude the nut in the conversation.
The real conversation is what to do about the nuts in our society isn't it?
So please stop couching the debate as a debate about the nuts with guns and defaulting to only discussing the gun.
It's a circle jerk.... Will get us nowhere.
Discuss the nut..... not the tool he chooses to use.
How do you stop someone from intentionally breaking thaw law. Do you somehow think that just because you pass some new law or regulation that the criminals out there are going to change their ways and stop illegally selling and buying guns?
It is already a felony punishable up to q0 years in prison for illegal posession of a firearm. That still does not stop people from illegally obtaining them
Come on NM, you've been in these debates long enough to do better than that.
Of course not everyone with a gun is a nut (that would make both you and me a nut). But because guns are so easy to get in this country, every once in awhile a nut does get a gun, and nuts with guns are dangerous.
The problem is, what do we have to do to keep guns out of the hand of the nuts.
Maybe we should sell AK type stuff to carefully screened civilians and keep them secured at firing ranges.
Of course and I agree with this wholeheartedly. (it's axiomatic in my opinion) In fact I would argue that most gun owners are not nuts. And I think you should be able to agree with that assessment being a gun owner yourself.
The two mass killers you have cited the most in the arguments here both obtained their weapons illegally, The Newtown shooter by killing the owner, (who happened to be his mother) and the Las Vegas shooter who was a convicted domestic violence abuser who was never reported to the BATF as ineligible to own a firearm hence he never showed up on the background check.
No rational gun owner, nor any weapon they own, has any responsibility for these occurrences.
The easy one is the Vegas shooter, that was a failure of government, pure and simple. If proper procedures had been followed he would not have been able to buy the firearms he possessed and there would not be a courtyard full of dead people. End of story in Vegas.
Enforce the existing laws to the fullest is the solution there. Which I think you would find that most lawful gun owners are fully supportive of.
Second, the Newtown shooter. Yes he killed his mother to gain the use of the guns he used. Yes, that is the fault of the mother in that she didn't have them secured properly, even though she knew she had a child in the house who knew how to use them, and still did not secure them sufficiently to prevent access.
So the issue in both mass shootings is access to weapons that the shooter (a mentally deficient person) should not have had.
I believe it was law in the State of Connecticut that firearms in the home where there is a mentally disturbed person must be secured in a locked and sealed compartment. AND, the ammo must be separate from the weapons. Mother failed to obey the law which resulted in her own death. I'm sure she never suspected her son could do such a thing.
Just to add one more the Marysville-Pilchuck Shooter stole his fathers weapon to do his deed. He (his father) had no authorization to have the weapon in the first place as he was subject to a permanent domestic violence protection order against him. He lied on his application to purchase the firearms he possessed. (he was convicted and went to jail for it)
All of this represents the system breaking down due to failures to implement the laws currently in place.....
What do we need to do?
That would be a start and go from there.......
Shouldn't be any problem with a knowledgeable responsible weapon owner, no rights lost, the only law changes benefit the responsible law-abiding gun owner and non-gun owner alike as far as keeping weapons out of the hands of nutjobs. The only problem as I see it is political.
Having the will to implement such from both sides.
It is just too bad that the perp did not resist. The K-9 could have had some bad guy for thanksgiving dinner.
It's not guns that need controlling. It's the low IQ, low impulse control segment of our society that need to be kept in check.
Unfortunately, that's the same segment of our society that has a sick fascination with all things gun.
And it is irrational to blame an inanimate object for an issue of the human condition.
I agree, but I've never actually heard anyone do it.
What do you mean? Jerry is blaming the gun with the *gasp* 100 round drum instead of the low IQ, low impulse control street thug.
Then your denial is acute and possibly uncurable.
I'm not so sure your comprehension is sound there, Val, the way I read it, he's blaming the humans who decided to allow the drums to be sold to the public.
You're speaking, of course, about ordinary criminals and gang bangers
Inanimate object!! Those inanimate objects that shoot bullets and kill people?!!
Apparently you missed it. But the point is those 'inanimate objects' become very animate when they have the trigger pulled, especially when the the human condition of the puller is unstable.
I consider that as an insult to all the sane and stable gun collectors in the country.
Obviously you don't fully understand that it takes a HUMAN to manipulate the weapon in order for it to fire. When was the last time you saw a firearm walking down the street without being in the possession of a HUMAN?
2+2=4. or does your educational level fall short of that?
low IQ, low impulse control street thug + rapid fire gun w/large clip = a danger to anybody they look at
Come on Jeramy, think a little. When the gun is walking down the street in the hands of an unstable person, we have a problem.
Not letting that happen is the problem we are trying to solve.
All of the gunners owners I know are interested in gun safety. A gun in the hands of a person with an unstable mind is a unsafes.
(Check with the families of the 58 people killed at that concert.)
The problem here is your comprehension abilities. If you can, try to comprehend a rapid fire gun that is converted to operate like a fully automatic rifle in the hands of a person intent on killing as many innocent people as possible.
If you can handle that thought, also try to comprehend a way we can inhibit that potential killers from getting his hands on that weapon.
THAT is the problem here. Not the existence of guns, but the existence of people that should not be allowed to possess those guns. We can't get rid of the people, and we can't get rid of the guns. But we can come up with an agreement of how we can keep those two entities apart.
But you obviously have no problem with infringing on the rights of 99.9995% of the gun owners of this country enjoy for the actions of less than .0005% of gun owners, both legal and illegal.
First, you need to check the accuracy of those numbers, but nobody is asking legitimate gun owners to give up anything but a way to make it safer to us to possess weapons.
Second, you need to get out of your head that most gun control people are trying to take our guns away.
We are simply trying to make it safer to allow 350 million guns to exist in this country. Do you have an argument with that?
So you are admitting that the gun is not the problem. It's the person holding the gun that is the problem. Not the inanimate object.
So take care of the problem (as you just identified) and not the inanimate object.
And those are the ones that will lose their weapons. Those that think that making it harder to get firearms are misinformed or delusional to say the least.
And you expect us to thing that an inanimate object kills without a person being in control. And you still don't see the problem with your second sentence there...
Can't separate them? Yes you can and you just did in that statement.
I guess I have to get the crayons out for you on this don't I? Legislation that makes it harder to get a firearm will do nothing to the murder rate. In fact there is a good chance it will increase the number of of people with weapons obtained illegally. This is evident when we look at a city like Chicago. Tightest firearms laws in the country, but the highest murder rate in the country. For fucks sake, there have been more people killed in Chicago than in combat operations in Afghanistan. But something tells me you won't understand those numbers.
The only way to get that in check is through better education, especially in the inner cities. The problem is those kids cannot give themselves an education. It has to start in the home where we teach kids how important it is to be as smart as the next guy that went to school.
In the meantime we really need to get much better control over who is stable enough to possess a firearm. and how to keep them safe and away from unstable people.
If you feel you are able to prove you are a person that should be allowed to possess firearms, you have no problem. But if you think you may have a problem convincing authorities you should be allowed to possess, you could have a problem, but the rest of us may be a little safer.
Should we have an IQ test to determine who votes?
What has that got to do with gun safety?
Or why you need freedom of the press or speech?
To keep the country free and allow us to have debates like this one.
I don't see where that question is asked. The question is are you mentally stable enough to be allowed to own or possess a gun.
With all of the objection to displaying competency, I get the feeling a lot of gun owners are afraid they will not pass such a test.
(It seems they are afraid of just about everything else)
It’s Texas - what can you do? Even housecats are armed in Texas.
LOL .... they are all afraid of everyone down there because almost everybody carries.
State Population Gun Murders %
New York 19,747,183 609 3.1
California 38,993,940 1,861 4.8
Texas 27,429,639 1,316 4.8
Texas, with 11.5 fewer people, has the same gun death rate as California, and makes New York look like vacation land.
Nice try, that's not gun murders genius it's total murders. Texas and California have the same murder "rate" at 4.8 per 100,000
Total murder rate per state
And DC makes them all look like a girl scout jamboree. With some of the most stringent gun laws in the USA the District of Columbia has highest murder rate in the country at over 24 per 100,000. The next closest state is Louisiana at about 10.
Yep stay away from our capital if you don't want to get dead.
Keep telling yourself that.
The point you are trying to make is ridiculous and outrageous. Come up with a real point ant we can talk.
I don't why the liberals keep harping about gun control, but never say exactly how it should be done.
That is totally untrue. The gun argument has been going on for years, and there have been many suggestions of how to deal with the situation. The problem is, every suggestion posed by those that want to make the country safer is turned flatly turned down by the gun owners and the NRA.
Even after 20 small children were murdered in their Sandy Hook school resulted in NO action by Congress.
E.A ... OK here is an opportunity:::
HOW I repeat HOW do you stop a Criminal from having a GUN?
Want me to repeat that?
E.A why you " feed the Trolls"??
NO Laws will stop the CRIMINALS, what they do is make the LAW abiding Citizens Fodder for the Criminal Gangs!
Then why do we have any laws at all EA??
E.A Thanks I do not respond to Trolls, but thank you for making the OBVIOUS, and maybe you should add that GUN Owners are NOT Criminals!
E.A No, that is NOT right!!
Gun Owners are not Criminals
Criminals that have GUN should be prosecuted and Lawful measure taken!
To say that ANY Gun Owner is a Criminals is FALSE! Until they a re CONVICTED of the Crime, AT that point they are Convicted Criminal and hence they should NOT be a " Gun Owner " lets get the BASICS right!
E.A Right so in effect they are " Criminals with GUNS " that the EXISTING laws do NOT allow them to be.
So we now see the Difference?
What KIND of action! Spit it out!
They do offer suggestions about how it can be done but they always reach strong resistance.
According to a Business Insider repor t;
There's been little progress on major gun control legislation introduced into Congress since the deadly massacre in Las Vegas earlier this month.
The push to ban bump stocks, implement tougher background checks, and enforce smart gun technology have all fallen by the wayside.
A majority of voters support stricter gun laws, but there's a lack of bipartisan support in Congress .
Gee, I'd love to find that part of the US Constitution. Or is it in the rightwing version only?
Wherefore. You're welcome.
Who did that? I just pointed out the word Shakespeare used so he would be able to quote the line properly in the future, and he appreciated it.
Thoughts and prayers ought to cover this one too, right?
First, let me point out the professionalism of modern law enforcement. Even after this man killed one of their own, law enforcement still brought this man in alive to face his crimes (Suck it BLM).
Now to the meat of the matter. Mr. Verlinger you make an impassioned plea for the removal of guns from our society and even relate what style you want removed "military style" "AK47." However, when pressed to be specific by XDm9mm, you have yet to define what you mean by the terms you are using which suggests to me you are either ignorant of the subject matter or are being purposely disingenuous in your assertions.
I am a retired LEO and still support the responsible ownership of firearms by the general public. In fact I think it a necessary thing. Just so you know, during my career, I have been shot at, I had two good friends shot during a traffic stop. I also had two fellow officers shoot themselves with their own issued firearm, the last was a friend and a person I rode calls with for years. None of us saw that coming including her husband, who was also a cop and a friend. Just so you know, in 25 years I only once had any issue with someone legally possessing a firearm and that was a very special circumstance.
Through all of this I do not blame the firearm. I blame it's misuse. I also find the left's casual dismissal of the possibility of the attempt to outlaw/confiscate firearms by the government disingenuous as well. Especially when the float all the ideas that the right is trying to impose fascist rule in America (which btw the left are the ones acting in a fascist manner). The attempt to outlaw/confiscate firearms is a much more credible IMO.
So please sir, define which characteristics of firearms you are specifically speaking about that should be outlawed.
Mr. Verlinger you make an impassioned plea for the removal of guns from our society and even relate what style you want removed "military style" "AK47."
Two answers for a comment that contradicts itself. One) No, I am not making a plea for "the removal of guns from our society" . In this debate, and every other 'gun debate' I have been involved in, I am only asking for better control over who owns , or gets to own the growing amount of guns we have in the country. Two) Yes, I do believe high firing speed, and military style weapons should not be distributed to the general public.
However, when pressed to be specific by XDm9mm, you have yet to define what you mean by the terms you are using which suggests to me you are either ignorant of the subject matter or are being purposely disingenuous in your assertions.....
Yes, in part I am being deliberately disingenuous re; XDm9mm's question, because I do not want to start a sub-thread about exact descriptions of gun types. This discussion does not require any 'exact' descriptions of gun types. Most readers understand the intent and meaning of "high speed" and "military style " weapons for the discussion to move along. Demanding I give a more exact description is nothing more than an attempt to redirect the subject.
I am sure if someone you love is ever killed by a loose madman, you would not care what kind of weapon the bullet came from.
It's too late, Jerry. The unbelievable proliferation of guns in the USA, the power of the NRA, the Second Amendment and those who consider the Constitution and Amendments holy and untouchable, the need to protect yourself and your family from the many crazies and criminals who have guns are factors all working against changing the situation. The statistics for gun deaths in the USA are competitive with the those for the most uncivilized countries in the world. In England, citizens say "God save the Queen". In America good people say "God save me and my family" (I assume the many atheists on NT would disagree with that. LOL)
Buzz it looks to me like the Queen knows how to save her own butt.
I'd like to hear her thoughts on lugging that shooting bench around with her.......
But then again, she has a bunch of guys to do that for her...... (lug around the shooting bench amongst other things)
The woman's in her nineties, cut her some slack !
She DOES look kind of grouchy most of the time, but she had to raise Charles, and he's still living at home!
Other countries have mentally unstable people and do not have NEAR the gun violence we do.
Other countries do not not have NEAR the amount of guns we have.