Posted on 10/17/2002 9:36:34 AM PDT by Kerberos
No, what I am more concerned about is that we will see this start happening in other cities around the country.
there was one witness who nearly ran into the van with the two suspects in the parking garage...isn't that the one who said he got a good look at the guy....ME sort I believe..he did not describe the gun because that witnesses never saw the shooting or knew of the shooting til later.
then there was the guy who supposedly saw the shooter and described the gun.....NOW ...that is the guy who is discredited isn't it....because the cops have discredited the type of gun discribed by the "witness"...
am I right on that?
if I am right, then there is still one witness who described an "olive skinned person"....
Not necessary...we just have to keep walking in a zig zag pattern. < sarcasm off/>
Red
Not true. It is legal for law abiding Maryland residents to possess and wear body armor. However, the 2001 legislative session passed a law making it a crime to wear body armor during the commission of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. Glendenning of course wanted a total ban...
Three of the victims (Ramos, Meyers, Franklin) were shot in the head, one (Charlot) in the neck, and the others in the torso.
Which unfortunately makes the legality point moot.
One needs Level III or Level IV armor (typically soft body armor with ceramic plate inserts) to protect from rifle threats. USGI Kevlar helmets are only Level IIIa -- capable of defeating handgun threats, but inadequate for rifle.
www.bulletproofme.com is a body armor vendor with some useful info (no affiliation, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.