Dem Congressional Candidate: All Illegal Immigrants Living in U.S. Should Receive Amnesty

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

All illegal immigrants should be rounded up and given a one-way trip back home.

Then the border needs to be built to keep the illegals out.

Hank Linderman, a Democratic congressional candidate in Kentucky, wants all immigrants living in the United States illegally to be granted amnesty.

Linderman’s campaign released a statement with the candidate’s position that all “qualified” illegal immigrants living in the United States as of July 4 should be able to remain, the Louisville Courier Journal reports.

“I am calling for action to help the millions of undocumented people already working in our communities, serving in our military and raising families by granting amnesty,” Linderman said.

“Any reform of immigration law and process in the United States must include amnesty for those already living here,” he added.

Linderman also called for the restructuring of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, often referred to as ICE, and condemned the Trump administration’s former policy of separating families who entered the country illegally at the southern border.

“The abuses we have seen, including family separations, extended incarcerations and even violent and sexual assault, must stop,” Linderman said.

“We are a nation of immigrants,” he added. “To deny this reality is to deny our nation itself.”

A growing number of Democrats have called for ICE, a law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security, to either be abolished entirely or to be reformed.

Linderman is challenging incumbent Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie for his seat representing Kentucky’s 2nd Congressional District. Guthrie was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2008. Linderman, a musician, narrowly won the Democratic nomination in the 2nd District which leans heavily Republican.

Advertisements

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hints at Possible Retirement Timeline

H/T Right Wing Folks.

Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg says she will hang around for at least five more years but she has had Pancreatic cancer so she may not have five more years left.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signaled on Sunday that she is looking to remain on the bench for at least another five years.

“I’m now 85,” Ginsburg said, according to CNN. “My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years.”

Ginsburg made the remarks following a production in New York City of “The Originalist,” a play about her friend, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“If I had my choice of dissenters when I was writing for the court, it would be Justice Scalia,” she told the play’s director Molly Smith during a Q&A, saying that the back and forth would help her form her arguments. “Sometimes it was like a ping-pong game.”

Asked what keeps her hopeful, Ginsburg replied, “My dear spouse would say that the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle — it is the pendulum. And when it goes very far in one direction you can count on its swinging back.”

The justice made the unusual move of taking sides in the 2016 presidential race with very public and negative statements to the press about then-candidate Donald Trump.

She told CNN in July 2016 that Trump is a “faker,” adding, “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

Those comments came on top of ones she made to The New York Times, when she said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”

Ginsburg appeared very confident that Hillary Clinton would win when asked about the next president making appointments to the Supreme Court.

“She is bound to have a few appointments in her term,” the justice said.

Ginsburg’s remarks caught the attention of Trump, who issued one of his famous tweets in response, writing, “Her mind is shot.”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!

“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

Ginsburg’s statements earned her the rebuke of The Times’ editorial board, which headlined an Op-Ed “Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Others in the media, and reportedly fellow justices on the Supreme Court, also found her comments inappropriate.

A day after The Times’ Op-Ed, Ginsburg retracted her “ill-advised” remarks about Trump, writing, “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. … In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, has survived both colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer in 2009 and is believed to be in good health, The Washington Post reported.

The justice has hired law clerks through 2020, indicating she has every intention of hanging around.

Ginsburg is already five years past the average retirement age of the last 11 justices, and three years older than Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement in June.

Court watchers, like Jonathan Turley, believe that Ginsburg fully expected Clinton to appoint her replacement, and resisted calls to retire during Obama’s terms. Now she faces the possibility that a conservative may well replace her on the court, appointed by Trump.

 

Dear CNN: This Woman Kidnapped And Killed This Baby – Is That A ‘Hate Crime?’

H/T Clash Daily.

Sadly this will not be considered a hate crime as the victim is white and the perpetrator is black.

Ninety minutes after the abduction, the kid was found abandoned on the tracks, sadistically injured and barely clinging to life. There was a social media connection, too…

It’s not quite clear whether the accused and the grieving mother knew each other in real life, but they were connected by Facebook.

Which makes what follows all the more sickening.

The mom, Hanna Barker, answered her door, where she was met by two women who sprayed something (Mace, probably) into her eyes.

After getting hit with the mace, Barker fled from her attackers.

She returned to find her 6-month-old boy missing. Frantic, she started a search and called authorities.

Her baby boy was found, clinging to life, but the damage was already done.

He had been set on fire and abandoned by the railroad tracks.

SET ON FIRE.

And left for dead.

It was only the fact that someone noticed the flames, and reported them to 9/11 that the burning baby was even discovered so quickly.

What kind of a twisted person even IMAGINES burning a baby alive, let alone ACTS on it?

For those still wondering how people can believe a good God could possibly condemn anyone to Hell, stories like this one can help put that position into perspective.

Here is a photo of the baby whose life was thrown away so callously:

The accused is 25 years old Felicia Marie-Nicole Smith, pictured here:

This happened in Louisiana.

We don’t know the motive, or even whether they knew each other in real life.

But one thing is for certain. If the attacker and the victim had been switched, especially due to the sadistic nature of the attack, there would be a national outcry demanding the woman be charged with a ‘hate crime’.

In light of the sadistic violence, should we have a national outcry that Felicia Marie-Nicole Smith is charged with a hate crime? Or should we rethink our use of ‘hate crimes’ altogether?

We often ask the question: if justice is supposed to be blind, shouldn’t the criteria of ‘hate crime’ be the same whether the aggressor is male or female, gay or straight,  white black or something else entirely?

Or should we discard the term ‘hate crime’ altogether, and go back to charging people for measurable criminal acts that either Did or Did Not happen?

Forbidden Love: Auschwitz Prisoner and SS Guard Developed Relationship

 

 

H/T War History OnLine.

A story of a forbidden love affair that saved Helena Citronova from the gas chamber of Auschwitz.

In 1933, the Nazi regime took control of Germany. Almost immediately, they began drafting the Nuremberg Laws. These laws banned relationships between “Aryans” and Jews.

A new novel from Kate Breslin is controversial because it is about just such a relationship. In the book, an SS commandant at a concentration camp falls in love with one of the prisoners. In fact, such relationships actually did develop in the Third Reich.

Possibly the least likely location for such a relationship was the Auschwitz death camp. But precisely because of the horrible crimes committed there, it was a place where people would do anything to survive and to save their families

Main entrance to Aushwitz I in 1955. Photo: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-32279-007 / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Helena Citronova was one of those prisoners at Auschwitz. She was able to save her own life and the lives of her family members by returning the affections of an SS guard.

She slept with Franz Wunsch and eventually confessed to having fallen in love with him. But her original motive was just to save her life.

Citronova was a Jew living in Slovakia. After being sent to Auschwitz, she was put to work in a large warehouse known as “Canada” where the belongings of the victims were sorted before being sent to Berlin to fund the war effort.

In 1942, she met Wunsch. She was asked to sing for Wunsch’s birthday. Had this not happened, she would have died. She had already been selected for the gas chamber earlier that day.

Wunsch passed her a note that said he had fallen in love with her. She immediately destroyed it but saw the word love before she did. Wunsch even went so far as to save Citronova’s sister from dying.

Still, Citronova felt nothing but hatred for the SS guard at first. She felt like she would rather be dead then get involved with someone in the SS.

Jews from Carpathian Ruthenia arriving at Auschwitz concentration camp, 1944

Her feelings for Wunsch eventually changed, especially after her sister’s children came to Auschwitz and Wunsch tried to save them. Wunsch saved Citronova’s sister by saying that she worked for him in “Canada” but he was not able to save her children.

Citronova and her sister survived the Holocaust and, though nothing further happened with Wunsch, Citronova testified on his behalf at his war crimes trial.

Citronova died in 2005. In an interview before her death, she said that sometimes she forgot that she was a Jew and he was not. She admitted that she eventually grew to love him, but the relationship could never have worked out.

Hungarian Jews on the Judenrampe (Jewish ramp) after disembarking from the transport trains. To be sent rechts!—to the right—meant the person had been chosen as a laborer; links!—to the left—meant death in the gas chambers.

In another interview, she said that she had not forgotten anything from their relationship. When she was younger, she didn’t think about it, but as she grew older, the memories came rushing back to her. Everyone knew about their relationship. She said that it left a stain on her but that it saved her life. It was something that could only have happened in that time and place.

Wunsch, who was born in Austria, was described as a natural hater of Jews. He sometimes served on the “Ramp” at Auschwitz where prisoners were selected for the gas chambers. At his war crimes trial in Vienna in 1972, witnesses spoke about his violent behavior and how he beat both women and men.

At least once, he dropped the poisonous pellets that killed the prisoners in the gas chambers.

He claimed that his behavior changed after meeting Citronova. He said that he became another person after meeting her.

Even though the judge found that the evidence implicated Wunsch of war crimes, all the charges were dropped due to the statute of limitations on war crimes in Austria.

The look of Fascism and Nazism

H/T Beyond The Band Of Brothers.

A look at the art of two members of the Tripartite Pact Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Similarities and differences in art.

The history of Italian Fascism and German Nazism are closely intertwined. Mussolini’s authoritarian system was an inspiration and blueprint for Hitler’s own political design. Hence, the two regimes became inevitable allies before and during World War II. Like in all authoritarian systems, art and propaganda were an important tool for controlling the masses. Today we are going to take a look at some of the basic similarities and differences in Nazi and Fascist art.

unnamed
Ground floor of the Palazzo Della Civiltà Italiana, also known as the “Square Colosseum,” a Fascist-era building in Rome

Both countries placed great emphasis on propagating their ideology through architectural displays and both reached back to ancient Greek and Roman style for inspiration. In Italy, this was an obvious call back to the nation’s past as the Roman Empire. Germany had no serious claim to Greco-Roman ancestry but Hitler thought that classical aesthetics were a perfect embodiment of pure Aryan spirit

 

unnamed (1)
Stadio dei Marmi (Stadium of the Marbles) in Rome, built in the 1920s

Neoclassicist architecture already existed in the 18th century but this totalitarian version had a distinct look. While Roman, and much neoclassicist, architecture had rich ornamentation and rounded edges, German and Italian public edifices of this style were characterized by hard, straight edges and sparse to no ornaments. This cold, monumental style was intended to emphasize the power and supremacy of the state over the individual. In Germany, large spaces were also considered important for their function as a setting for massive community events, such as rallies and parades, and aesthetic choices such as Speer’s Cathedral of Light were often made with the look and feel of such events in mind.

unnamed
The courtyard of the New Reich Chancellery in Berlin, note the guards by the door for scale

The difference between the two regimes was more evident in the visual arts, especially painting and sculpture. The Third Reich only tolerated one particular style, suppressing everything else, mainly modernist ideas, as Entartete Kunst, degenerate art. Genre paintings depicting landscapes and the everyday life of the German Volk (people) were accepted.

unnamed
Near the water lilies in the marsh: a 1897 painting by future Nazi painter Ludwig Dettmann, depicting the sort of folksy romanticism Nazi art propagated

Harmony with nature meant that agricultural workers had to be depicted without farm machinery and people depicted were expected to look “average” without individual quirks. Nudes, both male and female, had to be physically perfect. Interestingly, derogative images of Jews were rare in “high art,” since depicting the stereotypical Jew was considered to violate this physical perfection. The existence of a Germanic spirit, mystical, rural, moral, bearing ancient wisdom, noble in the face of a tragic destiny was an idea predating Nazism and was supposed to be a guiding principle of art. War paintings proliferated after the war started but had to represent heroic sacrifice and victory rather than the horror of combat.

unnamed (1)
A depiction of the perfect human body by Arno Breker, one of Nazi Germany’s most prominent sculptors

Italy had a rather different approach to the visual arts. While there was an “official” Fascist art movement, the Novecento Italiano (“Italian 1900s”), it included a variety of artistic styles. Some artists promoted renewed but traditional arts, while others stood very far from the romanticized realism of Nazi art. Despite the existence of the Novecento, Mussolini had no intention of creating a monopoly in art. At the 1923 opening of a Novecentoexhibition, he said: “It is far from my idea to encourage anything like a state art. Art belongs to the domain of the individual. The state has only one duty: not to undermine art, to provide humane conditions for artists, to encourage them from the artistic and national point of view.”

unnamed
Cityscape with chimney by Mario Sironi, one of the founders of Novecento

A personal reason for this might have been Mussolini’s complete lack of interest in painting. On a political level, he supported a variety of art movements to keep all artists on the regime’s side. He also felt that only the small educated elite was interested in art, so the whole matter of painting styles was rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

unnamed (1)
Mussolini leading Hitler through a museum during the Führer’s 1938 visit to Rome

True to this notion, Italian art was much more diverse in the Fascist era than German one under Nazism. One important example of this variety was Futurism. Futurism was founded by Italian poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in a 1909 manifesto and had a very strong Italian contingent.

unnamed
The City Rises: an early, 1910 Futurist painting by Umberto Boccioni

Futurism rejected the past and admired speed, technology, youth and war. The first era of the Futurist movement essentially died in World War I but experienced a resurgence in Fascist Italy. It’s not hard to see how its technology- and war-loving ideology was compatible with Mussolini’s regime. Highly abstract, futurist art would have not been tolerated in Germany but was doing just fine under Mussolini’s regime. In fact, it had a significant contingent of artists who shared the basic ideals of the movement but promoted communism or anarchy instead of fascism. Even this did not harm the political tolerance enjoyed by the movement at large. Other movements active at the time include the pro-Fascist Strapaese, which concentrated on the idealization of the rural landscape and the openly anti-fascist Corrente, who were still allowed to open their exhibition just half a year before World War II.

unnamed (1)
Battle at the airport by Tullio Crali, a painter associated with the post-WWI era of Futurism

You can learn move about how art was set in the service of politics and propaganda during on our Italian Campaign Tours. Join us this fall for our October 2018 departure date to experience Italy first hand.

 

Feinstein, other Senate Dems have plan on Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Stall

H/T The San Francisco Chronicle.

We need to contact our Senators and tell them to support Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. 

We also need to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY) to do what it takes to make sure the confirmation vote happens.

We can not set on our hands and let DemocRats get away with derailing Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

I have included links above to contact your Senator and Sen. Mitch McConnell(R-KY).

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to fill a crucial U.S. Supreme Court seat is headed toward a Senate confirmation vote — but how fast it gets there will be determined by whether outnumbered Democrats succeed in a tactic that could postpone a decision until after the midterm elections.

Those elections could maintain Republican control of the Senate, virtually guaranteeing confirmation of Kavanaugh and solidifying conservative control of the high court for years to come.

But if Democrats succeed in both putting off a vote on Kavanaugh and prevailing in an election in which they’re defending more Senate seats than Republicans, the nomination could be in trouble.

The Democrats’ strategy, led by California’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is to demand to see every document that crossed Kavanaugh’s desk while he served as President George W. Bush’s staff secretary from 2003 to 2006. Republicans are pushing back, hoping to confirm Kavanaugh, now an appeals court judge, by the time the Supreme Court’s next session starts in October.

Republicans say the only records that are relevant to Kavanaugh’s qualifications are the rulings he has issued in 12 years as an appeals court judge, and possibly documents he wrote as a White House lawyer from 2001 to 2003, but not the voluminous paperwork that crossed his desk in three years as staff secretary. Democrats are playing a “delay game,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

If it’s a game, the majority Republicans hold most of the cards, with the votes to decide what information gets released ahead of the hearing. Whether they have anything to hide is uncertain, but one Democrat finds a clue in the history of a current federal appeals court judge in San Francisco.

In 2003, recalled Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Bush nominated Justice Department attorney Jay Bybee to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Leahy, then the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, asked him whether he had dealt with legal issues in the administration’s “war on terror.” He said Bybee did not answer.

A year after he was confirmed by the Senate, Bybee was revealed as the official who had signed off on a 2002 memo drafted by another Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo — now a UC Berkeley law professor — authorizing torturous treatment such as waterboarding for terror suspects in U.S. custody.

“Had we known that at the time, Mr. Bybee would not have become Judge Bybee,” Leahy said in a column in the New York Times.

Because Kavanaugh was “directly involved in some of the most politically charged moments of our recent history,” he wrote, “the Senate owes the American people an unsparing examination of his nomination.”

Another Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, says he’s been waiting more than a decade for Kavanaugh to explain his involvement in Bush administration detention and interrogation policies.

At Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing to be appeals court judge, Durbin asked what he knew about another official’s role in those policies. Kavanaugh replied that he was “not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.”

That response was misleading, Durbin said at a recent hearing. He cited reports in 2007 by the Washington Post and National Public Radio that Kavanaugh had discussed with other officials the detention of U.S. citizens held as alleged enemy combatants. Kavanaugh reportedly told them that Justice Kennedy, for whom he had clerked, would probably rule that they were entitled to lawyers, contrary to the Bush administration’s position. It proved to be an accurate prediction.

After those reports, Durbin sent Kavanaugh a letter asking about the apparent contradiction and calling on him to disqualify himself from appeals court cases involving detainees. He said he never got an answer.

Democrats aren’t any more likely to get the answers they’re looking for now, said Rory Little, a law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a former Justice Department attorney and Supreme Court law clerk.

Feinstein and her colleagues are making “a very legitimate request” for records of Kavanaugh’s White House years, Little said, but Republicans also have a basis for responding “that this is a fishing expedition and you’re just trying to delay things.”

He said Democrats are clearly hoping to delay a vote on Kavanaugh until after the November elections, when they hope to take control of the Senate. That will be difficult: While Republicans’ current majority is only 51-49, 26 of the 35 seats up for election this year are being defended by Democrats.

Little also recalled the seemingly explosive revelation of Supreme Court nominee William Rehnquist’s writings at his 1971 confirmation hearing. Senators learned that as a Supreme Court law clerk 20 years earlier, Rehnquist had written a memo saying the court’s 1896 ruling upholding racial segregation “was right and should be reaffirmed.”

Asked about the memo, Rehnquist said he had merely been expressing the view of his boss, Justice Robert Jackson. Most historians have rejected that explanation — noting, among other things, Jackson’s participation in the unanimous Brown vs. Board of Education ruling in 1954 that outlawed state-sponsored segregation — but enough members of the Democratic-controlled Senate accepted it to confirm Rehnquist to the court.

Even if Democrats unearthed “a copy of the torture memo with Kavanaugh’s initials on it, indicating it passed through him, would that change people’s votes? I don’t think so,” Little said.

Kavanaugh was screened extensively during his confirmation process as an appeals court judge, and it’s unlikely the Democrats will uncover anything embarrassing now, said Jessica Levinson, who teaches courses in law and politics as a Loyola Law School professor in Los Angeles.

Describing Kavanaugh as very conservative but within the judicial mainstream, she said Democrats lack the votes needed to pry loose any records and must rely on “trying to sway public opinion.”

Little also said a “galvanized grassroots movement” might change the equation. On Thursday, civil rights groups are hoping to initiate such an effort locally at a meeting in Berkeley they’ve labeled #StopKavanaugh (Bay Area).

A similar meeting took place more than 30 years ago to organize local opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, recalled San Francisco attorney Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society and organizer of Thursday’s session. “Nobody thought we could stop him,” she said, but the Senate rejected Bork, and Reagan later named the more moderate Kennedy to fill the vacancy.

“This is a 50-state strategy,” said another participant, Leslie Proll, a Washington, D.C., civil rights lawyer and adviser to the NAACP on judicial nominations. She said organizers, who include leaders of feminist and abortion rights groups, want to encourage Californians to support Feinstein’s effort to obtain Kavanaugh’s records, and to “use their networks … to reach out to their friends, families, colleagues, classmates who live in other states.”

But local action isn’t limited to Kavanaugh’s opponents. The antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List, which supports the nomination, says nearly 500 of its canvassers have visited more than 1.1 million homes in states including Indiana, Florida, Missouri and North Dakota, where Democratic senators face re-election challenges. Advocates for and against Kavanaugh have also budgeted millions of dollars for television ads, mostly targeting swing states.

There might be one more role for selected members of the public, said UC Hastings’ Little: Democrats who can’t get Kavanaugh’s documents from officials channels are signaling, he said, that they’ll accept them from anyone who has them.

“The fact that this (need for records) has been announced publicly is, in today’s world, an invitation to leak,” he said. The message is, “‘Anybody who has information out there, send it to us.’”

 

Brady group sues Cabela’s over straw gun sale later involved in murder

H/T Guns.com.

Why is the Brady Bunch so sure Cabela’s ignored the warning signs that criminal John Kuligowski’s girlfriend was making a straw purchase?

Did the Brady Bunch set up the straw purchase by criminal John Kuligowski’s girlfriend?

A national gun control group is going after the big box retailer over the sale of a pistol that was later traded by a felon and used in a shooting that killed a Delaware woman. The Brady Campaign, representing the family of slain 19-year-old Keshall “KeKe” Anderson, announced the lawsuit against Cabela’s filed this week in a Delaware Superior Court.

The group is seeking damages from the sporting goods chain, arguing that store employees ignored warning signs of July 2016 illegal “straw purchase” made by the girlfriend of a long-time criminal, John Kuligowski. The .40-caliber handgun, according to federal court documents, was soon traded on the street by Kuligowski for a stolen .22 LR pistol, which he had on him when arrested by police on outstanding warrants just four days after the Cabela’s sale.

The .40-caliber handgun acquired in the straw purchase was later tied to a September 2016 drive-by shooting in Wilmington. Anderson, a young mother described as an innocent bystander in the shooting, died of her wounds in the incident and two 17-year-olds, Abdullah Brown and Denota Carney, are currently facing a second trial on murder and weapons charges after the first one ended earlier this year in a mistrial.

Since Anderson’s death, Kuligowski has received 27 months in federal prison following a plea bargain to possession of a firearm by a felon over the .22 pistol. In a sentencing memo to the court asking for 36 months, federal prosecutors argued that Kuligowski had more than a dozen interactions with the criminal justice system over the course of a “lifetime of crime,” going on to contend he should have known trading a gun on the street could lead to its use in crime.

“KeKe Anderson should be alive today, with her mom and young son,” said Brady’s Jonathan Lowy this week concerning the Cabela’s lawsuit. ” KeKe’s family wants to prevent other families from suffering as they have suffered, and to make sure that gun dealers live up to their obligations to act reasonably and not sell guns to straw purchasers or other dangerous people.”

This week’s legal action is not the first time the gun control group has hit retailers following straw purchases where the guns transferred were later used in a crime. In 2014, Brady sued Gander Mountain contending the company acted negligently in selling guns to a straw buyer that were later used to ambush a team of New York volunteer firefighters.

Since then, they have pursued cases in KansasNew Jersey, Alaska, and Utah among others with varying degrees of success. Last year the Indiana Supreme Court rejected a Brady-backed lawsuit aimed at an Indianapolis gun shop by a local police officer injured in a gunfight with a suspect who claimed the shooter obtained his weapon through alleged negligence.