When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Machetes… and Trains

Before we start commenting, we’ll just direct you to the plain unvarnished facts. (Well, as reported by the media. There is that).

machete perpThe [man] who flung himself in front of a city subway train Thursday shortly after fatally stabbing his ex-girlfriend with a machete, has lost both legs.

Arthur Lomando, 44, had both legs amputated at the knee after leaping in front of an A train at the 168th St. station at 4:30 p.m, police officials said Friday.

Lomando had slashed to death Suzanne Bardzell, 48, as she sat in her car in front of her Midland Park, N.J., home an hour earlier, Bergen County prosecutors said.

machete victimBardzell, who had an active restraining order against her ex, was found dead inside her black SUV, with the engine still running.

Well, that’s one more data point on the effective range of restraining orders. Judges like to think that they are such powerful men that the commands that spring forth from their lips (and their clerks’ frenetic typing) have the force of the commands unleashed by God Himself in the earlier verses of the Book of Genesis.

While some reports say Lomando killed Bardzell with a knife , other stories say it was a machete. Which is another one of those distinctions more nearly of interest to judges than to the decedents who unwisely trusted “the authorities” to protect them, only to have a crumb like Lomando assemble a few brain cells into a germ of an idea that will ripen into living proof that the cops can’t save you, only avenge you.

A restraining order was no deterrent to Arthur Lomando. Can’t the police protect people from people like him? That machetes are as illegal in NYFC as guns didn’t seem to deter him, either.

So could the cops have prevented this crime?. Sometimes, no. Sometimes, it seems, the police are people like him.

Lomando left the [NYPD] force after 10 years, after he was fired in 2004 over mental health concerns, WABC-TV reported.

via Ex-cop who jumped in front of train has both legs amputated – NY Daily News.

Dear readers, the only protection is self-protection. Everything else is a congenial, pleasant, aromatic lie.

9 thoughts on “When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Machetes… and Trains

  1. KenWats

    The only justice in this is thinking of how much it will suck for him in prison as 1) an ex-cop and 2) an ex-cop without legs.

    Midland Park is not all that far from Ft. Living Room, even looked at houses there with the Mrs a couple years ago.

  2. Mr. AR-10

    “A restraining order was no deterrent to Arthur Lomando. Can’t the police protect people from people like him?”

    Over and over we see these stories… and the anti 2a crowd continually tells us, you don’t need a gun, we have police to protect you.

    A policeman will protect you, if he happens to be there. But ‘protecting the public’ is one of the last thing on the list of tasks the police have. And as we all know, protection of the public is not the duty of the police, as decreed by judges.

    But in NJ, or NYC, you can not have a gun, unless you are connected, or rich. This alone is so blatantly unconstitutional – this is exactly why the anti-federalists insisted on the 2nd amendment! And no one seems to care about that.

    1. Tom Kratman

      They have a general duty, diffuse, non-specific, and especially not to an individual. It does sound really upgefucht, but when you think about the absurdity of laying an infinite duty on someone or something, when the resources to meet that duty will always be constrained, it’s more or less an unavoidable call.

      This does not, of course, mean that gun grabbers should not be auctioned off as slaves to Third World bordellos.

      1. Mr. AR-10

        They specifically do not have a duty to protect a citizen. Yes, an honorable and good man would have a personal duty to protect a citizen, but according to the judges, they do not have such a duty at all, general, diffuse, or otherwise.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

        “WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”

        But hey, according to the anti 2a people, you don’t need a gun because the police are there to protect you. No doubt they have no idea this ruling is out there… or perhaps they do and don’t care.

        And even beyond this, assume for the moment that they had such a duty – the cops aren’t around when bad shit goes down. There aren’t enough of them to be able to do so, nor should there be.

        You have a duty to protect yourself and your family, and many places in our country effectively make it impossible for you to do this.

  3. Jim Scrummy

    A restraining order is as good as air in protecting someone. I love when the gun grabbers tell me they have “ninja-like” skilz to protect themselves, hence I don’t need a conceal carry permit to protect me? Uh-huh.

  4. KenWats

    A salient point I missed about this earlier;
    “Bowne was a Berlin Township woman murdered in her driveway earlier this year by her ex-boyfriend, against whom she held a domestic violence protective order. Her application for a handgun permit was still being processed at the time of her murder.”

    Read more about it at nj.com
    Christie’s concealed carry plan ripped by both sides of gun control debate

Comments are closed.